ARE YOU A SEEKER? Have you a choice?

The spiritual life is a calling. You cannot decide you will have a spiritual life because you think it’s probably a good idea, because you want to be a better human being, or because you’re curious.

Though certainly you will become a better human being – automatically, axiomatically, if you have in fact through no fault or goodness or even qualifications as yet not known to mankind,  become a Seeker. 

Not to worry if you’ve not got to that stage. There are no failures, no one is left behind. You are as precious as the first even though you may think you are the last. In fact there are no first or lasts. All is well, and in good order.

The true Seeker however will eventually know that what he or she thought they sought, seeks them.

The whole idea was put in your mind. It was not your idea. If you are a Seeker, you are ready whether you know it or like it or not. You are accepted,  much loved, much nurtured, and protected on levels of understanding no man, woman can transfer to you, but which will be revealed to you personally. You are being readied. All is well; then, now and for ever.

Note: There are citations for all these assertions. You’re very welcome to present them. But I thought you would prefer to hear my personal experience at this early stage, not just acquired, second hand, regurgitated references anyone can access.


Interesting Thought!

“After having gone through all the trouble to make you, the atoms that form you are impertinent. Not only do they have no interest in you, they don’t even know you exist. In fact, when you die, your atoms go elsewhere, so, ultimately, your entire body disappears. Isn’t it strange that the atoms that formed you go on to form other things, but you disappear? Humbling, to say the least.”

ROBERT RINGER, Author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.



Q: How to communicate about such things if what one experiences in MER is altogether beyond communicating?

A: MER’s source, purpose, penetration and utility is ineffable – deliberately defying all human access and meddling. It is spontaneous, comes for no apparent logic or reason known to man and cannot be induced, evangelised or proselytised, in my understanding.That’s been my conclusion for a long time. Very frustrating for the merely curious.

Q: In my experience of what you call MER, all thinking ceased in terms of thinking about anything of my own volition. There was, suddenly, and with little warning, complete and utter emptiness within which perception continued, but it was perception without cognitive hooks; that is, perception did not trigger thought or internal dialogue at any level. If I were to attempt a description, I would describe it as an internal/external silence that had nothing to do with absence of sound. A ‘thought’ could arise, I remember, but it was alone and by itself in relation to what was required in any given moment, otherwise there was nothing. It was not my thought; there was no personal aspect, no sense of self, no sense of identity. Thought was not even an option; it was no more than an occurrence. There was just a continuum of silence carrying its own curious signature. I think this is where Merrell-Wolff made the mistake about High Indifference; it’s got nothing to do with ‘indifference’, which is a value-laden term with strong ego connotations. It has to do with experience, any experience, in terms of pure cognition rather than reflective, reflexive cognition: one simply becomes the stream of experience beyond the needs of conscious identification. What I perceived had nothing to do with trees or street; it was everything at once, and that included insights into things utterly beyond my conscious mind’s capacity to grasp. There was no sense of ‘grasping’ anything mentally; just a seeing into the very nature of existence. There was, I realised later, the possibility of a wholly new type of consciousness developing on the planet within which the limited perspective of the human mind had altogether vanished. That, I suspect, is somewhat near to what you mean by MER being experientially ‘nonhuman’, although I may be quite wrong in thinking so.

A: I had no sense of consciousness, or of being humanly conscious, in my experiences of MER. This makes me wonder if I was even human when I had them. What I was getting from the MERs was certainly not anything that could in any way be associated with or understood by the humankind I knew then or since.

I like your, “There was, I realised later, the possibility of a wholly new type of consciousness developing on the planet within which the limited perspective of the human mind had altogether vanished”. This conforms with some Sufi traditions about humanity’s evolutionary future. A philosopher friend of mine told someone else I’m hundreds of years ahead. I presume he mean’t because of my MER experiences. I just hope humans know more in a few hundred years than I do now …

Q: I refuse to teach; it attracts the needy to their detriment. I’m quite willing to talk when such talk is permissible and appropriate, but not at any other time except in the most general of terms. And so my life continues as it has always done, in the moment as best I can.

A: I’ve come to the conclusion real spiritual teachers can only relate to genuine Seekers, those who are readied almost despite themselves, who have begun to shuck the veils of humaness, presumably under the influence of the source of MER? This is another conundrum – what makes a Seeker, why them? Are they the ones who “hunger and seek after righteousness and truth” (whether they like it or not if my own experience of being a Seeker is anything to go by).



EXPERIENCE is, for me, the highest authority. The touchstone of validity is my own experience. No other person’s ideas, and none of my own ideas, are as authoritative as my experience. It is to experience that I must return again and again, to discover a closer approximation to truth as it is in the process of becoming in me.” – Carl Rogers, “On becoming a Person”.

Dr. Carl R. Rogers, psychologist. January 08, 1902 – February 04, 1987.

“Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.”

Albert Einstein.


Q. “What do mystics bring to the human table?”

A. “Not all mystics concern themselves with the human condition, which is not in the hands of mere humans. Reality is in charge and doing fine.

“The knowledge that being human is transitory, transforming, and that there’s not much humans can do to hasten or hinder the process, not at this stage anyway, if ever, does not lend itself to mystical evangelism. Reality is and is enough. You have to experience it like a mystic to know it. It’s caught not taught,

Q.  “This is what you were taught by your MERs?”

A.  “What I deduce from my MERs, yes.”

Q.  “Who are you?”

A.  “Wrong question!”


Q. “Alright, What are you?”

A. “Good. The word Who? can be applied to humans.  But mystics are ‘Whats’ because much of a mystic’s humanity is transcending from being merely human. To a mystic, humanity is temporary, a process from “Who” to “What”.

Q.  “A process to God?!”

A.  “There is no such thing as God or gods in Reality, or in a developed human’s logic, reason or experience.”

Q.  “But there is this Reality thing then, and mystics are that?”

A.  “In process, to the fulness of realising Reality, yes. But they are not Reality. Inso far as Reality reveals itself in the MERs some experience of human lust, anger, greed, attachments and ego are removed and  Reality becomes the mystic, rather than the mystic becoming Reality.”

Q.  “What is this Reality thing?”

A.   “Reality is everything, everything known and unknown. It is beyond general human experience, beyond all gods, religions, political ideologies, ‘isms’,  God, or currrent consciousness. It is the very basis of Reality beyond our minds or brains, materiality, or spirit.  Its essence prevails throughout all existence in everything. It is benign, joyous, accepting beyond all human knowing or need of faith, hope or belief or even being human. In MERs it reveals itself and is that which Seekers seek.

“One tradition is that Reality creates Seekers who then proceed to enlightenment at varying paces. I don’t know. MER however is caught, not taught. The real MERs are spontaneous, sudden, not sought. Then the Reality of existence begins to clarify.  And the process goes on.

“Mystics are, as a philosopher-writer friend says, “hundreds of years ahead.”  It’s what all humans are becoming. In Reality where everything is perfect, there are no names no mystics. The term is human, temporary.

“Everything is known, everything is understood. All is well.”

KH.      Continue reading “THE MYSTIC.”



After what seems like painstaking scientific research into a little known fibre in the central nervous system, a researcher by the name of Lawrence Wile has identified a possible quantum element in the physical brain that in Wile’s opinion allows for “anomalous experience” at the mystical level. (MER?)

Is Wile to be taken seriously? He received a BS in physics from Union College (1971), an MD from the University of Connecticut School of Medicine (1976), a postdoctoral fellowship from Yale University School of Medicine (1979), and an MA in philosophy from the University of Massachusetts (1991). He is also Diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and won a first place prize in the John Templeton Foundation competition with his essay ‘Reissner’s Fibre and the Neurobiology of Mysticism’.

There is a Foundation with his name on it dedicated to the subject of this fibre. The physicist Paul Davies, a Templeton prize winner, is currently President of this Foundation – The Chaikin-Wile Foundation.

His ideas about Reissner’s fibre have appeared in the Journal of Near-Death Studies, and he is leading a multidisciplinary team at Boston University dedicated to the exploration of the discovery.

Wile has published a paper called “Near-Death Experiences: A Speculative Neural Model” in The Journal of Near-Death Studies, 12(3) Spring 1994

He says a personal mystical experience led him to the belief that Reissner’s fiber is identical with the anatomical entity described by kundalini yoga. He says that his struggles to understand the meaning of this personal experience led him to believe that an understanding of the deeper realities underlying quantum phenomena can be integrated with an understanding of the mysterious realities of near-death and other mystical experiences.

He says that Reissner’s fiber can serve as an empirical basis for a scientific investigation of these phenomena.

By developing methods of stimulating the activity of Reissner’s fiber and measuring that activity with neuroimaging devices, he says exploration can be made of the worlds that currently lie at the threshold of death and in the esoteric depths of mysticism.

Wile saw a reprint from a medical journal about Reissner’s fiber. The article described a glycoprotein fiber, originating from a structure just below the pineal gland called the subcommissural organ that travels down the central canal of the spinal cord and ends at the terminal ventricle. There, he says, is the connection with kundalini.

Shortly thereafter he started research on Reissner’s fiber at the National Marine Laboratories at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. As he was reading a 1905 article by Porter Sargent about experiments involving behavioral observations of sharks following the severing of Reissner’s fiber he says his interest hardened into discovering the function of “this little known but strategically located structure.”

However, he was told his work was unsatisfactory and that, “Your ideas are outside consensual reality, Lawrence. Your speculations about yoga, mysticism, and quantum theory are not what we are looking for. Just write about what you did and what you saw, and you will receive credit for your student research project.”

Now, with NDEs providing unique opportunities for exploring questions about life and death, God, and our place in the cosmos, and with neuroimaging technologies capable of measuring the activity of Reissner’s fiber appearing on the horizon, Wile says it is time to “lift the shroud of obscurity from this glistening crown jewel around which the most wondrous structure in the universe is organized.”

Quantum theory, which is our best theory of the microscopic activity of Reissner’s fiber he says is, “on the one hand, compatible with a variety of mystical realities.

“On the other hand, this compatibility is currently based on a shared sense of mystery and ineffability of what is now unknown.”

The above is abbreviated from a paper in Volume 23 of the Journal of Consciousness Studies, March-April of 2016.

Publisher’s note:

On first reading I can’t see any substantation offered for Wile’s suggestion there is any link between this fibre and the mystical experience of Reality (MER), or kundalini, or any so-called “mystical” events.

I once deliberately induced kundalini and will never do it again. Its power was beyond belief and overwhelmingly brusque in its focus. It shot up my spine and rushed spirally around my emptied skull in a nano second. Another split nano second and I would have gone out the top of my skull. I was utterly helpless, beyond any ability to think or feel. It finally left without me, leaving a barely sentient, non-functioning bag of skin. My body regained its nature slowly, on its own. Never, ever again.

But as I say, this paper goes no way to explaining any connexion to this apparent anomaly.

Nor does it specify what Wile means by mystical. Or is this something he would assume scientists would know? I have had some mystical experiences explained to me that I would, and have, dismissed as human spirit, stuff from the human mind, not the real mystical experience that is always an incoming – not an outgoing figment of the human condition, induced or otherwise.

However, Reissner’s Fibre promises to be a real game changer, maybe even as important as Darwin on our evolutionary understanding of Reality?