« December visits to the RSSB Dera cancelled. Anyone know why? | Main | I figure out the Meaning of It All »

November 17, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"Sach Khand" basically is heaven.

Well, not really. At least not in the true sense of the word as used in traditional "Santmat" or "The Path of the Masters (gurus)" literature and teachings.

As per my understanding of the "Santmat", heaven is NOT the same as "Sach Khand". In Santmat, heaven is considered a place where one (or one's soul) goes after death as a result of very good "karmas" (the deeds a human being does over her/his lifetime on earth).

According to Charan Singh (the RSSB guru who initiated Brian), the best reward one can get by doing very good karmas, like living a fully honest life and doing a lot of charity etc., is earning a place in heaven after death. But, the entitlement of a place in heaven is only for "a certain period and time", at the end of which everyone has to come back to the circle of life and death.

"Sach Khand", on the other hand, is considered a permanent place where the God or the almighty lives. In fact, Santmat differentiates itself from many other paths to God by claiming that it's the only path that can and does provide one a permanent relief from the circle of life and death by taking one's soul to "Sach Khand".

So, to the best of my knowledge of traditional Santmat, I think comparing heaven with "Sach Khand" is not the correct thing to do. It's a different matter altogether, however, that such a place may not exist at all. I, for one, don't believe any longer in the existence of heaven, Sach Khand and/or even hell.

I think in most cases, gurus aren't consciously aware of deceiving and misleading others because they're self-deluded enough to believe their own nonsense.

Calling a guru a charlatan or accusing him of chicanery only reinforces his self-delusion and provokes his followers to rally in his defense, so the best approach may be to ask him questions he can't give honest answers to without revealing how little he actually understands, how much he believes, and how dependent he is upon sophistry and gobbledegook.

cc,
how can you know if someone is 'self-deluded'

osho is an example of a guru who consciously used techniques to confuse and purposely lie to people and even admit it to them, for the higher purpose of getting them to understand.

you say: 'ask him questions he cannot give honest answers to without revealing how little he actually understands'

what if you ask questions and his answer reveals that you are the ignorant one? what do you do then?

Osho is one example of someone who doesn't care about contradictions - and his answers reveal that he has a deep understanding. and you cannot fit him neatly in a box - try as you will - because - well - he just doesn't fit.

here he is admitting that he lied on purpose because people were not ready to hear the blunt truth.
(see video from 4:30 - 6.00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiwMhH5uHA4


I 'believe' that meaning is the bed-fellow of belief. Meaning is not inherent in the world, it only exists in the mind.

Meaning and belief are apparently 'hard-wired' into our brains and it is so natural for the human mind to invest meaning and purpose onto the world.

Is it possible to live without meaning?

how can you know if someone is 'self-deluded'

The only way you can not know is to share their delusion.

Is it possible to live without meaning?

Not for long because your inability to imagine what past events might mean for the future would prove fatal.

Thanks cc, but that's a different definition of meaning. I'm interested regarding the meaning we invest in things that is not inherent in them; such as an earthquake meaning that God is angry and other supernatural 'explanations'.

It's a meaning that is synonymous with belief where we (according to research - New Scientist 17/3/13) are naturally inclined to " ...employ agent-based reasoning". Apparently, even with evidence to the contrary - which is one of the worrying issues with religious beliefs and other dogmatic thinking.


Some researchers

So there's reasonably derived meaning and attributed meaning, and it's the attributed type that you're asking if we can live without?

We can live without giving any more than reasonable meaning to phenomena and events, but when we do, it does nothing for our sense of self-importance, so we often read more into things than is there.

Turan:
Meaning is made up - created by you - and it creates your perception of the world.

In 'a course in miracles' the first exercise is about meaning. "I create all the meanings in my world"

When something happens in life (an Event) - immediately we begin to ask "What does this mean for me?"

We then attribute that meaning TO the event. We make the event 'good' or 'bad' depending on if the consequence to us is good or bad.

However, the event is actually neutral (all events are neutral).
So let's say someone dies - (a neutral event) - we say it is a bad or a good event depending on if he/she was our friend or enemy. Actually it was a NEUTRAL event and we projected meaning onto the event.

We are conditioned to make meanings - meanings run our life and all meanings are made up - they don't exist in the real world - they are projection of our mind onto the world.

Religion is all about meanings.

you ask:
Is it possible to live without meaning?

The literal answer is no - because if you attempted to - you must already have created a meaning in order to try to live without meaning.

However, realising you are CREATING the meanings - frees you from being a victim of events in your life - as you realise they events are neutral. The world has no inherent meaning and is meaningless.

Turan,

How could a 'meaning' exist in a thing that is not inherent in it? A non-conceptualized thing or non-thing would be void of meaning.

Living of life void of meaning would be the same, or similar to a supposed constant state of non-conceptuality. Has anyone ever really done such?

Hopefully, we can reason our way to a life of more meaningful meanings, we choose to use. Example: an earthquake's meaning is the movement of two tectonic plates in a meaningful manner.

Roger wrote,

"... a supposed constant state of non-conceptuality. Has anyone ever really done such?"

--I think so, but it is doubtful they would have anything to say about it and some people would get irked and call them names when the person says they can't describe it. Maybe it is like the way you were in the womb before you were born, before the first breath which is the beginning of conceptuality.

"... a supposed constant state of non-conceptuality. Has anyone ever really done such?"

The brain that isn't conceptualizing isn't perceiving, which is to say, it isn't conscious. To perceive is to make sense of stimuli; to attribute meaning to phenomena and events, and that can't be done without conceptualization.

The belief in non-duality and so-called non-conceptuality is as delusional as theism. It's as impossible to know you're not conceptualizing as it is to know God exists.

Osho,

I posted the following on a related post titled "A Guru should know if he is God". I am mot sure whether you saw that, and so I am posting it here again just to ensure that you do see it.

Following are excerpts from your response to my recent comment made earlier on this post (made on November 18, 2013 at 03:01 PM):

"I went to Delhi to visit “My Master” and was not too impressed by what I witnessed and I met an old satsangi of Sawan Singh who came to Delhi with Kirpal and he told me the ‘real gaddi’ and power was with Darshan Singh – not Thakar Singh. He took me to see Darshan and I left Thakar and later got initiated by Darshan."

You had posted the following on the above mentioned post on June 12, 2011 at 01:10 PM:

"That is what happened to me in the year 2000. I had left sant mat as a belief system. I had nothing to replace it with because I didn’t understand enlightenment – so I was not seeking it. I had nothing to replace it with.

At that time I met my spiritual master. My discipleship consisted of a five day intensive with him. On the morning of the fifth day he threw me out of the session – and that was the last I ever saw of him. I wanted to go back to thank him – but he said “What for?”"

After reading the above, I am really interested in knowing more about you and the "spiritual master" you mentioned above.

Would you please elaborate more on the training and your experience in those four days of training? Also, when were you initiated by Thakar Singh? How long did that association last? How long did your association with Darshan Singh last?

What made you choose Thakar Singh and Darshan Singh over Charan Singh and GSD - especially because you also said that your parents were initiated by Charan Singh?

Finally, what exactly did you witness in Delhi that you were not "too impressed with"?

Thanks for your time, in advance!

Isn't conceptualization the result of perception?

I mean, perceiving a coil of rope as a snake is a delusion, right? Ceasing to perceive a snake leaves the coil of rope as it is. But perceiving a coil of rope as a coil of rope is still a delusion because it is a conception of whatever a coil of rope is. A coil of rope as what it is, as what it really is, is devoid of the concept of a coil of rope. This is known as the Void or Perceiving perceiving itself. The perceiver of the snake-perception and the perceiver of the rope perception go with their objects, leaving Perceiving only.. which is what is as it is.

But once you know that the collection of strung-together fibers is called a "coil of rope," how is it possible, or desirable, to forget that?

If we have no way to use words, or thoughts made of words, to describe things in the world, or in our own minds, wouldn't we be reduced to babbling gibberish -- with no way to navigate in the human world?

A coil of rope as what it is, as what it really is, is devoid of the concept of a coil of rope. This is known as the Void or Perceiving perceiving itself.

"A coil of rope" is a concept. That it happens to be the correct four words for what the eye beholds is beside the point. Without knowledge (conceptualization), you might be able to ascertain that the coil is not what you mistook it for, but you wouldn't know what it was.

"The Void, or Perceiving perceiving itself" is religious dogma, and as many of the statements you've made previously indicate, you're profoundly influenced by dogma and dizzy with spiritual gobbledgook. Learn to think for yourself; question the supposed wisdom and insight of others.

So a brain that is not conceptualising is not conscious? Really?

I think that our concepts of what a concept is must be markedly different.

A concept, in the instances that I can find, is synonymous with an idea or construction (often theoretical), a plan, a scheme etc. That, as far as I can tell, is the common understanding of a concept. Here's a very typical definition:

concept - an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances

Now for all I know you may have found an exception or theory that regards a concept as any type of mental content, but I am not familiar with such a concept. (see what I did there.)

So working with my above common understanding of what conceptualising means, it is obviously the case that there can be consciousness without the formation of abstract ideas, theoretical constructions etc.

The perception of a sound is not dependent on forming a thought construct. Hearing (or audition) is the ability to perceive sound by detecting vibrations. The raw perception of a sound (the detection of vibrations) precedes the making sense of what the sound is - or even the thought 'ah a sound is occurring'.

The perception of a sound is not dependent on forming a thought construct. Hearing (or audition) is the ability to perceive sound by detecting vibrations. The raw perception of a sound (the detection of vibrations) precedes the making sense of what the sound is - or even the thought 'ah a sound is occurring'

You speak of perception and "raw perception", and I find that confusing. Perception is the brain's processing of sense data by recognizing it, identifying it by previous experience, the response of concepts retained as memory.

As for being conscious, the literal meaning of the word is "with knowledge" (concepts), and that's what I mean by the word. If I can be conscious without knowing it, without conceptual acknowledgment of the fact, that's not consciousness as I understand it...but my understanding doesn't come from books or the findings of others, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Jon,

"So working with my above common understanding of what conceptualising means, it is obviously the case that there can be consciousness without the formation of abstract ideas, theoretical constructions etc."

Yes, it is absolutely possible for our brain to be conscious of "sound" as in ('ah a sound is occurring') without "forming a thought construct. Hearing (or audition) is the ability to perceive sound by detecting vibrations."

But to "describe" the "feeling" to someone else as "sound" as against something else like "light" or "heat", one not only needs to know at least the basic vocabulary himself but also needs to make sure that the other person also has the same "concept" of the word sound in his/her mind. In other words, both persons should have a "common understanding" or "conceptualization" of what the word sound means. Notice that this common understanding does not necessarily require the two persons to know the academic definition or conceptualization of sound that involves relatively complex terms like energy, vibrations, audibility, etc.

So, the brain of a kid, who does not know the simple meaning of the word sound, is indeed as conscious and can "experience" different sounds as anyone else, but unlike someone who knows that "sound" is the word used to describe that "experience", the kid is unable to describe the experience as sound. Perhaps that is why, kids have to "invent" their own unique ways of describing things and concepts they don't yet know by making use of the "concepts" or words they do already know.

Just to take another example, we all "know" and have a basic conceptualization of the word "place" as some location or setting, and can, therefore, easily use the word in our daily conversations. However, in the academic field of human geography and environmental psychology, "place" is defined as the physical setting along with the human activities, and human social and psychological processes rooted in the setting.

For our brains to be conscious and also able to let others know that we are present at a particular "place", we don't need to have a complete understanding of the "theoretical concept" of the word "place". What we do need, however, is a basic understanding of what most other people "mean" when they use the word "place".

John made it clear: "So working with my above common understanding of what conceptualising means, it is obviously the case that there can be consciousness without the formation of abstract ideas, theoretical constructions etc."

Blogger Brian wrote: "If we have no way to use words, or thoughts made of words, to describe things in the world, or in our own minds, wouldn't we be reduced to babbling gibberish -- with no way to navigate in the human world"

--Yes, if we have no way to form concepts and use words or symbology while in this world in this body we will be dysfunctional. But we do have the ability to shut down the conceptual thought process and 'just be' or as Heinlein put it, "grok fullness". Surely you have groked fullness while meditating or walking in the forest. It can be fleeting though and often overlooked because in a non-relative timeless state there are no reference points to come back to. Just this glimpse that may have been a second or an eternity.

In such a state of all-inclusive non-relative consciousness objects cease to be objects and only radiance remains, which is what we really are...radiant energy functioning at varying rates of vibration.

At this vibration in which we are living this energy or consciousness, or awareness, or life, experiences itself via the process of subject-object relation. It is how life experiences life and perpetually rediscovers itself in a game of hide and seek as rock, tree, person, animal or spirit.

Life is but a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves going in a merry-go-round via ever-changing forms and circumstances. It is like a ride at an amusement park that you think is real until the mind comes full stop and you step off for a moment, or forever, and become the reality behind or within it.

This ride is enthralling for awile and you get immersed in it, but eventually you begin to question the reality of it. You bein to question what it is and what it's all about. You begin to wake up. You have conversations like we do on this blog.

It doesn't matter though. This wondering is part of the game. As I have said, we are what we really are whether we know it or not. We may recognize it or not. It's OK.

I was riding my bike once and this recognition came over me. "Peek-a boo I see you!" which was the eternal formless self residing in everything recognizing itself as itself. It was a masquerade ball with all these different faces knowing they were really one face. It was fantastic!

All I can say is don't worry about death for you are eternity itself. Don't be afraid because it is just a ride. You can choose fear or love, happiness or unhappiness. It's your game.

Sorry about the spiritual gobbledygook cc. You know, you can pack your bags, leave them behind and step on the plane without them. Whoosh!

I am he as you are she as you are me as we are all together. I am the Walrus! Goo goo ga joob!! (non-conceptual gibberish)

"Yes, it is absolutely possible for our brain to be conscious of "sound" as in ('ah a sound is occurring') without "forming a thought construct. Hearing (or audition) is the ability to perceive sound by detecting vibrations."

---The so-called infant human brain can be conscious. The infant brain can receive input from vibrations. However, at pre-conceptualization, how does the brain know it is sound? How would it know to 'ah' a sound is occurring? Surely, to perceive sound, one would need to understand the concept of sound. Without the perceive, one is just receiving input from non-descript vibrations.

“Is it possible to live without meaning”? I have read the varied comments in response to my question (and the ones on conception).

I have to say that I am aware of no meanings in the natural world. Things as they appear to my senses, are void of any meaning. Only the description of the thing sensed arises in consciousness. Of course it is immediately followed by a vast amount of information mechanically regurgitated that, depending on the situation, may or may not be relevant. This (for me) is the mind in action.

Sometimes, there is no sense of a self in all this. Things just appear in consciousness (the door, window, trees, people etc.) and are recognised but without concepts forming around them.

I understand and accept that all the above happens via the brain – it is not mystical or anything – but I don’t see that the structure that is my mind is the sole source of my experiences of the world.

You could say I was delusional or misrepresenting my experiences or whatever, but that’s where I am at this moment - and it's okay.

I don't believe that you find that confusing at all. You know that I'm referring to immediate sense perception as opposed to the usage of perception as a type of understanding.

From the Oxford dictionary: Perception

1 the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses

2 the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted

From Merriam-Webster: Sense perception

: perception by the senses as distinguished from intellectual perception

---

In my understanding, consciousness refers to the brute fact of being aware - conscious as opposed to not conscious. This not limited to adult humans; babies and many animals are conscious without the conceptual knowledge that they are conscious.

In fact I would go as far as saying that you, yourself are conscious at many times throughout the day without the 'conceptual acknowledgement of the fact'. When you stop thinking 'I am conscious', you don't black out.


VVIP,
The master I mentioned was what I consider a real master. Nothing to do with sant mat.
No teachings, no beliefs, no techniques, no methods, no meditation. He lived and ‘taught’ through ‘being’.
Pretty much the opposite of sant mat. The four days I spent with him were the most profound of my life. He did nothing other than authentically ‘be himself’ and encouraged us to do the same. Since childhood we have been conditioned in various ways (to believe/disbelieve in God, to be a GOOD person, to do the RIGHT thing, to seek approval, to lie, to be fake). So his whole intensive was about getting in touch with the ‘real you’ hidden beneath all the layers of conditioning. When it happens – you know it because life opens up and you drop the false beliefs that previously imprisoned you, and which you used to think was ‘you’.
That was my experience – and his ‘throwing me out’ was what he did once he ‘finished’ with disciples – he did not ‘collect disciples – but rather did his thing and told them to get lost.
Only fake masters collect disciples because they boost their ego – real masters do their thing and let them go on their merry way – they have no need to keep them once their work is finished.
Regarding my association with sant mat: I was born into a RSSB family and so I really thought it was the truth and the only way. To a child – sant mat is like a fairy tale (it was for me) – I used to read the ‘spiritual link’ as a child and take it to school. My whole ambition was to get to Sach khand and have ‘tea’ (or a beer as Sukhbir Singh might say) with Sat Purush himself as we chat about old times. When I went to university – that was when I came across thakar singh in 1980. I was with him for about 3 years – I went to delhi to visit him and that was when I learned about Darshan Singh and other successors.
I was really concerned at the time about finding the ‘right’ master and the ‘true successor’. I wished (at the time) that I had met Kirpal because in my mind I made him special. I read his ‘heart to heart talks’ which I thought were amazing at the time. I liked his styIe of for example writing ‘no rights reserved’ instead of copyright in his books. I followed Darshan from 1983 – 1990 and was not attracted to Rajinder – he came across (to me) as fake. So after that I went to RSSB.
In 2000 I hit rock bottom in my life – that was when I realized sant mat was just another belief system. I went through a mid-life crisis and it was after this I met the real master I spoke of above.

I don't believe that you find that confusing at all. You know that I'm referring to immediate sense perception as opposed to the usage of perception as a type of understanding.

I do find it confusing because awareness of sensation is not perception. To perceive means "to take through", and I take that to mean the processing of sensation by content, knowledge, experience. Awareness of sensation is immediately followed by identification of (or failure to identify) the sensation, i.e., recognition. Sorry you don't believe me.

In my understanding, consciousness refers to the brute fact of being aware - conscious as opposed to not conscious. This not limited to adult humans; babies and many animals are conscious without the conceptual knowledge that they are conscious.

Alright, but that means consciousness is not necessarily measured by the one experiencing it, and my experience of consciousness is all I know about it.

When you stop thinking 'I am conscious', you don't black out.

You don't have to think, "I am conscious" to know you're conscious - you're just constantly reminded of the fact every moment, or you're asleep. And even in sleep, dreaming must involve some degree of consciousness, but not the kind that acknowledges itself...unless you can dream lucidly.

I think many physicists and most mystics think that the universe is interconnected energy or consciousness or awareness or whatever you want to call it. The physical brain may have its limitations and will die. However, it may be possible to "attune" our energy to this one universal energy or consciousness like an antenna to a frequency. After all, its substance is our substance. Like the old "drop of water merging into the ocean" analogy. From the differentiated drop to the undifferentiated sea. In the microcosm is the macrocosm and vice versa. Basic. No worries. You may just have to wait to die to re-experience it. Only there will be no experiencer to have the re-experience.

Turan wrote: ---The so-called infant human brain can be conscious. The infant brain can receive input from vibrations. However, at pre-conceptualization, how does the brain know it is sound? How would it know to 'ah' a sound is occurring? Surely, to perceive sound, one would need to understand the concept of sound. Without the perceive, one is just receiving input from non-descript vibrations.

In the book My Stroke of Insight, Jill Bolte Taylor, a PhD brain researcher, describes her personal experience with a massive brain stroke. For 2 weeks her entire left hemisphere was not working. She had no cognitive thinking ability. After several years of recovery, she worked with a Gestalt therapist to put her experiences during those 2 weeks into words. Basically she was able to remember the physical experiences she had and then attach actions and meanings them. I found it to be a fascinating read.

On a different, but somewhat related note:
I think the "oneness of all that there is" experience that Advita and non duality seek to achieve, is actually the feeling that we all have experience in the womb. It's nothing extra special, nothing spiritual (whatever that means), it's has nothing to do with the universe. A oneness, peacefullness, blissfulness, non cognitive experience.

Gene

gene

Perception has more than one meaning. 1 the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses 2 the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.

More specifically, sense perception (the point I was making) is not dependent on thought constructs or concepts. My example being hearing: the ability to perceive sound by detecting vibrations. The perception of a sound (the detection of vibrations) precedes the making sense of what the sound is.

---

I think that there is a subtle error here. The fact that we are conscious in every moment does not entail that we are knowledgable that we are conscious. My dog is conscious but he does not have the knowledge 'I am conscious'.


"Sometimes, there is no sense of a self in all this. Things just appear in consciousness (the door, window, trees, people etc.) and are recognised but without concepts forming around them."

I totally recognise what Turan is pointing to here (and Tucson's concept of just being.)

When the narrative dominance of mind settles we can have an experience of the world that is of a different nature - we can experience the world as the ever-changing gestalt that it is - a world that is happening anew in every moment.

I also agree that there is nothing remotely mystical in this - it corresponds with psychiatrist/neurobiologist Iain McGilchrist's studies of two ways of being in the world.

At any one time we ALREADY experience the world as a single shifting whole AND as a collection of fragmented parts. These two modes are attributed to the way the the hemispheres of the brain work.

However, we tend to live our lives (at this point in history) in a left hemisphere dominant mode. We "step out of the flow of experience" and focus on fragmented, conceptualised parts in isolation.

Occasionally we relax into the mode of the the right hemisphere and catch an extended glimpse of the 'gestalt', the shifting whole. Of course in this mode we do not lose the left hemisphere's ability to abstract and fragment but the left assumes its position as subordinate to the rights comprehensive outlook.

Here is a quote from McGilchrist's book:

"Before embarking on this chapter, I suggested that there were two ways of being in the world, both of which were essential. One was to allow things to be present to us in all of their embodied particularity, with all of their changeability and impermanence, and their interconnectedness, as part of a whole which is forever in flux. In this world we, too, feel connected to what we experience, part of that whole, not confined in subjective isolation from a world that is viewed as objective. (Right hemisphere)

The other was to step outside the flow of experience and 'experience' our experience in a special way: to re-present the world in a form that is less truthful, but apparently clearer, and therefore cast in a form which is more useful for manipulation of the world and one another. This world is explicit, abstracted, compartmentalised, fragmented, static (though its 'bits' can be re-set in motion, like a machine), essentially lifeless. From this world we feel detached, but in relation to it it we are powerful. (Left hemisphere)

Because the right hemisphere sees things as they are, they are constantly new for it, so it has nothing like the databank of information about categories that the left hemisphere has. It cannot have the certainty of knowledge that comes from being able to fix things and isolate them. In order to remain true to what is, it does not form abstractions, and categories that are based on abstraction, which are the strengths of denotative language."

cc you are showing your ignorance by posting this link. Do a bit of research before you feel the need to comment.

McGilchrist is aware and talks in depth about how the left and right brain USED TO BE understood. In his 20 year research he agrees with the findings that left and right hemispheres are not mapped out in the way that is popularly understood (left brainers are more analytic/right brainers are more creative.)

This review sums it up succinctly:

In "The Divided Brain", McGilchrist digests study after study, replacing the POPULAR AND SUPERFICIAL notion of the hemispheres as respectively logical and creative in nature with the idea that they pay attention in fundamentally different ways, the left being detail-oriented, the right being whole-oriented.

A couple of weeks ago you were taking a pot at Sam Harris, now it's McGilchrist. Do yourself a favour and stick to religion bashing.

"I think the "oneness of all that there is" experience that Advita and non duality seek to achieve, is actually the feeling that we all have experience in the womb."

---In non-duality is there seeking and achievement? Are you sure?
---Whom among us actually have a record of our experiences while we were in our mother's womb? We really know our feelings?


"A oneness, peacefullness, blissfulness, non cognitive experience."

---What exactly is a "oneness" experience? Is a peacefulness and a blissfulness found within, a non-cognitive experience?

One-ness is NOT an experience.

Advaita is not a teaching for you to GET somewhere.

Non-duality is NOT an experience.

IT IS WHAT ALREADY IS.

It is the background, already there, PRIOR to all thoughts about it.

Not to say that I agree with the whole notion of the teachings of Non-duality.

Non-duality is one of the most simplistic teachings because there is really nothing to teach or nothing to achieve.

It is actually not really a teaching. It is just about being. Which is a form of intuitive feeling although the teachings of it can seem heady when they try to bring in logic to get you to a sense of being.

The part which really makes me question this teaching however is the assumption they make that the brain has nothing to do with it. They begin with the assumption that the being is separate from the body-mind.

sukhbir,
(1) it is actually not a teaching
(2) the part which really makes me question this teaching...

what teaching are you questioning - you already said it is not a teaching. There is nothing to achieve or teach.

However - that is also a dangerous statement - because then you get people who have simply read things and they think they have 'done it'.

There is a journey - for which a realized person is needed - otherwise it all remains just a theory. That is why so many people go around with just the ideas in their head. There is no realization - it's just another theory. hence the need for a master who takes you one a journey to discover this for yourself. Like Gurdjieff did - he created situations that made the disciples upset - because only then is he able to discover the truth. It does not happen through intellectual discussion.

Zen masters did the same - as did sufi masters. You cannot go to a zen master and collect ideas - this is what it means by "there is no teaching".

In RSSB people give satsangs who have no 'done it' - this is nonsense - like an unrealized person teaching the the theory of realization. Like a poor man giving lectures on how to be a millionaire.

There is nothing to achieve or teach. However - that is also a dangerous statement - because then you get people who have simply read things and they think they have 'done it'.

If there is nothing to achieve, people who think they've achieved something are harmlessly self-deluded. What's "dangerous" about that? And what, if there's nothing to achieve, do you mean by "an unrealized person" if to be realized is not to have achieved something?

If realization is something that happens to someone who doesn't strive for it (seeing as how it can't be achieved) and knows nothing about it (seeing as how there is no teaching), to be realized is to know something has happened that you can't talk about without sounding professorial and accomplished, and therefore to say nothing about realization. To be realized is to be doing the very opposite of what you're doing, Osho.

"Non-duality is one of the most simplistic teachings because there is really nothing to teach or nothing to achieve."

---Yes, one can create a teaching around a non-duality, and call it Non-duality. One can go to zen and sufi master and get all the information. One can join a grouping and look the look, talk the eloquent talk, and write the special write. These are all nice dualistic activities.

However, non-duality, in the absolute is the non-knowable, the non-conceptual, the non- and the non-. This is where the no teaching and no achieving come in. Even the "non-duality" wordage is dualistic. Don't forget, duality, doesn't have to be bad. There is the good, out there.

Every person may recognize that what they are can only be their absence as subject.. the complete absence of manifest subjectivity.

This freedom is not freedom from any thing. It is not even a question as to whether there is anything to be free or not.

Same with problems. It is not whether some thing is or is not so. Same with questions. It is not whether this or that is right or wrong.

It is in this realization that there are no questions. There are no problems. There is no freedom or lack of it.

When it is seen that there is no time.

Osho,

Thanks for answering some of my questions.

I followed Darshan from 1983 – 1990 and was not attracted to Rajinder – he came across (to me) as fake. So after that I went to RSSB.
In 2000 I hit rock bottom in my life – that was when I realized sant mat was just another belief system. I went through a mid-life crisis and it was after this I met the real master I spoke of above.

You didn't really answer my following questions:

1. What made you choose Thakar Singh and Darshan Singh over Charan Singh and GSD - especially because you also said that your parents were initiated by Charan Singh?

2. Finally, what exactly did you witness in Delhi that you were not "too impressed with"?

As a follow up, I have some more questions:

3. You went to RSSB in 1990 because Rajinder appeared "fake" to you. What was your opinion of Gurinder then? Did you get initiated by him as well? How did you decide who is fake and who is not?

4. Can you confirm if the "mantra" used (as part of initiation) by Thakar, Darshan and Gurinder is/are the same?

5. Did you finally "leave" Sant Mat in 2000 before meeting the "real master"? Do/did you consider the "real master" truly enlightened / realized etc.?

There is a journey - for which a realized person is needed - otherwise it all remains just a theory.

6. After having met the "real master", and having gone trough 4 days of "training", do/did you consider yourself to be "a realized person" finally?

"In RSSB people give satsangs who have no 'done it' - this is nonsense - like an unrealized person teaching the the theory of realization. Like a poor man giving lectures on how to be a millionaire.

7. When exactly did you start giving satsangs for RSSB? When did you stop and why?


Osho,

In continuation of my last post:

" ......I realized sant mat was just another belief system .....

I would like to rephrase one of the questions that I asked above.

Did you finally stop believing in Sant Mat -that, according to you, was "just another belief system" - in 2000 before meeting the "real master"? or Did you just stop believing in "Sant Mat 1.0" as you define it?


cc,
"There is nothing to achieve" is not my statement - I was quoting but not agreeing with Sukhbir.

The conclusions you've made from that are incorrect because your premise is incorrect (nothing to achieve).

Obviously if there is nothing to achieve - then there could not be a spiritual journey at all, in any form.

I am not saying there is nothing to achieve - that would be nonsense.

I am saying - enlightenment is not an achievement. You cannot claim you DID it (achieved it) through some method, technique or meditation. Why? because YOU cannot do it - despite your efforts. All you can do through effort is to stand in the way and stop it from happening.

Contrast this with SANT MAT teachings. The teachings say - meditate - 2.5 hours a day (that's a lot of effort). focus; concentrate; it's hard work; hence the disciples say to the master - give us grace.
why? because it's hard work and no results are forthcoming. They are trying to get the soul to leave the body and 'go inside' where it will see light, hear shabd and meet the radiant form of the master.

In sant mat - there is something to achieve - to get to sach khand. great effort is required. And once you 'get there' you will say - "Look - I've done it. It wasn't easy - but I persisted and I made it." Who is the 'I' that achieved it? that is the ego. That is what scriptures say is the barrier between you and God.

In Sar Bachan the soul is saying to sat purush - "what if I get there with great effort - how do I know that you are not going to separate me out and send me back to the world?"
Sat purush assures the soul that the 'mauj' happened just the once and will not happen again. "just come back. please. I miss you. etc."

These teachings are a metaphor which have been taken litertally. Sach Khand is a metaphor which has been taken literally.

The granth sahib states: the only barrier between you and God is ego. Ego is the sense of 'I' - it's the YOU. eliminate the ego and you are one with God.
So the poor disciple is trying to eliminate the ego through effort. effort can only strengthen it.

enlightenment does not require effort, because it is already the case - you don't have to strive to get anywhere.

just as isaac newton did not go bring gravity into being. He simply discovered what was already there. It is not that there was nothing to discover.
Isaac newton did not CREATE gravity - just uncovered what was already there.

The enlightened person has not CREATED enlightenement (like it is a THING). He has uncovered (removed the layers) to reveal what was already there.

In zen they say - the grass grows by itself - not by pulling at it.

The mother gives birth to a child - she does not create it. It comes through her. she facilitates it. I will not say no effort is required because I am sure many mothers will disgree! However, the child is already there - the mother simply brings it into the world.

Enlightenment is the same - you don't create it - you simply facilitate it; create the environment for it to happen. That is the real meaning of 'darshan' or the company of the enlightened master.
He helps you facilitate - he is a catalyst. The process is effortless - it cannot be forced. You simply allow it to happen - it is your natural state.

It is like opening your eyes. No effort is required. When the eyes are open - you can see. What you see and the ability to see was already there.
The world was there when your eyes were closed. You could not see. Open your eyes and the unseen is seen. It's almost like the world just appeared as if by magic.

The world was already there - for you to see - but closed eyes cannot see it. Something has to happen - the eyes have to open in order to see.
The spiritual master simply facilitates the opening of the eyes.

It's like relaxation - it doesn't happen through effort. It happens when you stop trying. The very act of trying to relax stops you relaxing and gets in the way. Stop trying and relaxation is your natural state.

It's not that relaxation does not exist or that it's impossible. It's just not possible through effort. The harder you try to relax the more impossible it seems because the effort creates tension.

Someone asked the centipede how he knows which leg to move forward next when he walks. Trying to figure it out the
centipede collapsed to the ground and was unable to walk.

Why? walking was effortless - did not require thinking. Bring in effort and the simple becomes impossible.

Roger wrote:
"---Yes, one can create a teaching around a non-duality, and call it Non-duality. One can go to zen and sufi master and get all the information. One can join a grouping and look the look, talk the eloquent talk, and write the special write. These are all nice dualistic activities."

yes, those who have just collected information have missed the point. In the 70's there was a training called 'est' which was a profound two weekend intense programme that pushed you beyond your normal limits. They said it was about "Getting IT" without defining that "IT" is because it cannot be defined. And if you define it - you will become intellectual. So they said "understanding is the booby prize."
One of the biggest things to understand was that it cannot be understood. So stop trying to intellectualize. Just go through the process.
They said throughout the weekend: "Go through the process and take what you're given." Essentially the training created a paradigm shift. You don't get a paradigm shift through intellectualizing, discussing or talking. You go through the fire.

One person says "there is no such thing as fire" whereas the second person says "I have been through it." The first is a philospher and intellectual gymnast. The second has done the experiment.

Duality contains the GOOD and the BAD (both of which are perceptions). Non-Duality cannot be good or bad. It cannot be anything you can conceptualize or think about.

So all teachers who 'give a talk' on non-duality are only talking ABOUT it. The thing itself requires the disciple to go through the fire - not just talk.

VVIP,
The answers to many of those questions are irrelevant. This was just part of my journey - and I was blind.
I followed Thakar because I thought he was far more accessible than Charan Singh who had a huge following. I wanted results. I wanted a personal master - not a correspondence course. It really did not matter that my parents followed RSSB.

What I witnessed in delhi was to do with how Thakar singh was conducting his satsangs. For instance someone said "I hear the violin or 'bina' sound in meditation" and Thakar said "It means you are going to Sach Khand."
I thought "What a load of nonsense" and said so. They didn't like me challenging Thakar Singh. Lots of other things like this too numerous to mention.

I was impressed with Gurinder at the time when he first become the new master - I thought his style was great. I did not get initiated by him - I was already initiated by Charan Singh, before I went to Thakar Singh.

When I got initiated by Thakar Singh - I was impressed because I saw light immediately on initiation which I thought was amazing at the time.

How did I decide who was fake? It was just my opinion. How could I know? I was a seeker - on my journey.

The words/mantras used by them all are the same.

Yes - I left sant mat in about 1998 - when I had some profound realizations that changed my whole life. This was before I met the 'master'

Yes - I consider the 'real master' to be enlightened / realized. He didn't give a shit what anyone thought of him. He was 'alive' and controversial. He shouted at people just for the fun of it. He was walking talking contradiction and okay with it.

q6 The 4 day intensive was just the final phase. It was the final 'push'. I had gone through a lot of 'paradigm shifts' in the prior years. Questioning everything I previously 'believed'.

q7 - I was authorized as a national speaker in 1996 by Mrs Wood. I just never gave many talks until after the 'real' master episode. Until then it was like the blind leading the blind and pointless. Then I discovered in a meeting with RSSB officials that they want blind people. In their words - "we want parrots." I refused to be a parrot just giving out the 'party line' information.

This is what all religions become in the end. Just all about dogmatic teachings and blind following. No awakening. No results.

There is nothing to achieve or teach.
From Osho's comments, Nov. 22

I am not saying there is nothing to achieve - that would be nonsense.
From Osho's comments, Nov. 23

One person says "there is no such thing as fire" whereas the second person says "I have been through it." The first is a philospher and intellectual gymnast. The second has done the experiment.

To say there is no such thing as fire is insane, but to say there is no such thing as God or enlightenment (since there is no evidence of God and enlightenment), is rational, not philosophical or intellectual.

Anyone who thinks he's experimented with what he can provide no evidence of (other than incoherent, contradictory testimony), is profoundly confused and grandiosely deluded.

Message from great suffi or zen or whatever you mightcall him!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqakPlTdc7s

Thanks Moongoes for your message from the greatest of the great gurus: :-D hang loose

Osho,

Yes - I left sant mat in about 1998 - when I had some profound realizations that changed my whole life. This was before I met the 'master'

On your video it says you were a RSSB speaker from 1998-2003, that satsang you gave was from 2002.

cc, your two quotes of me:

There is nothing to achieve or teach.
From Osho's comments, Nov. 22

I am not saying there is nothing to achieve - that would be nonsense.
From Osho's comments, Nov. 23

The first quote is taken out of context. here is what I actually wrote:


"what teaching are you questioning - you already said it is not a teaching. There is nothing to achieve or teach."

That was all referring to Sukhbir - regarding what he had written - not what I was saying. The entire paragraph was about what Sukhbir was saying - not my statement.

Hence there is no contradiction.


Here is what you wrote, Osho, when you addressed Sukhbir:

sukhbir,
(1) it is actually not a teaching
(2) the part which really makes me question this teaching...

what teaching are you questioning - you already said it is not a teaching. There is nothing to achieve or teach.

Here is what you wrote about what you wrote:

That was all referring to Sukhbir - regarding what he had written - not what I was saying. The entire paragraph was about what Sukhbir was saying - not my statement.

From what you wrote, the reader can only assume it was your statement, seeing as how there's nothing to indicate otherwise. If you can't make it clear when you're quoting someone, you should stick to youtube.

to say there is no such thing as God or enlightenment (since there is no evidence of God and enlightenment), is rational, not philosophical or intellectual.

The methodology of the scientific method only works on the 'objective'. It does not apply to the subjective. God and Enlightenment are subjective. Love is also subjective.

science cannot be used to prove or disprove anything subjective - like Love, God, Enlightenment.

It is a limitation of the scientific method. Anything subjective is OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE of science.

The tool of science does not work on anything objective. It can neither prove nor disprove. Science is silent on the subject because it only works on objects.

Otherwise - you would have to say there is no such thing as Love - just because science cannot prove it.

It is one thing to say that Love cannot be known by the scientific method. Quite another to say that it does not exist because science cannot prove it.

It is the same with God, Enlightenment.


It is one thing to say that Love cannot be known by the scientific method. Quite another to say that it does not exist because science cannot prove it. It is the same with God, Enlightenment.

Anyone can claim the existence of God or enlightenment, but no one can prove their existence. They exist only as notions in the mind of the believer, and nowhere else.

Love, however, is a feeling that manifests in so many ways as to be indefinable and meaningless to speak of...unless you're a guru or spiritual con-man, in which case you love to talk about love.

I find it sort of odd, funny, sad, even strange when people express doubt in the existence of God.

It depends though what your concept of God is. The God of religions or mythology, the judgemental, holy, personal, idealized God is naïve, silly, superstitious, to me. So, I am with non-believers in that sort of God.

But as Absolute, Source, Life, Energy, Eternity I feel It is difficult to miss. But that's just me. I mean, we're totally immersed in It as It. There's nothing else.

The exhistance of G~D can not be proved. It can only be experienced. It is an overwhelming encounter with something that is totally outside of ones self. The rest is just mental speculation. Paths, gurus, enlightenment are just means to explain that phenonena.

I agree with Tucson and June. GOD as an OBJECT - a personal god - an entity - a thing - that is indeed nonsense. This is the type of God which islam has and christianity has. He gives commandments - he gets jealous if you worship another god besides him. If he did exist - then obviously he would need some serious therapy to get over his possessiveness issues.

However, an impersonal God - what could be called 'godliness', the experience - which is a subjective thing - that is beyind the scope of science. It is naive to try to disprove that using science. As naive as trying to measure the ocean with a teaspoon. The measuring tool in inadequate and inappropriate for the purpose.

Vivekananda met Ramakrishna and ashed: What are the proof that there is a God? He expected a logical argument - what he got was a simple "I am" - meaning "I am the proof - look into me - and you will not ask such silly questions anymore."

To deny the existence of enlightenment is as dogmatic as 'believing' in it. Just as the as the person who says "There is no God" is as dogmatic as the one who says "There IS a God."

Firstly the question is stupid unless you first explain what 'God' means to you.

Secondly - because 'enlightenment' is subjective - only a fool will expect objective proof. How can you give objective proof of Love? It is a subjective experience. There is nothing to prove or dis-prove in the objective world, with respect to love, enlightenment, God (as in the experience of God - not a person).

It can only be experienced. It is an overwhelming encounter with something that is totally outside of ones self.

Anything "totally out of ones self" cannot "be experienced". You can only experience what you can sense and perceive. If you think you can experience anything outside of that, you don't just believe in God, you believe you're superhuman.

There is nothing to prove or dis-prove in the objective world, with respect to love, enlightenment, God (as in the experience of God - not a person)

When what seems to you to be true is admittedly impossible to prove, explain, or quantify, why speak of it unless you need others to join with you in your delusion? If you were content to live tacitly with your imagined God and enlightenment, your delusion would be a benign condition. But because you can't stop talking about it, it is a psychiatric condition with pernicious social effects.

"It can only be experienced. It is an overwhelming encounter with something that is totally outside of ones self."

--For me this is not the case. It is something that is experienced as Self. It is a formless "intrinsicness" nearer than the nose on one's face both within you and without you, but ultimately neither. Where is within? Where is without? Is the bag turned outside in or inside out?

"When what seems to you to be true is admittedly impossible to prove, explain, or quantify, why speak of it unless you need others to join with you in your delusion?"

--Why assume it is a delusion?

and: "why speak of it"?

Because it is the topic of the discussion, maybe?

Also, by speaking of the non-direction by which it may be re-discovered someone may benefit.

I most certainly don't feel superhuman. By outside myself I mean more than me.A Presence that is worthy of my praise and adoration. I know when I have that encounter and when it is not there, if you don't have that experience you wont understand what I mean.

...if you don't have that experience you wont understand what I mean.

What I don't understand is why you and other believers come to Church of the Churchless to testify and defend your faith. It makes me wonder whether anyone who is reasonably skeptical follows this blog at all, seeing as how most of the comments are from religious nuts, would-be gurus, and spiritually delirious disciples. Is it that birds of your feather would rather fly in the face of reason than flock together, or that you're drawn to places insufficiently polluted with religious crap?

well why do you come to this sight cc

Although I agree with cc (save that I wouldn’t express it in such a sharp-tongued manner), I have to admit, well - to be honest – for me the whole thing here would only be half as interesting.... if there wasn’t always the discussion between the church believers and the churchless believers (I call them so for lack of better expressions). Just imagine that the church-believers don’t come here any more... this blog wouldn’t be as lively as it is.

Just imagine that the church-believers don’t come here any more... this blog wouldn’t be as lively as it is.

True, but I don't come here for "lively" discourse. My interest is in the mental vulnerability that enables gurus and their spiritual teachings to gain the zombie-like allegiance and devotion of followers who, in most cases, never come to their senses (as Brian did), and die in a state of blissful ignorance, many of them leaving their money and property to creepy foundations and grandiosely deluded leaders.

I feel it's necessary to understand why we are more inclined to believe feel-good, self-serving falsehoods than to subject them to scrutiny, and to be mindful of that tendency so as to avoid being seduced and stupified by such falsehoods for thirty years or more, as has been Brian's experience.

cc ponders,

"why [are we] more inclined to believe feel-good, self-serving falsehoods than to subject them to scrutiny"?

--Because people are scared to death of death, not the process of dying so much as eternal non-existence afterwards. That is why they are suckers for religions and phoney gurus, cults and the like. It's that simple...fear of infinity in oblivion. A billion trillion quadrillion eons of non-existence is barely even the beginning of forever.

Perhaps they are fortunate to die in a state of blissful ignorance.

cc,
You have taken one case and generalized it to include all 'spiritual' organizations. This is clearly not the case. And - if someone chooses to follow any organisation, including RSSB, even if they are deluded - so what? What makes you the authority on how people should spend their life? It is their choice and freedom. I don't condemn RSSB in the way you do. I don't consider it 'evil' or 'bad' or feel the need to save people from it.

Anyone who chooses to follow it - it may be right for them - at this point in their life. Who the heck are you to make those type of judgments?

Live and let live. Let people make their own choices in life. On this forum we have open discussions - and anyone can take what they feel is useful from the discussions.

You seem to have an attitude that you are 'right' and you are on a mission to stop people following 'spiritual' teachings. Get off your high horse and let people express their opinions, without offensive language from you.
it is one thing to express your opinions, quite another to insult anyone who does not agree with you.

You are as dogmatic about the belief that 'all spiritual paths are lies and deceit' as some believers are about their path.

cc: What I don't understand is why you and other believers come to Church of the Churchless to testify and defend your faith.
The answer: Nobody comes to defend or testify – except for you! You come to testify and defend that you are RIGHT and all others are WRONG. Just because you say so!
Wake up cc. Perhaps, just maybe, it’s you who is deluded because you believe so strongly that you KNOW that all ‘spiritual paths’ are bullshit. In fact you don’t know anything!
Have you tried them all? Do you have any evidence to prove your standpoint? None whatsoever, yet you write as if you KNOW. This is delusion. If you simply said “I don’t know” that would be accurate. But you are claiming something that you cannot prove. The very thing you accuse others of.

cc (24 Nov):
Anyone can claim the existence of God or enlightenment, but no one can prove their existence. They exist only as notions in the mind of the believer, and nowhere else.

Can you prove the non-existence of God and Enlightenment? If not, then if you are honest, you have to admit that you don't KNOW - and you just have opinions which are not base don truth - just your own personal prejudices.

If you cannot prove a premise - it does not mean it is not true. It may be, or it may not be.

If you are unable to prove that 2+2=4
it does not mean that 2+2 is not 4.
It just means you have been unable to prove it - hence you don't know.

Why half of humankind (or more? – I have no idea how many) or better said: WE (as cc did) are so much inclined to believe feeling-good-falsehoods?
I agree with tucson, the main reason surely is our fear of death. We aren’t able to become reconciled to the notion that we only have this little timeframe of life. Some of us have only a few years, some have more, some have no chance for living at all. And so we are searching for equity, for fairness. We can’t accept that this could be all that is. It is bad luck of us humans that we have a developed brain that enables us to ponder over all these possibilities and varieties. It impedes us to take life as it is.

On the other hand there is - unfortunately - an obvious tendency not to use the own brain for thinking but to let others think in order to adopt prefabricated concepts. And so, the leaders (regardless of whether political or spiritual) have open doors.

For me it is even more interesting to figure out if these leaders, gurus, priests themselves believe in all the teachings they stuff into the brains of their followers, or at least, which percentage of them is truly believing and how many of them are mere tricksters?

Osho,

Good job of trying to battle it out with cc.

Please also respond to the comment posted by G above on November 24, 2013 at 01:14 AM.

Is this your website?
http://www.oshorobbins.com/index.html

You seem to have an attitude that you are 'right' and you are on a mission to stop people following 'spiritual' teachings.

If I have a mission, it's to put missionaries like you out of business.


Get off your high horse and let people express their opinions, without offensive language from you.

Better to ride a high horse than be another horse's ass claiming enlightenment.

As for offensive language, everything you say offends me. To say it doesn't "agree with" me is putting it mildly.


Can you prove the non-existence of God and Enlightenment?

No one can prove the non-existence of anything, you idiot. All anyone can do is acknowledge what evidence there is or is not for its alleged exists.

Yes, tucson and Sandra, we know the reason, but knowing we know the reason doesn't change anything or make any difference until you see how believing wishful nonsense arrests mental development.

cc wrote:
If I have a mission, it's to put missionaries like you out of business.

I am not a missionary - you are. And your mission is idiotic - because you're trying to do the impossible. I am not in business - so how can you put me out of business. You clearly have no life of your own that you have to create a mission to put others 'out of business'.

To my three messages above - you have no intelligent response at all, because you have not addressed any of the points, except to make a few pointless and stupid remarks.

Your one attempt at an intelligent response is this:

me: Can you prove the non-existence of God and Enlightenment?

cc's response: No one can prove the non-existence of anything, you idiot. All anyone can do is acknowledge what evidence there is or is not for its alleged existence.

Good answer. Non-existence cannot be proven.
Yet you, cc, in your deluded 'logic', state that it is RATIONAL to say "There is NO SUCH THING as Enlightenment or God"

So, in your mind, it's rational to make statements that cannot be proven to be true, and to make them as a statement of fact! That is what deluded people do!

If you had said it would be rational to say "we don't know if there is God or Enlightenment because we have no proof" - that would be accurate and rational.

cc: (23rd Nov 8:45am)
To say there is no such thing as fire is insane, but to say there is no such thing as God or enlightenment (since there is no evidence of God and enlightenment), is rational, not philosophical or intellectual.

A person who claims to have to have his own personal evidence of (god, enlightenment, love etc) could be correct - because it may be true. How would you prove the opposite?

However, a person (like you, cc) who claims that (love, god, enlightenment) does NOT EXIST cannot be correct under any circumstances - because you cannot even have personal evidence because you cannot prove a negative. At best you can say "I have never experienced..." which is not the same as saying it does not exist.

So now, who is the idiot? Who is deluded?
Who is irrational? Don't bother answering because you will only come out with another irrational answer.

cc wrote: As for offensive language, everything you say offends me. To say it doesn't "agree with" me is putting it mildly.

Of course it offends you! And I have not even used any really offensive language yet. You are offended by anyone who does not agree with your 'skeptical' viewpoint. You offensively attack anyone who does not bow to your 'superior skeptical truth'. You claim to have a monopoly on the truth, and all others are deluded (see below), according to you.

cc: (25th Nov 4:22pm)
It makes me wonder whether anyone who is reasonably skeptical follows this blog at all, seeing as how most of the comments are from religious nuts, would-be gurus, and spiritually delirious disciples.

You think you are 'reasonably skeptical' when in fact you are irrationally skeptical, as shown above, and you think it is the 'correct' way to be as you question why others are not like you.

According to the ever-wise cc, most others on this blog are either
(1) 'religious nuts'
(2) would-be Gurus or
(3) spiritually delirious disciples

would you care to name the people who fit into these categories, considering you said 'most' and not 'some' or a 'few'? Of course you cannot, because once again, cc, you are talking nonsense, and cannot backup your statements with any evidence.

Does it not strike you that you are doing the exact same as a fanatic 'religious nut'?

You are a fanatic skeptic. You firmly believe it is the truth and you are dogmatic and 'right' in your view that the correct way to live is to be a skeptic. You impose this onto others and get offensive if they don't agree. You are an 'irreligious nut'.

You think your opinions are 'The Truth' when in fact they are just 'your opinions'.

I wouldn’t express it in such a sharp-tongued manner

Oh, take a stab at it...a dull-tongued manner is the worst.

I respect Osho Robbins for taking the time to bring some rationality and clarity into the discussion without being mean-spirited. A sharp tongue that doesn't cut may be the best tongue of all.

Hi C.C you seem to be getting a lot of disagreement from , dare I say it. Our other brothers and sisters. Sorry. Im reminded of one of my favourite songs by The Waterboys, came out in 1985, called "I saw the cresent You saw the whole of the moon" It goes on... I wandered around in the world. You just knew. I sighed I cry. I saw the rain dirty valley You saw Brigadoon. It goes on, if you are interested listen to it.The point Im trying to make is this. We only know in part one day we will know in full, I trust there are many parts out there Im trying to connect with them to make myself more whole. Peace and Blessings to you.

"I wouldn’t express it in such a sharp-tongued manner

Oh, take a stab at it...a dull-tongued manner is the worst."

I don't agree, cc, I don't like violence. A tongue can harm more than a punch, since language hits more deeply, IMO.

I don't like violence. A tongue can harm more than a punch, since language hits more deeply

If you're hurt by words, you take yourself too seriously. When I said to "take a stab at it", it was a joke, a play on words, a...oh, never mind.

According to the ever-wise cc, most others on this blog are either
(1) 'religious nuts'
(2) would-be Gurus or
(3) spiritually delirious disciples


---cc, prepare for me a list of Churchless bloggers that fall into each category. I will collect those persons, place them into specific trains, bound for the proper concentration camp. There they will receive their just do. Mark my words!!!

Mark my words!!!

Your over-punctuation is more remarkable than your words.

Good suggestion from Roger. Id love to know more about all the others bloggers/ how they arrived at their conclusions/ where they come from/ I found all of them most interesting. Who are "The churchless" and the church goers and all the others. Or is this to personal. Iv been going thro most of the previous years and see a lot of regulars. Some of them though Iv not been able to quite understand.

"More about others" - perhaps a good idea.

Here's my credentials for a starter. Am a naturalist in the sense of being interested in life and nature and enjoy researching all related subjects. Have never been afraid of investigating the claims of religion, philosophy, spiritual topics and many branches of science. And topics as blogged here interest me.

I favour the scientific approach and am interested to see that lately in the brain sciences, meditation and mindfulness are being investigated with positive results.

At the moment, I 'believe' that my brain is responsible for everything I experience; I have not found a need for an outside agency.

In spite of the the many subjects I have studied I have not found the need to belong to any of them - so am not a recovering believer.

And lastly, perhaps through being a naturalist and observing the cycles of life, and also understanding a little about the process that constructs my sense of self, I don't see death as a big deal.

Thanks Turan for your response. Now I can understand your comments with more clarity. Have you come across Dr Rick Strassman he has done some very interesting experiements with the DMT molecule and its effect on the penial gland. I to have no fear of death. Its after all The great adventure.

I to have no fear of death. Its after all The great adventure.

If you think death is "The great adventure", you need to spend some time in a morgue.

Dear C.C you remind me of my daughter. I once disaplend her and she cried.... :I once was a princess Now I'm a frog:... Yes I have visited a morgue. My husband pasted away recently and I looked at his beaufiful still athletic body with deep sadness and realized..... Don't morne the cacoon. The butterfly has flown, But then that's only my experience. To me transmutation is lodgical.

you remind me of my daughter. I once disaplend her and she cried.

Will you feel disaplend if I say your spelling is funny?

I will take your advice and be lodgical and not morne any cacoons or beaufiful bodies that have pasted away.

cc sorry about my bad spelling and gramatic errorsEnglish is my second language and Im not as clever as you.

cc, this is just spiteful and spineless trollish behaviour.

Do exercise some self-restraint man - or better still, do us all a favour and start your own blog.

cc,

A space in one of the trains is waiting for you.

A group of specialists, at the concentration camp with their horrid methods will be waiting for you.

cc, this is just spiteful and spineless trollish behaviour. Do exercise some self-restraint man - or better still, do us all a favour and start your own blog.

If Brian shares your opprobrium, I'll consider your advice.

A space in one of the trains is waiting for you. A group of specialists, at the concentration camp with their horrid methods will be waiting for you.

Good impersonation of a Nazi, Roger. Jon probably approves.

Osho,

Just to repeat, you have really done a good job of trying to battle it out with cc. In fact, you also managed to garner some support from other bloggers. Congrats!

I also liked some of your recent comments on related posts, like the one you wrote in support of Avi in questioning Juan and just me.

Please don't run away from some uncomfortable questions yourself.

1. Please respond to the comment posted by G above on November 24, 2013 at 01:14 AM.

2. Is this your website?
http://www.oshorobbins.com/index.html

Question or observation from G:
"Osho,
Yes - I left sant mat in about 1998 - when I had some profound realizations that changed my whole life. This was before I met the 'master'
On your video it says you were a RSSB speaker from 1998-2003, that satsang you gave was from 2002. "

yes - so what's the issue here?
"I left" means I no longer believed in the teachings. However, I was already an appointed national speaker and now it made more sense to speak - I was no longer a blind follower. So, if you notice, I didn't speak about doing meditation etc in my satsangs. Instead I spoke of realization. The people who heard my satsangs loved them because it was a refreshing change from the normal party-line boring talks.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.

Posts compendium

Teeny-tiny Collection Plate

  • Brian Hines: Return to the One

    Brian Hines: Return to the One
    If you'd like to support the Church's efforts in a small way, and also learn about a great Greek mystic philosopher (Plotinus) who wonderfully embodies our creedless creed, consider buying our unpastor's book, "Return to the One: Plotinus's Guide to God-Realization."

Blog powered by Typepad

Become a Fan

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...