« Don't be a metaphor of yourself | Main | No beginning, no end. The universe simply is. »

December 03, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Adam wrote: "And regarding the master, I don't get too hung up on the Guru, Sat Purush, God-in-human-form thing. I don't get it, but I also don't think it's so important for me to get."

--I don't get it either. That is, I don't get how Adam can be a believer in Sant Mat and not understand this central core of the teachings...that the master is God in human form, a realized being, who is here to gather marked souls for their return to their eternal home in Sach Khand. Why would he follow this path if he doesn't "get" that? If it's meditation that he likes, he doesn't have to sign up with Gurinder and vow never to consume mayonaise (eggs) for the rest of his life. There's plenty of free info on meditation with no strings attached.

First, I do agree with Brian about the RSSB. Back in the day, I also wanted to believe that the Sants were somehow spiritually exalted, but my own intuition, wisdom gained from experience, and conscious realization would not allow it. Nevertheless, I played along for a few years, but finally could no longer deny the reality that Sant mat offered me nothing that I did not already have, and a hell of a lot that I did not need or want.

That being said, I selected a few parts of Adam's letter which I would like to respond to:

"There are the four vows, three of which are meant to facilitate meditation and keep our karmas to a minimum, and then there is the meditation and the master. And that's it."

-- Yes, but thats the problem Adam. In Santmat/RS you can't take the master out of the equation. You just admitted that "the master" is essential. So believing in the master is crucial to the RS system (according to RS).

"And regarding the master, I don't get too hung up on the Guru, Sat Purush, God-in-human-form thing. I don't get it"

-- Again, you can't remove the master, the guru, the GIHF from the path. That IS the RS path. You can do whatever you like, but deviation is not sanctioned by RS. I don't think you have come to terms with this yet. If you want it your way, thats fine, but then don't pretend you are an RS satsangi.

"What is important for me is that I really want to meditate."

-- You don't need RS, the RS master, the RS satsangs, or the RS form of meditation, just to meditate.

"having been around Gurinder Singh, I believe that at the very least, he is practiced in this exercise."

-- You may believe that, but there is no way that you can know that. Even if he were adept at focusing at the third eye center, such does not make him either a guru or a wise man. I have encountered him (Gurinder) as well, but I have also encountered countless real sadhus, gurus, yogis, siddhas, sages, and babas during my years of wandering all about India and the Himalayas, and my own take on G.S. is that he is merely a political and admistrative figurehead of a large quasi-religious cult and organization. I do not sense that he is any level of spiritual adept at all.

"And the masters (at least Gurinder) have often said that the master-disciple relationship is very high -- and that it's ok to think of him like a teacher, a friend, a guide, or whatever word doesn't feel so far out as "master."

-- This actually proves my point. RS and its leader Gurinder are trying to get you to swallow it any way they can. However, he (G.S.) still defines it as "master-disciple relationship" and you are expected to honor that as well.

"For me, the guru and meditation is Sant Mat, and everything else is just the scaffolding.

-- You see, you just admitted it again... that "the guru" is the essential thing, and the rest is extereanous.

"But you can't fault the teacher for the craziness of the students."

-- Oh yes you can. In fact, it is the teacher who is definitely responsible in large part for either the craziness or the sobriety of the students. The students are very much a reflection of the teacher. The examples of this are numerous. If the teacher or guru is a truly wise sage, then the students and disciples will exhibit spiritual qualties and wisdom as well.


Brian,are your old satsangifriends liberalists or fundies?
Can you be yourself with them?
They have no difficulties with you free-thinking?

Dear Tao,

My family members are regular sewadars in RSSB. I have been told that Gurinder Singh used to sit for 10-12 hours daily in meditation and remain confined to his room during early period when he was bestowed upon the Mastership. Even now also from his busy schedule he spares no time without meditation.

In RSSB, master is to be taken as a teacher only in the beginning. Later it all depends upon the disciple what he calls his master. It depends upon one's progress in the inner path. When the disciple traverses the inner realms together with radiant form of the master as well one's own. Only then, the true form of the master is known.

Nothing is to be believed but everything is to be experienced. No one on this earth will say that I have experienced it, for one experiences it after breaking the wall of "I” ness.

Sir, I must say that before your colossal experience and knowledge I stand nowhere. I always tend to share the experiences of my close ones. My fingers will always remain crossed as far as my own experiences are concerned.

With kindest regards,

Rakesh,

"I have been told that Gurinder Singh used to sit for 10-12 hours daily in meditation and remain confined to his room"

-- So what? Just because he supposedly sat for long periods of solitary meditation does not prove anything.

"In RSSB, master is to be taken as a teacher only in the beginning."

-- Huh? Not in the RSSB that I know. In the 30+ years I have been familiar with RS I never heard that.

"Later... It depends upon one's progress in the inner path. When the disciple traverses the inner realms together with radiant form of the master as well one's own."

-- Not so. That presumption is nothing more than standard RS doctrine and dogma.

"Only then, the true form of the master is known."

-- The "master" is a myth. The "true form" is nothing more than a concept, an idea that you have collected from RS.

"Nothing is to be believed but everything is to be experienced."

-- Bullshit. Santmat/RS is full of beliefs. And seeking more subtle experiences does not equal realization.

"No one on this earth will say that I have experienced it, for one experiences it after breaking the wall of "I” ness."

-- Not true. Loss of self-importance does not bring any restriction as to what someone can say or communicate.

"Sir, I must say that before your colossal experience and knowledge I stand nowhere."

-- Don't think that way. You are none other than the Self. Trust in your self.

"I always tend to share the experiences of my close ones."

-- In RS, don't be so quick to believe in what others tell you regarding their experiences. Most of it is nonsense and therefore irrelevant. Most of them don't have a clue. So don't be concerned with the illusions of others, just be yourself. Your own life is your path of realization.

"My fingers will always remain crossed as far as my own experiences are concerned."

-- Realization is not an experience. Don't seek for more and more mere experiences. Just wake-up to reality.


Dear Tao,

Every time when I open this blog I always look forward to your comments. More so when I find that you have responded to my comments. Before going through your words, I anticipate a thrashing.

But each sentence so well sifted and replied leaves an impression of a person who is beyond every accomplishment.

I am glad to learn that realization is not an experience. Probably realization is beyond expression.

Your words have been well taken. I always relish your comments. At places, when you use the words like "Bullshit" you appear to be disgusted. You appear to be so nice otherwise. I like the genuineness in your comments. I may add that I was initiated way back in October 1981.

Looking forward to your nice comments. May I know what exactly you are following at the moment for spiritual pursuits, if any?

If I may interject here..

Rakesh wrote to Tao: "I am glad to learn that realization is not an experience. Probably realization is beyond expression."

I think this is correct. When Tao says, "Just wake up to reality.", I don't think he means to literally wake-up TO something, rather just BE awake. This is not something you have to try to do. It does it on its own. No person is needed to realize Existence because Existence doesn't need some kind of phenomena to realize WHAT it is. It can only be AS it is. Self-realization is understanding you can't escape what you are. No matter where you go, there you are, and yet as what you really are- you are no kind of thing that can be measured, described, objectified or known in any way.

Someone realizing some "thing" such as "enlightenment" is dualistic (two not One, or One-mind becoming split-mind). For Existence to recognise Existence is to objectify itself into time and space which is purely conceptual. As long as there is a "you" who is realized, that someone who believes they are realized will emerge again and again in consciousness as someone who is un-realized even though they actually are Realization!

Maybe what was just said is confusing. It is just that Realization is automatic. Existence-Presence is always here right now. Ignorance is only an appearance.

What we are can't be improved or expanded upon. It is only this present moment, whatever it is, and as soon as you try to grasp it, it's gone.

It is the being
It is the seeing
The asker is the answer


Rakesh,

Dear friend, please forgive me if I seem blunt or cantankerous at times. And please don't be offended by that. You are a truly kind and polite and appreciative person, and I wish you my best regards always. I recognize and value your sincerity. And please don't think of me as "thrashing" or "disgusted", but only smiling, as I am.

About your inquiry: I am not really "following" any particular "spiritual pursuits". I simply abide naturally in the self-perfected state. (maha-ati/dzogchen) If you wish to discuss any more, then please e-mail me privately via: omsatnam (at) hotmail.com


I want to know if Tao has opened his third eye. He speaks with such authority that even God will be put to shame. Where is he? In Trikuti? Sach Khand? above Bhanwar Gupha? Or is he in ground zero? He says he abides in self? If so, why does he rave and rant in this blog? Anyway, Tao, say hello to Anami Purush on my behalf. A mortal like me is still struggling in Pind region.

Dear Tao,

Ever since I have come across this blog and seen your comments, it is the first comment from your end which has filled my heart with gratification to the extent that I simply can not express. I have always valued your comments even if we are poles apart in our opinions regarding spirituality. It has doubled my sincere respect for you which I have expressed on many occasions.

I shall love to communicate with you

wishing you the best of everything,

Dear Tucson,

Thanks for your comments

Tao, your e-mail id is omsatnam. That means you have not totally wiped off your sant mat subconscious. IF om and satnam are still in your vocabularly, then you belong to sant mat despite your protestations.

Deepak,

First off, you're more or less an idiot. Why? Simply because my so-called "third eye" is none of your damn business. And also becuse this "third eye" jive that you toss out, is just an idea that you have acquired from somehwere (probably from Santmat) and that you believe in. Its nothing but an idea in the mind. And for you to think that I "speak with such authority" shows how very spiritually immature you are. - You don't see the truth that is pointed towards in my words... unfortunately you only see a reflection of your own judgemental ego.


"Where is he?"

-- Where is who?

"In Trikuti? Sach Khand? above Bhanwar Gupha?"

-- More useless Santmat jargon and mental constructs.

"He says he abides in self? If so, why does he rave and rant in this blog?"

- Simply because I am alive and I am free and I choose to make comments, thats why. But unfortunately (for you) you somehow think that Self abidance carries some sort of restrictions taboos. Again that shows how spiritualy immature and full of dogma you are.

"say hello to Anami Purush on my behalf."

-- Free yourself from such duality and useless conceptual baggage. "Anami Purush" is just another idea of your mind. And stupid sarcasm will get you nowhere.

"A mortal like me is still struggling in Pind region."

-- You are not a "mortal", you are the supreme Self. And your so-called "Pind region" is just another dualistic idea of the mind.

My advice to you: Grow-up dude, and also don't be such a Radha Soami dogma-robot.


Tao,

This is not to say your remarks are not often insightful and well-stated, rather the contrary is true. However, I detect the possibility of sarcastic false flattery "between the lines" in these example remarks by Rakesh:

"Sir, I must say that before your colossal experience and knowledge I stand nowhere."

--colossal? The eruption of Krakatoa was colossal.

"Looking forward to your nice comments."

--nice? You can be nice, but confrontational blunt frankness is your customary style.

"But each sentence so well sifted and replied leaves an impression of a person who is beyond every accomplishment."

--beyond every accomplishment? Is anyone that good? Well, maybe Donald Trump.

"it is the first comment from your end which has filled my heart with gratification to the extent that I simply can not express."

--he's very easy to please

"I shall love to communicate with you via your e-mail Id [email protected]"

--Maybe he really is sincere and I'm wrong and this extravagance of expression is just his custom. If so, I appologize, but is he so naive that he deliberately posts your email with the "@" symbol when you originally posted it as (at)?

Deepak,

You said: "your e-mail id is omsatnam"

-- Yes, ONE of my e-mail IDs is omsatnam.

"That means you have not totally wiped off your sant mat subconscious. IF om and satnam are still in your vocabularly, then you belong to sant mat despite your protestations."

-- Negative. Sorry to inform you but neither "om" nor "sat" nor "nam" is owned or is the monopoly of Sant mat. All these terms are Sankrit and are universal, and are completely independent of Sant mat. Also, "om" and "satnam" are also used by both Sikhism and various Yoga schools.

More importantly, I am always quite free to use whatever words and symbols that I chose to (other than copyrighted terms), and for whatever purpose I please. I have no kind of bondage or connection to Sant mat in any way whatsoever. The term/s "omsatnam" are completely independent of any connection to Sant mat. But for you to actually think otherwise, shows how stupid you really are in this particular case.

My conclusion about thios is that you are obviously a rather goofy-headed and dogmatic satsangi who somehow just can't accept the simple truth that Sant mat (and RSSB) is NOT the ONLY way, and that Sant mat has no sort of monopoly or supremecy over mysticism, spirituality, or the great spiritual tradition.

Tucson,

I would tend to agree with you, with some reserve. I too noticed an odd tinge of unnecessary flattery and excessive humility as well. But like you say, perhaps that is his custom and/or personality.

But posting my e-mail address right out in plain view for all the e-mail address collecting webbots, is pretty damn "naive" and lame. You'd think he would have noticed that I deliberatley did NOT use the " @ " symbol. So maybe your suspicions are well taken.

In any case, I was cautious and wisely used an old e-mail address of mine that only allows people whose addresses are actually on my address list to get through. But it's just the idea that someone would go ahead and expose my e-mail addrtess, when I had already deliberately wrote "at" to prevent such a problem. So whay did he even need to put up my address again at all? This makes me a little suspicious of his underlying intentions as well.

And that suspicion also includes his revealing "I have always valued your comments even if we are poles apart in our opinions regarding spirituality." But we will see. I had just felt to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, he may also be playing a game.

You now have my old e-mail, so do take this opportunity to establish an e-mail contact with me, and I will then send you back my main current primary e-mail address, and we can continue this and any other discussions privately. I will be looking for your first message (Just so that I can identify your message, please put "TUCSON" in the e-mail Subject line).


Dear Tao,

You are absolutely correct that I am naive in internet usage. I should have taken a note of it. I must apologize for it.

Dear Tucson,

I may make it crytal clear that my response to anybody's comments or post is not a delibrated one. I have nurtured to appreciate the person I like. How can you understand the value of comments of a blogger in its true letter and spirit?

I am glad to note that my words can be viewed the way you have perceived them.

ONE SINGLE REMARK OF ONE BLOGGER MAY HELP THE OTHER PERSON CAN BE KNOWN BY HIM ALONE.

Let me thank you for your interest in my comments.

with regards,

Rakesh wrote: "How can you understand the value of comments of a blogger in its true letter and spirit?"

--Sometimes this is easy, sometimes not. Words and grammar are tricky especially when dealing with subtle or complex topics. I often find it difficult to accurately express what I feel.

Rakesh, I give you the benefit of the doubt and I apologize. It seems American English is not your primary or first language and some of your expressions and sentence structures are unusual. Don't let this comment inhibit you in any way as you are generally well understood. I mean no offence.

Tao's contention is that everything is duality except the self. Any theology is a mental construct.

I wonder what would happen if Tao had been touch with Nanak, Kabir, Rumi, Hafiz. Tao would dismiss them as deluded because they are peddling the same RSSB theology of Satnam and Onkar. "hey Nanak dude, get out of your RSSB theology. Onkar and Satnam are just mental construct. Just abide in the self". Wonder how Nanak would have replied.

Dear Tucson,

People are good in general. It is our perception which matters.

I have read "UTTAM VIDYA LI JIA YADDAPI NEECH PE HOAI" i.e. One should be ready to learn good things even from the most down trodden person of the society.

with kindest regards,

Deepak,

Onkar and Satnam, in my opinion, are indeed mental constructs. They are merely ideas in your head about some future state of consciousness in some other place. Where is the reality of them other than what is written in scripture and the symbolic images in mind those scriptures create via the medium of your imagination? What is dualistic is your idea that there is a separate 'you' that needs to be in some other state in some other place (me-that). This reinforces the sense of I-ness, and the more you struggle to make this imaginary "I" go someplace else, the deeper you sink in the quicksand of bondage and separation.

What we think we are is an amalgamation of memories, impressions, physical sensations and perceptions that appear on the screen of reality. All this is passing dreamstuff, but the reality of what we are remains unchanged. This Reality is present regardless of the content of its dream whether the dream contains rats in a sewer or angels playing flutes on some island paradise (Dweep)in heaven (Mansarovar).

So, Onkar and Satnam are just symbolizations of what exists in this very moment. Can Reality be anywhere but where it is? Is there any point It cannot reach? If it is the Whole, are we not in it, of it, It Itself right now?

Why would God be in some other nether region, a shinning orb accessible to only a priviledged few, while the rest of us have been banned as outcasts to suffer in separation. Do you think he would set things up this way? He is immersed in the play of life as us and the myriad of forms, always present, always available as what is right now. But, He will never be found, never be known in the same way a mirror can't reflect or see itself. He can only be known as appearance, but not the objectification of it. Rather, he is the being of the appearance. He is the seeing, the feeling and the living of your life right now.

(I use the pronoun 'he' as a convenience)

Deepak,

You are falsifying and misrepresenting me. I did not say "that everything is duality except the self." There actually is no duality except as appearance in the mind. However, as it turns out, theology is in fact an unnecessary "mental construct" and impediment.

Deepak writes: "I wonder what would happen if Tao had been touch with Nanak, Kabir, Rumi, Hafiz."

-- Nothing would happen because all of these you mention were apparently fairly cognizant of the non-dual nature of reality. It's actually a matter of that their teachings have been co-opted, distorted, misrepresented, and then used by sects and guru-cults such as RS and guys like Deepak for their own dualistic theological agendas.

"Tao would dismiss them as deluded because they are peddling the same RSSB theology of Satnam and Onkar."

-- I don't know whether they were "deluded" or not, and neither do you. There is no way that you can know. However, I do feel quite certain that they were NOT "peddling the same RSSB theology" that the RS cult is today.

"Onkar and Satnam are just mental construct. Just abide in the self. Wonder how Nanak would have replied."

Who the hell was Nanak anyway? He was just a man, and no different than you or I. But his life is long gone and so it is pointless to speculate. But I will say that I do feel that he would no doubt agree with me that all of your ideas and spiritual beliefs are born out of of the duality of the mind. But even so, throwing up Kabir or Nanak is useless and only shows that your ideas and beliefs are blocking clarity and real understanding. Until you awaken, you will continue to seek reality where it is not - in ideas and beliefs and supposed gurus and saviors.


Tao,

You say that seeking the Guru as saviour is duality and not required. Then why is the Guru given a premium place in oriental spirituality.

What about the logic that a man -- however powerful he may be -- cannot lift himself. What do you say about the indispensability of the Guru in Indian spiritual tradition at least. What do you have to say about transference of shaktipat and occult mysticism.

Deepak,

I did not say: "that seeking the Guru as saviour is duality and not required." That is your misinterpretation.

What I said was this: "Until you awaken, you will continue to seek reality where it is not - in ideas and beliefs and supposed gurus and saviors."

You then asked: "why is the Guru given a premium place in oriental spirituality."

-- Because of seeking which is caused by ignorance. However, to understand why that is so, you must first know - what is the guru?

"What about the logic that a man -- however powerful he may be -- cannot lift himself."

-- Your example is faulty. A man does not need to "lift" himself, all by himself. For what purpose? It is absurd. There is no need. But in terms of your example, if a man does wish to move or to raise his body up to a higher physical position or location, he can simply walk up, climb up, or pull himself up. However, as far as spirituality and spiritual realization goes, no outside person or agency is required. Such guidance may be helpful to some, but it is not absolutely required.

"What do you say about the indispensability of the Guru in Indian spiritual tradition at least."

As I said, the guru is NOT "indispensible". That a "guru is indispensible" is a false presumption born of ignorance. Furthermore, the guru is actually not deemed "indispensible" in all quarters of the Indian tradition.

"What do you have to say about transference of shaktipat and occult mysticism."

-- This "shaktipat" has been rather romanticised and exaggerated. Especially shaktipat in the kundalini yoga. There are thousands of different subtle shaktis. However, there is real siddhi which is a result of realization and self-knowledge - atma-jnana, brahman-jnana. That siddhi is the truly spiritual shakti. But again, even that is not necessary or "indispensible".

As for "occult mysticism", it is unclear what you are referring to.

Tell me, if Swami Vivekananda could have achieved those heights without Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. Transference is a spiritual fact and cannot be undermined. Undermining only works out to the disadvantage of the seeker. If you have not met such a Guru, it is only your karma. What else can be said?

Sita, a delayed response to your question: Yes, I do feel like I can be myself with my satsangi friends -- who are "liberalists," by and large.

Our connection goes far beyond RSSB beliefs and dogma. It's much more personal than organizational. As it should be.

My doubts are no different from theirs, really. It's just that some people choose to remain active in a "church" notwithstanding their doubts, and others don't.

We all have doubts, though. Which might be my subject in a post tonight.

Deepak,

You asked: Could Swami Vivekananda have achieved those heights without Ramakrishna Paramahamsa?

-- Yes, it is certainly very possible.


Deepak said: "Transference is a spiritual fact and cannot be undermined."

-- Your idea of "Transference" is not a "fact" at all, but only an illusion. Facts can be proven. You also have assumed that this "spiritual" something or other is being "undermined". The truth is never bad, although the truth does tend to undermine illusions. Anything which is already the truth, cannot be "undermined" by the truth. Only that which is false and illusory can be "undermined" by the truth.

In this case, you have illusions about "the guru". Those illusions are not in accord with the actual truth. But apparently you are more interested in maintaining those illusory beliefs, than you are in discovering, accepting, and understanding the truth.

The guru is not some particular human individual or person. Guru is the Self of all.


Deepak said: "Undermining only works out to the disadvantage of the seeker."

-- No one can "undermine" the truth. But the seeker, if he is willing to surrender all of his ideas, beliefs, and illusions, may indeed discover and realize the truth.

As for "disadvantage of the seeker"... I am not a seeker, so I have no such "disadvantage". Nor is there any disadvantage to one who sincerely seeks the truth above all else, and doesn't just follow the ideas and beliefs of others. However, the awakening/realization of truth does bring an end to the relative illusion of "the seeker" and his seeking.


Deepak said: "If you have not met such a Guru, it is only your karma. What else can be said?

-- I don't need to 'meet' any such guru. I am "Guru". The "Guru" is only The Self. However, in the course of my life I have also met and known quite a number of so-called "gurus" and acharyas, and more importantly also a few genuine Sages.

Also, your saying "your karma" is just expressing another mere idea/belief that you hold and that you also use to judge and to point at others. But hell, thats only typical behavior of many RS satsangis anyway. However, you would be much better off in examining your own blind assumptions and beliefs, than to make such nonsense presumptions about others whom you do not know at all.


Adam sounds just like me when I was his age. But eventually the contradictions do wear you down and, allied with the fact that this teaching doesn't work no mattter how much meditation you do, that's the end of it. Will Adam still be a Satsangi when he is our age? I doubt it.

Then can I presume that Tao is enlightened and self-realized and beyond all dualities. Can I presume that there are no spiritual hierarchies whatsoever? That all the five regions are purely mental constructs? What then is the way out according to Tao? Or is there no way out as UG Krishnamurthy says? What's so special about Parson anyway?

Many years ago I had the unique good fortune to meet with U.G. Krishnamurti, and I agree with him and especially when he said that no one can really learn about enlightenment by depending on someone else as an authority, teacher, or guide.

U.G. Krishnamurti - Essential Teachings:

"I have no message for mankind." This was how U.G. Krishnamurti often summed up his own teachings, denying them the value others bestowed them with. Yet in his life he managed to create a unique brand of philosophy which rightly made him the 'anti-guru', the nihilist of enlightenment. [2] As according to him, "A guru is one who tells you to throw away all the crutches that we have been made to believe are essential for our survival. He would ask you to walk, and he would say that if you fall, you will arise and walk." [3]

He refused to be called a guru, though many considered him to be one. He vociferously opposed all notions of enlightenment, and spirituality, and attacked all aspects of human tought, and thinking. To that end he even defied his own teachings, denying them any importance. In his preface to his now famous book, 'Mind is a Myth', he wrote:
"My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright.
You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like,
even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody."

In the words of his famous disciple, film director Mahesh Bhatt: "The story of U.G. is the story of an ordinary man who refused to be treated like god. He scoffed at the 'god factory' and repudiated the lies churned out in the lie factories that run civilisation"[4]

He emphasised on the impossibility and non-necessity of any human change, radical or mundane, and endlessly insisted that the body and its actions are already perfect, and attempts to change or mold the body or its actions are pure and simple violence. The psyche or self or mind, an entity which he denies has any being, is composed of nothing but this demand to bring about change in either the material or in itself. The human self-consciousness is not a thing, but a movement, one characterized by perpetual malcontent and a "fascist" insistence on its own importance and survival.

He also said that the reason people came to him and to gurus is to find solutions to ease their everyday real problems or for solutions to a fabricated problem, namely, the search for spirituality and enlightenment. He continued to say this drive is caused by the cultural environment, which demands conformity of individuals and places within them the desire to be special. Consequently, it is this need that is exploited by gurus, spiritual teachers and sellers of "shoddy goods", who pretend to offer the way to reach that goal but never deliver and cannot, since the goal is itself unreachable[5]


[ The above is from Wikipedia ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U._G._Krishnamurti


http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/

http://www.ugkrishnamurti.net/

So finally Tao has a Guru - U G krishnamurthy. And even U G had not one but two Gurus though he denied it vociferously - JK and Ramana? If you read his book, it is clear that whatever happened to UG was a result of transfernece by Ramana and J. All followers of UG speak on a similar line -- they are continously in a denial mode. Even I was an avid fan of U G Krishnamurthy, until I realised that the negative nature of 'UG teaching' was hurting me.
As for me, I am still a seeker. I have been influenced by UG. I am an aimless wanderer (the UG influence) although I have been initiated in RSSB and was also a follower of Sri Sri for some time. However, I still believe that there is something called as a "spiritual transfer". Just as physical disease can spread, so can spiritual disease -- or the great Buddha disease as Osho calls it.
The ball is now in your court Tao.

Deepak says, "I still believe that there is something called as a "spiritual transfer".

--What do you imagine would be transfered? Can an apple transfer "appleness" to itself? It already is an apple! I suggest being cautious about anyone who claims to have anything to transfer, who says that you are lacking spiritually in some way and they have what you lack. There is a saying that if you want enlightenment badly enough someone will sell it to you.

In Sant Mat, the "Science of the Soul", the need of a master for spiritual knowledge is said to be analagous to needing a teacher for mathematics or physics. Well, you may need to learn to cook or weld, but you are always what you really are. It can't be taught, given or received.

Personally, I have no problem with someone who talks ABOUT what they understand, even if they charge admission. But if they tell you that you NEED what they have to offer, be wary.

I have encountered individuals who by virtue of being in their presence you feel elevated or a special energy. Some of them have been able through a look or touch to heal, or transform your state of mind. This is fine. But as far as what we really are, no one can touch, change, transform or "save" that. Everything has that as much as anything else already, IMO.

I am not interested in pursuing a pointless debate. But I will respond to some errors on the part of Deepak.

Deepak wrote:

"So finally Tao has a Guru - U G krishnamurthy."

-- Deepak, you clearly have a bit of a problem. You have a bad tendency of distorting and misrepresenting what other people say. Let me make this clear to you: I did not in any way indicate that U.G. was ever any kind guru for me. I simply posted some info about U.G. in as much as you had already mentioned him, and I was familiar with him. I actually liked him quite a lot, but I knew him rather briefly and only as an acquaintance. And if you really understood U.G., you would know very well that he did not accept the "guru" thing either. I don't subscribe to gurus. And I say that because I have lived throughtout India as a sadhu for years and have encountered many so-called gurus, swamis, yogis, acharyas, and babas etc... none of which were ever gurus for me. I have never been in the market for gurus. I don't have any problem with other people feeling that they need a guru for guidance, but for myself, I don't believe in formal gurus at all.

"And even U G had not one but two Gurus though he denied it vociferously - JK and Ramana?"

-- I would not say that he regarded them as his gurus.

"If you read his book, it is clear that whatever happened to UG was a result of transfernece by Ramana and J."

Absolute horseshit. What happened to U.G. had nothing to do with anyone else. And the same thing that happened to U.G. also happened to me, and has also happened to a few others as well. It has nothing to do with J.K. or Sri Ramana.

"All followers of UG speak on a similar line -- they are continously in a denial mode."

-- Again, I am not a "follower" of U.G. or of anyone. And as for those who were friends of U.G., they are hardly in "denial mode"

"I was an avid fan of U G Krishnamurthy, until I realised that the negative nature of 'UG teaching' was hurting me."

-- There is no "teaching". He was simply brutally honest about his views. You only see that as bad because you are holding onto something.

"I still believe that there is something called as a "spiritual transfer".

-- You can go on believing whatever you want. But it's only your belief. When true awakening comes, no such "spiritual transfer" will be seen or found to exist.


I agree with Tucson's last comment.


Tao says: "What happened to U.G. had nothing to do with anyone else. And the same thing that happened to U.G. also happened to me, and has also happened to a few others as well. It has nothing to do with J.K. or Sri Ramana."

This time I am not putting words into your mouth. I am simply quoting you. This means that now Tao is another candidate in the enlightenment industry.

If so, kindly transfer your enlightenment whatever it is. If that is not possible you can share your experience. Maybe it will benefit selfish mortals like me who have not yet realised their immortal nature.

If Tao can do it without any external aid, then there is no need for onkar, satnam and Sach Khand. We are already here and now. (another enlightenment cliche).

----------------------------------
Tucson says: I have encountered individuals who by virtue of being in their presence you feel elevated or a special energy. Some of them have been able through a look or touch to heal, or transform your state of mind.
As for Tucson, I agree that nobody can transfer anything of real value. But I still hold that Gurus can be a catalyst for change in our attitude. They can help us to turn our view from outer to inner. Their presence can be elevating as I found it in the presence of GSD -- though u may criticise him no end for being autocratic.

I also like to state that there are two GSDs in Beas. One is organisational and the other is spiritual. The organisational Gurinder may be autocratic. I would not like to comment on GSD as an organiser. Every organisation has its own pitfalls.

I am only interested in the spiritual GSD. If he can transmit energy or reflect my own self, it is profitable for me. I don't care whether he is a manipulative person personally. I am only interested in the spiritual vibes that I receive. And I do feel elevated in his presence.

And, despite protestations from scores of ex-satsangis,Gurinder has not done anything illegal or immoral or something which amounts to criminality. I don't understand the hue and cry about this.

The only complaint about GSD and the RS Gurus that many harbour -- including me -- is that the growth has not happened as promised in the RS brochures.

Gurus are real. So are nongurus! We pretend we are not conscious but the energy of consciousness is much bigger than our thinking. UG is not totally correct, the energy is truly ecstatic after the painful part and before it. If you assimilate through the pain, integrate it if you will, it is love just as the mystics describe, even if they never actually felt the real thing, they were only pointing to something they didn't even know existed. Everybody wake up!!!

"Gurus are real. So are nongurus! ... just as the mystics describe, even if they never actually felt the real thing, they were only pointing to something they didn't even know existed."

-- absolute nonsense and bullshit.


After my last response, I chganced to read back over my previous comment about Adam's e-mail to Brian. I am going to post it again because it appears that it was ignored and also diverted from by Rakesh's subsequernt comments. And then following the re-posting of my comments to Adam, I will also address Rakesh's comment.

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

Here again are my previous responses to Adam's e-mail:

"I selected a few parts of Adam's letter which I would like to respond to:

"There are the four vows, three of which are meant to facilitate meditation and keep our karmas to a minimum, and then there is the meditation and the master. And that's it."

-- Yes, but thats the problem Adam. In Santmat/RS you can't just take the master out of the equation. You also just admitted that "the master" is essential. So believing in the master is in fact crucial to the RS system (according to RS).

"And regarding the master, I don't get too hung up on the Guru, Sat Purush, God-in-human-form thing. I don't get it"

-- Again, you can't remove the master, the guru, the GIHF from the RS path. That IS the RS path. You can do whatever you like, but such deviation is not sanctioned by RS. I don't think you have come to terms with this yet. If you want it your way, thats fine, but then don't pretend you are really an RS satsangi.

"What is important for me is that I really want to meditate."

-- You don't need RS, the RS master, the RS satsangs, or the RS form of meditation... just to meditate.

"having been around Gurinder Singh, I believe that at the very least, he is practiced in this exercise."

-- You may believe that, but there is no way that you can know that. Even if he were adept at focusing at the third eye center, such does not make him either a guru or a wise man. I have encountered him (Gurinder) as well, but I have also encountered many genuine sadhus, gurus, yogis, siddhas, sages, and babas during my many years of wandering all about India and the Himalayas, and my own take on G.S. is that he is merely nothing more than an administrative figurehead of a large quasi-religious cult and organization. There is no indication on any level that he (Gurinder) is a spiritual adept or a sat-guru. Therfore both he and the hype surrounding him is a fraud.

"And the masters (at least Gurinder) have often said that the master-disciple relationship is very high -- and that it's ok to think of him like a teacher, a friend, a guide, or whatever word doesn't feel so far out as "master."

-- This actually proves my point. RS and its leader Gurinder are trying to get you to swallow it any way they can. However, he (Gurinder) still defines it as "master-disciple relationship" and you are expected to buy into and submit to that as well.

"For me, the guru and meditation is Sant Mat, and everything else is just the scaffolding.

-- You see, you just admitted it again... that you believe that "the guru" is the essential thing, and the rest is exterreanous.

"But you can't fault the teacher for the craziness of the students."

-- Oh yes you can. In fact, it is definitley the teacher who is primarily responsible for either the craziness or the sobriety of his students. The students are very much a reflection of the teacher. The examples of this are numerous. If the teacher or guru is a truly wise sage, then the students and disciples will exhibit spiritual qualties and some wisdom as well. That is not at all evident anywhere in the RS sangat."

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

And here is my response to Rakesh on this issue:

Rakesh has previously written::

"My family members are regular sewadars in RSSB."

-- I am sorry for their misfortune.

"In RSSB, master is to be taken as a teacher only in the beginning. Later it all depends upon the disciple what he calls his master. It depends upon one's progress in the inner path. When the disciple traverses the inner realms together with radiant form of the master as well one's own. Only then, the true form of the master is known."

-- Thats nothing but a bunch of misleading mystical and supernatural notions and abstractions. It's meaningless nonsense.

"Nothing is to be believed but everything is to be experienced. No one on this earth will say that I have experienced it, for one experiences it after breaking the wall of "I” ness."

-- Nonsense. RS is full of beliefs. And if egolessness and is the hallmark of experience, then why are the so-called RS "masters" saying anything and pretending otherwise?

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

Tao,

What do you have to say on astrology, and free will and destiny

Dear tAo,

I have noted your above comments. I will love to not to comment upon the remarks given by you.

I will only say, "GIVE A MAN A HORSE WHO CAN RIDE".

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

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

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.