Well, my Meister Eckhart fantasy has been fulfilled. I’ve been fired from giving talks (known as “satsangs”) at meetings of my spiritual group because my Church of the Churchless writings have been too heretical.
Yesterday our local secretary informed me that he had been told by a regional representative, Vince Savarese, that my blogging about Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) had caused a lot of people to be uncomfortable. In New York. In India. All around the RSSB world.
Naturally I blurted out “Wow, that’s great! People are reading my blog!” It didn’t bother me to hear that I’ve been making some people uncomfortable. I regularly hear from others that they appreciate my posts, so it all evens out. Yin and yang. Like and dislike. Attraction and repulsion. That’s the way of the world.
Regardless, the RSSB powers that be don’t want me to be a speaker anymore. I said, “That’s fine. Now the folks at the Radhasoami studies discussion group who have been taking bets that I wouldn’t last as a speaker beyond mid-2006 will feel vindicated.”
Interestingly, about ten days ago I’d been asked to write another article by an editor of the official RSSB magazine, “Spiritual Link.” She emailed me, “I so enjoy reading what you write on your blog. It is that kind of energy that I’d like to see in an article.” So what one hand chastiseth, another hand praiseth.
Since I’d been expecting to be charged with heresy at some point, the news of my firing didn’t affect me much. The only real pang came when I deleted two reminder items for next weekend on my Outlook calendar: “prepare satsang” and “give satsang,” since I’ve been speaking monthly for more than fifteen years.
If anyone involved with RSSB wanted to peruse my writings about the organization, I made it easy for them. They’re all neatly listed in a single weblog category and Google also does a good job of searching them out.
I quickly read through my RSSB-related posts this morning, trying to picture how they would appear to a defender of the faith. Not surprisingly, they didn’t seem all that heretical to me, but then I’ve got a natural bias in favor of me. A couple of my favorites are “Don’t believe, just have faith” and “‘I’ is a humble word.” (I presciently noted in the latter post that being fired for heresy was an ever-present possibility.)
Whenever I quoted Meister Eckhart in a talk, which was frequently, my pat line was “Anyone who is accused of heresy by the Pope can’t be all bad.” In fact, in my opinion that’s a badge of honor.
Understand: in no way am I comparing myself to Meister Eckhart. What we share is a passion for mysticism, a disdain for organized religions that cut people off from a direct experience of mystery, and a love of philosophical language. With that comes an understanding of the limits of saying anything about “God.”
Eckhart had an exalted understanding of those limits. I just have a crude understanding. Yet what little I possess has been steadily driving me in the direction of the boundary between words and wordslessness. I’ve become obsessed with trying to figure out what prevents me from crossing to the other side, where mystery lies.
My obsession tends to be expressed in words, of course. That’s a problem. A big problem. Still, I feel like I’m on the right track. For a long time I believed that my finely honed ability to conceptualize spirituality meant that I was becoming more spiritual. Now, as the saying goes, I realize that my initial B.S. status had merely progressed to an M.S. (more of the same) and Ph.D. (piled higher and deeper) in Mystical Pretension.
Thus the fundamentalist religion that I’ve been attacking really is myself. My increasing disbelief in my own dogmas has been projected onto Radha Soami Satsang Beas because that is where the dogmas came from. Believe me, the person who has been made most uncomfortable by my writings is me.
Again, I don’t claim to possess a speck of genuine Eckhartian understanding. But I still resonate to Luther Askeland’s description of Meister Eckhart’s call to pursue an “inner poverty:” (this is from Luther's book, "Ways in Mystery")
We have the feeling that we are not yet real, that we only have the time between now and death to create, somehow, that reality which right now is painfully absent. Human life, therefore, is from the very first day an instinctive effort to “become,” yet Eckhart urges the necessity to “un-become,” that is, to reverse life’s underlying direction and goal.He calls for the abandonment of all efforts to incorporate reality, to become, and to “make something” of ourselves and our lives. On the contrary, we are to work diligently to cut away whatever reality and substance it may seem that hard work or chance has created.
This reversal applies, above all, to all forms of inner and spiritual wealth. All attempts to acquire the right religious attitudes, accomplishments, and knowledge are to be abandoned. Turning aside from the goal of making ourselves spiritually, we must jettison whatever spiritual wealth, value, and standing we thought were ours.
I never thought I had much. And what little I thought I possessed seems to be steadily going down the drain. The older I get, the less I know. At this rate, I’m going to be a cipher by the time I die. Which, hopefully, is a good thing. Not that I have any choice in the matter.
For at least five years virtually all of the talks that I’ve given to my spiritual group have been on the related themes of not-knowing, emptiness, and confusion. I deeply appreciate the opportunity that I’ve been given to better understand my own not-knowing, emptiness, and confusion. As above, what I’ve been speaking and writing about is me.
In sort of a celebration of the end of my RSSB speaking, I’ll mark the occasion by sharing several of my favorite satsangs. I usually spoke quite spontaneously and with relatively few notes, but these talks are actually fairly well organized. I called them the “Energetic Embrace of Emptiness” and “Closing the Circle.”
Download seattle_satsangmarch_2000.pdf
" Once upon a time you dressed so fine
You threw the bums a dime in your prime, didn't you?
People'd call, say, "Beware doll, you're bound to fall"
You thought they were all kiddin' you
You used to laugh about
Everybody that was hangin' out
Now you don't talk so loud
Now you don't seem so proud
About having to be scrounging for your next meal.
How does it feel
How does it feel
To be without a home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?
You've gone to the finest school all right, Miss Lonely
But you know you only used to get juiced in it
Nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street
And now you're gonna have to get used to it
You said you'd never compromise
With the mystery tramp, but now you realize
He's not selling any alibis
As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes
And say do you want to make a deal?
How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
A complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?
You never turned around to see the frowns on the jugglers and the clowns
When they all did tricks for you
You never understood that it ain't no good
You shouldn't let other people get your kicks for you
You used to ride on the chrome horse with your diplomat
Who carried on his shoulder a Siamese cat
Ain't it hard when you discover that
He really wasn't where it's at
After he took from you everything he could steal.
How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?
Princess on the steeple and all the pretty people
They're all drinkin', thinkin' that they got it made
Exchanging all precious gifts
But you'd better take your diamond ring, you'd better pawn it babe
You used to be so amused
At Napoleon in rags and the language that he used
Go to him now, he calls you, you can't refuse
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose
You're invisible now, you got no secrets to conceal.
How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone? "
--- Like A Rolling Stone, by Bob Dylan
Posted by: TAO | October 18, 2005 at 06:19 PM
“We are already one and we imagine we are not.
And what we have to recover is our original unity.
Whatever we have to be is what we are.”
-----Thomas Merton
Maybe solving the mystery is realizing that there is no mystery at all.
Keep up the great articles, Brian!!
Posted by: Bob | October 18, 2005 at 08:33 PM
What I have learned over my life is that actions always speak louder than words. What does this say about tolerance and love? Not much, if you ask me.
Posted by: Steve | October 18, 2005 at 09:56 PM
Dear Brian:
I was genuinely surprised that Beas "fired" you from giving satsangs.
Even though I lost money on a bet and some of my reputation (jk), I want you to know that I am quite proud of what you have accomplished.
It is not an easy feat to have a worldwide organization shake at its branches and roots because of the poetic and insightful words of one of its own.
The fact that they fired you is a wonderful compliment to your writings.
Indeed, I think it is now time for satsangis to realize that Sant Mat is not the exclusive property of any one ism and that it is designed to be freed from any such fetters.
It is time, as you say, to be churchless.
Faqir Chand once told me, "it is a blessing to be born in the dera, but it is a curse to die in the dera."
As Charan Singh wisely wrote (but apparently those in charge now have failed to read or hear), "critics are our best friends."
I raise my coca cola glass tonite in honor of your heresy!
I know Kabir would be quite proud of you.
Keep up the good work.
Signed:
a fan of your heretical writings and a heretic in arms,
David Lane, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy
and Fellow Charan Initiate
Posted by: David Christopher Lane, Ph.D. | October 18, 2005 at 10:52 PM
Dear All,
I was suprised to see Brian Hines go. But, I feel he could be mistaken. The important thing to understand about Sant Mat is its concept of spiritual status of various religion, cults, and sects as reaching the lower worlds rather the highest one where God-Realization occurs. The point to understand is THAT ALL SUCH "MOVEMENTS" EMANATE FROM THE OTHER WORLD. A knowledge the Unseen esoteric geography is a key distinguishing feature of Sant Mat. The question is why does it exist unless it is meant to be experienced by would-be initiates? Moreover, it claims to have the complete "road-map" to the Godhead. Do we have such a claim in most, or all esoteric groups. The answer is largely no even though they claim to have a degree of knowledge about it.
It could be argued that all roads lead to Rome. But, I somehow doubt it . The other religions, cults, and sects no doubt lead in that direction but they probably do not reach the highest source. Clearly too the reason why so many of them exist is simply because they appeal to different kinds of people but give them a limited degree of spiritual evolution
As with most if not religions, cults, and sects RSSB has had its share of "scandals". Ofcourse, as far David Lane is concerned this implies that the Satgurus are really human....or maybe when they "come to power" they have not fully evolved but do so as they go along in life. Anyway, none of this really matters very much. What matters is FAITH, AND BELIEF in the Master who after all is your REAL SELF. I have explained all this before here, and elsewhere....See my link http://kheper.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science.html.
I am coming to the conclusion that much dispised term "blind faith" can be very essential because after all it is the only real way to find the TRUTH...after one has undertaken intellectual research ofcourse.Remember too it IS FIFTY-FIFTY. Sant Mat is either right, or wrong. Why not take a bet...accept the Teachings again. You have nothing to loose. IT IS EITHER RIGHT, OR WRONG. IF IT IS RIGHT YOU HAVE EVERYTHING TO GAIN.IF YOU WRONG THEN YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN WHEN YOU LEAVE THIS WORLD.
Furthermore, the aim of Sant Mat is NOT to have inner experiences for their own sake. On the contrary the whole thing can be summed up as follows. SHABD YOGA, AND SANT MAT IS DOING EVERYTHING OUT OF SELFLESS LOVE FOR THE MASTER. THIS MAKES YOU FEEL
"LIGHT" AND HENCE, CAN HEIGHTEN YOUR CONCIOUSNESS NATURALLY. In other words, a high of positive "depersonalization". It is wonderful experience if can be done constantly. Yet, the mind ofcourse can pull one down.
I do not suppose for one moment the above will change your mind. But, I wish you well for the future.....,
Please note I have no time to edit above
Posted by: Robert Searle. | October 19, 2005 at 05:56 AM
First, Brian, congratulations. "You've just been fired! What are you going to do now?!" :)
Second, in response to another comment (from Robert Searle)...
Robert said, "What matters is FAITH, AND BELIEF in the Master who after all is your REAL SELF."
What if the opposite of that were true?
"What matters is FAITH, AND BELIEF in SELF who after all is your REAL Master."
And third...my own beliefs, enlightenments, "mystical experiences(?)".
1) Take all of the religious writings and scriptures and throw them out. In the end, what will really matter is our relationships with others.
2) Life is too short to be taken for granted.
3) Life is too important to be taken too seriously!
Posted by: GM | October 19, 2005 at 10:16 AM
Brian --- I am glad to hear that RSS has retired you. It is nice to hear that they have offered such an opportunity.
---------------------------------------------
Regarding comments by Robert Searle ---
DOGMA: "The important thing to understand about Sant Mat is its concept of spiritual status of various religion, cults, and sects as reaching the lower worlds rather the highest one where God-Realization occurs."
DOGMA: "THAT ALL SUCH "MOVEMENTS" EMANATE FROM THE OTHER WORLD."
DOGMA: "A knowledge the Unseen esoteric geography is a key distinguishing feature of Sant Mat."
DOGMA: "Moreover, it claims to have the complete "road-map" to the Godhead."
DOGMA: Do we have such a claim in most, or all esoteric groups? The answer is largely no..."
DOGMA: "The other religions, cults, and sects .... they probably do not reach the highest source."
DOGMA: "What matters is FAITH, AND BELIEF in the Master who after all is your REAL SELF."
DOGMA: "... blind faith" can be very essential because after all it is the only real way to find the TRUTH."
Robert Searle wrote: " Sant Mat....Why not take a bet...accept the Teachings again. You have nothing to loose."
Comment: Why gamble with blind faith and beliefs at all ? Everything that is needed, is already within Being, the Self.
Robert Searle wrote: "IF... it is right, you have everything to gain.
Comment: Again... Nor is there anything to gain, because there is nothing which is lacking.
Robert Searle wrote: "IF... you are wrong, then you know for certain when you leave this world."
Comment: I myself would not wait until then... because by then, it's a little late!
DOGMA: "SHABD YOGA, AND SANT MAT IS DOING EVERYTHING OUT OF SELFLESS LOVE FOR THE MASTER. THIS MAKES YOU FEEL "LIGHT" AND HENCE, CAN HEIGHTEN YOUR CONCIOUSNESS NATURALLY."
Posted by: tao | October 19, 2005 at 01:49 PM
Heh heh.
Here's an idea for you, Brian.
In management there's something called Groupthink.
It is "an agreement-at-any-cost mentality that results in ineffective group decision making. It occurs when groups are highly cohesive, have highly directive leaders, are insulated so they have no clear ways to get objective information, and because they lack outside information-have little hope that a better solution might be found than the one proposed by the leader or other influential group members."
While you, and infamous others, postulate on RSSB and its current leadership, critiquing it on a public platform for its strategies which you imply are doctrinary and other things, think about the definition above, because you have effectively lost touch with the real elements of RSSB.
You have more respect for yourself and your edicts than you can grant to another living person who knows you well but whom you scarcely know yourself.
It's pretty clear that your mind has successfully taken you out of synch with the idea of TRUE introspection. Your mind, your real boss, has you too busy looking outwards, focused on your worth and self-pity, instead of turning inwards to discover your real self.
Bless you and David Lane for your altruistic efforts to enlighten the world, but thanks, I'll take the REAL thing.
Posted by: G S D | October 25, 2005 at 11:59 AM
Isn't Coca-Cola the real thing?
Posted by: GM | October 27, 2005 at 12:05 PM
Regarding some portions of the previous comment posted by GSD on Oct 25:
GSD wrote: "While you, and infamous others, postulate on RSSB.... critiquing it on a public platform.... for its strategies which you imply are doctrinary....you have effectively lost touch with the real elements of RSSB."
Response: Apparently GSD thinks that spiritual growth, greater awareness, soul-searching self-inquiry, re-evaluation of previously accepted beliefs, and the loss of the need for a spiritual authority figure all add up to having "lost touch with the real elements of RSSB". I think GSD is just another RSSB believer, parrot, and dupe.
GSD wrote: "You have more respect for yourself ... than you can grant to another living person who knows you well but whom you scarcely know yourself."
Response: What makes GSD presume "another living person" knows one better than oneself? Perhaps GSD is refering to the current RSSB leader? So is GSD saying that some Indian religious leader in a turban knows Brian (or anyone else) better than Brian knows himself? How very absurd and childish.
Moreover, self-respect is a very good thing. And why should more respect be given to this other so-called "living person"? Respect towards another must be earned and deserved, not simply offered blindly.
GSD wrote: '...your mind has successfully taken you out of synch with the idea of TRUE introspection."
Response: Really? How would GSD judge the nature and depth of another's level of introspection?
GSD wrote: "...turning inwards to discover your real self."
Response: If GSD means to say that the RSSB practice of endless internal repetition of a mantra, visualization of a bodily form, mindless submission to authority and dogma, etc etc, is "turning inwards to discover your real self", then I think GSD has relatively little understanding of what is real and true spirituality, Self-realization, and the direct experience of awakening into Self-knowledge.
GSD wrote: "...I'll take the REAL thing."
Response: The "REAL THING" is not to be had by some philosophical dogma, some cultish belief, some spiritual authority figure, or some repetitive and mechanical meditation practice.
The "Real Thing" is one's very own true nature, which cannot be realized merely by following the RSSB cult, its practices, and its assumed spiritual leader.
The "Real Thing" is in the Heart of all Beings... but it is not to be found in the domain of the "RSSB".
Posted by: TaO | October 29, 2005 at 01:22 AM
Challenging the TaO correspondent
Is this arrogant, disrespectful posturing the Who am I correspondent in new garb!
Did you ever or this Tao, who sounds suspiciously like the Who am I ranter ever seriously get to grips with my lenghty critique of non dual presumptions?
You ought to have more respect for other peoples faith and philosophy before arrogantly trying to mash it down for your own undisclosed agenda. If you feel RSSB supporters are deluded then why don't you turn your obviously more enlightened perspective on all the poor deluded moslems, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics and so on who could benefit from your pseudo wisdom (or not!). The fact that you don't almost certainly suggests you are a disaffected former satsangi with an axe to grind. Why don't you go away and do something to help humanity, the earth and animals instead of pontificating that you know better than others? You have no idea of what philosophy and depth of intelligence that some RSSB supporters engage the path with. So you should still your presumptions.
As I have suggested exhaustively before, this correspondents unkind and judgemental stance betray the simple fact that they have not even made the first steps on any real internal path (which presupposes love, compassion and tolerance as keystones of the path). All the superior metaphysical posturing does not disguise the ranting, intolerant and unkind attitude lurking in the Tao posting.
Why can we not meet as students of a thousand schools and discuss in peace, mutuality and respect as the Chinese myth suggests. Of course we are unable to do that whilst some presume to have the better way and judge others and their faith/feelings. We are not even able to start dialogue whilst one party feels the other is deluded. I humbly submit that Mr or Mrs Tao is no more enlightened than any other visitor to this site and should stop judging and posturing.
Posted by: Nick | October 31, 2005 at 02:58 AM
...in the end, does it matter what one person thinks of another's ideas? Or does it matter that those ideas were exchanged.
...in the end, will my life be critiqued on what I agreed or disagreed with? Or will I be judged on who I am.
...in the end, does it make you a better person to denegrate someone else for their ideas? Or does it just make you feel better.
...in the end, what matters?
Posted by: GM | October 31, 2005 at 12:08 PM
Reply to Nick (regarding his previous comment posted Oct 31):
Nick wrote: "Is this arrogant, disrespectful posturing..."
Reply: The only "arrogant, disrespectful posturing" is that which is coming coming from Nick. If Nick (and other readers) will examine my actual statements in my previous posted comment of Oct 29, then no arrogance, disrespect, or posturing will be found. My statements are direct responses to comments made by GSD, and relate to the RSSB cult and its practices, self-respect, and introspection.
Nick wrote: "Did you ever....seriously get to grips with my lenghty critique of non dual presumptions?"
Reply: I have no interest in wasting time reviewing such "lengthy critique" of Advaita, or of personal opinions, especially when they are clearly dogmatic and not founded in direct experience of Self-knowledge.
Nick wrote: "You ought to have more respect for other peoples faith and philosophy before arrogantly trying to mash it down for your own undisclosed agenda."
Reply: First, the only disrespect towards other peoples philosophy, is that which is being expressed by Nick. However, any and all beliefs can and will be challenged. If Nick does not like his own or other's spiritual and religious beliefs being examined and challenged (including those of RSSB), which is what happens here with Brian and his Church of the Churchless, then Nick should simply go elsewhere.
Nick wrote: "If you feel RSSB supporters are deluded..."
Reply: Incorrect. There is no mention whatsover of the term "deluded" in my previous posted comment of Oct. 29. However, I did state that to assume that another person (in this case the leader of the RSSB cult) knows Brian Hines better than Brian knows his own self, was "very absurd and childish". And I will even go one more and say, it is foolish and presumptous to say that the RSSB cult leader knows Brian Hines (or anyone)better than he knows himself.
Nick wrote: "...your pseudo wisdom"
Reply: This is simply and obviously a direct personal attack and criticism. Nick does not possibly know what is the nature of the understanding, wisdom, and spiritual realization of either myself, or of anyone.
Nick wrote: "...you are a disaffected former satsangi with an axe to grind."
Reply: For Nick to attempt to define myself as "a disaffected former satsangi" is nonsense. I am simply not, and cannot ever be, defined by such conceptual categorization. Furthermore, the only axe to grind is that of Nick, who cannot accept that others may have critical and opposing opinions regarding the RSSB cult organization, the RSSB beliefs and dogma, and the RSSB leader. My own personal opinions and criticisms of RSSB cultism and authoritian dogma, are just as relevant and valid as anyone else's. Brian Hines himself is even more articulate in changllenging and criticising RSSB beliefs and dogma than even I am. Clearly, it is Nick who is reactive and defensive about such criticisms, probably because he has some 'personal' investment and attachment in RSSB and its beliefs. I myself have no such personal investment or defensiveness regarding the Advaita philosophy, or any other philosophy. As a matter of fact, I am not concerned or involved in 'advaita philosophy' at all. My sole focus and interest lies only in the direction of Self-inquiry (atma-vichara), and the direct experience of Self-realization and Self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is not belief or philosophy.
Nick wrote: "Why don't you go away and do something...instead of pontificating that you know better than others?"
Reply: It is only ego-centricity which feels terriitorial about the blogosphere. This blog is a forum for considerations and opinions regarding Brian's posts, as well as spiritual matters in general. If Nick does not respect that there may be differing and opposing opinions and criticisms towards various spiritual beliefs and practices, then it is really Nick who should "go away" from this forum, and not anyone else.
Nick wrote: "You have no idea of what... some RSSB supporters engage the path with."
Reply: Nor do I care to what degree the RSSB followers, believers, and proponents "engage the path with".
Nick wrote: "...this correspondents unkind and judgemental stance"
Reply: The only "judgemental stance" is that being expressed by Nick. My own particular judgements, opinions, and criticisms of the RSSB cult and its dogma, are just that - my own opinions which derive from my own extensive personal experiences of RSSB, as well as spiritual insights which derive from Self-realization and Self-knowledge.
Nick wrote: "...they have not even made the first steps on any real internal path"
Reply: There is no way that Nick could possibly know the degree of spiritual advancement and sadhana that other spiritual practitioners and realizers have attained. Nick's statement expresses and reveals the very same "judgemental" attitude which Nick himself has so frowned upon in others.
Nick wrote: "All the superior metaphysical posturing" ...and... "the ranting, intolerant and unkind attitude"
Reply: There is no 'metaphysical posturing" in the realm of Self-knowledge. Furthermore, the only "ranting, intolerant and unkind attitude" is that which is coming from Nick, as is clearly revealed if one reads Nick's current and previous comments.
Nick wrote: "...discuss in peace, mutuality and respect"
Reply: That is up to each individual commentator to maintain such respect. Personal attacks towards other commentators and their opinions, such as the attacks which Nick has made towards myself and also the Advaita philosophy in general, does not constitute mutual respect and peace. At this point, Nick is clearly and obviously hypocritical.
Nick wrote: "...we are unable to do that whilst some presume to have the better way and judge others"
Reply: Again, It is obviously Nick who is the one presuming "to have the better way", and who is judging myself as well as admittedly criticising Advaita philosophy. However, none of Nick's negative criticisms and personal judments can ever touch the indestructable sanctity of the direct experience of Self-realization and Self-knowledge.
Nick wrote: "... whilst one party feels the other is deluded"
Reply: Incorrect. Again, I made absolutely no mention or implication of the term "deluded" in my previous comment of Oct 29. Readers can see that for themselves.
Nick wrote: "...Mr or Mrs Tao is no more enlightened than any other visitor to this site"
Reply: To anyone who has common sense and spiritual clarity, it is quite obvious that Nick does not, and cannot, possibly know for sure to what degree anyone else is enlightened. If Nick himself was "enlightened", then he would certainly know that, and he would not be making such an absurd statement. In as much as Nick himself, as revealed in his value judgement, is clearly not yet enlightened, then any such judgement on his part has no validity or substance.
Nick wrote: "...should stop judging and posturing."
Reply: In conclusion, I would have to point out that since Nick apparently does not like "judging and posturing", then he should refrain from doing so himself. Otherewise, Nick is again simply a hypocrite. But then hypocrisy is something which few people are completely free of. All that is important is that the more one advances in Self-inquiry and towards real Self-knowledge, and awayn from reliance upon mere beliefs and dogma, the less hypocrisy one will harbour.
Posted by: tAo | October 31, 2005 at 04:24 PM
To GM:
Right on. Thanks for putting it so very concisely.
In the end, what matters is not what others may think or judge, but rather is simply where and how one abides. Does one abide in real peace, happiness, and freedom ... or not? That is for each individual to consider, to know, and to realize for themselves.
Posted by: taO | October 31, 2005 at 05:26 PM
Further challenge to Tao.
Starting with the first rant from Mr/Mrs Tao:
Reply: The only "arrogant, disrespectful posturing" is that which is coming coming from Nick. If Nick (and other readers) will examine my actual statements in my previous posted comment of Oct 29, then no arrogance, disrespect, or posturing will be found. My statements are direct responses to comments made by GSD, and relate to the RSSB cult and its practices, self-respect, and introspection.
My response to Tao:
Grow up! Here is a list of your previously well-used judgemental responses as you are clearly the same poseur as Who am I. Here is a list of your rantings!
(Incorrect, Absurd and narrow minded, Hot air blowing, Baseless, Blind, Cow dung!)
I rest my case!
Nick wrote: "Did you ever....seriously get to grips with my lenghty critique of non dual presumptions?"
Reply: I have no interest in wasting time reviewing such "lengthy critique" of Advaita, or of personal opinions, especially when they are clearly dogmatic and not founded in direct experience of Self-knowledge.
My response to Tao:
Again you have a presumption of self- knowledge. Might just as well be that you’ve blown a few neural nets in your brain! You have no idea how dogma driven I am or am not and clearly you have your own dogmatic agenda of Self knowledge or Self enquiry which you none the less insist is pure selfless realisation. Ramana and anyone else you select as a bona fide sage did not spend their time trying to talk down others point of view or philosophy. Indeed Ramana was very accommodating to all other yogic practices in support of self realisation. You arbitrarily dismiss someone else’s critique of your own dogma by saying such positions are dogmatic. Catch 22!
Nick wrote: "You ought to have more respect for other peoples faith and philosophy before arrogantly trying to mash it down for your own undisclosed agenda."
Reply: First, the only disrespect towards other peoples philosophy, is that which is being expressed by Nick. However, any and all beliefs can and will be challenged. If Nick does not like his own or other's spiritual and religious beliefs being examined and challenged (including those of RSSB), which is what happens here with Brian and his Church of the Churchless, then Nick should simply go elsewhere.
My response to Tao:
On the contrary. I have maximum respect for the tradition of advaita and have spent some time with the Ramana Maharshi foundation in the UK at satsang and with other Vedantic type teachers such as Eckhart Tolle, Muz Murray and many others. I welcome a critique of RSSB and sant mat, just not in the terms that you provide it and I repeat your string of derogatory comments about the path and its followers;
(Incorrect, Absurd and narrow minded, Hot air blowing, Baseless, Blind, Cow dung!)
Hardly tolerant, constructive, respectful, caring, compassionate is it! If you do not like my tone then it is because your own tone is being faithfully reflected back on you! Not very nice is it!?
Nick wrote: "If you feel RSSB supporters are deluded..."
Reply: Incorrect. There is no mention whatsover of the term "deluded" in my previous posted comment of Oct. 29. However, I did state that to assume that another person (in this case the leader of the RSSB cult) knows Brian Hines better than Brian knows his own self, was "very absurd and childish". And I will even go one more and say, it is foolish and presumptous to say that the RSSB cult leader knows Brian Hines (or anyone)better than he knows himself.
My response to Tao:
You must be really silly to think that the Master would actually enter into discussion on a weblog. Your rude dismissal of RSSB as a cult may be your opinion, but it is nonetheless an arrogant and malign and wholly dismissive attitude. What room for discussion with an opinion like that? Why not be moderate and reasonable and suggest that RSSB is a large organisation with some cultic tendencies that are counter balanced by some of its supportive and nurturing elements. Again just blanket dismissal from you! Hardly enlightened is it?
Nick wrote: "...your pseudo wisdom"
Reply: This is simply and obviously a direct personal attack and criticism. Nick does not possibly know what is the nature of the understanding, wisdom, and spiritual realization of either myself, or of anyone.
My response to Tao:
Freely admitted! This is a reflection back on you of your constant attacks on everyone else who disagrees with you, (who are necessarily dogma driven and blind believers), whereas you alone on this blog are in the blessed realm of purely objective truth and reality!
Nick wrote: "...you are a disaffected former satsangi with an axe to grind."
Reply: For Nick to attempt to define myself as "a disaffected former satsangi" is nonsense. I am simply not, and cannot ever be, defined by such conceptual categorization. Furthermore, the only axe to grind is that of Nick, who cannot accept that others may have critical and opposing opinions regarding the RSSB cult organization, the RSSB beliefs and dogma, and the RSSB leader. My own personal opinions and criticisms of RSSB cultism and authoritian dogma, are just as relevant and valid as anyone else's. Brian Hines himself is even more articulate in changllenging and criticising RSSB beliefs and dogma than even I am. Clearly, it is Nick who is reactive and defensive about such criticisms, probably because he has some 'personal' investment and attachment in RSSB and its beliefs. I myself have no such personal investment or defensiveness regarding the Advaita philosophy, or any other philosophy. As a matter of fact, I am not concerned or involved in 'advaita philosophy' at all. My sole focus and interest lies only in the direction of Self-inquiry (atma-vichara), and the direct experience of Self-realization and Self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is not belief or philosophy.
My response to Tao:
Again, on the contrary I welcome critiques of beliefs and dogma’s, which is why I show up here from time to time. What I don’t like is the patronising and dismissive language that you use that’s all! Lucky you that you seem to be able to think that your own ‘point of view’ is wholly objective, universal truth whilst others labour under purely subjective opinion and belief. The truth is far more likely to be that you are confounding your own subjective realisations with grandiose claims of objective realisation.
Nick wrote: "Why don't you go away and do something...instead of pontificating that you know better than others?"
Reply: It is only ego-centricity which feels terriitorial about the blogosphere. This blog is a forum for considerations and opinions regarding Brian's posts, as well as spiritual matters in general. If Nick does not respect that there may be differing and opposing opinions and criticisms towards various spiritual beliefs and practices, then it is really Nick who should "go away" from this forum, and not anyone else.
My response to Tao:
I can assure visitors that I have no precious feelings about the blog scape. My only point is that discussion be undertaken with mutual respect and not use the sort of language that you do for others point of view. Oh yes lets have a roll call again:
(Incorrect, Absurd and narrow minded, Hot air blowing, Baseless, Blind, Cow dung!)
Not to mention, ‘Cult leader’, ‘Cult’, ‘Authoritarian’ and so on ad nauseum!
No respect, no kindness, no dialogue, no mutual support here! I am your Nemesis and simply reflect back to you what you have been dishing out! If you don’t like it then you can go jump in a lake (providing its Mansarovar of course!)
Nick wrote: "You have no idea of what... some RSSB supporters engage the path with."
Reply: Nor do I care to what degree the RSSB followers, believers, and proponents "engage the path with".
My response to Tao:
Do you think that anyone cares about you passing off your own subjective opinions as universal truths!? Again, grow up and come down off your pedestal!
Nick wrote: "...this correspondents unkind and judgemental stance"
Reply: The only "judgemental stance" is that being expressed by Nick. My own particular judgements, opinions, and criticisms of the RSSB cult and its dogma, are just that - my own opinions which derive from my own extensive personal experiences of RSSB, as well as spiritual insights which derive from Self-realization and Self-knowledge.
My response to Tao:
Your opinions are just that, your own purely subjective personal take on things and not the universal givens that you promote them as! I submit that you have replaced one set of dogmatic beliefs for a new set and just cannot quite see it! Yet!
My further opinions rest on frequent satsang meetings with the Master, discussions with manifestly realised initiates of Baba Sawan Singh, with hundreds of hours of seva time and talks with many hundreds of other satsangis from the Indian and European sangats.
Nick wrote: "...they have not even made the first steps on any real internal path"
Reply: There is no way that Nick could possibly know the degree of spiritual advancement and sadhana that other spiritual practitioners and realizers have attained. Nick's statement expresses and reveals the very same "judgemental" attitude which Nick himself has so frowned upon in others.
My response to Tao:
You just get reflected back what you are dishing out Mr Tao! Yes I have fallen willingly into the trap of becoming just as judgemental and posturing as you! The only difference is that I freely admit it and wouldn’t dream of dressing up my mundane ‘opinions’ in the garb of universal truths or self knowledge!
Nick wrote: "All the superior metaphysical posturing" ...and... "the ranting, intolerant and unkind attitude"
Reply: There is no 'metaphysical posturing" in the realm of Self-knowledge. Furthermore, the only "ranting, intolerant and unkind attitude" is that which is coming from Nick, as is clearly revealed if one reads Nick's current and previous comments.
My response to Tao:
This is clearly posturing from someone at your manifest level, where you cannot find one decent word to say about a whole tradition of spiritual enquiry. It would not be posturing from a Ramana or Atmananda but then again they did not waste their energies in attacking other teachings and paths. Your stance is one of a vitriolic firebrand who constantly passes off subjective opinion under the guise of universal objective realisation.
Nick wrote: "...discuss in peace, mutuality and respect"
Reply: That is up to each individual commentator to maintain such respect. Personal attacks towards other commentators and their opinions, such as the attacks which Nick has made towards myself and also the Advaita philosophy in general, does not constitute mutual respect and peace. At this point, Nick is clearly and obviously hypocritical.
My response to Tao:
Yes I admit this, but you should come and join me in the den of hypocrisy or else cease your malign attacks on RSSB and sant mat!
Nick wrote: "...we are unable to do that whilst some presume to have the better way and judge others"
Reply: Again, It is obviously Nick who is the one presuming "to have the better way", and who is judging myself as well as admittedly criticising Advaita philosophy. However, none of Nick's negative criticisms and personal judments can ever touch the indestructable sanctity of the direct experience of Self-realization and Self-knowledge.
My response to Tao:
Ditto! Your attacks on sant mat and RSSB do not shake the living experience of devotees and their inner journey on the path! It should be noted that I have full and complete respect for the Advaita path and have spent time with some living teachers aligned to that teaching, from Eckhart Tolle to Muz Murray. On the contrary it is you that have no respect whatsoever for sant mat and RSSB and that is testimony to overt dismissal, axes to grind, old grievances etc and not solely to claims of self-knowledge and realisation!
Nick wrote: "... whilst one party feels the other is deluded"
Reply: Incorrect. Again, I made absolutely no mention or implication of the term "deluded" in my previous comment of Oct 29. Readers can see that for themselves.
My response to Tao:
You may not have used this term, but here we go again with what you have used! Lets remind ourselves’ yet again!
(Incorrect, Absurd and narrow minded, Hot air blowing, Baseless, Blind, Cow dung!)
These are not the remarks of someone who is in any way realised or full of compassion.
Nick wrote: "...Mr or Mrs Tao is no more enlightened than any other visitor to this site"
Reply: To anyone who has common sense and spiritual clarity, it is quite obvious that Nick does not, and cannot, possibly know for sure to what degree anyone else is enlightened. If Nick himself was "enlightened", then he would certainly know that, and he would not be making such an absurd statement. In as much as Nick himself, as revealed in his value judgement, is clearly not yet enlightened, then any such judgement on his part has no validity or substance.
My response to Tao:
You should pay attention to your own title: from the Tao Te Ching.
“He who speaks does not know, He who knows does not speak!”
Q.E.D you do not know what the heck you are talking about!
Nick wrote: "...should stop judging and posturing."
Reply: In conclusion, I would have to point out that since Nick apparently does not like "judging and posturing", then he should refrain from doing so himself. Otherewise, Nick is again simply a hypocrite. But then hypocrisy is something which few people are completely free of. All that is important is that the more one advances in Self-inquiry and towards real Self-knowledge, and awayn from reliance upon mere beliefs and dogma, the less hypocrisy one will harbour.
My response to Tao:
My take on your ranting has all along been that you pass off your own subjective dogma as universal objective realities. How convenient as it allows you the unique gift to be wholly unaccountable for your own opinions and the impact of them.
I have heard this kind of stuff before and it amounts to this. My own opinions derive from the purely objective and universal and are unhindered by belief structures, being pure and direct apprehension of truth. Of course there is no-one as such who realises this as all egotism is dispersed! A double whammy for non accountability!
May be true for Sri Ramana, but certainly not in your case as your stream of rantings make only too clear!
Quite an achievement in the realm of Sophistry, but not in real spiritual diaglogue!
Your entire tone is testimony that you have not realised anything in the same league as Sri Ramana, as he did not motivate his energies in talking down other paths and teachings but taught an ecumenical approach to self knowledge that was big enough to include nada yoga, hatha yoga, raja yoga etc.
I humbly submit once again that you are every bit as dogma driven and reliant on beliefs as any other visitor to this site, except you will not come clean about it!
Yes I freely admit unkindness, intolerance, rudeness, personal attacks, blatant hypocrisy because I am reflecting back on you exactly what you have been continuously dishing out!
Posted by: Nemesis | November 01, 2005 at 03:03 AM
To "Nemesis" (aka "Nick"):
In order to put this ridiculous bantering of dogmatic spiritual ideology to rest, the following message is conveyed:
To begin with, people like "Nemesis" (Nick) are the very proof and evidence that the RSSB cult, its leader, and its entire belief system is failing to produce any significant spiritual growth and enlightened understanding in many of its followers and proponents.
It is clearly apparent that "Nemesis" is reactively struggling to defend his conviction and loyalty to Sant Mat and the RSSB organization. But in actuality he is only like a "barking dog" upon the deck of a sinking ship, who rigidly refuses to swim to solid ground because he has invested his loyalty into the false assumption, belief, and hope that the RSSB ship is really going to take him to spiritual enlightenment and liberation.
The actual reality is that this ship is not at all the solid Rock of Truth, nor is it going to reach the other shore. "Nemesis" is "barking" because he will not accept this and move to more solid ground, and because he doesn't like it when other folks like myself, who stand on the solid rock of Truth, tell him that the ship he is on, is really sinking. All the signs that the ship is sinking are quite evident to those of us who stand over on the solid high-ground of Truth, but "Nemesis" is in rigid and defensive denial, and he refuses to let go of his loyalty and attachment to the sinking ship. "Nemesis" is barking loudly because in doing so, he is attempting to strengthen his own grip on the ship, and also to maintain his belief that the RSSB ship will carry him to reach his supposed destination.
Try as he may, "Nemesis" cannot ever shake or diminish the absolute reality and indestructible integrity of real Self-knowledge. Self-knowledge does not lie in the realm of belief or intellect. "Nemesis" is simply wasting his time and showing himself to be foolish, in such vain and futile attempts to challenge and diminish the glory of Self-knowledge and Self-realization.
Bark as he may, "Nemesis" is only like the foolish dog who is howling on the deck of the sinking ship. If Nemesis were actually situated in the direct experience and tacit realization of true Self-knowledge, as is my own case, then there would be no need or impulse to pursue or defend Sant Mat, RSSB, or any other spiritual path, belief, or philosophy for that matter.
It is sincerely recommended that "Nemesis" (aka "Nick") abandon his false presumptions and cease his futile judgements and attacks against me personally, and simply engage attention in Self-inquiry, and he will eventually come to realize that Self-realization and Self-knowledge is innate within his own Being, and is not to be achieved or realized by following and defending the RSSB organization, its dogma, and/or its current (or past) spiritual leader(s).
Posted by: Tao | November 05, 2005 at 06:48 PM
Tao:
So, just because I've always played "devil's advocate"...
What if Nemesis is at a point where his "false presumptions" and "futile judgements" are actually Truth for him? What if his "Self-knowledge" is in doing exactly what he's doing? If that were true and if he stopped his defense of the organization and its tenets in which he believes, wouldn't that mean he was being un-True to himself?
Maybe, Nemesis is here to be a sharpening tool for your own self-discovery. A tool to make you evaluate your Truth. A tool to be a checkpoint to your own spiritual path.
And for both Tao & Nemesis...
Does it really matter if the one agrees with the other? If an attack (purposely personal or perceived personal or otherwise) rankles you and gets under your skin, sometimes there is a reason that it's so irritating. Sometimes it's just because it seems the other person isn't understanding your point of view (and you think yours is the better of the views). Sometimes it's because there is *something* inside that believes or agrees with the other person and you don't want to change your point of view. And sometimes...it's just because you feel like arguing! If you are secure in the Truth that is yours, it doesn't matter (too much) what others say about it or about you for believing it! It's yours.
As Eleanor Roosevelt once said:
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
:)
Posted by: GM | November 07, 2005 at 10:25 AM
To "GM" - a supposedly self-appointed "devil's advocate":
Before addressing the statements posted by "GM", it is relevant to mention that this matter does not really need additional involvements by readers/observers such as GM. My previous posted comment was communicated specifically to "Nemesis" (aka Nick), and was sufficient to clarify and put to rest the contested issue. The following replies are simply to respond to comments by "GM", and should not be interpreted as a signal for continuation of any further debate. I have communicated sufficiently about this particular issue, and beyond the following replies, there is simply nothing more which I care to respond to or debate upon.
GM wrote: "What if Nemesis is at a point where his "false presumptions" and "futile judgements" are actually Truth for him?"
Reply: Presumptions and opinions are simply opinions, not Truth. Such opinions may certainly may be "true" in the mind of "Nemesis" (Nick), but relative truth is not the essential Truth which I have repeatedly pointed to. GM has misinterpreted what was refered to as "the Truth", which indicates one's "true nature", ie: 'Sat'(Being), the true Self.
GM wrote: "What if his "Self-knowledge" is in doing exactly what he's doing?"
Reply: GM is simply mis-intrepreting and mis-representing the meaning of the term "Self-knowledge.
I am not concerned with, or opposed to, whatever "Nick" is supposedly "doing" in terms of his own spiritual beliefs, path, practices, etc.
However, my use of the term "Self-knowledge" does not refer to whatever Nick or anyone may be "doing", believing, or practicing. Self-knowledge does not refer to "doing" anything, or to relative intellectual knowledge, belief, opinion, or philosophy. Self-knowledge (Atma-Jnana), refers specifically to the direct experience and state of tacit realization of one's own true nature, that which is Sat-Chit-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss).
GM wrote: "...if he (Nick) stopped his defense of the organization and its tenets in which he believes, wouldn't that mean he was being un-True to himself?
Reply: No, not at all. One can believe in, and follow such an organization and its tenets without having any need to be defensive about it. Furthermore, it does not require one to attack others personally. Nor am I suggesting that Nick not be "true to himself", regardless whether he is, or is not, defensive about RSSB. Being true to oneself does not require defensiveness or the challenging and attacking of others.
I have previously indicated my own personal opinions and criticisms of some aspects of the RSSB, but Nick has taken it upon himself to challenge, attack, and criticise me personally, as well as advaita vedanta.
GM wrote: "Maybe Nemesis is here to be a sharpening tool for your own self-discovery. A tool to make you evaluate your Truth. A tool to be a checkpoint to your own spiritual path."
Reply: First of all, I myself am certainly not in any need of any "sharpening tool". If I were, I would be capable of such on my own terms. It is simply presumptuous and unnecessary, and not the concern of "GM" to suggest otherwise.
Secondly, nor am I in any need of such "self-discovery", "evaluation of truth", or any such "checkpoint".
Thirdly, I have no "spiritual path". The fully awakened state of Self-realzation, and the adidance in/as pure Self-knowledge, is not a "path". I am not a seeker, and I do not engage in any "spiritual path". I have shared insights and basic understanding regarding the nature of Self-knowledge on this site. I have also shared my insights, personal opinions, and criticisms about various aspects of the RSSB as well, because these issues were first addressed on this forum by the author of the site (Brian).
GM wrote: "Does it really matter if the one agrees with the other?"
Reply: Agreement or disagreement is not the issue or my concern. I am not interested in whether someone agrees with me or not. The issue is not myself. The issue has generally been the RSSB, and also the limitations of beliefs and dogma, and how they tend to impede true spiritual growth.
GM wrote: "If an attack ... rankles you and gets under your skin, sometimes there is a reason that it's so irritating."
Reply: That is only GM's assumption. GM merely assumes I have been irritated. That is not the case. However, it is quite obvious that "Nemesis" (aka "Nick") feels quite irritated by my opinions and criticism of the RSSB.
GM wrote: "Sometimes it's just because it seems the other person isn't understanding your point of view"
Reply: Indeed, sometimes the "other person" does not clearly understand. If that be the case, then clarification should simply be requested, but not judgement or attack.
GM wrote: "...there is *something* inside that believes or agrees with the other person and you don't want to change your point of view."
Reply: Not exactly sure what GM means....but I can say that the nature of Self-knowledge is that it is not a "point-of-view". Opinions and beliefs are points-of-view. However, Self-knowledge is not an opinion or a belief.
GM wrote: "sometimes it's just because you feel like arguing!"
Reply: Arguement is not what I have endeavored to engage or promote. I have given my own opinions about RSSB, but I have also shared understanding about Self-realization. I have also attempted to respond to various misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding same.
GM wrote: "If you are secure in the Truth that is yours, it doesn't matter (too much) what others say about it or about you for believing it! It's yours."
Reply: Agreed. However, I don't need to resort to "believing it", or believing anything. Again, Self-knowledge is not a "belief", it is realization and abidance in/as one's own true essential nature.
GM wrote:
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
Reply: Thanks for the quote, but "feel(ing) inferior" is not the issue here, nor is it applicable to myself.
Posted by: Tao | November 07, 2005 at 07:28 PM
To Jnaneshvarananda Swami
(aka: Tao of the Pathless One Who Am I )
Are we to assume from your title that you are a renunciate member/leader of an order? If so why do your words disgrace the very ideal of religious harmony and inter faith dialogue with their judgemental and extreme criticism of one other spiritual tradition. A swami should be in the business of multi faith harmony and convergence and not sectarian rivalry and dismissal. Your words are offensive, not in the realm of ‘personal attack’ or ‘misplaced loyalties to dogmas’ but because they focus hostility and resentment onto one single other faith and philosophy. Your sweeping dismissals offend not only sant mat but also the entire traditions underlying/complementing it such as the Sikh faith and the Nada yoga traditions. Give me the kindly and moderate tones of inter faith harmony advocated by Professor Huston Smith any day!
Any such ridiculous bantering is wholly and solely initiated by your excessive and manifest intolerance of any and all things RSSB or sant mat. You seem to have an unhealthy and unbalanced psychology with regard to this faith and have consistently been unwilling to state why you so clearly despise this teaching.
Critics with heart such as Brian Hines conduct their critique in a convivial and friendly manner, whereas yours are laden with grossly negative and defamatory value judgements that are always passed off as superior ‘self – knowledge’.
Your mean spirited and derogatory stream of near abuse towards any and all things sant mat demonstrate most clearly that you are far from any claimed realisation. I repeat yet again that true sages such as Ramana, Atmananda and others did not once waste huge amounts of time, effort and life energy in talking down other faiths in such disparaging tones!
As to being a barking dog? Woof! Woof! You have not read between the lines to see where I am coming from in previous posts. I have maintained a position of RADICAL AGNOSTICISM (a la Faqir Chand) over any claims of ultimate knowledge. That is the ship I am on and I challenge you to convincingly refute its position!
Therefore you are so wide of the mark regarding my true position on matters mystical that it is both pitiful and pathetic. You have all the time missed the real reason why I dabble in apologetics as well as agnosticism, and that is to make the case for ‘divine ignorance’ and ‘religious tolerance’. I have stated many times my high regard for the teaching and exponents of non-dual teachings. I have listed teachers and groups that I have engaged with in this regard, from Muz Murray, Eckhart Tolle, Krishnamurti, Ramana Maharshi foundation.
Thus the prejudicial stance is coming from you and I challenge you one more time to say SOMETHING TRULY POSITIVE about the sant tradition and surat shabd yoga and the long lineages of sages in these traditions! If you cannot or will not then your views will continue to be labelled a religious and sectarian bigotry with personal history issues.
I can state quite categorically that I have no overt attachment to any one particular dogma or faith and that includes RSSB and sant mat. I simply stand up for religious tolerance and inter faith dialogue, and against brutally dismissive, disharmonious and dysfunctional views about other faiths and their followers. I have stated tirelessly that I would do this if Christians or Atheists were likewise being mindlessly run down and debunked by someone with feet of clay themselves!
Au contraire, it is you who appear to be obsessed (negatively) with sant mat and RSSB. I challenge you again to make your interesting points on Self- knowledge free from the context of sant mat bashing. If you cannot or will not do this then your view will continue to be branded as bigoted, slanderous and manifesting from a disgruntled and embittered personal agenda.
You clearly have the ego identity of considering yourself a person who suffers ‘personal attacks’. If you were truly speaking from knowledge then there would be no question of a ‘person’ in any of this.
Constant crowing about your own state of realisation cannot be entirely healthy. Once again from the Tao, ‘He who knows does not speak, He who speaks does not know!’ I challenge you to consider the perspective of radical agnosticism and unknowingness in the face of eternal matters. I strongly suggest you consult sages such as Dionysius the Areopagite and Meister Eckhart in this regard before making too many pronouncements about your subjective speculations.
You should know that there are scientific materialists who would reduce the whole of your claimed realisation to a set of brain events and physiology. I feel that this is the view to be contested in order to safeguard the sanctity and deeply felt realisations of the spiritual life in the wake of a tidal wave of materialism, consumerism, worship of technology and scientism, global environmental destruction and the ruination of the psyche by a trivial minded and pornographic media.
Why not stand shoulder to shoulder and acknowledge the real ‘enemy’ of mindless materialism instead of berating each other as fellow travellers in the inner life with differing perspectives?
Kind regards
Nemesis a.k.a Nick
Posted by: Nemesis | November 08, 2005 at 08:16 AM
Dear Nick,
I really enjoy reading your comments coz they are both rational and imbiased.
There is something i would like to share with you.Some time back Babaji(baba Guringer singh) was shown all the sites criticizing rssb.He said "Why do you want to react.If someone pushes you and you push that person back,what do you get?it is only a cheap thrill."
Although i enjoy reading your reactions to tao i would like you to consider the above.
Wrm rgds,
Ram
Posted by: ram | November 10, 2005 at 05:03 AM
Thank you Ram for reminding Me of some basics.
All good wishes to you and to Tao.
Nick
Posted by: Nemesis | November 11, 2005 at 02:21 AM
I do not come here very often, but when I do it reaffirms my desire to STAY AWAY from people displaying their own personal weaknesses (of the mind) on a public forum. Suffer with your own doubts privately please.
If you feel you must point out failings of RSSB or its management, at least be specific. Brian, read your post about how a false story gets picked up and spread until it starts to become the truth. Unless you know the truth, shut the F up.
Posted by: Steve | March 04, 2006 at 08:46 AM
Old Miser "Axeheart", The "Rummy","Pollutinus"-these are the sterling examples of spiritual insight Brian likes to quote. They're all second tier mystics.Now go liberate your Soul!
Posted by: Swami Propaganda | March 04, 2006 at 10:10 AM
Steve and Swami Propaganda, thanks for your thoughts. We take every comment seriously here at the Church of the Churchless. Your advice to, quote, "Shut the F up" and "Go liberate your Soul!" is wise counsel. I'll take it under advisement.
Isn't it great to visit a church where you can tell the unpastor to "Shut the F up" and he'll agree with you? Yes, this is my kind of church.
Very clever play on words there, Swami. You really demolished Meister Eckhart, Rumi, and Plotinus. Well done. I had never thought of them as "second tier mystics" but I'm sure they are, if you say so.
Naturally I'm curious as to who the first tier mystics are.
Posted by: Brian | March 04, 2006 at 05:42 PM
Well when I come here and I read comments such as by Steve and Swami Propagoonduh, it re-affirms my own suspicions that there are always some smart-ass die-hard cult-head sant mad hatters who have yet to to see the clear-light at the end of their crooked tunnel vision. I guess thats because fools like these, just can't seem to shut their F ing RSSB rubbish up either.
Posted by: tao | March 05, 2006 at 03:46 AM
Tao reminds me of the pot that likes to call the kettle black by labeling others fools or smart-asses. I think he's a Taoer of Negative Power!
Posted by: Swami Propaganda | March 05, 2006 at 03:37 PM
Reply to S. Propaganda:
It was not I whose comment deprecated Meister Eckhart, Rumi, and Plotinus, and called them second grade mystics. If one prefers not to be called a smart-ass and a fool, then perhaps one should not ridicule the great mystics as well as the the author of this site.
In other words, if you can't handle being called on your own negativity, then it would be wise not to dish it out to others. If you have really something better to contribute than what Brian has offered, then by all means let us see it. Otherwise by dint of your own initial criticism and ridicule, you have indeed shown yourself to be a smart-ass and a fool.
Posted by: tao | March 05, 2006 at 09:55 PM
It is really helpful to read about other sceptics in Sant Mat. I have come to believe that if anyone actually did manage to meditate for two and a half hours a day, and spent the rest of their waking moments totally focused in'simram',(repeating a mantra) this would act as a form of self brainwashing. Satsangis are constantly being encouraged to give up everything personal and to 'merge' into the master, thereby overcoming the 'tricks' of the individualistic mind. To be constantly told in satsang that you are nothing, and that the master is everything is very damaging. Many people who regularly attend satsang seem to do so because they have a very timid approach to life(perhaps due to suffering personal traumas in the past) and are markedly lacking in self confidence. Sant Mat gives them an excuse to escape the challenges of life, rather than to try and struggle with them.I sympathise with them in this,having, until recently, felt this way myself.
Keep this blog going Brian, it is reaching a wider audience than you can imagine.
Posted by: Mary | March 24, 2006 at 05:58 AM
Nice write – up..for me spirituality means ..seeking the truth..feeling his grace..enjoy the ultimate happiness..there is nothing to argue.. people who feel his presence n know the truth they will not speak..people who hv not felt that ultimate bliss..talk much..argue ..n discuss..Spirituality is the path of doing not of words..
For the world even Jesus was wrong n was crucified…And same was with guru nanak ji..and guru gobind singh ji..but that does n’t mean people will not worship them..infact i just don’t believe in wasting time in discussing this..this is something which u feel within..i agree with GSD and Robert Searle. And i respect Nick for his views on humanity.
here i can feel that people who has yet not moved a single step are making so much of noise..this is their frustation which is coming out, they just can't take their rejection and that is why they are out of it. first thing we have to learn is ..to be tolerant, inspite of pointing on SANT MAT, i request them to find peace within, incase they cant they have no right to say against SANT MAT, and incase they have got that peace( which is not visible to me atleast!!) enjoy your life. why you are discussing and wasting your time..enjoy the peace..
Posted by: SD | May 13, 2008 at 04:23 AM
To SD:
Well SD, you are just full of shit, to put it bluntly.
First SD says: "for me spirituality means ..seeking the truth" -- well that's a start.
However, then SD says: "feeling his grace..enjoy the ultimate happiness" -- But feeling WHOSE grace? And are YOU "enjoying the ultimate happiness"? In view of your comment, I rather doubt it.
Then SD says: "people who feel his presence n know the truth they will not speak" -- I guess that means that YOU do NOT "feel his presence" nor do YOU "know the truth"... because if you did, then as YOU say, you would "not speak" about it. But since you are contradicting yourself by speaking about it, then its just more evidence that you are full of shit.
Then SD says: "people who hv not felt that ultimate bliss..talk much..argue ..n discuss." -- Well, if that's true, then that means that YOU have NOT "felt that ultimate bliss", because you ARE talking and discussing. But since we already know that you are full of shit, then we can therefore surmise that you don't know shit about any such "utimate bliss" either.
Then SD says: "Spirituality is the path of doing not of words." -- Well if that's true, since you are using words, then you are NOT on the path of spirituality. But again, since you are obviously full of shit, then what do you know anyway?
Then SD says: "infact i just don’t believe in wasting time in discussing this." -- Well then WHY ARE YOU "wasting time" discussing it? Do you always do things that are contrary to your belliefs? Oh thats right, I forgot... you are full of shit, so that explains why you do the opposite of what you say and believe.
Then SD says: "this is something which u feel within." -- And what is that? What DO YOU "feel within"?
Then SD says: "i agree with GSD" -- And what exactly is it that you "agree with GSD" on?
Then SD says: "here i can feel that people who has yet not moved a single step are making so much of noise." -- How would you know that people here have "not moved a single step"? Please explain how you know that.
Then SD says: "this is their frustation which is coming out, they just can't take their rejection and that is why they are out of it." -- Well I must say that YOU sound far more frustrated and "out of it" than anyone else here. And also, what "rejection" are you talking about?
Then SD says: "pointing on SANT MAT, i request them to find peace within..." -- Just practice what YOU preach. YOU go find "peace within", and don't worry about others.
Then SD says: "in case they cant they have no right to say against SANT MAT" -- Oh boy! Here comes that SHIT that I was talking about! "they have no right to say against SANT MAT"??? What absolute total shit-brain moron you are SD!!! Go crawl back under that pile of dogma dung that you crawled out from.
Then SD says: "why you are discussing and wasting your time" -- Simply because we CAN, and because it's none of your damn business... that's why.
I wonder... Why is it that Sant Mat and Radha Soami has such an adundance of shit-brained morons infesting it's ranks???
They remind me of gobs of little maggots squirming around in the bely of some old dead rotting corpse.
Posted by: tAo | May 13, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Well, you guys definitely will have a great deal of fun rereading these posts a few years later, if you ever do. It's relatively easy to see how all this spirituality thing can sometimes get us a bit frustrated, disillusioned, confused, angry. I can relate to that very much. It's not easy.
I don't think that necessarily says anything bad about Sant Mat or any other cult or practice.
To date I have seen very, very few posts by so-called "ex-satsangis" where a lot of frustration, anger or other negative emotions don't show up. I like and enjoy those posts that invite us to introspection, and I thank you for them. Many, many posts, however, are at most a complaint or a confused ramble.
I think we should stick to 'whatever works' (as good old Woody Allen shows in his movie). Whether Sant Mat or any other cult.
Posted by: PB | August 27, 2011 at 06:30 PM