This is jarendra's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following jarendra's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
jarendra
Recent Activity
all this talk of cosmic conscious awakening, all this discussion about self realization confirms only one thing, all these talkers know nothing, neither do they know no thing, or any thing or every thing, bottom line is these grand exponents don't know diddly squat about what they're expounding on here till dooms day and beyond. Anyone that 'knows' anything about any thing, would most definitely not be posing around here like he 'knows' any thing about anything at all. Perfect case of the blind leading the blind to no where at all. From here till eternity.
1 reply
and such is the truth of it, those that do, don't speak, those that speak, don't know and don't do neither.
1 reply
One last observation, these learned psychologists who deem themselves the authority of guru/disciple relationships and the psychology of spiritual dependency do not 'know' anything more than their own limitations of study or discovery has taught them, and one Guru or teacher is not the sole example of all teachers, otherwsie you may as well lump Sai Baba along with Ramana Maharshi alongside Adi Da Samraj. Such narrow expose of psychological reactionary treatise is fraught with the limitations of the projector of the fear, again, no two relationships, as are no two individual teachers or systems of learning alike, and hence a sweeping synopsis of such cult like paranoia is tantamount to disinformation and should be taken from where it emanates. Dependency of any nature is regarded as taboo, yet all here are dependent on some teaching or other, else their level of learning would be nill, so whether you are a student of the teachings of Dogzchen or Sant Mat or Tai Chi or Taoism, it amounts to much the same, it simply depends at what level of realization does a particular 'teaching' take ones awareness, and where does its limitation begin or end.
1 reply
And this above and below more or less answeres George at Posted by: George | August 17, 2009 at 02:23 PM as well. Study and debate as much as you like, ponder and pose as much hypothetical questions seeking answers from those who profess knowledge yet have none, to your hearts content, it is like churning water and expecting butter, none will be forthcoming. Until you get with the program, the one that Rakesh Bhasin's mother is on, she knows, and the poor learned fools in here don't, unfortunately, this is the actual gist of it all. Those that thrash around in abject disillusioned delusionment proclaiming 'knowledge' have none, and those that sit quietly in the quiet corner of blissful experience have it all, such is the quandary of the ravaged intellect, it will thrash and fret till deaths door, and know nothing, while those that go about the business of conquering death and rendering its sting superflous and inconsequential have 'knowledge' and 'understanding' far beyond the limits of the poor encrusted feeble learned protagonists of so called intelligence or intellectual 'knowledge'.
1 reply
Posted by: tAo | August 17, 2009 at 11:59 AM firstly to respond to this It seems tucson understood my point and again as per usual your own self importance disallowed any understanding on your part whatsoever. If you would care to actually read what was said in my reply to tucson which was not to you btw, it said the following: "Does one seriously believe reading anything might 'enlighten' anyone? I mean how 'enlightening' do you propose the 'EXPERIENCES' of Robert Adams, Karl Renz, Leo Hartong or Jed Mckenna (aka Ken Wilbur)could be to anyone, let alone those that drink their words of wisdom as potential concepts of hope towards 'enlightenment'". "Just as any supposed 'enlightenment' of Don Juan or Ramana Marhashi cannot alter your state of consciousness by one measly iota, similarly are all the fanciful syllables and constinants uttered in the name of 'enlightenment' unable to alter it to any degree whatsoever. Those who 'think' that 'enlightenment' is achieved via reading or learning in the schools of thinking and reason have fooled themselves and so they go on into the world of fools who fool others into deluding themselves". Bottom line is if you or anyone here profess to have any form of 'knowledge' or enlightenment from pouring over somebody elses thesis on enlightenment, rest assured you are no more enlightened than me, nor of the street sweeper who sweeps your streets outside your door, in fact there is one damn site more probability that your street sweeper is far more 'enlightened' than any one of you who sit here in abject learned superiority proclaiming the amount of learned intelligence as your ticket to enlightenment, I can almost say with conviction it is quite the reverse, less learned = more enlightenment, absolutely without any shadow of any doubt. Now I get the reasoning that tucson actually understood to some extent what I was getting at, but true to debilitated arrogant style you were unable to understand even the beginning of true understanding, or true enlightenment for that matter. One who professes to 'know' and 'understand' the teachings of Ramana Maharshi has not even begun to acknowledge the very first corner stone of such teachings. So as I said above, what hope of 'enlightenment' is it to you by making yourself acquainted with any of those writings, whether by Robert Adams, Karl Renz, Leo Hartong or Jed Mckenna (aka whoever), or the handed down second hand teachings or 'experiences' of Ramana Maharshi or the second hand 'experiences' of Carlos Castanada or Don Juan? Again I reiterate, absolutely none at all, because these experiences and such knowledge belongs to them and not to you, for you to 'know' or 'experience' any such 'enlightenment' any of these teachers or philosophers or psychic protagonists propose to offer, you would have to make the 'experience' your own. The words on the pages of such books rendered pretty much superflous in reality.
1 reply
tucson (or whoever lurks behind the name) Does one seriously believe reading anything might 'enlighten' anyone? I mean how 'enlightening' do you propose the experiences of Robert Adams, Karl Renz, Leo Hartong or Jed Mckenna (aka Ken Wilbur) or whoever it is milking the gullible American pseudo spiritual 'seeker' of their hard earned dollars could be to anyone, let alone those that drink their words of wisdom as potential concepts of hope towards 'enlightenment'. Just as any supposed 'enlightenment' of Don Juan or Ramana Marhashi cannot alter your state of consciousness by one measly iota, similarly are all the fanciful syllables and constinants uttered by a fictitious illusionist in the name of 'enlightenment' unable to alter it to any degree whatsoever. Those who 'think' that 'enlightenment' is achieved via reading or learning in the schools of thinking and reason have fooled themselves and so they go on into the wild west world of fools who fool others into deluding themselves. Such ephemeral none real 'realities' are exactly that, unreal, as is this discussion right here, almost an exercise in futility, because unless it leads anyone to sincerely and seriously getting off the perch of thinking and reasoning, i.e. the 'assumption' of reading or talking or thinking = enlightenment, then we have not embarked or challenged the very notion of freedom or free thinking, still trapped in the illusion of duality, the illusion that this = reality, that thought or rhyme or reason = reality, or words on a page are a signpost to 'enlightenment'. Its akin to the Nasa scientists studying the almanac of space travel, in depth, mulling over the if's, but's, why's and wherefore's of how to get the rockets boosted and the space craft off the ground into orbit, once all the theoretical discussion and consternating conceptualized reason and thinking and precluding has taken shape, the only possible means by which to get that space craft into the stratosphere and beyond, is to fire the damn rocket boosters and force the thing off its perch and into space, no amount of reading, discussing, procrastinating, theorizing or reasoning will get that thing airborn, none in the least. (Especially if the reasoner behind the reason is himself a fictitious fraud or a disciple (student) of a dead protagonist of truth)
1 reply
Not too sure who Jed Mckenna or his alter ego is, seems to be a splinter type offshoot consciousness of the Adi Da, Ken Wilbur stable, the raw edge affirmations that we who profess to be the warriors of consiousness and free enterprize psychology have taken up our cudgels of the warrior soul and are heading off into the sunset, six shooter frimly strapped in its holster, ready to die the death of a lonesome spiritual cowboy at the totem pole of individuality... sounds like a great westernized comedy .. die the scorpion death.. negotiate the black hole inside of us, and declare enlightenment such brave fable stories sell like hot cakes, especially in the land of the free where the eagles of free spirit spirituality seekers are a dime a dozen.
1 reply
seems to me a whole lot of unfounded baseless assumption and hypothesis the order of the day, which means nothing is a given either this way or that. religiosity = foundation of morality and vice versa so one persons religion is another mans 'science', we now affirming science holds sway over religion, yet neither have a firm foothold on reality one way or the other. As depicted by the hubble telescope staring into the far reaches of the dark void and coming up with a whole host of new found galaxy's streaming forever. Which scientist is ready to admit theirs is the answer and there is no architect behind this magnificence, and if such be the magnitude of physical reality, where does it begin or end... Precisely, unless one can tune into and penetrate the black hole that is the tunnel of vision between this 'reality' and the next, no such true insight is forthcoming. So you touch on death.. yes that is the fundamental reality of them all, know how to die through the black hole of your physical entity before your departure, and the mystery of 'reality' becomes prevalent. Go ahead castigate this as boundless religiosity.. it is no more dogma than you the skeptic saying 'no thing' exists beyond the realm of your finite limited intellectual understanding of who you are.. you that think the body is the be all and end all of your existence have a huge other think coming.
Toggle Commented Aug 17, 2009 on Open Thread 2 at Church of the Churchless
1 reply
At the end of it all I would say best possible blogger status to adopt around here is the one the Russian online translation came up with... henceforth I would prefer my online blogging name to reflect my preferred status.. 'Invisible Idiot' would be most apt as far as my preferred ignominy should reflect.
Toggle Commented Aug 14, 2009 on Open thread at Church of the Churchless
1 reply
I would say that behind all these false persona lie some decent folk after all, I mean even the raging pitbull that is tAo sometimes comes through with some sincere humane retort once all the ego dust has settled... as is evident just a few comments here above.
Toggle Commented Aug 14, 2009 on Open thread at Church of the Churchless
1 reply
I believe Ashy has been banned from here outright, so it would be interesting to note on what grounds such banning order took place, perhaps he was just too profane with his use of adjectives or else a little too challenging to the holy triumvirate status quo.. whatever the reason I guess it may ultimately be a good one.
Toggle Commented Aug 14, 2009 on Open thread at Church of the Churchless
1 reply
well contrary to popular belief, jarendra and JAP are not equivalent, and neither are they even related, so I would recommend this churchless congregation should abide by their scientific principles and only declare absolute truth once they have concluded their findings without a shadow of any doubt, and not jump straight to the nearest convenient conclusion.
Toggle Commented Aug 14, 2009 on Open thread at Church of the Churchless
1 reply
JAP your analogy and pertinent observation is valid, and true. anyone who has switched any illuminating spiritual switch and is basking in the illumined light that such a switch of consciousness allows, would no doubt not be proselytizing and promoting such a state of illumination in such a mundane skeptical environment as this. In fact they would rather keep such cherished illumination hidden and private and away from the ravages of skeptical analytical minds. Contrast the one who has tasted the sweet apple to one who discusses the sweetness of the apple at length. How would one who has basked in the radiance of illumined light convince one who has no valued reference with which such light refers to his conscious cognizance describe or convince one who is still skeptical of such an experience? Likewise one who tastes the apple to be sweet, how is he to relay or describe the sweetness of the apple to one who has never tasted a sweet apple? All he could tell him is the apple is sweet, no amount of adjectives or descriptive dialogue will enable him to convey in actuality how a sweet apple tastes. Similarly, one who has switched the spiritually illumined switch will no doubt simply keep mum about it, as there is no possible description conveyable of such an experience to one who remains in the darkness of skeptical delusion.
Toggle Commented Aug 13, 2009 on Open thread at Church of the Churchless
1 reply
My dear friend JAP as much as I would like to provide you with the instructions right here, this unfortunately is an impossibility in such a medium as this. You would not be able to achieve a doctorate in quantum physics or rocket science here on Brians website, and likewise the availablity of the instructions by which to switch such illuminating light would need be sort from the source or a true teacher of such a 'science' It may also be a slightly longer and more dedicated process than simply getting some verbal instructions from a novice such as myself on an internet site, so as a suggestion, I would say keep seeking, I am sure the bestower of such instructions toward attaining such light is pretty mindful of the degree and earnestness you harbor in your desire and yearning to witness or experience it. Sorry if this sounds like a cop out, but seriously this is no venue for such discussions out here in elusive and delusional cyberspace. Find the switch and use it, like everything in life it is the application that counts
Toggle Commented Aug 13, 2009 on Open thread at Church of the Churchless
1 reply
JAP yogi is just suggesting to you, switch the switch and bask in the light and stop the protracted analysis of whether the light exists or not. He is saying the light exists whether you have switched the switch or not, all he is suggesiting to you is rather switch the switch than agonisingly and skeptically denying that because the switch is closed, there is no such thing as light. Simply switch the switch and open your eyes to the light.. simple, no rocket science needed, a 5 year old could be capable of such activity, no Harvard education required.
Toggle Commented Aug 13, 2009 on Open thread at Church of the Churchless
1 reply
So what yogi is saying is none here have actually verified for themselves any of the by now accepted theories and conclusions that QM or science in general has taken aboard, yet it has taken science and western learning how long to get to the current state that they now believe the earth is not flat, and that this solar system is but one of countless others within one galaxy or cluster of solar systems amongst countless other galaxies within a physical universe which to all intents and purposes is still expanding from its initial point of creation or Big Bang. Now you are telling us to be patient while science goes about the business to discover what in fact is the source of all this instantaneous combustable creative force that creates and sustains and destroys the very nature of matter or of the enquirer himself. Yet by catagorical decree you refute the existence of soul simple because your lenses of perception are not fine tuned enough to verify or witness such. Same as Brian dictating that because 'God' is not a physical tangible 'reality' available to the instrument of sensual perception in this stepped down avenue of limitations, such a notion of reason is taboo. Yet where is the evidence that the Big Bang is true, or that a quark is a particle of matter, if you are willing to accept the meagre deduced hypothesis that such phenomena is real, how come you are unable to accept the validity of one who has witnessed soul or spirit in action. I find it rather ludicrous that these human creatures who by no direct creative energy of themselves stand here as participants in a creation sustained by energetic fields which they themselves have not an iota of a clue as to where they originate, do not even have an inkling of a clue as to who 'they' in fact are, have not an iota of a clue as to what or 'who' initiated or sustains or destroys life, are living, breathing, and dying entities of metabolism sustained by energetic fields at work within their very own bodies and supported by systems of life and energy such as a ball of exploding energetic mass of elemental force that keeps everything sustained in poise and balance while they refute and deny the very architect of all of this. What yogi is saying is that science tries to go about the business of understanding phenomenal nature by means of its models of accepted principles of learning, yet it takes a practitioner of that learning how long to arrive at a capacity of expertise sufficient to even begin the enquiry, who would need to get taught by other teachers before he is in any way capable of even beginning to grasp the tenets of these principles and methods to determine the weight of an atom, let alone a neutron or quark. Yet what is nature, who are we as participants in nature to disect and verify its very existence. Science goes about the deduction the long way around, it takes the skeptical premise that there is no achitect behind nature, nature appeared out of nowhere by itself, we evolved as metabolistic conglomerates of material entities from an amoeba state to what we perceive ourselves to be now, and at this juncture in our evolution we audaciously declare, no one or no force, or no entity created any of this or any of us. The height of audacity actually, to sit here typing on a computer that science has evolved into existence through the manipulation and harnassing of energetic forces within phenomenal nature and declaring that the power behind the experience is null and void, because our senses are incapable of acknowledging its existence it is hence false and un true simply because at this juncture of our limited knowledge or 'science' we have not witnessed it in action. What yogi is saying is we are splitting hairs about phenomena that exists before science decreed it does, before science came to the irrefutable conclusion that the phenomena or nature exists, it existed anyway. Who are we to refute its existence because our lenses and apparati of acceptance are incapable of acknowledging its existence. If physical nature exists, what is the energetic forces that motivates and drives it, and if science as we know it today is incapable of determining such, there are other sciences much more attuned and accurate that do, except you would have to follow those tenets and principles of understanding that those sciences impart in order to undertake the experiment and make your own conclusion. In other words yogi is quite correct, we are beating about the bush around what is already there or here, only we haven't opened our eyes to witness it, all he is saying to you is open your eyes to it and stop beating about the protracted bush till the cows come home, because such ceaseless activity hardly brings one any closer to the point of realization, only opening the shut eyes or shut perception will.
Toggle Commented Aug 13, 2009 on Open thread at Church of the Churchless
1 reply
And you will keep perfecting the theory and the conclusion till you discover as some quantum physicists already have started scratching at the doors of perception where dark matter or black holes represent realms of reality which do not quite fit into any hypothesis or scientific model that existed before it. I mean have they determined yet quite exactly what 'matter' is, does anybody know the fundemental reality of the source or existence of matter? Where does understanding of reality as represented by being a part of it in contrast to simply perceiving or being the voyeur of it come into existence. In short is this being who perceives and decrees the verity or denial of reality a participator in it or an 'objective' voyeur of it. Meaning is this body and its senses and the physical realms within which this body takes its existence the beginning or the end of 'our' individual existence? No it is not, yet the skeptic scientist does not have the means or the apparati to determine that one way or the other, so unless you are willing to spend perhaps the next countless millenia (of which one in a single lifetime does not have the scope to address it) improving your physical or scientific model means of perception, you will never know, and neither will anyone, unless as I said before, one enters into the realm or laboratory where such unequivical lenses or apparati of such finer attuned means of perception are applied.
Toggle Commented Aug 12, 2009 on Open thread at Church of the Churchless
1 reply
So what you are saying is that according to this 'scientific method' which is proposed as the methodology to determine truth from fiction or reality from illusion, you go along with the ardent physicist who's only frame of reference is his human physical senses. This denotes or equates to 'reality' as far as the human senses will decree. Yet how about the senses of a bat or a dolphin, or a sense of perception outside of physical dimension, where the CERN reactor or the Hubble telescope has not reached to make its finite deductions .. yet. Effectively what we have done is limited 'reality' to that within the confines or bounds of our physical senses, this by western science standards is the be all and end all crux of where reality begins or ends. Fundamentally this is fraught with the same straight jacketed type thinking of those that proclaimed without doubt that the Earth was flat less than half a millenium ago. If an explorer, whether scientist or mystic is able to arrive at a conclusion that the earth is not flat at all, reality stretches beyond the minimal dictates of senses that are limited within the bounds of their range of physicality and perception, and that in fact what you witness and see with the lenses or apparati of these senses are in fact only a very minute and limited part of the grander picture puzzle, then either you appease you enquiry with the 'rational' conclusion that he is lying and no such reality exists outside of your frame of referential perception, or you embark on the self same journey that he has undertaken to determine the verity of his discovery. Now if Einstein had to assure me that E=MC2, I would never be none the wiser, as I am in no position to determine one way or the other whether he is telling me fact from fiction, yet overiding consensus decrees that his discovery bears some veritable provable conclusion to be true. However Einsteins discovery is only really provable by those with the temerity, patience and dedication as well as the required fine tuning of their apparati and fields of expertise to determine through carrying out the same self path of discovery that Einstein undertook. Any so called 'subjective' reality outside the realms or bounds of physical sense perception would have to incorporate apparati or means of perception that is finer tuned than the limited framework of the senses are providing. Hence, cometh the mystic, who has through his field of expertise, his dedicated attention and temerity attuned his apparati and his means of deduction, his means of perception to the levels and focus that the sensual 'reality' is unable to comprehend or enter into. It is like asking a camel to enter through the eye of a needle, it simple is unable to pass through. So effectively the bottom line deduction out of all this to and fro ceaseless hypothesis is simply this, enter into the laboratory of the spiritual scientist, (mystic if you like that term better), and determine for yourself whether he is telling the truth or lying. I don't know too many people who can tell me without a shadow of a doubt that they themselves have proved that E=MC2, likewise there are not too many people who can tell you catagorically without a shadow of a doubt that the 'reality' that you hold so dear to be the be all and end all crux of your fundamental existance is actually a finely woven illusion, a figment of the imagination of the limited perplexity as projected onto the canvas of perception by way of the stepped down energy fields that this level of 'reality' plays itself out. However there are some who have, and those are the ones you or anyone who is sincerely concerned with making the absolute conclusive discovery for himself should be listening to and adhering to these means or parameters of finer focus.
Toggle Commented Aug 12, 2009 on Open thread at Church of the Churchless
1 reply
the point is those that talk of spiritual science correlate such 'science' or 'knowledge' or 'gian' to be self explanetory to the practitioner of such knowledge. Now the skeptic will argue if he cannot measure it within his realms or apparatus within the confines of his scientific model than it is unprovable in the physical or quantum realm and hence by 'scientific standards' is by deduction untrue, or not real. Yet who is to say the mystic or spiritual scientist does not have access to a realm of 'science' or 'knowledge' that the confined physical sense or intellect is incapable of perceiving, I mean how do you know the bulk of the ice berg below the surface does not exist because you have not delved below the surface of the ocean in which you traverse on this 'journey' you speak of?
Toggle Commented Aug 11, 2009 on Open thread at Church of the Churchless
1 reply
so where does this so called 'science', this realm of 'knowledge' begin or end? Here in the realm of intellectual hypothesis, in the realm of skeptical or reasoning conceptualization, or in the realm of the physics laboritory, or the quantum physics realm of deduction? Is it confined to matter and percieved by human senses, or how honestly are you or anyone of the higher eschelons of scientific learning categorically going to define 'science' or 'reality'?
Toggle Commented Aug 11, 2009 on Open thread at Church of the Churchless
1 reply
Am out here now Rakesh, let us witness and see just how 'true' to himself this Brian Hines self proclaimed 'free thinker' is.
1 reply
You doing just fine JAP , I done my bit here, I seen the two timing two faced double standard bullshit here for far too long, now I'm bowing out again, and leave you to handle this cult for whatever its worth,.. which is hardly much to say the very least. So long
1 reply
Brian invites responses and then picks and choses which responses he magnanimously accepts or rejects, like an idiot despot looking for appreciation and happy clappy backslapping, as long as its all kosher and pro churchlessness well and good, otherwise he is basically too yellow bellied to take the consequences of his own derogatory statements and expose's, this is why he has this goon tAo to try clean up with his big deal bravado henchman tactics, in fact tAo the goon is rather toothless by design, its simply the 'Brian and tAo show' over here. They look for responses and then chicken out when any of these responses carry any substance or direct consequence to their derision, such puny self serving bull crap bravado is fraught with empty values because they have not even begun to face the crux of the very inadequacy they have skirted and tried to absolve in themselves. I noticed Brian telling Robert the other day to front up and get tough if he wants to handle the flak that comes with blogging on this site, now I'm putting out the self same challenge to Brian and tAo his henchman bouncer here, stand and deliver your tough guy bravado blogging tenacity, lets see exactly who has the balls for being a tough guy out here, and who in fact is the double standard second grade hypocrite chicken.
1 reply
Problem is with these churchless cult followers is they are quick to offer any amount of expletively ordained and misinformed criticism of any religion or spiritual practices, in the name of 'free thinking churchlessness' to any lengths that their self proclaimed lack of vision or understanding might take them too, in other words blatantly following the puny dictates of their very own infertile and self aggrandized minds. However the worst part of it all is they can spew and rant about other systems of belief, to the extent of actually believing their own self proclaimed bullshit, but when theirs is challenged straight out, they run duck and hide like the chicken shit double standard cowards they actually are.
1 reply
tAo the churchless spin doctor, and the Brian Hines 'commander in chief' RSSB bouncer and protector of the cult, doing his utmost to plug all holes with his puny imbecilical thumbs, problem is he's running out of fingers and thumbs, soon this dyke is going to be springing leaks all over the place, as is pretty prevalent right about now. Simply because these cult followers of their own design are unable to recognize reality at face value, they churlishly proclaim in all anxiety how profoundly self righteous and pathetically enlightened they are, whilest spewing as much profanity and derision as they can muster through their profound enlightened and clenched teeth.
1 reply