I abandon all hope in my book shelves

It's the only line from Dante's Divine Comedy that I know: "Abandon all hope, you who enter here." (one of various translations of what's inscribed on the gate of hell)

For me, it's what I feel nowadays when I peruse the spiritual, mystical, metaphysical, and religious volumes in my book collection.

I used to read these books voraciously, devouring them for insights into the Meaning of It All. I went through phases where I'd study a single subject for weeks or months.

Sant Mat. Rumi. Meister Eckhart. Other medieval Christian mystics. The "desert fathers." Zen. Taoism. Plotinus. Emerson. To name a few.

This morning I looked for an inspirational book to read before I meditated. My eyes ran up and down the shelves. I didn't feel inspired by any of them. At least, not in the way I used to be.

I feel this is a positive sign. Of what, I don't know. Let's just call it a positive sign that doesn't point in any particular direction.

Which is why I see it as positive. Every spiritual/religious book I've ever read, including the three that I've written myself, contains ideas that I don't agree with.

These discordances are like off-key musical notes, or stumbles in a dance. I used to be able to ignore them and enjoy the quasi-harmony of the rest of the composition. But now I look at a title and remember, "There's some ridiculous stuff in there."

Of course, what's ridiculous to me might strike you as perfectly reasonable. But I'm not you. All I can be is me.

Who, like you, is someone unique – when it comes to seeking an understanding of what life is about. This uniqueness makes it impossible to find a suit of spiritual clothes that will fit anyone perfectly. Each of us needs to do at least some mixing and matching, and maybe even sewing from scratch.

An example: I find Buddhism appealing, by and large. However, lurking in almost every Buddhist book are dogmas that turn me off.

Such as the need for a guru or master. It always surprises me when I'm reading along, enjoying a Buddhist discussion of how truth can only be found within through direct experience, and then the author adds that this can only happen if you submit yourself to another person.

Daisetz Teitaro (D.T.) Suzuki in "The Zen Koan as a Means of Attaining Enlightenment."

That the Zen experience takes place at all as such, and is formulated finally as a system of Zen intuitions, is principally due to the master's guiding, however enigmatical it may seem; for without it the experience itself is impossible.

Julia Lawless and Judith Allan in "Beyond Words: Dzogchen Made Simple."

The teacher is considered more important than the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha, for without the teacher there would be no Buddha or access to the lineage of Buddhas, no Dharma, no teachings, and no Sangha, or community of practitioners, for these cannot exist in isolation without the master. The teacher in fact is the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha and the gateway to realization.

Clang! Stumble! Disharmonies. These words just don't ring true to me anymore.

I'll never find a perfect book. Or a perfect teacher, guru, or master. And this realization feels perfectly fine to me.

Comments

[tAo]

Your quote:

"The teacher is considered more important than the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha, for without the teacher there would be no Buddha or access to the lineage of Buddhas, no Dharma, no teachings, and no Sangha, or community of practitioners, for these cannot exist in isolation without the master. The teacher in fact is the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha and the gateway to realization.

... is, fyi, not at all representative of Dzogchen which is the title of that book.

[Adam]

The teacher is considered more important than the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha, for without the teacher there would be no Buddha or access to the lineage of Buddhas, no Dharma, no teachings, and no Sangha, or community of practitioners, for these cannot exist in isolation without the master. The teacher in fact is the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha and the gateway to realization.

On the one hand, I understand your aversion to this statement. But I can also see it as a practical truth rather. I sat zen for two years, which was a neat experience. The rules were so strict that if a meditator moved an inch during a group meditation, a moderator yelled at them. I often thought that without the teacher, who was an American guy who had gone to Japan, studied zen, and returned to the States, there simply would not be, practically speaking, a sen center in Rochester, New York, with a committed sangat, access to the teachings, etc., etc., etc. But as you say Brian, that's just me and what I like and how I think.

[tucson]

It may be that initially a teacher, master or book is helpful because many of us have a lot of conceptual "garbage" to let go of. However, at some point you realize you don't need the teacher. You realize there is nothing to be taught, achieved or gained. That if you possess it, you haven't got it. This should please the teacher or master very much. It is just a matter of recognising what has been present all along.

I think the term 'master' is very misleading, like there is something to be the master of.

[Roger]

Who taught the teacher? How do I know that my teacher is qualified? Why was the material (spirituality) setup so difficult that I needed a teacher?

If I am not taught spiritually. What is the difference between me and and someone that has been taught?

Again, no big deal......

[Adam]

"Why was the material (spirituality) setup so difficult that I needed a teacher?"

The "material" is not difficult. I tend to agree with Tuscon's writings on the simplicity of being in the now and recognizing there is nothing to achieve. The only difficulty seems to be that the mind, out of force of habit and due to various delusions, tends to take us out of presence. One trait of a qualified teacher is one who has learned how to reside more fully in the now. If you are convinced this is the case for someone, you may be interested in also using the same techniques the teacher has used to practice this. There is really nothing to teach, but there is something practical to practice perhaps in the form of recognizing when we are less present. I have found that a meditation practice first thing in the morning can give one a nice start to practicing throughout the rest of the day.

[Roger]

"One trait of a qualified teacher is one who has learned how to reside more fully in the now."

How does one know that they have been taught to reside in the now, "more" than the next person that has been taught by another teacher?

How did you detemine this trait of the qualified teacher?

again, no big deal...

[tucson]

"One trait of a qualified teacher is one who has learned how to reside more fully in the now."

--The barnacle, in stolid repose upon it's rock, is residing fully in the now..a qualified teacher for sure!

"The only difficulty seems to be that the mind, out of force of habit and due to various delusions, tends to take us out of presence."

-- Even when mind APPEARS to be "out of presence", it is present. There is no "out of presence". Find out who is out of presence and where that new location of presence would be. Who could BE out of presence? No matter where you go, here you are.

[tAo]

Adam said; "The teacher is considered more important than the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha, for without the teacher there would be no Buddha" ... "no Dharma, no teachings, and no Sangha" ... "The teacher in fact is the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha and the gateway to realization."

Sorry Adam, but that is fundamentally incorrect. The Buddha is the essential nature - the Buddha nature, and the awakened mind. Teachers are only individuals who may communicate the teaching, or who may embody and manifest the awakened state. No teacher is absolutey necessary as all beings are of the Buddha nature, and can awaken independently of any teacher. Teachers are only guides at best. Teachers are not indispensible. The Buddha natue and the Dharma exists independent of any human teacher. Anyone can realize their Buddha nature and thus the Dharma without the agency of a teacher. A teacher is not an only "gateway". And furthermore, to say that "without the teacher there would be no Buddha" clearly is nonsense. A teacher may be a Buddha, but the Buddha does not depend upon the teacher. The teacher merely and only communicates the Dharma, and may also embody the awakened state which is referred to as Buddhahood. But the Buddha is independent of any teacher, incuding the historical Gautama Buddha or Sakyamuni Buddha. Therfore your opinion is incorrect and your claim is false. The idea that you are presenting that the teacher is indispensible is something which is used by pundits and religion for thousands of years to keep people subordinate, controled, and dependent upon priests and teachers, and to prevent them from waking up. Even in Buddhism. It is a false doctrine.

Therefore I have to tell you that you do not understand what you are talking about. You are merely parroting a false idea that you have acquired from somehwere else or someone else who is ignorant and has been misled as well. The Buddha and the Dharma absolutely does NOT depend upon teachers or guides.

[Adam]

tAo,
in my defense, I was quoting Brian's post, and did not myself say the teacher is more important than the buddha. I only commented on the quotation, saying that I have appreciated teachers who seem to generate community and focus which I have benefited from. While I have been drawn to be in the presence of different teachers, I do not claim to know whether a teacher is necessary to awaken or not.

[Sita]

A teacher can be the inspiration to find ones inner self,because of their own training.
One does it self,but it is always good to help eachother,it is in sports, arts, etc..people always help oneanother as I see it.

[Brian]

tAo, regarding whether a guru/master is a central part of Dzogchen, the Wikipedia entry says:

"The goal of Dzogchen practice is to remain in the clear, undeluded state of the nature of the bodymind, unconditioned by thoughts -- which is not the same thing as not having any thoughts. At the beginning, a Dzogchen teacher introduces one directly (Tib. ngo sprod, introduce, point out) to the real nature of one's bodymind, even if only for a few seconds; being a Dzogchen practitioner thus implies that one must have a qualified Dzogchen teacher, one who has mastered the nature of the mindstream."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen

However, like all faiths, Dzogchen seems to come in different flavors. So I'm sure some practitioners consider that a guru isn't necessary.

[tAo]

Brian,

For a much more accurate understanding of what Dzogchen really means and is all about, I would recommend and even strongly encourge you to obtain and read a very excellent book on the essential Dzogchen titled "Primordial Experience" by Manjushrimitra, which has been translated with commentary by Namkhai Norbu and Kennard Lipman. It is published by Shambhala. Many of these other current interpretations of dzogchen like the wikipedia and other sources, books and teachers are not really accurate and to the point. They do not address the real essence of the dzogchen teaching, and are more or less misleading in various ways. So I would recommend Primordial Experience if you wish to really get to the heart of genuine dzogchen.

Secondarily, for a broader knowledege of the range of dzogchen teachings and the history, I would also suggest the several other excellent books that are written and authored by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu himself as well. I believe you will then find that some of the ideas that you presently have and have acquired about dzogchen are more or less not really aligned with the real essence of dzogchen.

[Manjit]

Hello Tao / Brian,

Without doubt Dzogchen emphasises very, very strongly the importance of the 'master' or 'guru'. Without such, there is no Dzogchen proper.

Tao - I think you are mixing up the VIEW of Dzogchen (which is merely the first step in that practice) with the Dzogchen practice proper.

Having conversed with Dzogchen practioners, I was actually surprised at how 'fundamental' some aspects of the system can be (at least as followed by the disciples).

[Cyfer]

A few good books i've been reading lately,

the wisdom of insecurity - alan watts

if democrats had any brains they'd be republicans - ann coulter (great writer)

lets raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour and index it to inflation - barack husain obama

Why 99% of satsangies believe in fairy tales and liberalism - joe straight

[tucson]

That's some good reading, Cyfer.

[tAo]

Manjit,

Regarding Dzogchen: Thanks, but I happen to be very well aware and deeply versed and experienced in both the teaching and practice of dzogchen, having personally studied and practiced under the very eminent dzogchen master Chogyal Namkhai Norbu himself, for well over a decade. As well as the dzoghen master Dudjom Rinpoche and also Thubten Yeshe Rinpoche in Nepal for several years beginning in early 1970. So I do know exactly what I am talking about in regards to the teaching and actual practice of dzogchen. I know what the "view" is. I know and have realized the base, the path, and the fruit. The Dzogchen teaching emphasises what is called the transmission - from the teacher (or 'master') to the student - but NOT at all the same as that of other traditional spiritual guru paths and groups. For a more accurate and deeper understanding of real dzogchen, I recommend that you study the texts that I mentioned previously.

[Brian]

tAo, this is what bothers me about Dzogchen -- the whole transmission bit. It sure sounds similar to the guru "connecting the disciple with god" thing.

And with the Zen notion that you aren't really enlightened until a Zen master says you are, checking out your satori story via his own supposedly true Buddha nature.

Lineage is a big deal in Dzogchen. Every web site I've looked at talks at length about the importance of learning Dzogchen from someone in the approved lineage, which, again, seems very similar to a line of gurus. See:
http://www.dzogchenlineage.org/lineage.html

"Dzogchen Khenpo Choga Rinpoche has said that all practitioners of the Vajrayana should always remember the amazing life stories of the Dzogchen lineage masters because the blessings of the Dzogchen lineage are immeasurable and the power of the lineage is the heart of Vajrayana Buddhism. When you continuously remember the Dzogchen masters you will receive the power and blessing of the lineage and you will become a great practitioner and enlightened master of the Dzogchen lineage."

[Manjit]

Hello Tao,

I have to be honest, I simply don't believe you :o)

Simple question that only somebody who has undertaken what you claimed to would be able to answer (sorry, no internet resources available for this one...I think! :), have you experienced thigle and kati, and how was it subjectively experienced.

If you are being truthful, you will know PRECISELY how to answer this. Internet & book sources (which all you have mentioned I have ALREADY mentioned over at RSS years & quite recently too) will NOT be able to provide the answer.

Only direct personal experience CAN.

So, what of it? You can reply to my personal email if you wish, how I have worded my question should be ample proof that I already know the answer? I will assume no answer means this is another of your admitted mischevious ploys/deceptions?

Also, regardless, your point about masters or gurus in Dzogchen is INVALID. Actually, they can take on the Radhasoami crew for adherence to ritualistic & scriptural injuctions and elevation of the 'master' who does the 'pointing out'.

Take care brother.

[Roger]

I read thru the Dzogchen website. It struck me as a Buddha's version of Sant Mat. I have nothing against any religion or spiritual group, however, how did we get off on this topic?

What is the big deal here?

[Manjit]

Hello Roger,

to be fair, the actual practices of Dzogchen are extremely profound in experiential depth. But, then again, so can the Radhasoami method be. Imo, the Dzogchen IS more advanced, easy, further reach, more accessible/pracicable with success etc etc.

It is, as always, the outward or organisational aspects that cause the troublesome aspects. In my personal experience, the Dzogchen ritualism and dogma and adherence to accurate pronunciations or strict lineage transmissions etc etc, can be even WORSE than the RS groups!

PS, I don't know how the topic got here! Brian did mention Buddhism in his original, Tao responded with praise of Dzogchen etc etc etc :o)

[Manjit]

A true revolution will occur when we can take the mechanics of the practices like Dzogchen, or Tantra or whatever, and then take away the *unneccessary* ritualistic, cultural & conceptual aspects of them. And, it WILL happen, though perhaps slowly.

I have my own methods/practices which have evolved from spontaneous realisations/experiences, and based on years of experimenting with a wide array of 'practices'. I would call them neo-Dzogchen. Now, I am not a teacher, and not part of any organisation/lineage, and took no vows of secrecy etc. However, even I intuitively NEVER discuss the practices, even though I have on occassion had the urge to do so. There is something intuitionally wrong about sharing such profound practices with people/persons on the internet, so I can understand part of the reason for secrecy/empowerments etc. Sorry, rambling now.....

There is GREAT power and truths lurking behind the seemingly medieval wrappings. I can personally testify for that.

Peace.

[Roger]

Hi Manjit,

Thanks for your comment.
Are you sure that any practice should be kept a secret?
Shouldn't everything be available to everyone?

[Manjit]

Hello Roger, that's a good question that perhaps doesn't have a simple yes or no answer?! Generally, I'm all for complete transparency and openess, but I can also see why so many traditions & teachers are reluctant to reveal everything at the outset (aside from the obvious cultic reasons).

I guess the initial, but lazy, metaphoric analogical question would be; would you give an infant a knife? A wonderful implement with so many uses, and a beutifully perfect human being, but do they go together so well?! :-o

I honestly think that certain practices can cause more harm than benefit when we get into the area of 'advanced' tantricism (btw, Dzogchen, despite it's absolutely non-dual VIEW, is very much still related to 'energy' in practice & experience, hence why the supreme 'acheivement' in Dzogchen is the 'Rainbow Body', and why I would still personally label aspects of it 'tantric', even though Dzogchen students would prob not agree!). I can imagine a whole host of phsyical, emotional, psychological or lifestyle damage that can *potentially* occur from some of these practices. I myself stumbled on some of these practices/experiences by 'accident', and can say my life was affected in many ways that most people would consider 'negative' (inability to function in the world, work, relationships etc), and also some fairly scary physical effects too. I can only speculate that to be 'revealed' these practices, it is probably much better done under some sort of supervision, and at the right time and space of a person's practice/life?

All too often people use the wrong remedy for the wrong disease and only make it worse. Perhaps, just perhaps, people should not be aided in self-prescribing the wrong medicine?

Don't get me wrong, I've no idea and think there is no absolutely correct viewpoint? I'm merely speculating here.

Lastly, I don't know exactly what your perspective on all of this is? I've read your posts for some time, and I guess you are rather sceptical of the usual organisations mentioned here? But I'm not sure on your perspective/approach to the 'mysteries' of life?

However, if you give any credence to the human's search for 'enlightenment', and the evolution of such throughout history, here's a thing to ponder;

In the olden days, about 2000 years + ago, students of the 'mysteries' usually underwent very long periods of apprentiship before the 'teacher' even considered revealing a single method or teaching. This could last as long as 30 years! :-0 I don't think we appreciate that, for example, the Upanishads, would only need to be repeated once or twice for the 'student' to become enlightened! That is because he had learnt the respect towards them to be COMPLETELY ATTENTIVE to every single word with his WHOLE being, because he had to clean the temple for 30 YEARS to earn the right to listen! Can that preperation of 30 years be considered unrelated to that brief moment in time where he becomes 'enlightened' just by hearing a verse of the Upanishads? That book so many of us have read in it's entirity in a couple of hours, with NO such effect?!?!

There is a similar story with Kabir and Dharam Das (is it, or Charan Das??), where the student was kept to servitude for several decades before a SINGLE thing was taught. We understand from stories around the time that Mr Das (:-) progressed very rapidly once initiated!

Leaving aside the cultic missappropriations of such a model, does it perhaps also hold some truth or benefit in practice??

Just some thoughts.

G'nite.

[tAo]

Brian,

The "transmission" may sound similar to the guru/disciple thing that you mentioned and to you, but that is not what it is about actually about. Transmission is simply when understanding occurs or awakens. That can happen with or without a teacher.

It also has nothing to do with the notion you mentioned that "you aren't really enlightened until a Zen master says you are", or "checking out your satori story". That is nonsense, and it isn't the dzogchen teaching at all. I don't what you have been reading, but like I said, there is some rather misleading stuff and faulty interpretations about dzogchen out there.

And "lineage" or "approved lineage" is only apparently "a big deal" to some people. But actually that is not so relevant to the essential meaning and practice of Dzogchen as I understand it and know it, and have personally learned it over a number of years from my own very scholarly and expert dzogchen teacher and guide Chogyal Namkhai Norbu.

About Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche:

http://www.nydzogchen.com/master.html

http://www.tsegyalgareast.org/pages/chF6gyal-namkhai-norbu.php

[tAo]

Manjit,

First, your opinion and response that you "don't believe" me is just more of your typical egotistical foolishness and cahllenges. I do not care in the least whether or not you believe me. Nor have I made any such "mischevious ploys/deceptions". I simply stated honestly and shared some facts regarding my own personal study and practice of dzogchen, and my involvement with my own teacher Namkhai Norbu. Whatever you may think about that, is quite irrelevant to me and to what I have shared.

And as far as the book sources which I have read and that I mentioned, and that you claim to be supposedly so familiar with, I can only say that I have never seen you mention them anywhere before in RSS. However, I did mention them as well as dzogchen sometime ago in RSS. But if you have read them, then good for you. However, I have no interest at all in playing your usual ego-game and/or responding to your petty challenges. And moreover, you apparently don't really know all that much about dzogchen as you say you do.

And second, I did not make any such "praise" of dzogchen. I simply directed Brian to perhaps study a particuar text by Manjushrimitra titled Primordial Experience, and I also mentioned my own dzogchen teacher Namkahi Norbu and some of his other writings.

This webpage may bring some additional clarification:

http://www.snowlionpub.com/pages/N69_1.php

And oh, btw... thigle simply means essence, seed, or drop; and kati means channel.

[Manjit]

Okay, fair enough Tao!

And thanks for the glossary definitions of thigle and kati!!

;-)

[Roger]

Hi Manjit,

Thanks again for your comment.

My only talent here, is to ask irritating probing questions. In addition, I am not attacking anyone with these really goofy questions.

Likewise, I would never attack the basic core values or practices of any religion or group.

What you know and believe in, is your business.

I am fascinated with practices and apprenticeships that appear to be apart of a particular group. Who decided the need for such practices? What is the difference between someone that fails and one that succeeds in the practices. Among adults, why the need for secrecy? Just because I ask goofy questions, why hide answers from me?

[Adam]

Hi Roger,
Like Manjit, I am curious to know more about you. You ask,

Just because I ask goofy questions, why hide answers from me?

For me, the answer is twofold. 1) if you would show yourself a little more, I would be more confortable sharing. As in, what is your religious/spiritual background and current thoughts? And, what agenda is there behind the "goofy questions"?

Also, as Manjit mentioned, it seems intuitively wrong to share all personal spiritual information on the internet. These posts are for everyone to see, and some of what is involved in a spiritual practice remains in the private domain. This is not to say cultish or secretive necessarily, but simply private, just as aspects of our respective sex lives probably are better left private (on this blog at least).

[Roger]

Hi Adam,

Thanks again for your comment.

No agenda. No religious/spiritual background that I am working from. I like to use 'goofy' in an effort to bring a little humor into the discussion. Hopefully, my questions are not considered attack questions.

Your spiritual business is your business. The need for spiritual secrecy, I find interesting.

[Adam]

Hi Roger,
"No religious/spiritual background that I am working from."

I am still curious as to your worldview...
if not religious/spiritual,
atheistic, agnostic, naturalistic, anything at all? And you seem to know at least a fare bit about RSSB...are you initiated? Were you thinking of becoming so at one point?
just curious...

[Roger]

Hi Adam,

Thanks for your thoughtful questions.

I would like to think that I am fascinated with the process of broad and open minded neutral thinking. In addition, reserving the 'Right to be Wrong' has its value.
It is a hobby for me. The different catagories that you mention are interesting to explore. However, I try (as a process) to avoid placing persons in catagories.
I tend to be cursed with asking too many questions. There is a joy in exploring the specifics.

[Adam]

Hi Roger,

"I would like to think that I am fascinated with the process of broad and open minded neutral thinking. In addition, reserving the 'Right to be Wrong' has its value."

Isn't this basically the scientific method?
I also agree that reserving the right to be wrong has value.

I haven't meant to be secretive in my posts. I can tell you why I believe in the process of meditation. Looking at perceivable human experience, I notice that I have thoughts, emotions, and direct perception. My thoughts often sort of run on autopilot, making little stories in my head about my and others' identities, which may or may not be true. These in turn affect my emotions, and I directly perceive, through this cloudy veil, whatever my senses happen to pick up at any moment. Meditation, for me, is quieting the thought-track and closing the eyes and ears so as to keep the attention inside the body. The goal is motionless, concentrated, direct perception, because this experience, I believe, allows one to slowly disidentify from who they think they are and identify more with the vibrating being of who we are at any given moment, which I ultimately believe would be a more blissful, balanced state to live from. As to RSSB, I happen to have faith in light and sound meditation as a practice that is in line with my goals.

About sound and light and visions, we are not supposed to talk about these experiences. This may seem like a cultish withholding of evidence that would verify the practice. The reasons given are 1) that talking about such experiences can quickly lead to bragging and reinforcing the ego, and 2) more importantly, that meditation is not about "fireworks" per se, and focusing on these phenomena is distracting from the goal.

[Roger]

Hi Adam,

Thanks again for your comment.

"Meditation, for me, is quieting the thought-track and closing the eyes and ears so as to keep the attention inside the body. The goal is motionless, concentrated, direct perception, because this experience, I believe, allows one to slowly disidentify from who they think they are and identify more with the vibrating being of who we are at any given moment, which I ultimately believe would be a more blissful, balanced state to live from."

Please write a comment describing in further detail as to what the 'vibrating being' is.

Within your above comment, I am guessing that 'faith and belief' is an important component of meditation and RSSB. Is this true?

"As to RSSB, I happen to have faith in light and sound meditation as a practice that is in line with my goals."
"2) more importantly, that meditation is not about "fireworks" per se, and focusing on these phenomena is distracting from the goal."

I am guessing that the 'fireworks' are something separate from the light and sound.

What would be an example of a firework?

"About sound and light and visions, we are not supposed to talk about these experiences"

Is it a violation of the Secrecy, if One stated (during their meditations and inititation) that One did not experience the sound, light and visions? This would be the opposite of a state of description.

Finally, I am not attacking RSSB or you.

[Adam]

hi Roger,
I am enjoying this exchange.
you ask:
"Please write a comment describing in further detail as to what the 'vibrating being' is."

A description won't get you very far. A method is inquiry, as in by asking yourself, what are you without thought and concepts? What is left? Whatever description I might give would be another concept.

You write:
"Within your above comment, I am guessing that 'faith and belief' is an important component of meditation and RSSB. Is this true?"

Belief, perhaps not so much. Because I am interested in the experience of reality without beliefs. Faith that the method I am following is a road to that experience, yes.

You write:
I am guessing that the 'fireworks' are something separate from the light and sound.

What would be an example of a firework?"

I do mean light and sound as fireworks.
Some people hear about the light and sound and are excited to have those experiences. When I say meditation is not about fireworks, I mean that looking to light and sound on the inside as the goal is looking at meditation from a materialistic viewpoint.

"Is it a violation of the Secrecy, if One stated (during their meditations and inititation) that One did not experience the sound, light and visions? This would be the opposite of a state of description."

First of all, there is no "Secrecy" with a capital "S." And there is no statement anywhere in RSSB that says one will have those experiences at the time of initiation. These experiences, by the way, are not supposed to happen based on chance, but are the result of the withdrawl of the attention to the third eye center. Some writings say that light comes with approx. 3/4 withdrawl.

[Roger]

Hi Adam,

Thanks again for your sincere and thoughtful answers.

For me, there is a joy in making an observation. A joy in reading a description. Likewise, there is a joy in not drawing a conclusion. Furthermore, there is a joy in reading a description and not having a need to go near or far with it.

In your own words, write a description of the vibrating being. I have never heard of this term. It is interesting. Nothing more.

When you write your description, you will not be bragging, inflating your ego, breaking a secret, or misleading anyone.

As usual, no big deal. Don't do anything you don't want to do.

[Brian]

Roger, I agree: no big deal. Personally, I can't understand the oft-heard reluctance to describe spiritual or mystical experiences.

A common reason is that doing this would expand the ego of the experiencer. Well, so what? No big deal.

A boss compliments you. A teacher gives you an "A." A spouse thanks you for a chore well done. A blog reader says "interesting experience."

When we make spiritual or mystical experiences into something so special and distinct, it seems to me that this fosters an unnatural dualism.

The effort to be egoless can morph into an artificiality that looks like more self-centeredness, rather than less.

Rather than just being who we are, and reflecting ourselves to the world as we are, we pick and choose what to reveal so others will have a certain perception of us that fits with how we want to appear.

I can understand the motivation for this, having a healthy ego myself. It just seems simpler to be as open as possible about both our outer and inner lives.

Sure, some aspects of our lives are too personal to open up to the world. But I don't see the similarity between, say, what goes on sexually in our bedrooms and what happens spiritually in our psyches.

[tucson]

Adam writes: "When I say meditation is not about fireworks, I mean that looking to light and sound on the inside as the goal is looking at meditation from a materialistic viewpoint."

--The whole point of Sant Mat meditation is to traverse the inner "skies" under the guidance of the radiant form of the Param Sant Sat Guru and be delivered into the lap of Sat Purush Radha Soami in the fifth grand spiritual region of Sach Khand. It is said this can occur in this very lifetime. The hope for this happening is every satsngis dream. Is it not? This is the spiritual goal of Sant Mat and you call it materialistic? Explain please.

[Roger]

Brian,

Thanks for the comment.

I have one last question regarding the secrets of meditation. This question is directed to you and Tucson. You two were inititated and had many years with RSSB.

Was there ever a time when you were asked to reveal your progress with your meditations? Did you write this down or verbally discuss your progress with the Master or someone in a leadership role within RSSB?

If so, then the secrecy is not a total absolute.

[Adam]

Hi tuscon,

The goal is oneness, merging. The inner skies are the path, signposts along the way.

Tuscon, you often write about oneness, and the fact that all there is already is. I have heard Baba Ji say there is no separation. If this is the case, then why meditate at all? The reason from the SM perspective is the clearing of karmas and the egoic coverings. Does this reasoning seem totally out of line to you?

To Roger,
The "vibrating being" that I refer to is a logical hypothesis, and an intuitive hypothesis. Logically, when I think of the universe from a physical standpoint, the interconnectedness of everything and the vibrating quality of everything leads me to wonder what it might be like to experience that...
intuitively, I can say I have only tasted the experience in small moments, and only been conscious of the fact afterwards. Have you ever been so concentrated in reading a book that when you stop you notice a change in your own energy? Have you ever caught yourself just sitting still somewhere, not really lost in thought? Where is our attention when those moments happen? The feeling is one of expansion, subtle vibration and stillness. That's about the best I can do.

[tucson]

Adam,
My point in challenging your statement is that the satsangi is "hooked" by these images of the 'radiant form', islands or 'dweeps' of exhalted souls or 'hansas' enraptured by the bliss of hearing celestial music and bathed in glorious, heavenly light. They may not want to admit it but my guess is that for the majority, especially in the west, this is the fundamental attraction of this path...a perfect guide to take 'me' from this dungeon of mortal doom to fabulous regions of never-ending bliss.

They have no real idea what Sach Khand is like, similar to a christian and their hazy idea of heaven, but they damn sure want to go there, and the master says they may not even have to wait until death to get there! That sounds like a better deal than Jesus has to offer. So they say, "I'll buy it!"

If they knew that more than likely they would be repeating these names and avoiding rennet for their entire lives without such grand experiences, far fewer would sign on the initiation "dotted line" and vow to question the vegetarian purity of every pie crust placed before them.

There is a tacit expectation that if one is a "good" satsangi that the master will deliver the grand visions and inner experiences promised in the literature and at satsangs. When this doesn't happen after 10, 20, 30, 40 or more years of devotion to a spiritual "science" that supposedly yields results, one might reasonably be suspect of the validity of this science.

Now, suddenly, Jesus sounds like he has the better deal after all because he says straight up you aren't going to heaven until you die, but at least you don't have to while away the hours, the years, the decades in a dark closet. A little prayer and occasional church attendance will suffice. Jesus can't be proven bogus until after death. Then who's to tell?

It is my opinion that few satsangis, even those who have been meditating for decades, have access to the spiritual lake Mansorovar in Daswan Dwar where karmas from millions of lifetimes are cleansed from their soul.

It is the IDEA of what the master is supposed to be/do and the POSSIBILITY that liberation and bliss could happen to them is what keeps them going. They talk themselves into loving the master because that is what they are SUPPOSED to feel. However, none of this is based on what is REALLY happening... The master is just some dude on the stage, a slick operator, and the satsangi is the same slob deep inside they always were despite outer pretences otherwise.

Adam, I really got off on a tangent. I initally meant to answer your questions, but now I have to get the car out of the shop...brake job. I'll be back.

[tucson]

Adam wrote: "I have heard Baba Ji say there is no separation. If this is the case, then why meditate at all? The reason from the SM perspective is the clearing of karmas and the egoic coverings. Does this reasoning seem totally out of line to you?"

--One view would be that the reasons for meditating do not even exist and are purely conceptual, illusory. For instance, in advaita there is no entity or ego, other than some imagined character, to have coverings that need to be "cleansed". "You" are being lived. There is no "you" living and not a thing "you" can do about it.

Or, as Maharaj Brian Ji might say, If there is a liking for meditation, then do it because it is what you like. If meditation is happening, then so be it!

In any case, no matter what you do or where you go, here you are.

[Rakesh Bhasin]

For Adam only,

May I remind you that Maharaj Charan Singh ji used to say in his satsangs that the qualification of a lawyer and that of a judge is LLB only. But it is the verdict of the judge which carries weightage and not that of a lawyer. The judge has been appointed by the government to give the verdict.

May I also remind you of his words in Master answers that if you begin with a kiss you do not know where you will land up?

Ignore my words if it is already on the surface of your mind. I have tried to indicate something………….

With love

[Osho Robbins]

Adam wrote: "I have heard Baba Ji say there is no separation. If this is the case, then why meditate at all? The reason from the SM perspective is the clearing of karmas and the egoic coverings. Does this reasoning seem totally out of line to you?"

Let's examine this clearly.
Statement of truth (1) There is no separation.
This statement means that you are ALREADY ONE - because there IS ONLY ONE.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to be anything other than the ONE.

Even if you try really hard.....

and most of us DO try really hard....

The only thing that is possible is that you have an ILLUSION of separation - just like when you go to sleep you DREAM. The dream is an illusion.

Actually you are asleep on the bed and nothing is happening, yet the dream appears to be real.

So in truth - you are ALREADY the IT (ONE) that you seek.

The seeking is an illusion - you are like the dog chasing his own tail.

Meditation is PART of the illusion - you are TRYING to ATTAIN oneness or Sach Khand or whatever you want to call her.

You are seeking God but you have never even met her - perhaps she does not want to meet you!

The VERY ACT of seeking (in all forms - i.e. practices, meditation, silence, prayer etc) will only REINFORCE the separation.

The truth is you are already ONE. You do not have to DO anything to become one.

ONE is already the case. You only need to stand aside - you only need to disappear. Which is the opposite of DOING.

It is the END of all DOING, SEEKING, or even living.

Life just happens - there is no YOU. Since there is no YOU - there is also NO KARMA - so your soul does not need to be cleansed in the big lake in the sky. In fact - you don't even have a separate soul.

How can you have a separate soul when there is no separation?

[Adam]

Osho Robbins (tAo?) and Tuscon,

I basically agree with what you are saying, and and I can put my ego down and admit that I am thankful for your perspective, it has taught me something...
I agree that the separation is only an illusion, BUT, and this is the crux for me, repeating to myself this fact does NOTHING to cure the pain of this illusion, the feelings of sadness, loneliness, and fear. I want to KNOW that from the inside out, not just intellectually know it.
And here's the thing. Karma may also be an illusion, but it does seem (perhaps illusorily) that we have some control over our 1) thoughts, and 2) where we point out attention. Try it now. focus your attention in your stomach and think "I am hungry." You can do it at will, right? It seems that, as Oprah says, what we focus on becomes expanded in our conscious mind, so it seems that we have some role to play in the dissolving of the illusion of separation by focusing on an experience that affirms that this is in fact an illusion. I guess my question is, in advaita, is there any meditation or anything prescribed at all? or is the thought, "all is one" just added to the rotation in the conscious mind...

[Roger]

Adam and others,

Thanks again for your comments.

So, is it true, that the 'vibrating being' is a concept that you created from a logical hypothesis, and an intuitive hypothesis?

I wonder. Is Ones progress in meditation a measure of Ones ability to create a series of smooth and wonderfully worded concepts?

This might in some small fashion explain the need for secrecy in meditations.

Is it possible that repeating Ones concept, over and over, leads to the concept transforming into a Known Fact? Resulting in misleading instructions.

[tucson]

Adam states: "I agree that the separation is only an illusion, BUT, and this is the crux for me, repeating to myself this fact does NOTHING to cure the pain of this illusion, the feelings of sadness, loneliness, and fear. I want to KNOW that from the inside out, not just intellectually know it."

--You can't know "It". If "you" know "It", then you don't. You just know an idea of It, a reflection. It is not a thing to be seized by anyone, rather it is a seeing that there is no one that seizes and nothing to be seized. It is like an infinite sky of transparent air trying to seize itself. How would it see itself? How could it seize itself? Where would it commence the seizing and seeing of itself? It just is itself simultaneously everything and no thing at all. Brian posted some stuff by Stanley Sobottka which might be helpful:

http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/Dialogue.htm

"And here's the thing. Karma may also be an illusion, but it does seem (perhaps illusorily) that we have some control over our 1) thoughts, and 2) where we point out attention. Try it now. focus your attention in your stomach and think "I am hungry." You can do it at will, right?"

--It is only our objectivization reflex which makes it appear this is so. Observed more carefully, it may be seen that the attention just becomes hunger in the stomach. It just appears in the micro-millisecond of observation that "you" directed it there. Think of all the biological processes that your body does automatically. Hair grows, sweat sweats, cells divide and reproduce. It just happens, just like the thoughts bubbling up which we take possesion of to construct this idea of "me". Take possession of nothing and perhaps it will be seen that there is no one who could have done it.

[tAo]

[re-edited and with typos corrected]

Adam,

First off... NO, I assure you that I am definitely NOT Osho Robbins. Please do not make such assumptions. However,Osho has made a relevant point.

So then, I suppose I will also make a few comments about this particular matter....

1) No one has suggested for you to "put my ego down", as you say. That is NOT what has been suggested at all, not by anyone else here that I can see. So you have a mistaken idea - a fundamental misinterpretation.

2) You said: "I agree that the separation is only an illusion, BUT, repeating to myself this fact does NOTHING to cure the pain of this illusion, the feelings of sadness, loneliness, and fear."

-- No one has suggested thet you simply and merely REPEAT that to yourself, as some sort of solution to your ignorance and illusion of separation. Understanding of reality has nothing to do with mere repetition of such ideas and words. And, as O.R. accurately pointed out, this fundamentally mistaken idea that you have, and thus consequently any actions that you take (that are predicated upon this faulty idea/illusion), are all only further contributing to, and re-inforcing, your already falsely assumed predictament of as YOU say: "this illusion, the feelings of sadness, loneliness, and fear" etc etc. If you understood correctly, then no such actions would need to be taken, and no illusions, fears, or feelings of separation would exist for you. You mistakenly think that non-duality is simply just some mere idea that has no effect. But it is NOT just an idea, nor does it require any such repetition. The idea of it is not it. You are confusing your mistaken ideas with reality.

3) You said: "I want to KNOW that from the inside out, not just intellectually know it."

-- Then simply stop regarding it as merely an intellectual matter. You say on the one hand that you want direct experience, but then you contradict yourself by saying that non-duality is just the repetition of an intellectual idea. That's double talk, and also double-minded. So I can only conclude here that you do NOT yet understand either yourself or non-duality. And so far I observe that you continue to remain stuck in an unexamined and false dichotomy of the seeker and the sought, the soul versus god, intellect & ideation vs. direct experience, and action vs. understanding/realization, and so on. In order for you to have the direct experience that you say that you desire, you must simply cease trying to attempt to achieve it though faulty means and the very duality that you say that you wish to transcend. In other words, you are trapped in a paradox of your own making. You simply need only to abandon all such false presumptions and futile dualistic oriented strategies. The truth, or the reality, etc etc does not need you to DO anything for you to understand or achieve it... nor vice versa. You have erred right from the get-go.

4) "Karma may also be an illusion, but... it seems that we have some role to play in the dissolving of the illusion of separation by focusing on an experience that affirms that this is in fact an illusion."

-- No. Absolutely not. This appears to be, and I believe it is the very crux of your mistake. No amount of trying to "affirm" or such attempts at "dissolving", or any other kinds of strategy are needed. Only a direct, clear, and tacit understanding is what is needed, and that will happen quite naturally and effortlessly in and of itself, when all those well meaning, but faulty and mistaken, strategies of yours are abandoned. Reality or truth does not require you to do any of the various things, the actions, or the strategies that you repeatedly mention and try to engage in to achieve your goal. The very strategies that you employ and engage in, are themselves the very cause and re-inforcement of your remaining stuck in the false presumption and illusion of duality, and all that that entails such as your feelings of separation, fear, sadness, etc etc. All of these are actually being created AND being perpetuated by your own erroneous ideations and unnecessary strategy and action. You keep on trying to escape or transcend duality, but the very things that you are now doing to achieve that - to try to transcend duality - are themselves actually creating and sustaining and re-inforcing your own illusion of the illusory duality. In other words, it is your own false or mistaken presumptions and their consequent ineffective strategies, that are the very cause of your being trapped in an illusion that believes that there is something that you need to achieve or to overcome through ideas, philosophies, meditations, shabd, masters, etc etc.

5) "I guess my question is, in advaita, is there any meditation or anything prescribed at all? or is the thought, "all is one" just added to the rotation in the conscious mind...?"

-- First of all, forget advaita. And forget all of these ideas that you have about advaita. They are useless and are actually part of the problem, of your problem. You have asked for some "meditation" or some prescription. You want some kind of handle or strategy or action to engage in. But all of that itself is the problem. No such strategy or meditation or prescription or activity is needed. Nor is merely having or repeating the thought or idea that "all is one" is needed either. Clearly, you have profoundly misunderstood this entire matter. So therfore, of course none of these things that you have mentioned are going to solve your dilemmna. It is only you who thinks such things as repeating the thought or idea that "all is one". You need to understand that all such strategies are basically useless and ineffective to reach the gooal you desire, and morover, they are duality re-inforcing, and in this particular case, rather absurd. What gave you the ridiculous idea and notion that you should just simply and merely repeat a thought or an idea of "all is one"? No wonder you don't get it!

But before I end this comment, let me please emphasize that I am not trying to criticise you here at all. I am only directing you to clearly see and to really understand your critical mistake... so that you can correct it and thus release yourself from the intellectual trap, the very paradox that you are now creating and perpetuating for yourself. Until you actually abandon all of these erroneous ideas and faulty strategies that you have acquired and that you hold on to and engage in, you will remain bereft of the direct experience and the spiritual goal that you so desperatly seek, and thus the awakened undertanding of both your self and the nature of existence.

[Osho Robbins]

Tao is correct.
Tao is not Osho Robbins.
I am Osho Robbins.
But who is this 'I'?

Adam,
You are falling into the same trap that most people fall into.
You are seeking an answer.
You are attempting to achieve.

If you want truth - effort is not required.
You don't have to go anywhere or do anything.

Simply allow your eyes to open and you will realise truth.

Truth is already the case. You don'thave to achieve it. It is simply discovered.

The idea that there is a YOU who needs to DO something is the ONLY barrier.

You have too many concepts.

All concepts are lies.

Learn to just BE. There is no method or technique because I am not asking you to DO anything. BEING is not doing.

Being means allowing being to happen.

You are always being. But then you enter into the mind and start to take charge of the process.

Don't take charge. Forget everything. Learn to simply be an idiot. Be a fool. Drop all understanding - all struggle.

Suddenly you will laugh at the world and what you used to be.

All avhievement is pointless. All experience meaningless.

Why do you want to experience ONENESS?

For what purpose?

You have a DESIRE and there is a YOU doing the desiring.

I am saying this 'YOU' is not real.

Just let life happen.

And I am not saying become a witness.

Because if I say that - you have again created struggle by making my statement into a method.

I am not giving you any method.

I am simply pointing to the moon.

If you see the moon all struggle ends instantly.

If you seek the moon - you create struggle.

Sant mat is a path of struggle - hence it cannot lead to truth.

[the elephant]

"Tao is not Osho Robbins."

Indeed--but in both cases we get the same platitudes and naive narratives ...

[tAo]

It's pretty obvious that you must be referring to Adam and Osho's comments, but where and what exactly are these so-called platitudes that you say are in MY comment? Where are these so-called "plaitudes" in MY own comment mr. wise-ass elephant? I would like to see what you consider as being "platitudes". I know very well what platitudes are and are not, so please do indicate and list the specific "platitudes" that you are referring to... otherwise your assertion must necessarily fall into the category of just being more of your typically baseless rubbish and trite one-uping ego game.

Do let us see exactly... What exactly are you referring to as being platitudes in my comment?

[tAo]

Osho Robbins,

Well said!

[tAo]

The definition of "platitude":

A trite or banal remark or statement, especially one expressed as if it were original or significant or profound. A trite or commmonplace expression or idea; a cliche, a stereotype, a truism. An expression lacking in originality.

[Adam]

I woke up this morning, and realized that I am done going through whatever process I was going through by incessantly posting to this site for the last five months. Peace y'all, happy travels.

[tAo]

Ahh yes Adam... run run run away as soon as your paradox of duality finally gets cornered and nailed. How predictable, and how unfortunate too... unfortunate that you have veered away from a point of clarity, understanding, and completion, and just when we were getting down to the real nitty gritty and brass tacks of your dilemma. Better luck next time.

[osho robbins]

Tao,
Almost everyone does what Adam is doing.
As soon as the going gets tough....
the tough get going...

Very few people have the courage to stand and confront their beliefs.

As soon as their comfortable beliefs are questioned and ready to shatter - they quickly pick up the pieces and run - taking with them the remains of the beliefs.

I have been there too... was an ardent follower of RS.

RS was the truth - there was no question of any other possibility. If I met a doubter - I just felt sorry for them - just like a christian will pray for you if you are a non-believer.

Then one day it all shattered. I had the face the most uncomfortable truth - that perhaps my whole life I had been deluded and all my achievements were worthless and my life meaningless.

For many years I spoke to those who said they were interested in truth - only to realise they are only interested in the IDEA of truth - not truth itself.

Truth may not be convenient - but most people seek a convenient truth.

They want truth - provided the truth agrees with their own preconceived ideas of it.

write to me on my email - would love to have a more in depth chat with you
[email protected]

[Adam]

tAo and Osho,
I am not running away. I actually found points is both your posts vital, especially tAo's point (reworded by Osho) that
"You need to understand that all such strategies are basically useless and ineffective to reach the goal you desire, and morover, they are duality re-inforcing"

BUT, I have no plans to stop meditating. Though I don't think tAo would necessarily say to meditate or not meditate--it's more a point about attitude, outlook, and expectations you are making, and a point that is helpful for me at this time.

My previous post, saying goodbye, simply reflects the fact that I don't see what else there is to say on this matter, and that I feel I got what I came here for.

[Osho Robbins]

Adam,

You understand the theory which is not the same as ‘getting it’.

There is a great difference. ‘Understanding’ is the booby prize.

Go deep into what you are saying. See your own contradiction and you will be free.

You say that you understand that the strategies are useless and duality reinforcing.

Then you say “I have no plans to stop meditating.”

These two statements do not go together.

Why would you continue to do something that reinforces your sense of duality?

Where did you get the idea of meditation from in the beginning?

Did you take someone’s suggestion to meditate? If so, why? Did the meditation have a purpose? Was the meditation supposed to produce some results?

If you TRULY understand that meditation is duality reinforcing – then you will just automatically stop meditating and stop all practices.

You will not even have to stop – they will just stop.

The reason that you want to continue to meditate or do any practices is because you consider they will help in your journey to truth.

You feel lost without your practices because you have done them for so long.

They just ‘feel’ right.

These discussions are not pointless if you allow them in.

If they remain ideas – then they are pointless.

If you remain open – you will get a ‘reality shift’

You will suddenly realize the truth of what is being said here.

But only if you are open. If you argue in your mind – then you get to keep the mind
And the mind gets to keep you.

[adam]

You say that you understand that the strategies are useless and duality reinforcing.

Then you say “I have no plans to stop meditating.”

OSHO,
what you are saying feels true and false to me. Isn't it possible to meditate without expectation?
You say it was suggested to me...

But every one of my actions, even the un-selfconscious ones are traceable and conditioned, and so are yours. I just don't feel that and end to duality would necessarily mean a cessation of certain practices. What if you sincerely are not trying to "get anywhere" in meditation, but just doing it?

[Osho Robbins]

Adam,
You wrote: what you are saying feels true and false to me. Isn't it possible to meditate without expectation?

What I am saying IS true, and it is also false.

Isn’t it possible to meditate without expectation?

Sure, it is POSSIBLE – but not probable.

How many things do you do in your life without any motive at all?

If you do an act of charity – it is to feel better about yourself.
If you go for a walk – it is to enjoy the walk.

If you meditate – and you do it without expectation, why do you still
call it meditation?

It will no longer be meditation. It will just be living each moment.

It will not be a practice. You will not sit down. You will not make
a decision to meditate.

Meditation is part of duality. You are deciding to DO IT or NOT DO IT.

There is no decision to make. Just live. If in the process of living
you just happen to sit down and enjoy a few quiet moments – why is
that called meditation? It is just relaxing – just part of living.

If this is what you mean by meditation – then you are right. Then there is
no motive – no reason – no expectation.

If you are not trying to get anywhere – all practices will cease. Because you have already arrived.

Do you still keep driving once you have arrived at your destination?

Sure – you can still go for a country drive – but that is not the same as the driving to get to a destination.

Yes is it POSSIBLE to meditate without a motive. But it cannot be a struggle – it will be a total joy – and you will not call it meditation because it will be so different from what you used to call meditation.

The Buddha said “Take a begging bowl and knock on a door. Just stand there. If you are given something – say thank you. If you are not given anything – then say thank you.”

Make sure that the second thank you is as real and sincere as the first.

When you can do this – you have arrived.

Encompass everything as a gift. Life is a gift. Each moment is a gift. Even the challenges are a gift.

If you can see meditation as a gift in this way – then you have arrived. But then there is no decision to be made. “To meditate or not to meditate – that is the question.”

Then mediation will disappear – never to be seen again – all that will remain is life. To sit down and relax – that will be the new meditation. Why will you repeat some mantra or even try to still the mind? For what reason? All reasons will disappear.

[tAo]

Adam says:

"I am not running away." -- But you said you were leaving.

"I have no plans to stop meditating." -- Which means that you do have plans to continue meditating. You are choosing to engage in and perform meditation.

"it's more a point about ... a point that is helpful for me at this time." -- Why should it be helpful? That sounds very goal oriented. Why do you need help? And what help do you need? And help to achieve what?

"I don't see what else there is to say on this matter, and that I feel I got what I came here for." -- Then why continue seeking and searching? And why meditate? Performing and engaging in meditation artifically, is seeking and spiritual goal oriented, and thus predicated upon duality. So what did you get here?

=====

Adam says:

"Isn't it possible to meditate without expectation?" -- If you have no expectation, then why are you meditating? Don't you see that your rational is faulty? If you have no expectations, then what and why are you seeking? Artificial meditation is seeking for something, for some result, for some gain. Why else would you engage in and perform meditation? If you were not seeking for something, then there would be no necessity to contrive, to meditate.

"But every one of my actions, even the un-selfconscious ones are traceable and conditioned, and so are yours." -- How is that? How do you know that? You cannot trace anything. There is only the ever fleeting moment. You also cannot say that all others actions are conditioned. You simply don't know that about other people. So this is another example of your unexamined and unfounded presumptions and beliefs. You clearly have many ideas and presumptions and beiefs that you have not yet examined.

"I just don't feel that an end to duality would necessarily mean a cessation of certain practices." -- What are these "practices" for then? What is your motivation to engage in so-called "practices"? Have you examined your motivation? Apparently not. nd don't ell us that you have no motivation. Because if you had no motivation, you would not engage in any "practices".

"What if you sincerely are not trying to "get anywhere" in meditation, but just doing it?" -- How are you "just doing it"? Do you mean by habit only? Habits are not exempt. Habits are originally created and sustained by goal oriented actions. What do you mean "just doing it"? Why ARE you "just doing it"? Because you are making a conscious choice to act and engage in "doing it", thats why. That conscious choice and action has a motivation behind it. What is that motivation, and what are you seeking to gain by "just doing it" as you say? Don't tell us that you are not seeking to gain anything, because if that were true then you would have NO need to be "doing it". You are doing it simply because you think and BELIEVE that there is something to be gained and achieved by doing it. Until you see that, and until you admit that, then you will continue on in your futile search for spiritual achievement, and thus remain in your duality and your dilemma.

[adam]

yo tAo,

I was leaving, but I couldn't just let you and Osho call me a wuss, now could I ;)

What you said was helpful because it changed my mood and perspective a little. That to me is help.

Yes tAo, I admit it openly. I BELIEVE that meditation has GREAT, ENORMOUS, UNPARALLELED value, and I hope to gain a lot from it, equanimity, peace of mind, detachment, love.

[Roger]

Adam and Osho,

My little exposure to RSSB, is through some Internet searches, I began some 2 1/2 years ago. My original Internet search was the 'Nutritional' aspects of a certain food group. A 'satsang group' giving diet information was one of the sources that I retreived from this intitial Internet search. I was curious, so I opened up that site and began to read. This lead to opening other simiilar sites and my continued readings. After, a few reading sessions, my Internet searches came across this Churchless site. I began to ask questions on this blog and continued to read. My reading kinda stopped roughly a year ago. However, I still enjoy coming to this Churchless site.

I have some questions.

As part of RSSB or Sant Mat. Were you given specific informations as to the purpose of RSSB Meditation? Were you given some kind of instructions as to how to carry out your meditations? Is there a process of discussing your progress in your meditiations?

Does the Guru help in explaining any issues that might come up in ones meditation? If so, why all the confusion?

Again no big deal.....

[Osho Robbins]

Roger,
Are you ready for the answers?
The purpose of the meditation is to withdraw the soul from the body (called - dying while living) and to take it to Sach Khand - the supreme region. There it will enjoy eternal bliss in the presence of the supreme being (called Sat Purush - make sure you remember his name - you wouldn't want to to piss him off).
THe current master (Gurinder) kinda changed it all by mixing up enlightenment with the older teachings. He changed a lot of the older teachings (but will not admit to this if questioned).
He says the regions are a metaphor - not literal and the goal is to realise the ONE.

The answer to questions about meditation is to meditate more. Good answer!

Unless of course he meets an idiot like me - and then he says - if you don't want to meditate - that is up to you.

[Roger]

Osho,

Thanks for your reply,

From your answer, I can understand the confusion, a beginning follower of Gurinder, might have. If the follower has questions or concerns regarding their meditations, there appears to be little if any guidance from the new Guru. Was this guidance style the same of Charan?

As far as answers are concerned, this is a blog, for One to write comments and ask questions.

I enjoy asking questions and reading answers. Nothing more.

Again........no big deal.....

[tAo]

Roger,

You said you have some questions. You asked other folks, but here is what I have to tell you, having had over 30 years of familiarity as well as extensive knowledge and experience with santmat/RS:

Roger asked: "As part of RSSB or Sant Mat, Were you given specific informations as to the purpose of RSSB Meditation?"

-- The purpose that is sated and given is that, supposedly, by performing the meditation on the sound current (shabda) and visualizing light and the image of the master internally, one will be drawn up by the shabda and will be accompanied by the subtle form of the master, and will supposedly cross through and beyond all the various subtle planes and finally reach the imperishable realm that is beyond the material world and the mind, which they call sat-loka or "sach khand".

Roger asked: "Were you given some kind of instructions as to how to carry out your meditations?"

-- Yes, specific instructions on the method and procedure of the meditation and a secret mantra are given at the time of the applicants formal initiation. It is also requested that these instructions and especially the mantra are to be kept secret. The instructions are fairly specific and involve how to sit and the different phases of concentration and how and where to focus one's attention during the meditation period.

Roger asked: "Is there a process of discussing your progress in your meditiations?"

-- No, there is no such pubic discussion advised or allowed. The only thing that is allowed are direct questions put to the master at meetings of initiates at the Dera (the RS headquarters in India), and the asking of questions and advice from the master during private interviews. No other discussion about one's meditation with other initiated satsangis or non-initiate outsiders is allowed.

Roger asked: "Does the Guru help in explaining any issues that might come up in ones meditation?"

-- Yes, the guru discusses some issuses and aspects of meditation, but only at closed meetings of initiates as I indicated above.

Roger asked: "If so, why all the confusion?"

-- What confusion are you referring to? There is no confusion that I know of. There are satsangis that believe and follow the dogma and the guru-cult, and then there are those who no longer believe or follow the dogma nor believe in or need the guru. The only thing I can see that you may be referring to, is that both the un-initiated seekers, as well as the initiated 'satsangis' who do believe in and follow the dogma and the guru, are not aware of and awke to their own innate perfection and they do not understand the dualistic nature of the path and its "master" guru-cultism. Thus they continually remain trapped in the duality of the endless search for salvation/liberation/enlightenment or so-called 'union-with-god/god-realization', and therfore actualy never achieve the stated goal. So the only "confusion" there may possibly exist would necessarily have to be the confusion of the seekers and the dogmatic initiates, and not of any EX-satsangis who are not confused at all.

[Roger]

Hi Tao,

Thanks for your reply,

my good 61 year old biker dude friend.

Did you mean to say, "Roger asked."

[Adam]

tAo,

All of you "Adam asks" in the previous post should have been "Roger asks"

[Adam]

Roger,
I can confirm what tAo and Osho have written, that at the time of initiation, the initiate is given detailed instructions as to how to meditate, for how long, where to focus within the body, etc.

The purpose of the meditation, as the other have written, is to withdrawl all the attention from the body to the eye center, of the energy center behind the space between your eyes, and from there, the audible sound current, when listened to with attention, pulls the meditator up into a state of being that is supposed to be at one with everything...

[tucson]

Having extensive experience with RSSB I can vouch for the accuracy of Tao's explanations regarding certain issues Roger inquired about.

Osho Robbins stated: "He (Gurinder) says the regions are a metaphor - not literal and the goal is to realise the ONE."

--This is an interesting departure from the teachings promulgated by Seth Shiv Dayal, Jaimal, Sawan, Jagat, and Charan. By making the above statement, Gurinder is essentially refuting the teachings of his lineage where it is clearly stated that these regions do, in fact, exist. Not only that, but at initiation descriptions of certain features, lights and sounds unique to each of these regions are given to the initiate as "guideposts" for their inner progress.

Is Gurinder saying that the initiation instructions given by HIS guru are metaphorical and therefore not really true? Perhaps Gurinder, the perfect master, and the entire path are a metaphor, purely symbolic. Is that next?

Satsangis...just who is this Gurinder Singh Dillon? A heretic? Does he want to come clean but can't? It seems he would like to wear shorts and hawaiian shirts all the time, but protocol as a model Sikh and Param Sant Satguru prevents this. He can't show up on the dais at bhandara in jeans and a Pink Floyd T-shirt, but he CAN say the fundamental RSSB teachings are metaphorical?

Why not end the charade once and for all, Gurinder? No, the family business has gotten far too big and prosperous for that. There's no turning back.

[Osho Robbins]

A few years back - I went to Haynes Park (The UK main centre) on a seva day. The Master was visiting and I only went to chat with him on the mic (err, I mean ask a question).
The session went like this (not exact)
Me: My God is Here - not in Sach Khand.
G: My God is also here
Me: But the books say that Sat Purush lives in Sach Khand - the fifth region
G: Burn the books.
Me: Okay, I will burn them - but let me clarify: The books say that we have to go through the first four regions and then we reach Sach Khand.
G: It is not a literal journey. We do not go anywhere. It is just a way of explaining. The regions are levels of consciousness - not real places.

This was the first time I had heard him give such a clear response.

Another time someone asked him about the inner sky and stars. He said: Do you know if someone hits you on the dead - we say - I saw stars. These are the same stars. It is no big deal.

Another time someone said "Why do you keep saying that you are not coming at the time of death? When others masters said they are coming?"
G: Try to understand what I am saying. Who is going to come? When there is only one?
The master and the disciple are not two. There is only one. Who is going to come if there is only one?

Someone once asked him about Osho and his commentary on Japji Sahib. Gurinder said it was a very deep commentary if you can understand it.

Pretty interesting comments since Osho is talking about enlightenment and contradicts almost everything that RSSB would say.

Gurinder is definately changing the teachings - but then he says "I am saying nothing new."

He is clearly moving away from the traditional teachings but has not yet had the courage to turn up for satsang without a turban and clean shaven, smoking a cigar wearing a T-shirt and jeans.

He has done some pretty radical things - but he also does a lot of the same rituals like looking at the sangat - apparently giving drishti.

Maybe one day he will drop all the protocol and formalities and just relax.

He is after all the Master - and can do whatever he chooses - according to sant mat teachings. Why not just relax and drop all the rituals?

[tAo]

Roger,

Thanks. And yes is that is correct. Yes I did indeed mean to say "Roger asked", instead of "Adam asked". I guess I somehow wrote Adam on the very first one, and then copied and pasted the rest that way too. I did not catch my mistake before posting. Sorry about that. Maybe Brian would be kind enough to correct and change them all to read "Roger asked" just so that any future readers will not get confused. Thanks

[Roger]

Tao, Adam, Tucson and Osho,

Thanks for the above comments.

Much interesting information to digest.

It would be interesting to discuss issues 'in general' with someone that was initiated, say, some 35 plus years ago.

This person would still be devoted to the Sant Mat path, adhereing to the diet, meditating as instructed, and sincere in their purpose.
This person obviously would have been initiated during the time of Charan. This person's beginning devotion would have been seeded with Charan.

I wonder what this person is thinking today.

Over the many years, what does this person think of Gurinder? Does his/her devotion remain with Charan, or does it transfer to the current guru?

Over the many years, what does this person think of the need to keep their experiences in meditation a secret?

There might be some interesting conversations with such person.

Again...no big deal.....I am not trying to join up.....

[Adam]

Roger,
if you are really curious to talk to some long-initiated, devoted satsangis, I could put you in touch with a few, as I am sure many others on this site could.
my email is
[email protected]

[Brian]

Roger, I am that person. Or, I was. For about 33 years your description fit me almost perfectly.

Followed the vows. Meditated diligently. Was a strict vegetarian. All that stuff.

Initiated by Charan Singh. Went to India to see him. Transferred devotion to Gurinder Singh. Saw him numerous times. Went to India again. All that stuff.

Did huge amounts of seva (volunteer service). Served as sangat secretary and satsang speaker for decades. All that stuff.

I may not be a typical person of whom you inquired. But for sure I'm one.

[Roger]

Brian and Adam,

This person would still be devoted to the SantMat path. Not someone that would be classified as the so-called Ex-satsangi.

Hopefully, this person would be someone that you, Tucson, Osho, Tao, and Adam would
know of.

In addition, this person would have an interest in Blogging and writing a comment here. With no requirement to engage in any fierce debate.

I'm just curious. This is a small hobby for me. I'm not on any divine mission.

[Brian]

Roger, I understand your desire to interact with a "real" satsangi. But when you've believed in something wholeheartedly, you haven't lost touch with those beliefs. You just see them in a different light.

I can still argue as a faithful satsangi just as well as I did before. Maybe even better. Because now I'm more familiar with the arguments of skeptics, since I am one.

So I don't think you'd get a better argument in favor of Sant Mat principles from a true believer, than you would from someone who used to be a true believer.

I still clearly recall how I felt for 33 years. Those recollected feelings underlie everything I write on this blog, just as every experience I've had in my life does.

[Roger]

Brian,

I understand what you are saying. Maybe, all this person could discuss, is, why they (after 35 plus years) are still a follower of the path. That could be the small difference between you and this so-called person. Hopefully, this would be a person that would not put on a 'dog and pony' show.
Someone that is truely sincere.

Again----no big deal...

[tAo]

Roger,

Both Brian, Tucson and myself fit your bill very well, except for your last requirement... which is that this person still remains a solidly devoted and practicing believer after 30 plus years. However, the problem with that requirement is that basically all long-time devoted satsangis do not, and will not, engage in any forum such as this. One reason for that is that some years back during the 90s Gurinder has issued specific edicts or instructions that all initiated satsangis are not to discuss Sant mat & RS out in public or on the internet. So that is why you don't see any really loyal initated satsangis coming to this forum. You may occasionally see a newbie pop in and oout of here, but thats usually because they are not familiar with Gurinder's instructions about discussing RS on the internet.

Another reason that its highly unlikely that you will ever be able to find someone who fits your requirement who is willing to debate about RS, is that almost all long-time and still currently devoted and practicing initiates only go to their local RS Satsangs where they gather together with other loyal practicing initiates. They are not at all inclined to debate about Sant mat and RS very much with un-initiated outsiders such as yourself. Unless you appear to realy be interested in getting initiated. They go to the Satsangs to get support and encouragement and inspiration for their meditation and thats all, thats it. Then they go back home and continue on with their daily private meditations. RS is a path of private meditation, not a path of going out in pubilc and intellectually discussing and debating about Sant mat. Initiates are supposed to have done their reseach and considerations of the Path before they get initiated. After initiation, the only discussion of Sant mat they have is with other initates during Satsang meetings or at satsangs with the master in India at the RS headquarters. There is no such outside discussion of Santmat or RS in other public places such as this blog forum. It just won't happen.

The best you can do is maybe find a local RS satsang in your area, and go attend (its open to the public) and put your questions to some long-time initiate there.But like Brian said, you will not get a broad and all encompassing view from someone like that. You will only get a narrow and parroted RS dogma. But you may still be able to ask some questions to try and find out whatever it is that you think such an individuall will be able to give you that Brian and Tucson and I can not. But good luck anyway.

[Roger]

Tao,

Thanks for another informative comment.

My 'small' hobby, only extends to this blog and a few internet searches.