« Experience of conscious will is an illusion | Main | The spiritual implications of drink when thirsty, eat when hungry »

May 13, 2017

Comments


    To : OSHO ROBBINS


Dear Osho Robbins,

Thanks so much for these last few posts. Especially the shorter one, posted June 15 at 12:30 AM, where you actually describe your post-Realization “experiences” (for want of a better word ; I mean what it actually feels like post-Realization). As you may be aware, with your extensive reading, what you say seems to correspond very closely with Theravadin accounts of the Buddha’s post-Nirvana condition, the interval in between the point when he had his Realization and the point when, a few days later, he finally got up to seek out his first five disciples (or was it four? I forget the details, but you know what I mean).

Except those ancient accounts are so overlaid with myth and so embroidered with poetry that it becomes difficult to sift fact from fancy (always assuming there is a core of fact there, which again is by no means certain).

Sorry, I digress. There is enough meat in your comments to keep us both fully occupied, without me wandering off into by-lanes of incidental thoughts. Let me try to focus, focus, focus.


FIRST, LOOKING AT THIS PURELY IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING YOUR PERCEPTION


Like I said, the first “level” of my discussion with you I see purely in terms of my simply understanding what you have to say about your perception of Oneness. That is, for me, by far the more important of the two aspects of this discussion. (The other “level”, the other aspect, is to explore your subsequent worldview, consequent to that perception. That is where our debate on subjectivity comes in. But we’ll get to that later. That is important too, but less important -- to me -- than simply understanding your basic perception of Oneness.)

I enjoyed going through the second installment of your ONE-NEXT dialog as well. I see what you’re doing here. Both my direct association with you these last few days (association online, I mean) as well as Manjit’s direct hint in his comment to me, indicate that what you’re trying to do is to give me an indirect idea of something that cannot be directly described. I get that. You’re also giving me an idea of what the actual process of triggering Oneness might be like, in fact you say as much clearly in that last ONE-NEXT dialog of yours. Thank you for that perspective, Osho Robbins, I appreciate it.

Actually what I am myself trying to do here is to get an overall idea, as detailed as feasible within this forum, of your particular perception. Towards that end, may I take our conversation on to a somewhat more focused channel? I’ve learn a good bit from you, and there were a few other specific things I wanted to ask you, if I may.

The first of these things I wanted to ask you is this :

On mulling over all of what you’ve described and said here, and Manjit did as well, one thing that occurs to me is this : that although we seem to be using the two terms as near-synonyms in our discussion here, we’re talking, basically, of not one but TWO perceptions : first, the perception of nothingness, and second, the perception of oneness. I’d like to explore that particular nuance a bit further with you, please.

Let me highlight that for your easy reference :


Follow-on Query 1 : It seems to me that there are two separate aspects to your realization. The first is the realization of NOTHINGness. And the second is the realization of ONEness. Talk more to me about that, would you?


The first of these (nothingness) is fairly easy for me to understand, in principle that is. The current scientific paradigm seems to be pointing out that our “self” is basically a fiction, it has no real existence per se. It is simply an interesting by-product of the model-building “software” that our brain comes equipped with, and which can be explained satisfactorily by evolutionary processes. It is fairly easy to conceive (although no doubt far from easy to actually realize) that such “absence of self” may be intuited first-hand as well (as well, that is, as intellectually understood). Should that happen, then there we have it : your realization of NOTHINGness.

But it doesn’t stop there, does it? We seem to have another, bigger realization that comes up next : that of ONEness!

So how does that work? Is it that one first realizes Anatta, no-self, and subsequently Tat-tvam-asi/Tathata, Oneness? Or is it that both realizations are simultaneous, perhaps different aspects of the very same thing? Can you have one without the other, Anatta without Tat-tvam-asi, or the latter without the former? Your considered views on all of this, please. And drawing on your personal perceptions and personal thoughts, please, not scripture or long-dead seers. No offense meant, and I hope we have fully put our initial misunderstandings behind us by now! It is just that I don’t much care for scriptural quotes or third-person perspectives of seers, at least not when I have the rare chance of engaging with first-hand flesh-and-blood perception.


Follow-on Query 2 : Why “guide others to this nothingness”? What for? Of what use is this after all?


You talk of putting on the battered remains of your ego, and setting off to guide others towards this nothingness/oneness that you have yourself discovered.

(And I understand what you say, that this is not the only option, but just one of three options. The Buddha was faced with a similar cross-roads, per Theravadin lore. You may choose to simply give up your body and life, just sit there under your Bo-tree and let it all dissolve away ; or you may “bring the Buddha back to the earth”, as you say, and “draw water, cut wood” again ; or you may guide others towards nothingness. I’m trying to understand the purpose and the implications of this last option now.)

And, as you can see, that takes us back to the question I’d asked earlier : What is the whole purpose of all this? What use? Because if there’s no use to this, then there’s no reason to ask anyone to do this either, is there, or even to indicate to them that such a thing might be?

Now wait, I can understand what use someone like Manjit may have for this. His unsought-for “spiritual” experiences were driving him out of his mind, and he was trying to somehow find some kind of structure to understand what was happening to him, to make some sense of it all. To someone as desperate as he, sure, I can see what kind of use this “nothingness / oneness” might be.

But surely that’s very rare, extremely rare? Vanishingly rare, even? For most other people, ordinary people, for our friend Joe Everyman whom I’d introduced in this discussion earlier, for instance … someone who is more or less materialistic, more or less apatheistic, not overly concerned with religion ; someone who is fairly successful and fairly happy (although that also means, naturally, fairly unsuccessful at times and fairly unhappy at times) ; in short, your regular ordinary Joe kind of people : why introduce this nothingness/oneness business to people at all?

Why should Joe Everyman want to aspire for, or try for, this realization of oneness/nothingness? And why would you want to spend time and effort guiding him towards that end? What for? Why not just let him be? (And obviously, no one is trying to *force* Joe to meditate or realize nothingness, that isn’t what I’m saying, at all. In fact Joe may even actually walk up to you ; because he is curious, as all/most humans are, and he is mildly and casually interested in very many things : in cosmology, for instance, and in quantum physics, in neuro-science, in cutting-edge medical research, and also in spirituality and religion and “all that”. But even then : even if he should himself come up to you asking, not desperately like the one or two Manjits you may encounter in your entire life, but kind of half-seriously-and-half-casually, even then why would you even *want* to “guide” Joe towards your nothingness, if the poor chap stands to gain nothing from it? Not the vanishingly rare Manjits -- who will number in the ones and twos in all of your life probably, low single digits, if that -- but our ubiquitous Joe?)


Follow-on Query 3 : After we die (that is, after our heart stops and brain stops, and our body is consigned to earth or flame), then will there be any difference at all in what happens to the Realized person and the ordinary non-Realized person?


This is just a variation of my follow-on query # 2, but after you’ve tackled that, I’d like you to explain this to me separately, please, to cover this specific aspect of this issue.

Like I remember asking you earlier, will ordinary Joe and ordinary Me be any more alive or any less alive after we die than will realized You? (Or, if you insist on calling yourself ordinary, then between ordinary Joe and ordinary Me on the one hand, and ordinary-but-Realized you on the other?) And will our post-death condition be any different? (If our post-death condition is nothingness, non-existence, then we’re all of us equally nothing. But if our post-death condition is Oneness, then very many options and possibilities present themselves. I’d like you talk about what you think happens. Again, using your own thoughts and words and perceptions, and as far as possible avoiding scripture and dead-seer quotes.)


Osho Robbins, I’ll stop here for now. I’ve still not gone into the second part of what I want to discuss, which is full implication of the subjective nature of your worldview (despite your direct perception of Oneness). I’ll leave that for later on. That second part is important too, certainly, very important, but to me the first part, understanding your direct perception, that is by far the more important aspect of our discussion. And I’d rather not divert our attention from this first part yet. (And your very last comment here, about the nature of reality, falls under that category, so I am not touching on that just yet.)

After I’ve understood a bit more about your Realization perception, we can then move on to the next part, which is your worldview consequent to your perception and the implications of the essentially subjective nature of such worldview. (That sounds ominous, I know, in terms of setting the stage for a long-drawn-out discussion --- but no, it need not take all that long : just one considered and detailed response from you now to this particular post of mine, and one more focused exchange about the subjectivity issue afterwards, that should just about nail it.)


Perhaps you could take each of my four follow-on queries, one by one, quote them in full, and then put in your considered response to each? No offense meant when I say that, Osho Robbins ! Like I said, I do hope we’re past our initial misunderstanding now, and hopefully won’t need to refer back every time to that unfortunate unpleasantness! I’m NOT trying to unnecessarily dictate the mode of this discussion, or to demand from you, on whim, some particular kind or mode of answer, or anything like that! It’s just that doing what I suggest can help keep this conversation focused, and stop it from unraveling off into an endless loop. That is why I have, in schoolboy fashion (or, alternatively, in legalistic fashion), actually gone and called my questions “follow-on query #1”, “follow-on query #2”, etc, and highlighted them clearly in bold letters and set them apart, so that there is no way you will miss them or get confused. Just copy each, in full, and (after reading all of what I have to say about it) put in your full response underneath. Each of them, one by one by one. Just one single focused and detailed comment from you, addressing all of that, would, I should think, then be ample, for you to fully convey to me the broad gist of your perception proper.


P.S. I’m loving this discussion, and learning from it. You’re the one supplying the knowledge, and I am the one absorbing it (or trying to), but I do hope that you’re enjoying this as well. I’ll look forward to your response. But let me not take your participation for granted ! If for any reason you’re pressed for time, and/or you generally need some time to think through and formulate a detailed and complete response, then just let me know and we’ll take a break for a few days, a week, whatever you are comfortable with -- if at all you want to, I mean. Although like I said, I sense we may be very close now to wrapping this up, already, all of it, with just two or three more focused posts (one comprehensive post regarding your perception, now, basis the follow-on queries I have asked here ; and then after that one more focused exchange about the subjectivity/objectivity aspect).

-

Manjit :

""How come there are so many successors of Kirpal? and they are not friends. ""

Cause K was not a guru

Generally ONLY accept a Guru when You fall deeply in surprising Love
(not a little bit )

777

-

777

Perhaps Kirpal Singh was not a perfect master. Personally I don't rate any of them.

By your logic, Swami Ji was also not a perfect master as he had over six successors.

Jaimal was not even an authorised successor.

Swami Ji did not mention him even once as successor.

When asked directly he mentioned Rai Saligram, Seth Pratap, and others, but not Jaimal. Even Jaimal himself did not claim successorship until 13 years later.

In the meantime he was just initiating for the others - on their behalf.

Charan Singh also was not a real successor because he had no spiritual progress - by his own admission

Appreciative Reader,

here is a link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8MXJmbQjsc&index=4&list=PLg0JenGU8L66HDxbeJH6aS1e_SSOt1oX6

it's a from a training back from the 70's called EST

This guy Werner Erhand - went to Osho and various other people and then condensed what they were saying into a 4 day (60 hours) seminar than was transformational

the results people had were shocking to say the least

he didn't claim anything mystical

instead he said that be the end of the last day you would "GET IT"

everyone wondered what "IT" was and he would not define it

this is from a movie where it shows parts of what it was like to attend

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5XYNQv6F_o


Why am I posting all this for you?

Because there is simply no way that you could ever figure out what it would be like to attend by asking questions to those who have attended.

Some things you just have to go through

then decide

Appreciative Reader,
perhaps you need to become more of an "Appreciative Listener" and listening is more productive than reading.

is you listen to this video at 2h 10min - 2h 15mins

in those 5 minutes what Werner is communcating - would most likely be impossible to communicate through comments on a blog

Also - if it is necessary to convince a person then something of the level of what Werner is talking about becomes impossible to communicate.

He is also very exact in his language and uses words in a specific way so it becomes almost impossible to comprehend him if you don't first accept the basic premises he bases everything on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2kFmjPWm0

for example
"Your life is empty and meaningless
and it's empty and meaningless that it is empty and meaningless"

You are devoid of meaning

Some people want to use that as a justification for doing nothing
If you do that - then you don't "get it"

You can't use it

if you say, therefore... then you don't get it

and remember I didn't say it was true

and I know you think it's an alternative thing to believe (i.e. another belief)

All the above only takes him just 1 minute to say.

and his talk is three hours long.
and his seminar is 60 hours long.

how can you get that by asking and getting answers to some questions.

He makes a big thing about "Your Story" - your version of reality
which is says is fiction - but appears to he truth to you.

Osho Robbins,......if you really are convinced that we are all nothing but dreams that don't exist, because there is no space and time, why do you wear a watch? Do you work? Are you on any time schedules, for events you attend? Just curious. I saw your watch in your you tube videos, and wondered why a Phantom that only exists in a dream of Maya that is timeless, wears a watch. Are you a Time Traveler from the future, or a Spook from the past that missed the Sach Khand Express?

What is you belief on the testimonies of those who have seen Charan hoover over Gurinder Singh in Satsang, very clearly, as Gurinder's image morphs in to Charan Singh, some times as a 100 foot tall image, as 777 has posted here, seeing it happen in Switzerland? I have private testimonies of others, as well, who have seen Charan's very clear Astral Body in various sections of the Dera, even recently, and some one posted a couple of days ago on RSS that even David Lane said he witnessed Gurinder morph in to Charan's image. What is your take on this phenonomon? Do you think it is some kind of fraud, or a trick, dreamed up by Gurinder or his Staff to dupe gullible people attending his Satsangs? Do you think they are Holographic Projections from a 3D Projector used to fool College Professors with Ph.Ds like Lane, and other educated, grounded Westeners like 777 and others I know who have witnessed Charan Singh's image at the Dera and else where? You poo pooed my testimony of Charan's visit to me in Meditation, but these other testimonies by reliable witnessed were seen in broad day light, with open eyes. What's your explanation?



.

Osho Robbins, thanks for your comments and those audio-visual links. Like I’ve said a few times within this thread, I have some issues at my end with accessing AV content, so I’ll have to give those a miss for now. (I understanding what you’re saying, speaking with a person does give you access to so many non-verbal cues that one misses out on when communication is only verbal/textual. That seminar that you mention, the one that apparently “guarantees” that one would “get” it -- presumably in a way different from how one had got it before having gone through the seminar -- that sounds especially interesting. A talk like that is different because it actually promises/guarantees transformation.)

I’m saving all of my conversations within this thread, your AV links included, for reference later on.

Meanwhile, I await your comprehensive response to the follow-on queries I posted in my comment yesterday.

.

Jim wrote:
Osho Robbins,......if you really are convinced that we are all nothing but dreams that don't exist, because there is no space and time, why do you wear a watch?

Osho R
I am not convinced - I know.

It is not some new belief I have acquired.

Time and Space and everything in it - all forms and everything that exists within Time and Space is all ILLUSION.

It all exists in thie moment - but it is not REAL. So of course I can wear a watch and have a job.

Incidentally I don't watch and don't do a job - but that is not because there is no time and space.

Just because there is no time and space ultimately doesn't mean that this body and mind cannot function in the world of maya.

I just play the game the same as you play.

There is just no significance to anything.

I am not trying to be saved ot to attain some great spiritual status, or to get to Sach Khand

Appreciative Reader asks:
And, as you can see, that takes us back to the question I’d asked earlier : What is the whole purpose of all this? What use? Because if there’s no use to this, then there’s no reason to ask anyone to do this either, is there, or even to indicate to them that such a thing might be?
Okay – I will now answer the question you have asked so many times.
Of what use is this thing (Realisation, awakening, enlightenment,.. whatever)
First let’s understand – “Of what USE” – to WHO?
If you are talking about “useful to the EGO” – then I will say it is positively detrimental, rather than useful.
The EGO constantly wants benefits. That is its nature so it is unavoidable.
So the EGO is asking what the benefits are – and the answer is there are NONE.
In fact, quite the opposite – this is suicide for the EGO.
Next understand what the EGO is.
It is not “Out there”. It is not something that belongs to you. It is not “MY EGO”
It is ME – the one I am familiar with. The person I identify as ME is the ego. The one that goes around using my name – that’s the ego.
For all practical purposes it is YOU (or ME)
So – this thing is not of any benefit to the EGO.
But like Manjit aptly pointed out – it is priceless
So when I say it is of no benefit to YOU – I mean your EGO – which effectively means YOU because that is the only YOU that you are aware of.
So then WHO is it beneficial to? And in what way?
Hmmmm…. How the heck do I answer that one?
In ultimate reality - the notion of BENEFIT does not exist.
So the ONENESS does not benefit.
However, there is a huge benefit – I just don’t know who to assign it to.
Maybe you can help me because I am lost in trying to answer
The search for whatever you were looking for it totally over. There is no possibility of seeking again.
A kind of peace or rest comes over you. There is nothing more to do or achieve or seek. The Search is finally over – not because you have found – but because God has died and you were at his funeral and he definitely didn’t rise again.
The Buddha called it NIRVANA because you need a new word to signify total emptiness

Appreciative Reader,
I am aware that I have not taken this point by point - but these questions require a more in depth answer

So I am taking it one at a time.

and I am not really communicating information to you - my answers can be considered nonsensical - I don't claim they are answers

Thanks for your responses, Osho Robbins.

pLEASE use as many posts as you wish, across as much time as you need, in whatever manner and style you feel you can best address the issues, and with as many revisits to each post/answer as you feel necessary.

Just let me know when you're done answering. uNTIL then I won't interrupt you, or disturb your flow, by responding.

Osho, please respond to my last question you didn't answer. I value your opinion, and is why I asked. Skip the Dream response, and give me your " opinion" of these occurrences in the Maya here and now.
From prior post........ What is you belief on the testimonies of those who have seen Charan hoover over Gurinder Singh in Satsang, very clearly, as Gurinder's image morphs in to Charan Singh, some times as a 100 foot tall image, as 777 has posted here, seeing it happen in Switzerland? I have private testimonies of others, as well, who have seen Charan's very clear Astral Body in various sections of the Dera, even recently, and some one posted a couple of days ago on RSS that even David Lane said he witnessed Gurinder morph in to Charan's image. What is your take on this phenonomon? Do you think it is some kind of fraud, or a trick, dreamed up by Gurinder or his Staff to dupe gullible people attending his Satsangs? Do you think they are Holographic Projections from a 3D Projector used to fool College Professors with Ph.Ds like Lane, and other educated, grounded Westeners like 777 and others I know who have witnessed Charan Singh's image at the Dera and else where? You poo pooed my testimony of Charan's visit to me in Meditation, but these other testimonies by reliable witnessed were seen in broad day light, with open eyes. What's your explanation?

Appreciative reader.
I might take all the time in the universe to respond. Or no time at all. Since I am saying there is no time maybe it's doesn't matter how long it takes.

Feel free to comment as I go along too as one way communication is not too productive. Also I like tangents. As in going off on one.

So you might need to bring the topic back on track.

And remember I don't have definitive answers

I will start when I get back home in about an hour

I feel like another chapter of the one-next conversation might be taking birth.

When I used to give talks for Rssb the head guy told me to prepare my talks.

I told him I do, but when I start talking what I have written remains on the paper and I go off where the moment takes me.

I don't think he was too impressed but what did I care.

Ugh I don't enjoy giving the talk why would I bother

It is the end of all strugggle, all searching and all trying to achieve and attain. When there is nothing - what can you attain?

If you discover - that life in empty and meaningless......
and there is nothing - just emptiness......

at first you might get upset - as in "so I did all this for nothing?"

But once you truly realize emptiness - it goes much deeper than you might imagine

because all your life has been concerned with
struggling...

achieving & attaining
acquiring & possessing
collecting and accumulating
more and more and more.....

a worldly person seeks wealth, name, fame, possessions, the perfect relationship. etc

a spiritual person is no different. he seeks all the above - except his greed has gone out of control

Now he has added God to his list. Now he wants not only a big mansion over here - but one in the afterlife too.

He wants the master to come and save his soul at the time of death.

He wants to get to Sach Khand and have tea with Sat Purush and his Brother
Anami Purush.

Or maybe a milkshake in case Sat purush doesn't drink tea.

The spiritual person does not gain any peace - he is constantly in turmoil because anyone who is seeking is hungry.

After enlightenment - you are no longer seeking - you are fulfilled. But it is not the same type of fulfilment as when you reach some goal. That is temporary because there is always a higher goal.

This is different - it is the end of all seeking.

That is why Osho has called it the last nightmare.

It is the answer to your question.

It is a nightmare for the ego.

Why? because the ego is all about achieveing, attaining, gaining.

That is why RSSB cannot work. It increases the greed. And greed is the barrier.

Enlightenment is the end of the ego and the end of greed.

It is the end of all hope - but not hopeless.

it is hopeless only for the ego.

put the ego aside and all dreams and aspirations and goals and seeking and Sach Khands all disappear.

This is what Osho means when he says it is good that God is dead - now there is nothing to seek. No need to waste your life seek Sach khand.

It is totally different from the person who has not even began the spiritual journey.

You have to be thirsty before you appreciate the value of water.

Jim Sutherland:
What is your belief on the testimonies of those who have seen Charan hoover over Gurinder Singh in Satsang, very clearly, as Gurinder's image morphs in to Charan Singh, some times as a 100 foot tall image, as 777 has posted here, seeing it happen in Switzerland? I have private testimonies of others, as well, who have seen Charan's very clear Astral Body in various sections of the Dera, even recently, and some one posted a couple of days ago on RSS that even David Lane said he witnessed Gurinder morph in to Charan's image. What is your take on this phenonomon? Do you think it is some kind of fraud, or a trick, dreamed up by Gurinder or his Staff to dupe gullible people attending his Satsangs? Do you think they are Holographic Projections from a 3D Projector used to fool College Professors with Ph.Ds like Lane, and other educated, grounded Westeners like 777 and others I know who have witnessed Charan Singh's image at the Dera and else where?

Osho R:
My dear friend, No guru needs to have holographic 3D projectors.
And here is why:

The mind of the believer is perfectly capable of doing all this without any external assistance. It is a perfectly normal phenomena when you are in love with your guru and have great love and faith.
I too have seen Darshan Singh Morph into Sawan and Kirpal even though I have seen neither of the latter two in real life. It is a trick of the mind.

Rather than repeat this – read it here
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MZLFBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=The+Unknowing+Sage:+The+Life+and+Work+of+Baba+Faqir+Chand&source=bl&ots=DbRpS2LPGa&sig=CmnAShkQ3zp7Z0D5ZOhHt4npkHI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqm8mYnc3UAhVjCcAKHdLcBRoQ6AEIYzAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20Unknowing%20Sage%3A%20The%20Life%20and%20Work%20of%20Baba%20Faqir%20Chand&f=false

page 14
each person interprets according to their belief. For instance Rebazar Tarzs is seen by many eckankar followers – and he does not even exist – paul made him up!
Sikhs see Guru Nanak;
The majority of inner visions are projections of one’s own mind. The has been called the Chandian Effect. Inner visions are not real even though they appear to be. Certainly the guru is not aware of them happening.

As for the EYES OPEN part

I can guarantee it did not really happen. Just some people saw it - those who created it in their mind.

There are NO ACCOUNTS (ZERO) of Gurinder Morphing into Charan or Sawan or whoever, seen by the entire sangat.

Why not - because it doesn't happen in the outer world - it is created by the believer

Osho, I am quite certain I am as well read, as you are, as far as Sant Mat Books of the various lineages in English. I have read all of RSSB books, currently for sale, including many out of print, and all of Fakir Chand's books, as well as Soamibagh Agra books. After reading all those, including Lane's Forum RSS since inception, and Mike Willam's Secret Radhasoami site, this Churchless Church site, and now, your Neo Advaita writting, I no longer wonder why the insane Institutes are loaded with Scitsophranics!

According to the Bible, The Master Jesus was seen in broad day light by many of his Disciples , all at the same time after his Crucifiction. Of course, that is another debate, of whether he ever existed, and if so, did he die on the cross, or travel to India, marry Mary, and live to old age.

Since none of us can prove any thing, objectively, then any thing we say or share, is shared subjectively, mostly, looking for corraboration to what we already believe.

As for my observation of you, I would never hire you to work for me, in amy capacity, as your Employer, considering time is not of essence, to you! When working for any Employer, do you work by the hour, week, month, or Eternity, or work gor nothing, i.e. Free, considering you, don't exist? 😇


Jim Sutherland:
According to the Bible, The Master Jesus was seen in broad day light by many of his Disciples , all at the same time after his Crucifiction. Of course, that is another debate, of whether he ever existed,

Osho R: The bible is a work of fiction. It is not a reliable proof of anything. According to the bible - jesus raised lazarus from the dead - so can the current masters also do that?

Can you quote an example from Charan Singh, Gurinder SIngh, KIrpal, Sawan, Darshan, Rasila Ram )if you know who he is), Baba Kehar Singh (Tarn Tarn) or any of the Radha Soami offshoots - where the whole sangat saw their master morph into another master?

I don't know of any such case - so clearly any such vision is just the creation of the disciple - Like Faqir chand states

Jim:
Since none of us can prove any thing, objectively, then any thing we say or share, is shared subjectively, mostly, looking for corraboration to what we already believe.

Osho R:
Sant mat is a belief system - it requires you to have belief. They cannot possibly argue that no belief is required.

Enlightenment does not require beliefs - it is about dropping all the beliefs and nonsense you have accumulated. You do not replace it with a new belief in "nothing"

The very statement is ridiculous. "Nothing" is not a "thing" that I need to make it into a religion


Jim:
As for my observation of you, I would never hire you to work for me, in any capacity, as your Employer, considering time is not of essence, to you! When working for any Employer, do you work by the hour, week, month, or Eternity, or work for nothing, i.e. Free, considering you, don't exist?

Osho R:

This is what happens when you focus on only aspect of "no time and space"

If there is no time - there is also no space - so there cannot be a job to do.

I am talking about ultimate reality - it cannot be within time and space. I am making that as an absolute statement - not something to consider believing in.

"nothingness" is not the new religion except to those who are so used to religion and belief - they cannot imagine anything outside of it
😇

Hebrews 11:6 Bible Verse explains Osho's problem:

" And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

Ishwar Puri tells a story about a good friend of his that was initiated by Sawan Singh the same time Ishwar was , and meditated for 40 years, using Sawan's instructions at initiation, and did his 2-1/2 hours per day for the 40 years and kept the Vows, but like most Exers here, got nothing. No Light, no Sound, no Inner experiences, he asked Ishwar who says he is in daily inner contact with Sawan Singh, to ask him why his friend got nothing after 40 years of practice.

Ishwar said he did ask Sawan, and Sawan told him that his friend did not meditate with LOVE and DEVOTION.

So, as the Bible Verse shares, if Faith is absent, and we don't even believe that any God exists, than no wonder we receive exactly what we belive we will recieve,....i.e. NO THING.

The Bible says that God is the Alpha and Omega. That's Greek for the beginning and the end.

So even Neo Advaitism had a beginning, and will also end.

Mean while, here in Maya as Jim, waiting to die of old age, " Once I was young, but now I am old, but have never seen the Righteous forsaken, nor their Seed begging for bread."

God's method of bringing His children back to Him with out sickness is,..."Thou takest away their breath, they die, with out sickness." Psalms 104:29

Thou shalt come to thy grave in a full age, as a shock of corn comes to its season." Job 5:26

" With long life, will I satisfy him, and show him my Salvation." Psalms 91:16

I testify that this has been my experince as Jim, because of my Faith that God exists, and had a plan for my existence even before He formed me in my mothrer's womb, I am told in the Bible, and belive, because it has been proven to me, by experience, for the 75 years I have been in Jim's body.

It won't end when Jim disappears, but the next Adventure in The Book of Live will unfold. 😇

I was just watching Gordon Ramsay's kitchen nightmares.

Levanit's Season 6 Episode 7/16

The guy says his sauce is inspired by God.

in the meeting after trying the food, Gordon asks the owner
about the "Dream sauce"

"I got inspired by a higher power" says the owner.

"A higher power?" asks Gordon.

"God" says the owner

"God?"

"I mean that" repeats the owner

"God made the sauce?"

Now that is what you call deluded.

Followers of religions are no different.
However, because they are so steeped in belief they think everyone has beliefs.

for example most believers think that an atheist also has a belief.

They think - "I believe in God" and "You believe there is no God" - both beliefs.

However, the atheist does not have a belief.

His position is "I don't have the evidence to accept your belief"

in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMOVEQmI3U8

at 4 min 40 secs the caller says "I had an encounter with God"

then notice how the conversation goes from there.

The believer is convinced - that that is what belief is.

Now someone can say the same about me

That I am convinced that there is a "nothingness" or a "Oneness" and it is a belief.

The difference is this:

What I am talking about is the absence of all things - and cannot even be experienced.

So how can that be a belief?

And I am not trying to convince anyone - because that would be impossible.

The absence of all beliefs - leaves emptiness or nothing.

That emptiness or nothing is not another belief. There is nothing to believe or deny


I don't know if Jesus raised Lazarous from the dead, but I DO know this happeed!

I shared this story in the past with a few that you might find interesting.

I once posted a story how I was driving on a large Freeway in California around 1982 when I had my Church. I was on my way to work and was driving the speed limit about 70 MPH, when a car passed me doing very high speed, cut right in front of me, and hit the metal guard rails, flipped over them, and rolled over a large bank tumbling down a ravine over and over. I watched it and the dirt and debris flying, as the car finally rested on the bottom of the ravine up side down with smoke coming off it. I had already gone way past the site at my 70 MPH, but I finally found a spot to leave my car, and started running back to the accident. When I got there, I saw people already there at the bottom of the ravine. I had a suit and white shirt on, and slid down the bank as it was steep. When I got there, people had pulled a man out of the wrecked car, and he was laying on the ground on his back with people just standing around him looking at him, but doing nothing. One said an Ambulance had been called. I told the crowd of people I was a Minister and was going to pray for the man. One guy said, he is dead, don't bother. I kneeled down, and looked at the man. His ears were both packed with mud, and his mouth was half open, and also packed with dirt and mud, and his eyes were closed. I couldn't see him bleeding any where, but he didn't seem to be breathing. I first dug the mud out of one ear. Then stuck my fingers in his mouth, dug out some mud, and freed his tongue. I then knelt down and spoke softly in to the man's ear I had cleaned out, and told the man I was a minister and was going to pray for him that God would heal him. I then started praying like the earth was about to end, right in his ear. People standing there were looking like I was crazy,........until,.......the man's eyes starting flickering,....and he opened them, and looked like he had just returned from the dead!! He had a look of terror in his eyes, and I kept praying out loud,...until he suddenly, got up on his feet, looked up the bank, and started climbing up the bank to the road! People were cheering, tearing, and shouting as the man got to the top. Just as he got there, an Ambulance arrived, and he sat down on the road, and they grabbed him and drove off! No Police came, and I never ever saw on any newspapers any thing about the accident or any results. Just another day on the Path. I used to have another new story a day to tell, as I never knew the next test would be placed before me. Problem was, I could never control any event. I could only respond when an opportunity arose. Still pretty much the same, but as a Recluse, nothing happens .

Jim,
How did you manage to do all that? Does it mean that you have divine powers? and can you do it again?

check this out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KRsyx3IJ94

at 6.5 minutes into the hypnosis session - the girl on the end has lost the number six.
The other guy cannot say the number six.

Divine powers?

just hypnosis

What you believe is true becomes true for you.

When you at on a guru path and have great "love" for the master and have lots invested in the whole belief - you are effectively hypnotised.

Someone asked me "How are you able to go to the mic and ask Baba those questions?"

I asked him "And how is it that you are not...."

turns out he was afraid Baba might make a comment against him and he would not be able to handle it.

A bit like when he said to me, "Are you trying to test me?"

When you have a strong belief - it creates all kinds of experiences to match.

a hypnotised person can crunch on an onion - thinking it is an apple.

He will not cry or have any off the effects of eating a raw onion.

The body will act exactly as if it was an apple.

magical powers?

or hypnosis.

you can learn to be a faith healer right here

https://jaysnell.org/Articles/healer.htm

divine powers? or simple learned techniques?


To Osho: I don't need to learn " how to be a Faith Healer." Been there, done that, also. Reading about other people's healings's is much difference than trying it your self. I WAS a Pentecostal Faith Healer,....among other things, in my distant past. I know all the tricks, but the facts are, not all, are tricks! Real healings DO happen, but only by God's Grace, and not by any Faith Healer's Parler tricks.

I wrote 1/3 of my Doctor Thesis in 1984 as a partial for my Seminary Th.D. Degree, if you are interested in reading my real experiences as a Faith Healer, and Bible Scripture supporting Healings.

Here is the Link on my Blog if any one is interested in reading it. It has a dozen parts, so start here, and keep accessing the next part.

http://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.com/2006/08/healing-miracles-faith-divine-vs.html

As for Stage Hypnotism, I have seen many on our Cruises, watching people make absolute fools out of them selves. Those people are mostly faking it, for attention, as they are not far inside. But, I agree, Mass Hypnotism is certainly possible. Benny Hinn is a good example of a Mass Hypnotist. Google him, if interested, to see how he just waves at the Choir in the Balcony, and they all fall on their backs. I have attended many of his live events. I could share stories until the Advaitists run out of Time. HaHa.

Appreciative Reader:
query1:
Nothingness and the ONEness and one and the same thing. At least as far as I am concerned. Others may have a different take on it.

I use them synonymously. Nothing because the end of all time and space - ultimate reality I can only call empty or nothing.

Oneness is more for someone who comes from a religious mind and its easier for him to understand.

The religious person already accepts that there is a God.
But he also says there is a ME

so that makes two

so the person will never reach the goal because he cannot come out of duality

why not?

because there is a ME trying to get teo GOD.

and it takes time and struggle and effort - and nobody arrives.

because it is impossible for this to happen in duality

anything happening in duality is a dream event

only awakening (waking up from the dream) is significant

all else is part of maya

The seeker needs to see there is only ONE

once this is seen clearly - realization dawns


There is only ONE means there is only GOD and no me

so there is no separate self that needs to merge

as long as one says there is a separate self - it cannot happen

only the ONE is


AR
The second question.
If someone comes to a Master – not desperately – but just curiosity seekers – He will simply entertain them.
They will have a laugh and a joke like Gurinder Singh does in his Q&A sessions.
However, when a Janak comes, when a Vivekananda comes, when an Ananda comes, when a true seeker comes – that is when the magic happens.
And it’s not that the master needs to do anything – it happens all by itself.
It is the disciple that creates the magic. He believes because at that point he is blind and that is all a blind man can do – believe.

He seeks eyes – so he will not remain blind.
The spiritual path is not for the curiosity seeker. It is for the person who is at the end of the road, He is not content with just jokes. He wants truth and nothing less will do.
The master – disciple connection exists only when this happens.
The significance of the spiritual journey is that the seeker is lost and all he has is beliefs.
He is seeking Sach Khand or some place to get to. He life is a struggle.
He will never arrive – because nobody ever does.
The master shows him that there is no Sach Khand – and that he is already at home.
Now no journey is required and there is no more struggle.
All seeking, searching, greed is gone.
Not by any effort – but because there is no need, as there is only nothing now.
He laughs at the madness of his own previous search.

AR: Follow-on Query 3 : After we die (that is, after our heart stops and brain stops, and our body is consigned to earth or flame), then will there be any difference at all in what happens to the Realized person and the ordinary non-Realized person?

Like I remember asking you earlier, will ordinary Joe and ordinary Me be any more alive or any less alive after we die than will realized You? And will our post-death condition be any different?
If our post-death condition is nothingness, non-existence, then we’re all of us equally nothing.
But if our post-death condition is Oneness, then very many options and possibilities present themselves. I’d like you talk about what you think happens.

Osho R reply:
There is no death after enlightenment. That which was never born cannot die. Enlightenment means you were never born. How can you die?
The body was born and then an ego appeared and started claiming. “I” and “ME”
That was the whole root cause. Now this ego got worried. “What will happen to me after death?”
“How can I become immortal or merge with God?”
With enlightenment – the worry is over. There IS no you. You cannot be saved. There is no hope. No need to seek or struggle now. It’s all over.

So what about the unenlightened person?
He dies – and is reborn. How? Why? Because this life is a dream. And unless you awaken – the dream continues. That is all it means to be re-born.
This dream just carries on in another body.
One dream ends and another starts. The dreamer is the same. The “I” is the dreamer. The ego is the dreamer.
Unless it awakens – the dreams will continue.
The dreamer thinks the dreams are real because they appear to be real – they are happening within time and space.
Everything within time and space appears to be real.
It has to – because it is happening – and that is happening appears to be real.
When I say there is no time and space – it is easy to misunderstand me
Hence Jim says he would not hire me because I believe there is no time.
I am not saying there is no time – here and now.
I am saying that the ultimate reality is there is no time and space.
In this dream world – there is time and space – because that is the very fabric of our existence here.
That’s it.
I have answered the three follow on points. The ball is in your court now.

Appreciative Reader,

I now come to the final conclusion. and you are welcome to post any comments.

Before we can have clear communication, we have to have clear definitions.
Otherwise we are talking about different things and can only mis-understand.

REALITY & TIME / SPACE
What is ULTIMATE REALITY?
What is RELATIVE REALITY?

TIME & SPACE are central to the definition of relative and ultimate reality.
RELATIVE REALITY means what we consider to be REAL in our day to day life.
What is happening right NOW is relative reality. Everything I see around me is all relative reality.
What I normally consider to be REAL comes under the category of RELATIVE REALITY.

This is why Jim Sutherland makes comments like “I would not hire you… why do you wear a watch..”
It is because I have not clearly defined what I am talking about.

Just saying – “there is no time and space” does not make sense because I have not defined the context of the statement.
So EVERYTHING you see around you is part of RELATIVE REALITY.
You already call it reality – I have just added an additional word – RELATIVE
This is also exactly the same as MAYA or illusion.
It is SEEN and HEARD and FELT and is what we normally call REAL.
I am calling this RELATIVE REALITY.

Now let’s define the other type of REALITY – Which I am calling ULTIMATE REALITY.
It cannot be SEEN, or HEARD, or FELT.
It cannot be known by the senses.
It cannot be written or spoken.
I cannot give it to you . It has no form, no shape, no colour.
It has no beginning and no end.
It is neither here nor there.
I call it ULTIMATE REALITY or ULTIMATE TRUTH.
It is what is left if you remove TIME and SPACE.
You can call it NOTHING – as long as you don’t start imagining it is a thing.
Nothing or NO-THING is the absence of all things.

So now the definitions are clear – we can move on to the next stage
Which is to examine each of these clearly – and because we have made clear definitions
There is no excuse to make out of context statements.

Statement 1 – Relative Reality appears to be real – but is not ultimate reality.
It is only real for a short while – then it will disappear. So it is not real forever.
It is real for a SHORT WHILE only.

Statement 2 – ULTIMATE REALITY does not change – it does not come or go.
It is not born and does not die. It simply IS (or you could say IS NOT)
It cannot be EXPERIENCED. It cannot be KNOWN. It cannot be DESCRIBED.
It cannot be PROVEN or DISPROVEN.
Anything you say about it will be a lie.
There are not TWO ultimate realities –there is only ONE
Hence I can call it the ONENESS – but that too is a lie
I can call it NOTHINGNESS – but that too is a lie
Anything I say about it is a lie.
Hence Nanak says “Nanak keh keh chup hoi”
He says after saying so much, “I now just keep quiet.” Nothing to be said.

Notice that ULTIMATE REALITY is the same as the scripture definition of
NAAM or SHABD.

REALIZATION of NAAM or SHABD is the same as REALIZATION of the ONE.
So now let me re-word Charan Singh’s statement – which is the same as all scriptures
“How can something that is here today and gone tomorrow be ULTIMATE REALITY?”

Now you can reword my statements also
“There is no space and time” should be stated as:
“There is no Time and Space in ULTIMATE REALITY, but there IS in RELATIVE REALITY”

That ends all the confusion.

So now all I am saying is this:
All RELATIVE REALITY is guaranteed to END
Only ULTIMATE REALITY will remain.
So, for example what Jim Sutherland or anyone experiences in an inner region is part of RELATIVE REALITY – so it will end.
Anything that can be seen, heard, felt, experienced will END as it is part of RELATIVE REALITY
Anything that MOVES is part of RELATIVE REALITY.
So Anami Purush is part of RELATIVE REALITY.
Sach Khand is part of RELATIVE REALITY.
Your individual soul is part of RELATIVE REALITY.

So now finally we can make the final statement.

The whole purpose of the spiritual journey is to recognise clearly the difference between
RELATIVE and ULTIMATE reality.
So now for a quick quiz
In ULTIMATE REALITY – do YOU exist as a separate entity?
If you don’t, then it also becomes clear that you don’t exist now either
You just APPEAR to – in relative reality.

And – if there is no separate YOU (in ultimate reality) then who is trying to be saved?
And anything you DO (like meditate) in RELATIVE REALITY – cannot possibly help
Because it is not REAL (ultimately) and also nothing needs to be done and cannot be done.

So all this Is not a belief – there is nothing to believe.
And it is also not subjective because there is no subject left to have the experience.

If you get this intellectually – you will still think it is a belief.

Once you truly GET IT – then is becomes realisation.
Realisation is not a belief

so now coming back to Gurinder's answer to the question I asked about Nirgun and Sargun.

Nirgun means Ultimate Reality (where there is no time and space and by definition there cannot possibly be an individual self)

Sargun means Relative Reality. It is only in relative reality that the satguru, the disciple and the spiritual path and the struggle to attain exists.

So Gurinder quite correctly stated that the Nirgun is the goal and the sargun is just the means.

So getting initiated, having love for the master, darshan, grace, seva, surrender, meditation - all this is sargun.

All of it is maya and relative reality. None of it will be forever. It is all in what I call the Dream state (relative reality)

And nothing you do in that state can set you free.

because
(1) there is no separate self (in ultimate reality) to set free
(2) anything you do in the dream state is just part of the dream
(3) Ultimate Reality cannot be attained - it already is the case

The very notion of achieving and attaining only exists in relative reality.


ANYONE who considers RELATIVE REALITY to be REAL has a huge problem.

He is trying to DO, ACHIEVE and ATTAIN. Even if he succeeds - he has just had a
dream in which he succeeded.

Someone who just HEARS about ULTIMATE REALITY will consider it another BELIEF
and another religion maybe.

He will ask "How do you KNOW?" and ULTIMATE REALITY is outside the domain of knowing and experiencing.

Osho declares,...."Notice that ULTIMATE REALITY is the same as the scripture definition of
NAAM or SHABD."

Jim disagrees, because Bible Scripture that Sant Mat is built upon says,..."In the BEGINNING was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ( John 1:1 )

Sant Mat Masters agree that the " WORD" in that Scripture Verse is the same as Shabd, or Sound.

So, the Shabd, DID have a beginning, because it was Created, by God.

So, in Osho's understanding, God is Ultimate Reality, where Shabd, the Word, is Relative Reality.

The answer to the Riddle is, unpacked, as soon as the Seeker decides which Reality it, as the individual soul, of which we, in this Church all are, realize we exist in. Were we a Cell of Ultimate Reality that created cells in Relitive Reality, or, if not either, then what ARE we, right now, keying these debates?

Speaking about the Word in John 1:1, John further unpacks what the Wird was, that DID have a begginning, when he says in John 1:2 ,3, ......."The same was in the beggining WITH God. ALL things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the LIGHT of men"

So, to my understanding, at least, we, as souls, WERE created by Gid, so we did have a beginning, but in other Scripure Verses, it is made very clear that souls , once created, have been granted, Eternal Life, by God.

So, that indicates, that Relative Reality, was created by Ultimate Reality, and granted the Gift of Ultimate Reality along with God's Seal of Approval to experience Adventures in Maya or Sach Khand, as long as the Rule of Karma is binding to each individual soul that was created.

Jim Sutherland writes:
Osho declares,...."Notice that ULTIMATE REALITY is the same as the scripture definition of
NAAM or SHABD."
Jim disagrees, because Bible Scripture that Sant Mat is built upon says,..."In the BEGINNING was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ( John 1:1 )
Sant Mat Masters agree that the " WORD" in that Scripture Verse is the same as Shabd, or Sound.
So, the Shabd, DID have a beginning, because it was Created, by God.
So, in Osho's understanding, God is Ultimate Reality, where Shabd, the Word, is Relative Reality.
OSHO R:
Firstly sant mat is not built on bible scripture. In fact Swami Ji and earlier gurus of Radha soami probably never even read the bible.
It was only later, to convince the western audience that the bible comparisons were added.
“In the beginning was the Word” – does not mean that the Word had a beginning.
It means it was there right from the start. i.e. had no beginning.


It cannot be SEEN, or HEARD, or FELT.
It cannot be known by the senses.
It cannot be written or spoken.
I cannot give it to you . It has no form, no shape, no colour.
It has no beginning and no end.

Is this not the definition of SHABD?

Shabd can be heard and seen. Lots to see, lots to hear.

Shabd was the Word that had a beginning, according to John 1:1.

Shabd is just another word for ,...Shabd, Nam, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, Kalma, Isme-i-Azam, Sultan-ul-Azkar, Kalma, Logos, Music of Spheres, Word, Bani, Gurbani, Living Water, Audible Life Stream, Tao.

It has different meanings to different people, depending on experience, or belief.

Ignoring Living in Relative Reality while believing in Ultimate Reality is the Key to unhappiness and isolation from life as conscious human beings who have been gifted human bodies to discover how to escape the cycle of The Wheel of 84.

Teaching others to just give up, and not to bother trying to accomplish any thing, materially, because it is all Maya and impermanent, is murdering your friends and family before they are dead! It is a cruel poison to impose on innocent, naive, Seekers of Spirituality and Truth.

Advaita Teachers are Agents of Kal. They have ZERO Compassion, for their fellow human beings, striving for happiness. They are selfish creatures with out souls animated as Robots no different than the Alien Grays with no agenda, other than to abduct humans with souls so they can extract their DNA so they also might understand why humans with Eternal individual souls seek the persuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of loving God and their neighbors as them selves!

Who would love a self that not only doesn't exist, but has never existed, other than the figment imagination?

Show me a happy fullfilled Neo-Advaitist, and I'll show a dozen happy, blissful, successful, Spirit filled souls of any religeous persuasion, not only Sant Mat.

If Ultimate Reality does exist, but no one has ever returned from there to prove it, than Relative Reality is the permanite Reality that rules Eternity! 😇😍💤💤💤💤

Geneis 2:7,...."And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

No souls were alive until God created them, when He breathed in to the man formed from dust the Breath of Life, which was the WORD, the SHABD, that DID have a beginning, and was WITH God, but NOT God, who has no beginning!

Jim:
Ignoring Living in Relative Reality while believing in Ultimate Reality is the Key to unhappiness and isolation from life as conscious human beings who have been gifted human bodies to discover how to escape the cycle of The Wheel of 84.

Teaching others to just give up, and not to bother trying to accomplish any thing, materially, because it is all Maya and impermanent, is murdering your friends and family before they are dead! It is a cruel poison to impose on innocent, naive, Seekers of Spirituality and Truth.

Osho R:
You misunderstand what all this means.
It is perfectly fine to achieve, attain and do whatever you want - but just recognise the truth - that it is not ultimate reality.

You will do it all as a game.

Even Radha Soami teaches you to do that.
It doesn't tell you to get lost in accumulating wealth in this world


Jim:
Who would love a self that not only doesn't exist, but has never existed, other than the figment imagination?

Osho R:
But Charan Singh and the sant mat gurus ALL MAKE THAT STATEMENT

let me type if here for clarity

"How can we say something is real when it is here today and gone tomorrow"

Charan Singh is saying this is all UNREAL. everything that moves is here today and gone tomorrow

So is Charan Singh an agent of kal?

Hi Jim

You wrote

"So, the Shabd, DID have a beginning, because it was Created, by God."

If you look at Genesis 1:1 you will notice that even before God created anything there were the waters.

When nothing else existed, the waters existed.

Shabd has no beginning or end, in terms of time.

Even the creator, and you and I are Shabd. But whether we witness that Spirit within or not, and through it those real regions and real places is another matter.

Even our Master is Shabd. Matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. Both are absolutely real.


Dear Osho Robbins,

Thank you very much for your responses. I’ve gone through them, and they were both interesting and illuminating. I’ve bookmarked this thread, and saved portions of our conversation offline as well. I’ll be sure to return to them and, starting from that base, try to learn a bit more about Advaitic practices/methods (the theory part I’m familiar with, more or less, and probably don’t need to explore any further).

My questions are answered. I have my answers now, or as much of them as I expect is possible to be had from this exchange with you. Nothing more from me.

You’ve very patiently taken a great deal of your time to respond to me, and for that I am grateful to you.

With best wishes,
Appreciative Reader.


- - - -


P.S.

As far as I am concerned, this discussion is done. Now by that I don’t necessarily mean that I’m withdrawing from this discussion. But I do mean that, so far as I see, I have nothing more to learn or to gain, myself, from this discussion. I come to this website in general to see if there isn’t anything new I can learn, just that, and that learning phase is over, as far as I can see. And so, I myself have no further need to extend this discuss any further. As far as I am concerned, like I said, this discussion is done.

Nevertheless, if *you* want me to, I will be very happy to stay on awhile longer here. That is the least I can do, after all the questions you have so patiently fielded from me. I can, if you wish, present you a critique, from my perspective, of some of your answers. I can also speak to you about subjectivity and objectivity and reality, and the points of similarity (as well as the points of divergence) between your point of view and the point of view of other religious people. However, whether I do that or not is entirely up to you. I have no desire, myself, to *argue*, or get into a debate as such, about things that I myself have no doubt about. Convincing you or anyone else of anything, or scoring debating points, these things mean nothing to me, literally. Nevertheless, if you ask me now to talk to you about these things, because you yourself want to learn from what I have to say (or because you simply are curious), then let me know. If you ask me to, then I’ll be very happy to return the favor and discuss this now for your sake, as you did for mine thus far. Otherwise, this discussion can end here, as far as I am concerned, and much thanks to you for all that you’ve so unstintedly shared with me!


- - - -


So just let me know, a brief “yes” or “no”, to the following (except for #3, which requires some elucidation from you). If you make no overt response at all, to one or more of the following, I’ll read that as simply “no”, and simply let go. (If you leave it to me, with an “anything you wish” carte blanche, then too I’ll just let this go, because I definitely do not, myself, wish any further discussion at all -- this, now, is for your benefit, should you yourself wish it.) Any overt outright “Yes”s from you to one or more of the following I’ll be very happy to respond to :

(1) I do have an opinion on the answers you gave me to my specific queries. A critique, if you will. Also, I’ve come to a conclusion, purely subjective but one that satisfies me, about your own perception of Oneness and your actual grasp on Ultimate Reality. Do you want me to go to the trouble of telling you about all of these?

(2) Do you want me to take the time to talk to you about the subjective nature of your beliefs, to show you how the elements of your worldview are essentially religious beliefs, and to make clear to you how your religious beliefs are essentially no different from other religious beliefs, whether RSSB or RC or any other?

(3) If you don’t want me to show you #(2) above, then this last won’t apply at all. But if you do want me to show you #(2) above, then please refer your comment addressed to me and posted here on page 3, on June 13at 09:36 PM. In that longish comment addressed to me, you say that you have understood what I meant when I’d said that your Oneness worldview is subjective. May I take that comment of yours as the starting point for this discussion (if at all you want me to have the discussion, that is)? I ask because you have subsequently said a good many things, addressed both to me and to Jim Sutherland, that are different than what you convey as having understood in that particular comment. If you ask me to take that comment as the starting point, then I will ignore the contrary views you’ve expressed in subsequent comments. And if you ask me not to take as absolute your views in that particular comment (absolute from your perspective, I mean), then I will ignore that particular comment, and instead talk to you in general terms, and touch where relevant on portions of your subsequent comments. However you wish it. In either case (provided, that is, you do ask me to touch on this at all) I will talk to you about your “final conclusion” as presented in your commented posted on June 21 at 10:49 PM (and also your short follow-on comment posted on June 22 at 02:43 AM, although perhaps that was addressed not to me but to Jim Sutherland).


- - - -


In any event, you’ll hear back from me only next week. I’ll be going away for the weekend and spilling on to early next week, and I dislike writing (or even reading) lengthy texts on my phone. So I’ll get back to you on Tuesday possibly, else Wednesday. (I’m keeping you posted about this so that you don’t unnecessarily waste time looking out for my response before that.)

And again, if you don’t really want me to, and don’t expressly ask me, then the discussion ends here, and you won’t hear back from me at all. In which latter case let me say this : textual communication, as here, isn’t able to properly convey all the nuances of what one means to convey. Lest my textual words came out sounding stiff or in any way negative, let me assure you that I’ve enjoyed our discussion here immensely, and gained a lot from it. If you do not wish to take this further and choose to end this discussion now, then I do so with the warmest of regards for you, my friend.

Hi Osho!
You wrote
"said he witnessed Gurinder morph in to Charan's image. What is your take on this phenonomon? Do you think it is some kind of fraud, or a trick, dreamed up by Gurinder or his Staff to dupe gullible people attending his Satsangs?"

This also happened to me. I witnessed it, and was a little surprised to see any one else testify to the same.

The Charan I saw in Baba Ji's place was much, much older, even than Charan when He passed away. It was very strange, as if He had never died and kept on aging. And then He simply morphed into Gurindar.

I thought of it as an individual gift. My Master let me see Himself once more, in the form He would appear in had He lived.

I had no idea anyone else saw that. Unusual, a miracle, but not in the sense of hallucination, but in the sense that the physical reality we see is entirely a projection, and in the mind, a construction, but based on a physical reality at a single level of perception.

It wasn't a hallucination, in the sense of "Oh My Master". It was more like "That's interesting. Is this a hallucination? Hmmm... It Persists... Well, whatever, I'll take it as a gift.."

The discussion continues ….

Jim - in response to your recent assertion that ‘Advaita Teachers are Agents of Kal’ !!

Have a look at integralworld.net - David and Andrea Lane’s essay re their recent visit to the Golden Temple entitled Devotional Thickness, (they also went to Dera during this India trip).

In the discussion that follows David Lane says he had a great time at Dera and comments ‘Many concepts, such as kal are now being viewed as mythic and more or less eliminated for a more mature understanding of how the mind operates’.

I wonder what next is up for reinterpretation?

Best wishes

Tim

Imagine RSSB implementing Pepper's Ghost Holographic Projection Technolgy to project Master Charan Singh to Gurinder's Satsangs?

It could be easily done, but would it be kept a secret, or would the Engineers leak the truth, of how Gurinder morphs in to Charan Singh, who morphs in to Sawan Singh, who keeps morphing in to multiple faces with different head coverings from Turbans to head scarfs?

I saw such manifestations, more than once, but starting with Charan, not Gurinder. But for me, it was during Deeeeppppp Meditation, not in broad day light with eyes open.

But, using Pepper's Ghost Techology could fool even Osho Robbins and Manjit if applied in a mass Satsang with out Drugs being used.

http://www.peppersghosthd.com/princess.html

Appreciative Reader:

I can, if you wish, present you a critique, from my perspective, of some of your answers. I can also speak to you about subjectivity and objectivity and reality, and the points of similarity (as well as the points of divergence) between your point of view and the point of view of other religious people.

Osho R:
Please go ahead.


Before you do so, I would like you to address a different subject,

Do you consider Atheism is a belief?

and how subjective / objective is Atheism?

Please just focus on answering this before we move onto the other topic

thank you


Spencer Tepper :
"It wasn't a hallucination, in the sense of "Oh My Master". It was more like "That's interesting. Is this a hallucination? Hmmm... It Persists... Well, whatever, I'll take it as a gift..""

Osho R:
The question is whether the change was actually physical or a perception.

If it was physical, then it means everyone saw it. If the satsang was filmed, it would also appear in the film. That is a physical change.

If it doesn't appear in the film - then it was a perception.

if it was a perception, then I call that a hallucination.

I am not denying you saw it, and you considered it a gift.

I am simply saying it comes under the category of a hallucination.

Let me explain it another way.

What would happen if Gurinder morphed into Rajindar Singh?

Is that still a gift?

Would you take that at as message that Rajindar Singh is the current GIHF on earth?


Hi Osho

Very interesting comments.
You make a distinction between physical and perception that makes no sense, upon deeper consideration. We are hopelessly bound to our limited perceptions. And if occasionally we perceive more, perhaps that is truly greater awareness, not less.

You wrote

"if it was a perception, then I call that a hallucination."

Considering we understand the world and even truth on a basis of perception your claim goes quite far.

While Maharaji was right there in detail physically, in appearance, I understood it to be perception. I was seeing something. What else could it be?

But what a construction! With the accuracy of all the other surroundings!

Yes, you may call it hallucination. It wasn't for you. It was poetry and love. Of course that comes from within. And it is sacred.

And if I was perceiving something at a different level of physical creation? A heightened level? If I was seeing what was actually there, but not visible to the limited range of eye or camera?
That is also perception, but not hallucination.

If I were perceiving another view of the actual physical reality, an actual part of Baba Ji, , then I would have to be perceiving with a different set of eyes, certainly.

And where did such a vision emerge? Where within me?

That would be conjecture, which I do not indulge in, especially in the inner world. Rather I put aside such judgment in order to witness more, and then I can begin to understand where such a stable and complete vision came from. Repeat witness is the bases of scientific understanding.

If that perfect construction was a hallucination, then how much more of what everyone sees every moment is just more of the same? Or less?

But it was witnessed independently by more than one person, as you have read. And that adds veracity that the perception was indeed of something real.


But that place within someone else I care not to conjecture about, I know nothing of. All art, all science, all achievements, everything of greatness, even every higher perception within the human being comes from there. Our physical world is covered over with physical objects which started there in that place you have labeled hallucination.

Oh, Osho, so many symphonies arose from that place, so many inventions, so much deeper understanding. So much peace, love and wisdom. You have dismissed as hallucination.

Hallucination generally is degraded perception.

But heightened perception... Inspired perception. Witnessed by others..

I wouldn't label it at all. That's just a form of prejudice.

And again, apparently others did witness it and wrote of it. Surprising!

One person sees a dark room and exclaims "It's empty".

Another gazes inside and says "It is full,"

But a scientist silently enters, flash light in hand.

Try to appreciate first, rather than label what neither you nor I actually understand.

Be a better scientist.

Spence Tepper wrote:
But it was witnessed independently by more than one person, as you have read. And that adds veracity that the perception was indeed of something real.

Osho R:
First of all - the point about physical / perception was this:
If it's an actual physical change - in the physical world - then everyone will see it.
I don't mean 10 people, 100 people or 1000 people.
I mean everyone in the whole audience.
Why? because it's what is actually there - not a perception.

I am using perception in that sense. Not in the sense that everything is perception, which of course it is - I just wasn't using the word in that sense.

I meant to make the distinction between "really happened in the physical world for everyone to see" compared to "some people who were in some special state saw it" (which means they were in a different mental state.

Let me make it clear.

Imagine I filmed the satsang.

If the film footage shows the change - then is it an actual physical change and everyone will see it. Not a single person will miss it.

If the film footage didn't show it - then it was a perception of the people who saw it - it is not happen in the physical world.

So the point that someone made about 3D projections etc could not happen anyway - because everyone would see it.

When intense belief is involved - hallucinations are common. it is exactly like hypnosis.

How can a hypnotised person drink vinegar as if it was wine?
or eat an onion as if it was an apple? or thinks he has nine fingers?

This is what happens in the hypnotised state.

And we are in a state of hypnosis most of the time.

When you are brushing your teeth, watching TV, reading a book, having darshan - in fact anytime that you are not fully in the present - you are in a state of hypnosis.

That is how you can drive home and not remember the journey - because you were in a state of hypnosis.

And mass hypnosis also happens.

Appreciative Reader,

I acknowledge that any statement I make has to be subjective by the very fact that I am making the statement.

Even if I make a statement of fact in, say, an accident. It is still subjective no matter how objective I may claim it is.

I may claim that my statement is factual, however, that is just my perception and therefore subjective.

By definition, everything coming from me has to be subjective.

A scientific experiment carried out in a lab, and objectively documented is the only thing that can be considered objective evidence.

All else, no matter how convincing, is, by definition, subjective.

I concede that point.

Attn. Osho Robbins. This Article might knock a little sense back in you, so you quit appearing like a Gray Alien disguised as an East Indian Advaita Guru. 😇😍

http://www.nondualitymagazine.org/nonduality_magazine.contemporarynonduality.part6.htm

Hi Osho

You wrote

"And mass hypnosis also happens."

That's why even looking at the film, even at the evidence, a whole world can be in denial of the facts which stand right before them.

If it's not only the senses that can fail, so can one's reasoning.

Logic is actually a prostitute who will assume any position he is paid to assume.

So your submission points to only one possibility, the one you like.

It proves nothing.

In the moment means not overlaying things with your own pet explanation. Doing that is living in an imaginary world of your own construction.

Spencer wrote:

That's why even looking at the film, even at the evidence, a whole world can be in denial of the facts which stand right before them.

Osho R:

one hundred people who are not affiliated to the guru - watch the film of the apparent morphing of one face into another. They will tell you if it is on the film or not.

They are not hypnotised because they have nothing invested in the result.

If they can all clearly see the morphing - then it physically happened.

If they can't then it wasn't a physical morphing.

Then if anyone say it - it was an hallucination, because they saw what was not really there.

Also - visions and morphing happen because the person wants it to happen and considers it a blessing. You see what you want to see.

Spencer:
If it's not only the senses that can fail, so can one's reasoning.
Logic is actually a prostitute who will assume any position he is paid to assume.

Osho R:
But not if you are a neutral observer with no preference. As someone who may watch a film of the satsang.

There is a movie of Charan Singh, If I remember correctly - it was taken at the wembley satsang when Charan Singh gave darshan. If I remember incorrecly - then it was another location. In the film - Charan singh has come off the plane and is giving darshan in the film of the event.

The sangat are singing shabds. He is tired and his eyes are closing, as is natural.

When satsangis watch this - they exclaim - "WOW - she shabd is pulling him up - he can't even keep his eyes open"

This is just believing what you want to believe.

Most likely he is tired and jet lagged, and can't keep his eyes open.

A perfectly normal thing that happens to people and it natural.


Hi Osho
If one wants to see it, maybe they will see what they want. Perhaps it's their imagination, perhaps heightened awareness. You seem fully capable to acknowledge only one side.


And if one doesn't want to see it, they will not see it. It might be there. They won't see it. And they may go further, and say "It's not there!" That is another sort of hypnosis.

Neither case is objective.

If an objective person who doesn't care either was, had no real desire, is just happy to be where they are ses something, they could evaluate it for themselves.

But to label it as hallucination is actually supporting a bias.

That's my point. You are arguing only one side over and over without acknowledging that possibility of heightened awareness.

You can't see it....

OK.

Jim Sutherland's idea to knock some sense into me :-
Attn. Osho Robbins. This Article might knock a little sense back in you, so you quit appearing like a Gray Alien disguised as an East Indian Advaita Guru. 😇😍

http://www.nondualitymagazine.org/nonduality_magazine.contemporarynonduality.part6.htm

Osho R:

Good attempt. However, there's a huge issue here.

An Advaita person might be not quite 'there'

as described here:
This way of thinking, "What's in it for me?"can happen when desire and greed are still binding, and when the clarity and understanding are not fully there.

But now compare this to the sant mat follower.

This is not a patch on the sant mat follower.

The sant mat follower is firmly and openly all about "WIIFM"
(What's In It For Me)

The sant mat follower meditates for what reason?

Just to pass the time? No.

To gain immortality; to escape the cycle of birth and death
To get to Sach khand.

This is greed and ambition. And not even hidden or subtle.

So many disciples in RSSB go to the Microphone, for what?

To ASK for grace - greed.

To ASK him to come at the time of death - Greed

Greed and ambition is in plain sight n RSSB.

Ever seen sevadars at a satsang event? With two ways radios and doing their duty.

For what? What is the payoff? Why are they doing it?

There is a HUGE benefit - the EGO.

The same with the speakers - preaching to the converted.

It's all overt ego - not even subtle.

The ordinary man is a little egotistical - chasing wealth and things

The person on the sant mat path is very egotistical - he thinks he can attain
God, Sach Khand through his meditation.

The greed and ambition has gone wild.

And the article talks of advaita people who might not quite be there yet!

So what? At least they are facing the correct way

and not trying to reach God as if God was a person in time and space.

The4 sat mat path is about trying to attain.

All "trying to attain" is egotistical and ambition

I have yet to meet a sincerely humble RSSB follower

I have met some who are proud of their humility (work that out!)

I am referring to fake humility.

Of course a person on any path can be mistaken - it's all part of the journey.

Andrew Cohen admitted his mistake after teaching for many years

But the RSSB follower has a much bigger problem

His path is about ambition.

Getting to Sach Khand is ambition.

The practise of meditation is done to get to Sach Khand, not to lose the ego.

The speakers in particular are the most deluded:

They have not arrived; yet the guide others.

Why would anyone speak on stage when they know they are not there?

That is hypocrisy. Pretending to be advanced.

The very idea of giving satsang - when you are just a follower - is itself hypocrisy.

They even say "parh parh pandit aura samjayi"

The pundit reads and explains to others while his own house is burning.

So Why does RSSB have speakers who are not advanced.

Why is the criteria not spiritual advancement?

because then there would be nobody to do the satsangs

As far as I know only RSSB does this anyway.

In other branches, people may read from books, but not go on stage and speak as if they were the master.

overt egotism


Quote Osho Robbins : Please go ahead.


You’ll have to be more specific than that. Please read my comment again, the one I posted on June 23 at 07:34 AM. All of it, not just the first few paragraphs. You yourself often write very long comments, some of them way longer than mine, presumably with the expectation that they will be read. May I not expect a reciprocation of that same courtesy from you? I too take time and effort to write these comments, time and effort that I could otherwise have used elsewhere. If you start to TLDR my comments (either because you lack the time or capacity to read them fully, or because I lack the capacity to write them engagingly enough for you), then I’ll stop writing them.

You’ll have to tell me which portions (#1, #2) you wish me to discuss, and what form you wish #3 to take.

Let’s not simply debate for the sake of debating, please. Waste of time and effort all around. Ask me only if you genuinely feel you have something to learn. That is the only reason I had asked you questions, to learn from you. Of course, you can also ask me if you feel there are things I myself haven’t understood properly and you wish to correct my erroneous understanding. I’m saying I probably don’t have much to learn any more from this discussion, but I could be wrong, and if you strongly feel I’m wrong and wish to correct that situation, that’s fine by me.


Quote Osho Robbins :
Before you do so, I would like you to address a different subject,

Do you consider Atheism is a belief?

and how subjective / objective is Atheism?

Please just focus on answering this before we move onto the other topic

thank you


With pleasure.

Thank you for giving me a chance to return the favor, after so patiently answering my queries, by now asking me questions that I can answer for you.

The answer to your questions is simple enough and short enough, but before I start, one qualification. I’m sure you aren’t literally ignorant about the meaning of the word ‘atheism’. Even if you were unsure of the meaning of that word, I’m sure a quick look at a dictionary would have been easier for you than asking me this. Therefore, I take your request for me to tell you what ‘atheism’ means, as an implicit request for me to tell you how your own beliefs measure up vis-à-vis that concept. I will be happy to reply to both requests of yours, the explicit one as well as the implicit one.

And I realize that you are indirectly steering me towards a part-elucidation of my #2 (per my comment posted June 23 at 07:34 AM). So be it. If that is what you want from me, that is what you shall have from me.

So :

Atheism (a-theism or not-theism) is simply an absence of theistic beliefs. It is absence of belief. By definition, then, it is not a belief.

(I refer to soft atheism here, which I consider the reasonable default position to adopt. Hard atheism, which claims the non-existence of gods, is actually a claim and, if believed, is indeed a belief.)

But leaving that semantic quibbling aside, atheism (by which I mean soft atheism) is not a belief. (And henceforth, when I use the word ‘atheism’ here, I will be referring to ‘soft atheism’ without necessarily making that qualification explicit.)

Certainly atheism isn’t subjective ; and to the extent that it isn’t subjective, we can say that it is objective.

However, the more precise answer would be this : Atheism is neither subjective nor objective. It isn’t “anything” at all. Just like “nothing” isn’t be either green or yellow, similarly, atheism isn’t either subjective or objective.


THIS (the default position of the non-belief of Atheism) IS IN SHARP CONTRAST TO YOUR VERY MANY RELIGIOUS BELEIFS.


Let me list some of these religious beliefs of yours in reverse chronological order of your comments here :


(1) June 22, 02:43 AM : Your axiomatic belief in an Ultimate Reality, that is different from everyday reality, and that is “outside the domain of knowing and experiencing”. What is this if not religious belief?

(We can discuss this further if you wish, but you have made very clear in your many comments here that your concept of Ultimate Reality and Oneness are different from simply nothingness, as the word ‘nothingness’ is commonly understood. If you contest that then I can quote you, chapter and verse, and prove this to you.)


(2) June 21, 10:49 PM (addressed to me) : Again : your axiomatic belief in an Ultimate Reality that is outside of space and time. Wholly subjective. No evidence (as is obvious, and indeed as you yourself admit). A strong element of your core belief system. Therefore your religious belief, period.

(Like Russel’s celestial teapot and Dawkin’s pink dragon, this Ultimate Reality “cannot be seen, or heard, or felt, and cannot known by the senses”. Which, by definition, means it doesn’t exist. Nevertheless, for you it does exist at some level, apparently. That is the very definition of subjective religious belief.)


(3) June 21, 02:44 PM (addressed to me) : Your belief in rebirth.

(I quote your very words : “…unless you awaken – the dream continues. That is all it means to be re-born. This dream just carries on in another body. … The dreamer is the same. The “I” is the dreamer. The ego is the dreamer. Unless it awakens – the dreams will continue”).

So rebirth is another religious belief that is part of your core belief system and your core worldview.


(4) June 19, 2017 : Your belief that “time and space and everything in it – all forms and everything that exists within Time and Space is all ILLUSION”. In other words, what one generally defines as reality is, in your worldview, exactly the opposite of reality, and only an illusion. Naturally you have no evidence of such claim. Again, what is this if not religious belief?


(5) June 18, 02:44 PM : Your assertion that your Oneness (presumably that same Oneness that is an Ultimate Reality that is outside of space and time and outside the domain of knowing and experiencing) cannot be figured out, and “some things you just have to go through … then decide”. That is what every “experiential” religion says. That is what RSSB says (at least, Julian Johnston does in his book). That is what (Hindu) Tantra says -- you cannot prove this by reason, although you can discuss it ; you have to actually experience this, and when you do, all argument stops, and you “know”. That is what Vajrayana says. That is what I have had some good and gentle yet surprisingly naïve Jehovah’s Witnesses declare to me personally about their somewhat crude beliefs (more on that later, if you do want me to extend the discussion that is). This implicit and exclusive reliance on non-verifiable experience/intuition, and a consequent worldview that is outside of reasoning and wholly without evidence, is exactly what religious belief is. Across a wide swathe of religions.


So just a cursory look through page 4 of this thread throws up a whole fistful of your religious beliefs. And, mind you, this was just one single page of one single thread. There are three more whole pages of this in this thread itself, which can easily be mined to extract even more of your religious beliefs that you have publically declared.

I have now told you what Atheism actually is, per your request.

And I have also shown you, objectively (yes, OBJECTIVELY, by referring to you your own comments that you or anyone else can look up as many times as they like, right here, right now) that your worldview is just as far from that default no-theistic-belief of Atheism as the Roman Catholic’s, or the RSSB-ite’s, or the Muslim’s, or the Hindu Tantric’s. The details of your respective religious beliefs may differ (from those of other religions), but surely when the backdrop is Atheism, when the backdrop is no-belief, then such differences in the specifics of individual beliefs are merely details?

Thus far you have been protesting, many times and in many ways, that you do not have any religious beliefs yourself. I was astonished to hear you repeatedly make such demonstrably false declarations. I hope I have now been able to help you understand how incorrect that view of yours was, and how your worldview is in fact nothing but an amalgamation of very many religious beliefs.


Now mind you, just because I have shown you that your worldview consists of a great many religious beliefs, does not mean that I in any way deride or belittle those beliefs of yours. Far from it! I have the greatest of respect for other people’s religious beliefs (including RSSB’s beliefs, and including your Advaitic beliefs), as long as they do not claim an objective universality in ways that supersede others’ religious beliefs (or lack of such).

Indeed, I myself try to follow the prescribed route of certain religious traditions (including theistic ones) as an attempt to arrive at an experiential understanding that might, just perhaps, supersede everyday reality. (While also leaving open the possibility that there may be no such extra-normal reality at all.) It is because I do give credence to at least the possibility of a truth beyond what has been proved by science thus far, that I keep visiting this blog for instance, for Brian’s insightful articles and for the very many insightful comments here (including yours, which I have expressed appreciation for more than once). So I am in no way putting down your religious beliefs. I am merely trying to show you something that you seemed not to have been able to see on your own, namely, the large number of subjective religious beliefs that go towards making up your own worldview. And I am trying to point out to you your somewhat crude but nevertheless by no means unusual idea about comparative religion -- namely, that “my” particular religion is neither belief nor subjective but objective (despite the complete lack of evidence), that “my” particular religion is not a religion at all nor even a belief but self-evident truth, while every other religion (other than “mine”) is subjective and, ultimately, deluded and wrong and false (or at least, if not false, then not real in the same way that “my” religion is real). That view is naïve as well as obnoxious, and it is by no means unusual. Very many religious believers think that way, and a great deal of mischief is brought about in the world by people holding these kinds of narrow beliefs.


That answers the question you asked me to address “before we move onto the other topic”. Whether you want to move on to “the other topic(s)” now is your call. Like I said, I have no desire to score debating points or to argue for the sake of arguing. If you think you have something to learn from me, or if you think you may have something to teach me, then in either of those cases do let me know. I won’t continue with this discussion if you don’t want me to or if you are indifferent : and I will be happy to continue if you do want me to and ask me. Please read my comment posted on June 23 at 07:34 AM, all of it, and please let me know -- in terms of the issues I have mentioned there -- what (if anything) you want me to now talk to you about.

Quote Osho Robbins :

Appreciative Reader,

I acknowledge that any statement I make has to be subjective by the very fact that I am making the statement.

Even if I make a statement of fact in, say, an accident. It is still subjective no matter how objective I may claim it is.

I may claim that my statement is factual, however, that is just my perception and therefore subjective.

By definition, everything coming from me has to be subjective.

A scientific experiment carried out in a lab, and objectively documented is the only thing that can be considered objective evidence.

All else, no matter how convincing, is, by definition, subjective.

I concede that point.


No, that isn’t what I had meant.

Right, let’s break that up. Subjectivity can be thought about at three levels. The first would be at the level of epistemological fun-and-games, where you can argue that all knowledge is ultimately subjective. Let’s leave that fascinating discussion aside since it is irrelevant here. The next level would be what you say here in the comment I quote, that everything you say is ultimately subjective unless expressly validated. That is true, certainly, but that is trivial and irrelevant, really, to our discussion. One can go beyond these two rather trivial senses, and look at subjectivity in a way that is actually relevant to us, where we can class certain things and ideas as objective, and others as subjective.

Okay, let me illustrate.

.

Suppose you tell me that you have, sitting there right beside your computer, a pink teapot and a pink toy dragon. That would be an objective statement. On the other hand, if you told me that you have with you an invisible pink teapot and an invisible pink dragon, that can neither be seen nor heard nor felt nor detected by any instruments, but which nevertheless are real and exist, then that would be a subjective statement.

.

If you wish I could break that somewhat short paragraph (where I actually skip one or two implicit steps) further down as follows :

Suppose you tell me that you have, sitting there right beside you, a pink teapot and a pink toy dragon. Sure, as you say in your quote, that is a subjective statement, in a very trivial sense.

However, that subjective statement can easily be put to the test. If I am physically present with you, then you can directly show me your pink teapot and pink toy dragon. (And if I’m the suspicious kind, then I can feel them and smell them as well to make sure they aren’t elaborate optical illusions.) That would change your trivially subjective statement into an objective observation. If I am not physically present with you, then you could take a video recording of your teapot and dragon and send it to me, and provided I were satisfied about the authenticity of your recording, you would again have changed your trivially subjective statement to an objective observation. (And if I am not satisfied with the authenticity of your recording, then we can easily think of ways that will satisfy me, say by having someone I know and trust, and who lives in your city, visit you. Or even by having you travel to my city with your possessions, or by having me travel to your city and your house. Those are just details.)

The point is, your statement that you have with you a pink teapot and a pink toy dragon, while trivially subjective (as you say in your quote) is actually an objective observation (because it *can* be validated).

.

On the other hand, if you tell me that you have with you an invisible teapot and an invisible dragon, neither of which can be seen or heard or felt or detected by any instrument, then certainly in the trivial sense of your quoted comment that is a subjective statement. It is subjective because you say it, as earlier. But it doesn’t stop there at that trivial level, no sir! FAr more importantly, this is a “truly” subjective statement, because it simply *cannot* be validated, one way or the other.

I cannot go to you and see them. Nor can you come to me and show them to me. Nor can you record them with your camera and show me. Nor can you validate them in any way at all. You say they exist, because you “know” they do, and you say they do. It is not possible to validate or to invalidate such a statement. For all I know you could be lying or trolling when you say that you “know” of their existence. On the other hand, for all I know you may sincerely believe what you say. That is what makes your invisible teapot and your invisible dragon “truly” subjective (as opposed to your pink teapot and your pink toy dragon).

.

And your Oneness and your Ultimate Reality fall squarely in the category of the invisible teapot and the invisible dragon.

.

Which, let me hasten to add, is not to say that I dismiss your subjective perception of Oneness. If you see my comments, you’ll see I had said right at the outset that your Oneness cannot be validated here, only elucidated, and elucidation was all I sought. That is what I had requested you to do. (And unfortunately you could not even elucidate your perception properly, despite my trying to guide you again and again and again towards some coherent elucidation, but that is another discussion, a discussion which I myself have no desire to pursue, but should you want that critique and feedback for your own “elucidation” -- or because you wish to correct any misperceptions of mine -- then, like I’d said, I’d be happy to go into it for your sake and on your asking.)

The fact that something is subjective does not mean that one cannot try to explore it further. That is why I am interested in things religious/spiritual, and that is why I read Brian’s blog for instance, for his insights on subjects like these and for the often insightful and valuable comments (including, without any doubt, your own truly outstanding insights and comments).

But the point is -- let me say this briefly here since you seem to have rushed us into the #2 point I’d referred to after all without first clarifying the ground rules like I had requested you to -- the point is, your Oneness realization is strictly subjective.

The RSSB devotees’ realization of Sach Khand also is strictly subjective. As are the respective realizations that other traditions like (Hindu) Tantra, and Vajrayana, and Theravadin meditation, and certain Sufi practices, throw up.

In as much as all of these realizations are subjective, to that extent they are all equivalent.

And you know what, for you to claim that your Oneness is “more real” than the RSSB devotee’s Sach Khand, is like your claiming that Invisible Dragons are bigger than Invisible Teapots.

Do you see what I mean?

How the heck can you compare two separate subjective realization of two separate individuals?

True : you can evaluate two subjective realizations that you yourself have had, and can come to a conclusion about which of these two realizations is better or “higher” as far as you yourself are concerned. And you can choose to live your life basis that conclusion if you so wish, since it is your life after all. But that evaluation also would be entirely subjective, and that conclusion too would be subjective and what is more that subjective conclusion would apply to you and to you alone.

.

Religious conflicts arise when people try to bulldoze their personal subjective truths on to other people. It happens all the time. Religious person X will conflate his subjective perceptions and subjective conclusions with some objective Ultimate Truth, and try to establish that “Ultimate Truth” or Ultimate Reality of his at the cost of the subjective truths of other people.

Such conflicts can take the form simply of somewhat obnoxious debates, in which case no real harm done. But such conflicts can very easily take on more overt and direct (and unpleasant) forms of expression, and can even spiral off into Crusades and Jihads and what-have-you. They can further ossify into all kinds of restrictive rules and laws, both prescriptive and proscriptive, put in place in order to elevate some particular subjective position over other subjective positions. It happens all the time all around us. Has always happened, back in times past, and happens even today.

Which is why it is so important to be so clear about this subjectivity business. I’m not denying the possibility (just the possibility, mind, no more) of subjective search (and therefore of subjective conclusion of such search) if one’s predilections take one in that direction -- indeed I participate in such search myself in a small way -- but it is essential, if one is to maintain one’s sanity, to not conflate one’s subjective search (and subjective conclusions, if any) with objective reality.

.

.

PS

You mention scientific experiments. Objectivity, at least in informal settings, needn’t involve labs or experiments at all, nor court-admissible documentation. Usually simply being ‘potentially document-able’ is enough (if I may use that clumsy made-up term). Talking about pink toy dragons is one thing, stories about those can *generally* be fully believed even in the total absence of actual validation ; however, making decidedly extravagant claims about invisible dragons cannot but call forth requests for validation, especially if such invisible dragons are claimed to be Ultimate and Real in ways that others’ visions aren’t, and even our everyday reality isn’t.

Also : I wrote this comment under the assumption that you were speaking of subjectivity only in the trivial sense that I discussed there (since that is the distinct impression I got from your comment, despite your subsequent mention of experimentation -- your reference to your describing an accident, for instance, does seem to indicate that you were speaking in what I described as the trivial sense). But even if you had meant to refer to this second sense of subjectivity (and I had misread your meaning in your original comment), even then this discussion may have been necessary. After all, you had admitted to realizing the subjectivity of your position earlier as well ; and despite that admission commented multiple times, subsequently, in ways that made me think that you had not, after all, realized the actual implications of such subjectivity (as I said to you in an earlier comment).

“All else, no matter how convincing, is, by definition, subjective,” you say there. Well, then, “convincing” to whom? Whom other than your own self? And further : are you so sure it is really as convincing as you think it is after all, even to yourself? You know about how our brains work, and about neurons firing and all that. Are you truly convinced that what you’ve thought and felt and perceived and “known” actually has some kind of reality beyond neurons firing? Are you truly convinced that what you’ve perceived actually has some kind of reality outside of your head, outside of your brain, and that this corresponds to the actual reality “out there”, outside of your head and brains and neurons? [You may really be convinced, I don’t know, I’m merely showing how these questions can assume a whole different dimension once you realize the full implications of subjectivity. When Jesus speaks in the weirdo fundamentalist’s head, we know he’s nuts ; when Oneness speaks in ours, are we sure we’re all there? How are we sure, exactly? And in asking that last question, I mean no offense to you, Osho Robbins, absolutely no snark intended here. Those are exactly the terms in which I question my own self in regards to my own humble attempts at arriving at an understanding of this sort of thing. In speaking to you thus, I could be speaking to myself actually : not that I’ve been blest with anything close to the Realizations you have yourself had, but still.]

This isn’t just semantic quibbling, not just agreeing to label an idea as “subjective” in order to settle an argument. This goes far beyond that, to how one looks at both one’s own realization(s) vis-a-vis others’ realization(s), and at one’s own realization(s) vis-à-vis objective reality ; and therefore this has significant implications on what one’s general world-view will be. I hope I’ve been able to convey some sense of this here.

Quote Jim Sutherland : Attn. Osho Robbins. This Article might knock a little sense back in you, so you quit appearing like a Gray Alien disguised as an East Indian Advaita Guru.


That was a very interesting article, Jim. Thanks much for posting it here, I enjoyed going through it. And I’ve bookmarked it, to browse through other portions later on. Resourceful of you to find something so apt!

But the very vehemence of your comment, and your apparent certainty as implied in that comment, intrigue me.

How do you think this applies, exactly, to Osho Robbins? Do you think he has had his “spiritual ego” activated? But how could you, sitting there miles and miles away from him, possibly know?

And what exactly do you mean when you talk of having some sense knocked back into him? Why is that important to you?

No offense meant or snark implied, Jim. Just curious, given this whole thread, and especially given my very recent discussion on subjectivity (and the equivalence of subjectivities, if I may describe it as such) with Osho Robbins.

Osho, you wrote
"The person on the sant mat path is very egotistical - he thinks he can attain
God, Sach Khand through his meditation.

The greed and ambition has gone wild."

Appreciative Reader you ask

"How do you think this applies, exactly, to Osho Robbins? Do you think he has had his “spiritual ego” activated? But how could you, sitting there miles and miles away from him, possibly know?"


Please see quoted Osho above.

To AP,.....I was not the one who found that interesting Article. A poster I admire posted it on the RSS site, as an example for another Neo Advaitist to consider how he is looking to others on the site. I found the Article very timing, exposing the Sychronicity that one of this group always mentions. I think it nails Osho Robbins right between his eyes. Haha. But he wont admit it.

As for my knowing any thing about him, you, or others I have not met, I guess you will have to have faith in my Intuition, gleaned from fencing with Sant Maters, of all lineages, including mild to rabid nasty Exers. I consider Osho Robbins a very intelligent Exer, a Brother, considering, he is a Charan initiate that will never be able to unlock Charan's Bulldozer Chain that is still hooked to him and all the RSSB Exers that are still here, proving they have never been released, or unhooked, so they still lurk here, hoping for new Revelations that will heal their broken Faith. Osho Robbins is a Wounded Warrier who will be eventually be returned to the Sant Mat Path, either voluntarily, or chased by Charan's dogs. Haha. If not in this life, a future life. Why? Because his path of Oneness will become too lonely to endure for ever, all alone.

Quote Spence Tepper : "Please see quoted Osho above."


I was wondering how exactly that insightful article (which Jim had linked) applied to his comment. I see now (having read his response) that it doesn’t, except for sandbagging purposes.

Re. your quote of Osho's comment, perhaps you’re trying to point out that Osho Robbins’s discourse verged on the obnoxious. I have to say I noticed. The wish to return the compliment I can understand, but I’m afraid I can't applaud it, at all.

Quote Jim Sutherland : “ I think it nails Osho Robbins right between his eyes. … Osho Robbins is a Wounded Warrier who will be eventually be returned to the Sant Mat Path, either voluntarily, or chased by Charan's dogs .:.


So basically, Osho Robbins irritates you with his apostasy and obnoxiousness, and that article was less nuance or information or knowledge than KO punch. A heavy tome can be used as a cosh, no doubt about it. Not the best use for a tome, I would have thought, but to each their own.

It isn’t that this obvious answer had not occurred to me, but I didn’t want to accept it without exploring the less violent possibility. (Violent only metaphorically, of course : we only talk here, nothing else)

Look,I don’t normally poke my nose into what isn’t my business, and an RSSB-Exer disagreement in no way qualifies as my business. But having spent quite a bit of effort and thought in pointing out the absurdity of Osho Robbins’s position, it would be hypocritical of me if I didn’t make at least some token effort in pointing out the far more obvious impropriety of yours. Don’t you see anything irregular or dysfunctional in your desire to control or influence Osho Robbins's thought processes, to want to get him back to the RSSB fold even when he doesn’t want to go back there himself? Muslims theocracies have laws (as well as extra-legal ways) that embody exactly that kind of thinking.

And using nuanced ideas like the excellent write-up you linked there, not so much for clarifying one’s one understanding but simply as a put-down and a punch between the eyes, that’s … well, at the risk of having you at *my* throat now, I have to say that comes close to being thuggish in its crudity.

Protesting Osho Robbins’s interference in your faith is one thing, but wanting to change his faith (or lack of it), or trying to show him up just for the sake of it, how do you justify that kind of thinking? Given your religiosity and spirituality and everything, I mean?

Anyway, sermon over. Hope you won't take offense at the plainspeak.


“ A poster I admire posted it on the RSS site …


Ah, the RSS site. It keeps on coming up in Brian’s blog, especially in the comments. In this thread itself, Manjit mentioned it in his comments, and now you do as well. I absolutely must look up that site one of these days, it sounds very interesting.

That site is David Lane's, isn't it? That and Neural Surfer as well, right? The former I've never checked out yet, but the latter I did dip in once, briefly, a year or two back.


“ … gleaned from fencing with Sant Maters …


How do you mean, “fencing with Sant Maters”? Aren’t you an RSSB-ite, a faithful one at that, and therefore a full-blooded “Sant Mater” yourself? Or did you mean "fencing *alongside* other Sant Maters, and against sundry heretics and apostates”?

Appreciative Reader:
Atheism (a-theism or not-theism) is simply an absence of theistic beliefs. It is absence of belief. By definition, then, it is not a belief.
(I refer to soft atheism here, which I consider the reasonable default position to adopt. Hard atheism, which claims the non-existence of gods, is actually a claim and, if believed, is indeed a belief.)

Osho Robbins:
Athiesm (soft) is a not a belief because it makes no claims. The hard position of “There IS no God” is a belief. The soft position may also say “It is unlikely there is a God, because of lack of objective evidence” but it is not made as an absolute statement.
We are on the same page.
AR:
However, the more precise answer would be this : Atheism is neither subjective nor objective. It isn’t “anything” at all. Just like “nothing” isn’t either green or yellow, similarly, atheism isn’t either subjective or objective.
You then go on to explain the many religious beliefs that I hold.
Brief summary as follows :-
(1) Axiomatic belief in Ultimate Reality
(2) Rebirth / reincarnation
(3) Time/Space is an illusion – so what we normally call reality I am calling an illusion
(4) “The Shift” has to happen to realize the ONE and it cannot be known objectively (I have re-worded here for brevity)
Osho Robbins:
Let me take these one at a time
(1) Ultimate Reality

Ultimate Reality is a term I have coined. It is not REAL. It is UNREAL. It cannot be SEEN, HEARD, FELT. It has no shape, colour etc. It is not real for practical purpose as we use the word real.

No belief is required – because it is nothing. It is the absence of everything, including TIME and SPACE.

Ultimate Reality can also be called NOTHING

(2) Rebirth – is indeed a belief.
However, it is not required. I can take it or leave it. It is not important. I am not an advocate of reincarnation. I do not teach reincarnation. However, I am talking here to people who believe in it – so I explain using reincarnation.


(3) TIME / SPACE is an illusion.
This is a NOT a belief. I have already defined “Illusion” or MAYA as anything which changes. Therefore all we see around us is MAYA or Illusion.
This is my definition. It is not a belief.

You are saying it is a belief. Please explain how this is the case.

You can call it reality. I am simply saying that it changes and will end one day. So I call it illusion.

I coined the term “relative reality” for this very reason – to make it clear it is my definition.

(4) “The Shift” has to happen to realize the ONE.
This is not a belief. It is a statement of “what is true”
It is like saying: “You cannot swim unless you enter the swimming pool”
This does not meaning that swimming is a belief.
If you enter the swimming pool – then you can learn to swim.
If you don’t you can say that it is impossible to swim and that people who think they can swim are deluded and it is a belief to think you can swim.
Where this analogy is different is that a swimmer can swim and show you he is a swimmer. The realized person cannot show you his realization.

Does the “Ultimate Reality” I speak of exist?
My answer is NO. An unequivocal NO, in the sense we describe EXISTENCE.
It is nothing – so how can we say it “exists”?

Appreciative Reader writes:
“All else, no matter how convincing, is, by definition, subjective,” you say there. Well, then, “convincing” to whom? Whom other than your own self? And further : are you so sure it is really as convincing as you think it is after all, even to yourself? You know about how our brains work, and about neurons firing and all that. Are you truly convinced that what you’ve thought and felt and perceived and “known” actually has some kind of reality beyond neurons firing? Are you truly convinced that what you’ve perceived actually has some kind of reality outside of your head, outside of your brain, and that this corresponds to the actual reality “out there”, outside of your head and brains and neurons? [You may really be convinced, I don’t know, I’m merely showing how these questions can assume a whole different dimension once you realize the full implications of subjectivity.]
Osho Robbins:
The point you make is valid. I am not sure at all. I am sure it has “no reality”.
You and I are questioning the very fabric of what we call “reality”
And what I call “Real” is not real by the normal standards we judge by.
It does not correspond to “reality out there”
You are right – these questions assume a whole different dimension.
I cannot “KNOW” in any normal sense of the word.
Could I be deluded? Absolutely unequivocal yes.
How and who do I say that?
Because the instrument I use to evaluate (the mind), does not function in that domain.
That is why it cannot be “known”
Which is the same as saying it is unknowable.
Most people don’t delve too deeply into the implications of these statements.

To AP: OK, here goes: you ask so many questions, and make so many comments, that you incite either emotions, or challenges to a Duel, or at least, it certainly appears far beyond just curiosity to some one claiming they are not intersted enough in Sant Mat, to already be seeking initiation, by any of the Lineages.

Since you have now labeled me as a Sand Bagging THUG, and on one hand, say you don't want to stick your nose in to my comments to OSHO AND VICE VERSA, .....well, that is exactly what you seem to be doing. Now if I knew just WHO you really are, or why you are so wordy, playing GOOD Cop, than BAD Cop, with first a compliment, followed by a bash, then more compliments, followed by more bashes, ......well, my curiosity is, having read enough of you past posts here to wonder if you are one of David Lanes Philosophy Students, or Professor Wife, or one of his Sons, ....or even possibly one of the disgruntled Exers who have used various Avatars to post insults, than they change to another, to incite riots among the other posters. I have always used my real Name as my Identity, when conversing with any one I respect enough to share ANY of my life experinces with. Examples I HAVE CONVERSED WITH, EITHER PUBLICALLY ON FORUMS LIKE THIS, that use their REAL NAMES! LIKE Osho Robbins, David Lane, Brian Hines, and others, who dont hide behind imaginary Monikers. Even MANJIT HAS A REAL NAME, of which he shared with me, confidentially, which I have honored, along with others. So AP, why should I AGREE TO BE INTERREGATED by some fictitious character like you, who appears out of Cyber Space acting like a Supreme Court Judge, but is too embarressed to not even use a real name, but wont even share your Gender, Country, Religeon or no religeon, or much of any thing about your self! Why should you expect me, to continue entertaining your personal questions? You did Osho ask if he wanted you to continue grilling him, but for all I know, you and he could even by the same poster, posting against each other. I am suspicious, because I AM a THUG. Charan Singh said all the family and friends of Satsangis are THUGS.

So, taking your position,.....I really appreciate all of your positive comments, and interesting questions,...but, why do you think you are such the Authority about Sant Mat, considering you have never been inintiated, so certainly are not in any position to know why I preach to RSSBers, or other Sant Matters? I may be compelled to do what I do, of reasons you know nothing about considering I have been posting on RSS since it started, and know most of the Core posters, who are also here.

If you come out of hiding, out of the closet, and at least, admit what you are hiding,or what your motive of posting here is, ...than I am not motivated to answer any of your personal questions, unless they are questions about Sant Mat Theology that you are interested in, and don,t understand, and would rather get an answer from a Believer than a non beliver.

Cheers,
Sand Bagging Thug Jim


,

AP, you may PM me at isydopen@yahoo.com with your real identity, confidentially, and I will be happy to answer any question you have, as best I can, as long as you don't try to water board me. As I said, I have limited patience of conversing with ficticious entities who hide behind Pseudo Avatars. I have conversed with MANY Sant Mat Initiates, of various Lineages, as well as seekers exploring Sant Mat, yet, suspicious of being duped by self proclaimed masters seeking desciples, of which, I plainly am not one looking for Disciples. I also invited Osho to friend me on his Facebook site, ( which he has yet to accept) , and you are also welcome to do so. I do not duscuss religeon or politics on my FB site, but I mostly share my Travel Photos, which will take any suspicions away from any one wondering if I am living under a bridge as a homeless recluse, as Mike Williams, i.e. ZAKK has said he does.
Cheers,
Jim

Jim Osho Robbins is not real name.....a clue: Osho rajneesh+ Anthony Robbins.....

Gurinder singh has 10 million followers. How do you expect 1 person to contribute to betterment of 10 million people if he does not even remember them ? Jesus had 12 disciples and other saints had reasonable number of followers whom they could benefit. How does 1 person contribute to uplift of 10 million people without knowing them ?

To sunil : Numbers are not a problem, if "Oneness" is only ONE. Osho will sort that out for you. Gurinder can multiply himself in the Astral Plane, and appear in his Radiant Form to every one of his followers,....IF,.........any of them know how to access him at their Third Eye. ( Sant Mat 101 )

To Neil: I know Osho is not his real name, but his real face is on Youtube, touting his Sant Mat 102 and 103 that he is very proud of, so unlike Appreciative Reader, at least, I know he is a real person, a 50ish East Indian Male, who has shared a lot of his life experinces with us, and he says he has been an RSSB International Speaker, and a Charan Initiate,....and has attended the Hanes Park Satsangs, to try to embaress Gurinder, so we know he lives in the U.K. That's enough to make me feel reasonably comfortable enough to converse with.

What do we know about most of the others, who post here, and hide behind pseudo Avatars as A.R. does? They can post any old crap they want to, and insult othets, as they please, while hiding behind their Moniters, and they will never have to account for any thing they say about others. They can throw shit bombs all day long,...as long as they suck up enough to Brian to let the Bombs hit the target. Good thing Brian is a decent Moderator, unlike Lane was, before he retired to his Bunker. To me, at least, I have been trashed by enough of those types on Lanes RSS site over the years.

We know more about Brian Hines and David Lane than their wives do!

777 has shared a lot of personal stories and experiences, and he said he is from France.

Just calling a Spade a Spade.

Cheers,
Jim

Sunil gurinder does not have 10m followers

Jim,
Some of what you wrote about me is incorrect:
"he says he has been an RSSB International Speaker"
"and has attended the Haynes Park Satsangs, to try to embarrass Gurinder"

I was not an international speaker. I was a UK national speaker.

I have never tried to embarrass GSD. I have no reason to.
I asked a question when questions were invited. I have asked many questions before also - but never to embarrass or "test" him.

This question was also not to embarrass him or a test.

It was a straight forward question about Sargun and Nirgun.
In fact I was rather surprised that he asked me if I was trying to test him.

Also - on a separate note - you say that advaita teachers are agents of Kal.
and don't want people to be happy.

May I ask where you get your information from. Is it direct from Sat Purush or Anami? Or is there a book you red this in?

Or have you just made it up?

,

Osho, I never heard of an Advaitist who wasn't an Agent of Kal, because, Kal = Time, and all Advaita Teachers operate in Time . ( including you )

According to Sant Mat, Kal is Universal Mind. All Advaitists operate thru their minds, so again, they are Agents of Kal.

Its all a play on words, like a game of Ping Pong.

I am traveling for the next two weeks, so won't be spending time arguing, debating, dodging, preaching, encouraging, hiding, crying, insulting, questioning, accusing, teaching, learning, asking, telling, listening, reading, helping, acting, auditioning, ......., so please carry on with out me.

Cheers,
Jim

      To : OSHO ROBBINS

Dear Osho Robbins,

Thank you for not taking umbrage at my pointing out the flaws, as they appeared to me, in your position. No meaningful discussion can ever come about if we’re always tiptoeing around each other’s sensibilities, and constantly worrying about not stepping on each other’s toes.

All of these discussions (about the subjective nature of your belief system) are secondary and unimportant to me. What takes primacy (with me) is the ability to swim (to use your analogy, in your responses to me). You yourself are able to swim -- or at least, while I’m not sure you actually can swim, there’s no doubt that you yourself believe you can, and there also seems little doubt that you have greater first-person familiarity with swimming pools than the rest of us here, including me. That is the important thing, to me.

Hopefully I too will discover someday that swimming is fact not fiction. Hopefully I might learn to float myself someday, or even to actually swim. They say such things generally happen with the help of someone who’s already proficient in swimming, so perhaps it might even be you, some day, who might show me how. (Or, WTF, not. It could well be that swimming is merely a myth. I keep that brutal possibility open before me all the time.)

I don’t think I’ll be commenting again here for some time now. The only reason I come to this site is to see if I can’t learn from it, and I don’t see that purpose being furthered by carrying on commenting here ad infinitum. It was a pleasure corresponding with you, Osho Robbins, and no doubt we’ll catch up again in future as well.

I’m leaving some responses below to your two posts. I’ll keep visiting this blog for Brian’s unique perspective on things spiritual, as well as some of the fascinating comments here (without necessarily adding to those comments), so if and as and when you post any responses to what I’ve already said and what I’m further going to say now, I’ll be very interested to check that out as well.

My best wishes to you,
Appreciative Reader.


.


Quote : "Ultimate Reality is a term I have coined. … No belief is required – because it is nothing. It is the absence of everything. … Ultimate Reality can also be called NOTHING. … TIME / SPACE is an illusion. … This is NOT a belief. I have already defined “illusion” or MAYA as anything which changes. … This is my definition. It is not a belief.

You are saying it is a belief. Please explain how this is the case."


First : I find your practice of redefining everyday concepts quite unsettling, as well as wholly unnecessary. It’s like starting a religious movement saying “Jesus is our only ultimate savior,” and then explicating this by defining the term ‘Jesus’ as ‘the big bang theory’ and the term ‘savior’ as ‘the beginning that we know of thus far’, so that the statement “Jesus is our savior” actually means nothing more remarkable than “The big bang theory is the only ultimate beginning that we know of thus far”.

Do you see what I mean to convey by that admittedly exaggerated analogy? You seem to be confounding simple issues by trading simple statements for apparently complicated/paradoxical formulations, by using your own made-up terms for concepts that our language already has perfectly serviceable words and terms for. I see no purpose to that, other than an attempt at make-believe profundity.

Also : the make-believe terms that you coin are very heavily loaded, with religious connotations already attached to them. That further exacerbates the obfuscation and confusion caused by what you’re saying.


If you tried speaking without the jargon, in simple everyday English, then you might find that you are able to convey your content much more effectively. Although that might end up making your message less profound than you might want it, perhaps, to sound.

Besides : Although you’re using your made-up terms, you’re still using these new words in ways that still carry some sense of their old, everyday meanings, as well. For instance, you often use “Ultimate Reality”, in your discourses, in ways that literally mean ‘ultimate’, “ultimate” in the everyday sense of the word. I won’t be returning with comments here after today, but you can check this for yourself if you wish, by simply going through every comment of yours in this thread, and seeing how you actually use the term “Ultimate Reality”. You will find that you often use that term in ways that actually mean “ultimate” in the everyday sense, in the sense of “final”, “actual”, etc.

To the extent that you believe your nothingness is ultimate (“ultimate” in the everyday sense, that is, more real than our everyday reality), to that extent certainly it is a belief. You say that your “Oneness” and “Ultimate Reality” are merely made-up terms which stand for “nothingness”, and mean nothing more than “nothingness”. Firstly, I can show you otherwise, that you do use “Oneness” to mean a great deal more than simply nothingness, using your own comments here. (Since I won’t be commenting here now for the time being, I won’t actually be doing that for you, but you can easily do it for yourself if you want, by mining your own comments here to see the exact sense in which you use the words “Ultimate Reality” and “Oneness”.) And secondly, even if I were to grant you that, it is still a huge claim to say that nothingness is more real than somethingness. Who is to say that somethingness did not exist for ever? Or : Who is to say that we haven’t had an eternal (and never-ending) see-saw between Somethingness and Nothingness? The truly base-case answer here, the only reasonable answer, is to say : “We don’t know, not prior to the Big Bang”, and not “Nothingness”. To posit even literally Nothingness as something absolute (in the everyday sense of “absolute”) is a huge huge claim in itself! Remember : every claim needs validation, even non-theistic claims. Unless you want to pass them off like religious pronouncements from a prophet, like some Zarathustra coming down the hill laden with sonorous pronouncements.

I’ve already stated the principle behind my objection, but let me repeat it with reference to the second part of what you say as well. You define “illusion” as “that which changes”. I know that’s how Advaita defines ‘Maya’, but why do *you* want to define the word “illusion” in that confusing manner? The word “illusion” carries a certain clearly-established and clearly-understood meaning in everyday language, and that meaning is most emphatically NOT “that which changes”. So when you mean “that which changes”, why not simply say “that which changes”, or use equivalent words like “temporary” or “transient” or “ephemeral”? Why go out of your way to choose a word like “illusion” that already carries a distinct (and very different) meaning?

If you MUST use a made-up word, despite the availability of plenty of perfectly serviceable words and phrases in everyday language, then perhaps a wholly made-up word (like “bicklechocky”, or whatever, for your Oneness) might work better! At least it will cause less unnecessary confusion.

Else you might as well go the whole hog and use the word ‘God’ for ‘nothingness’ and the term ‘Jesus’ for ‘transient’, and come out with even more profound-sounding biblical-ish pronouncements, like so : “The lovely flower blooming in the field is Jesus, and the beautiful mother with the infant suckling at her breast is Jesus, and all the world is Jesus, and the suns and the stars are Jesus, and the very cosmos is Jesus ; but before the world began, was God.”

The reason why I say I’m no longer very enthused by your pronouncements (unlike when I first heard you here and tried to question you further) is because I’m beginning to think that perhaps your profound statements are no more than obfuscation, and that they actually carry very trivial meanings, and that your actual realization may be no deeper than my own growing conviction that all beliefs are ultimately empty. (Although I find myself wishing I were wrong, and hoping that someday you could actually show me what you claim you yourself see.)


.


Quote : "Rebirth – is indeed a belief. … However, it is not required. I can take it or leave it. … I do not teach reincarnation. … However, I am talking here to people who believe in it – so I explain using reincarnation.”


Huh? Osho Robbins, that smacks of dishonesty! If you take that line, then you can say anything at all, any damn thing that comes into your head, and then defend yourself by saying that you said it only because that is what the person you were speaking with themselves believed! If “I say whatever I want” or “I say whatever happens to be expedient” is your defense, then why are we even discussing anything that you’ve said here? Each and every thing you have said here could then be lies, including your Oneness Realization itself, as well as the events that you say led to it!

If you don’t actually believe reincarnation/rebirth is real (real even in the limited sense that our transient world is real, and you and I are real), then why would you pretend otherwise when speaking with people who do believe it to be real? That points at a decidedly unbecoming desperation to somehow, at any cost, grab hold of students and get your teaching across, not minding what you say as long as you, somehow, anyhow, got the students! Not unlike grossly exaggerated (and even downright untrue) advertisements aimed at selling commercial products.

Also : Remember, this reincarnation business came up here because you were trying, for the umpteenth time, to explain to me the “use” or “utility” of Oneness-Realization. I had asked you, Why should I spend even a minute in trying for this Realization of yours, and Why would you want to spend even a minute to guide me towards your Realization, why, for what reason? You had tried to explain this to me many times, but every time you came up short. Finally the one explanation you gave that made some kind of sense (some kind of grammatical sense, I mean) was that this Oneness-Nothingness-Realization is the antidote to Reincarnation. So if you take even that away as Not-Your-Belief, then what exactly were you explaining to me there, and why?


.


Quote : “The Shift” has to happen to realize the ONE. … This is not a belief … It is like saying: “You cannot swim unless you enter the swimming pool”


Yes, I understand.

Although I listed that under your beliefs, I did make it clear there what I meant : that this position of yours is exactly similar to that of other religions in as much as RSSB, for instance, claims that you cannot validate its core claims by argument and logic alone, but only by actual application and experience. Which is exactly what you are saying regarding Oneness. In fact I remember hearing (or perhaps reading) that exact swimming-pool analogy of yours in connection with some other religion, I can’t place my finger on which (perhaps RSSB, perhaps tantra, I don’t recall).

So yes, this isn’t a belief per se, but it nevertheless is a claim as regards the means of reaching a certain conclusion. To that extent it is exactly similar to what many other religions say.


But I’ll keep hoping, Osho Robbins -- not necessarily expecting, but hoping -- that despite my current contrary conclusion, swimming really is a thing, and that you do know this swimming thing after all, and that, someday, God willing, you (or someone like you) might show me how to swim.


    To : JIM SUTHERLAND

Dear Jim,

You did take offense, then, after all.

I was hoping you wouldn’t, that you would look instead at and appreciate the actual content of what I’d said in my comment, that you would focus on the reason and the discussion basis which I said what I did. Evidently not.

I fail to see why you’re so very outraged at my sandbagging reference, Jim. After all it was you yourself who started with the references, more than once, to your KO punch between the eyes, wasn’t it? Is using a cosh or a sandbag to hit someone so very different from using your fists?

Besides, it sounds distinctly incongruous to me, for you to go around gleefully handing out (virtual) punches on the one hand, and on the other hand acting so ultra-sensitive when you yourself face comments critical about your own words. Especially given that the words that you found offensive were no more than a direct reflection / re-statement of the very words you yourself had used (punching vis-à-vis sandbagging)! What kind of playing field do you expect, after all, Jim? What kind of ground rules would keep you happy? One where you are free to punch other people, while other people are to tiptoe carefully around you while you sit there nursing your knuckles, not even daring to talk about your pugilistic feats other than admiringly, so that your sensitive soul isn’t hurt by legitimate criticism?

Further : You cherry-pick and part-quote the part where I say, in my comment to you, that I don’t generally poke my nose into other people’s affairs. But you leave out what I said right after that! I very clearly explicated there exactly why I was making an exception this time, and why I was going out of my way to comment on what you said. Did you not read that, and were you not able to understand what I’d said?

And finally, Jim, here’s the thing : nowhere did I call you a thug or a sandbagger, at all. I think that was a wonderful article you’d posted there, extremely apt given the context of the discussion, and I loved reading it myself, and said as much to you ; and indeed in my initial comment about this tried to discuss that article with you, wondering how you thought the content of that article linked to Osho Robbins. When I found out from your subsequent comment that, far from having made a considered nuanced comment about what you thought was Osho Robbins’s spiritual state, all you’d done was the equivalent of brandishing that thoughtful article around like a trophy and a put-down to Osho Robbins, that was when I then compared the crudity of your using those nuanced spiritual comments not so much for furthering one’s understanding but as KO punch in a petty argument (and thus, at the same time, reducing this discussion itself from an exchange of ideas to a petty personal dispute). That’s like picking up a beautiful picture, and then using it to clean your backside! It is the crudity of that action that I likened to the crudity of thuggery and sandbagging. There’s a huge difference between that and calling you, personally, a sandbagger. Are you not able to comprehend that difference?

Nevertheless, Jim, it was never my intention to hurt anyone’s feelings here, neither yours nor Osho Robbins’s. Since I seem to have done just that, you have my apologies.

I visit this site primarily because I enjoy reading Brian’s rather unique take on spirituality, and also to learn from it. Not just Brian’s articles, but also some of the comments on here. Your comments also, Jim. [Some of them, not all! :-) ] Generally both those purposes (enjoying the articles and comments, and learning from them) are very well served without commenting myself. But there are times, like in this thread, where to get answers to the specific questions that arise in my mind (and which have not been already addressed thus far), it becomes necessary to comment myself. When I do that, as here, I enjoy that as well, because it is generally a pleasure to interact with the people here (all of whom come here drawn by the same general interest in spirituality). However, I may well have crossed the threshold point here now, the point beyond which further commenting will now provide neither enjoyment nor learning, and so I think I’ll take a break now from commenting here.

Despite that unpleasantness at the end, it was otherwise a real pleasure interacting with you, Jim. I’ll take your leave now, if I may, after addressing, below, two more specific issues that you raise in your comments. While I won’t be commenting here now, not for some time at least, nevertheless if you have anything to say in response to what I’m saying here, then I’ve bookmarked this thread and I’ll be sure to read your further comments.

My best wishes, and Cheers!
- - Appreciative Reader.


.


Responses to a couple more specific issues you brought out in your two comments addressed to me :

.

FIRST : ABOUT COMMENTING ANONYMOUSLY :


That is a personal choice, and hardly needs defending! I don’t know how aware you are, Jim, about norms of behavior when people interact in online forums -- you do say that you contribute regularly to the RSS forums, at any rate -- but often (not invariably, but often) people prefer to mask their personal identity and use, instead, a pseudonym and/or avatar. That is no nefarious oddity, rife with sinister implications, as you seem to imagine, Jim, but perfectly acceptable -- and universally accepted -- online practice.

You don’t simply have to take my word when I say this, Jim. Ask your friends who spend time online, or else go around yourself and visit different online forums, and see for yourself. In most forums, you’ll find that large numbers of posters (perhaps as many as 75% of the numbers there or more) would generally be posting anonymously, while some few (perhaps 25% or fewer) will publically announce their names etc.

The reasons for adopting such anonymity are many : First of all, a matter of general precaution, since everything we say here stays visible to all random visitors. Second of all, specific reasons specific to the topic of discussion. For instance, I myself prefer not to broadcast to all and sundry my religious beliefs or lack of them, not unless there is some express reason to do so. I prefer to keep my private thoughts private, and indeed would not have spoken half as freely about these things had I not been posting anonymously. And there is a third reason why anonymous posting is encouraged online : the fact is that anonymous posting facilitates impersonal communication, and allows people to concentrate on the ideas and issues being discussed, without getting distracted by personalities and personal situations.

Sure, there are potential negatives as well to commenting online. There are those who abuse this anonymity to, well, literally abuse other posters, and generally behave in obnoxious ways that they wouldn’t adopt in real life. Besides, this anonymity lets some posters go around making all manner of dishonest statements which they know they won’t he held to account for. Absolutely, you need to beware such abuse of anonymity.

It must be said here that such abuse is not restricted to overtly anonymous posters alone. There are those who, despite announcing their names, nevertheless indulge in abusive behavior. Besides, even if one does announce some name and announce some identity, who is to say that is who they really are? And finally, even if someone really posts in their own actual name, even then, how do you know they are telling the truth? When people talk about their inner experiences on here, for instance, how can one know that they’re not simply lying? Indeed, even if this little group of ours were to meet face to face IRL (in real life), and over tea and coffee and beer, we were to recount to one another our innermost experiences : how would we then know that all this is actually the truth? Ultimately, whether online or in real life, you need to use your judgment to decide, subjectively, whom you can trust and whom not. As you had yourself very aptly said here earlier, in this very thread : caveat emptor, every time!

I believe my anonymous comments here do NOT, in any way, show me as abusive or dishonest, not even remotely so. And nor do I believe I have taken undue advantage of my anonymity here in any way. Had I announced my name here, or even if I had been having this conversation in real time with you, face to face, even then I am very sure, that I would not have acted or spoken differently. But of course, if you yourself think otherwise, that is your privilege.

For now, I have to say, all this is moot, because like I said I don’t think I’ll be commenting any more on here, for the time being, so you won’t have the option of interacting with me even if you want to, not for some time at least. But no doubt we’ll meet again and no doubt both of us will comment again, in future, here at Brian’s site ; and, at such times, if and when our paths cross again, by all means make your own considered judgment about whether you wish to continue interacting with me further (because I have every intention of continuing to stay unapologetically anonymous).

Let me point out one final aspect about online etiquette to you, Jim : consensuality. Consensuality is everything. Not degree but consesuality. I may be as physically intimate as I like with my girlfriend as long as that intimacy is consensual, and you may be as intimate with your wife as long as that is consensual, but far less intimacy can be considered criminally punishable if it hasn’t been done consensually. I bring this up, because you yourself breached an important line here in your recent comment. Osho Robbins is, for reasons of his own, commenting here using a pseudonym. What you do in your recent comment here is, to go out of your way to announce to the world personal things about him that he has himself chosen not to divulge here in this forum. That, sir, is so not done! There is actually a word for this sort of behavior, and it is ‘Doxing’. Look it up, if you aren’t aware of the term and the concept. This sort of thing is considered very poor form, wholly reprehensible. Please try not to do this sort of thing again. (Brian’s moderation of comments on here tends to be pretty laissez faire, but there are forums where you can get banned, or at least suspended, for doxing.) Whatever Osho Robbins’s reasons for anonymity might be, it is for us to respect those reasons (just as it is incumbent on us to unquestioningly respect the wishes of a girl who refuses physical intimacy with us, no matter what her reasons, and irrespective of whether we like those reasons or agree with them). If Osho Robbins himself chooses, now or later on, to tell us more about himself, sure, that’s his call, he may well publish his entire book-length autobiography here if he wishes : but to egregiously publish information about him that he has himself not volunteered on this forum, without first seeking his permission -- that’s creepy, and so not done!

.

AND SECONDLY : ABOUT MY VERIFYING YOUR PERSONAL CREDENTIALS :


Jim, you’ve offered, in your comment to me, to validate to me your credentials by sharing your personal photos etc. If you choose to publically share such information, I should be most interested in them Jim, but please, I neither demand nor need any kind of verification qua verification from you. I have no problems trusting what you say here even without such verification.

I am perfectly happy to take your personal statements, all of them, wholly on trust and at face value, why in the world wouldn’t I? Besides, suppose you were actually a homeless recluse, as Mike Williams apparently believes, well then so what? What difference could that possibly make to how I see you and how I interact with you? You, or Osho Robbins, or One Initiated, or 777, or Manjit, or Mike Williams, or even Brian himself for that matter : it would make not one whit of difference to how I myself interact with anyone here, no matter if you/they were fabulously wealthy, or if you/they were materially impoverished.


Jim:
I never heard of an Advaitist who wasn't an Agent of Kal, because, Kal = Time, and all Advaita Teachers operate in Time . ( including you )

Osho R:
What kind of logic is that?
You also operate in time - so does every other person on the planet, so according to you - they are all agents of Kal.
If anything - Advaita says time is an illusion. SO how then can they be agents of time (kal).
No logic at all.

Jim:
According to Sant Mat, Kal is Universal Mind. All Advaitists operate thru their minds, so again, they are Agents of Kal.
Its all a play on words, like a game of Ping Pong.

Osho R:
What? Advaita operates thru the mind? and you do not?

Advaita is about going beyond the mind.

Do you have a logical answer?


Dear Appreciative Reader,
I would like to make a specific point, if I may, about you.
You are very accurate and clear in your position. Very different from the way most people think.
You want answers and you pick up on anything that appears to be nonsense.
I thoroughly enjoyed the process of communicating with you.
Unfortunately I don’t consider that the medium of communicating via a blog
Or even any written form would be sufficient to handle the issues you have raised.
Why?
Because the matters you are valid and require an in-depth response.
And to some parts of what you are asking I have no response.
A face to face conversation would have been interesting.
One particular point is the one you raised about “Knowing”
If truth be told – it cannot be “Known” at all in the sense in which we use the word.
For obvious reasons.
I am saying that this is beyond the mind.
If it is beyond the mind – then how so “I” even know that it is true and I am not simply deluded.
Since, as you correctly pointed out, the mind can create all kinds of delusions.
There is a person right now (google him) who claims to be Jesus reborn today.
And there was another who has died now who said he was “Jesus the Man” (Miranda)
Here’s a video of him. He fully believes it. At 2 mins into the video – listen to what he says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErI-_hYv7as

I do have a sense of knowing – but I cannot explain it. Which by definition means that it is subjective.
However, I still maintain that “Ultimate Reality” is not a belief because I have coined the term specifically in response to questions on here.
I was using the word “REAL” to mean something more than “what I experience now”
So I coined the two terms to create a specific and exact distinction between
(1) What we normally call real, and (2) what I call REAL.
The former I called “Relative Reality” and the latter “Ultimate Reality”
I have no other way of expressing the distinction between the two, without running into problems about redefining the meaning of reality.
I am, of course, redefining the meaning of reality.
Reality is that which is beyond Time and Space, by my definition.
I cannot show it, describe it, or prove anything about it.
I also do not claim that you have to work hard to get there.
As there is no “there” – it is here.
What I write, is, I fully concede, full of contradictions.
And logically I cannot justify the existence of what I call “Ultimate Reality”
But that also makes perfect sense – because it does not exist at all
In the way we think of things as existing.
It would be accurate to say – it is nothing.
But if it is nothing, how can anyone claim to know it.
How can “nothing” be “Known”?
It cannot.
Because all “Knowing” is with the mind as we relate to “knowing”
The very idea and concept of “knowing” requires a mind.
Anyway – thank you for your interaction here – it was refreshing to discuss with you.
I know we had that little mis-understanding – but I took no offence to that.
Let me say in conclusion that I have tremendous respect for you.
I wish you all the best,
Osho Robbins

Belief.

You are told something and consider it to be TRUE.

No matter how unlikely. As far as you are concerned, it IS true. Period.

In other words you are hypnotized.

That is what hypnosis is.

Even if you get proof it will be subjective proof.

And since you are hypnotized you will make it fit.

Someone sent me this today.

He is a Christian

To him, this really is the truth.

To you and me it is ridiculous.

Wonderful God

A Muslim man in Egypt killed his wife because she was reading the Bible and then buried her with their infant baby and an 8 year old daughter.

حيث ان الفتيات دفنوا و هم أحياء ! و قام بتبليغ الشرطة بالحادثة متهما العم بجريمته . و بعد 15 يوما يموت أحد أفراد العائلة . و عندما أرادوا دفنه , وجدوا تحت الرمل الفتاتان الصغيرتان على قيد الحياة .

The girls were buried alive! then He reported to the police that an uncle killed the kids. 15 days later, another family member died. When they went to bury him, they found the 2 little girls under the sand - ALIVE!
هذه الحادثة أغضبت الناس و حكم على الرجل بالإعدام

The country is outraged over the incident, and the man will be executed.
وقد سؤلت الفتات الكبرى عن كيفيت بقائها على قيد الحياة , فقالت : ' كان يجيء إلينا كل يوم رجل , كان هذا الرجل يلبس ثياب مشعّة و كان له جروح نازفة في يديه , كان يأتي و يطعمنا . و قد أيقظ أمي و بتالي فقد أستطاعت أن ترضع أختي . '
قالت الفتات هذا الكلام في مقابلة على التلفزيون المصرية الوطنية , و أفادة امراة مسلمة عبرأخبار مؤكدة. قالت فيها على التلفزيون الشعبي : ' كان هذا بلا شك السيد المسيح , لأن لا أحد غيره يستطيع فعل مثل هكذا أشياء! '

The older girl was asked how she had survived and she says 'A man wearing shiny clothes, with bleeding wounds in his hands, came every day to feed us. He woke up my mom so she could nurse my sister,' she said.

She was interviewed on Egyptian National TV, by availed Muslim woman news anchor. She said on public TV, 'This was none other than JESUS, because nobody else does things like this!'

المسلمون يؤمنون بأن السيد المسيح يستطيع فعل هذا , ولكن الجراح تشير إلى أن السيد المسح حقا قد صلب , وأيضا من الواضح أنه على قيد الحياة ! , وأيضا من الواضح أن الطفلة لا تستطيع أن تخترع قصة مثل تلك , و أساس فإن من المستحيل بقاء الطفلتان على قيد الحياة بدون معجزة حقيقية ,

Muslims believe Isa (JESUS) would do this, but the wounds mean He really was crucified, and it's clear also that He is alive! But, it's also clear that the child could not make up a story like this, and there is no way these children could have survived without a true miracle. Muslim leaders are going to have a hard time to figure out what to do with this, and the popularity of the Passion movie doesn't help! With Egypt at the centre of the media and education in the Middle East , you can be sure this story will spread.

السيد المس يح ما زال يقلب العالم رأسا على عقب! رجاء دع هذه القصة تنتشر بين الناس. يقول الله : 'أنا سأبارك الشخص الذي يضع ثقته فيّ.' أرميا 17.

Christ is still turning the world upside down! Please let this story be shared. The Lord says, 'I will bless the person who puts his trust in me.' Jeremiah 17..
رجاء أرسل هذه الرسالة إلى كل قائمتك والله سيكافئك بوفرة! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Please forward these to all on your list and GOD will reward you abundantly!!!!!!!!!!!
Please finish reading before you do anything else right now.
Read this to the end. My name is God. I know you will give your time for me. I love you and always bless you. I am always with you. I need you to spend 30 minutes of your time with me today. Don't pray. Just praise. Today I want this message across the world before midnight. Will you help? Please do not cut it and I'll help you with something that you are in need of. A blessing is coming your way. Please drop everything & pass it on. Tomorrow will be the Best Day of your Life. Send this to friends Trust God.

Osh :
"""" Otherwise it would be called MANY-NESS.

ONENESS means there is ONLY ONE and that the many is an illusion. """""


Like there is 3 dimensional chess, there is 777 dimensional math !


7


-

Osho
Shouting at the darkness hasn't yet lit a single candle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gflElH6PMY

watch this video at exactly 6 mins

a hypnotist makes a suggestion, saying "as soon as I snap my fingers..."
and it works like magic.

So when a follower of RSSB (or any religion) has been listening to suggestions from multiple sources (weekly satsangs, books, the guru, fellow satsangis) for MANY YEARS, and what is more he BELIEVES and TRUSTS the sources and has a LOT INVESTED in those beliefs being the truth, then it would be impossible for him NOT to be hypnotised.

And what will the result of that hypnosis be? Will he walk around like a zombie? and will be feel he is in a trance?

No - because neither does the hypnotized subject. The subject feels he is fully awake - but just finds himself following suggestions.

The RSSB (I am just using RSSB as an example - I would equally say Jehovah's Witnesses, mormons, muslims, even advaita disciples) follower DOES exactly what a hypnotized person does.

He follows the suggestions he has been given. So he will do some of the following:-

Follow the dietary rules; attend satsang; do seva; meditate (or try at least)
want to get to Sach Khand;

constant suggestions over a long period definitely have an effect.

He may see visions in his meditation. He desperately wants to believe since he has invested so much of his life in this endeavour.

He wants a return on investment.

If he gets nothing else - he may become a sevadar.

From my observation there is a HUGE payoff in becoming a sevadar.

Firstly you become part of the in-crowd.

Secondly - ambition may set in - and you want to move higher up.

If you please the correct people they will move you up and you can become one of the people who walk around with a walkie talkie.

Of course those sevadars have a sense of importance - and it shows. They feel they are doing an important job.

But they are not - just hypnotized.

And that word - just means that they are CONVINCED that what they are doing is important.

That is all hypnosis is- to obey without the normal discriminatory mind interfering.

Isn't that what everyone who follows is doing?

They are following the suggestions they have been given.

Why? because they feel the suggestions are true.

You will always act according to what you think is true.

It doesn't make it true - but it does APPEAR to be true to you.

And you live your life accordingly.

One example.

The post here entitled "sevadars egos gone wild at haynes" or something like that. Those sevadars who came up to me felt they were doing a really important job.

However - what were they actually doing? Protecting a pathway behind the tent - when the reason for protecting had already gone.

This is hypnosis. There is no logic. They are following orders - exactly like the hypnotized subject follows.

The Guru had already left. He was the reason why that was a no-go zone.

Once He had left, there was no reason left to stop anyone going there.

Why could they not see that?

Simple. Because they were following orders.

When I challenged them - nobody - not a single one of them could give me a valid answer.

I am sorry if it appears I am picking on RSSB - I am not - This applies equally to any religion.

Jehovah's Witnesses go knocking on doors. Why? It's the same - they have a payoff, and will get their reward in heaven.

They cannot see - that they are just recruiters for the organisation.

Osho, you are neither psychologist nor clairvoyant, so why make such conjectures about what is going on in the heads of so many hundreds of thousands and millions of people you have never met?

To understand spiritual experiences you must have them. Repeatedly. Under your control. Then you can determine for yourself what they are.

And even then, at best, that truth is only good for you alone.

Enlightenment starts with the experience of being enlightened. And, since it isn't transferable, pretty much ends there.

All this conjecture about hypnosis is really in the absence of any personal or scientific experience.

Osho

I see what you mean by observing the following of order at some odd situations. But calling it hypnosis is weird and doesn't make sense at all.

It's simply like even if the President is not there at president's house or if the session is not running in parliament and is actually vacant, will the gatekeeper allow you to go inside ? No. Are all the gatekeepers called hypnotised ? No. They are just following the order and it's their job.
And the gatekeepers are not allowed to take decision on their own, otherwise there will be too many decisions and no one will no what's going on.

Your definition of hypnosis was indeed funny. Following orders is not hypnosis, it's really just following orders for the respect and love towards the Master and what's been told to follow.
I agree it's not something very important which could give someone a treasure of Naam, but following Master's orders with Love in the heart, any order, really any order, say just filling the glass of water and serving it with Love in the heart will surely fill the disciple's treasure with Naam.

If every sewadar is given the freedom to decide the rules/unrules based on if the Master has gone, it will really be chaos, it will not be an organised place anymore. And there is no mention of spirituality in it, it's just how an organisation work.

I think you are mixing up so many things without having an appropriate explanation to it.

In hypnosis, the follower doesn’t have any feeling towards the one who is hypnotising, he just follows the order without knowing anything about the love or the hatred.


I understand not all sewadars are doing the sewa with love, but many of them really do it with love and it’s visible in their eyes. But possibly you and the other critiques are mainly pointing out the the ones who are doing it superficially and specially for going up on the ladder but ignoring all those who are doing it with and for the Love.
And really where these sewadars come from ? Do they come from Master’s house ? Do they personally belong to the Masters or RSSB ? No, Sir.
They are amongst us, we are the ones who don’t know yet to do the sewa with Love and do it superficially. HE is the one who still showers the Amazing Grace on us - the Grace of Naam.


So if you go with your own theory, that clearly means you are also hypnotised by your mind, since you are following the orders of your mind. Correct ?

"When I challenged them"

So, who has given you the authority to challenge them ? Correct. Your mind has. So basically even while challenging them, you, your conscience is basically behaving just like a puppet and following the orders of your Mind.

Really Osho, you are as much hypnotised as the sewadars. There is really no difference.

And if you extrapolate your theory you will know not a single person in the world is there who is not hypnotised or not following any orders, unless the one has reached the state of Par Brahm, where he can really receive the orders of the Soul which is not hypnotism.
Some are following the orders of the Master (with the Love in their hearts), some are following the orders of their Mind (with logical thinking and some even without the logical thinking and more absurdity).

Guru Nanak Dev Ji Mahraj rightly declared the two categories - Manmukh and Gurumukh.
Manmukh who follows their mann/mind, Gurumukh who follows their Guru.
A little explanation here is that the disciple who has not yet reached the Par Brahm is also Manmukh but that he has orient his mind/mann towards the master; he is progressing to become the Gurumukh.


~OI

Osho:
When I challenged them

John: previously you said you did not challenge anybody

John, Not sure what you are getting at.
I clearly asked them a question. You can call it a question or a challenge. It makes no difference : it's semantics.

WOW for Spencer's :
Osho
Shouting at the darkness hasn't yet lit a single candle.
Posted by: Spencer Tepper | July 04, 2017 at 04:03 AM

May I add :
"Only Being God is to Know Him"

777

Stop thinking guys & dolls, . . . BE the Music of Love

-


-

One Initiated:

But calling it hypnosis is weird and doesn't make sense at all.
It's simply like even if the President is not there at president's house or if the session is not running in parliament and is actually vacant, will the gatekeeper allow you to go inside ? No. Are all the gatekeepers called hypnotised ? No. They are just following the order and it's their job.

Osho Robbins:
The difference between the examples you give is this:
I was not going on stage! Or entering the master’s house.
I was walking on a piece of land that there was no reason to defend.
In your example it’s like the president is going to walk on a certain street. So for security, the area is a no-go area and security protect it.
But once the president has gone, why would they STILL protect it?
Well, of course, they don’t, but sevadars DO!
And when openly asked WHY – there is no answer other than “Just following orders”
WHOSE orders? And WHY?
The guru did not directly give those orders, as He says he doesn’t get involved in details.
So it’s the orders of the committee, and the WHY is non-existent.
So now, let me ask YOU a question.
And think carefully before you answer.

What is a Gurmukh? You said a Gurmukh follows their Guru (and his orders)
Does he follow the committee? Are all the sevadars Gurmukhs?
The Guru is asking you to spend your time in meditation. That is considered the highest form of Seva, according to sant mat.
Doing physical seva is not essential, in sant mat.
So how come those sevadars don’t just quit the seva and meditate?

Because the meditation is hard work – or because they get no results from meditation.
If the meditation was full of bliss and an amazing experience, I can guarantee we would have no sevadars. Who would leave a state of bliss to boss people around?
The truth is – they get no results (or very little) results in meditation, so the fall-back position is to do seva.

One-Initiated:
And the gatekeepers are not allowed to take decision on their own, otherwise there will be too many decisions and no one will know what's going on.

Osho Robbins:
Well explain this then:
I was at Haynes Park at a main annual satsang when the master comes. A lady was standing there passed the area where you are supposed to hand in your mobile phone,.
She looked distraught.
She was coming up to people and asking if she can borrow their mobile phone because she has lost her daughter.
Most people ignored her. They didn’t care – just as long as they can get to their satsang on time. Anyways – I was just walking up to her to tell her to go to the mobile phone stand and ask someone there to help her.
But before I got there, one person stopped to help her. He handed her his mobile phone and said she could call her daughter from there.
She immediately grabbed his mobile phone and said “Why have you got this?” and she led him to the mobile phone check-in to hand the phone in.
It was all an elaborate trick. I am sure Gurinder did not sanction this.
Someone else did – or did she do it on her own back.
I am just saying – maybe people are making their own decisions, and as long as it gets the results they want – it is acceptable.

One-Initiated:

Your definition of hypnosis was indeed funny. Following orders is not hypnosis, it's really just following orders for the respect and love towards the Master and what's been told to follow.

Osho Robbins:
Hypnosis: the induction of a state of consciousness in which a person apparently loses the power of voluntary action and is highly responsive to suggestion or direction.

That is exactly what cults and religions use. The followers are all hypnotized. When an Islamic extremist kills people he is under a state of hypnosis. Why? Because if he was not, he would not do those actions. He is CONVINCED (the result of hypnosis) that the action of killing is beneficial to him (in heaven).
Just as a Jehovah’s Witness goes knocking on doors. Why would someone do that? Unless you could CONVINCE them it was beneficial for them.
WHY would anyone do seva? Unless you could CONVINCE them it will be extremely beneficial for their future.
In the enlightenment path – it is harder to hypnotize someone (but not impossible) because you are not offering them anything. There are no benefits; no heaven; no reward.
Just following orders IS hypnosis.
Obviously not if you are in a JOB, and are getting paid – hecause now you have a reason and a motive to follow those orders. You are getting paid in money.
And you are not following orders indiscriminately. You have a reason.

Following orders, just because you are told to – and not to question them – is hypnosis. Or you can call it conditioning.

Or example a soldier is conditioned to OBEY without question. He cannot afford to have a conscience. If he still has a conscience – the conditioning process has failed.

When he is told to shoot – even if it is women and children he is killing – he has to follow orders. He is not allowed to think.

Anyone who is conditioned is not allowed to question why.
His function is to do or die (i.e. obey)

One-Initiated:

Following Master's orders with Love in the heart, say just filling the glass of water and serving it with Love in the heart will surely fill the disciple's treasure with Naam.
If every sewadar is given the freedom to decide the rules/unrules based on if the Master has gone, it will really be chaos, it will not be an organised place anymore. And there is no mention of spirituality in it, it's just how an organisation work.
I think you are mixing up so many things without having an appropriate explanation to it.
In hypnosis, the follower doesn’t have any feeling towards the one who is hypnotising, he just follows the order without knowing anything about the love or the hatred.

Osho Robbins:

Love? Do you think YOU (or indeed anyone) LOVES the master?
Your mind measures up the benefits. And it decides it would be GOOD to love the master. Then it convinces itself that it loves the master.
If Gurinder Singh Dhillon was NOT the master and if someone else had been appointed instead, WHO would you love today?

Would everyone be chasing GSD, or the successor? Obviously the successor.
Why? Because of the benefits.
Truthfully – nobody cares about Gurinder, Charan, Sawan or any of them.
Of course they PRETEND they do – and they put on a convincing act.
They are even fully convinced that they love the master.

However, there are firmly turned to the world’s most popular radio station.
WIIFM
What’s In It For Me.

In the final analysis – nobody cares about any master. They care only about what will happen to their soul after death. They care about Him coming at death to take care of the soul.
This is conditional love – and that is not love at all.
The only exception to this may be people like Bhai Shaadi who didn’t care about himself.

One Initiated:

I understand not all sewadars are doing the sewa with love, but many of them really do it with love and it’s visible in their eyes. But possibly you and the other critiques are mainly pointing out the ones who are doing it superficially

Osho Robbins:

Everyone has a motive. The motive in sant mat is that you want to get to Sach Khand and since the Master is the key – you must love him. But is it really love when there is an ulterior motive?

One Initiated:

So if you go with your own theory, that clearly means you are also hypnotised by your mind, since you are following the orders of your mind. Correct ?

Osho Robbins:
Not quite. To follow your own mind means that YOU are deciding – not someone else.

One Initiated
"When I challenged them"
So, who has given you the authority to challenge them ? Correct. Your mind has. So basically even while challenging them, you, your conscience is basically behaving just like a puppet and following the orders of your Mind.
Really Osho, you are as much hypnotised as the sewadars. There is really no difference.

Osho Robbins:
There is a huge difference. When a person follows a religion, a cult, he is conditioned and hypnotized by those beliefs. They control his actions – and he is unaware because he thinks it is the truth.
When a person follows his own mind – he is making his own decisions – however, as you correctly pointed out – those too are not free because of the past programming. So the response to stimuli is conditioned.
One example: a certain door would not open. All the people in to room pulled and pushed the handle to no avail. They tried everything but the door would not pen – so they gave up.
A little child of three came along and pushed – and the door opened.
How come the child could open what all the others could not?
What did the child do differently? The clue is – he was not conditioned.

Spencer Tepper:
Osho
Shouting at the darkness hasn't yet lit a single candle.

Osho Robbins:

No amount of meditation has yet stilled the mind

Osho Robbins:

"No amount of meditation has yet stilled the mind"

Only someone omnipresent and omnipotent can accurately state what is found inside the minds of others one has never met, never known.

Such statements are pure conjecture, and fall into the category of prejudice.


Osho

In the final analysis – nobody cares about any master. They care only about what will happen to their soul after death. They care about Him coming at death to take care of the soul.
This is conditional love – and that is not love at all.
The only exception to this may be people like Bhai Shaadi who didn’t care about himself.

No no no, Osho, you are gross wrong here in understanding the bigger picture. It’s ok in the first place for a disciple - in the process of becoming a disciple to have a target in the front - call the target as Sach Khand, Par Brahm, Master’s Radiant Form. And in fact who has mentioned about these targets really? The Master HIMSELF. HE has given the sewa to every single disciple. Not mere the sewadars in the Satsang Centre are only the sewadars but every single person attending the Master is sewadar - it depends how good is he is indulging himself in the sewa.

For truly understanding the term sewadar is we need to really see what is sewa - As repeated by the Master in nearly every Satsang: the sewa with utmost importance is of Bhajan & Simran and progress in the meditation.


Such good name you included here of Bhai Shaadi.
Every single disciple has to eventually become like Bhai Shaadi to realise the Sach Khand.
But it’s a process, it’s not something which can be given by the Master right at the time of the initiation or in Satsangs. It’s not the state that every disciple starts their Journey with, but it’s surely the unsaid aim - for only this is the way to realise.

That happens eventually with every disciple ! Every single one who reach to a certain recognisable level of consciousness; the disciple rightly gets merged in the Master and himself becomes that Love and no longer have the so called targets, these targets works at the very beginning of the journey and as explained by Soami Ji Maharaj: anyone who has reached Sach Khand; has only reached by merging in the Master - and this merger can not happen without the Love, that is the Love in fact… and exactly every disciple will lead to that path and that way of thinking eventually - by the mix of their efforts and HIS grace.

Until then, to be able to motivated, what would a beginner think if the Master is asking to withdraw the focus from all worldly stuff, what’s the disciple is getting in the return ? … they can not really feel that deeper love rightly in the beginning (off course there are exceptions based on past karmas) - but in generality there has to be a grand deal for leaving (at least relinquishing the interest and putting a bar if not fully leaving) all the maya stuff.


For a small example:

Just like the parents set a prize of a certain gift item or a toy or a thing in front of the child, that if the child clears the exams with such and such results, he will be granted with that gift.
The aim of the parents is not actually to give that gift to the child, but the aim of the parents is really to invoke to spark that love for the studies in the heart of the child. And the setting of target of the gift really only works for some years - i.e. the beginning of the journey.
Eventually when the child finds the love for the choice of his field and matures up, he doesn’t need the parents to tell him about the gift or he himself even not looking up to what gifts he could be earning. he has found the love in his heart to study/work on something which itself is biggest gift for him.

Similarly loving and merging in the master is actually what’s going to happen eventually with every disciple. And no one can expect the same state of each and every disciple exactly at the same time - how can this even be thought of ?
It’s a life long (multiple lives long) journey for every single soul, where no one knows the state of, let alone any other being, not even his own state, then how can we be so judgemental about what others’ are doing or how the other disciples/sewadars are behaving.

It’s ok that you think you have that sort of understanding and that sort of Love for the Master that for you these targets matter no more. But judging others’ ?
No Osho No, this was ultra wrong way of observing and being judgemental to the fellow beings.

It’s It’s like embarrassing and taunting a little child on the gifts/targets for which he is trying to put the hard work from his capacity. This is totally uncalled.


Love to you brother.


~OI

Stilling the mind to some degree has been medically and scientifically proven to be a fact, a true result of meditation practice. Meditation improves the functioning of the brain.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/05/26/harvard-neuroscientist-meditation-not-only-reduces-stress-it-literally-changes-your-brain/

A variety of forms of meditation, most based in repetition and intense focus, improves brain health, increases grey matter, as well as improved attention and focus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_meditation

Devotional practice is just one very long standing and well researched method proven to be highly effective

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12661646

In exact contrast to the arguments presented in this discussion,
Meditation practice improves mental functioning.

Everyone should find something worthy of their devotion and focus and spend time focused on that.

It is a much better use of time.

The person in the dark would do best to raise themselves out of the ditch they are in, rather than to claim all those walking about above them in the daylight are hypnotized, and that daylight doesn't actually exist.

Why is it such a big deal for satsangis who want to be saved and ultimately merge into some region called Sach Khand? Isn't life an adventure, having different experiences in different realms, continuing to learn and evolve?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahram-shiva/are-we-all-one_b_7615562.html


"Are we really all one, as we are being reminded seemingly on daily basis? The short answer is yes and no.
...
At our core, we are beings of diverse, varied and unique heritage, stemming from all parts of our galaxy and even other dimensions who have made a choice to be here and occupy these biological shells, but this doesn’t make us all one. Sharing the same shells even though our souls are magnificently diverse doesn’t make us the same.
...
We are unique, diverse, singularly talented spirits with distinct destinies.
...
We are one, yes but only with those who manifest at a similar vibration level as we do."

Hi Jen
Satsangis are a diverse group.

As for those who want to be "saved" in any belief system, even as an Atheist through the creation of some semi-immortal worldly achievement, the desire for help and escape depends largely upon the quality of one's own life.

Some people have had a very hard time. It would be presumptuous to judge their life and their choices by ones own particular situation or the particulate lessons one person takes as wisdom from their own limited experience.

We are all, at base, connected. We come from the same core gene pool, we are all generated by the same process of life, and our future prospects, for every one of us, aren't encouraging.

To adopt an attitude of power, authority or meaning is largely a construction. There is no greater reality in it. So to seek something else beyond our limitations is entirely understandable.

And there is more to discover both within and without. Hence people engage in their own explorations, and adopt a system of belief, which is really a hypotheses. And engaging in the practices of that belief they see for themselves what comes of "following the path". Some leave, some stay.

Nothing complicated.

Why other people do things is an unsolvable mystery. Why we do what we do might be solvable. There's more practical value in that pursuit.

"Who sums their fellows up at sight,
Brings wonder to their eyes.
But one who sums themself aright,
Alone is truly wise."
-Tao

There is a story of a certain Bhai Nand Lal Goya, and his first meeting with Guru Gobind Singh in Anandpur.
He comes with flowers and shouts “Hearts for sale”
Guru Gobind hears him and asks his disciples who the man is.
They say “He is a Mastana” (a crazy man)
Gobind says “I am looking for such people – please invite him here”
Bhai Nand Lal comes.
“What are you selling?” asks Guru Gobind.
Nand Lal hands him a flower and says “I am selling my heart”
Gobind examines the flower and says it is beautiful – but what is the price?
“Ek Meher Bhari Nazar” replies Nand Lal (One glance of grace)
Gobind hands it back “It is too expensive”
Nand Lal realizes his mistake and hands it again to Gobind, saying
“It is FREE – there is no price”
Gobind then accepts it.
The point of the story is that if you have love, you don’t ask for anything, you are a giver.

Many years later, Gobind calls the same Nand Lal and says
“I am pleased with your seva, ask for anything and I shall grant it”
Nand Lal says “When I came to you – I was full of desires: mukti, grace….. etc”
But keeping your company, al my desires have vanished… Now I cannot ask for anything”

This is the point I am making.

This is called love. A state in which you no longer want anything.
Hence you cannot ask for anything. No more desires. Nothing to seek.
How many disciples do you see in that state?

I am sure that if the master comes up to any disciple and says what Guru Gobind said,
That disciples would give him a very long list.

Would you agree? Or do you think I am mistaken?


Every time the master invites questions – most of the questions are not even questions – they are ASKING for something. “Give me Grace” or “Help me meditate” or “come at my death” or “My father is ill – please heal him” or “take me to Sach Khand”

This shows that the disciples are only with him for the benefits.

Let me put in another way. If tomorrow the Master announced in Satsang “I am not coming at your death – nor are any of the previous masters coming.”
And also said.
“I am stating categorically that there is ZERO benefit for doing seva. You will not be rewarded in any way whatsoever. I guarantee it”
Furthermore – if he added
“If you do your meditation, that is great – but you will not get any benefit from the
Meditation. You will not get any inner progress and no reward”

Would anyone still do seva and meditate?

If not, then they are in it for the benefits – not love.
Your primary reason to go to work is the money you get paid – the reward.
It is a separate matter that you might enjoy the work.
But if there was no pay – you most likely would not go to work again.
With the spiritual path – the pay is just something different.

Take an example on here.
Appreciative Reader was asking me one specific question.
“What is the benefit?”
Because he wants to know
“WHY should I spend my time chasing this enlightenment?
If there is no clear benefit to ME”

However there is no benefit to the ego (the ME)

One Initiated wrote:
It’s ok that you think you have that sort of understanding and that sort of Love for the Master that for you these targets matter no more. But judging others’ ?
No Osho No, this was ultra wrong way of observing and being judgemental to the fellow beings.

Osho Robbins:
This is what I wrote – where you think I am being judgemental:

Love? Do you think YOU (or indeed anyone) LOVES the master?
Your mind measures up the benefits. And it decides it would be GOOD to love the master. Then it convinces itself that it loves the master.
If Gurinder Singh Dhillon was NOT the master and if someone else had been appointed instead, WHO would you love today?
Would everyone be chasing GSD, or the successor? Obviously the successor.
Why? Because of the benefits.

One Initiated, I am not being judgemental here. I am not saying it is a BAD thing. I am not being critical, or disapproving of anyone. I am not putting anyone down.

I am making a statement that we have a mind and the function of the mind is to look after us and do what is in our best interests. The mind COUNTS and MEASURES then acts accordingly. The sant mat books say that you cannot succeed without having great love for the master. So you create love for the master.
Only thing is: if there is a motive – then it is not love.
If I love a woman who is a millionaire, I love her for her money, not for her.
It becomes even clearer if I leave her the moment she loses her millions.

That is the case with the master. And he is no idiot – he also knows it.

I have heard Him saying it very clearly, that “You are only saying that you love me because I am on this gaddi. If I wasn’t nobody would care”

I understand that the disciples WANT to love the master, and they convince themselves that they have that love. But the reality is: is cannot happen.

When I was following Darshan Singh – I was 100% convinced that I had great love for him. I would even cry, and miss him, after the visits to Kirpal Ashram. I would remember all the amazing times I had in his company. I used to read my poetry to him and he would listen. I remember when he would leave the people he was talking to, just to come over to me and talk to me.
So many experiences I had with him will convince me I had great love for him. But the truth is : I had a motive: that he would help me on the spiritual path.

I am sure just about everyone THINKS they love the master. I am just questioning whether it is real or delusional.

If you have a lot of personal contact with the master, then a close bond can be created, but if you hardly ever see him, and even when you do – it’s from a distance, and there is no personal connection, it is unlikely that any real connection or love can be created.

Osho
You wrote:
"If you have a lot of personal contact with the master, then a close bond can be created, but if you hardly ever see him, and even when you do – it’s from a distance, and there is no personal connection, it is unlikely that any real connection or love can be created."

Once again, it is really a mistake to try to form a judgement of anyone else.
Emily Dickenson lived alone, yet her connection, her insight, and her love of Spirit shine through.

I think the folks who love the Master sincerely may include those you never see at Satsang.

We are not all social or sociable beings. Yet to make a judgement of what is in one's heart on the basis of sociability may be mistaken.

Osho, I see you trying to reach a place above judgement, but to do that you must give up that discrimination which you excercise, but which requires judging other people.

What is right discrimination, then? Only what we apply to the guy in the mirror. That is the only utility for it.

Apply it to the man in the mirror day and night, and you may find your way out of the ditch.


Spence,
You don't understand the difference between
BEING JUDGEMENTAL
and
making a judgement.

I can say that I think my car is 2.5 metres long. That is a judgement.
It does not have a GOOD/BAD value element to it.

Being JUDGEMENTAL means to place a GOOD/BAD value on something.

E.g. Fred is stupid, is judgemental (assuming "stupid" is a bad thing)

Spence wrote:
Osho, I see you trying to reach a place above judgement, but to do that you must give up that discrimination which you excercise, but which requires judging other people.

Osho Robbins:
I am not trying to reach anywhere. And giving up discrimination would be absurd. Discrimination does not require any judgement of people.

Nothing in my posting was judgemental.

I didn't call it a "Bad" thing to have or not have love.

I am merely examining the possibility of having love for someone you have no external connection with

Spence,
do you love Swami Ji of Agra?
or
Sawam Singh of beas?
or Jaimal singh?

if you say you DO, (assuming you have never met them) then exactly HOW did that love get created, when you have not met them?

Someone might see muy video on youtube
and say they love me or hate me.

Most likely what they are saying is they love of hate what I am saying.

Not me - as they don't know me.

Nobody can love or hate me from the video.

If they do - it is delusional. It is a creation of their own mind.

In the same way, I am saying how can you LOVE the master when you don't even know him?

I know this person who thought he had great love for the master (Gurinder).

I once said something and he said "Don't say anything against my master"

Anyway - he wanted to ask a question on the mic, and I was in the front of the queue and he was way behind me. I give up my position to him and left the queue.

So there he was - asking the master a question. All the while when he was in the queue, he was sitting there looking at the master, hands folded. never looking away for a moment. The very epitome of devotion.

When he asked the question, the master did not respond like he thought. It was a reality check for him. He thought the master would be overjoyed to hear from this great devoted disciple.

This is what I mean - suddenly his love disappeared, because it was not real in the first place. It was created in his head.

What is love? Can you love someone you don't know?

You can THINK you do. but is it real?

If you love someone you have not met or know well, then you are mistaken,

Babani Ji is a classic example. He knew Charan Singh and they were close. So close that Charan Singh authorised just his own and Babani's tapes when he stopped other tapes being sold.

I am not saying it was love - but at least real respect.

So when Gurinder took over - it was different. Now Babani in his mind may have thought it was the same power and the same love would be there. but no - these were two different people.

So let me re-iterate what I am saying.

How can you love someone you have no connection with?

The examples you gave. How is that love?

and don't forget the motive. Everyone wants to love the master because of the benefits.

no benefits = no love.

Why do YOU follow the path?

presumably to get the results.

if you don't get them, how long will you continue?

And if the master puts you down and criticises you in public, will you still love him?

The chances are - no you won't.

You only love that which benefits you.

Let’s examine HOW and WHY disciples claim to love their master.
Here are reasons to love the master
(1) He has great qualities and you look up to him
(2) You admire him and want to be like him
(3) You believe he is flawless
(4) You can only make progress if you love the master
(5) He is the in-guy as he goes to sach khand.
(6) He is all knowing and all powerful – a good guy to have love for

So these are all the benefits of having love for the master.
Basically if you have no love, then you might as well quit the path now
Cause you will not progress.

Osho you wrote

"Let’s examine HOW and WHY disciples claim to love their master."

Why do you repeatedly cast negative judgments upon others you do not know and have never met?

It seems to be an addiction.

Osho you wrote

"So when Gurinder took over - it was different. Now Babani in his mind may have thought it was the same power and the same love would be there. but no - these were two different people."

Do you think someone's love is based on getting sweets from someone? Or healthy food?

We are love Osho. We are all made of love, and no one has any more or less than anyone else.

But that is a much different perspective than the position you have tied yourself to.

Osho

Your understanding about Thakir sets up a false dichotomy.

Just as Judas is in the lap of Christ today, enjoying the Lord's company, so is Thakir and Kirpal with their lovingMaster.

"How can you love someone you have no connection with?"

Yes Osho, this is true. We are seeking to fill the emptiness and longing inside. Looking for something more than this world can offer. I never felt a connection and yet some people do fall in love with the Master. Its probably because of recognition, seeing a kind of reflection of who they are. Because that is what true love is, an awakening to who we really are. I'm still searching.

Hi Osho

You wrote

"Everyone wants to love the master because of the benefits.

no benefits = no love.

Why do YOU follow the path?

presumably to get the results.

if you don't get them, how long will you continue?

And if the master puts you down and criticises you in public, will you still love him?"

Dear Osho you falsely presume this is the disciple's choice and the disciple's love.

The logic you are using of trying to determine how much love exists between two people based on how much time they spend together physically, or whether they choose to love one another is flawed and indirect. A moment's glance between two lovers changes both, forever, and is irreversible.

And a single night in each other's arms changes this and several other lifetimes, past, present and future.

The Masters connect with their disciples internally. That is where the relationship starts, lives, and is consummated. It began long before the disciple ever set eyes on their Master. And the Master also provides a means for the disciple to verify the legitimacy of that internal connection.

That cannot be viewed or assessed externally, as you are repeatedly trying to do.

Your points are flawed on a number of fronts.

First, you are trying to judge the love between Master and disciple when you have dismissed the spirituality of that relationship as hypnosis. Your presumption is a defacto invalidation of the relationship of the Master to all His disciples, because it is based on spirituality, which you reject. But to accept the legitimacy of that relationship between the Master and even one single disciple makes your arguments to the contrary false.

Second, the Masters teach about their love for their disciples as being internal and not limited by physical proximity. Your case for the Master's love depends upon proximity, therefore within the Master-disciple relationship your argument is false.


Third, you have linked a disciples' progress to their visible love for the master, and linked that to both their physical proximity and their sincerity. If the Master's love is real and unlimited and He has chosen to initiate anyone, the level of love from the disciple is actually not relevant to their progress. They have been handed all His love at the moment He took that responsibility upon Himself. The initiate who has never seen their Master receives as much love as the disciple who appears to be receiving all their attention. And so the progress of the disciple is constant and continuous, unlike their flawed heart and attention, because that progress rests firmly upon the shoulders of the Master.


You are judging things from a social perspective, not a spiritual perspective, and therefore your rules about love and relationship can only apply to the external physical, behavioral and social indeces.

In Spirituality, all of those are considered temporal, false, unreal and unnecessary. They are imaginary. They exist or appear absent only in the mind of the disciple in so far as the disciple remains unaware of the very present and active internal relationship.

Fourth, your arguments about how sincere and close the disciple is or is not to the Master falsely presumes a relationship between two beings. In Spirituality the relationship is always between the soul and its source. They are always one and the same. The electricity at the microwave oven end is the same electricity as at the nuclear power plant end. The journey is merely to witness it through the varies stages of our development.

And from the nuclear power plant end, whether microwave oven or toaster hardly matters.

And when that microwave or toaster complains with "gee it's getting uncomfortably warm" or "how come I'm not on now?" they are actually functioning, finally, in both states, as designed.

Spence Tepper

Couldn't agree more with you, Spence.

Osho is wholesomely wrong here.
And from his last few comments it is evident that whatever he has been judging about others are actually all his feelings and experiences. And how mistakenly he is thinking that same is happening with every other one and everyone is going through the same feelings.

All the Osho's judgements even about himself are completely wrong from head to toe let alone judging (in his words: passing judgement to) others. And all of that was indeed funny, I didn't have a slight idea that Osho is holding such kind of perceptions in the back of his mind, emphasising on the physical proximity with the Master with such paramount of importance. It's off course clear that it's because of Osho's earlier experiences and that he is quite prejudice towards other disciples.

Osho would be surprised to know that I have met numerous (and I know some) really spiritually advanced disciples, deep in their love for the Master, who have not personally met the Master even once, but they are surely attached with the Master inside.
Given the huge number of people in India, even the initiation is done in the significantly huge batches.

Mirabai Ji:

❝ Ghayal ki gat ghayal jane, aur na jane koi. ❞

The pain of living with the wound (of Love) is only known to the wounded and not anyone else.

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 posted. 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

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

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.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...