Today Tucson Bob left a comment that got me thinking about my own evolving attitude toward mantra meditation. He said, in part:
I will say that Sant Mat meditation, at least the basic technique of simran (mantra repetition), seems to me to have a dulling, dumbing-down effect that seems to interfere with intuitive perception.
Imagine you are in a wilderness at night. It is pitch black and you know there is a predator out there. All your being, all your senses are fully in the moment listening for some sound or movement to indicate where that predator is. You are fully absorbed in the present situation, in the immediacy of your current reality. No simran is necessary at this time and would actually be a hinderance to full awareness of what is. Your mind is totally quiet absorbing the sounds of the night because of the urgency of the situation. It is alert, ready.
This is a good non-meditation. Be fully present in whatever you are doing. The mind will wander off. No matter, it can't be helped. When you are fully aware again, just be that way.
Tucson Bob and I are pretty much members of the same Sant Mat meditation class. He was initiated into the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) branch of this Eastern faith in 1970. Me, in 1971. He flamed out of the movement after about twenty years. Me, after more than thirty.
Between us we've done a hell of a lot of mantra meditation. Like all RSSB initiates, we were given a mantra that consisted of "Five Holy Names" to repeat.
The mantra was supposed to be kept super duper secret. And I did, along with every other initiate I knew. But now, with the rise of the Internet, you can do a Google search and find the names easily. They've also become fodder for what I hope is a satirical web site (but it's hard to tell the difference between spiritual satire and seriousness these days).
The names supposedly are holy because they refer to the rulers, or defining characteristics, of five metaphysical regions of the cosmos: Sahans-dal-kanwal, Trikuti, Daswan Dwar, Bhanwar Gupha, and Sach Khand. Sant Mat practitioners believe that the names are charged with spiritual power by the initiating guru.
They're supposed to be repeated throughout the day, as well as during much of one's meditation time. However, like Tucson Bob said, open awareness of reality that's actually present isn't facilitated by concentrating on a mantra that is intended to lead to another hypothesized realm of existence.
So over the years I gradually became less rigid about my own approach to mantra meditation. Even when I was a RSSB true believer, I experimented with using just one of the five names as a mantra. I found that one was as good as five when it came to quieting my mind.
What's holy about a word? Words aren't reality. "Fire" isn't hot. "Water" isn't wet. These are just terms that stand for something else that does have the ascribed qualities.
I've written some other posts about mantra meditation, here, here, here, and here. The last one dealt with whether mantra meditation is a waxing on or a waxing off (using Mr. Miyagi's karate training language). I said:
I believe that mantra meditation can lead to a clearer view of reality. Inside of my head, I feel like I'm getting closer to the essence of life, existence, and consciousness when I sit on my meditation cushion in darkness and silence, repeat a single syllable, and become aware of what remains. Outside of my head, I feel more connected to other people and the world when my mind is filled with the simple unifying sound of a mantra rather than many divisive thoughts.
For a long time, though, I repeated a mantra that had a significant meaning to me. I realize now that this meaning was like Mr. Miyagi's wax. Every time I repeated the mantra I was rubbing something onto my consciousness, rather than clearing something off.
Basic rule of car cleaning: you don't use the same cloth to clean the wax off that you used to put the wax on. Applying this principle to meditation, I've come to the conclusion that the more meaningless a mantra is, the better. It shouldn't be associated with a person, theology, metaphysics, or goal that has any meaning.
Churches have stained glass windows. Those images are there to capture your attention and prevent you from seeing what is, in reality, outside the church's confines. A mantra with meaning has an equivalent effect. Every time you repeat it, you're placing a conceptual filter between you and what is really there.
True enough, in my experience. But I'm coming to see that Tucson Bob's there's a predator analogy is apt. When we're really open to clear and present reality, we don't want any self-generated sounds or images, meaningless or not, coming between us and whatever is out there.
However, failing complete emptiness I still believe that having a single meaningless sound in my mind is better than the largely random voluminous chatter that all too often fills my psyche. When I need to think in words, I should think in words. Most of the time, I don't. A simple mantra serves to remind me to shut the fuck up.
This is a crude summary of the central message of one of my favorite books about meditation, "Open Mind, Open Heart" by Thomas Keating. Whenever I pick it up, which is often, my churchless self is struck by the subtitle: "the contemplative dimension of the Gospel."
Well, I'll take inspiration wherever I find it. I like Keating's attitude toward repeating a word, or words in meditation. This isn't an exercise in concentration, but rather intention.
The sacred word, whatever one you may choose, is sacred not because of its meaning, but because of its intent. It expresses your intention to open yourself to God, the Ultimate Mystery, who dwells within you. It is a focal point to return to when you notice you are becoming interested in the thoughts that are going by.
…The chief thing that separates us from God is the thought that we are separated from Him. If we get rid of that thought, our troubles will be greatly reduced.
I'm not big on the word "God," so I mentally substitute "Tao" or "Reality" when I read these passages. "Him" becomes "It." Aside from that, the Catholic Keating and the churchless me are on the same spiritual page.
There's nothing holy about a word, or name. Like I said, it's hole-ness that we should be seeking, not holiness – natural open awareness of what's really going on, not an artificial religious imagining.
After I got to know the RSSB holy names with out being initiated from the given links, my RSSB initiated husband thinks we have done some sort of blasphemy. Though he didn't confirm that those were the holy names, as he is supposed to keep the vow of not disclosing names.
No RSSB 'religion' is not dogmatic.
Posted by: anonymous | August 07, 2007 at 09:58 PM
Have you not heard of respect? A surgeon has been given the training and instuction, guidance to perform his role. If you 'happened' to come across his tools - do you really think you could perform the 'surgery'?
Posted by: Seeking | August 20, 2007 at 02:20 AM
the santmat mantra is a means to an end not the end itself. What differentiates this meditation from others is its emphasis on the inner sounds. During meditation some time is given to simran and some time to ´listening´ to the sound. The time that one devotes on each depends on one´s ability to focus and retain his-her attention on the eye focus while the mind is absorbed in the inner sound. At the beggining years more simran is required and less ´listening´ is adviced, but as the meditator progresses on the path and learns his-her body better and his-her mind better then the meditator can begin alternating the time that is given to each practise.As the literature emphases the two should never co-practised.
with time the meditator will find the most comfortable pose, the most comfortable place, time and method that enables him to reach the threashold of the blue starry sky. Sleep will naturally be reduced by then,and even so, sleep should become very very light. An acute sensitivity slowly develops through the years. After much meditation, the meditator should really not require any simran to bring his-her meditation to focus behind the eyes. Simran then is used as a ºprotectionº when the person is amongst crowds with extremely negative ºvibesº, when in places with a lot of noice, or when within the mind negative thoughts arise unexpectatly. Its nothing more than a reminder to come behind the eyes. When the shabd is heard more, and then only, will the words really gain authority. When the shabd becomes stronger within the meditator, then all the thoughts of the meditator become stronger, not just of simran. Simran really means remember, and it is to remind the meditator to continue the effort to transend and elevate his-her awareness more and more, without never beeing satisfied with his-her the spiritual situation.. At the end there is only ºlisteningº. Simran is a means to an end and not the end. As the end is reached and the spiritual powers of the meditator are developed, simran gains more authoritative ºpowerº, always within its domain.
When in the middle of a dark jungle,one shoud act depending on one´s ability to focus or hear the sound.A dark forrest is great place to meditate
Two and half hours of meditation is the suggested begining time for meditation, and after years it should increase significantly. What should remain constant is the desire by the person to reach the truth as if he is under water grasping for air.
Give a candy to an intelectual says Sawan, and he will start describing its flavors, his feelings and start asking where and how u found it. Give it to a simple man and he will just smile and enjoy it.
Posted by: mack | August 20, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Mack,
Your comment really consists of nothing more than the same stale old santmat & RS meditation dogma and boring rhetoric that we (most of us) are already quite familiar with. In other words, you have brought nothing new to the table. The same old same old just doesn't fly here.
So if you wish to elucidate, preach, and discourse upon the various details of the santmat/RS system of shabda yoga meditation as you seem to want to do, then I would suggest that a much more appropriate place would be a formal RS satsang meeting where you are among other satsangis - other fellow Radha Soami cult followers, believers, initiates, and practitioners.
Posted by: tao | August 20, 2007 at 07:18 PM
talk to poetry with poets, only the sick can sympathise with the sick
Posted by: mack | August 21, 2007 at 09:37 AM
The key functionality of the mantra actually different from what you have described. The five names do have a metaphysical significance, but one is not supposed to think about that while saying them internally. The purpose of the mantra is simply to evoke memory in the mind of the meditator towards the Master.
I know that you come from an RSSB background. Forgive me if I mention there have been some other branches of the lineage. I was fortunate to have been initiated by one of those "other" Gurus back in 1983. So we have probably been on the Path for about the same amount of time.
The difference between my inner experience and yours is quite profound. I hope you do not take offense, but you know, if your Master had been competent, you would have started having inner experiences within a few years. The function of the simran becomes much more evident later in meditation. As I said, the key functionality is keeping the mind occupied with positive energy, positive memories and mental connections. Of themselves the words are of no importance whatsoever and it does not matter who knows them. If an uninitiated person (or a person initiated by a false Master) chants the five names, nothing will happen. There might be a stilling of the mind, as can be achieved with any mantra such as OM or as in Transcendental Meditation. But otherwise, it is not really useful in itself. What is useful is remembrance of the Master.
This is demonstrated in a number of ways in the literature but I only speak from personal experience, only what I have actually seen for myself. In my experience the Master does all the work. The meditator does not do anything except attend, watch, listen. Everything happens due to the Master. Nothing happens due to the efforts of the meditator. So the "stilling effect" of the simran is truly a "dulling" as you had quoted. This is a good thing. The mind is too active in contemporary people in order to achieve the necessary concentration. So, some dulling down in this regard no doubt helps on the Path. One has to be quiet to hear.
Kind regards,
DRS
Posted by: Dave | August 26, 2007 at 06:11 PM
DRS,
May I inquire which of the "other" RS gurus initiated you. In your view, which of the RS gurus are false. How would you know this?
This is not intended as a challenge or to open a debate, and I will not be offended by your opinion. I'm just interested and probably won't have much of a comment.
Posted by: Tucson Bob | August 26, 2007 at 07:06 PM
THOSE WHO HAVE LEFT THE PATH ARE PROBABLY DOING MORE SIMRAN THAN THOSE WHO ARE STILL ON THE PATH. AS THEY WERE DOING SIMRAN FOR SUCH A LONG TIME, IT HAS LEFT A DENT ON THEIR MIND. EVEN WITH BEST OF THEIR EFFORTS THEY CAN NOT GET RID OF IT. THEIR PRESENCE ON THIS BLOG IS A REVEALING EVIDENCE............REPEATITION OF FIVE HOLY WORDS IS NOT THE ONLY WAY OF SIMRAN. YOUR ACHIEVEMENT BY LEAVING THE PATH WILL ALWAYS BE A SOURCE OF INSPIRATION FOR ME AND HELP ME TO FOLLOW THE PATH MORE FERVENTLY.
IT IS MY RECENT EXPERIENCE............
PEASE DO NO HESITATE TO ABUSE ME IF YOU SO DESIRE.............
Posted by: Rakesh Bhasin | August 26, 2007 at 09:10 PM
OK.... You're abused.
Posted by: tao | August 27, 2007 at 12:55 AM
DRS,
You said: "The purpose of the mantra is simply to evoke memory in the mind of the meditator towards the Master."
But hat is not the teaching of Santmat. The teaching is that the mantra is an aid in collecting and focusing the attention at the eye center. Furthermore, and contrary to your statement, the mantra is composed of sanskrit terms because the meaning is linked to the sound. So for you say that one is advised to ignore, or not be aware of the real meaning of the mantra syllables and words is incorrect. Indians generally know what the mantra means, so why should'nt westerners. Your statement is absurd.
"I was fortunate to have been initiated by one of those "other" Gurus back in..."
Well I don't consider that to be so "fortunate" at all. All, yes ALL of these Santmat cult-gurus, regardless of whichever branch they represent, are all full of pseudo-spiritual crapola. You read right.
"The difference between my inner experience and yours is quite profound."
Nobody gives a damn about your stupid "inner experience" Mister Smarty-ass.
"...if your Master had been competent, you would have started having inner experiences within a few years."
Are you as lame as you appear to be? Competant you say? Competant at being a frau maybe. Your so-called "inner experiences" don't mean diddley-squat.
"As I said, the key functionality is keeping the mind occupied with positive energy, positive memories and mental connections."
Sure... if you wish to remain in maya, that is.
"Of themselves the words are of no importance whatsoever and it does not matter who knows them."
That's totally ignorant rubbish. If they are of no importance to you, then dispense with them as I have. Btw dude, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
"If an uninitiated person (or a person initiated by a false Master)"
All, yes ALL of your so-called "Masters" are false.
"What is useful is remembrance of the Master."
Bullshit. Don't give us that "Master" bullshit. You are such a guru-cult moron. Wake-up dude.
"I only speak from personal experience, only what I have actually seen for myself."
You don't even have a clue, Mr Ego-puff.
"In my experience the Master does all the work."
Like I said, you're a guru-cult moron.
"Everything happens due to the Master."
You're psychotic too.
"...a "dulling" as you had quoted. This is a good thing. ... some dulling down in this regard no doubt helps..."
Said by a real dull-brained dullard. Only someone like you could say such dumb-ass nonsense.
Btw Mister DRS, your goofy Santmat rhetoric isn't impressing anyone here.
Next...
Posted by: tao | August 27, 2007 at 01:53 AM
Dear DRS, I came across your comments here and found them strongly disagreeable, and indicative on many different levels of an ignorance of both the mechanics of the RS phenomena and, more importantly, any kind of genuine 'spiritual' understanding.
You wrote: "I know that you come from an RSSB background. Forgive me if I mention there have been some other branches of the lineage. I was fortunate to have been initiated by one of those "other" Gurus back in 1983. So we have probably been on the Path for about the same amount of time.
The difference between my inner experience and yours is quite profound. I hope you do not take offense, but you know, if your Master had been competent, you would have started having inner experiences within a few years. The function of the simran becomes much more evident later in meditation. As I said, the key functionality is keeping the mind occupied with positive energy, positive memories and mental connections. Of themselves the words are of no importance whatsoever and it does not matter who knows them. If an uninitiated person (or a person initiated by a false Master) chants the five names, nothing will happen. There might be a stilling of the mind, as can be achieved with any mantra such as OM or as in Transcendental Meditation. But otherwise, it is not really useful in itself. What is useful is remembrance of the Master.
This is demonstrated in a number of ways in the literature but I only speak from personal experience, only what I have actually seen for myself. In my experience the Master does all the work. The meditator does not do anything except attend, watch, listen. Everything happens due to the Master. Nothing happens due to the efforts of the meditator."
Well, if you look closely at the obvious inferences in this post, that the RSSB guru is false whilst your (unnamed) guru is for real and the criteria you are able to judge this from, you will find innumerable inconsistencies and descrepancies.
Firstly, it is interesting that from your post above, you can ascertain with almost 100% certainty you are from a Kirpal lineage (as apposed to any of the many other RS lineages). I would venture this is because of the narrative myth Kirpal created and repeatedly reinforced about himself in regards to his 'genuine' mastership, specifically in relation to the 'false' masters who retained the vast majority of the sangat at Beas. Now, don't get me wrong, almost the entire history of RS and all it's lineages is based on narrative myths. This is the HUMAN way. And, if we look at this whole saga from a human level, it is not too difficult to understand why Kirpal seemingly obssesed with this narrative, and created such a dualistic, conceptual & hierarchical view of the 'spiritual path' (with himself conveniently at the top!). To be honest, not many of the RS branches have been very good at moving away from such a form of 'spirituality', except perhaps Chand.
The problem with such a literal myopic interpretation and conceptual definition of 'reality' is that it fails to take into account the subjective nature and ultimately illusory nature of all dualistic concepts and phenomena. What is 'real' for one is not neccessarily 'real' for another. The lack of this fundamental understanding in so many satsangis suggests to me that perhaps these so-called gurus are more concerned with reinforcing their position & status on a conceptual and dualistic level, than guiding their disciples into non-dual understanding?
Regarding real and false masters, five-names and spiritual experiences. I believe you make a false assumption (based on your aquaintance with the Kirpal myths) that RSSB initiates do not have experiences. Please remember that RSSB has the biggest sangat in the world by far. This increases the percentage of people who got involved by coercion, chance, on a whim etc due to the popularity of the group. It becomes a religion by neccessity due to it's SIZE. Also, please remember Gurinder has advised not to discuss RS on the web, so 'good' satsangis are probably not sharing so much. In any case, I have known people in RSSB who heard sound (and other experiences), who heard sound on the day of initiation, who heard sound within weeks of meditation, who heard years after initiation, and those who never heard or saw anything. It is, quite obviously, a mixture of all types.
So, your initial assumption about RSSB and false masters is, in my experience, completely incorrect.
Also, there are Kirpal initiates who have meditated for years and years and got absolutely nothing. This is an undeniable FACT. Again, your essential point is false.
Also, there are people who have never been initiated who have heard and seen 'inner' things that most RS initiates can only dream about. This is, in my experience, undeniable FACT.
Also, there are so many overtly false gurus (many of which in the Kirpal lineage imo!) that can *apparently* generate all kinds of 'spiritual' experiences in their disiples. I think it more prudent to investigate other avenues of thought than consider some dude in a turban is God, despite his sticking his dick in your mouth during initiation, just because you see some light and hear some sound when you close your eyes? That's almost as ridiculous as voting for Bush just because I'm scared of terrorism. It seems like the obvious choice, but on closer consideration and despite Bush's claims, it is seen that was precisely what I shouldn't have done to ease my fears. And so it is with the light and sound of RS gurus. By falsely limiting the infinite and Absolute into experiential phenomena and conceptual paradigms, you miss the point and value of the Sound anyway. It is like the RS gurus give you a gold coin to distract you from the gold mountain you're standing on.
Also, the five-names evidentially do not help much in easing delusion. We can see this from the number of 'masters' that clamour for position when one passes away. Why isn't their inner master telling them to stop pretending? Because the inner master is only an aspect of our own sub consciousness, no master can come from outside. But that is deeper insight into the RS mechanics than most are able or interesting in grasping.
Anyways, good luck with the whole thing, and ask Sat Purush to have mercy on me when you meet him....
Posted by: Manjit | August 27, 2007 at 04:01 AM
Dear Tao,
Okay!.... I am amused.
Posted by: Rakesh Bhasin | August 27, 2007 at 06:37 AM
A fine job Manjit. Thanks for elaborating upon all the flaws within DRS's post. I saw the same inherent problems with his position, claims, and lack of understanding that you did... I just wasn't in the mood to spend much time addressing and articulating all of his typical nonsense presumptions, hypocrisy, and his 'my guru is better than your guru' garbage.
Hope all is going well for you. I haven't seen you around for awile. Send me an e-mail sometime. My best wishes.
Posted by: tao | August 27, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Hello Tao, how's it going? I hope all is well with you.
Hey, I was actually going to email you a month or two ago to come good on a promise I made you, but I didn't have your email, and I don't really wish to post over at RSS anymore, at least anything 'mystical' related!
I went to a Tony Parsons 'satsang' in June-ish. I was going to email you to give you my take, as you requested way back when! I even asked a question, and got probably the only abrubt and dismissive response of anyone in the entire room, for which I was quite chuffed :o)
If you'd like to know my take, email me or provide your email again? Must warn you though, it's not going to be a positive take at all on him and his message...
In a nutshell, his 'realisation' and what he tries to teach is, imo, quite obviously more in the head and intellectual than the Vibrancy of 'genuine' realisation.
Still, that's just my personal take.
Anyways, take care Bro....
Posted by: Manjit | August 29, 2007 at 03:18 AM
PS - the 'satsang' was so bad, I actually walked out half way through, and waited outside for an hour for my friends (OshoRobbins et al) to come out!
Really, it was THAT bad! I don't even walk out on bad movies, let alone satsangs!
:o)
Posted by: Manjit | August 29, 2007 at 03:22 AM
Manjit,
Hey thanks man. Good to hear from you. I appreciate your honesty and observations. I would definitely like to hear the details about the TP talk you attended. Please know that I am no defender of any guru. And I have never seen or met TP. All I know about him is from his books and CDs. He makes some good points, but I had a suspicion that he was somewhat like you have inferred. I think perhaps he probably serves a good purpose in encouraging some people to get beyond all their presumptons and conditioning about spirituality and realization, but that he himself is still "on a bit of a trip" as we used to say in the old days.
So since I am way over here in California, and probably won't ever get to check out TP directly by myself, I would really love to hear your insightful take on TP and his talk session meeting. Btw, what does OshoRobbins and your other friends think about TP?
You (and Osho) can e-mail me via my old RSS group id which is "swamianami" (at) yahoo.com
Get in touch and we'll continue this discussion via e-mail. I will look for your message. My best wishes.
Posted by: tao | August 29, 2007 at 03:28 PM
can you tell me the chant or mantra that is the highest of all the mantra or chants ?
Posted by: kenneth uwadi | October 28, 2007 at 03:35 AM
Tao: " He makes some good points"
(This post is addressed in general - not to Tao in particular. His comment only initiated the whole thing ...)
Is making some good points enough for someone who approaches some teachings for help with respect to her/his suffering and insatisfaction?
Because of globalization - books, translations, commentaries, etc. are more available than ever - and the internet, any deluded chap can memorize and repeat 'perennial truth(s)' and sound, on average, ok or like he knows what he is talking about. A good articulation of these truths is now widely available and learnable. It is also a factor why the same chap can also imagine about anything regarding his/her own realization ...
1000 thousand years ago or even 150 years, to learn or memorize, or even come up by yourself with, a coherent and decent articulation of such message was a lot more difficult ...
To repeat ad nauseam that "you are perfect as you are", "there is nothing to gain", "You are that", "what is an object cannot ultimately be what knows", etc.
do not entail any actual understanding. Any clever fellow can learn them from the net and widely available books and start his/her satsangs, smile and repeat these teachings ... and even be relatively successful at it. In particular, when this person sticks to the simple - from the point of view of the imagination - as the 'pearls' aforementioned, and disengages anyone who questions them ("It is only the mind seeking answers, drop the mind (sic) and the search for answers will drop as well" ); not because they are not true, but simply because they are incomplete in a way. As we seen quite often, it is not difficult to make a business from it and abuse the intentions of people who are simply looking for a little bit of help after all.
Posted by: the elephant | October 28, 2007 at 09:31 AM
Elephant makes a very good point that any well-read person with some imagination and the ability to memorize can parrot perennial truths. They can do this so skillfully that they become teachers even if they do not truly embody what they teach. But, is this really a bad thing?
Ultimately, all words are misleading as far as what infinity might be, pointers at best to what it isn't. But they may come together is such a way that they serve as a catalyst for someone's realization. If you like the way a teacher's words affect you, why not go with them until they no longer serve you? No one can give you the truth, but they may be just what you need to instigate your own self discovery.
The words may be "find the face you had before you were born" or maybe the Beatle's "I am the Walrus, goo goo ga joob."
Posted by: Tucson | October 28, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Tucson: " But, is this really a bad thing?"
This is an excellent question. I really don't know. It is like answering the question "is deception/delusion a bad thing?" With respect to reality: Nope! With respect to a particular presence, quite often, since it simply perpetuates an unfolding of deceiving situations and experiences, thus suffering ... but sometimes the same deception insulates the same presence against further suffering ...
But again, we never learn best about ourselves than when we suffer ... until there is no more need for suffering ... then it does not matter ... as I say I think no one can know ...
Posted by: the elephant | October 28, 2007 at 11:33 AM
This site is the most banal, shallow, and clueless, bit of garbage I've ever seen.
Posted by: Julian | April 14, 2008 at 12:32 AM
The previous comment by Julian is the most banal, shallow, and clueless bit of garbage I've ever seen.
Posted by: tAo | April 14, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Julian, thank you! I love being best at something! If you come across a "banal, shallow, and clueless" blogging award, please nominate me. I've got a place on my bookcase where a trophy would fit perfectly.
Posted by: Brian | April 14, 2008 at 10:17 AM
I'm glad to know that there are still people who see sense and have had the courage to break off from this cult.
Experiences don't mean a thing. All these so called experiences occur within the boundary of thought and
does not forward your spiritual progress in any way. Fast for a week and you will have the most profound experiences that you never knew.
Posted by: Robin | April 19, 2008 at 01:25 PM
chanting the names of gods or godesses seems to be the highest chant .can someone disprove me?
Posted by: kenneth uwadi | May 27, 2008 at 01:30 AM
Why should anyone bother?
Robert Paul Howard
Posted by: Robert Paul Howard | May 27, 2008 at 06:28 AM
kenneth, can you prove what you said? I say that chanting the names of the elves who live under a stone in my yard is the highest chant. Can you disprove me?
Posted by: Brian | May 27, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Interesting debate is going on at sikhism.us
on the need/no need of physical guru.
The thread:
Sab Sikhan Ko Hukam Hai Guru Manyo Granth - means that our eternal guru is Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
Posted by: namjap | March 15, 2009 at 05:04 AM