« Laughing at religion | Main | Reasons for my belief (and disbelieving) »

December 07, 2008

Comments

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


Fooled once, fooled twice, Trecera vencida.

Just kidding.

One should try one's utmost to find the Living Sant Sat Guru of the time. He would, of His own Grace and Mercy, get all doubts removed and render the disciple fit to return to the Prime Abode. A lifetime spent in such a search is not wasted. Seek and keep seeking; yearn and keep yearning. Surely, the day will come when the genuine Sant Sat Guru will call you to Him. If yearning is sincere, such a feat will occur this very day.

Um, Albert, as I said in this post I did find a supposed "Living Sant Sat Guru of the time" (Charan Singh), was initiated by him, and dutifully followed his instructions almost to the letter for over thirty years.

So I don't need to keep yearning, do I?

Brian,

You mentioned,

"Yogiraj had his own "five holy names" mantra. Except, they were Greek words, not Indian."

---Brian, what is the English translation for the Greek words? Could you list them, with their meaning too?

Thanks, if you can. No big deal, if this is another confidential mantra situation.

Best wishes,
Roger

Albert, Has that genuine Sant Sat Guru called you or you are still seeking and yearning.

Roger, I can't remember the names (thankfully). Not a matter of confidentiality, just of memory.

My strange and fascinating RSSB entry and release:

In 1968 an acquaintance invited me to a satsang.

I read RS books and went to satsangs.

I requested and was initiated in 1970.

Went to India in 1974.

Went again in 1984.

Charan Singh dies in 1990.

By then I was already drifting away.

Saw Gurinder Singh in 1991.

That finished it.

Brian wrote:
> I don't need to keep yearning, do I?

It's not for nothing that Buddha's teaching gives so much focus to yearning (aka desire or wanting). Mr B says that it's the cause of suffering, worth looking into.

It's a similar process regardless of what the want is directed to. If a want appears for Ben & Jerry's Chunky Monkey ice cream, there's a tendency to robotically go out and get some. Buddha suggested a different alternative: becoming conscious of the desire itself, of the mind that wants to get something.

Yearning for the Grace and Mercy of a Living Guru is fundamentally the same as wanting ice cream. The same mind, just with a different object. SURE, the object makes a difference: desiring carrots is better for your health than desiring ice cream. But investigating the wanting mind -- the source of suffering -- isn't a matter of just finding a different thing to want.

Typically, the process works like this. I pursue my wants till it produces sufficient suffering. Perhaps the Chunky Monkey is making me uncomfortably overweight, or my Living Guru is found to have a Swiss bank account and is boinking teenagers. The suffering makes me dispair of ever getting enough of what I desire; this somehow motivates me to examine the original cause of suffering in my own thinking.

Finally, a purely logical point. WHATEVER happens in life, we can always find a string of highly unlikely events that led up to it. The fact that I bought a particular box of granola is dependent on all sorts of different factors, leading the granola to be right there on the shelf at eye-level as I passed by.

Zillions of things happen to us everyday. Many of those things are unlikely; the secret is VOLUME. Hell, by the math alone, we can expect at least one miraculously unlikely thing to occur per month. In the great majority of cases, we don't pay enough attention to examine the unlikelyhood of events. When we focus on anything -- not excluding meeting a Guru -- we're bound to find miraculous coincidences.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm

I like Stuart's comment, like many he puts up here.

It's hard not to want. Even wanting not to want is a want. What to do? Just let the wanting go its merry way.

Coming from what was a Christian religious viewpoint, this whole idea of finding a god-man teacher master and staying with that personage is hard to relate to. In Christianity there is the belief Christ will come again but when he does, there would be no looking around wondering who he was. Many would believe god is within us and in New Age there is more of that thinking that we are all divine but you wouldn't go looking for somebody else in that event as it'd be within you.

I have never had the kind of experience of wanting this divine mentor here on earth where you would evidently study with them forever? In Christianity, you would find a teacher here or there but none are divine and not likely people would stay with one for a lifetime. Nor would they tell anybody what to do in terms of say jobs or who to marry or whatever a master (who was on a god level) might be able to tell you.

Probably I have been too much of a skeptic to ever really accept a divine person living on earth. As was mentioned above, they often show their human side more than the divine at some point.

Pagans (which is what I call myself) don't really look for anything like that in someone else, but might enjoy a group experience of drumming and dancing naked around a bonfire on say a Solstice. I haven't ever done that because really stay out of all religions at this point, but hear it's a neat experience but no gods there... hopefully no police either *s*

I hesitated to write this because I don't want to be putting down what others believe or benefits them. It sounds like it is a need in some maybe? I used to think finding a mentor would be nice but I can't imagine wanting to find a master... of that sort anyway.

Rain wrote:

"In Christianity there is the belief Christ will come again but when he does, there would be no looking around wondering who he was."

--I wonder why the first time he was unrecognisable to many, and the second time would be different?

"I have never had the kind of experience of wanting this divine mentor here on earth where you would evidently study with them forever?

--In RSSB the guru, who is supposed to be God in human form, takes you to God in God's Godly form which is formless and then his job is done. In Christianity don't you go to heaven and "dwell in the house of the Lord forever"? Isn't Jesus supposed to be there too, forever? Christians seem to like the idea of hanging out with Jesus forever. That's a good thing isn't it?

"Probably I have been too much of a skeptic to ever really accept a divine person living on earth."

--Didn't you believe Jesus lived on earth and was divine?

Sorry. Just being a smart-ass. Don't take it to heart.

Well considering I left religion as such and in particular organized Christianity and therefore am only talking about what it taught, I don't take offense; and yes, they would believe that. The reason you'd not have to wonder this go round is he's supposed to be out of the sky with catastrophic events, like the ultimate war.

You know I believed a lot of things at one time that fit with it because I thought I needed to experience that and I did. Then came a time when it quit making sense to me. That's why I don't 'put down' what others believe because I know what I once believed-- or did I say I did and try to make myself? That's a question I cannot answer. Fortunately I don't try to. I do though really know what Christians believe because of 30 years into that thinking.

Here's something weird. In the comments above, I wrote (at 2:32pm) about how miraculous coincidences are inevitable in ordinary life. In the same comment, I wrote about wanting-mind, using as an example the desire "for Ben & Jerry's Chunky Monkey ice cream."

Immediately after posting this, I got an email alerting me to a comment on my own blog, which had been written at 2:26pm. It was written by someone I'd never met virtually or otherwise. The screen name that this commenter used was "Chunky Munky."

Is this an example of the frequency of random coincidence? Or evidence of a Divine Force controling the world, mocking me for questioning its omniscience? It's beyond my pay grade to say for sure which it is... but if I had to wager hard-earned money, I know which side I'd bet on.

Stuart

You know in Christianity, Jesus's teachings are really secondary to the sacrifice. The cross is what is at the heart of Christianity which is how you get so many calling themselves Christians today who don't really even know what he taught...

I wonder if the disillusionment felt by initiates on the path comes from a reaction of their shadow selves. They then project their repressed feelings onto the teacher, the Master.

Extracts from “Illuminating the Shadow …”:

http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/zweig.html

…In psychology, the dark side of human nature is often described as the alter ego, the id, or the lower self. The great Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung called it the "shadow." By shadow, he meant the negative side of the personality, the sum total of all those unpleasant qualities that we would prefer to hide.

…A loss of faith… people in the New Age or counter-culture — people who have been really involved in spirituality and Eastern philosophy — have had experiences in which either their teachers or their communities broke their hearts in some way.

…There is an enemy-maker in each of us. We make enemies of the people we love the most and the people we know the least. We talked earlier about projection. There is a part of us that attributes to groups an us-and-them quality. They are unacceptable because they are not wealthy or they are not educated or they are not the right color or whatever it is. This is an aspect of the shadow erupts and turns people into the other, into the enemy.

…As repugnant as the idea may seem, we need enemies.

…Midlife seems to be a crucial turning point for many people.

…Carl Jung used to talk about "holding the tension of the opposites" as a basis for working with the shadow.

I have read somewhere the zen masters practice ‘eating their shadow’ – which they do by behaving unconventionally.

zenjen, I think you're over-analyzing. It's simple. Disillusionment comes from giving up an illusion. That's a positive truth-affirming act. It has nothing to do with a "shadow self" in my experience.

Disillusionment is what happens when reality breaks through fantasy, denial, imagination, wishful thinking. It's a mature response to life -- not always pleasant, but who says truth is supposed to be 100% fun?

Zenjen,

I can only speak for myself, but my departure from Sant Mat was not bitter or out of disillusionment or failure, although I admit I never made it to Banwar Gupha and the rotating cave or even Mansorovar where dweeps of hansas dwell in ecstasy far beyond the ills that plague this coarse and noisome realm of Pind.

This is not to say I claim a superior vantage point. It is more like I have no vantage point at all or need one. I have seen there is no vantage point that can be acquired. Who could there be to acquire it? That which would acquire anything is just another passing phantom, idea or memory.

It was more like shedding an old skin I didn't need anymore. It just sloughed away. Something had changed and Sant Mat wasn't part of it.

Still, the object "tucson" carries on with his activities and the various ups and downs as perceived according to his mood of the day.

Brian and Tucson,

Thanks, I like your responses.

Being stubborn, I'm still going to hang onto my dream of becoming a hansa dwelling in ecstasy. This world is so boring. What is reality anyway?

I think this world is an illusion and becoming more aware and in tune with my inner self I hope to break through this illusion one fine day.

Cheers

Here's my own RSSB affiliation story:

Late 1960s thru early 1970s -- I was drawn and traveled to Morocco, the Mediterranean and the Middle East, and then on to Iran, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Afghanistan, and back again to India. I continued to live and travel all about India and the Himalayas as a serious yogi/sadhu/sannyasi for a few years. I visited many ashrams and met and hung out with many yogis, sadhus, swamis, gurus, and sages... some well known and others more obscure.

Early 1970s -- Later on, after I returned to America, I eventually briefly rented a room in a guys house in N.W. Washington DC. He was a serious macrobiotic and also a serious RS satsangi. He told me a wee bit about Sant Mat, but since I'd already done some very heavy mystic-tantric-yogi-sadhu tripping in India for a few years, I wasn't all that much interested in another rather big and organized authoritarian guru trip like Radha Soami.

Mid 1970s -- Then I happened to come across a book about RS Sant Mat (I believe it was Radha Soami Teachings by Puri) in the library at the house of a lady friend where I was a roommate in the hills of Berkeley, California. I read the book, and curiously I also vibed with the photo in the front of the book of Sawan Singh, who was affectionately called "Great Master".

Mid 1970s -- Then I met some satsangi women (back in Washington DC again) who all urged and invited me to attend the RS satsang there. Although maybe they just liked me because I was 'spiritual' and a single guy. So anyway, I went with them to Virginia and we saw a long silent video of a Charan Singh darshan... but I was not at all impressed. In fact, I was terribly bored, and I also felt that these people (all of the satsangis at the meeting) were spiritually immature neophytes. I just couldn't wait to leave.

Same time period 1970s -- But then I later hooked-up with one of the satsangi women - she was from South Africa and was going through a divorce from an American CIA agent. I moved in with her and stayed for awhile, and while there, I read juts about all of the many RS books in her large collection of RS literature. This gave me a pretty comprehensive understanding of the RS teaching, cosmology, and practice.

Same time period 1970s -- Then I finally decided to go ahead and simply submit an application for the RS inititation (which I did)... mostly because even though I had already read all of the RS books, I was curious to find out the so-called secret simran mantra and also the particulars of the meditation technique & practice.

Same time period 1970s -- Some several months passed and I was then sailing and living on a sailboat down in Key West, Florida. While there, I finally received a letter from the east coast RS representative (who btw was quite into eastern philosophy) by the name of Mr. Hank Weekly. The letter said that I had been accepted for initiation by Charan Singh, and that I should go soon to St Petersburg, Florida to be formally initiated. So I drove up from Key West on the appointed date and was duly initiated.

1982 -- By this time I had moved to and was living in Santa Cruz, California. By chance I met another woman satsangi (a doctor who also became my wife). We started living together, and then went together to the Dera to stay for several months beginning in January 1984. We also subsequently attended various satsangs and bhandaras around California, but gradually less and less frequently.

Early 1990 -- Years had passed, and then we finally decided to return once again to the Dera in Februrary 1990. We again stayed at the Dera for a few months, met personally with Charan a couple more times, and then finally left the Dera in April and went south and toured all of south India. Charan then soon passed away in early June 1990.

1990s -- After returning from India, and after Charan passed on, we completely ceased going to RS satsangs. The only one exception was when the new guru-successor Gurinder Singh first came to San Francisco in about 1991, I believe. Upon seeing and hearing him speak, I was extremely uninpressed with Gurinder, and after that we became quite disillusioned with the RS path, its dogma, its very cultish satsangis, and its organization... and so I/we did not have any further involvement with RS from that time on.

And so... "That finished it."


Brian, you write in response to ZenJen's comment:

"zenjen, I think you're over-analyzing."

Do you realize this is the very defense your faithful Sant Mat friends throw at you at your Sunday coffee talks when they say you "think too much"?...

As a yogi tAo must have mastered the art of duplicity!

tAo wrote:
"Late 1960s thru early 1970s -- I was drawn and traveled to Morocco, the Mediterranean and the Middle East, and then on to Iran, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Afghanistan, and back again to India. I continued to live and travel all about India and the Himalayas as a serious yogi/sadhu/sannyasi for a few years. I visited many ashrams and met and hung out with many yogis, sadhus, swamis, gurus, and sages... some well known and others more obscure.

Early 1970s -- Later on, after I returned to America, ..."

tAo wrote:
"However, btw, I DO "know a whole lot about science and the scientific method"... because I just happen to have earned two PhDs, doctorates in two separate scientific fields (Psychology, and also Physics & Electronic Engineering) during the late 1960s and early 1970s - one from Stanford Univ. and the other from Princeton Univ. - so don't even bother trying to say or imply that I am somehow not familiar with science... or to try to bullshit and skirt your way around this issue again Marcel. You just don't have the 'right stuff'."

Back to the elephant:
today a Ph.D. in Electric Eng. in Princeton (takes at about 4-5 years and mostly everywhere else but I know first hand about Princeton since a friend of mine took 5 years to finish his a few years back). Perhaps the requirements were far less in the late 60s.


ADam, you're right: I enjoy analyzing. What I objected to in zenjen's comment was the Jungian interpretation. I don't resonate with talk of shadows and such. That's what I meant by over-analyzing.

It's sort of like when people say, "Whenever we don't like something in somebody else, it's really something in our self that we don't like."

Well, maybe. But it seems simpler to say, "I don't like X because he cheats people." Or, "He murdered someone." I've never murdered anyone. So how is it, from a shadow perspective, that I can dislike something in someone else that isn't part of me?

Maybe because a like is just a like, and a dislike is just a dislike. We can get more complicated than that, but I'm not wise enough to go there.

Brian,

The understanding I have gained from reading about Jungian psychology and the shadow lead me to believe that stating "Whenever we don't like something in somebody else, it's really something in our self that we don't like" and accusing someone of being a murderer (or gay) because he doesn't like a murderer(or gay sexuality) is a new-agey and often intentional oversimplification (read bastardization) of the whole concept of the shadow. It is twisted and perverted in this manner all the time to justify all sorts of personal judgments or throw out the whole concept. Unfortunately, this puts people off exploring the real potential of personal, institutional, and even national awareness possible from reflecting on a more in-depth study of the shadow and perception.

In my metaphysical/spiritual readings over the years I have sometimes read that a "saint" casts no shadow . . . and while some, interestingly and perhaps strangely, have taken this to mean no physical shadow, I believe it refers to something else and have enjoyed contemplating this.

Thanks Brian for sharing (and Tucson & Tao)

Stuart - as usual, I really resonated with your 1st post, and laughed out loud to the 2nd!!

Whatever the 'real' explanation to that coincidence/synchronicity, they really, really do fascinate don't they??

Rain, given our upcoming freezing Oregon weather, probably naked dancing, drumming, and such around a bonfire to celebrate a solstice would be best in June, wouldn't it?

If I'm invited to a winter event, hopefully I can wear a coat. (But I'd still want the women to be naked; females have a higher body fat percentage, so they'd keep warmer. And if they were good looking, I'd be hot too.)

*laughing* I think you have a good point there, Brian. It would take hearty pagans at best, wouldn't it...

Hello Brian and all Churchless friends,

This is my story.

I live in Mangalore - a semi-urban town in South India. At the age of 17 (exactly 17 years ago for I am now 34), I had a tremendous sense of insecurity or curiousity (call it what you may). So I started reading spiritual books of spiritual Gurus. In my place, there are spiritual Gurus on almost any street.

But I was largely impressed by three spiritual Gurus -- Osho Rajaneesh, Swami Vivekananda and Sawan Singh (Radha Soami Satsang, Beas). I came to know about Radha Soami Satsang through my neighbour who used to say that Gurinder was God-incarnate although I had my own doubts.

Later, when I went to Mumbai satsang, I began talking to several rustic satsangis (somehow I had the impression that God talks only to simple people who are not encumbered by great philosophies. I found that the system works only on faith (which I didn't have). So I went about the business of cultivating faith. But one of the rustic satsangi told me that all my doubts would be resolved on the day of my initiation.

And, believe it or not, it did. On December 2000 when I was initiated by Babaji (GSD), I did see a beam of light coming out of his third eye. I swear I am not lying.

Today, I am skeptical about the entire philosophy. But I do believe that something happened that day. It may be my faith or it may be the power of the Guru. I really don't know.

Yoga (Application) which was based on the control of the body physically and implied that a perfect control over the body and the senses led to knowledge of the ultimate reality. A detailed anatomical knowledge of the human body was necessary to the advancement of yoga and therefore those practising yoga had to keep in touch with medical knowledge. (Romila Thapar, A History of India, volume one).

I suggest : Mind and brain are two distinct things. Brain is anatomical entity whereas mind is functional entity. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous system (ANS). It is claimed that mind can be brought under conscious control through the practice of meditation. But how? ANS is largely under hypothalamic control which is situated very close to optic chiasma (sixth chakra or ajna chakra). Protracted practice of concentration to meditate at this region brings functions of ANS say mind under one’s conscious control. It is, therefore, claimed that the Surat Sabda Yoga which is practised by the followers of the Radhasoami Faith is the best form of meditation. It is in fact 3-in-1.

ANS is further divided into parasympathetic nervous system (PSNS) and sympathetic nervous system (SNS). On the basis of these facts I have discovered a mathematical relationship for spiritual quotient (S.Q.). Spiritual Quotient can be expressed mathematically as the ratio of Parasympathetic dominance to Sympathetic dominance. PSNS dominates during meditative calm and SNS dominates during stress. In this formula we assign numerical values to the physiological parameters activated or suppressed during autonomic mobilization and put in the formula to describe the state of mind of an individual and also infer his/her level of consciousness.

Meditation is the art of looking within and science of doing nothing. We don’t use anything in meditation. We just try to concentrate to meditate at some point in human anatomy known as ‘chakra’ in Indian System of Yoga. The current of mind is flowing outward through the senses and unconsciously. The mind comes at rest gradually through regular practice of meditation. Then comes self realization and enlightenment. Protracted practice of meditation under qualified guidance will help to manage all sort of psychological problems.

Emotional Quotient can also be expressed mathematically as the product of I.Q. and Wisdom Factor. E.Q. stands for Emotional Quotient. An intelligent person may not be wise. But a wise man will always be intelligent. An intelligent person having certain level of positive emotions can be said as wise. An intelligent person lacking wisdom will turn autocrat. A wise man will always be a democrat who respects others existence.

Some may raise doubt that how could be the Wisdom quantified? The answer is simple -if Mental Age of I.Q. can be quantified then Wisdom can also be quantified, of course, comparatively with more efforts. Wilhelm Stern had given the formula of I.Q.. It is, Mental Age/ Chronological Age x 100. Spiritual Quotient (S.Q.) leverages both E.Q. and I.Q.


Excerpt from "The Yoga of Physics" by Fritjof Capra, his keynote address at the Los Angels symposium on Physics and Metaphysics, on October 29, 1977 is given below for reference.

"What is the nature and origin of the universe? what is space? what is time? Throughout the ages men and women have been fascinated by these questions. Different approaches have been developed in different cultural contexts and at different times."

"We shall look at modern Western science, on the one hand , and Eastern mysticism - particularly the tradition of Yoga - on the other. We shall see that they lead to very similar views of the world."

"My field is Physics, a science which, in the 20th century, has led to a radical revision of many of our basic concepts of reality."

"In the Yoga tradition it is said that there are many paths, all leading to spiritual knowledge and Self-Realization. I believe that modern physics, to some extent, can be such a path. Its view of the universe is in harmony with those of the great yogis and sages. In that sense, I'm going to talk of the Yoga of Physics."

A very detailed and elaborate descrption of the universe is available in the religion of saints particularly Radha Soami Faith.

Radha Soami Faith is a branch of Religion of Saints like Kabir, Nanak, Paltu, Soamiji Maharaj and others. You may call It a New Wine in Old Bottle. We should not expect any miracle overnight.

In this discussion, it appears, that experts from various disciplines are participating someone of course from psychology. He /she can understand my views more clearly.

Maslow has given Hierarchy of Needs. At the top of it is need for self-actualization or self-realization.

In our society we should learn To Live and Let Live and help to satisfy others need. When the lower order needs, physiological and sociological both, are satisfied then only a person think to satisfy need for self-realization in true sense. Else he/she may spend all his/her life to satisfy at the most the for self-expression instead of self-realization.

It is, therefore, the duty of every responsible person, at the least, of our society to give serious thought over it.

For the satisfaction of need for self-realization i.e. establishment of harmony of individual consciousness with that of universal consciousness we need following three things:

1. Mater or Guru (A Self-Realized Soul)
2. Secret of Levels of Universal Consciousness
3. Method for traversing the path.

Radha Soami Faith may provide best comprehensive package.

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi wrote: "a perfect control over the body and the senses led to knowledge of the ultimate reality."

-- Incorrect. Many persons have great contol over the body and senses, but unfortunately have NOT automatically achieved any "knowledge of the ultimate reality." And furthermore, there can be NO such "knowledge of ultimate reality" as it was/is implied.


Anirudh Kumar Satsangi wrote: "It is claimed that mind can be brought under conscious control through the practice of meditation."

-- The all-important keyword here is "claimed". A claim is merely a conjecture, it is NOT a proven fact. Most of the adherents of the various belief systems such as this, They do NOT assert established proven facts. But yet they assume that others should accept their claims AS facts. This is faulty reasoning.


Anirudh Kumar Satsangi wrote: "It is, therefore, claimed that the Surat Sabda Yoga which is practised by the followers of the Radhasoami Faith is the best form of meditation."

-- Again, the main keyword here is "claimed", but also "Faith" as well. There is simply NO established proven facts that "the Radhasoami Faith is the best form of meditation". None whatsoever. So it is indeed merely a "Faith".


Anirudh Kumar Satsangi wrote: "In this formula we assign numerical values to the physiological parameters activated or suppressed during autonomic mobilization and put in the formula to describe the state of mind of an individual and also infer his/her level of consciousness."

-- The "state of mind of an individual" can NOT ever be reduced to a mere simple formula. And it is absolutely absurd and foolish to even try to do so.


Anirudh Kumar Satsangi wrote: "Meditation is the art of looking within and science of doing nothing."

-- "looking within" what? And how is "doing nothing" a science? This is an absurd idea. And no one can ever 'do nothing'. Life is constant change and activity. There is simply NO such thing as "doing nothing"... much less being a "science". This is just another example of absurd pseudo-spiritual mumbo-jumbo, being presented as a "science". It is pseudo-science, or rather, it is NO science.


Anirudh Kumar Satsangi wrote: "The current of mind is flowing outward through the senses and unconsciously. The mind comes at rest gradually through regular practice of meditation."

-- Incorrect. The very nature of the mind is such that it NEVER comes to rest. The very nature of the mind is activity and change and duality... mind is transitory. Mind can never ever be "at rest". And moreover, in reality, there is NO mind. So this assertion of: "mind comes at rest gradually through regular practice of meditation", is fundamentally false.


Anirudh Kumar Satsangi wrote: "Then comes self realization and enlightenment."

-- There is NO such thing as "self realization and enlightenment". For WHO is there to gain "self realization and enlightenment" ???


Anirudh Kumar Satsangi wrote: "meditation under qualified guidance will help to manage all sort of psychological problems."

-- Another unfounded and unsubstantiated claim. And what exactly constitutes "qualified guidance" ??? Is that just another assuption based on faith as well?


Anirudh Kumar Satsangi wrote: "A very detailed and elaborate descrption of the universe is available in the religion of saints particularly Radha Soami Faith. Radha Soami Faith is a branch of Religion of Saints like A very detailed and elaborate descrption of the universe others."

-- Again, the keyword here is "Faith". And a "very detailed and elaborate descrption of the universe" doesn't amount to very much. There are countless theories and "descriptions" about the universe. They are ALL spectulative. And what constitues so-called "Saints"??? And who says "Kabir, Nanak, Paltu, Soamiji Maharaj and others" are "Saints"??? ...as if saying that is somehow supposed to mean something significant and credible??? Well it doesn't.


Anirudh Kumar Satsangi wrote: "We should not expect any miracle overnight."

-- Forget "overnight"... How about there have been NO miracles even over over a period of many decades??? And in fact, how about NO miracles EVER?


Anirudh Kumar Satsangi wrote: "For the satisfaction of need for self-realization (...) we need following three things: 1. Master or Guru (A Self-Realized Soul) 2. Secret of Levels of Universal Consciousness 3. Method for traversing the path."

-- Well first, how do you assume that "self-realization" is needed? And second, there is NO absolute "need" for any so-called "Master or Guru, or for any "SEcret of Levels of Universal Consciousness", or for any "Method for traversing the path". And btw, what "path" is that?


Anirudh Kumar Satsangi wrote: "Radha Soami Faith may provide best comprehensive package."

-- Yes, the Radha Soami "MAY" possibly provide "best comprehensive"... but that is still very debateable. And just where is the evidence to show that it is the "best comprhensive"??? There is little, if any, evidence to be found. In order to show that Radha Soami is in fact the "best", some definite evidence must be provided. Otherwise, it is nothing more than mere opinion.

It appears that tAo's objections are totally biased. If I agree with tAo's objections then what is correct-whether he will tell us? However, I am grateful to tAo for his painstaking effort to respond to my posts. Here is one more post:

COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF SCIENCE OF RELIGION (THEOLOGY)

I have written following two papers which may lead to the realization for a higher theory of everything:

(i) Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator,
(1st Int. Conf. on Revival of Traditional Yoga, Lonavla Yoga Institute, Lonavla, January, 2006)
(ii) In Scientific Terminology, Source of Gravitational Wave is God
(2nd World Congress on Vedic Science, BHU, Varanasi, Feb 2007)
I have presented these two papers at the two different International Conferences. I am now submitting some views for being considered for Unified Field Theory

From Scriptures: (Prem Patra by His Holiness Huzur Maharaj)
The Current which manifested in the beginning of the creation is the Current of Sabda (Sound) and of Chaitanya (Consciousness). From whom that Current issued forth is known as Soami (Supreme Being). This Current, by turning back can merge again in the Holy Feet of Supreme Being. The entire creation manifested from this current and is sustained with its energy and when the Current of the Holy Feet is withdrawn, the creation ceases to exist.This Current of the Holy Feet is the Reservoir of all energy, tastes and pleasures, knowledge, skill, shapes, forces and light etc. etc. and of the entire creation, is also the Creator of all of them.

From Science:
Gravitation Force is the cause of manifestation of the creation (birth of planets, stars), its sustenance and when it is withdrawn towards centre or source the entire creation ceases to exist. Photons have originated from gravitons. In black holes photons merge into gravitons. In Black Holes, Gravitational Force is so high that it does not allow even light to escape. What does it mean then? It simply means that the gravitational force at black-holes attracts light towards it with much greater velocity than the speed of light. In fact, all forces including electromagnetic force, material force (strong and weak nuclear force) all merge into gravitational force in black-holes and becomes one force there and when the creational process starts again from a Black-Hole all the forces appear (manifest) again and descends downwards to create billions of stars, planets, satellite, asteroids and various life forms.

Hence it can be assumed that the Current of Chaitanya (Consciousness) and Gravitational Wave are the two names of the same Supreme Essence (Seed) which has brought forth the entire creation.

All cosmological researches should be conducted keeping in view of the following philosophical facts:
It has been stated in Bible (John I-1) “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”
Mohammedans hold that God uttered ‘Kun’ (i.e. ‘Came into being’) and the creation came into being (Holy Quran, Sur. Bakr (II.117).
In Chhandogya Upanishad it is written “Tadaikshat bahu syam prajayeyeti” (VI-2-iii) i.e. “It thought (desired) Would that I were many! Let me procreate myself!” The Aitareya Upanishad says,”Sa ikshat ‘lokannusrija’ iti (I-1-i) i.e. “He bethought himself (desired) – ‘Let me create worlds’, etc. etc.
It is written in Chapter VII of Srimad Bhagavadgita : Sri Bhagwan said, “Arjun, now listen how with the mind attached to Me and practicing Yoga with absolute dependence on Me, you will know Me in entirety and without any shadow of doubt” (1). I shall unfold to you in its entirety this wisdom alongwith the Knowledge of the qualified aspect of God, having known which nothing else remains yet to be known in this world (2). Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, reason and also ego; these constitute My nature eightfold divided. This indeed is My lower (material) nature : the other than this, by which the whole universe is sustained, know it to be My higher nature in the form of Jiva, O Arjuna. (4-5). Arjuna, know that all beings have evolved from this twofold Prakriti, and that I am the source of the entire creation, and into Me again it disappears.(6)
The Radhasoami Religion also tells that, the ‘Word’ mentioned above is in fact Current of Sound or Current of Consciousness or Prime Current of Spirituality which was issued forth from its Source, or Creator or God. This Current has later on produced light and other forces. The scientists are discussing these days about dark energy which constitute about 96% of the entire universe which is not known to us. Only 4% part of the universe is known to us by all scientific means. In fact this 96% invisible portion of the universe is the vast expanse of spirituality which can be designated as field of gravitational waves in scientific terms. Visible portion of the universe (4%) consists of consciousness (gravitational force), mental force (electromagnetic waves) and material force (strong and weak nuclear force).
Body = Nuclear Force (weak as well as strong)
Mind = Electromagnetic Force.
Consciousness = Gravitation Force.
According to Radhasoami Religion the whole Universe can be sub-divided into three grand divisions viz.
1. Region of Pure Spirituality
2. Region of Subtle Maya
3. Region of Gross Maya
Nuclear forces dominate Region of Gross Maya (Gross Material Region), Electro-magnetic forces dominate Region of Subtle Maya (Subtle Material Region) and Gravitational Force dominates Pure Spiritual Region.
This is the only Truth which can be verified scientifically and can be termed as ‘higher theory for everything’. This also supports the statement of Sir Sahabji Maharaj that ‘the goal of science – Truth; the goal of philosophy – Ultimate Reality; and the goal of religion – God’ are the three names of same supreme essence.
Many things are common between Current of Consciousness and Gravitational Wave.
1. Current of consciousness can not be seen by any means and gravitational wave can also not be seen.
2. Current of consciousness is the weakest force on earth. Its strength goes on increasing on higher regions. Gravitational force is also very weak on earth and strong on Sun and even more stronger on black holes.
3 Tendency of both current of consciousness and gravitational waves are towards their source or centre.
4. Current of consciousness and gravitational force are both regarded as the creater of all the celestial and terrestrial bodies of the whole universe. They are also sustainer of these and when they turn back towards their source or centre the whole universe will collapse.
Hence it can be assumed that the source of current of consciousness and gravitational wave is the same i.e. God or ultimate creator.
This theory is based on scientific deduction. In scientific terms it can be said that the ‘gravitons’ are the elementaryparticle which was issued forth in the beginning of the creation accompanying with sound ‘Radha’

Hi Anirudh Kumar Satsangi,

I don't know much about physics and much less about theology but it seems that this series of posts you've made are highly conceptual and even speculative. If taken literally, the cosmology of Sant Mat would need to be much more complex than it is.

The property of a wave is to radiate "away" from its source. Incidentally, if the speculation that gravitational waves equate to consciousness is true, a fat person will be more conscious than a skinny person.:)

Personally, the sound and light may not necessarily be objective physical phenomena so much as subjective noumenal apparitions. Anyway, your references do indicate similar sound and/or light forms claimed by Surat Shabd Yoga but if I understand correctly, they cannot be claimed as authoritative since they cannot be objectified outside personal experience. Thinking about such things seems to hinder my devotion. I'll quote one of only a couple things I've ever highlighted in my readings of Radha Soami books:

"Intellect cannot lead us anywhere, but the satisfaction of the intellect will give you faith and practice: If you try to brush aside your intellect and try to attend to meditation, you will never succeed. Intellect will always jump in the way. But if you satisfy your intellect with reasoning, then faith will come and practice will come, which will then take you to your destination."p60, Die to Live, Charan Singh

"First he (the intellectual) creates a problem with his intellect; then he wants to solve that problem with his intellect; then he takes pride in solving it or feels frustrated in not solving it. That is the fate of an intellectual person."p61, Die to Live, Charan Singh

For the surfer dudes in this forum -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/largehadroncollider/3314456/Surfer-dude-stuns-physicists-with-theory-of-everything.html

So there you go. All that gravitational wave-motion may have been opening up his inner consciousness. :)

Thank you Jayme for your very quick response. No matter how someone responded. Surely one day people will realize the correctness of my views.

I request a Turing test of the last response. Judges?

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi has written:

"It appears that tAo's objections are totally biased. If I agree with tAo's objections then what is correct-whether he will tell us?"

-- Unfortunately you are again blatantly incorrect. My so-called "objections" stem from basic reason and logic, not bias, so therefore my position is not "biased" at all.

However, just about everything that you have written by yourself (apart from the other unnecessarily lengthy quotations that you posted) is clearly extremely "biased" in favor of various unsubstantiated concepts of religion and religious faith, philosophy, and mysticism.

Furthermore, no one asked you to "agree" with anything. I simply pointed ut that your views are based merely upon faith in sant mat religious doctrine, concepts, and cosmology, and NOT upon any proveable facts or substantial evidence.

Your position, which is extremely typical of so many other satsangis of the Radha Soami persuasion, is based entirely upon mere presumption and belief, and (as Jayme rightly pointed out) it is entirely subjective, and is not based upon demonstratable objective fact.

You, like all the other satsangis before you, are wasting your time (and our time) using this forum to preach your Radha Soami doctrine.

Fyi, almost all of us here are very familar and experienced with the teachings and philosophy of Sant Mat... so please don't continue to belabor the point. There is no need for you to post lenghty arguments and especially various quotations in favor of Santmat/RadhaSoami. Its boring and its lame of you to do that. No matter how much of that kind of stuff (religion, mysticism, philosophy, science, etc) you quote and post, it will NOT prove anything and will not win your argument. The best you can do here is just simply to share YOUR OWN original thoughts and experiences and opinions etc.

Because by doing what you have been doing so far, you are only serving to make Santmat/RS beliefs look worse, not better. Many others have done exactly what you are now doing, and it just does not fly. So wake up and get a clue. No one is going to pay any more attention to you if you continue on with the same nonsense.

"COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF SCIENCE OF RELIGION (THEOLOGY)..."

"I have written following two papers which may lead to the realization for a higher theory of everything..."

"I have presented these two papers at the two different International Conferences. I am now submitting some views for being considered for Unified Field Theory"

-- Thats all a load of nonsense. Just go read and study my own scientific papers that I mentioned here recently. And then re-evaluate YOUR so-called "COMPREHENSIVE VIEW". And then I'll listen to what you may have to say. Here is the site: http://www.categoricalanalysis.com

"From Scriptures: (Prem Patra by His Holiness Huzur Maharaj)..."
"From Science..."
"All cosmological researches should be conducted keeping in view of the following philosophical facts..."
"It has been stated in Bible..."
"In Chhandogya Upanishad it is written..."
"It is written in Chapter VII of Srimad Bhagavadgita..."
"The Radhasoami Religion also tells that..."

-- Yadda yadda yadda... Like I said, you can post that kind of religious and philosophical stuff from now until eternity... but it won't amount to anything. Zip. So wake up and get a friggin clue.

"No matter how someone responded. Surely one day people will realize the correctness of my views."

-- "the correctness" you say? And what makes you think that you have proven any "correctness"? And what ARE YOUR "views"? And I don't mean tons of useless mystical and scientific quotations.... I mean YOUR OWN VIEWS. Are your own views nothing more than Santmat/RS? If that is the case, then so what? That does not prove anything.

And this is NOT the place to preach Santmat/RS... so why are you? If you have something original, then lests see it. Otherwise, don't just parrot the same old same old. We've been over this too many times before.

Didn't you bother to even read what this site is all about? The title of the site says: "the ChurchLESS". It does NOT say: The Church of the Radha Soami Doctrine. It does NOT say: "preachers and clones of mystical mumbo-jumbo are welcome".

It says: "Preaching the Gospel of Spiritual Independence".

So WAKE UP and pay ATTENTION dude. And go get a REAL LIFE while you are at it... your own independent spiritual life, and your own independent mind, not some re-cycled dogma.


Many views on the Origin of Universe are available. Most popular view is that universe was born with a big-bang from a highgly dense energy point. But I have some different view on it. I think the universe was not born from a concentrated point or ball like structure but it has been evolved from an infinite vast expanse of field of gravity. Philosophically or religously we may call it field of consciousness or spirituality.

A great flow of current of gravitation force descended down from this source and has created many regions of pure gravitation force below it. This was the creation for quite some time in the first phase of the creational process. In the second phase when when the current of gravitation force further descended down then electromagnetic forces and matter (weak and strong nuclear forces)manifested and the entire universe of the second phase was completed with the admixture of all the forces viz., gravitatin force, electromagnetic forces, and matter (weak and strong nuclear forces. The completion of the whole cosmos in two phases was also hinted in one of the speeches of Prof. J.V.Narlikar some years back. When the process of creation of universe reverts back the matter merges into electromagnetic force and then finally electromagnetic forces merge into gravitation force and nothing remains except field of gravity. The cycle of universe completes like this.

yawn


NICE COMMENT!!

Brian,
I am the son of a satsangi couple (now divorced), but both are still following the teachings (about 40 years now). I always accepted Sant Mat to be the only way. I came close to joining in 1999/2000 and the application was sent and came back yes. But I was having marriage difficulties at the time and put Sant Mat on the back burner, denying acceptance. Well it's 2009, it is still on the back burner, but I am still married, and have had another kid since then. I have gone to church with my wife, the feeling is good since we are together, I get a good feeling when I try to get closer to the creator. Church for me is like, I'm getting a taste but not quite the whole enchilada. Sant Mat still has my curiousity, but I know what it requires, and it is not easy. So call me a lazy lover of the Lord. I just wish the truth to this life could be less strict and more fun while I am still here with a free pass to the ultimate lifestyle when I die. Dream on, right!

Brian,
So that was my introduction, just a pinch of my life as you can imagine. Being the son of two satsangi's and named afer there master. Well, for now I just had a few questions, do you still follow the diet and the no alchohol rules? And from what I have read (in your opion) I would have to learn from an experienced teacher, the truth of life, and how to make it out of this world. Then once learning it and mastering it, I could break off on my own, live out my life independently and not require any additional help?

Charan Kirn, some questions for you:

Why do you feel or believe that you have "a free pass to the ultimate lifestyle when I die"??? What makes you think this way???

Why do you think or feel that you "would have to learn from an experienced teacher, the truth of life, and how to make it out of this world"???

Why makes you think that you have to, "make it out of this world"???

Also, why can't you "live out my life independently and not require any additional help" right now??? What is it that you think you lack???


Charan, I was a vegetarian before I was initiated into RSSB, and still am. No meat or fish, but I don't worry if I eat something with egg in it. I drink a glass of red wine most evenings for the health and relaxation reasons.

I don't think I've ever said that a teacher is required to learn how to live life well. Certainly I don't believe this. Teachers usually are needed to learn certain skills, but not for finding the truth of life. So don't assume you need to have a "guru" so that later you can drop your teacher.

More direct route: go straight to living life independently.

Charan,

I give a personalized course in living independently. My course is called 'the ultimate lifestyle'. Unlimited free vegetarian enchiladas are included if you pay me in advance. I also offer a money-back guarantee that you will defititely make it out of this world within 200 years or less.

I charge a very nominal fee of 50 % of your yearly income, payable to me yearly for the rest of your life, or, a one-time fee of 108 million rupees or the equivilant in gold buillion.

No gurus or masters are required in my cutting edge course, but if you wish to serve and grovel at my feet on a daily basis, that may be arranged for an extra fee.

I guarantee you will get your money's worth in my "ultimate lifestyle" package. I and my staff will make sure you get really screwed and come totally unglued with only a minimum of effort on your part.

So come join the ranks of our countless satisfied customers. You will be glad you did. Just one quick trip to your Bank and we will have you off and living the ultimate lifestyle in no time at all.


Sanct yodeler,

For the unemployed, sounds like a winner. Nothing wrong with a freebee.

Hmmm,
You all have given this satsangi much to think about. I find nothing wrong in the vows and the lifestyle. It hurts no one, helps others as we hopefully better ourselves, but lots of questions sit in the back of my mind after 25 years on the path. Primarily if we are all souls of god, then how come RS says only "marked souls" will find their way back to the source? And how could god really leave out any of his own? It doesn't "feel" right intellectual arguments aside and I shudder to tell my child that and have him fear never receiving initiation and thus stamping him as less. This is not much different from the having to be "saved" or "baptised" groups. And the dovetail question to this is why does it have to be so hard to find a universal true path back to our source?

I'd like more answers than I have still and wonder why "He" hasn't made it simpler, more universal for us to find our true home.
To think we have to go on a spiritual scavenger hunt that often puts one against another just doesn't feel right.

I don't have the answers, just deep questions. Oh, I will keep on with trying to live the RS vows, work the meditation, because life is better in this direction than not, but it doesn't or hasn't yet answereed some of these other questions.
And... I hope someday there is a spiritual ephiphany for myself so I can "honestly" share with my kids, whom'd I'd like to guide in the right direction.

Molly, your comment reminded me of my own situation -- a long-time satsangi who got remarried to an infidel, a heathen, a pagan. Namely, a spiritual yet non-religious woman who wasn't an initiate of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (my first wife was an initiate, but a non-practicing one).

Laurel, my second wife, was amused at how satsangis would greet her with "Radha Soami" rather than "hello." And how, when they learned she wasn't initiated, this fact would be met with a look that said "Oh, I'm so sorry you aren't part of the chosen people." Or, "Are you planning to get initiated?"

Over the years I found this behavior more and more irritating. Laurel was a considerably better person than many of the sanctimonious initiates who felt they were superior to her because they were on the only real path to God-realization, and she wasn't.

This helped me come to an understanding that Sant Mat in general, and Radha Soami Satsang Beas in particular, was in many respects a religion -- with the initiates filling the role of true believers who viewed themselves as special sons and daughters of God.

Of course, there is no evidence for this favortism, just as there is no evidence that the Jews or anyone else is favored by God. Or, for that matter, that God even exists.

So I think you're wise to consider the impact on your kids of feeling that they're lacking if they aren't initiated. Explain to them (as I'm sure you have already) that everyone has to decide on their own how they feel about God and spirituality.

Blogger Brian,

No two experiences of same circumstances/ same person/ same event are similar. Further, experience is non-transferrable.

with love,

rakesh, I disagree. How would it be possible to function in the world if no one had similar experiences of the same circumstance, person, or event?

I come to a stop sign or red light. I assume that other people see the same sign or traffic signal. Almost always, they do -- unless they're drunk, distracted, or whatever.

Humans experience the world in very similar ways. This is what allows us to communicate, as you and I are doing now. This is what allows science to come up with facts about the world.

So I don't know what you mean when you say that no two experiences are similar. In my experience, and that of everyone else I know, people have very similar experiences of the same event.

I say to my wife, "Did you see the deer in our yard this morning?" She says, "Yes." I saw it. She saw it. We agree about what we saw.

Experiences also are transferable. We do this every time we talk, write, gesture, or otherwise communicate with someone else. I take my private experience and make it public -- transferring it. That's what art, music, literature, science, religion, conversation, and so much else in human life is about: transferring personal experience to a public sphere.

Brian, Have you heard about the latest trend in US 'the hugging saint'? Read Rahima's story, it sounds similar in so many ways.
http://www.myownmind.com/rahimastory.cfm

I was working on a business plan but after reading about these stories, nothing sounds more appealing than starting a sect! Anyone wants to be my business partner?
Cheers!

Trying to share authentic experiences and this post is becoming littered with empty, dark expenditures. I'll stay away from here on out.

Molly, I apologize for the commenters who went over the top in responding to your message. I should have deleted the first comment from "yodeler." It struck me as inappropriate, but not outrageously so. I should have followed my first intuition, since it really was disrespectful to you.

I hope you'll give this blog another try. Again, I'm sorry you were the brunt of some adolescent humor. I'm going to unpublish the offending comments, which, as you said, had nothing to do with what you were communicating.

Understand: I have to tread a fine line between free speech and respectful commenting. Sometimes it's hard to tell which side of the line a comment is on. In this case, I made the wrong decision. Sorry.

In as much as my poking fun comment apparently didn't really go over too well, I will make another more serious try at it.

But I must say that, contrary to what Molly or some others may have assumed, there was no intention of disrespect on my part.

However, my comment was clearly mature adult humor, and not any sort of "adolescent humor". But it does appear that some folks are a wee bit overly sensitive, imo.

Humor and disrespect are two very different things. But some people took it personally. It wasn't meant that way. It was meant to try and lighten up the matter. I apologise if it was interpreted in the wrong way.

Now on to another try at Molly's comment:

Molly wrote: "I find nothing wrong in the vows and the lifestyle."

Well I do. I think being worried and obsessed, abstaining from any minute particle of egg or rennet in the diet is a mental problem. The same goes for a tiny bit of wine. Yet the highly addictive drugs nicotine and caffeine are tolerated. Its absurd. I also feel that the demand of doing an introverted meditation for two and a half hours every day is a definitely a bit extreme, especially for people who have a family and a full work schedule. Actually its outrageous and downright unhealthy. It was designed by, and for, the mentality and lifestyle of another country and culture, way back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Molly wrote: "It hurts no one, helps others as we hopefully better ourselves"

I do not agree. I feel that the RS "vows and the lifestyle" are indeed harmful, and I have seen literally hundreds of people who have been adversely affected by it. It is also harmful to the cultist's families. And what eveidence is there that it "helps others", much less "better ourselves"?? Molly seems to hold on to the same brainwashing and assumptions that almost all satsangis do. And blindly following authortarian dictates is not conducive to good mental and emotional health. Need I say more??

Molly wrote: "after 25 years on the path"

Well that would make Molly at least 45 years old, which therefore should be quite mature enough for her to be able to handle a little poking fun at cults and adult humor, instead of reacting and taking personal offense at so-called "empty, dark expenditures". I could be offended by that, but I am not that self-concerned and immature, especially in so far as to assume that a bit of obvious humor is disrespectful to me personlly. But I have already addressed that, so no need to belor the point.

Molly wrote: "Primarily if we are all souls of god, then how come RS says only "marked souls" will find their way back to the source?"

Molly, you are assuming that (a) there are souls; (b) there is god; (c) the souls beling to god; and (d) some souls are "marked". None of these are proven. All of these are mere ideas and assumptions. I think you would be wise to seriously examine your beliefs and whay you believe what you believe.

Molly wrote: "I shudder to tell my child that and have him fear never receiving initiation and thus stamping him as less."

No one but you is making you tell your child any such thing. You need to take back your power from authoritarian dogma and cults, and act with common sense. Thats my suggestion and opinion. Don't worry about passing religious dogma on to your children. You shouldn't do that anyway.

"why does it have to be so hard to find a universal true path back to our source?"

You are assuming that you are apart and separated from the source. That is an illusion, a mistake. The "true path" is yourself. You make your own unique path that is best for you. That is the wisom of the sages. There is no 'one and only one true path'. There are as many paths are there are human beings. And every man and every woman is a shining star. The path unfolds wherever you step, wherever you go.

Molly wrote: "I'd like more answers than I have still and wonder why "He" hasn't made it simpler, more universal for us to find our true home."

Huh? Who is "He"?? And your "true home" is always right where you are. It is your self, your beingness.

Molly wrote: "To think we have to go on a spiritual scavenger hunt"

You do not "have to" do anything. Let go of that notion. There is no "have to".


Molly wrote: "I don't have the answers, just deep questions."

That's good. There are no final answers. But questions will take you very far along. Keep questioning.

Molly wrote: "I will keep on with trying to live the RS vows, work the meditation, because life is better in this direction than not"

I do not agree. Life is not necessarily "better" in that direction. You are still stuck in your acquired beliefs and assumptions. It is better to drop everything... and then take up only what YOU find meaningful and useful. Leave all the rest behind. And you actually don't need anything. Its all a matter of choice. You should not feel that you must keep on with the RS meditation, lifestyle, etc. First, Be Free... then the rest will follow naturally.

Molly wrote: "I hope someday there is a spiritual ephiphany for myself so I can "honestly" share with my kids, whom'd I'd like to guide in the right direction."

The best guidance for children is to let them find and choose their own authentic way. And that is what you should do as well, imo. Best of luck to you.


yodeler, the point is... that when someone new comes onto this blog and shares some thoughts and experiences, it isn't respectful or polite to respond to them by making sexual references and joking about their point of view.

Please, grow up. I put a lot of effort into trying to make this a place where people can openly share churchless ideas and get support/feedback from others about breaking free of religious dogmatism.

What I mean by "grow up" is that we should treat people we meet on the Internet just as mature adults treat people they've just met at a coffee house, dinner party, or wherever.

If Molly had started conversing with you, sharing what she said in her comment, I certainly hope that you wouldn't immediately respond with sexual innuendo, even if it was a (feeble) attempt to be humorous. If you did, she'd be justified in thinking "what the hell is up with that jerk?" and likely would walk away.

Which she says she will do -- from this blog. Since I'm the blogger, this bothers me. But I can't blame her.

Molly did her sharing, then she got "treated" to a comment of yours that started off with:
--------------
Molly, You need not "to think about" anything. If you sign up for my course, i will do all the thinking for you. I require no "vows", but "the lifestyle" is a must. Simply grovel at my feet and turn over all your property, savings and income, and join our swinging party. Female vixens get extra special treatment, so please indicate that on your application if you qualify. Don't let the 25 years on the path trouble you. A few days of partying and debauchery with me and my staff will have you cured in restored to your former youthful beauty and bliss in no time.
---------------

I take responsibility for not deleting your comment right away. Now I ask that you take responsibility for communicating more courteously with newcomers especially (and also oldtimers) on this blog.

Fyi, I have already apologized... so I do not accept your further brow-beating of a now dead horse.

"just as mature adults treat people they've just met at a coffee house, dinner party, or wherever."

Most people I know would not have been personally offended, as it was obviously meant only in jest.

The real reason you are bothered (imo) is not because of the stupid or slightly innappropriate humor of my comment (which apparently didn't phase you a whole lot at the time), but rather because you are now bothered and irritated that Molly was so touchy that she has now taken her toys and gone home.

But I say, c'est la vie.

"she'd be justified in thinking "what the hell is up with that jerk?" and likely would walk away. But I can't blame her."[Molly]

As I have already made a point of saying previously:

"contrary to what Molly or some others may have assumed, there was no intention of disrespect on my part. [...] But some people took it personally. It wasn't meant that way. It was meant to try and lighten up the matter. I apologise if it was interpreted in the wrong way."

So that's as much as I am going to say, because I have already apologised. There needs to be a balance between Molly's over-sensitivity, and the fact that I intended no "disrespect".

You tolerate and allow some people to ost outright lies about other people, but you don't tolerate or allow obvious harmless jokes. So therefore, imo, you've definitely got a bit of a double-standard going.

"I take responsibility for not deleting your comment right away."

Be my guest... delete and delete and delete till your heart's content.

"I ask that you take responsibility for communicating more courteously with newcomers especially (and also oldtimers) on this blog."

What goes around, sometimes comes back around Brian... and especially when one holds a double-standard. Think about it. If you are going to demand politeness, fairness, and respect, then it should apply to all equally, and not just a few.

I welcome and encourage Molly to come back, as I will now be departing from here.

My best wishes Molly, and don't forget to smile. :D


Dear Blogger Brian,

I can not afford to differ with you, for whatever you have written is supposedly correct. But there is a difference between observation and experience. Since all of us have similar sense organs i.e. eyes, ears etc, the observations have to be similar. By observation, we experience, which we can narrate. Yet we can not transfer our experience. Can you transfer the love/ the hate you experience at the hands of somebody?
You said: Experiences also are transferable. We do this every time we talk, write, gesture, or otherwise communicate with someone else. I take my private experience and make it public -- transferring it. That's what art, music, literature, science, religion, conversation, and so much else in human life is about: transferring personal experience to a public sphere.
……………..Dear Sir, you are only narrating your experience and not transferring it. Can you transfer the warmth that you receive from your friend? Can you transfer the sorrow or grief that you feel at the loss of somebody close to you? Sir, the same piece of music gives somebody a solace and cacophony to the other.

I do not know how much I am clear. In any case it is not a jargon of words.

With regards,

yodeler, to complain of someone else's over-sensitivity, then to get all upset because I simply shared how I felt about an inappropriate comment to a new Church of the Churchless visitor... isn't that being over-sensitive yourself?

The main point, for me, is that there isn't something called the "Internet" and then something different called "life." The way we treat people in everyday life is how we should treat them on the Internet, including blog comments.

There's no rigid rules in life. We respond flexibly to situations as they arise. Different circumstances demand different responses. From my almost forty years of marriage, I've learned something astounding: men and women are different!

That's one circumstance. Whether someone I'm talking to is a man or a woman. You're right: it bothers me that Molly got turned off by your comment and seemingly won't be engaging in further conversations here about her misgivings regarding Radha Soami Satsang Beas.

She's the sort of person I enjoy communicating with. And the sort of person I hope feels comfortable leaving comments here. Molly wasn't looking for advice or a lecture, the way I read her comment. She seemed to simply want to share some increasingly "churchless" thoughts about RSSB.

I've learned, often through painful experience, that when women share their feelings, usually they don't want a man (or anyone) to respond with a snappy "here's what you need to do to solve this problem..." Just listen. Understand. Ask some questions. Then let the conversation unfold naturally and gently.

You didn't do that, which was uncourteous. Your follow up comment wasn't much better, being a lecture of sorts -- dissecting Molly's words and telling her what they meant, or should mean.

If this happened in my living room, if you were a long-time member of a discussion group and Molly was a new member attending for the first time, I'd say "Hey, it isn't right to talk to her that way."

So that's what I'm saying here, on the Internet, on my blog, which I view as an extended living room. It wasn't right to talk to her that way.

The interesting thing is that many satsangis do have a rather sanctimonious attitude, "making a show of being morally superior to other people", and I speak from experience, been there done that!

That’s why it is very healthy to be able to express oneself on a blog like this because of the self-realizations that come through. Its good to be open and honest and express one’s feelings, after all we can’t keep on fooling ourselves, and I like that the current master says to be “natural”.

Too much suppression and the shadow self will show itself one day. It takes courage to open up and express one’s feelings and yes, I know that women seek empathy and men usually give solutions, but this is how we learn to deal with life without being too precious.

"to complain of someone else's over-sensitivity"

I wasn't complaining, I simply observed the rather uptight negative response that I got, and then I responded to (imo) your somewhat brow-beating criticism. My objective was never to complain. I simply observed that Molly seemed to over-react a bit (imo), and then you tried to compensate for that by deleting those comments. But I understood your feelings. However, I think you are taking this way beyond what it was. You deleted the comments, and I apologised... so what more do you want?? You want me to see it your way? Well I do, and I don't. I think its just a case of me making a more or less dumb joke, and then a newcomer getting uptigtrivial ht about that, and leaving. Now you want to chastise me. Well I don't accept it because I already apologised. So if anyone is still upset about this, its you not me. I welcomed Molly back and even voluteered to leave... which I was, until you kept this going. I think you are taking this way too seriously. I say: Let it be.

"then to get all upset because I simply shared how I felt about an inappropriate comment [...] isn't that being over-sensitive yourself?"

Fyi, I was never "upset" at any point along the way. I thought the whole thing was sort of funny, as I had never intended to offend or irritate anyone. It was only in jest. Roger took it as a joke too. You are the one who seems more "upset", probabaly because you are mad because you failed to delete the comment before Molly apparently got turned-off and then abruptly went away. But thats because you knew the comment was a joke too. It didn't bother you when you first read it. It only became an issue after Molly reacted. And Molly's sensitivity is not my problem. Sure, maybe the comment was a slight bit innappropiate, but it was clearly a joke. So big deal.

"The main point, for me, is that there isn't something called the "Internet" and then something different called "life." The way we treat people in everyday life is how we should treat them on the Internet, including blog comments."

Well I tend to agree with that for the most part.

"There's no rigid rules in life. We respond flexibly to situations as they arise. Different circumstances demand different responses."

Well thats what I was doing too. But you can't please everyone all the time. The point for me was that I had no ill intention toward anyone personally. So if someone was offended personally, then I would have to ask why?

"You're right: it bothers me that Molly got turned off by your comment and seemingly won't be engaging in further conversations here about her misgivings regarding Radha Soami Satsang Beas."

If Molly is going to run away merely because of one stupid commenter's (me) dumb-ass joke, then maybe Molly isn't quite ready to deal with the real world yet. What can I say? Molly should be more matrue that that by now. If Molly really wanted to share or express her feelings or get feeback about her involvement with Sant Mat, then she would not be so quick to throw in the towel. But thats just my opinion. To run away just beacuse of one little commenter (me), doesanblt make much sense. If she really wanted to diiscuss it she could email you as well. Molly is an adult and will return if she chooses. So I am not going to belabor the point anymore.

"She's the sort of person I enjoy communicating with. And the sort of person I hope feels comfortable leaving comments here."

Well then I hope for your sake she returns.

"Molly wasn't looking for advice or a lecture, the way I read her comment. She seemed to simply want to share some increasingly "churchless" thoughts about RSSB."

OK, that may be true.

"I've learned, often through painful experience, that when women share their feelings, usually they don't want a man (or anyone) to respond with a snappy [...] Just listen. Understand. Ask some questions. Then let the conversation unfold naturally and gently."

Molly can still do that. Like I said, mine was only one stupid insignificant comment. If Molly is going to be so fragile as to dump your entire blog merely because of one dumb-ass little outside comment... well then, what can I say ??

"Your follow up comment wasn't much better, being a lecture of sorts -- dissecting Molly's words and telling her what they meant, or should mean."

I don't agree with at all. I made it a point to apologise and to welcome her back. So at this point, I am not interested in YOUR lectures.

"It wasn't right to talk to her that way."

I wasn't. I was making a joke. A stupid joke perhaps... but a joke nonetheless.

So good-bye. Enjoy your blog. You can be quite assured that I won't spoil it for you anymore. But do spare me any further brow-beating or lectures, which are far more critical and inappropriate imo, than my rather insignificant foolish and misplaced humor.

Blog-On...


Modus Operandi of Radhasoami Faith View of Creation – Part II
Here the true Jaman (coagulant) was given. The spirituality coagulated as it were, and Surats (spirit entities), among themselves, brought the creation into being. Thereafter, another Jaman (coagulant) was given. Regions from Agam Lok (Inaccessible Region) to Sat Lok (True Region) were created during the first creational process. That creation is true. That region is eternal. There is no trace of evil and suffering. This was the creation for many Yugas and ages. Then there appeared a dark coloured current
That current appeared like a dark coloured stone set in a white one and was absorbed in the Darshan of True Being. Then there appeared two Kalas i.e. currents (viz. Niranjan and Jyoti) and they together evolved the creation of five Tattwas (elements) four Khans (species, categories of life) and three Gunas (qualities). The three Gunas (qualities) brought about the expansion and proliferation . They created Rishis and Munis (sages and holy men), gods and godly human beings and demons. Egotism then increased much. Niranjan separated himself from the rest, putting the burden of looking after the creation on them. Nobody could know of Niranjan. Even the Vedas referred to Him as Neti Neti (Not this, Not this). They did not get Darshan (Vision) of Niranjan. They made conjectures. Then how can anybody have knowledge of Sat Purush (True Being), Source of Niranjan and all that exists. (Source: Sar Bachan Poetry)

Scientifically here Jyoti represent three Fundamental Forces of Quantum Mechanics i.e. electromagnetic force, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. NIRANJAN is the fourth Fundamental Force i.e. Gravitation Force.

Radha Soami Path is not easy one.. Until and unless once person experience die while living his illusions remain the same Fortunitly I saw how my father was so much involved in meditation and how he changed .. sometimes he used to tell me about die while living that he experienced..That came to my father with daily practice around 15 years..I am inspired by seeing changes in him and I believe my father words who once tell with water in eyes after medititation "Son this is real path and if you go seriusly then your illusions will be gone." He experienced and I will also one day with grace my great master.. Thanks!

The New World Order
(Know Your New Masters)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLpWpxJl648

Mr. Williams,

I watched a small portion of the above. The problem with conspiracy theories is the people who largely invent them, like, say, David Icke.

Mr. Cassidy,
The documentary is loaded with
hard historical fact. No one who has
spent even one hour of research on
The New World Order doubts its
existence.

It has been a fact for many years.
There is no longer even a debate.
We know who they are.

David Icke is one of the most
advanced researchers on the Rothchilds.

Ready ... Set... Bank Run !!!!

Italy became insolvent Friday after
a nasty bank run. The ECB steped in
to buy their bonds, or a least they say
they will Monday.

But, Italy cannot be bailed out, they are
simply too big and any attempts will
be very short lived.

Spain looks to fall next.

Greece and all other European nations
are having bank runs.

Germany said it has exhausted all its
efforts.

China effectively told the USA they will
stop buying our bonds.

S&P Rating Service downgraded USA debt
for the first time in our history.

If Italy fails, so do the central banks.

The same owners of USA Federal Reserve
Bank.

A complete crash of the Western worlds
fiat curriences could occur.

Yet, how many people are aware of
what's happenning ?

Banks typically only hold 5% of depositors
money for withdrawal.

If you remember the movie It's a Wonderful
Life with Jimmy Stewart, you saw a bank run.

Last time this happenned was in the early
1930 in the USA. They declared a bank holiday.

Then they nationalized all gold. If you didn't
turn in your gold in 1933, you got ten years in prison
thanks to FDR.

The New World Order has screwed up with their creation
of the Eurodollar.

The New World Order came out of the closet about
20 years ago beginning with George Bush Senior.
Along with Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Clinton
and Bush Junior, Kissinger, Soros, they are all on
tape admitting it.

Even Hillary and Obama attended Bilderberg meetings.
The whole show is run by Rothchilds, whom own
most of the central banks % in the Western World.

"No matter who you vote for, you are voting for
one of us."
Joseph Stalin

If back in 1990 we’d applied such notions – of NWO – to rise & shine of Babaji-G’s global RSSB … what style/structure/model of an organisation, headed by what sort of boss/cabal, with what sort of profile, might we have postulated?

Wiki profile of NWO conspirator & …
‘Although skeptical of New World Order conspiracism, political scientist David Rothkopf argues, in the 2008 book Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, that the world population of 6 billion people is governed by an elite of 6,000 individuals. Until the late 20th century, governments of the great powers provided most of the superclass, accompanied by a few heads of international movements (i.e., the Pope of the Catholic Church) and entrepreneurs (Rothschilds, Rockefellers).

According to Rothkopf, in the early 21st century, economic clout—fueled by the explosive expansion of international trade, travel and communication—rules; the nation-state's power has diminished shrinking politicians to minority power broker status; leaders in international business, finance and the defense industry not only dominate the superclass, they move freely into high positions in their nations' governments and back to private life largely beyond the notice of elected legislatures (including the U.S. Congress), which remain abysmally ignorant of affairs beyond their borders. He asserts that the superclass' disproportionate influence over national policy is constructive but always self-interested, and that across the world, few object to corruption and oppressive governments provided they can do business in these countries.[86]

Viewing the history of the world as the history of warfare between secret societies, conspiracy theorists go further than Rothkopf, and other scholars who have studied the global power elite, by claiming that established upper-class families with "old money" who founded and finance the Bilderberg Group, Bohemian Club, Club of Rome, Council on Foreign Relations, Rhodes Trust, Skull and Bones, Trilateral Commission, and similar think tanks and private clubs, are illuminated conspirators plotting to impose a totalitarian New World Order — the implementation of an authoritarian world government controlled by the United Nations and a global central bank, which maintains political power through the financialization of the economy, regulation and restriction of speech through the concentration of media ownership, mass surveillance, widespread use of state terrorism, and an all-encompassing propaganda that creates a cult of personality around a puppet world leader and ideologizes world government as the culmination of history's progress.[5]’

Hi Seeker, (continued crisis Europe from above)
You are a sharp guy. Rothchilds own half the gold reserves on the earth, which they proudly display in Switzerland. They are estimated to own half the net worth of the
entire world and dominate world central banks.

The Bilderberg members as you point out
own most major tv networks.

The worst crises since the Cuban Missile
Crisis is occurring right now and its
not being reported.

Just minutes ago Germany said they can't
bail out Italy. The stock exchange in Israel
dropped 8% and they has to shut it down.

The Asian markets won't open for 3 more hours. Tomorrow the USA will open
and there could be panic.

Italy owes 1 and 1/2 Trillion dollars,
guaranteed by German banks.

The whole fiat currency system of the
Western world hinges on Italy at this moment.

Only the USA Federal reserve can save them.

Ron Paul subpoenaed the USA Federal Reserve Bank and found out they sent 18 trillion dollars to Europe to stop a collaspe in 2008.

This news just came in minutes ago :

It Just Went From Bad To Far, Far Worse As Germany Says Italy Is Too Big For EFSF To Save, Refuses To Carry Euro Bailout Burden
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/06/2011 12:20 -0400

Bank of Japan Central Banks China European Central Bank Germany Italy Japan Monetization Quantitative Easing Reuters


Remember when we said (yesterday) that Germany will soon balk over the fact that it is pledging its entire economy to bail out an insolvent Europe? Well, that moment has come.

Dow Jones just hitting the tape referencing Spiegel

German Govt: Italy Too Big For EFSF To Save - Spiegel
German Govt: Doubts Whether Tripling EFSF Would Help It Save Italy
German Govt: Italy Must Make Savings, Reforms To Exit Crisis - Spiegel
Italy Debt Guarantee Could Raise Doubts Over Germany's Finances - Spiegel
German Govt: EFSF Should Only Help Small, Mid-Size Countries - Spiegel
As a reminder, yesterday's stopgap announcement by the ECB to expand its SMP purchases of secondary market Italian and Spanish bonds was merely as a precursor to full EFSF monetization until its comes fully online in September (or sooner) in a vastly expanded format (between €1.5 and €3.5 trillion).

If Germany is now against this, which appears to be the case, it pretty much means, well, game over.

Add the uncerainty over the unwind of the Europe rescue "gamechanger" as one of the more naive CNBC anchors said yesterday, and Monday is now guaranteed to be a bloodbath.

As for those saying China will gladly step in and fund a $5 trillion EFSF shortfall, they may want to read the following article from Reuters:

Italian Economy Minister Giulio Tremonti said on Thursday that Asian investors are reluctant to buy Italian bonds because it sees they are not being bought by the European Central Bank.

Speaking at a news conference, Tremonti also said it would be desirable for the central bank to follow the lead of the Japanese and Swiss central banks in taking expansionary steps to tackly the euro zone's crisis.

"I note that the Bank of Japan today launched quantitative easing and the Swiss cen bank cut rates to zero, we are waiting for decisions if possible, but desirable (from the ECB)," Tremonti said.

When you talk to Asia they say: "We don't understand what Europe is," he continued. "The second point is that they say 'if your central bank doesn't buy your bonds, why should we buy them"?

P.S. Time to unwind that Bund short we suggested yesterday. In fact, if true, it is time for a big rush to safety.

h/t London Dude Trader


I have heard some stories about "chance" happenings as to how certain people came across RSSB. I recall one Satsangi claimed that he overheard a conversation on Sant Mat in a restaurant, and intervened by asking about the philosophy! The rest is history!

My own case which appears below plus other data maybe of interest.


http://thoughtsandvisions-searle88.blogspot.com/2010/09/encountering-radhasoami-satsang-beas.html

Did it ever occur to you that your Greek plagiarist 'teacher' (aka Yogiraj) lied to you about getting initiation. The liklihood of Charan initiating him on the spot after one satsang in the Bay area is highly, highly unlikely. And as Charan's Singh's 1970 round-the-world tour was written about by those in attendance (book 'Thus saith the master' ) such a freak occurence and 'grace' would most certainly have been noticed and commented upon.

MBW, interesting thought. For some reason I've never thought of that possibility. None of us at the time did so either. But it seems plausible. Hard to imagine, though, why Yogiraj would make up the story -- except it did give him more credibility with us gullible students, him returning and talking about how Charan Singh had initiated him on the spot, making it sound like he was really special.

Hey Brian, i've been analysing RS critically for the last few days, and I think you're right on some of the things you say about RS (not everything).

The present master and the representatives say treat RS Nam like a University course, this notion is interesting.
When one gets initiation, its seen as the first day of the University course.
My only complaint is when does the sant mat course end? A University course has a duration, linking back to one of your posts, you once stated that all religions including RS should come with a guarantee. I agree with that.
Personally, I think that one should experience something in meditation that will give them reassurance that its the right course and that experience should happen when the initiate does meditation diligently for at least a year or so regardless of karma etc.
And if one doesn't do their meditation something should happen to the initiate that will provoke them to do their meditation. Just like at University, if you don't turn up for class or hand in work, the teacher will warn you or punish you, this will provoke you to do the assignments etc.

Nonetheless I will get initiation, I am only 20, so I've got to wait 5 years, I will do meditation diligently for a couple of years and adhere to the principles of sant mat. If I don't experience light etc or anything that reassures me then I will ask the Guru.

Not so "hard to imagine" then why he would make up the story. ;-)
Your guess of creating an aura of increased specialness amongst you his "gullible students" fits without too much straining of credibility.

"Personally, I think that one should experience something in meditation that will give them reassurance that its the right course and that experience should happen when the initiate does meditation diligently for at least a year or so regardless of karma etc."

---an experience(of divided mind) that gives reassurance that its the right cource........lol.....oh my God............

Roger learn how to spell course right, it's even right in front of you and you still can't spell it lol

G,
Roger cleverly did that to illustrate that there is no such thing as the "right course/cource". He's quite clear on these matters, you know.

"so I've got to wait 5 years, I will do meditation diligently for a couple of years and adhere to the principles of sant mat. If I don't experience light etc or anything that reassures me then I will........... ask the Guru."

---why do I need this blogging torture??????

Well, Roger, I am a God seeker, simple, I don't jump to forums if something doesn't go quite right like many people do here.
I think you need broaden your mind, I'm simply just stating what i want to do and my implementation might help others. If you don't like what I'm saying, don't reply.
I'm just being honest, I want the truth.

how old u got to be to get initiated?

are they all cuckoo looney?

and what happens when you want to leave?

The initiation age is 25.
Some satsangis are narrow minded, but nonetheless, nearly all satsangis are decent human beings.

George asked what happens when you want to leave.

Nothing. You just leave, but there is nothing to leave because there is no supervision or location. No one keeps track of you or cares. You can follow RS for your entire life after initiation without attending a single satsang (meeting) or sanctioned event or ever seeing the master.

I would agree with G that most satsangis are "decent" human beings allowing enough latitude for all the normal faults and weaknesses that most humans have. Armed robbers, rapists and gang bangers are poorly represented in the RS ranks.

Some satsangis might be called cuckoo or looney but most function and appear normally as per society's standards and norms. Vegetarianism might make them stand out in some situations.

I "left" some 15 or more years ago. Some of what I have written may have changed, but I don't think so. However, initiation age in my day was 21. I was 20, so they were not absolutely strict about this in those days.

Tucson,

I think the initiation age was changed to 25 in 2003/2004 because the norm for most people is at 25 the person will be set in life. They will have obtained a degree and will be set in life. Are you based in the UK or the US?

G

G,
I am US based, initiated by Charan Singh in 1970. Charan was more liberal than Gurinder, imo. I don't keep up much with current RS activities. I catch bits of info from others now and then. Charan felt 21 was old enough to be initiated as by then most people were finishing up their school studies and were of adult age. Charan was in favor of completing your education. I used to hear stories of Indians getting initiated at younger ages.

"I am a God seeker, simple, I don't jump to forums if something doesn't go quite right like many people do here."

--Nothing wrong with being a God seeker. Unfortunately, seeking and searching shall end with relative truth. Nothing wrong with relative truth. Being simple, or of whole-mind is very good. But, simple, could mean something else. Nothing wrong with jumping into a forum, if something is right or wrong. Many and all peoples can do that.

"I think you need broaden your mind, I'm simply just stating what i want to do and my implementation might help others."

--Broaden or open mindedness is good when one is examining raw information. However, once this raw information becomes processed, then a little closedness may be needed. Nothing wrong with doing what one wants to do. Use caution, when one thinks their implementation is going to be helpful.

"If you don't like what I'm saying, don't reply. I'm just being honest, I want the truth."

--Again, likes and dislikes are relative. Nothing wrong with being honest, and wanting truth(relative or absolute) is totally KOOL.
--I reserve the right to be wrong...

thank you G

"Armed robbers, rapists and gang bangers are poorly represented in the RS ranks."
lol

Must say it doesn;t sound to be the evil cult that Mike went on about, you can leave if you want, they seem to denote money to the local hospital.

thats actually pretty sensible about the initiation age too - tho i;m not sure what the reasoning behind that age is.

Just reading behind the lines tho, it sounds like everyone enamoured with previous big dude messiah, rather than the current one, which does sound like a bit of a cult - i.e. a personality to be worthy of worship, etc, etc.

George,
As far as religio-cults go RS is fairly benign though it is big business. There is no way to know who the guru is or if he has the powers attributed to him. Yes, a method is offered which is said to reveal that, but the catch is you may have to wait until death or as long as four lifetimes for that revelation. That is their escape clause. I no longer buy it.

Christianity has the best deal. All you have to do is accept Christ as your lord and saviour, live an honest life and at death you are taken care of. Easy. No four lifetimes of endless hours of meditation or special diets or worrying about rennet. You can even drink wine. If I were religiously inclined and wanted to accept something on faith that is the way I would go.

then come on and ride... with Bikers for Christ

http://bikersforchrist.org/


And it is time to enjoy christmas evergreens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2I2mK_3_ns

Considering that I have an Christian Orthodox background I can safely suggest that the 5 names were:

Κύριε
Ιησού
Χριστέ
Ελεησόν

Kύrie Ιesoύ Christe Eleeson Me

aka "Lord Jesus Christ Have Mercy on Me"

In general the above is considered the most powerful mantra/prayer in Greek Tradition.

The Deep Greek Orthodox Christians have MEDITATION.. It is called "νοερά προσευχή", Noera Prosefche aka. Mental Prayer.

When an Orthodox Christian goes to Hindu traditions to find something new called Meditation he is a fool.

This tool pre-exists in his Greek Orthodox arsenal and it is far prior to Sant Mat shit.

Whoever studies Ancient Greek Philosophy and Christian Orthodox Mysticism will find that everything is connected.

Orthodox means the one with the right belief. It is very arrogant.It is selffish.
Like a satsangi being happy because he feels he is blessed enough to be discovered by the TRUE PERFECT MASTER :-)

Everything that the Church Inc or the Political organizations have dealt with, has gone bad. I am not speaking with respect about mainstream Christianism (outer religion) but I feel closer to deeper esoteric christian mysticism (inner side of religions)

FUNNY THINGS: Orthodox = ortho-dogs !!!

Orthodogs means in mixed Greek-English "Ass Dogs".

ορθό = οrtho = rectum

Hello, I worked at Christananda in 1971. We called the Greek man "Baba". His wife was named Ireniie. ThIs has to be the same man. Two people who worked there were Michael Om Surya and Photios. Does anyone know Michael?

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.