Is Sant Mat a non-dual spiritual practice?

I find the notion that reality is non-dual appealing. I used to be much more of a dualist, or transcendentalist, believing that something above and beyond the physical universe is where ultimate truth, beauty, and wisdom lie.

But increasingly I resonate with Wikipedia's description of non-duality (though I don't agree that Plotinus is a non-dualist):

Nondualism may be viewed as the belief that dualism or dichotomy are illusory phenomena. Examples of dualisms include self/other, mind/body, male/female, good/evil, active/passive, dualism/nondualism and many others.

To the Nondualist, reality is ultimately neither physical nor mental. Instead, it is an ineffable state or realization. This ultimate reality can be called "Spirit" (Aurobindo), "Brahman" (Shankara), "God", "Shunyata" (Emptiness), "The All" (Plotinus), "The Self" (Ramana Maharshi), "The Dao" (Lao Zi), "The Absolute" (Schelling) or simply "The Nondual" (F. H. Bradley).

Recently I got an email from Mike, who shared some interesting thoughts about Sant Mat in general and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) branch of this religious philosophy in particular. I've included his message as a continuation to this post.

I was struck by Mike's assumption that Sant Mat is a non-dual spiritual practice. Having been initiated into RSSB about the same time Mike was (1971), and being familiar with the teachings of decidedly non-dual mystics such as Ramana and Nisargadatta, I've never thought of Sant Mat in this fashion.

Ken Wilber is a modern non-dualist. In his magnum opus, "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality," Wilber sums up his philosophy as: (1) the Many are illusory, (2) the One alone is real, and (3) the One is the Many. Thus reality is illusion, and illusion is reality.

Could be. Unity is what most of us are looking for in one way or another, and non-duality is even more of a piece than monism—which ends with a One that transcends the maya of Manyness. I like the non-dual wrinkle that ultimate reality is right here and now, not only far off in some other realm.

I just don't see Sant Mat as being authentically non-dual. To the extent that it is, non-dualism is very much de-emphasized in comparison to the thoroughly dualistic aspects of the meditational and devotional practices I was taught.

For example: body, mind, and soul are considered to be separate and distinct. The goal is to leave body and mind behind, and become pure soul. "Heaven" (a.k.a. Sach Khand) is an actual place, another dimension of being, not a modification of present consciousness.

The guru is to be worshipped and obeyed. He isn't merely an exemplar of what the disciple can become, but rather is thought to be a son of God who has been sent by the Creator to retrieve lost souls. While the highest manifestation of "God" in Sant Mat is formless, the disciple is supposed to rely on the guru's various forms (physical, astral, causal) during a long spiritual journey from many to the One.

So there's a lot of duality to be discarded in Sant Mat before attaining the nondual. Other practices such as Zen, Advaita, and Taoism take a much more direct route to non-duality.

Still, Mike correctly points out that if the overtly ritualistic and religious aspects of Sant Mat are discarded, you're left with a spiritual practice that could indeed be viewed as falling into the non-dual camp. Of course, this could be said of anything: if you take away the fluff, you're left with the essence.

What I wonder is, "Why not dive right into the essence, rather than spending time and energy wading through the fluff?" But that's a matter of personal preference, as Mike says. For some people, during some periods of their lives, dualistic supports—authority figures, congregations, holy books, worship services—are needed.

Here's Mike's message:

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

I am fascinated to discover this site, and to read the rationales and musings of former Satsangis. I am fascinated by the arguments arising and the range of points of view, the lonely ramblings of lost seekers. Here's my take on it:

It seems to me that the current guru at Beas would be the first to agree that he is merely human, and no more special than anyone else.

Nevertheless, in the socio-linguistic nexus in which he finds himself, he must discharge the duties of a guru, or teacher. The role is quite tight, and he has very little latitude for changing the structure. Yes, it is a religion, but a very stripped-down one with ritual kept to a minimum and a constant exhortation to followers to be good and to meditate.

So what? The entire movement suggested by Sant Mat teachings is of a change of consciousness, from one in which we are driven by an anxious and illusory 'self', to a non-dual awareness, where concepts of 'self' and 'other' drop away.

So, there are three questions:

(1) Does the meditation technique offered by these gurus work or not? Which is to say, if pursued on its own terms, can it result in non-dual awareness?

This is difficult to assess – and the injunction for Satsangis not to discuss their meditation experiences does not help – but from my experience of Sant Mat, (since 1970) I would offer a provisional yes – it seems to work for some people sometimes.

I know several people who are passionate, devoted meditators, and whose consciousness has indeed been transformed in a positive way by this. I know others who sit but whose sitting seems to have no positive effect on their behaviour and demeanour.

(2) Is the guru one for whom the technique has worked – who has manifested non-dual consciousness?

This is not possible to assess, but to judge by the assertions that Gurinder Singh makes, he is keen to minimise the cult and religious aspects of RSSB, and to deflect followers back onto their own resources. He invites us to try the meditation technique and make our own assessment.

For some it works, for others it does not. Some never give it more than a cursory try before abandoning it. Which brings us to the third question:

(3) Do we wish to (attempt to) transform our own consciousness into the non-dual state by means of the technique offered?

The rest – 'is the guru really god?' 'he has come down' and so on and on, is all metaphor. It's not, at heart, about some 'other' God 'up there' and us down here or any other essentialist nonsense, nor is the inner journey spatial (through spatial 'regions').

The entire RSSB cosmology and inner energy body is just a way that Hindu culture expressed its understanding of the change in consciousness from the illusory 'self' to the non-dual, from the self-obsessed to the open and compassionate. The 'journey' has no features or milestones, but we mark it, wherever the mind is present, according to our cultural predispositions.

In the inner silence we may learn…

(a) That the entire world is the production of the mind (rather obviously – it assembles the 'world' from feeling-drenched sensations and presents it as on a screen;)

(b) That there is only one mind (yours) doing the presenting;

(c) That one can unify the 'world' and the 'mind' if we can relax the tight grasp that we have on an illusory selfhood. This entails ditching all clinging and grasping towards any 'part' of the 'world' we have constructed, including the false 'self' at the centre.

(d) That only the unified mind can merge with the great One.

It seems that some people are able to close their eyes and drop through the lattice of phosphenes (the glowing thingies you see with closed eyes) into the vast-seeming dark space beyond. There one meets an inner guide – a projection of one's own inner wisdom. This guide's form has been built up in visualization practice, and with time becomes more and more 'real'. (The analogous process happens with 'sound', though meditation is neither visual nor auditory.)

As Baba Faqir Chand, a Radhasoami guru from Hoshiarpur said: "What I have realized after a long search is that one must not think ill or do any harm to anybody for personal gain. Secondly, one must have faith in only one form, it may be of any god, goddess or teacher. Without form one cannot reach the goal."

So, the meditation is not conferred by the guru, but is something built into the mind and accessible via technique and attitude. The guru is the anchor into a socio-linguistic context (all the apparatus of the sangat) – a means of 'explaining' and containing the inner movement.

Studies of the Radhasoami books give content as well as philosophical and ethical underpinning to this hypostatized production of the mind. A powerful emotional context directs the feelings into certain channels. The inner guru is the production of one's mind – by the system's own logic, everything up to the 'third region' is the mind's production.

As Faqir further states: "You are not helped by any saint or guru, but by your own faith and belief." There is really no need to impute god-like powers to some chap in India, which he would be the first to deny.

Does this mean we should abandon the path and the sangat? Not necessarily. For those who want to practice this meditation system, the surrounding apparatus of books, satsangis, the guru and the support of fellow meditators may be helpful. For some others it may not. If one is not engaged in this path of self-transcendence, one ought to gracefully bow out and say "that's not for me."

There is also the attraction of learning the rules, codes and terminology of the system and the satisfaction of using them correctly, which we may mistake for holy fervour. The Radhasoami teachings, aside from the meditation practice, do not explain the world. They are a codification of a 19th-century Northern Hindu world-view.

But it is tempting to see them as absolute Truth, and to attempt to cobble together a Total System based on them, a process doomed to failure as many of the entries on this blog show.

Why be surprised if some Satsangis behave like an in-group, or regard themselves as superior, or better than others? I imagine that this is the case with all religions, political parties etc. etc.

We should be able to forgive, as in-group behaviour is hardwired into all the higher primate species. Fundamentalism happens in any religious grouping, and there is the likelihood that people of fundamentalist habit will transfer their habit to Sant Mat. It is certainly contrary to the spirit of what Gurinder Singh Dhillon seems to be teaching.

So, if you came to RSSB for any other reason than the meditation practice, I am not surprised to find you here. If you came for the meditation, and it didn't work for you, I am also not surprised – it seems to work for about 10% of those who attempt it, though the hit-rate increases with persistence.

I have found no evidence of abusive or cult-like behavior, beyond what one might expect from any mild and well-intentioned religion, in all my years of association with RSSB. I have never witnessed coercion, apart from a mild atmosphere of mutual encouragement.

I have certainly encountered the entire range of behaviours, from criminal to saintly, among Satsangis, as with all other groups that I have associated with. If some of the crazier Satsangis give a weird flavour to the sangat, or if it becomes too fundamentalist one can:

--complain to the guru

--vote for different officials

--stop going to satsang and continue the meditation practice on one's own, or among like-minded friends.

If you are not interested in the meditation practice or, if after a genuine trial it does not work for you, then RSSB is not for you. You have the option of quietly putting it down and moving on, or carrying it as baggage. Even if you are a meditator, you will eventually have to release your grasp on RSSB, as on everything else.

--Mike

Comments

[David Lane]

I can certainly agree that near the end of his life Faqir Chand advocated an Advaita position similar to Ramana's.

Indeed, I have a personal letter from Faqir (among several) where he points out that the ultimate aim of meditation is not to listen to the sound or see the light, but to find out, "Who is seeing the light? Who is hearing the sound?"..... and then to merge into that sourceless being.

However, I am not quite sure how "advaita" Charan was or how "advaita" Gurinder is.

It is an interesting question, however, and I do think one can at the very least find traces and hints of such non-dualism in their teaching.

I remember once asking Charan Singh in 1981 (it may be on tape) about a story I once heard that "we are already in Sach Khand now."

And he laughed and said something witty.....I forget exactly what.

But I do remember getting the impression that his reply wasn't non-dualist (at least not in that context).

[ET]

David - on December 22, 1981 somebody did ask:

“Master, I've heard once from a lady that in a Satsang you once said that we are already in Sach Khand. Is this true?”

Charan Singh replied:

“Well, if you think this place is Sach Khand, then you are already there. It depends upon your mental concept of what is your Sach Khand. You see, I never said that we are already in Sach Khand. When the seed is sown, of Nam, in us or when we take a new birth, we become entitled to go to Sach Khand from that very moment. We become entitled to go to Sach Khand. As Christ said, "Go, ye have become whole, sin no more lest a worse thing come unto thee." Not... If you have become whole, the question of sinning no more doesn't arise. You are beyond that, means that I have initiated you now. I have given you a new birth; now you are in the process of becoming whole, provided you don't add more to your sins. Otherwise, you may have to scale down. That, that sense, you see, I may have conveyed in Satsang many times from Baba Ji Maharaj Ji's letter, that when we are initiated, we become entitled to go back to the Father, not that we have reached the Father. Potentially everybody is God. Potentially. But then we have to become God. Yes.”

Is this what you are referring to David?

ET

[Edward]

I propose a metaphor: let us, within the confines of this comment, describe modern philosophical inquiry as we have learned to describe light. Where we say that light is both particle and wave, let us say that depending upon the observer, any given line of philosophical inquiry, (e.g. Sant Mat, RC Catholicism, Pelagiastics, Aum Shinri Kyo) is both dualistic and non-dualistic.

From the perspective that is non-dualist, all referents are dependant on the consistency of the monad. Therefore, in fundamentalist philosophy any complex communication that is not strictly central to the belief structure or texts must be expressed as metaphor.

Intellection, as I may have pointed out before, is only expressible as opposition. Our eyes are structured in such a way that we can see a crawling bug under a leafy jungle canopy in the light of a gibbous moon. This uncanny ability to distinguish contrast is used in language to describe the objective world: up and down, front and back, dark and light. However, this is not yet the language of the dualist, since there are shades of meaning in the expression of contrast.

The language of the dualist is most apparent as the simile passes to metaphor and then to concrete meaning. So, one progression of lingual evolution may be: “I am on the ground, and the clouds are not here, they are up there. :: I am here on the earth, and the gods are not here, it is like they are up there with the clouds. :: God lives in heaven. :: God and I are separate. :: What is here is less than God.”

This is the function of metaphor. We perceive patterns and lay them on top of each other. The person who enjoys comparing patterns becomes a non-believer, heretic or apostate. Metaphor is useful when we need to find food in new trees. We starve when we insist that the logic of the language is analogous to the logic of the environment: all trees do not contain all bugs; because the unreachable sky is wonderful, what is wonderful is not necessarily unreachable.

Each line of philosophical inquiry starts as a non-dual event (e.g.: an out-of-body experience). In communicating the event, we establish a set of referents coherent through shared experience. The referents move from simile, (“It was like I was floating”) to metaphor, (“I float to heaven”). The metaphor takes on concrete meaning, (“Without the sensation of floating, the experience is ersatz.”) Dualistic thought finally sets the strictures on how the philosophy will continue, (in-body is not out-of-body,) and all complex communication has to refer to the central theme: “get your head out of the clouds” and “keep your feet on the ground.”

We love the mental games that involve pattern recognition, but we don’t have to fight over the correct rituals involved in soduko. We love the ability to perceive contrasts, but so far there have been no expressionist genocides of impressionists. The “is equivalency” is a trap that even theoretical mathematicians fall into.

It is not true that the guru is god, because it is true that the guru is god.

[Mike]

Is RSSB meditation non-dual?

Bizarre question, really… EVERYTHING is non-dual.

When I was at Dera in March 1977 Charan caused a stir by declaring in the vast satsang that 'we are all in Sach Khand right now, only we don’t realize it' (in Punjabi). It was the first time, reportedly, that he had made such a statement in public.

It is admittedly hard to call RSSB ‘non-dual’ with any conviction, though there are many such hints that there is a non-dualism at its core.

I am convinced that the goal of Surat Shabd Yoga is the non-dual experience, and that this is why the founding guru had to add nameless, quality-less and formless regions to the existing wedding-cake of inner realms.

My guess is that much RS ‘philosophy’ is an attempt to shoe-horn a non-dual experience into a pietistic, dualistic religious framework, and not really succeeding.

On the question of the perfection, god-like-ness etc. of the masters, a better question to ask might be, ‘Why are we Westerners such unskilled idolaters?”

Any oriental religious practitioner knows perfectly well that the idol is emphatically not the god, but continues to make use of it, even to use behaviours that seem to imply that it IS the god, and further, knows that such behaviour may make the religious practice more effective.

Similarly with the master – we must not forget that this belief system is mostly enjoyed by North Indian peasants, for whom under-intellectualized pietism is how religion is served up.

The masters all assure us that the inner, not the outer master is the ‘real’ one.
The outer is then an idol – an axis of religious praxis and belief, but not to be taken too literally, at the risk of losing the metaphoric possibilities of religious practice.

But we in the West want things to be ‘real’ (whatever that might mean). Sure, there is a strong sense in which one who has had the non-dual experience or is in the non-dual state is ‘one with’ God, ‘knows’ God, etc.

They are omni-sentient (know the all) rather than omni-scient (know everything) and while they are ‘one with’ god, only the most naïve materialism imputes to this state the sort of Superman miracle-working omnipotence that many exers were disappointed not to find.

EVERYONE is one with God, in the non-dual usage of the term.

The above is pretty much in line with Baba Faqir Chand, I think.

[Tucson Bob]

Dualistic supports such as authority figures, books, practices, rituals, even meditation may be what an individual thinks they need at any particular time to reach "God", but they have no more value in this regard than roller skating or building a tool shed.

A few followers of Sant Mat may have "inner" experiences that bring some peace and bliss. They may see universes appear and dissolve in glorious fashion. "Secrets" may be revealed to them. Still, this is not IT. They are no more or less close to IT in these states than a coyote on the prowl or an unemployed person moping around eating too many Twinkies.

Within the dream it appears goals can be set and achieved, a cause and effect sequence of events controlled by an individual will. But this "I" that appears to be doing these things is also just another appearance in the dream. Within this play of appearances "spiritual" efforts to get rid of this "I" merely reinforce identification with it.

When the whole dreamed concept of a life, an ego extended in space/time is released, there is a lack of tension, an ease of relaxing in what is in the present. This present appearance as an individual "I" is already perfect whether there is a search to get rid of it or not, whether the "I" is present or not. This appearance does not rise out of a past and lead to a future. It is all a play in this present awareness. Once it is seen what you really are, any search for awakening seems absurd.

A perception free of the conceptualization process is impossible to describe, but here is a feeble, childlike attempt:
"IT", the pure non-objectivity turned upon (objectivised) itself from the primordial undifferentiated state and said, "I Am". This was the big bang, an explosion of awareness sending infinite waves of kaliedoscopic light, each facet a particle of creation, unique, yet one with all others. This formless, nameless ONE lost itself in the glory of its objectivization. It didn't even know where it was going. Yet, each facet, though it may be a polar opposite to another, fits perfectly in this glorious spectacle of life. It sees itself reflected into infinity something like your image reflected infinitely when seen in two mirrors facing each other. This is wonderful, and very tricky.

What was sought all along turns out to be this which is seeking, and the spiritual goal turns out to be what already is. It's kind of a cosmic joke where everything is your own play of being. There is the primordial non-objectivity and yet there is the awareness whereby everything appears. You are already awake but sort of tricked or hypnotized by this cosmic play with which you identify.

There is no process to recognise this. There is nothing to be done and no one to do it. Relax into presence and it is as it is. Ordinary life continues as it is. Isn't there a saying that goes something like, "before enlightenment trees are trees and mountains are mountains and after enlightenment trees are trees and mountains are mountains. It's really no big deal and wonderous at the same time.

[tao]

Tuscon Bob,

Your insightful comment above was so very well stated that nothing need be added. It speaks for itself.

Namaskar

[tao]

To Mike, as well as to the Readers in general:

The idea put forth by Mike (an obvious Sant mat apologist) that Sant mat is actually non-dual, is fundamentally bogus and is really just a form of concept and word jugglery. It is an confused attempt at validating Sant mat by co-opting advaita, but it fails miserably.

The fact of the matter is that the core premise as well as the over-all body of the Sant mat teaching is clearly a dualistic approach in every respect. But that does not mean that it is necessarily inferior. It just means that it is not non-dual oriented, and shold not be presented as such.

Even the notion or argument that the meditation practice leads to non-dual realization is faulty. If it does, then where is the evidence of that? If the practice actually resulted in true and direct non-dual realization, then such practitioners of shadda yoga would no longer need to continue such practice. Nor would it take them decades or even lifetimes of practice as Sant mat suggests.

No such continued effort or endeavor would need continue after genuine non-dual realization. And if some sadakas have indeed attained such realization via Sant mat, then where are are they? There are none around that I know of. And if they had actually really attained non-dual realization, then they simply would not be parroting, teaching, or practicing dualistic dogma any longer.

It is quite obvious to me that Mike does not really comprehend the non-dual nature of Atman, the basis of the advaita oroentation/teaching, nor does he have the 'direct experience' of realization itself, ie: Self-knowledge. Because if he did, he would undoubtably have no need whatsoever to be placing such into the context of dualistic Sant mat philosphy or meditation practice.

[David Lane]

Yes, that was me who asked that question of Charan.

Thanks for remembering it.

[Roger]

Tao,

I liked your second to last paragragh,

"No such continued effort or endeavor would need continue after genuine non-dual realization. And if some sadakas have indeed attained such realization via Sant mat, then where are are they? There are none around that I know of. And if they had actually really attained non-dual realization, then they simply would not be parroting, teaching, or practicing dualistic dogma any longer."

Not bad, from a 60 year old, biker dude.
haha......just teasing..

My question, "Can anyone really attain non-dual realization?" How can One realize the Infinite? The word, "Realization" from a finite mind, sounds confusing.

Could you write another comment, that could clearify the issue with me?

Thanks,
Roger

[Tucson Bob]

It is obvious from the quote presented by ET that Charan Singh was not "realized" from the non-dual point of view. To him, Sach Khand or God, was somewhere to go back to or to reach by a separate entity, that we are not whole, and it is a process to get there. Perhaps this was just semantics and his way to convey the indescribable to the masses, but I doubt it.

[tao]

Roger,

One must remeber that, admittedly, words can never adequately commuicate or convey a perfect description and understanding of non-duality and so-called "realzation". I just do the best I can to translate it into words. But words and concepts are dualistic by their very nature, and so should not be seen as the essence, the meaning, and the reality itself.

Your questions:

"Can anyone really attain non-dual realization?"

-- Actually no one ever attains realization. "Realization" is simply the vanishing of the illusion that there is a separate 'someone' who realizes. Non-duality is the nature of the real. There is no one separate from non-duality with which to realize it. Realization is actually the disapparance of all notions that there is a someone who is somehow separate, and who engages in efforts towards realization. There is nothing to realize, and there is no who can realize. Reality or 'existence/being/awareness' is perfect, whole, and complete in itself (purnam), and there is nothing other than THAT (non-dual).

In a way, "realization" could be said to be simply a matter of absolute surrender into wholeness.

"How can One realize the Infinite?"

-- One need not achieve or "realize" anything. The "Infinite" is already complete and whole (purnam) in itself. The is no one separate from it to achieve it. The "Infinite" simply IS. The "infinite is non-dual. So-called "realization" will occur naturally when this is simply accepted (surrender) unconditionally without any reservation. No effort is required. Un-motivated surrender to divine ignorance is all that need occur. Total honesty and un-compromising Self-inquiry may sometimes help, as well as an attitude of love and gratitude.

"The word, "Realization" from a finite mind, sounds confusing."

-- In a sense it is, as I discussed above. It is better to forget about the word "realization" (or words), and simply attend to one's immediate sense of instant presence, to awareness itself. Simply abide in awareness naturally, without confounding and super-imposing all sorts of mental constructs.

It is best to simply Live Life, to surrender to the Reality, and not be concerned with endless interpretations and conceptualizations through the intellect and words. In truth, "realization" is really to get beyond all that. So let go of of all that and surrender to the ever-present divine reality which is manifesting as the total cosmos and all beings.

The sooner this is accepted and understood unconditionally, the better. No gesture or artifice of contrived meditation, method, or belief is necessary.

SVAHA

[Roger]

Tao,

Excellent response. What can I say, you explained it perfectly.

Best wishes,
Roger

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear tao and Tucson Bob,

What you each have presented - as best as your use of "words" seems to allow - strikes me as most convincing. But it is a part of "my" "reality" that I don't much like the "experience" of the "world" I have awareness of. While it all is truly "wonderous" in its "being," I just can't help "reacting" negatively to what I "perceive" (= "am aware of") as "evil" or "injustice": rape, murder, egotism, imposition, arrogance, disregard, other "abuses" (cf. "war")........ These, too, are all "facet[s]" of "this glorious spectacle of life." And that which "I" seem to be takes them most painfully. Indeed, "I" wish that "death" would assuredly be "eternal non-existence." Such would be most inviting: despite the loss of the "glorious" that might/can be "experienced," the reiterative pain(s) would be gone (as with "I").

"Blessed are the aborted: for they shall not suffer life."

Robert Paul Howard

[Tucson Bob]

Robert Paul Howard,
After re-reading my comment above, I did use the words glorious and wonderous a lot. I guess I was having a glorious, wonderous day. I have shitty days too. Good thing I wasn't writing on one of those days! The wildebeast I saw being eaten alive by hyenas on TV last night was probably having a damn shitty day. The creation, when seen from the personal, identified level can at times appear brutal and merciless, full of evil and treachery. But somewhere, the opposites of those things are occuring in equal abundance.

In order for the universe to appear, the pairs of opposites must exist, for the concept of happy cannot exist without the concept of sad, heat without cold, health without suffering, birth without death, etc. to compare it to. How could pain be known if the absence of it was never experienced? The ONE mind became split mind and universes of polar opposites appeared, some more coarse with greater extremes of polarity, some more refined where these opposites are less powerfully polarized.

Like the news, the mind sometimes tends to dwell on the negative which, while unpleasant, can be more stimulating and interesting. The ratings would go down if the newsperson only reported things like.."Well, today folks I'm happy to report that 46 million people got home safely today from work and weren't creamed by a semi-truck!"

So, our experience now varies, but maybe sometime we will see from a level where all this seeming disharmony fits perfectly into a larger picture of absolute harmony, of interrelating parts that mesh just fine, but when seen individually appear out of whack. Hence, the well known yin-yang symbol.

In the clarity of what we really are, all phenomena are just impersonal movements because there is no one to take delivery of them. Problems such as anxiety, fear, and suffering born of the concept of an individual separate self begin to lose their grip. These problems still have their effect but not the tenacious hold they once had. They are just passing phenomena in the dream, in the shinning light of awareness.

[Edward]

There is pain, and once in that pain, I have no recall of ease. As Tao said about "realization," there is nothing other than the immediate. Reality is being here now, realization is what I do when I come away. Fear of pain, anger at injustice: these are excellent feelings to live through when necessary.

But the dreams and thoughts that I take away from these experiences, that is where the confusion with reality occurs. It is safer for me to have a mediated experience, and learn from that, (war zone footage) than to have an experience (war zone) and try to live through it. What happens is I think that I have learned about war through war footage, but what I have learned about is my reaction to seeing war happen to others. I am not frightened and desperate, I am angry and opinionated.

All information is neutral. My experience of that information may be freighted with my brittle humanity, but as long as I know that, and "accept it unconditionally," I don't need to micro-manage my senses.

There is no separation, "From the beginning, not one thing is." If I remember that my life is none of my business, detachment from result is easier.

[awake_108]

Dear RPH,

We met before when you inquired about a 'God' experience.

It seems you are depressed. It is possible that the RS life denying views have reinforced your depression but, at this time, is there a way to get out of it?

My suggestion to depressed RS people is to stop meditation completely and stop trying to find intellectual solutions to existential problems.

Pay complete attention to daily life and make each step as enjoyable as possible. Get out in the fresh air and sunshine and receive the gift of life, at every breath, with gratitude.

Find activities that make you feel alive and engage in them.

Getting out of depression can take time because the mind has to become free of old mental ruts.

Good wishes.

[Manjit]

Pseudo-Advaitic-Realisation, Shadows, Reflections, Growth, The Relation of Duality to Non-Duality, Indivdual and Absolute, Shiva and Shakti, Genuine Advaitic-Realisation etc etc.

With these points can be drawn an infinite array of different pictures with an endless variety of meanings, values, levels of 'attainment' etc.

To the sight, a half-baked jug looks exactly like a fully-baked jug, but with only the mildest pressure applied, the half-baked cracks in an instant. The half-baked is only effective at the level of sight, but useless at the level of use it is actually intended for; holding water.

Genuine non-dual realisation is a vast ocean of mystery that never ends, only deepens and deepens and deepens... and is no more related to the 'practice' of 'Be here now' than 'Listen to Shabd now'. Though this is perhaps something realised in the deep of the ocean than the shallow waters of the shore.

'Simply Be' is very misleading, though actually very difficult to unravel why. The 'Simply Be' of a Ramana Maharshi is no doubt declared from a *dualistic* state of consciousness (as all declarations are made by the dualistic mind, even if possibly from a very refined and edge of non-duality, newly emergent duality upon 'descending' from non-duality) very very different from the state of consciousness of half-baked advaitists who declare 'Simply Be'.

When a Ramana Maharshi declares you are already enlightened, or 'Simply Be', it means something deep and profound to his own experience. When an 'realiser' like RM says these kind of things, they are actually talking to themselves, or expressing their OWN realisation (as reflected in the duality of their own body-mind experience). It is very hard to distinguish between what is an expression of their own state, and what is a literal *instruction* to others. Hard for both the speaker and the listener (and it took me a while to realise this).

The difference between an intellectual linguistic loop of advaita and the almost incapacitating & tremondously ravishing, mind-body changes of 'genuine' advaitic realisations are like comparing the half-baked to the fully baked jug.

This is not a competition of tradition vs tradition. The only winner or loser in this can be ourself, no 'other' even matters. First rule of spirituality; Be true to ONESELF. One way to distinguish between intellectual pseudo-realisation and 'genuine' I would suggest is confirming to ONESELF that the shakti and shiva are unified, or atleast activated. IE, there should be several extremely powerful energetic experiences of bliss, light, sound etc. Further, there should be at least some control over these, though there may be no DESIRE to do so. These experiences should be so powerful that you become unable to function in the world for at least some period, maybe lasting months or years, until acclimatised to the non-dual. Further 'tests' of the 'genuine' are you should personally be 100% sure what happens at your OWN death, have had inner experiences which explain the origin of creation, concepts, cause & effect etc. Without these, there is no INSIGHT into one's condition, which help one'attain' the non-dual. (you don't have these experiences to proclaim loudly to the world as a new cosmology, but to gain liberation through the insight which emerges from them)

In actuality, beyond the theorisation of intellectual expression of advaita the groups, religions, meditation practices, moral constraints, bhakti etc etc such as that of RS, Buddhism, Tantra etc, appear to be almost ESSENTIAL.

'Simply Be' to your average Joe is like scratching a 2ft thick concrete wall with a wooden stick. 'Simply Be' to somebody who has cleaned and polished their heart and mind through years of intensive guru-bhakti, moral constraint, meditation, devotion, seva, prayer etc etc, maybe like a pneumatic drill which bores through the wall in a moment.

In Tibet, after years of arduous practice and perfection of the energetic tantras, is presented the seemingly deceptively simple Dzogchen; 'Simply Be'. Why after years practicing the other tantric yogas is this introduced?

After complete absorbtion and perfection of Shabd Yoga did Kabir, Namdev etc express their unquestionably profound and genuine realisation of the non-dual. Kabir is the thorn in the side of ALL those who proclaim Shabd practice is for 'fools'. His non-duality would swallow whole all the half-baked advaitists. As would his praise and experience of Shabd.

Buddha, the Grandfather of the non-dual, also meditated for years, and advocated almost endless medititation and also praised ecstatic inner dualistic experiences (muchlike shabd yoga).

Ramana Maharshi, despite not making much 'effort', after 'realisation' was almost comatose for several weeks and months (not even moving to eat, or move insects that were eating into his flesh), and clearly expressed the mind-blowing alterations and states of consciousness of the body-mind organism which occur as a reflection of impersonal non-dual realisation.

I can state, personally, that there is a big experiential difference between half-baked intellectual advaita, and the genuine thing. And, to make it more complex, even the intellectual kind seems 'real' to the intellect, as it is in a linguistic loop with nowhere to escape from this particular delusion.

The point of this long post? I'm a little unsure. There's a lot of kidding that goes on on sites like these. Who's kidding who, I'm not so sure. We should be very careful we are not deluding ourselves (and others?), and making false, un-examined assumptions and assertions. There is no correct and incorrect path, as there is no 'path' and no destination....BUT, whilst you think you 'exist', then of course both path and destination exist too, in the mind. And it is from THIS mind, that intellectual-advaitists proclaim 'Simply Be', don't meditate, RS is conceptual BS etc etc. It is like one starving man telling another starving man you are not hungry, but actually full-up! Meaningless!

Let everyone be as they are and follow their own 'path', be it RS, Christianity, Buddhism, Advaita etc. More than this, realise that in no shape or manner are they stupid fools, or on an inferior path, or deluded etc etc The individual IS the path, and in no way whatsoever does following RS (for example), if that feels natural and joyous, put you at a disadvantage to those following advaitic (which in interesting reflection to RS groups, would probably also be a pseudo-teacher anyway) teachings or masters.

Ahh, ultimately, that none of it really matters or is worth worrying about, is another matter entirely. We are simply discussing the enjoyments of the illusory body-mind experience. But that's another story that won't be understood until it is understood. The Paradox of Realisation.

[Manjit]

Actually, there is no such thing as a 'non-dual' practice, or even approach. There is only non-dual Reality. As long as the (illusory) sensation of an invidualised self exists, then ALL actions, paths, practices, beliefs etc etc are by their very nature DUALISTIC. This includes also the teachings, 'practices', gurus etc of what is labelled 'advaita'. Only whilst duality remains are these of any benefit, which essentially makes the advaitic approach as dualistic as RS theology. Whilst the illusory self is still identified with, it doesn't matter how refined or matured ones conceptualisation of God, enlightenment, the Absolute or Realisation etc becomes, it remains essentially dualistic as it is built upon the illusory self-consciousness.

I'm not talking about living a *relatively* free, spontaneous, joyous etc life, (which the intellectual-advaitic may gain) I'm talking about the very real and actual 'experience' of non-duality spoken about by Ramana, Kabir, Buddha etc

And, to attain that experience, imo, I cannot see any difference between any school of thought and practice. Merely names & forms which are vehicles or cover for our inner desires and path which truely drive us to our intended destination.

[Tucson Bob]

Manjit, Well written and I especially like the half baked jug analogy, but in my experience it doesn't have to be the long hard winding road of a pneumatic drill of arduous purification to get 'through' to a point of clarity. This is why I'm here...to say it's just a trick of perception that can change in an instant without paying any dues. This God thing doesn't care if you pay any dues or not. It's all the same to it whatever happens. There just isn't anyone to get through to any thing. I am that but I am not. This realization doesn't have to knock you on your ass and leave you dysfunctional like R. maharshi, although I have to admit my reaction, the first time it was perceived, was intense and I rode my bike tirelessly for hours saying peek a boo, I see you !!! And everyone was in on the secret too even though they were at the same time pretending that they weren't!... What a joy, what a laugh! It's hard to explain. Maybe I went a little crazy in a very clear way. I can only say that when this is perceived there are no more questions or doubts and you will know it when you know it, but you already do. It's an open secret. Over and out.

[tao]

Tuson Bob,

Totally LOVE ya brother. Love you too Manjit...and Rodger, and Awake, and Edward, and ET, and Mike, and David, and Marcel, and everyone I missed, abd anyone who ever came here or ever comes here, and of course Brian.

All for One... and One for All.

"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
I'm crying.

Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come......

Man, you been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, ...

...

See how they fly like Lucy in the Sky, see how they run.
I'm crying, I'm crying.

...

Sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun.
If the sun don't come, you get a tan
From standing in the English rain.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, ...

...

Expert textpert choking smokers,
Don't you think the joker laughs at you?
See how they smile like pigs in a sty,
See how they snied.
I'm crying.

...

Elementary penguin singing Hari Krishna. Man, you should have seen them kicking Edgar Alan Poe.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, ... ... ...

[Tucson Bob]

Tao, perfect! I had to respond.

I am the walrus...goo, goo ga joob!!!

More words of wisdom...

All around the cobbler's bench
The monkey chased the weasel
The monkey thought it all was in fun
Pop, Goes the weasel!!!

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear gentlemen,

Thank you for your responses to my note. I appreciate your efforts to advise me (so to speak) - even if I might not be readily capable of effecting your "advice." Your sense(s) of detachment obviously exceed my own. (I might mention, however, that I neither am - nor have I ever been - a participant in the Radhi Soami movement.) Thanks again.

Robert Paul Howard

[Manjit]

Thanks for the kind responses Guys.

You may well have a very accurate point Mr Bob, I agree. The 'criteria' I posted above was a 'maybe...' if you see what I mean. Also, as is usually the case with everyones thoughts, they are based on my personal experiences & understandings, and I may be making that common mistake of superimposing my understanding on those of others. Perhaps, in a sense, I make this 'mistake' in contradiction to the 'mistake' of saying RS, Shabd yoga, meditation etc is worthless? :o) Any kind of conceptualisation, pro or con this or that, is always incomplete or with exceptions.....

Anyways, I really felt your cycling moods! I've never been one for walks and such like, especially seeing as I live in a unpretty London suburb. After my initial non-dual 'perception' as you called it, I found myself spontaneously going for daily long walks for several hours in my locality. The feelings accompanying these walks were *identical* to what you wrote above! I got that warm feeling when you know somebody else has had the same experience as you! Thanks.

However, to leave you with a thought (as I am increasingly drawn to complete silence on the matter), do you agree or accept the possibility there is an unfathomable depth to non-duality, and that there is innumerable possible expressions (dualistic by nature) of this understanding within the conscious experience of the body-mind organism? What I'm getting at is, 'you are already liberated' IS ultimately true, but does merely intellectually understanding this, or even understanding it at the level of when you went cycling (which seems, imo, a genuine kind of non-dual breakthrough btw) constitute the fullest, most complete or perhaps ecstatic 'experience' of the dual body-mind possible? Imo, there is a much deeper, more ecstatic, more loving etc body-mind reflection of this non-duality which is much like sinking deeper and deeper into 'eternity' or 'godhead' with no end or limit. Personally, I feel certain kinds of 'practices' aid with this kind of absorbtion which make for a happier *dualistic* life, even if the ultimate insight of that initial impersonal non-dual realisation is never surpassed.

Hence the practice of kundalini yoga amongst Tibetan Buuddhists, even though Dzogchen ultimately is much simpler, more direct and leads quickly to the 'non-dual'.

To leave you with a very wise comment from Buddha, para-phrasing from memory from Pali canons, he said something along the lines of 'Ecstatic experience (such as that of shabd or kundalini) is not neccessary for enlightenment, but it sure does help in living a happy life'. You dig? :o)

Peace All.

[Manjit]

Sorry, me and my damn afterthoughts!

Isn't it a little strange the amount of people who now claim 'enlightenment' after having beeen involved for some time with RS groups? You, me, Tao, Brian's increasing movement to the same etc? I know of at least 3 different RSSB ex-satsangis in the UK who had heavy involvement with the group prior to their enlightenment. For a little weirdness, the guy who upon meeting I had that initial non-dual experience (or 'pointing out' as Dzogchens would have it) was actually an official satsang speaker at the time (though I think he was stopped soon after due to heresy :o).

Now, we may both agree that non-duality is acausal, and that RS had no direct effect on it, but from the dualistic pov of a self, it may seem as if our intention to follow a group like RS may at *least* have been a 'symptom' of that inner desire which would eventually lead to non-duality? I don't think car salesmen have as many instances of spontaneous non-dual realisatioin per thousand, as satsangis do?!

To uuse Brian's metaphor in yesterday's post, just because we don't need the raft on the 'other shore', doesn't mean somebody still on the other side doesn't need it either?

[tao]

Manjit,

Just for the record...

My so-called "involvement" with Santmat & RS was very very minimal and had virtually no effect whatsoever upon me, relative to non-dual realization and abidance in self-knowledge.

In my own case, the so-called 'event' of total awakening/realization, or absorbtion into clearlight so to speak, occured (in 1967) at least a decade or more prior to my knowing much of anything about Santmat or having any exposure to or affiliation at all with RS (which began around 1977).

To imply that RS had any influence is simply not true. My actual affiliation with RS was quite minimal and rather brief. I did visit the Dera several times, but only because I was in India for other reasons. And as for the meditation practice, I found it to be rather lacking and ineffective over-all, and its basic premise quite dualistic. Also I had no affinity at all to the devotional guru-cult aspect.

So what I'm trying to say is this: Contrary to your theory, Santmat & RS played no part in the original occurance of awakening into non-dual 'realization', nor does it have any bearing upon my present state. In my case, Santmat was merely one particular spiritual path or philosophy among many, of which I had made a brief study/investigation into about 25 or 30 years ago. And it certainly could not and did not influence me spiritually.

My own orientation ever since my late youth was that of a semi-buddhist/jainist/vedantic siddha-yogi, and a devotee of primordial ParaShakti. Santmat and RS was and is far too contrived and dualistic, and patriarchial and religious and guru-cultish for my taste. I have always regarded it as being for naieve spiritual neophytes who are charmed by the air of supposed eastern mysticism and Sikhism that surrounds it.

Sant mat is of fairlly recent origin and is a fabrication and composition and a co-opting of various elements and cosmology of Sikhism, Hinduism, Sufism, and of Nada Yoga. Sant mat has been nothing but a minor cult since its inception during the last 150 years or so.

[Tucson Bob]

Hey Manjit,
Like Tao, I was having "events, perceptions, visions" in the late 60's PRIOR to my initiation in Sant Mat in May, 1970. One was in response to hearing the Beatles' "I AM the Walrus".

In my search for the so-called 'deepening' you mention of these experiences, I was attracted to the cosmology of Sant Mat. But my involvement with this path had the effect of putting me to sleep for a couple of decades. By the time Charan Singh died in 1990, I was phasing out of Sant Mat.

I had an interest in long distance endurance racing on horses, and it was during these rides in the wilderness of Oregon and northern California that I began experiencing oneness more vividly again. The horse, the country and I were one and there was no 'me'. Words fail at this point.

I don't stay in this awareness every moment. I am usually in the identified state experiencing ups and downs like everybody else, but there is more a feeling of detachment as an observer, and the emotions/reactions pass by more easily rather than stick and stir up trouble. I can often access oneness by sort of turning off the mind and "groking fullness" as the spaceman did in Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land". This could happen while washing the dishes or sitting quietly watching the view or anytime. It's available to everyone, just a trick of perception. A matter of just looking in the right direction.

I just don't have the ability to find the precision of words to respond to your query about the deepening and endless variety of the expression of this awareness, the magical mystery of creation. I generally agree with what you are saying, but don't know how to respond to it adequately. When I try to come up with the words, I sort of get lost in endless perceptions that sort of merge into one thing I can't describe. I don't think the word 'ecstatic' applies here nor is that what one should look for. It is more a peace, an acceptance of what is.

Best Wishes to All

[P singh]

satmat is all been copied from the guru of the sikhs "Sri Guru granth sahib". Which is Gurmat(gurus word). sikhism first guru was Guru Nanak and the tenth guru Gorbind Singh when he was going to merge back with "Waheguru" (God) he passed on the Guruship to the final guru "Sri Guru granth sahib" (shabad guru).....but the founder of this cult said that you cant believe in writings and you need a living guru...its funny how they have so many printed shabads from "Guru granth sahib" the living Guru...the guru never dies just the form leaves.

Guru nanak said im not the guru, shabad is the guru i.e true siri Guru granth sahib.

so when sikhs bow before guru granth sahib they are bowing to the word of god..

As rada swamis look at pictures of these babas and are performing idol whorship... which is a total no no in sikhi...and they still cum and get married in front of the true guru Sri Guru granth sahib..

Any body can read Guru granth shahib, and learn from the teaching, but shiv dal and the laters use this for all there godly knowlegde...So who is the True Guru.....

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru ji ke fateh

[tao]

P Singh,

Are you really serious dude? ... Listen, we's just a bunch a good ole boys down heeeah...and we don't need no Whahoo-guru preachin' round heeeah.

Now about that sikh preachin y'all are layin down heeeah...

P Singh wrote:

"satmat is all been copied from the guru of the sikhs "Sri Guru granth sahib". Which is Gurmat(gurus word). sikhism first guru was Guru Nanak and the tenth guru Gorbind Singh when he was going to merge back with "Waheguru" (God) he passed on the Guruship to the final guru "Sri Guru granth sahib" "

Uhhh...as the song goes: 'We don't need no education...we don't need no thought control...'

"but the founder of this cult said that you cant believe in writings and you need a living guru...its funny how they have so many printed shabads from "Guru granth sahib" the living Guru...the guru never dies just the form leaves. Guru nanak said im not the guru, shabad is the guru i.e true siri Guru granth sahib."

Take your goofy gooroo hoodoo and goo-bye.

"so when sikhs bow before guru granth sahib they are bowing to the word of god."

Give me a friggin break ya gooroo dude.

"As rada swamis look at pictures of these babas and are performing idol whorship... which is a total no no in sikhi...and they still cum and get married in front of the true guru Sri Guru granth sahib."

Nobody on this site gives a damn about idol worship. But it sure sounds like you need to go find some Sikh PORNO.

"Any body can read Guru granth shahib, and learn from the teaching, but shiv dal and the laters use this for all there godly knowlegde...So who is the True Guru..."

Thats so easy...why of course its none other than... KALI MATA... she's gonna chop your's off faster than you can say Wahoo Gooroo!!!

[P singh]

I thought u might be godly in ur response but obviously not.... or have some substance in ur re-ply to correct me if im wrong but typically not from u lot...lol...

ps i like ur views on that gurinder
ps you only become a Singh if youve taken "amrit".....Gurinder sould not use the that second name or wear the sikh bangle he ant no sikh!! just a fake wannabe..
ps i like reading ur views on it keep it up!!

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa (The Khalsa (pure one) belongs to Waheguru).
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh (Victory belongs to Waheguru

[tao]

P singh,

"godly"??? ... you must be joking.

"substance"??? ... try as I might, couldn't find any in your comments.

Sorry but I personally don't give a hoot whether or not someone is a true Sikh. Religion is irrelevant to me.

[Manjit]

Tucson Bob & Tao, it seems you guys are unintentionally elevating RS far more than I ever have! Whereas I am saying following conceptual systems such as RS may be a symptom (perhaps not cause) of the 'path' trodden to non-duality which is discarded after 'realisation', you both seem to imply RS is a system you became involved in AFTER realisation!?!? Looked at in this way, you guys are giving it far more vindication than I ever intended!

Personally, I don't find the RS theology or goal orientated practice AT ALL appealing, or anywhere near as direct a 'path' or conceptual view as other systems such as self-enquiry, Zen, Dzogchen, etc, though ultimately even these have subtle dualistic hindrances.

Realisation is here and now, with no barriers to it except our unwillingness to 'realise' it. All I'm saying is, different strokes for different folks. We are all playing games, and there is no right or wrong game. We simply choose that game which appeals to our nature. Some may prefer the 5 days of a cricket test match, others may prefer a first round KO in boxing. The same with realisation (which we already all are :o), we play games of bondage, seeking and realisation. In reality, none of these actually exist. The play of consciousness.

P Singh from Canada - Have you ever read the Granth Sahib? Within it, it is written that one can read 'granths' all their life, but nothing will be gained from it. It also clearly stated in it several times the 'guru' is a human being. You say the 'shabd' is the SGGS, but within the SGGS itself it contradicts this by saying the shabd is an experiential phenomena which is experienced through the instructions of the guru. However, there is not a SINGLE clear *instruction* in the SGGS which tells one how to experience the 'panch shabd' which the 1st 5 gurus praised so much as essential to god-realisation. How do you reconcile this discrepancy? Do you know of ANY Sikh's who have experienced this panch shabd?

Is there a single line within the entire SGGS which says one could read granths as spiritual practice, or that says the guru can be a book?

You talk about the idolatory of RS without realising that the RS gurus totally dismiss and discourage the use of worshiping photos etc. You see, this is a CULTURAL problem, not RS's. Also, do you not see the hypocrisy in accusing RS of idolatory, when Sikh's have setup an image of divinity made out of wood and paper...the SGGS? Has a SGGS ever existed that wasn't written and bound by a human hand? Yet we both know many 'religous' Sikh's are ever ready to harm other human beings should they disrespect this particular idol.

You say RS is 'all being copied' from the SGGS. Are you aware that everything written therein (which, btw, also includes writings of at least a dozen other mystics unrelated to the Sikh gurus) is 'copied' from traditions predating Nanak? Nanak's practice was that of a tantra taught by Goraknath and others many years before Nanak was born. The theology or cosmology of Nanak is ancient, much of it dating back to Buddha, and it's roots go even further back then that. So it looks like 'copying' is the way to go. All religious thought is an evolution of previous thought.

In regards to the RS gurus still continuing with social customs such as gettting married before the SGGS, is it not possible it is exactly that; a SOCIAL custom unrelated to anything 'spiritual'? For example, the most wonderful and beautiful Nanak said religion and caste did not actually exist and that these were man made creations which caused great inequality and divisiveness. Despite him saying this, the caste system in Sikhism continued, and Gobind, in his 'wisdom', decided to create a whole new religion, distinguishing Sikhs from both Hindus and Muslims (can anyone hear Nanak turning in his grave?). These are 'negative' human and cultural imperatives unrelated to the spiritual, yet they still occur within the 'spiritual' path of Sikhism. In comparison to these travesties, what does the meaningless (imo) symbolic triviality of getting married in front of the SGGS actually mean?

Anyways, I suggest you let go of your egoic identifications (Sikh, male, Indian, pride etc) for a moment and read the SGGS with a clear mind. Perhaps with that outlook, you may capture the essence therein...

Peace.

[tao]

Manjit,

I'm not "elevating RS" at all.

"following RS" in most cases, is not "a symptom" of anything other than seeking. However, I have made it quite clear many times that I was never "involved" as a literal "follower", but only researched it thoroughly. Sorry to to disprove your theory, but making a critical examination and investigation of Santmat/RS does not vindicate it at all. Realization does end seeking, but it also does not bring one limitations. Your theory is based on someone being an actual "follower". But I was never a follower or believer...only an investigator.

You wrote: "All I'm saying is, different strokes for different folks."

Of course.

You wrote: "The same with realisation, we play games of bondage, seeking and realisation. In reality, none of these actually exist. The play of consciousness."

Indeed.

Now as for your response to P Singh, you are definitely our Churchless man on the spot to do the job, and a very fine job you did. So let's see if Mr P can say anything more intelligent than the same tired old contradictory Sikh religious rhetoric.

[Roger]

Tao,

I noticed the following statement from above,

"Are you really serious dude? ... Listen, we's just a bunch a good ole boys down heeeah...and we don't need no Whahoo-guru preachin' round heeeah. Now about that sikh preachin y'all are layin down heeeah..."

haha..........is this your eloquent attempt at being a Red-Neck, country boy, biker dude?

Thanks again, for the Monday morning giggles,
Roger

[mark lemmon]

The quantified is a subset of the un-quantified, according to Lemmon's Law of Non-Duality. All manifestations are just the past being viewed by you in the present no matter what plane you're on.

If one soul travels, he really goes nowhere but the experience is travel, because in order for "God" to experience life through IT's countless forms, the illusion of time and space must be made manifest to each of the IT's souls. It is like we exist in a house of mirrors. It is all "God" for IT wants to live and to be... this what IT does.

So, just because you go somewhere like to the store in your city or to a different plane of existance, it is all taking place within the Divine imagination of "God" powered by IT's will to LIVE!

I don't belong to the Beas, but I know of them and I soul travel. You must gain an understanding of the Non-Dual nature of Being. The "inner master" is not really owned by anyone religion. The major hang up with most Non Dual believers is the belief of pre-destination. The soul traveler can take an active part riding the sound current to the heart of "God". It can be a wonderous journey for those so blessed. You may not belong to a church, but the kingdom of Heaven lies within. Soul travelers who are bold enough can make the journey. For those who can't or are not ready, it is just a dualistic fairy tale and what difference does it make?

[Chris]

But I get worried when all that the public sees is the watered down versions of all of these spiritual teachings

[Catherine]

Mike
'the lonely ramblings of lost seekers'- I've been looking for these on this web-site and have only come across some excellent observations made by people who have researched boldly and enjoyed doing so. There is hope when more people become down to earth researchers as opposed to poorly informed starry-eyed seekers.

If Gurinder is no more special than anyone else, then what's he doing only implying this occassionally to Western satsangis and how do you explain selection during Initiation?( you mention that meditation is not confered by the Guru- so you would believe that people not selected can also do Sant mat meditation- where do they get the technique which is not allowed to be shared outside of the initiated?) How to explain Darshan and concentrating on a remembered form of his face in meditation. In a later comment, you say that Gurinder is omnisentient which contradicts your original comment that he is no more special than anyone else.

Does the meditation work? Your answers are that this is:
' difficult to assess' Incidentally, people are now 'allowed' to discuss their inner experiences. Your other answers are completely ambivalent- they could refer to any religion. ' a provisional yes from your experience; works for some people some of the time, seems to have no positive effect, not possible to assess if the technique has worked for the Guru, for some it works, others not, we may learn, it seems that," Sounds like the cream that quack sold me.

If the regions exist, then the guru fabrication falls away after the Third- this is not what is taught- that the radiant form continues to guide further on.

If you are helped by your own faith and belief not by 'some chap in India', then in what would you and other Satsangis be putting their faith and belief?

Sound and light are neither visual or auditory?

Chand is quoted as saying that one must have faith in a form- god, godess, teacher. The god and godess forms would have to be taken from a picture or statue- this is against rssb teachings.

These days democracies value a free press. People leaving the path will laugh at your perscription that they 'ought to bow out gracefully; you have the option of quietly putting it down or carrying it as baggage' There are many more options and one is to loudly laugh it off, another would be by healing oneself through voicing one's reasons. There is also the possiblity that many satsangis are agnostic ( hang in just in case) but like to enjoy the social aspect of Satsang or visiting Beas.

Why transcend the self? Why not engage with the self, understand it and realise all is self or one?

An in-group is and out-group to most others in the world.

Send me the study where you determined that meditation works for 10% of people in Sant Mat. Explain how these 10% can somehow increase with persistence- do they morph into more that one as they persist?

Cult in my definition; smaller and newer than a religion, not yet completely accepted by the status quo, charismatic figure ie: guru; mind-control through visualisation,repitition and restrictions in diet and behaviour.
Wikipedia has a wide rich variety of definitions.

I have heard Gurinder say that it is arrogant not to attend Satsang regularly, but you prescribe that if satsangis find it too fundemental, staying away and meditating among like-minded friends is an option.

Your last sentence was wonderful- I wholeheartedly agree!

Your later comment that some ex-Satsangis seem disappointed that RSSB gurus don't manifest Superman qualities is an incorrect observation. Ex-satsangis who contribute through the internet are informed, literate Westerners and Easterners who from the beginning would have had to inform themselves through Sant Mat books prior to initiation about the fact that RSSB gurus do not perform miracles due to the fact that whole destinies would then have to be tweaked along with all who come in contact with the person affected by the miracle.

As far as the RSSB gurus being idols is concerned; there is a clear distinction in India between an idol which is a statue usually representing and imbued with some of the vibration of a diety and between a guru who is a spiritual teacher. Although there are several definitions of idol in the Oxford dictionary, you can still add your to Wikepedia's. Neve-the-less you refer to the North Indian view and it should be seen in context.

You speak of the North Indian peasant! I don't know that most followers are farmers- most people live in cities these days and this could be the main catchment zone. I haven't looked at the initiation lists of late! Never-the-less, the Koran probably has as many 'peasant' followers and the text is important to both literate and illiterate. Also North India has for centuries received and given immense religious wealth. These peasants could be used to religious complexity.

Where is your study regarding the fact that Western Satsangis want things to be real? You make this statement and then claim not to know what it means!

[Manjit]

Hello Cathherine, I enjoyed this post immensely, thanks! (somewhat ironically, I also found Mike's interesting too...hhmmmm?)

Oh well, thanks again!