Some Radhasoami UK Facebook excerpts

There have been some interesting recent comments from Osho Robbins, plus equally interesting comments on his comments.

One of which was mine, where I put up some links to a UK Facebook group that Osho Robbins posts on frequently. (See my June 9 comment on this post.)

I just realized that you have to sign up for Facebook before you can browse around the Radhasoami group. Since that is a bit of a pain, and some won't be willing to do it, I'll copy in one of Osho Robbins' posts (see continuation below) on "The Nature of God--Oneness or Nothingness."

I agree that whatever "God" or ultimate reality is, this supremely supreme whatever seemingly is beyond each and every concept about it.

However, I can't help but wonder whether those concepts include the content of Osho Robbin's post, what I'm writing now, and everything else we can say about what can't be said.

That said, I agree with some of Osho Robbins' take on enlightenment that I found on his web site.

But can you learn the secret of true happiness and living a fulfilled life from Osho Robbins via an intensive two-day workshop? Well, if you go let me know.

From Osho Robbins:
----------------------------------
Pawan wrote:
Ok, I understand, but the word "nothingness" to me implies non existence which is not the same as being "formless". Being formless implies absence of shape or capacity, not existence!

The response I will give is not a philosophical response. It requires deep and clear thinking to understand. Most of the time our thinking is on the surface and fuzzy. Hence we are confused. If you think clearly - truth becomes obvious - and realisation arises out of clarity.

One of the main reasons that we don't get realisation is that we have accumulated far too much information, without true understanding. It is a bit like eating a lot of food without digesting it. The food does not give you any benefit unless it is digested.

Nothingness means - no-thing - the absence of all things. If there are no things - what you have left is nothing.

Formless means that which has no form. What has no form?

Everything has a form - even if it cannot be seen (air) or if it is flexible (water, fire). We are a thing (body+mind) so we think in things. Anything that is NOT a thing is outside of our range of thinking. God is outside of our range of thinking because she is not a thing (oops.. I mean he or is it 'it'!).

All things have certain characteristics that non-things do not have. God is a non-thing. Love is also a non-thing. Hence Kelly's observation: God is Love and Love is God. Both are outside our normal range of thinking.

All we can have about non-things or abstract things is CONCEPTS. Hence BabaJi says that we have CONCEPTS about God and they are all wrong! Why are they wrong? Because all concepts are wrong - they are just our representation of a non-thing. We cannot avoid concepts because thinking is the process of using concepts. It is how we think. A concept is like a map - it is a representation - not the actual territory. It is like the menu in the restaurant. You cannot eat the menu - it only represents the food. In the same way a concept of God is not God - just a representation. Philosophy is a representation - hence the philosophist just deals with ideas and concepts. The philosopher will talk about God - but will not experience God. Experience requires dropping of concepts - emptiness.

Every 'thing' will have a form. A form means a boundary - and the boundary determines the shape. The 'thing' has a beginning and an end - it is limited and bounded - hence it is a thing.

Formless means that it has no bondary - no end - no limit. It is limitless, endless, shapeless. It never ends anywhere - it is infinite.

Now - a question. If something is formless - can there be two of them? Can there be two formless entities?

Yes or no?

God is formless - infinite. Can there be two Gods? Is it possible?

We have already said that formess means endless - has no end - infinite.

If there is a thing (we'll call it God) and it/he/she is formless and endless and infinite - then can anything ELSE exist?

In order for something else to exist, this God has to end somewhere - then the other thing can begin.

But God never ends - therefore nothing else can begin to exist.

Therefore nothing else exists - because it cannot. Something else can only exist if God stops being infinite.

That is why the scriptures say there is ONE God and there is nothing else.

If God is ONE and He is everywhere (infinite) - then nothing else can exist.

"Paltu - there is only ONE - there is no other" - Paltu Sahib.

Paltu ikoi ik hai - dusar nahin koi

This is an amazing statement because Paltu is saying you do not exist.

All that exists is the ONE - therefore you are the one - you cannot be anything else - because there is nothing else.

Anything that does exist has to be WITHIN the ONE. You and I apparently exist. But WHO are we? Who am I? When death comes - you are finished. If you really existed - you would remain forever. A dream is unreal because it ends - you are also unreal because you end. You are living in a dream world - and you are a dream character.

If you read the scriptures - they also say this. "The world is a dream."

You see when we read scriptures or listen to satsang - we only hover on the surface - and collect more information and concepts. This will never help - you can spend your entire life in satsang - you will just fall deeper into the trap. More ideas, more concepts, more information. Truth is realised when you drop all the ideas. The true meaning of meditation is emptiness - going beyond concepts and thinking.

Now take a close look at TIME and SPACE.

God is described as AKAL - that means BEYOND TIME - Outside of time.

God is also described as ATHAI - BEYOND SPACE.

So in God's world there is NO TIME and NO SPACE.

Now pay close attention because your identity is about to disappear.

God lives in the world of NO TIME AND NO SPACE.

YOU live in a world of TIME and SPACE. You are living in a different world than God's world. Hence you cannot understand Him.

Time and space are both illusions - they are MAYA - Illusion.
Maya means that which appears to be real - but is not.
Maya is that which you can see - but is not real.

You are MAYA and illusion - you do not exist. You only exist in TIME and SPACE. Outside of time and space - there is no 'you'.

You NEED time and space to exist.

Take away TIME - and you disappear.

Take away SPACE - and you disappear.

All your questions are WITHIN time and space. The truth is OUTSIDE of time and space - hence you will never understand truth.

Drop time and space - and you ARE the truth and you have no more questions. All questions were within the trap of time and space.

Questions like: WHEN (time) will I meet God?
WHERE (space) is God?
What will happen to me after my death?
(all happening is within time and space; in God's world nothing happens).
Also there is no 'you' because you require time and space to exist.

Coming back to the question of WHO you are. Any answer within time and space is false - unreal. You are that which is beyond time and space. You cannot be anything else. You are already that which you seek. God is all there is.

All our life we collect concepts - thinking that we are becoming wise. Wisdom comes only when you drop all concepts. Truth dawns only in emptiness.

Comments

[Edward]

The technique of the dialectic is to propose that, in this case, there is only thinking or emptiness. Emptiness is the concept we use to apprehend the non-thinking.

But as humans without the power to verify existence with absolute certainty, this is a false dichotomy.

The response says: "The response I will give is not a philosophical response. It requires deep and clear thinking to understand. Most of the time our thinking is on the surface and fuzzy. Hence we are confused. If you think clearly - truth becomes obvious - and realisation arises out of clarity."

That is what the ogre always says when I am on that road to cross the Connecticut. He says, "Three biscuits to go on."

And today I asked, "If there is total harmony, and the ten-thousand things come and go between heaven and earth, why are there so many deer carcasses out here today?"

The ogre said, "There is no loss. All things are one in the woods. Three biscuits, please."

"Until I can leap these woods," I said, "to see what the deer see, I will think you are lying."

This made the ogre very mad. He wanted his biscuits and the sun was getting high. "Do not think!" he thundered. And I was left to wait, unable to cross the Connecticut.

I felt the flicker at my head and turned to hear a snickering sylph say, "If you dance clearly, truth becomes obvious."

"If you snide clearly, truth becomes obvious."

"If you heart beat clearly..." "If you vitamin D clearly..." "grow bone clearly..." "sinew clearly..." "astonish clearly..."

I was dizzy! The sylphs swam at my head, and the deer were both alive and dead. I was a thing to them, but I was not a thing at all!

I had wandered across the bridge, and the ogre hastened after me.

"Five biscuits, please."

Five biscuits!

[elizabeth w]

Dear Edward:
My thinking is confused and fuzzy. I simply fail to understand what you're getting at.
Could you or would you elucidate?
I look forward to that.
Elizabeth W

[Edward]

First, I am always suspicious of the helpful caveat that what comes next requires deep and clear thinking. It is an instructor's psych trick to set up the feeling later that I am actually up to the task!

Second, thinking is over-rated. Our collective experimentation in spiritual development points to the success of meditation as surely as it points to the metabilization of minerals, (that's for all you scientists!)

Third, fairy tales are outside of time, so they are a medium I like to paint in, or as RPH once observed, perform in.

Thus -- I can not simply be told that oneness is, I can't pay a token for the information. In fact, intellectually, it is a lie, because intellection is based on duality. (I assumed I was not the deer already.)

Luckily, the fleeting glimpses I may get of immediate creation (sylphs) take place on more than one level: cellular; incomplete; kinetic. Only complete being will arrest me/dissolve me with oneness. Thinking about it will not. Distraction helps.

I am as dead and alive as the "objects," (the deer). But from the beginning, not one thing is -- there is no separation and even the death is illusory.

Finally, I can not pay a token for the information, I must now give all I have freely to you.

[OshoRobbins]

Edward,
I just read your response. I have no idea what you are saying. The whole thing about the ogre went over my head.

What I said was: "It requires deep and clear thinking to understand. Most of the time our thinking is on the surface and fuzzy. Hence we are confused. If you think clearly - truth becomes obvious - and realisation arises out of clarity."

I came across a quote recently :-
"confusion is the guardian of truth"

False beliefs create confused thinking and a confused life.

Why are people confused? It is not because of what they don't know:

"It isn't what you don't know - but what you know - that just ain't so"

We 'know' lots of things that are simply not true - but we believe they ARE true. That is the problem - because what we consider to be true becomes true for us.

You are not living life - you are living your beliefs.

So - let's see what happens when you have beliefs like
'karma'
'I am a sinner'
'I have to meditate to get free'
'I am separate from God'

These are all beliefs - but in you buy into them - they become your reality - and you cannot escape the consequences of those beliefs.

So - until you drop those beliefs you will never understand the simplicity of life - you will never have to return to innocence - because those beliefs are the barrier.

The real job of the enlightened fool is to get you to drop your beliefs. Once you do that - the truth becomes self-evident.

I say enlightened fool and not enlightened guru because the truly enlightened is not interested in respect - just in helping you to wake up.
Fool is more valid than guru - hence in zen the masters would purposely disrespect each other - calling each other old bags of sand. This was to make sure you don't fall into the 'respect' trap.

That was the whole point I was making - when you drop the false - the true becomes self-evident. You don't need to be taught the truth - because then it will be just another belief. That is the pseudo-enlightened state - where you have BELIEFS about being enlightened. Enlightenment is the absemce of beliefs - then you SEE what is true - not believe. All beliefs are traps.
I hope that makes it clearer.

[tao]

Osho,

So right on, and very well said.

[JP]

I thought Edward's story was relatively clear. I liked it. "you drop the false" - like in "the belief will drop itself because we say so ..." That is kind of egoic. Is there anything to drop? What about an one year baby that cries because (s)he does not have what is needed - what kind of belief is involved in that? (S)he does not live a mental belief - as it is normally defined - yet (s)he is suffering ...
And if you say that there is a distinction between physical pain and psychological suffering I would right but you are still missing an essential point ...

So far what I red from oshoR leaves me with the BELIEF that it is grounded in a purely intellectual and philosophical understanding.

[Edward]

Osho R:
Stuck in the head, as an example, you say:
"That is the problem - because what we consider to be true becomes true for us."

If that were the case, what is up with facultative anaerobes? We are not aware enough of the necessary levels of truth to sustain our own digestion. "I believe I am able to eat metal." Just look at the history of alchemy. The belief did not confer truth.

Confusion happens because of what we know, not what we don't know, and the proportion of the real impact of this kind of knowing is over-estimated by the thinking function. It is my ego's job to think that I am the most important thing in the world, so that when I trip, my hands will fling out in front of my pretty face. My story would like to show that there is more than one kind of thinking, and that confusion is a tool, not a sentence.

I don't disagree with you, I just wanted to point out that thinking, and the attendant not-thinking, is a side show in the play.

[Manjit]

Dear JP, the internet is a faceless place where people can interpret things not on the level intended, and make comments in response without any context. This can make effective communication extremely difficult. In view of that, can you please answer a couple of questions which may help clarify your comments about Osho Robbins? (just to contextualise myself, I have quite intensively studied 'god'-realisation, enlightenment, yogic practices etc since a very young age. I have met various so-called 'god-realised' gurus. I have also personally met and disussed for many hours with Osho Robbins. Also, I have 'my' own 'realisation'. In view of this, I must disagree when you say OR is grounded in 'purely intellectual and philosophical understanding'. Quite contrary actually, imo).

My questions are, in order of importance:

1) Judging by the formulation of your question, I assume you accept that there is an 'understanding' or 'enlightenment' which is not simply intellectual or philosophical? Do you personally have this 'understanding' or 'enlightenment'? If not, can you appreciate why your comment is akin to that of a blind man who thinks they can discern an authentic painting from a fake replica?

2) Can you name some people, still alive, who have got genuine 'understanding' beyond that of merely intellectual & philosophical? I think both these questions will help us contextualise the relevance or validity of your appraisal of OR.

For example, if you are a follower of Charan or Gurinder, say, then that would imo be quite humourous. For, they don't even appear to have, imo, an intellectual and philosophical 'understanding', let alone 'genuine'!!! :o)

[Edward]

When I lived in a very little house, a man told me I had not done all that needed doing: rain had fallen, and squirrels ran the golden maple tree; grey figures waded into traffic and were struck, forged onto fall skies.

And I hadn't started what was happening, how the food and drink got to me, where my three sisters lived. And I wasn't no way, uh uh, going to complete a thing.

I was frightened, the way you may bridle at bright light, and then I wasn't anymore.

What needs to happen happens, heart beat and breathing, drive to the store for shoes, weep for my sister no longer here. Now that I am not in charge, the house itself is enormous, in an enormous world. Now I can see what has nothing to do with me.

Consider that it is happening to you: a plane flies by, the phone rings and there is a familiar voice. I have not done these things, you have not, there is no thought at all. I am happy to have God around, he does seem to saturate the ground, and that doesn't bother me. And then there are people disagreeing fiercely, to doom, about the management.

Incomprehensibly, I will do the next thing. No need to take thought about what might or might not be real, about what may or may not be true. And as the day goes on, I enjoy equally wondering about enlightenment and wondering about elves.

[OshoRobbins]

There are many levels of 'being enlightened'
The first is an understanding. Even this first level set you free from the previous thinking which was a prison.
When that understanding is taken deeper (the real meaning of meditation - to meditate upon) - it goes to the next level - you become a realised being - the truth becomes obvious to you - it is no longer a theory (sant mat equiv is dhunatmik naam).
After that you realise for the first time who you really are - nobody pretending to be a somebody. There is no 'you' and nothing here is real - it is just a game - God's dream.

[Edward]

To paraphrase Manjit, "the World is the sole place where people can interpret things not on the level intended, and make comments in response without any context."

This is, of course, not a news flash. And it is the prime reason we read much of the same "instructional" writing over an over.

I have taken many of the posts on Brian's site and woven them into a very itchy yoga mat that I am marketing as "Self Whelp: Not That Puppy!"

It is stain resistant, and it helps the practitioner stay on script.

[Eward]

Of course anybody can chug-a-lug a keg of beer and then determine if so called "street smarts" is really the solution to the philosophy of the Yogi!!

[Edward]

Since healthy kidneys can only excrete about thirty fluid ounces per hour, "chugging" 1,984 fluid ounces of any liguid would cause hyponatremia, or cause sodium poisoning.

Rapid ingestion of an alcoholic liquid is another matter entirely.

Anyone who chugs a keg of beer and survives could certainly resolve any philosophy at all!

[Eward]

In the Grand Tradition of Cool Hand Luke and the Coney Island Hotdog Scarfers I place head under nozzle and allow the Golden Pilzner-aka the libation of the Intoxicated Lifestream to flow into all orifices, thus creating the gods this dilemma:things as they are / Are changed upon the blue guitar," or that "things are like a seeming of the sun / Or like the screaming of a paranoid Nun!