I reveal my mystical experiences

There: Right there. See the blank space after “There:” That’s where I revealed my mystical experiences.

I was impelled to disclose the status of my inner spiritual realization after reading a comment by A fellow bubble-bursted soul on my recent “Bursting Belief Bubbles” post. This person, a fellow Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) initiate, said that he/she was still pursuing the experiment of meditation even though positive results to date had been lacking.

The commenter said, “Unfortunately if I have a break through I won't be able to tell you because us satsangis [initiates], conveniently, aren't suppose to reveal our inner experiences.”

Yes, that’s true. And “conveniently” is the operative word here.

I used to think that the reason for the injunction against revealing inner experiences was that if you had a profound experience and talked about it, other people would start looking upon you as a divine being. This could inflate your ego, thereby causing you to be dropped from the Mystic Experience Club.

However, that reasoning doesn’t make sense to me anymore. Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, and many other supposedly elevated souls have spoken about their inner godly experiences. They don’t seem to have been spiritually harmed by sharing their contacts with divinity.

If I hike up to an alpine lake, then descend and tell people how lovely the scenery was, am I now an egotistical maniac who should forever be barred from entering the mountains again? Of course not. I’m just telling about my experience.

So I’ve concluded that the main reason RSSB initiates aren’t supposed to reveal their inner experiences is that hardly anybody is having any. Maybe nobody. I can say this quite confidently because over the past thirty-five years I’ve talked to lots of mystic meditators. Plus, I talk to myself all the time.

The constantly-recurring theme that I hear is “My meditation sucks.” Not always said quite so bluntly, but that’s the message. Now, “sucks” is a value judgment made by comparing one’s actual experience with an expected experience. Some mystical paths (such as Zen) don’t speak much about what is going to happen along the way.

But RSSB does. There are various metaphysical regions that the initiate is told about, along with the sights and sounds that will be seen and heard in each higher domain of the cosmos.

So if you’re stuck in the dark silence of your own brain, repeating your guru-given mantra over and over like an obsessive-compulsive parrot, it’s difficult not to eventually come to the conclusion, “My meditation sucks.”

That said, and I’ve said it countless times, I still meditate every day for an hour or so. I enjoy my meditation. But I’ve never experienced anything that I could conclusively call “mystical,” “spiritual,” or “divine.” I’ve felt like I was rising up into a blissful void, but neuroscientists theorize that this could be the result of sensory deprivation (I usually use earplugs and a blindfold).

I’m a strong believer in inner meditation. It seems to me that this is the best way to grapple with eminently scientific questions about the essential nature of consciousness, life, and existence. If I can simply be conscious, simply live, and simply exist in meditation, I feel that I’m going to be closer to getting some answers.

Who knows? Maybe I am indeed closer. But close doesn’t count in scientific research. You either get a definitive finding or you don’t. I’m still waiting for results. And believe me, I’ve been experimenting for many years—most of that time doing just what I was instructed.

Now I’m modifying my meditation, tinkering with alternative approaches, becoming more open to different ways of opening myself to whatever reality may lie beyond that which I know now. This feels right and good to me. Why should I keep on doing the same thing in meditation when I’m not getting the results that were anticipated?

Life is too short to spend bumped up against a dead end. When I hear a whisper—“back up, turn around, and head in a new direction”—I’m going to listen to that inner voice. And I’ll let you know how the advice turns out.

I have a friend who likes to say, “Nobody’s life is ever completely wasted. He always can serve as a horrible example for others.” Great saying. Science progresses by researchers sharing the results of their experiments and investigations. A negative result can be almost as valuable as a positive result, helping to guide research in a more productive direction.

I wish more meditators, of the RSSB variety or whatever, would speak more clearly, honestly, and forthrightly about their inner experiences (or, lack of them), even though spiritual practice always will be highly individualistic and personal. I doubt that a foolproof, 100% effective, guaranteed-results system of meditation ever will be discovered or developed.

However, if people who meditate talked more openly about what works and doesn’t work for them, I think we’d be more likely to achieve the illusive goal of making spirituality a genuine science rather than merely a collection of competing unproven beliefs.

Comments

[Robert Searle]

MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SCIENCE...THE WAY AHEAD?

I was somewhat stunned by the above email. I believe rightly, or wrongly that the above writer may be Brian Hines himself. I stand to be corrected if this is not so.

The idea of comparing attempted descriptions of inner experiences is not totally new, but is usually forbidden in esotericism. Infact, I hope to fully research, and develop Multi-Dimensional Science which deals with this subject. An article on it can be easily traceable via a word search on the internet, and can be found on the Kheper website. Also, a new article to do with Esoteric Secrecy should be appearing there too.

[GM]

Just my thoughts:

Why else do we have friends, family, "fellow worshippers" then to be able to share experiences? When someone shares their experience with me, it makes my own experience much richer; sometimes just by enjoying the telling! And, it helps me figure out what I want to enjoy and experience on my own journey.

So, my experience? I've learned (am learning?) to make my life a meditation. What do I mean by that? Well, one "dictionary definition" of meditation is: A devotional exercise of or leading to contemplation. So, I keep my thoughts busy with the contemplation of life (the universe, and everything). I know that may sound a little...um...flippant, but...*shrug* It's how I view life. This plane of existance that we are currently sharing is incredibly rich, diverse, amazing, awe inspiring, and rather interesting! There is much to contemplate! (And those who know me know that I'm always "thinking" about something!) I've found that in so doing, I can sufficiently quiet my thoughts when I need a set apart time for quiet contemplation. So, that's what I maen by "I make my life a meditation".

Besides, meditation is supposed to help us become enlightened, right? What better way to become enlightened than by enjoying the contemplation of life!

:)

[GM]

And a second thought....

EVERYONE--whether RSSB, Christian, Bhuddist, Agnostic, or whatever--makes their own religion. Yes, people may join churches or other like minded individuals, but each person's beliefs are *slightly* different than another's. Just because a person has the title of "master", "pastor", "guru", or "enlightened one" doesn't mean that his/her followers have to believe and agree with every word that is uttered, every tenet that is passed down. Each individual has to discover what works for him/her.

[Anonymous Girl]

Greetings Brian! In response to your post of Sept 27th 2005: 'I reveal my mystical experiences', I will say that I am a RSSB initiate of 9 years, and these are the experiences I have had: I have heard a voice identifying itself as archangel Uriel speak to me on several occasions and reveal oracles that have come to fruition (in some instances the oracles were spoken up to two years before the events then manifested. And the events themselves were not insignificant: predictions of the death of family members, and so on.) I have seen the radiant form of my Master, Baba Gurinder Singh, at the vet (who says divinity doesn't appear in unexpected, mundane places?) where I had taken my desperately ill dog who was riddled with cancer. And when I cook dinner I sometimes see my Master's form in my kitchen. So, Satsangis most certainly do have mystical experiences, and I am choosing to remain anonymous because these are highly personal and there is nothing to be gained by saying who I am. I will also add that contrary to what we are sometimes told, my recollection of my past-lives increased, rather than diminished, after I was initiated ... But my point is all of this is that these are not 'inner experiences' that have occurred during meditation, but rather manifestations of the divine in ordinary life, and I do believe that there in lies the rub. Perhaps we tend to sit in meditation with too much of a sense of pre-occupied expectation, whereas in our day-to-day activities there is no sense of expectation at all? At least that is my take on things : ) To close, per chance I met a clairvoyant lady last week who described my spirit guide to me (an elderly Indian man with a turban) – I had told this woman nothing at all about myself so her comments were entirely unprompted. Surely the benefits of meditation are there even if they are not always obviously apparent? Thanks for a great site, Brian.

[Brian]

Anonymous Girl, thanks for sharing your experiences. I like your theory that in meditation we have lots of expectations, whereas in everyday life we take things as they come, because we know that we can't control life--whereas we tend to feel that we can control meditation.

It sounds like you've been able to open yourself up to higher realities for you, which is great. Myself, I'm entirely open to the possibility of experiencing radiant astral forms, spirit guides, higher domains of creation, whatever. Bring it on, I say every morning in my meditation.

I just have come to the point where I want to be honest with myself and others about what I'm experiencing. I don't want to make lack of experiencing into something more ("the guru is saving up the merit of meditation for me") or less ("I'm a total failure") than the evident reality.

I agree with you that meditation is beneficial regardless of what happens or doesn't happen. I always enjoy meditating and feel closer to both myself and the cosmos afterward (and during).

So I do experience benefits--just not mind-blowing, knock my socks off, wow! experiences, which my excitement addicted self would like to have.

[A seeker]

I can't speak from the perspective of an Initiate, but rather as the daughter of an initiate who passed away. My mother was a seeker before I was born and initiated early in my life so I grew up around the principles of RSSB as many children grow up in church. I know that my mother always struggled with her meditation, never achieving results even to the end of her life. I can say that all the meditation she didn't do was one of her biggest regrets at the end. In her life she was disapointed with her results and the openness of a fellow satsangi further along the path did give my mother confidence. But I think the real issue with another satsangi sharing their inner experiences is that they cannot become a guide because everyone has an individual path that he/she must follow him/herself. No one else can do it for you. I think it is most important to remember that not everyone will achieve inner results in their lifetime especially if we are given four. To think of it in a different way though nothing that a satsangi does is harmful, so even if the desired results are not achieved the time spent in quiet meditation is a gift in itself. So I would say my main point is don't lose hope, because you are not alone, but life is short and don't waste what time you are given.

[ravi]

Dear brian,
JESUS,MOHAMMAD,MOSES ETC revealed their experiences only after they had reached a
particular point in their spiritual quest
Not during their journey to that particular
quest.Have you reached anywhere to share ur secrets?You have answered that one.
It is apparent that you want a fellow satsangi to share their mystic experience with you.But how would you know that he is not lieing,How would you know that his experience is true.
Now if you tell me that you would still believe him then why can't you believe the master as it is implied that since he is the master he has been there done that.
The point is that sharing experiences will not help,it will not make you believe a
fact. The only thing that will give you belief is direct experience yourself.
Most satsangis you have met,you say,have had no inner experiences.Thats because like you they have not put in adequate effort in practice.
But you are going too far when you assume confidently that no one has these experiences.You can assume this only if you personally know each and every initiate,and both of us know that you don't.
Since you are a firm follower of sience you would agree that your assumption is unscientific coz of the reason mentioned above.
You say that "when some thing is not working for you why not try some thing different."Of course you are open to try different things but also keep in mind one fact that if something is not working for you the reason could be that you are not doing it right,or that you are not doing enough of it.

[Brian]

Ravi, I've never heard the master speak directly about his inner mystic experiences. Have you? So I can't either believe him or not believe him, because there is nothing for me to believe or not believe.

You're right. We neither can, nor should,immediately believe someone just because they say they've experienced God, or whatever. Trust in what someone says comes with experience.

I trust myself because I've had so much experience with myself. I pretty much trust people I've known a long time because I've had so much experience with them. Trusting is an art, not a science. It's based on feel, not fact.

I don't trust most descriptions of inner experiences because they don't ring true to me. Also, because often you don't see that the person has been changed by the experience.

As I've observed before, a lot of devoted disciples who have meditated for many years are just as self-centered, egotistical, and clueless as they were before they started meditating. They've done just what they were told, which tells me that the flaw lies in the meditation system, not in them.

[Tao]

Ravi ---

Ravi wrote (to Brian): "It is apparent that you want a fellow satsangi to share their mystic experience with you."

Another backwards statement. It is obvious that Brian shares his own spiritual insights. But whether he seeks to know the experience of others is questionable. This is merely opinion of Ravi.

Ravi wrote (to Brian): "But how would you know that he is not lieing? How would you know that his experience is true?"

It matters not whether some individual, some guru, or some supposed "master", is really telling truth or not. All that matters is that one achieve their own direct experience and spiritual realization. Other peoples views are relatively useless. True Knowledge is to be realized. Other's experiences are of no avail. One must awaken to spiritual enlightenment, or true Knowledge, directly. It matters only if one realizes Truth for oneself. The realization of Awakened Consciousness does not depend on whether or not others are telling truth.

Ravi wrote (to Brian): "...why can't you believe the master, as it is implied that since he is the master he has been there done that."

Believing others, and belief in others, does not produce awakened spiritual realization. ... And who says that it is "implied" that so-and-so is really "the master", and that "he has been there and done that" ? Again, this is mere speculation, opinion, and personal belief on the part of Ravi.

Ravi wrote (to Brian): "The only thing that will give you belief, is direct experience yourself."

Again, another backwards concept/statement. On the contrary, "belief" does not lead to direct experience. "Belief" is merey thought, and does not produce spiritual realization, enlightenment, or liberation (from belefs). Knowledge and direct experience, transcends all belief/s. Beliefs are considered important simply because, and only until, the direct experience of True Knowledge is realized. Belief is not the goal. Beliefs are held onto when true Knowledge is absent. When one awakens, and true Knowledge arises, then beliefs become completely unnecessary and irrelevant. Therefore, seek to realize true Knowledge, not mere belief.

Ravi wrote (to Brian): "Most satsangis.... you say, have had no inner experiences. Thats because like you they have not put in adequate effort in practice."

Perhaps... But then again, it is probably likely due to an inadequate or flawed teaching, a false premise, and a teacher who not truly spirtually enlightened.

Ravi wrote (to Brian): "...you assume confidently that no one has these experiences."

I myself, have not seen that Brian has rigidly assumed that "no one" has had any spirtual experiences whatsoever. But there is one thing to bear in mind: When an individual does achieve true spiritual realization and knowledge, it tends to alter some aspects of their perspective and their behavior. If a fair share of satsangis have indeed achieved such true spiritual awakening, then it is likely to be apparent that they have done so. However, it is not very apparent at all.

[Tao]

Brian ---

Brian wrote: "I trust myself because I've had so much experience with myself."

Yes....so right on. Just so long as "myself", means your essential nature, and not just the mind.

Brian wrote: "I don't trust most descriptions of inner experiences because they don't ring true to me."

The so-called "descriptions of inner experiences" that you refer to, all have one thing in common....they are the experiences of other people. Whether or not they "ring true" to you, they are nevertheless, the way others have described their experiences and realizations. What is most important, is not what others may have experienced, but what is one's own actual direct experience.

Brian wrote: "Also, because often you don't see that the person has been changed by the experience."

Yes. Quite true. Unbless one is awakened, one does not always see the difference.

Brian wrote: "As I've observed before, a lot of devoted disciples who have meditated for many years are just as self-centered, egotistical, and clueless as they were before they started meditating."

Yes. Precisely my point as well. True spiritual advancement produces results. If there are no indications of any results, then we must doubt the Teaching, "the meditation system", and its practices, not the sincere efforts of the meditators.

Brian wrote: "They've done just what they were told, which tells me that the flaw lies in the meditation system, not in them.

Yes. This is Reason, and it is only reasonable that we should doubt something which produces no evidence of results. (

And to those who would say: "Some satsangis have schieved results" --- then please do show us even some small indication or evidence that they have achieved any spiritual realization.

The greater emphasis in Sant Mat and RSSB is simply to BELIEVE, and to blindly trust in the supposed spiritual status authority of the "master", do not question, do not think for yourself, and mindlessly do what you are instructed. This is a formula for spiritual stagnation. It is the obvious state of most satsangis who blindly trust in a partially flawed "meditation system", and in a supposed "master" who is not truly enlightened. This type of blind adherence to dogma, does not facilitate true spiritual advancement. No real spiritual advancement can be achieved, unless one is willing to abandon all such unnecessary baggage, and engage in penetrating self-inquiry.

On this web-log site, it is clear that Brian knows all about Sant mat, is increasingly oriented to seeking experience of Truth itself, and he clearly engages in various forms of such penetrating inquiry, and therefore, he is not in any need of any more of the standard RSSB dogma.

I stand in defense of Brian here, because so many die-hard satsangis who occasionally comment on this Blog, do nothing more than repeat the same tired old dogmas, and they also continue to try to foist their blind adherence to the guru-authority thing, as being the answer to Brian ... all the while ignoring Brian's honest, insightful, and candid writings about his own progressive spiritual journey, which he shares and posts on this Blog.

[ravi]

Dear brian,
It is your opinion that the practice is flawed and i respect your opinion.
But how do u know how sincere the "DEVOTED DESCIPLES" have been in their meditation.Has it been a constant sustained and unwavering effort.Because only such an effort can effect changes.
it all boils down to effort in the end.
LACK OF EFFORT--LACK OF RESULTS,
as simple as that.
Mr tao,
i might call sant mat a science,u might call it a dogma,cult,religion or whatever..what will we get by assigning names.SANT MAT IS WHAT IT IS AND WILL REMAIN WHAT IT IS..by whatever name u call it.
Sant mat does not propergate blind faith.
it says that u must have only that much faith that can get u through 2 nd 1/2 hrs of constant unwavering meditation(focus of attention).CONSTANT UNWAVERING MEDITATION done daily WILL give results,which are direct experience..and once one has direct experience one has real faith(unshakable faith).
I agree with u that brian is being candid
and its nice.I am therefore not attacking him ,just expressing my opinion out of brotherly love for a fellow seeker.
I am saying seeker and not satsangi because
Babaji said in one of his discources that no one is a satsangi till one has already merged into the truth(as satsang means company of the truth,satsangi means a person one with the truth).So we are all seekers which ever path one is following.

[ravi]

MR TAO,
U are mis reading me.my point is that direct experience is what counts and not the testimony of others.Like u i dont believe in blind faith or speculation.
that is why i have written BEFORE that ONLY DIRECT EXPERIENCE WILL GIVE BELIEF.PLS
re read my statement made on the 22nd.

[pathless one]

Ravi wrote: "...direct experience..and once one has direct experience one has real faith(unshakable faith)."

The direct and tacit experience which is spiritual realization of true Knowledge (Atma-Jnana), transcends any need for faith or belief.

Perhaps when Ravi says "faith", what he really means is: complete certainty or unshakeable certitude.

Ravi wrote: "...we are all seekers which ever path one is following."

For myself, I am not any seeker on any spiritual path. I am only and simply what I am. I guess you could say Self, or Awareness, or whatever one likes. I don't need to pursue any spiritual path to be what I already am...whatever that is. If something was missing, or lacking, or needed, then I might pursue a path to achieve whatever needs to be achieved. However, because nothing needs to be achieved, then no path is necessary. Therefore, I have no need or reason to pursue any particular path, or any path whatsoever.

For the record, I am not pro or con any spiritual path. However, I observe that among spiritual paths, each path is either more direct, or less direct and more circuitious, in their various approaches to the age old questions of Life, God, Spiritual Salvation, and Enlightenment. As paths go, I would tend to resonate much more towards the direct approach, but for myself, I am my own path, and moreover, I am the Pathless One.

[Nemesis a.k.a Nick]

A CHALLENGE TO POSTURING AND CALL FOR HUMILITY

My comments represent a further challenge to some of the posturing that goes on from patheless ones, Tao's and Who am I's, that I'm convinced represent the rantings of perhaps a single correspondent with their RSSB axe to grind.
Every visitor to this site must to some extent appreciate Brian's clear confession of his developing spiritual insights. We can
appreciate these comments without feeling that we ourselves need to jump ship to another supposedly more direct teaching, or feeling that we have to kick RSSB into touch.
A healthy scepticism can be allied with the basic structure and framework of a 'faith' without having to leave the path or adopt another.
There is a lot of posturing on this blog by (I believe) the same nameless correspondent who is too shifty to come clean about their identity or motivations. This posturing amounts to school yard taunts of having the better and more direct path and the imagined superiority of non dual stances.
I have critiqued this posturing exhaustively elsewhere on the site for anyone interested (More criticism of RSSB).
Non of this ranting can be demonstrated in any rigorous philosophic way and remains simply the opinion of the poster, not (as it is presented) some universal given that poor, blind, deluded RSSB followers cannot grasp!
This correspondent could do with reading some Paul Brunton on his elucidation of the Long versus Short path for the lowdown of the benefits of each. Brunton being a true seeker, did not try and mash down others faith and philosophy but was broad enough to see the merits in various approaches (unlike the Tao/pathless one/Who am I ranter who has about as much tolerance as the Spanish inquisition).
I repeat my previous laboured point that the tone and aggressive put downs of RSSB demonstrate comprehensively the lack of love, compassion and tolerance evident in these anonymous posts.
I would suggest to any sceptical satsangi's who may visit sites like these, that you are far far safer being under the wing of a guru like the RS master than falling into the persuasion of characters like these who do not demonstrate the slightest degree of love, care, tolerance, mutuality, inter faith dialogue and fundamental tolerance.
What I see going on is the use of a forceful intellect to try and talk down/dissuade/bully/coerce any and all other points of view into oblivion. This is obviously far far away from the pretensions of a higher or more direct point of view that is advocated.
Such correspondents could do with learning some real humility as exemplified by teachers such as Maharaj Sawan Singh who freely admitted that if anyone brought to his attention anything 'higher' or 'greater' than sant mat then he would become its student.
I repeat my laboured point about students of a thousand schools meeting and talking in peace and mutual uplift as in the Chinese folk saying. This is the true role of a blog like this, not a mean minded forum to allow the disaffected to try and mash down their previously held views in public.
Arrogance, intolerance, rudeness, superiority, presumption and posturing are nasty enough in there own right, but even more so coming from correspondents with 'spiritual' pretentions.
My parting shot is why don't you get off your high horse, take of the gloves and come and join the rest of us in the world of mystery and uncertainty. Come on in, the water is cool and deep!

[TAO]

Nick wrote: "None of this ranting can be demonstrated in any rigorous philosophic way and remains simply the opinion of the poster"

Reply:
First, the only puffed-up "ranting" on this blog, is that which is coming from Nick.

Second, there is more than ample "rigorous philosophic" and even enlightened spiritual knowledge and realization, to be found throughout the great spiritual tradition since time immemorial.

Case in point: Sri Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Krishnamurti, Sri Atmananda, Shankara, Vaisistha, Gautama Buddha, Nagarjuna, Bodhidharma, Huang Po, Padmasambhava, Naropa, Tilopa, Marpa, Milarepa, various other Dzogchen masters, and many other lesser known realizers of enlightened Self-knowledge.

Everything which I have related on this site regarding Self-realization and Self-knowledge, is only derived both from my own direct experience and spiritual realization, as well as from the uninimous teachings of those profoundly enlightened Sages mentioned above.

If Nick presumes to challenge, criticise, or dismiss the teaching and spiritual realization of such enlightened Sages as these, then Nick is not only ignorant, uneducated, and narrow-minded, his comment has no basis in actual fact or reality.

[Nemesis]

MORE CHALLENGES TO TAO

Here are some further challenges to the one sided detractor of all and any things sant mat and RSSB.

Tao wrote:
Nick wrote: "None of this ranting can be demonstrated in any rigorous philosophic way and remains simply the opinion of the poster"

Reply:
First, the only puffed-up "ranting" on this blog, is that which is coming from Nick.

My response to Mr Tao:

On the contrary, you started it as the classroom taunt goes! If you conducted your points in a reasonable and genteel manner (as Brian Hines in fact does) then you would not attract this sort of attention.
You have the singularly arrogant stance of writing off a whole 1,200 year old tradition of spiritual endeavour (sant mat or surat shabd yoga). Your words do not reveal one tone of respect or admission of realisation for this tradition. Thus your posturing is blatant prejudice and results from undisclosed personal agendas and axes to grind with regard to RSSB. The fact that you choose to conceal your motivations in wishing to mash down sant mat and RSSB does not mean it is not there for all to see!

Tao wrote:
Second, there is more than ample "rigorous philosophic" and even enlightened spiritual knowledge and realization, to be found throughout the great spiritual tradition since time immemorial.

Case in point: Sri Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Krishnamurti, Sri Atmananda, Shankara, Vaisistha, Gautama Buddha, Nagarjuna, Bodhidharma, Huang Po, Padmasambhava, Naropa, Tilopa, Marpa, Milarepa, various other Dzogchen masters, and many other lesser known realizers of enlightened Self-knowledge.

My response to Tao:

Nobody would particularly question the high regard in which these sages are held. What I would question is that your ranting is in any way, shape or form remotely comparable to them or their teaching. Your blatant attacks on sant mat demonstrate that you are exactly what you do not wish to be pigeon holed as; a disaffected former satsangi who didn’t ever get anywhere with the path and now has an axe to grind about sant mat in general and RSSB in particular. Your whole psychology is singularly revealing. You clearly have issues with RSSB that smack of disillusion, disappointment and non-realisation of anything spoken of in the literature and satsang.

Tao wrote:

Everything which I have related on this site regarding Self-realization and Self-knowledge, is only derived both from my own direct experience and spiritual realization, as well as from the uninimous teachings of those profoundly enlightened Sages mentioned above.

My response:
This is fine, but you are out of line in assuming that everyone else who contests your postings is responding from dogma, blind belief and adherence to authoritarian cults. Those of us who bother challenging your agenda do so from their own interior gnosis and realisations. Incidentally there is a unanimous tradition and record of the teachings of the sants that gave rise eventually to RSSB. This tradition is just as well defined as many of the schools of Buddhism to which you refer.
The reason you are being challenged so resolutely is that it is wholly uncharacteristic of anyone with any remote realisation to spend so much time mashing down one single other teaching and philosophy with so much vigour. This is again testimony to your identity as a disaffected former satsangi with axes to grind and intellectual vendettas to enact.

Tao wrote:
If Nick presumes to challenge, criticise, or dismiss the teaching and spiritual realization of such enlightened Sages as these, then Nick is not only ignorant, uneducated, and narrow-minded, his comment has no basis in actual fact or reality.

My response to Tao:

I do not dispute the high regard and widely acknowledged realisation of these quoted sages.

What I challenge is your refusal to acknowledge the comparable realisation of Kabir, Nanak, Paltu, Dadu from the past and of Soamiji, Baba Jaimal Singh, Baba Sawan Singh from the recent past and the present lineages of Radhasoami guru’s from Agra, Dayalbagh to Ruhani and Beas satsangs.

So who’s being prejudiced and biased here?

About the only thing you are master of or have realised is how to be profoundly rude and dismissive. If you do not like it in return then you should not dish it out in the first place!

My accusation of arrogance regarding your postings stands; your attacks on sant mat that are wrapped in the guise of self-knowledge betray your own purely personal, subjective and disgruntled agenda! Why not simply make your interesting points about self-enquiry free from a context of talking down RSSB! The fact that you do not seem able to do this calls into question everything you say about any realisations on your part! Separate out your sant mat bashing from your own deeply felt realisations and then perhaps you will be taken more seriously!

Finally, I do not talk down the sages that have been listed. I simply talk down your dismissal of any and all things sant mat, as it is both blinkered and biased. Any student of comparative religion can find a mother lode of insights and realisations within all the great traditions without singling out any one as wholly worthless and useless as you so arrogantly suggest. In my previous challenges you would not acknowledge the realisation of sages in the sant tradition, from Kabir and Nanak to Paltu and Dadu.

Why not simply admit that your opinions are just that, your own purely subjective take on things and stop hiding behind a smokescreen of presumed higher objective knowledge and realisation, whilst everyone who disagrees with you relies on dogma and blind belief! Then a dialogue may be possible.

[mysti]

Brian, I've read many of your Sant Mat posts with interest. As an initiate from the 70's myself, I can understand most of the questions you raise, though I don't necessarily share your conclusions.

You say that you feel justified in complaining about Sant Mat, and yet in the same breath you share with us how many years you have dedicated to meditation and seva. I say, "yet", because to someone who has struggled for decades merely to sit every now and again, the fact that you have attended to meditation so diligently is, to my mind, a very great blessing. You can feel satisfied in knowing you have done your best, your conscience can be clear. I almost envy your justifiable complaining, because I do not have such luxury, as I only have myself to blame for any apparent lack of progress.

There is much talk of lack of experience in meditation, but there is the other side of the coin to consider. The fantastic light and sound show comes with strings attached. Experience it once, and you "pay the price" by being overwhelmed by that all-consuming love and intense longing of which hints are given in the literature. This is a path of love, after all, so that should not come as a surprise, but to the unprepared soul, such intensity of love is difficult - if not impossible - to digest, and the result may be a desperate escape back into the mire of the world and its attractions. If you have given 30 years of conscientious effort, then it sounds to me that you have been prepared, and you may be throwing in the towel just when you stand to reap the greatest rewards.

[tAo]

Mysti wrote (on May 17, 2007):

"Brian, I've read many of your Sant Mat posts with interest. As an initiate from the 70's myself, I can understand most of the questions you raise, though I don't necessarily share your conclusions. ... There is much talk of lack of experience in meditation, but there is the other side of the coin to consider. The fantastic light and sound show comes with strings attached. Experience it once, and you "pay the price" by being overwhelmed by that all-consuming love and intense longing of which hints are given in the literature."

-- I have "experince(d) it" (namely - the "fantastic light and sound show") many many times, and even far beyond such typees of subtle phenomena, but I have never felt any such so-called "all-consuming love and intense longing" as a result of it. So on this, I will have to disagree with you.

Mysti also said: "This is a path of love, after all, so that should not come as a surprise, but to the unprepared soul, such intensity of love is difficult - if not impossible - to digest"

-- Love of what, and by whom? And also, who is this "unprepared soul" that you refer to? And what is "difficult to digest"? Are you saying that meditation experiences are difficult to digest, or are you saying that "love" is difficult to digest?

Mysti said: "If you have given 30 years of conscientious effort, then it sounds to me that you have been prepared, and you may be throwing in the towel just when you stand to reap the greatest rewards."

-- I don't see it that way, and I don't think Brian sees it that way either. I would say that given 30 years (30 years mind you!) of effort and meditation is more than enough time to reap any so-called "rewards" or results that are due. If nothing is gained after 30 years of diligent meditation, then there is something very questionable about the path and its strategy.

For you to say "you may be throwing in the towel just when you stand to reap..." is absurd, and frankly, ridiculous. That's like saying "just keep on wasting your time on something that has given none of the promised results in 30 years". Only a fool would think and continue that way.

Realization can be more or less instantaneous and effortless depending on the proper view and approach, and it certainly does NOT require 2 or 3 hours a day for 30 years! Anyone such as yourself who believes that 30 years of effort and sadhana is somehow not enough and not long enough, definitely does not understand either themselves or the nature of reality. And until you put aside such nonsense and foolishness, you will continue to waste your life chasing after a phantom but going nowhere.

Someday, hopefully, you will finally understand exactly what I am saying, and you will then awaken from the 'sickness of effort'.

The following information may help. I suggest that you contemplate upon it:

-----------------------------------

The Six Vajra Verses:

"The nature of the variety of phenomena is non-dual

Yet each phenomena is beyond the limits of the mind

The authentic condition as it is does not become a concept

Yet it manifests totally in form, always good

All being already perfect, overcome the sickness of effort

And remain naturally in self-perfection: this is contemplation."

The Song of Total Presence - The Six Vajra Verses:

The six verses of the Song of Total
Presence or the Six Vajra Verses, introduce the total presence of the nature of mind.

The six lines of the Song are also known as the "Six Vajra Verses". They are considered to be the root text of the Dzogchen Mind Series tradition out of which the entire View, Meditation, and Action of Dzogchen may be extrapolated:

"The nature of multiplicity is nondual and things in themselves are pure and simple;

Being here and now is thought-free and it shines out in all forms, always all good;

It is already perfect, so the striving sickness is avoided and spontaneity is constantly present."

Turned into prose, based on the Dochu commentary, it says this:

"All experience, the entire phantasmagoria of the six senses, the diverse multiplicity of existence, in reality is without duality. Even if we examine the parts of the bodhi-matrix in the laboratory of the mind, such specifics are seen to be illusive and indeterminate. There is nothing to grasp and there is no way to express it. The suchness of things, their actuality, left just as it is, is beyond thought and inconceivable, and that is the here and now. Yet diversity is manifestly apparent and that is the undiscriminating, all-inclusive sphere of the all-good buddha nature, Samantabhadra. Total perfection has always been a fact, and there has never been anything to do to actuate this immaculate completion. All endeavour is redundant. What remains is spontaneity and that is always present as our natural condition.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu in his work "The Supreme Source", has rendered the
Six Vajra Verses like this:

"The nature of the variety of phenomena is non-dual
Yet each phenomena is beyond the limits of the mind

The authentic condition as it is does not become a concept
Yet it manifests totally in form, always good

All being already perfect, overcome the sickness of effort
And remain naturally in self-perfection: this is contemplation."

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's commentary divides the six verses into three verses of two lines.

The first couplet describes the BASE of being and the view, relating to the Mind Series of instruction and to Garab Dorje's first Incisive Precept which is Introduction to the Nature of Mind.

The second couplet describes the PATH, the nature of meditation, Garab Dorje's
second incisive precept which is Conviction in the reflexive function of liberation.

The third couplet describes the FRUIT, which does not differ from the base and relates to the Secret Precept Series and to Garab Dorje's third incisive precept which is Confidence in the process.

Based on Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's commentary, John Reynolds (a Nyingma scholar and yogi), made this discursive translation:

"Even though the nature of the diversity (of all phenomena) is without any duality,

In the terms of the individuality of the things themselves, they are free of any conceptual elaborations.

Even though there exists no thought or conception of what is called the state of being just as it is,

These various appearances which are created are but manifestations of Samantabhadra.

Since everything is complete in itself, one comes to abandon the 'illness of efforts'

And thus one continues spontaneously in the calm state of self-perfected contemplation."

Professor Samten Karmay has found a version of the text amongst the cache of material that Sir Aurel Stein found in Tun Huang, and which was concealed in the tenth century, thus validating its age and form. His rendering is thus:

"All the varieties of phenomenal existence as a whole do not in reality differ one from another.

Individually also they are beyond conceptualization.

Although as "suchness" there is no mental discursiveness (with regard to them) Kun-zang-po shines forth in all forms.

Abandon all the 'malady of striving', for one has already acquired it all.

One leaves it AS IT IS with spontaneity."

[Note: The first Tibetan Dzogchen master, Pagor Vairocana, received the Six Vajra Verses in the eighth century from Shri Singha, his Indian Guru, in the land of Uddiyana. This text was amongst the first translations he made at King Trisong Detsen's court at Samye in Tibet. It is considered the Root Transmission text of the Mind Series of Dzogchen instruction, and is the first in the list of the eighteen transmission texts of the Mind Series tantras. The copy of it found amongst the cache of Tun Huang manuscripts hidden in the tenth century and recovered earlier this century, authenticates its age and form.]

[Lance]

Hi Brian,
It is good that you still continue your meditation daily even though you have results that are lacking, I now try to meditate twice daily using a variety of techniques,
nothing out of the ordinary happens to me, it is rejuvenating most of the time and I reach different states of consciences,
mostly I am most impressed when time passes quickly, sometimes I do certain exercises to expand my perceptions, sometimes I will snap out of a meditation remembering something I was supposed to do, or I let my meditation decide for me as to what will be done such as when there are distractions,
I always have no expectations which should work best for anyone, I have used mantras with mixed results but not lately,
as you have said, try different things and see how it goes, all of my enlightening experiences have come when I was not meditating but I got a taste and wanted more, so I meditate,
at the very least I believe that my soul enjoys that I make the effort and I receive some subtle benefit as I am more energized upon completion,
since we are all different, meditation will be different for everyone, I find it most important to not try only one technique, what works for some may not work for others, the effort is of the most importance.