Why I'm not a Sant Mat true believer

Fairly often I hear from people -- usually via email -- who want to know why I've "left the path."

By which they mean, failed to keep on wholeheartedly believing in the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) teachings, which are an offshoot of Sant Mat. I respond in various ways, but usually end up saying much the same thing.

To save time in the future, I thought I'd take a stab at re-stating my stock response so I could simply point to this post when the question of my supposedly heretical change of direction comes up.

First, and probably also last, I don't consider that I've left a "spiritual" path.

(I used quotation marks because this word has come to mean less and less to me; but it still conveys a quest for the meaning of life that goes beyond the obvious.)

Quite the contrary. I simply found that an honest, energetic, no-stone-left-unturned search for truth required going beyond the bounds of the RSSB belief system.

That's the thing with belief systems: they're great for organizing ideas, concepts, facts, and other mental entities that can be tied down in words. However, if you want to reach what can't be grasped by human thought or language, a belief system won't get you there.

Notions of duality and unity come into play. The words I used in the previous sentence -- "duality," "unity," and the rest -- obviously are dualistic.

They have to be, or I couldn't communicate with you. Without separate letters, separate words, and separate thoughts, verbal or written statements would be one big mushy blend of everything-all-together.

Yet the best guess of both scientists who seek a Theory of Everything (not Theories) and mystics who claim to have experienced union with the One (not the Many) is that unity rather than manyness lies at the heart of reality.

Not everybody believes this, of course. The Western monotheistic religions, notably Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, posit: (1) God and (2) other than God.

So that basic duality, which never is breached (a Christian gets close to God, but never becomes God) allows other sorts of dualities to be a comfortable and harmonious part of the religions.

Words, thoughts, emotions, ideas, and such directed toward God are how dualistic religions relate to a divine reality that can't ever be experienced as one's own self or being.

I talk with my wife and other people to know them better. That's because they're different from me.

However, I know myself directly.

There's no need for me to tell myself about me, because that's clearly a circular and meaningless exercise (when we talk to ourselves inside our heads, it's for another purpose other than self-knowledge).

Eastern religions (such as Hinduism) and philosophies (such as non-religious Taoism) by and large claim that ultimate reality is much more along the lines of "no need for me to tell myself about me" than the wordiness of dualistic Western faiths where the emphasis is on relating to a God different than oneself.

When I signed up with Radha Soami Satsang Beas, I was attracted to its monistic (reality is one) philosophy. The promise was that meditation would lead the disciple to an experiential realization that oneness rather than manyness is the way things really are.

I still believe that monism is more likely to be the foundation of existence than dualism. It just makes sense that the essence of reality is one, rather than two or more.

Which gets me back to the reason I couldn't hold on to the RSSB belief system.

It dawned on me (partly as a result of writing a book called "Return to the One") that the teachings I originally considered to be aimed at oneness actually were headed in the wrong direction.

At least, so long as I took them more seriously than they deserved. Buddhism has its "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!" Taoism has its "the Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."

But Sant Mat, in its modern form, lacks the sort of pin that punctures the dualistic, self-righteous, dogmatic bubble. ("Modern," because the 15th century Kabir, who is held up as a Sant Mat saint, did a great job of pinpricking in his more iconoclastic poetry.)

So I realized that I needed to burst my own bubble if I was going to have a chance of getting beyond all the RSSB "two's" that divided off One.

Guru and disciple. God and man. Mind and matter. Positive and negative powers. Marked and unmarked souls. Virtue and sin. Karma and salvation.

All these concepts came to seem like fences that were keeping my spiritual understanding confined within certain permissible bounds. I got tired of bumping up against them, when my intuition kept telling me "truth lies beyond."

This isn't the whole story, or answer, naturally. There's always more to be said about what can't be described.

There will be another day, another saying, another attempt to bridge the gap between the one that is me and the two that is me and you.

Is there anything else to do?

Comments

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,

While not intending to be rude, I might request/suggest some"thing else to do" for my benefit - and possibly for some few others as well.

Insofar as you first came out from a Catholic background (which can, at least, cite the warning about "false prophets" and "false Christs"), why/how did you fall into the delusion of thinking that some human - in the flesh - could possibly be some sort of "god" who could lead you to some sort of peaceful state (cf. Sach Khand [sp.?]) by no more than four reincarnations? Why did you not have better sense? (Ditto for all other present or former followers of this cult.)

Also - what is the big deal about "two and a half hours" of meditation each day? Is this not just a received tradition/rule (which many seem to have a hard time performing in full terms)? Why not meditation at ~all times~ on an ad hoc basis? Or: why not transcend inwardly to not need it at all, engaging in such an activity only when one chose to so do? This just seems like another tradition that has been accepted with little or no reflection.

And, of course, I think your "choice" of vegetarianism stems from your Sant Mat commitments - rather than from the "scientific" excuses you use to rationalize and justify it.

Perhaps dealing with these queries might be some"thing else to do."

Robert Paul Howard

[the elephant]

Robert asks some interesting questions and make comments I had in mind as well.
The natural naivety that led you to join RSSB is an interesting question; particularly in light of the fact that this apparent naivety has resurfaced for your readers to see in your recent (self-)deceptive defense of vegetarianism ...

[Catherine Muller]

Hello there,

In response to The Elephant and Robert Paul Howard, I would like to offer a suggestion regarding vegetarianism:

if you are able to, obtain a copy of a documentary by German Filmmaker Nikolaus Geyrhalter that records food production in the European Union.

This documentary is extraordinary for a number of reasons: firstly, there are no interviews and there is no spoken commentary at all. There is simply natural ambient sound recorded on each location.

The camera is on a tripod, locked off, and it simply records what is in the frame allowing the action of each sequence to proceed unedited.

Each 'frame' lasts several minutes and one simply observes. Because there is no commentary to structure one's opinions, the images speak for themselves.

'Our Daily Bread' covers the full gamut of every kind of food production from wheat to olives to lettuce, and more ... It also covers every kind of slaughter: cows, sheep, pigs, calves ...

I'm sure you're familiar with the mechanization of the Holocaust and the technological efficiency of this genocide? Geyrhalter's documentary plainly illustrates that contemporary food production - and the modern-day meat industry - are the direct descendants.

This documentary is demanding viewing because it is so utterly cool and impassive in its perspective: it simply asks that we watch.

I saw it in a cinema with an audience of some 200 people. By the end, I was among the remaining 15 or so. Everyone had walked out, finding the coolly impassive and unemotive truth of what they were being confronted with too much to bear. There is nothing shrill or emotionally didactic about this film. It's devastating impact comes its reliance on the simplest approach: just observe.

I have been a vegetarian since birth. After watching Geyrhalter's film I gave up wearing leather and I only consume dairy products from cow herds and goat herds bred humanely in organic pastures known to me.

My personal opinion (which you are welcome not to share) is that there is sufficiently compelling ecological and medical evidence to support the wisdom of a vegetarian dietary system and I do not believe Sant Mat has anything to do with this.

However, my personal opinion is that the mark of one's evolution is evidenced by how one treats other sentient beings. A steak on one's plate inures one to the tortures of Guantanamo Bay.

And on a more mundane level, I should add that it's been a decade since I last had 'flu. This is attributable to diet as I live in a city with millions of other people ...

Here is the link to 'Our Daily Bread':

http://www.ourdailybread.at/jart/projects/utb/website.jart?rel=en

Regards,
Catherine Muller

[Rain]

My thinking, and I have said it before, is that we benefit from having had the discipline of a religion and then from leaving it to find spirituality in a personal way, the wilderness experience. I am not saying nobody can find that staying in a religion, but most religions put people in boxes that suit their sacred concepts.

It reminds me of the little film, Ratatouille. The chef has written a book where he says anyone can cook and that cooks should experiment with new ideas; except the disciples of that book believe that was good for him but they should stay with his exact recipes. Most religions were begun by someone who brought in new ideas but then the disciples resist any change and are threatened by someone in their group who questions the rules. It's almost universal in religions.

On the vegetarian thinking, that is related to the meat factories, not required for eating meat. We raise cattle on grass and we have someone come here who shoots them when the time comes to butcher. These animals live a natural life in their herd. We kill with respect and so that others might live. If everyone, who likes meat and does not believe vegetarianism is actually healthy, would buy from their local growers (and there are more and more small natural growers), they would find that grass-fed beef is as rich Omega 3 as salmon (for vegetarians who eat fish or poultry). Frankly the worst thing for how animals are treated is dairy, cheese, anything that comes off most dairies. There are a few exceptions but generally they are horrible places for animals.

To raise beef naturally allows the animals to have a life and a good one except for the few whose life is ended with one shot while still on their own land. The breeding ones live to full old age. I understand some can't bring themselves to eat living things but all food has lived. It's just whether you respect vegetables as also alive or decide they never were.

[Catherine Muller]

Hello Rain,

I'm afraid I choose to share a different set of views to yours.

Genetically, and in terms of brain functions, there is not a great deal to separate cats and dogs from cows.

So, why not eat one's pets? Or better still, why not eat one's own human children? Because the law says this is morally wrong? However, biologically, they are all genetically very close to cows. So why not do so? Because they have a higher capacity to 'reason'? The rational faculty of pigs has been well documented and the porcine similarities to DNA are acknowledged to the point where pig valves are used in human heart transplants.

Yes, it is most compassionate to allow your herd of cattle to roam free. However it is irrefutably more compassionate to allow them to live without being kept to be killed.

One does not need meat or salmon for Omega 3, 6, 9 ... there is plenty of that in grains, flax, avocado and the like.

As someone who has been vegetarian since birth and grown to age 37 and a height of 5 feet 9 inches with a healthy body and mind (by the grace of God) I can attest to how absolutely redundant animal protein is.

When people eat meat it is simply a desire for one thing: the taste of mammal flesh and blood to satisfy their palates.

You ask whether vegetables live. Of course they do.

My reply would be:

-Do vegetables mourn their young when they are killed? - -Do vegetables bleed?
-Do they cry when their throats are slit and their blood spilled?
- Do vegetables resist being picked in the way animals resist being slaughtered?
-Do vegetables dream? (Anyone who has had a close relationship with a cat or dog will tell you that they have nocturnal dreams just as people do.)

For answers to these questions - in visually truthful and plainly apparent terms - I refer you to my earlier post (above) and urge you to watch 'Our Daily Bread'.

Sincerely, C
Catherine Muller

[Rain]

Well we all agree to disagree on many things. My point was mainly if people do like to eat meat, there are ways to do so that are not cruel and can be respectful of the animals. If you are horrified at the idea of killing anything, you wouldn't agree with that, of course. I myself do respect life but understand it can be taken respectfully-- given that, when I don't have to kill it, I will even carry a spider outside to release it.

I know it's takes more work to eat a vegan diet that is healthy but that it can be done and whatever works for a person is what they should do.

Because I live on a farm and live close to animals, I know you can respect animals, care for them and know them personally and choose to kill them. I am not much of a meat eater personally but it's because much doesn't agree with me not because I have a moral problem with eating it. When you live with them and look them in the eyes, take responsibility for them, you even more are respectful of their lives when you take one.

Incidentally nobody could keep cows or sheep as pets *s* Economically it'd be ruinous. What you can do, if you have a small farm, is have them pay for their keep. For those like me, who love the animals, that's enough even if it doesn't begin to cover the work.

For anyone happy as a vegan and willing to do the work to be sure the diet is well balanced, then good. I couldn't make it work if I wanted but I don't want. I am allergic to dairy (after a case of poison oak going systemic) so I tried soy in various things instead. Tasted great, loved soy milk but it didn't love me. Soy doesn't agree with everyone. Some are allergic to it. I am currently trying rice milk, not as good but it doesn't have the estrogen which would be more of a problem to me at my age (65) than someone younger.

At any rate, I didn't make it clear above. I have no interest in convincing someone to give up a vegan diet. That's personal choice. I was just saying the horrors of meat production is not how it has to be done. It is how it most often is done and it's up to educated consumers to change that as the feed for grain fed animals is not healthy for anybody. Grass fed beef tastes and has a totally different texture and no worry about hormones.

[Brian]

Robert, we're all full of delusions. When you ask, "How could you believe x, y, or z?" I have to ask you, "Have you, Robert, never believed or thought something that turned out not to be true?"

If you answer that question honestly, you'll have answered the question you asked me.

A few months ago I screwed up on something I needed to do for a land use fight my wife and I are leading for our neighborhood. I apologized to my colleagues, saying, however, "Since I didn't remember what I needed to do, there was no way for me to know that I needed to remember to do it."

What I meant was, we can only hold ourselves or others accountable for the times we know we should do something differently, but fail to do it (sort of like the insanity defense in criminal law).

I've done and believed lots of things that, in retrospect, could have been done or believed differently. The important thing, in my opinion, is being open to new information and questioning the validity of currently held beliefs -- not beating ourselves over the head for being wrong in the past. That just makes us less willing to admit to being wrong in the present, because it hurts to be beat over the head.

When I was initiated into RSSB the teachings made sense to me. Some of the teachings still do. Many don't. That's growth. I was a vegetarian before I was initiated. I'm still a vegetarian. As I've noted before, the scientific and medical arguments in favor of vegetarianism are highly persuasive.

It wasn't RSSB dogma that made me a vegetarian. It was the recognition that unnecessarily killing animals for food is both bad for the animal-eater (by and large; fish may be an exception) and cruel to the creature being killed. If you study vegetarianism, you'd learn that the non-religious arguments in favor of not eating meat are much more powerful than the religious arguments.

[Catherine Muller]

Rain,

Hi there, thank you for your thoughtful engagement.

Here is a tip that may or may not be useful to you?

A South African company called Solal makes a really good hormone replacement cream (I know several ladies who use it) and at $15 (excluding postage) it's most affordable. Do have a look. Here is their website:

http://www.solaltech.com/new/shop/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=96

I can also highly recommend their GABAtropin for refreshing the brain.

It's also a first-rate ant-anxiety supplement. I have a friend who has a prior history of drug-addiction and he swears by this supplement to help with sleep and stress.

All the best, C

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,

Thanks for your dealing with one of the three topics I raised above. Certainly my remark (not truly a "question") about vegetarianism has received the greatest attention and response from you and others so far. How about the initial two points of query? How about some analysis about why they were accepted so uncritically? You have just barely touched on them if at all, and the others have so far not dealt with them whatsoever.

Robert Paul Howard

[Brian]

Robert, responding to your query about how I could believe a perfect guru would take me to Sach Khand (heaven) requires some background that would be better put in a blog post. Maybe tomorrow. I don't think I've told the tale of my RSSB initiation in much (or any) detail. This helps explain why I jumped into this belief system.

Regarding 2 1/2 hours of meditation, I've come to agree with you. This is one of the RSSB commandments that I used to adhere to pretty strictly (down to using a countdown timer on my watch) and now doesn't make sense to me.

Like you said, being aware as much as possible throughout the day seems more conductive to personal growth than sitting with eyes closed repeating a mantra, or trying to hear sacred sound and see divine light.

[Roger]

Catherine,

I am not a member of the RSSB organization, just a inquisitive person, that has a hobby oriented interest in the topic.

Based on some limited information, there appears to be some limited trends, that I have observed.

Former RSSB members, Tao, Brian, Tucson, Osho, et. al., after say 30 to 40 years of RSSB, decide to move on or away from RSSB.

Catherine, you are a good thoughful person. Something tells me, say in 20 - 25 years, you will do the same.

Just food for thought. Your business is yours. Keep taking the pictures and making the films.

Best wishes to you,
Roger

[tucson]

I have said here before that it is easy to be idealistic about food when we have the convenience of modern civilization.

It is enlightening to go into the wilderness with no more than a knife and try to survive there for an extended period of time.

It then becomes clear what is necessary for the body to survive in good health.

There is a reason why primitive indigenous people, living without modern technology, eat the way they do.

I think this is illustrative of the natural, evolutionary diet of humans.

Regarding accepting and adherence to religions and belief sytems like Sant Mat. We all change in our understanding and maturity as we go through life. What seems right at the time no longer applies in light of experience gained. Sometimes we cling to old beliefs for fear of being cast adrift. Sometimes the greatest revelation occurs in that moment.

[Catherine Muller]

Hi there, Tucson,

Your point is absolutely valid - of course modern life makes so much readily available to one in terms of food. That allows for ethically positive choices, but it also takes its toll on the planet in so far as carbon footprints are concerned. (I am able to eat avocados from Spain when those in my own country are out of season. Naturally, this entails either shipping, or flying, the fruit from abroad.)
However, this is the context in which we find ourselves in for better or worse and it's something for which I am grateful - I thank God for the conveniences of a refrigerator, modern plumbing and a gas stove!

On the subject of food, I do believe there is wisdom in the work of Peter D'Adamo and his research on genetics, blood types and diet.

You mention ancient cultures: I'm the A Negative blood type. According to D'Adamo, this makes me a natural vegetarian and it's the state that's best for my health. This shows that genetically my ancestors were likely agrarian farmers and not the hunter gatherers of the Type O blood group who are naturally inclined to eat meat.

Incidentally, the A blood type is dominant in Japan.

All the best, C

[Catherine Muller]

Thank you, Roger,

Specifically with regard to RSSB, I have something to present for discussion:

In 2004 I visited a psychic Sue Du Randt. (For interest here is her website: http://www.crossingover.co.za/)

One may or may not believe in psychics and clairvoyants, however I visited Sue because in late September 2003 our beloved dog Lucy had passed away. Sue claimed to be able to connect with anyone on ‘the other side’ and I wanted to know how Lucy was doing.

During the session, Sue correctly identified that Lucy had died ‘due to an injection’ . She had come to us a 9 year-old rescue dog and 3 years later she was terminally ill. Lucy followed a chemo protocol akin to that used on humans and she died at home in my arms three days after her last injection. So, Sue was absolutely correct about this. Her last bout of chemo simply proved too much for her.

Sue then said that my late grandfather who passed away in 1955 (I was born in 1971), was in the room and wanted me to know he was there. She correctly named him as Jack.

Lastly, Sue said: "Your spirit Guide is also here. You do know what your Guide looks like, don’t you”. I replied: "What do you see?" Sue then proceeded to describe my Guide as “an Indian man with a white beard and a white turban”. This is literally what she said.

My sense is that everyone is absolutely entitled to his or her opinions about Sant Mat. But in a case such as Sue’s, how does one explain it?

Sue did not not know my belief system and this was the first time we had made contact.

Getting back to Lucy, Sue revealed she was being taken care of by a girl who was 'quite a tomboy' and that Lucy was having a grand time running riot. That pretty much sounded like my dog who was always her own person.

Lucy passed away at 22h40 on Thursday September 25th 2003. Exactly one week later, the following Thursday night, I was running a bath at 9.30pm. Suddenly, the lights started to flicker and I said: 'Lucy, is that you?' Immediately, the lights stopped. Co-incidence? Perhaps. However, we have never had electrical problems - before or since - with the bathroom lights.

At the exact moment that Lucy died on September 25th, our charr who works on Saturdays and whom Lucy adored, received a missed call from our landline phone on her cell phone. Neither my husband nor I made that phone call ...

All the best, C

[Rain]

If you want to email me, Catherine, feel free as I could discuss this more with you in a different setting. [email protected]

My belief is that psychics do connect with some information. I have been to them and sometimes they are right on and some miss the boat. My personal belief at this time might be that for right now this is where it is good for you to be, but that might change in the future. I have a belief that a religion is not bad for starting. It's just bad when we have to stay with them and some do not allow growth.

Best wishes for your journey

[tAo]

Catherine Mueller has written the following statements, to which I will then respond because I have some comments about them or some disgreements with them:

"I have been a vegetarian since birth. After watching Geyrhalter's film I gave up wearing leather "

-- You may think you are doing well by doing these things, but you are really only pleasing yourself, and it actually just indicates that you have not truly freed yourself from various limiting notions and fixations. And btw, there are several people in this forum who in fact have already 'been there, and done all of that' and have since gone beyond those ideas... and so we are not so convinced by your rationale or by your own personal choices. But you will no doubt continue to believe as you do.

"My personal opinion (...) is that there is sufficiently compelling ecological and medical evidence to support the wisdom of a vegetarian dietary system and I do not believe Sant Mat has anything to do with this."

-- That so-called "evidence", as it turns out, happens to be somehwhat erroneous and faulty. Much of the so-called "evidence" that vegetarians use to rationalize and defend vegetarianism is faulty information. And there are many problems and significant drawbacks to eating only grains and beans and nuts and vegges. I myself WAS a vegetarian for more than 40 years - because I believed as you do - BUT, I am not one to remain stuck and attached to incorrect ideas and unhealth dietary practices. Being a vegetarian/vegan caused me some rather serious problems and deficiencies over time, and I am just now finally healing and overcoming the harm that being a strict vegetarian brought upon me . So the actual facts about what a healthy diet is, more or less disagrees with your position as an ignorant vegetarian.

"However, my personal opinion is that the mark of one's evolution is evidenced by how one treats other sentient beings. A steak on one's plate inures one to the tortures of Guantanamo Bay."

-- The second statement is utter bullshit. Bullshit. And if thats the way you think, then your ability to reason intelligently is seriously compromised. I don't even want to discuss this issue with people who are so narrow-minded and stupid.

"And on a more mundane level, I should add that it's been a decade since I last had 'flu. This is attributable to diet..."

-- I myself did not get ANY colds or any kind of sickness for more than 30 years, but that was NOT because I was a vegetarian. It was simply because I fasted alot and I ate ONLY mostly all fresh raw vegges and always fresh fruits, nuts and seeds, and NO dairy, NO flour, and very little grains. The absence of colds and flus was due only to that. But other lacto & grain vegetarians that I knew were always getting colds and being sick. Also, there were other people that I knew that ate only meat, fish, poultry, eggs, and fresh and raw vegetables and fruits, and again NO dairy at all... and they too never got sick. So its NOT being a vegetarian that keeps one from getting sick... but rather, it is simply NOT eating dairy products and alsoeating very little or no grains and grain flour (starchy carbs) etc.

And besides Dairy (milk, cheese, etc), there are also some very serious problems with eating Grains, Beans, Unsoaked Nuts & Seeds, and Potatoes. Go do the reseach and learn the facts.

I myself am no longer bound to or fixated upon eating only vegetarian food. I can and do now eat anything... but I mostly prefer to eat Eggs and Fish (only very occasionally organic poultry or red-meat), Whey protein isolate, soaked/sprouted seeds and nuts, fresh raw greens and other kinds vegetables, fruits and berries... and NO flour and practically NO grains, and only a small amount of cooked beans occasionally.

"
I'm afraid I choose to share a different set of views"

-- You views may be different, but the question is: are your views founded in facts or simply in unexamined and unsbstantiated beliefs and related influences?

"Genetically, and in terms of brain functions, there is not a great deal to separate cats and dogs from cows."

-- So what.

"So, why not eat one's pets? Or better still, why not eat one's own human children?"

-- Because they serve other important purposes.

"Yes, it is most compassionate to allow your herd of cattle to roam free. However it is irrefutably more compassionate to allow them to live without being kept to be killed."

-- That is merely YOUR own opinion and personal bias. That is not necessarily the greater picture and reality of the situation.

"One does not need meat or salmon for Omega 3, 6, 9 ... there is plenty of that in grains, flax, avocado and the like."

-- This is yet another example of your being hung-up in erroneous and faulty information. The fact is that those vegge sources are NOT actual omega fatty acids, but must be converted into them by the human body... and many people's systems don't convert them into EPA and DHA very well. Whereas the omega fatty acids EPA and DHA from fish and meat are gotten and assimilated directly (without the need for any conversion) from eating fish, fish oil, and meat.

"As someone who has been vegetarian since birth and grown to age 37 and a height of 5 feet 9 inches with a healthy body and mind (by the grace of God) I can attest to how absolutely redundant animal protein is."

-- I don't know what you mean here by "redundent". If you are 37, you are still rather young, and so you should be in fairly good health. And some people have better genes than others. So I would not attribute your health to vegetarianism all that much.

"When people eat meat it is simply a desire for one thing: the taste of mammal flesh and blood to satisfy their palates."

-- Now that, is another huge pile of bulllshit. People who eat meat, do not all eat meat out of a desire for blood. In fact only a very few like bloody rare meat. This is yet another example of your narrow-minded judgemental beliefs and false notions.

"You ask whether vegetables live. Of course they do. My reply would be:

"Do vegetables mourn their young when they are killed?"-- We don't know.

"Do vegetables bleed? " -- Yes, clearly.

"Do they cry when their throats are slit and their blood spilled?" Not necessarily, but agin we don't really know. One study some years ago indicated that they do have feeling/response.

"Do vegetables resist being picked in the way animals resist being slaughtered?" -- The impetus to LIVE is dewfinitely present in all living organisms.

"Do vegetables dream?" -- Not likely, but so what?

"of course modern life makes so much readily available to one in terms of food. That allows for ethically positive choices, but it also takes its toll on the planet in so far as carbon footprints are concerned"

-- This so-called "carbon footprint" stuff is yet another fallacious, highly overrated and seriously misunderstood issue. You are sounding more and more typical of people who don't know what the hell they are babbling about. Just go google and do some research the 'Carbon Tax' issue.

"I am grateful - I thank God for the conveniences of a refrigerator, modern plumbing and a gas stove!"

-- These items areall responsible for much OIL demand, production, and burning. As well as production of metals, plastic, and the associated toxic pollutions. So therefore, you are a hypocrite if you think that you are so virtuous ecologically. And also, your religious belief and gratitude to your "God" has nothing to do with any of this.

"On the subject of food, I do believe there is wisdom in the work of Peter D'Adamo and his research on genetics, blood types and diet. You mention ancient cultures: I'm the A Negative blood type. According to D'Adamo, this makes me a natural vegetarian and it's the state that's best for my health."

-- This is another controversy. D'Adamo's ideas are not all that substantiated or legit. There is much there that is up for debate and dispute.

"This shows that genetically my ancestors were likely agrarian farmers and not the hunter gatherers of the Type O blood group who are naturally inclined to eat meat."

-- This is merely an assumption. You believe it only because it conforms with your present diet. But clearly, your views and beliefs are mostly a product of rather incomplete, inaccurate, and faulty information... as well as being affected by a fair amount of influence pollution.

Catherine, you'd best go do some more extensive research. To that end, I recently posted a whole list of various Paleolitic Diet and Nutrition resource links that you would be wise to investigate. Perhaps someone will go back into the archives and find them and re-post them for you. I just haven't got the time to do that right now. [I think Tucson might have those, or he may know where in the archives to find them.]

Good Luck, and I really hope you will someday FREE yourself from all the various blind assumptions and the unproven beliefs (both dietary and RS spiritual/religious), that you you now pretend are "choices", which you presently subscribe to, and which you (rather foolishly) think are somehow working for you and are getting you somewhere.

Someday... you will be in for a bit of a rude awakening. So for your sake, I hope that day is sooner, rather than later. You are a nice as well as an articulate person, but your position with respect to lame RS spiritual dogma, and with faulty vegetarian notions... is so very typical of so many other naive RS satsangis and ignorant guru-cult followers. Its really all more or less tied together...

I think my friends Stuart Resnick and Osho Robbins both can perhaps address that side of this issue a bit more succintly and politely than I can. I myself am have grown a little too tough and harsh in my wise old years.

[tAo]

The phenomenal attractions are often found to tempt sentient beings to enjoy the variegated position which is opposed to undifferenced monism.

People are so much apt to indulge in transitory speculations even when they are to educate themselves on a situation beyond their empiric area or experiencing jurisdiction.

The esoteric aspect often knocks them to trace out immanence in their outward inspection of transitory and transformable things.

This impulse moves them to fix the position of the immanent to an indeterminate impersonal entity, no clue of which could be discerned by moving earth and heaven through their organic senses....

Foreword: http://vedabase.net/bs/foreword/en

Clickable Index of Links to All Stanzas : http://vedabase.net/bs/5/en

Example - Stanza 1: http://vedabase.net/bs/5/1/en

Example - Stanza 2: http://vedabase.net/bs/5/2/en

...and so on, and so forth...

[tAo]

Sri Isopaniṣad: http://vedabase.net/iso/en

Sri Isopanisad - Invocation: http://vedabase.net/iso/invocation/en

Stanza 1: http://vedabase.net/iso/1/en

Complete VedaBase: http://vedabase.net/en

[tAo]

For Catherine,

Here are some links to the various dietary information resources that I mentioned, that may help to broaden your mind a bit:

PaleoDiet.com links - The Paleolithic Diet - What the Hunter/Gatherers Ate:
http://www.paleodiet.com

Brief Introduction to the Paleolithic Diet:
http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html

Neanderthin and Paleolithic diet:
http://www.nerdheaven.dk/~jevk/paleo.php

The Paleo lifestyle:
http://www.nerdheaven.dk/~jevk/paleo_intro.php

Paleolithic Nutrition - Your Future Is In Your Dietary Past:
http://www.nutritionreporter.com/stone_age_diet.html

Paleolithic Nutrition:
http://www.direct-ms.org/paleolithicnutrition.html

The Naive Vegetarian:
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html

Paleolithic Nutrition:
http://www.nutritionreporter.com/stone_age_diet.html

Beyond Vegetarianism:
http://www.beyondveg.com

The Paleolithic Eating Support Recipe Collection:
http://www.paleofood.com

Weston Price Foundation:
http://www.westonaprice.org

[tucson]

Hey Catherine and other readers,

It is good to have someone here who has stimulated so much discussion with intelligence and without rancor.

You posted:

"On the subject of food, I do believe there is wisdom in the work of Peter D'Adamo and his research on genetics, blood types and diet.

You mention ancient cultures: I'm the A Negative blood type. According to D'Adamo, this makes me a natural vegetarian and it's the state that's best for my health. This shows that genetically my ancestors were likely agrarian farmers and not the hunter gatherers of the Type O blood group who are naturally inclined to eat meat."

--I also was influenced by D'Adamo's book "Eat Right for Your Type" when it came out in 1996-97. At the time I had been vegetarian for about 28 years and was disappointed at first to discover I was Type "O" who, as you know, D'Adamo thinks do best with animal protein (meat) in their diet and no wheat, corn, potatoes or dairy products. This was tough to swallow (pun intended) because I was doing the opposite: eating no animal protein and eating lots of wheat, corn, potatoes and some dairy products.

I was at a crossroads because I really wasn't doing as well physically as I was when I was younger and was looking for answers. After more research, I decided to try eating meat and cutting way back on the grains and potatoes. I never looked back. There was a definite shift in my health and vitality. I lost 10 kilos and then put on 5 kilos of muscle at age 48-49. I was stronger in terms of muscular strength than ever in my adult life. Only in my teenage years prior to the vegetarian diet was I stronger.

Another interesting coincidence. I used to get a lot of cavities. It seemed every time I went in for a dental check-up there was something to fix. I think I put my dentist's kids through college. My molars look like Fort Knox. Since changing my diet I have not had a single new cavity in eleven years. Maybe that is because there are no natural tooth surfaces left to decay!

D'Adamo's work continues to be controversial, but I think there is a lot to it. However, even his research shows that type O's respond best to his diet while the other blood types are a little more spotty in their results which indicates to me that most people do best on a diet that more closely resembles the type O diet which is essentially the paleo diet see:
paleodiet.com Also, his continued research shows that there are "sub-types" of blood type 'A' that do well with meat. So, it is a work in progress.

I never tell vegetarians to eat meat. I understand their sensitivities, but when they tell me that the vegetarian diet is superior, then the debate begins. People have done well for ages on vegetarian diets if the diet is well-chosen and supplemented properly and the same goes with omnivorous diets.

The Inuit (eskimo) ate practically nothing but raw meat for generations and thrived. In fact, some groups had taboos against eating anything but caribou and others, such as the Copper River Eskimo, would eat nothing but fish. Humans are adaptable omnivores. We have to find out what works best for us as individuals.

I don't recall if I have said this here before but this is a dietary fact that few are aware of...There are no essential carbohydrates in human nutrition. You can survive indefinitely without carbohydrate as long as the essential fats and proteins are present, but you will eventually die without either the essential fats or proteins. This is not intended as an argument in favor of eating meat. Just an interesting sidebar which may explain the Inuit success with an all meat diet.

[Catherine Muller]

Dear Tao,

Hi there, thanks so much for your opinions and for taking the time.

However, I'm not compelled to share your views and I don't for the simple fact that my choices - in respect of meditation, belief and my diet - make me happy.

Of course, you and Stuart and Osho are absolutely entitled to dismiss me and question my intelligence. Why ever not? However, I'm afraid I am no less swayed for convinced.

It must be my dreadfully poor perceptions, no doubt encumbered by my spiritual practice and my vegetarianism, that causes this. (Lol!)

All the best to you, with kind wishes, C

[tAo]

Catherine,

First, neither I nor one else has said that you should or must be "compelled" "swayed" or "convinced"... nor has anyone even remotely questioned your intelligence.

And second, just what "views" of mine are you referring to exactly? It would help alot if you would be a bit more specific and not so vague.

You were/are not at all specific, and that does not make for effective communication in comment forums such as this.

Also, it is actually YOU who are the one who is dismissing others. You are dismissing any information or views which differ from your own particular (and rather narrow and biased) mindest, or what you typically like to call "my choices - in respect of meditation, belief and my diet".

Based on your somewhat evasive and sarcastic response to my comments to you, I doubt that you have read little if any of the information that I mentioned and provided links to.

You are also apparently somewhat unfamilar with the overall nature and gist of most of the discussions here that revolve around Santmat & RSSB.

For instance, no one here has ever said or implied that you are not, or should not, be "happy" with your so-called "choices", your spirityality, or your lifestyle.

What I did say to you was that "your views and beliefs are mostly a product of rather incomplete, inaccurate, and faulty information", and also that you seem (imo) to be affected by other influences and biases (such as RS dogma).

For myself, I feel and act just exactly like Tucson has said: "I never tell vegetarians to eat meat. I understand their sensitivities, but when they tell me that the vegetarian diet is superior, then the debate begins."

That is exactly how I feel as well. I did not try in any way to tell you to abandon your vegetarian ways, nor reject your path of meditation or your chosen spiritual belief system.

The problem here arises when people (like yourself) start asserting and claiming...

(a.) that vegetarianism is superior to meat-eating in one way or another (either health-wise, morally, or spiritually); or

(b.) that the sant mat theology and practice is somehow superior to all other approaches, or that the shabda gurus/sants are GIHF, or (the very pervasive attitude amongst a vast majority of satsangis) that initiated satsangis (otherwise known as "specially marked souls") are spiritually a cut above the rest of humanity and other spiritual paths, or that the sant mat shabda meditation practice is the most superior and the most effective (in spite of the glaring fact that it has NOT produced any known results after years and decades amongst hundreds of thousands or more of practioners).

This is the problem which, btw, has been discussed and debated here many many times over.

You have made it clear that you are happy with your so-called "choices", and no one is arguing with that. As Tucson said, and I agree, you have not been confrontive and that is to your credit. However, the only reason people like myself are ever likely to confront YOU, is when you (or people like you) make statements or rhetoric (such as you have) that either says or implies that vegetarians and vegetarianism is superior (spiritually, morally/ethically, and health-wise), or also that Santmat philosopy and the RS cult is superior to other spiritual paths, or that the RS leaders are GIHF, or that the RS theology and belief system is only just meditation and not dogmatic, or something along those lines

You also said: "my dreadfully poor perceptions, no doubt encumbered by my spiritual practice and my vegetarianism, that causes this."

-- Well I have never said or felt that you have any "poor perceptions"... nor did I say (or imply) that your spiritual practice or your vegetarianism is an 'encumberance'. If you like it, then thats your business.

The issue here is simply that you made certain assertions, or perhaps inferences, that clearly indicated that you feel that vegetarianism and vegetarians are somehow better or more ethical than meat eating and meat-eaters, those who are not vegetarians.

So lets not play games about this. No one here said or says that you are wrong to choose to be a vegetarian or to practice a certain type of meditation. But by the same token, you should not be saying that meat-eating and meat-eaters are wrong or in some way inferior either, like you were saying. If you don't see that, then go back and read what you said.

And if you are "happy" doing sant mat meditation (as you claim to be), then all power to you. I myself have my own doubts, as do others, but I still hope that it pays off for you, with eaching the goal and the results that you anticipate. However, if not, then I would not waste my entire life on it.

I CAN tell you this from my own direct experience: Sant Mat (shabda) meditation is NOT at all necessary to achieve undying happiness and bliss and peace and what some refer to as Self-realization/Liberation in THIS very lifetime. None of that requires ANY the activities or practices or beliefs that RS recommends to its seekers and intitiates.

So that leaves one with the question: Why even pursue the RS path, what to speak of for an entire lifetime.... if it is fundamentally unnecessary?

So I would be quite interested in hearing what exactly ARE YOUR reasons for doing so, and what is the (or your) ultimate goal, in your idea and point of view?

[Catherine Muller]

Tao,

Some clarity:

Everything I have written - including my statements about meat - are based on my first hand experiences of people who eat meat. If there are people who are exceptions to my observations - and doubtless there are - that's absolutely fine. Specifically, I said: "The steak on one's plate insure one to the tortures of Guantanamo Bay". I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else. However, I am afraid that's been my experience. Doubtless, I can be proven wrong. However, everyone I have met who has endorsed Guantanamo Bay has eaten meat; and everyone I have met who opposed it was vegetarian. Perhaps that's a peculiarity. You choose to disagree. Fine.

I also said: " When people eat meat it is simply a desire for one thing: the taste of mammal flesh and blood to satisfy their palates."

I would describe the above statement as accurate based on the simple fact that one clearly has to have a taste for flesh and blood in order to eat meat.

Now, here are some of your Taoisms:

"you have not truly freed yourself from various limiting notions and fixations."

" there are several people in this forum who in fact have already 'been there, and done all of that'"

" The second statement is utter bullshit. Bullshit. And if thats the way you think, then your ability to reason intelligently is seriously compromised. "

"That is merely YOUR own opinion and personal bias"

"Now that, is another huge pile of bulllshit. (...) This is yet another example of your narrow-minded judgemental beliefs and false notions."

" You are sounding more and more typical of people who don't know what the hell they are babbling about."

" But clearly, your views and beliefs are mostly a product of rather incomplete, inaccurate, and faulty information... as well as being affected by a fair amount of influence pollution."

" Good Luck, and I really hope you will someday FREE yourself from all the various blind assumptions and the unproven beliefs (both dietary and RS spiritual/religious), that you you now pretend are "choices", which you presently subscribe to, and which you (rather foolishly) think are somehow working for you and are getting you somewhere."

The tone of some of your posts, Tao, is far more emotive, aggressive, inclined to expletives, more inclined to use capital letters which, as I'm sure you know, in internet parlance is akin to shouting.

What does all this say of the relative benefits of the Paleolithic diet on one's temperament?

Or is it simply your preferred mode on this particular site?

No, I did not read your links on the apparent benefits of a Paleolithic diet for the simple fact - let's be me most honest - because the tone of your posts left me disinclined to do so.

Further, I would imagine a google search will reveal any number of hyperlinks on the health benefits of vegetarianism to counter the Paleolithic argument. And we could trade hyper-links all day ...

Please read my posts again, just as carefully as you had requested I read yours with care.

I never used the phrase "God in human form" anywhere. You will not find it.

I factually quoted Jyotish texts where certain planetary configurations are assigned certain interpretations and said that therefore, QED, if one went on this, Gurinder Dhillon is guru material. I was entitled to draw that conclusion based on Jyotish practice.

I then outlined how I approach my particular Sant Mat practice.

If you feel that your particular views are superior to mine (based on the examples of your speech quoted above, you clearly do) you should surely take comfort in this.

I feel that any debate that devolves to an outcome of "I am right and you are wrong" (please read your quoted statements above) becomes boring. It reaches a dead end impasse. In short, doctrinaire opinions are uninteresting.

So to conclude, Tao, feel free to revel in your right to get fired up.

In turn, I shall revel in my right to remain unconvinced.

All the best, C

[Catherine Muller]

Tao,

An additional comment that I neglected to include in my above post.

Regarding God in Human form, in April 2008 I heard Gurinder Dhillon say in a question and answer session in my city:

"Brother, who is not God in human form?"

Sincerely, C

[the elephant]

Chaterine wrote:
"I said: "The steak on one's plate insure one to the tortures of Guantanmo Bay". I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else. However, I am afraid that's been my experience. Doubtless, I can be proven wrong. However, everyone I have met who has endorsed Guantanamo Bay has eaten meat; and everyone I have met who opposed it was vegetarian. Perhaps that's a peculiarity. You choose to disagree. Fine."

Someone does not have to be offended to 'choose' to disagree. Many people who are 'meat eater' are living proof of the falsehood of your statement. And you should know better--your statement is not only false but highly absurd if you 'choose' to think about it just a little bit--like recognizing the limitations of your own experience. You really need to meet new people ... your views are highly distorted due to the narrowness (and willingness) of your mind.

That you stick to your statement despite its obvious falsehood reveals quite a bit about your capacity to deceive yourself. Do you really think that among the 4-5 billion human beings on this earth you cannot find one that would contradict your statement? Please don't answer yes ...

Should I begin to lack any sense of discernement and start making judgement such as 'All vegetarians are individuals highly proned to self-deception and lying to themselves'? Of course not, that would be absurd.

Catherine wrote:
"When people eat meat it is simply a desire for one thing: the taste of mammal flesh and blood to satisfy their palates."

I don't eat and like red meat but I eat birds and fish ... are the former mammals? Again a deeply false and absurd generalization from your part ... and you stick to it with feeble justifications ...

[Juan]

Catherine
You said,
Regarding God in Human form, in April 2008 I heard Gurinder Dhillon say in a question and answer session in my city:

"Brother, who is not God in human form?"
What I understand from all the Books published by RSSB, it is very clear that the Guru is to be considered as God, and all the Gurus of RSSB have said so regarding their own Guru and absolutely all their teachings as well say so, and even nearly all the satsangs also confirm this. Gurinder Dhillon says so but I don’t think he means it, if he means it then why does he tours around the world for Darshan. Would he say that his Guru is not God in Human Form, I doubt.

A similar type of question (ARE YOU GOD?) was asked by a small child of 4-5 years in a small gathering in Spain during his first visit to Spain after he successed as a Guru to which he just smiled, but later on nearly all the satsangis present there convinced the small child near the Guru itself that he was DIOS and bow near him and say RADHASWAMI, which the child did. I think Gurinder could have told the child that he was not GOD, but he didn’t say.

Further Gurinder did not give any satsang for a long time, why? The reaction of the followers and general public was being studied very closely and then with the help and advice of the insiders of the organization, the answers to the possible questions were framed, of course with time Gurinder learned more to answer the questions tactfully.

In many places where his satsang programmes are held it is clearly said to the public that they should not enter in a dialogue with the master, why? I think the probable reason would be that these masters are also human beings like us and they also don’t have answers to all the questions, also the public is more aware.

In short,I bow near them, they have been performing their duties very well, even in tough times.

[Catherine Muller]

Dear Elephant et al,

I feel this entire discussion can all be reduced to a really simple question:

In the grander scheme of things, what does it matter to you what I eat or what I believe?

Especially if my life-style does not damage others, and does not impact on them in a negative way?

If you feel you have had insights into what you perceive as the relative follies of Sant Mat and vegetarianism, that's fine.

However, I find this thread somewhat tedious, I confess, and won't engage further. Simply put: am I learning anything new? No. Am I learning about people's capacities for opposition? Yes.

My life-style has sustained me very well (Inshallah, by the grace of God) and I won't be changing it - especially not on the basis of thoughts offered by strangers who post under one-name monikers. Sorry, but let's be pragmatic.

What concerns me more today is not this particular debate. Reading through the New York Times, the UK Independent and the Uk Guardian, I see much more that is of far greater concern than Catherine Muller and her predilections.

In short, I'd urge you to keep some perspective and lighten up. A sense of humour might be nice beyond all this loftiness.

Best wishes, C

[Catherine Muller]

Dear Elephant,

One other thing:

on your instruction that I should meet new people, do look me up on Facebook - as I post under my own name I'm very easy to find.

Among my more than 200 friends you will find Muslims, Jews, Hindus and many people of colour some of whom practice indigenous religions, and others who are staunch atheists.

However, I'll bear your suggestion in mind. One can't be too narrow in one's associations, can one?

All the best, C

[Roger]

Catherine,

Hopefully, you are still interested in commenting on this Blog.

---Nothing wrong with discussing a "God in human form" or a GodMan. We are at a Blog, so discuss anything.

---I was wondering, if you have read or conversed with friends, regarding the existance of a GodMan? Is there some small value in having a GodMan, among us in human form? Was Jesus a GodMan?

---Catherine, in your 12 years with RSSB, have you ever run across the term, "His Holiness?" If so, how do you interpret that term?

I'm not trying to find fault. There is no right or wrong answer.

Best wishes to you,
Roger

[tAo]

To Catherine,

You have written:

"Everything I have written - including my statements about meat - are based on my first hand experiences of people who eat meat."

-- Thats a rather lame way to approach it.

"I said: The steak on one's plate insure one to the tortures of Guantanamo Bay. I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else."

-- No I am NOT offended... but this is an example of how you are misinterpreting. However, I was rather suprised that you could be so incredibly ignorant and narrow-minded to associate such unrelated issues. But now I see that you are ignorant and narrow-minded.

"everyone I have met who has endorsed Guantanamo Bay has eaten meat; and everyone I have met who opposed it was vegetarian."

-- Then you must have a rather odd circle of acquaintences. Where I live, which is the USA, that is not the way it is at all. Sixty plus million (meat-eating) liberals (and another countless millions of meat-eating conervatives) do NOT approve of Gitmo at all. So its not about meat-eaters. Its about what is right and humane and what is lawful. For you to to appempt to link the two together is incredibly absurd and rather narrow-minded.

"Perhaps that's a peculiarity. You choose to disagree. Fine."

-- Yeah I definitely disagree. And I think its now quite clear what your mentality is.

"I also said: When people eat meat it is simply a desire for one thing: the taste of mammal flesh and blood to satisfy their palates. (...) I would describe the above statement as accurate based on the simple fact that one clearly has to have a taste for flesh and blood in order to eat meat."

-- This is yet another incredibly ignorant and lame conclusion. Many people eat meat because thats what they have done all their lives. To them meat is food. Its not because they have a 'taste for blood'. Your thinking is about as faulty and unfounded as can be. There are also many vegetarians who don't eat meat, but its not because they don't have 'a taste for blood'. Its simply because they either don't want to interfere with or harm animals or they believe that vegetarian is a healthier diet. It has nothing to do with not having 'a taste for blood'. This 'taste for blood' thing is simply your own twisted notion. It actually a reflection of your own unexamined beliefs and your negative attitude.

"here are some of your Taoisms"

-- Wrong. I don't believe in Taoism, or in any sort of 'isms'.

"The tone of some of your posts, Tao, is far more emotive, aggressive, inclined to expletives, more inclined to use capital letters which, as I'm sure you know, in internet parlance is akin to shouting."

-- Wrong again. The use of capitals for a single word or a couple of words, does NOT indicate "shouting". It simply and merely indicates an extra emphasis on that particular word. But for one were to use ALL capitals for ALL words in a sentence, then that would indeed be considered shouting. Moreover, my "tone" is hardly "emotive, aggressive" or "inclined to expletives". You are just not used to anyone, such as myself, confronting your naieve, lame, and politically-correct style of bullshit.

"What does all this say of the relative benefits of the Paleolithic diet on one's temperament?"

-- Fyi miss smartass, I myself have been a vegetarian for 45 years, and a strict vegan for about 25 years. So I don't have any such a "temperment" as you would imply.

"Or is it simply your preferred mode on this particular site?"

-- I don't have any particular "preferred mode". As others will no doubt agree, my range of responses to people varies widely.

"No, I did not read your links on the apparent benefits of a Paleolithic diet for the simple fact (...) because the tone of your posts left me disinclined to do so."

-- ...Which only just proves my point that you are clearly an individual who makes uninformed judgements and ignorant knee-jerk reactions to people and issues that you know little or nothing about. Not to mention your somehat arrogant blind faith in dogma, coupled with your obvious lack of self-knowledge.

"a google search will reveal any number of hyperlinks on the health benefits of vegetarianism to counter the Paleolithic argument."

-- As has been pointed out before, much of that info in support of vegetarian is faulty as it turns out. Science and nutrition has other opinions and conclusions. You are just unwilling to admit that your views may be in error.

"Please read my posts again, just as carefully as you had requested I read yours with care."

-- I did NOT request that you should re-read MY posts. I suggested that you re-read YOUR OWN posts. So here is yet another example of your misinterpreting and mis-reading.

"I never used the phrase "God in human form" anywhere. You will not find it."

-- I did NOT say that you did. I used the term because that is one of the facets of the RS doctrine and belief system.

"If you feel that your particular views are superior to mine..."

-- I never said what my "views" are, or that they are in any way superior. I simply asked you what YOUR views are (re: santmat/RS).

"In short, doctrinaire opinions are uninteresting."

-- Oh...is that why YOU have "doctrinaire opinions" and positions about sant mat, meat-eaters, vegetarianism, etc.?

"Tao, feel free to revel in your right to get fired up."

-- I am not "fired up" by any of this crap. All of this kind of stuff has been covered here many times before. Its nothing new.

"I shall revel in my right to remain unconvinced."

-- Which just means that you will remain closed-minded and clueless.

"Regarding God in Human form, in April 2008 I heard Gurinder Dhillon say in a question and answer session in my city: "Brother, who is not God in human form?""

-- Frankly, that doesn't mean a god-damn thing, and its nonsense. Its just another lame evasion of the fact that RS followers are definitely of the belief that the RS master is uniquely GIHF (as he is portrayed in RS literature), and they (the disciples)... ARE NOT. And the RS gurus (including the current phony sat-guru Gurinder) themselves do not say or do anything whatsoever to dispel that illusion and fantasy.

"In the grander scheme of things, what does it matter to you what I eat or what I believe?"

-- It doesn't matter to me. I never said that it did matter.

"If you feel you have had insights into what you perceive as the relative follies of Sant Mat and vegetarianism, that's fine. However, I find this thread somewhat tedious, I confess, and won't engage further."

-- Typical. And that's what I meant by you'll just 'take your toys and go home'.

"am I learning anything new? No. Am I learning about people's capacities for opposition? Yes."

-- The "opposition" is YOURS, not ours. YOU are the one who refuses to look at facts and be more open-minded.

"My life-style has sustained me very well (...) and I won't be changing it - especially not on the basis of thoughts offered by strangers who post under one-name monikers. Sorry, but let's be pragmatic."

-- You are not "pragmatic" at all. You are narrow-minded and biased and rather unwilling to grow beyond your judgements and your dogmatic comfort zone.

"What concerns me more today is not this particular debate. I'd urge you to keep some perspective and lighten up. A sense of humour might be nice beyond all this loftiness."

-- Hah! That's rather funny. Its fairly obvious to myself and to others that its realy YOUR sense of "loftiness" that is what has been causing most of the recent debate here. Being a bit of a stuck-up vegetarian and a self-righteous advocate of RS gihf/guru worship and RS guru-cultism is definitely showing "loftiness" imo.

Most of us here are VERY down to earth... and thats more or less why we don't buy the kind of presumptious rhetoric and dogma and judgemental attitude that you have been presenting here. You seem like a nice person (to a point), but you are obviously and even admittedly quite narrow-minded and erronepous in your presumptions and judgements when it comes to ex-vegetarians, non-vegetarians, and ex-satsangis, and what their views really are and how they really think.

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

That all having been addressed, now I will offer my own little rant:

You obviously came here with quite a bit of mistaken notions and false presumptions (about non-vegetarians and about ex-satsangis and RS critics)... and thus it seems that you have not improved or broadened your mind at all, but rather you've remained defensive and more determinedly and deliberately fixed in your closed-mindedness.

I've come to think and observe that your superficial pleasant demeanor and your semi-non-confrontive style and appearance here, is really just hiding another side of you underneath... and that side of you is actually rather uptight and quite narrow and judgemental and biased against those who don't believe as you do... re: vegetarianism and spiritual guru-cultism. You yourself can't see that yet, but some others of us here can see it. We've seen other satsangis that are very similar to you.

Now, I suspect that you will not receive this feedback very well, and you will most likely 'take your toys (and dogma) and stubbornly go home'... However, I would encourage you to hang in here, and hopefully expand your perspective. You keep saying and reiterating that you are "happy" and confident in your spiritual trip and lifestyle, and you are not going to change... but no one here is really asking or suggesting that you change. The problem is that you are making some judgements and conclusions about other people and their views that are way far off the mark and downright lame.

I had asked you to share some of YOUR own core views and beliefs concerning RS doctrine and the sant mat guru concept, but so far you have avoided doing that. Yet you will falsely judge others (like meat-eaters who supposedly support Gitmo and torture).

This kind of general presumtion is a huge crock of bullshit if there ever was one. As a matter of fact, I happen to know many meat-eaters all over America (who are also liberals btw) who were & are outraged by and vehemently opposed to Gitmo and the Bush regime's unlawful and inhumane torture policies. So on this score, you and your judgements are incredibly bogus and ignorant, and you just don't what you are talking about. And unfortunately, its always people like you who are doing the talking.

You also made an assumption about me as being "passionate". But thats another judgemental misinterpretation on your part. I just don't swallow your brand of politically-correct bullshit. Narrow-minded and knee-jerk judgemental satsangis like you are quite transparent to me. I know very well how you think, and just how closed-minded and blatantly self-righteous you are.

If you were not that way, you would not be hearing any of this from me. Some of the others here are more polite, and they will hesitate to confront you, especially if you play it more easygoing. But I see right through your superficial facade and your rigid and dogmatic RS guru-cult mentality. You are not the least bit interested in any real spiritual growth or awakening.

If I told you anything else or was any less critical, I would not be honest and I would not be of help to you. You can hate me if you like, but perhaps someday you will come to realize these things that you refuse to see now.

[Catherine Muller]

Dear Tao,

Sorry, perhaps you hadn't read my earlier post or perhaps it was not clear?

However, I will once again state - only because you have asked and not because I am obliged to - that my core views around Sant Mat are these:

- I have an absolutely one-on-one engagement with Gurinder Dhillon based on (a) what I have heard him say in person with my own ears, and (b) what is written to me in letters.

For the rest, I do not read Sant Mat books and I pay no attention to 'the group'. My engagement is with this one individual.

- I do Sant Mat meditation and enjoy it very much. Yes, it works for me. Sorry if you disagree.

- I am a vegetarian and always have been.

- I try to live ethically.

That is my Sant Mat, Tao.

For the rest, I'm afraid your posts are somewhat hard to read.

It's not the content. You see, I can handle absolutely any information presented to me.

It's the tone and attitude I find entirely unnecessary. Perhaps you might spend less time focusing on my apparent short comings and a little more reflecting on why you feel the need to speak to people this way?

I'm sure you'll concede tone and attitude are the personal hallmark of the writer while facts may be common to many.

Thank you too for your repeated suggestions that I drop my "miss wise-ass" ways and wisen up.

Take comfort in what you know, Tao, and don't bother lecturing me.

Firstly, I am strong-willed person who is not easily swayed.
How else do you explain that I filmed for over a year in a community with a murder-rate that is one of the highest in the world outside of a war zone telling the story of a group of gun-wielding gangsters?

My life is based on two things, Tao:

- first-hand experience.
- first-hand observations.

Secondly, I have plenty of courage. Ask my husband who was held up at gun-point by muggers and I intervened.

Facts of any kind don't scare me.

However, a doctrinaire attitude is not one I welcome.

For me the tragedy is not my ignorance, Tao. The tragedy is that time lost cannot be regained and the time spent engaging in this debate with you could be much better spent doing something socially productive and helpful like teaching an adult literacy class; working in a community garden ... the list goes on. Take your pick.

All the best, C
Catherine Muller

[tAo]

To Catherine:

Catherine, you wrote (in quotations):

"Sorry, perhaps you hadn't read my earlier post or perhaps it was not clear?"

-- I have already read them. They did not at all answer my more recent question regarding your own personal views about the Santmat/RS ideas and beliefs and guru concept.

"I will once again state - only because you have asked and not because I am obliged to - that my core views around Sant Mat are these"

-- I did not in any way imply that you are or should be "obliged". You obviously have some sort of an attitude or charge related to that.

"I have an absolutely one-on-one engagement with Gurinder Dhillon based on (a) what I have heard him say in person with my own ears, and (b) what is written to me in letters."

-- OK, but so what? Is that supposed to impress me? It doesn't. So what if you only derive your thinking and beliefs from Gurinder's own words, and are basically sychophant to Gurinder. How does that amount to answering my question concerning your own personal views about the Santmat/RS beliefs and philosophy? You appear to be skirting and avoiding the issue, my question.

"For the rest, I do not read Sant Mat books and I pay no attention to 'the group'. My engagement is with this one individual."

-- Again, so what if you listen only to one guy - namely Gurinder. That still does not tell me anything about what YOUR OWN personal views are, relative to the core beliefs of the RS/santmat philosophy.

"I do Sant Mat meditation and enjoy it very much. Yes, it works for me. Sorry if you disagree."

-- Along the same lines which I have indicated above... Again, so what if you enjoy meditation. Thats nice, but I really couldn't care less that you DO the meditation, or that you "enjoy" doing it. Or that you think that it "works" for you. So in response to that, my question is: Exactly HOW does it work for you? And what precisely makes you think that it "works"? In other words, what actual results and goal(meaning the results that Santmat teachings and doctrine promises the practioner) have been produced and achieved by your shabd meditation practice? Just merely saying that you meditate, tells me virtually nothing about why you think it "works". So HOW does it actually "work" for you? What results, what goal, if any, has it actually achieved in your case?

"I am a vegetarian and always have been."

-- You already said that previously. Furthermore, that still does not tell me anything about what YOUR own views are about the RS concepts, the RS beliefs and theology, or the various claims that RS makes about the so-called RS sants/masters.

"I try to live ethically."

-- Again, that basically says nothing about what is YOUR take regarding the RS philosophical beliefs and their claims.

"That is my Sant Mat"

-- You have still told me nothing about YOUR own peronal views regarding RS beliefs. You have said nothing about what you think about RS concepts, how much you accept them, and why. You have only told me that you meditate, that you are a vegetarian, and that you live ethically. That says virtually nothing about how you regard and what you think about the various claims of the RS doctrine and the RS 'masters'.

"For the rest, I'm afraid your posts are somewhat hard to read. It's the tone and attitude I find entirely unnecessary."

-- This is just typical avoidance and evasiveness. We have seen this type of diversionary non-response from other satsangis before you. It just doesn't fly. And my "tone" has been quite honest and direct, which apparently makes you uncomfortable. And so again, you are merely evading the question and the issue.

"Perhaps you might spend (...) a little more reflecting on why you feel the need to speak to people this way?"

-- Ahhh... My confronting you about your judgemental attitude and narrow-mindedness and evasiveness obviously makes you feel uncomfortable. Perhaps its YOU who should "reflect" upon THAT. And you apparently haven't got any clue whatsoever as to where I am actually coming from... relative to the spiritual or the mundane. But you do have quite a lot of mistaken presumptions and unexamined beliefs. That's why I asked you about YOUR own personal views and beliefs related to RS and the RS master.

"I'm sure you'll concede tone and attitude are the personal hallmark of the writer while facts may be common to many."

-- Like I said, you simply haven't a clue as to where I am coming from, or where I'm at.

"Take comfort in what you know, Tao, and don't bother lecturing me."

-- I don't value so-called "comfort"... I value truth. And don't you know... its only the closed-minded fools that say things like "don't bother lecturing me".

"Firstly, I am strong-willed person who is not easily swayed."

-- Otherwise known as: Arrogant and Stubborn.

"How else do you explain that I filmed for over a year in a community with a murder-rate that is one of the highest in the world outside of a war zone telling the story of a group of gun-wielding gangsters?"

-- Well bully for you. What does that have to do with my question regarding what you think about RS beliefs and spiritual philosophy? I myself am a veteran officer of the terrible war in Vietnam, so I've faced alot of mortal danger and death - and on the other hand - I also spent a number of relatively peaceful but extremely austere years living as a hard-core yogi/sadhu/sannyasi in both the Himalayas as well as the jungles of south India and Sri Lanka. But so what? That has nothing to do with my question to you about RS.

"My life is based on two things,
- first-hand experience.
- first-hand observations."

-- In my 60+ years of age, and my 30+ years of Santmat/RS experience, I happen to know an enormous amount about "first-hand experience" and "observation"... However, far more importantly, I value DIRECT experience, not dogma or heresay.

"Secondly, I have plenty of courage. Ask my husband who was held up at gun-point by muggers and I intervened."

-- Well thats certainly to your credit, but it still does not answer my questions.

"Facts of any kind don't scare me."

-- Then why do you avoid relating what your own personal views are about the various RS beliefs and claims?

"However, a doctrinaire attitude is not one I welcome."

-- I'm not sure what you are referring to.

"For me the tragedy is not my ignorance, Tao."

-- Ignorance is usually always a tradgedy, especially when it involves commiting one's entire life to something that may or may not be valid or necessary.

"The tragedy is that time lost cannot be regained and the time spent engaging in this debate with you could be much better spent doing something socially productive and helpful like teaching an adult literacy class; working in a community garden ... the list goes on."

-- Only in your sense of value. I disagree, and thats because these questions that we discuss and debate about here in this little blog forum are rather crucial and pivotal to how people live their lives and spend their time and effort, and what they pursue... especially in terms of their spiritual pursuits. You don't see the value in that yet, probably because you are immature and have not taken responsibility for your own innate spiritual awakening.

Instead, you rely upon external dogma, and upon someone else such as Gurinder Singh... someone who is all too human and can never ever fulfill the promise or the claim, or the imperiative need for direct spiritual awakening, for direct and tacit understanding and awareness, for self-liberation. The RS guru and the RS meditation will never accomplish that for you.

But this is not something that is even on your radar screen yet. Nevertheless, good luck to you, and I also hope that you will someday begin to take a little bit of that "time" that you say you would rather spend upon other things, and use it to go do some simple direct and real Self-inquiry. That in itself will be worth infinitely more, and far more effective, than doing countless hours and years of repetitive RS meditation.

[tAo]

PS to Catherine...

The name is "tAo". NOT "Tao".

Perhaps you did not understand that there's a slight, but significant difference.

[Brian]

tAo, good questions and observations. I get what you're getting at. But I doubt that true believers (of any faith) will.

It'd be nice if people could just speak simply and forthrightly about their chosen spiritual path. The confusion comes with all this oblique talk, as you pointed out.

What do you know? What have you directly experienced? How do you know it is true?

Pretty darn simple. But I hear so often, "I can't share my inner experiences. They're personal." Or, "I've benefitted so much from my faith."

Well, I've benefitted a lot from my non-faith. As you said in your comment, meditating or not, feeling good or not, being a vegetarian or not, having love for another person or not -- all this doesn't say squat about whether a religious belief is true.

Each of us faces a choice: to face toward truth or away from it. That's really the only choice to make, about anything, anytime.

[Catherine Muller]

Dear tAo,

Boy, you do like the sound of your own voice, don’t you? Hiding behind that little 3-word moniker is so totally brave. You really are old and wise.

So you believe in the value of direct self-inquiry, huh?

Firstly, your posts in the Churchless archive reveal a long history of aggression – many have commented on this. Clearly, anger is something you get off on. Your tendencious rants are all over this site. Don’t you have a social life? Or is it simply that in the real world normal people can't be bothered to stick around for the lecture?

Secondly, your post of February 17th 2007 is a particular gem:

“So are we goin to be spliffin-out irie in Jamaica, swimin nude with the ladies in St. Martin, or high-rollin in Nassau, Bahamas?”

Now I totally get it. You don’t want to be tAo. You really want to be Kanye West. (Google him, dear. He's a rap star.)

Wow.

For a 60+ guy you’re kind of “hip”. Do you live in California?

Oh, I’m laughing.

I just tripped over an Olympic-size white male cliché and I can’t take any of this so-called “discussion” (little more than the diatribe of brother tAo) seriously. Sorry. This is absolutely hilarious ... !!

You should totally go swim with those honeys. Imagine all you could teach ‘em? I bet those girls in Jamaica love ranting old white guys.

Later, Mr High-Roller.

All the best, C
Catherine Muller

[Catherine Muller]

Dear Brian,

On the line: " I get what you're getting at. But I doubt that true believers (of any faith) will" nobody's got a comprehension problem or an IQ deficit around here. I know this is your site, but this statement comes across as especially paternalistic.

Speaking of archives, I've observed a discernible trend where tAo posts and you back him up.

How many time have you written "good questions and observations, tAo"? Have a read through the archive, Brian ... It's beginning to feel like an old boy's club that rather predictably conforms to type. tAo is your wing man and you two have got that Good Cop, Bad Cop, Starsky and Hutch thing going.

I have to ask, what do you and tAo actually want?

To "convince" me? As I stated, don't bother ... I walk to the beat of my own drum and lectures fall flat with me.

You want to know if I've had experiences meditating? Sure. You want to know if I have left my body and had outer-body experiences? Yes ... and? You want to know if I have had encounters with the supernatural that can't be explained by science? Well, duh. You want to know if I've seen astral realms? Yes, sure ...

Why is any of this a big deal? So many people do it all the time.

The bottom line is:

1. I can't prove any of this to you and how on earth would you possibly know that I'm telling the truth?

2. I can't bring a FedEx from the fourth dimension.

3. Aren't the above points the fundamental problem with this debate?

As I've written in an email to Brian, if one then wanted "miracles" as proof of someone being a meditating spiritual adept (miracles defined as something surprising and seemingly inexplicable according to conventional rules of science and logic) there are any number of books on Tantra; Kahuna magic and Kabbalah; that explain (a) how these "miracles" can happen, and (b) how there is nothing inherently "spiritual" about them.

One thing no-one on this site has clearly defined is the boundaries between spiritual / occult / supernatural / God.

If you want to have more info on what people see and experience, there are any number of Yahoo discussion groups featuring people's many experiences with any number of meditation practices and the like.

However - and this point should be noted - I don't notice neither Brian nor tAo ganging out on these groups.

Why is that?

Are you uncomfortable operating outside of the bubble of Churchless where - as archives show - a rather safe and predictable mode has been established?

You say things like: "to face toward truth or away from it"

Well, what exactly does that mean? You two seem to have dibs on "truth". Or so you believe ...

As I said to you in my email, Brian, I had hoped to learn something new from this site but it's proven to be a something of a disappointment.

There's a whole lot of grudges and a whole lot of "we're the older, wiser" men.

But I can honestly say - with all due respect - that I have not learned one thing that I had not encountered elsewhere before. Either by way of information, or opinion.

I get much more from reading widely - Max Freedom Long; Alexandra David Neel, and the like - than hanging out here. I'm sorry. But you asked for the truth.

Go on tAo, you may find them interesting ... They figured one or two things ... All without ranting.

All the best you guys, C

[Catherine Muller]

Sorry .. that should have said: "hanging out on these sites". Not "ganging out" . I guess that's what you'd call a Freudian slip. Lol!

[Catherine Muller]

Dear all,

As I rolled up my sleeves to wash my morning dishes, I was struck by a thought:

One last point - it's the glaringly obvious one that no-one has addressed since I've been on this site:

with all the talk of truth and interrogative thinking, how truthful or free is it when a site is run by a moderator (Brian) who very clearly manages the agenda and predicates much of what is discussed on his position and dips in to lend his 'weight' as the authoritative site owner (or the 'unpastor) to whoever says what. This speaks of a certain amount of control. And can truth and control co-exist?

You'll find very satisfying free-form debates and Socratic dialogue on those big, anonymous sites hosted by faceless multi-nationals ... Plenty of truth there.

When any individual chooses to host a discussion site such as this one it is an action that speaks of: "I have wisdom to impart ... "Therefore, in this one can read "my truth is worth noticing". Well, how does ego sit with truth?

I feel this has to be asked ...

All the best, C
Catherine Muller

[Brian]

Catherine, before I read your last few comments I was planning to congratulate you on some excellent writing and some terrific comebacks to tAo. Both of you are skilled conversational punchers and counter-punchers. It doesn't matter who wins the bout, or how its scored, but the beauty of the give and take.

Reminds me of when I was working with a psychiatrist on health policy issues and took someone to meet him. She was from New York, where my psychiatrist colleague also had lived.

They sat down in his office, exchanged a few pleasantries, and then proceeded to go at it tooth and nail for about twenty minutes -- arguing about this and that. I thought they were going to kill each other.

When they wound down, the psychiatrist smiled and said to her, "Thanks. I haven't had a conversation like that since I moved to Oregon. People don't know how to talk out here."

I thought that was great. He missed the in-your-face style of New Yorkers. That's what I like about your interchanges with tAo, how both of you say it bluntly like it is and don't back down, yet have fun doing it.

I don't always agree with what tAo says. Just like I don't always agree with what you say. However, each of you is skilled at saying, albeit in different fashions.

Regarding my own saying, when I said that most believers wouldn't get what tAo was getting at, that was based on my own experience. Hey, you're big on your own experience, Catherine. You trust it, and draw conclusions from it. I'm just doing the same.

For many years I'd read or hear stuff along tAo's lines and dismiss it. Now, I have a different take on it. That comes from a change in perspective, a fresh way of viewing myself and reality. It isn't conceptual; it's experiential -- a product of realizing (in my own fashion) that the contents of my mind/psyche amount to zilch when it comes to understanding the nature of the cosmos.

It sounds like you've had some interesting mystical experiences. Well, we've all had interesting experiences, mystical or otherwise. The question is: does understanding reality come from experiences, or from what lies at the foundation of experiences?

You have one answer. Others have a different answer. The debate goes on. I love it.

[Catherine Muller]

" The question is: does understanding reality come from experiences, or from what lies at the foundation of experiences?"

Oy vey ... You should study the Talmud, Brian.

I go by what I touch, smell, see, feel, hear ... I can't speak for the rest of humanity.

All the best,
Catherine

[tAo]

Catherine,

You seem to have missed the point. And its funny that you call me long winded, because considering your long impudent rants, you apparently like the sound of your own voice.

I actually don't really have alot to say to you. I simply responded to your previous statements. Part of the resaon I haven't much to say to you is that you have come to some pretty off-the-wall conclusions about Brian and I. Fyi, we are definitely not in cahoots, as you seem to think and say. And Brian very rarely responds to or address much of my comments.

Also, just because other foolish commenters have occasionally attempted to interpret my incisive comments as being aggressive or angry, doesn't make that true. You now presume to know where I am at, just because you went and read some sampling of old news... but its painfully obvious to me that you are so full of shit, and you really don't even know much about yourself.

This is also obvious just from your repeated lame jabs at my pseudonym, as if that means anything. I don't hide behind any such thing. My comments are plain and frank and unambiguous. So by your attempting to make my blog-name "tAo" an issue, you are more or less making a stupid fool of yourself... not to mention that you're still evading all of the simple basic hard questions that I asked you, and that this blog points to and addresses so often.

Which really makes me wonder WHY are you even here? If you are not interested in putting the cards, or your cards, on the table, and taking an honest look at them, then you're probably just here to play troll games and harass exsatsangis while preaching a little RS BS.

Btw, didn't you know that Gurinder has forbidden all initiated satsangis like yourself from discussing or preaching or debating Sant mat & RS anywhere on the internet? Yes, and that includes blogs, discussion boards, chatrooms, and e-mails.

His instructions regarding that were clear and formally published back in the latter 90s, and have not been retracted, to my or others knowledge.

So why, if you claim to be a disciple of Gurinder and RSSB, do you ignore and violate your spiritual master's stated wishes, instructions, and orders? You either respect and adhere to his orders, or you don't. And up to now, you are not respoecting or adhering. Just thought I'd let you know.

So y can't claim ignorance any longer. If you don't believe me, I can probably find and post the formal published RSSB statements that clearly prohibit all satsangis from any sort of discussion or posting about Santmat & RS on the internet.

You said: "Don’t you have a social life?" -- I actually spend very little time here. Usually maybe 10 or 20 minutes every few days. However, you are just a little twit who likes to talk big.

And no, I am not into jive-ass rappers. And btw, I've already been to Jamaica and the Bahamas on my sailboat... which is where the joke (mind you) was coming from. You are really so naive and presmptious to actually think that you have me all figured out. Like I said, you're just an immature little twit with a fat head and a big mouth. Laugh on, becuse the joke's on you bitch. LOL

Later, miss ugly little bitch.

You said to Brian: "nobody's got a comprehension problem or an IQ deficit around here." -- That is, except for moronic guru-cult-goon twits like yourself.

You said to Brian: "I have to ask, what do you and tAo actually want? To "convince" me?" -- Nobody gives a shit about a self-possessed narcissistic little twit like you. I'm not here to "convince" anyone of anything. There is nothing to convince about. Its jackass RS goons like you who are the ones who think they are convinced of something. This blog is all about the mystery, not the dogma that you subscribe to. Like I said, the more you sound-off at me, the bigger fool you make yourself.

You said: "I walk to the beat of my own drum and lectures fall flat with me." -- Is that why you follow some guy in a turban, and clamour for his lectures? You are such a shallow hypocrite. And a sore loser as well. And you ARE definitely a loser.

Oh and btw, all of your so-called inner "experiences" that you mentioned to Brain, they don't amount to a goddamn thing. And worse, you haven't got a friggin clue as to what that means. You think that you are somebody and you think you are going somehere. Heh Heh! LOL

You said: "I can't bring a FedEx from the fourth dimension." -- What ridiculous garbage.

You said: "One thing no-one on this site has clearly defined is the boundaries between spiritual / occult / supernatural / God." -- Thats old shit. Way old shit. Typical duality.

You said: "If you want to have more info on what people see and experience" -- Nobody (at least not I) is interested in inner experiences. Maybe it means something to you, but that stuff is all irrelevant and useless garbage.

You said: "I don't notice neither Brian nor tAo ganging out on these groups. Why is that?" -- Huh? What "groups"? What nonsense are you talking about?

You said: "Are you uncomfortable operating outside of the bubble of Churchless" -- Fyi, people don't always use the same name or ID on other blogs or groups. You are obviously grasping for straws... but unfortunately, you just ain't got none.

You said: "You say things like: "to face toward truth or away from it" Well, what exactly does that mean? You two seem to have dibs on "truth". Or so you believe"

-- Apparently you aren't very smart. Fyi, neither one of us ever said (or even implied) or "believe" that we "have" the "truth". But thats precisely what alot of self-congratulating RS goons like you think and say about yourselves and about Sant mat. You are clearly dishonest because you make deliberate false assertions and distortions about what others do and don't say. Which makes you an RS internet troll.

You said: "I had hoped to learn something new from this site but it's proven to be a something of a disappointment." -- Thats because you are closed-minded and self-possessed, and you are unwilling to enter into honest consideration and/or debate. You are not really open to considering or learning anything, thats why you are disappointed and you haven't.

You said: "But I can honestly say - - that I have not learned one thing that I had not encountered elsewhere before. Either by way of information, or opinion."

-- You don't even know what Brian, or Tucson, or Stuart, or Osho, or I, or other folks are saying. You just haven't grasped it. So you will likely go on your foolish way never knowing what actually was communicated.

"I get much more from reading widely - Max Freedom Long; Alexandra David Neel"

-- And from those two authors that you mention and tout, clearly you are just not anywhere near comprehending awakened awareness, nonduality, or instant presence.

"Go on tAo, you may find them interesting ... They figured one or two things"

-- That kind of stuff is just useless old hat to me. Romantic, but way old and quite irrelevant. I'm deep into dzogchen.

One last point - it's the glaringly obvious one that no-one has addressed since I've been on this site:

You said: "with all the talk of truth and interrogative thinking" -- Fyi, there really isn't much talk of "truth" here...not the way you are implying. Only rarely is it ever used or mentioned. I myself don't find that term very useful, and I haven't seen Brian or anyone else say it or use it much either. So I believe that you have misintrepreted and are in error about this.

"how truthful or free is it when a site is run by a moderator (Brian) who very clearly manages the agenda and predicates much of what is discussed on his position and dips in to lend his 'weight' as the authoritative site owner (or the 'unpastor) to whoever says what."

-- This is a lame and unfounded reaction. Are you stupid or what? This is Brian's blog, and of course he writes articles. Other people also comment on his articles, but they also comment on and respond to other commenters, completely apart from Brian and his subject matter. And this is obvvious to everyone but you? Come-on, what kind of bogus nonsense are you whining and complaining about?

You said: "This speaks of a certain amount of control. And can truth and control co-exist?" -- Brian doesn't control anything here exceot fior what HE posts and HIS comments. He doesn't "control" anyone else, in any sense at all. This is an absurd notion that you are presenting, and it speaks and reveals the foolishness and faultyness of your thinking.

You said: "When any individual chooses to host a discussion site such as this one it is an action that speaks of: "I have wisdom to impart ... "

-- What utter balderdash. What idiotic garbage. Now I see what your problem is. You've really got a very warped idea of what this is about.

This is simply one man's Blog, where he sort of thinks out loud. It is not a formal "discussion site". The discussion part is minor and is merely a feedback and comment section. You are distorting the picture. Its not what you portray it as. You've got some problems with your perception and your interpretation.

"Therefore, in this one can read "my truth is worth noticing". Well, how does ego sit with truth?"

-- Wrong. To be quite honest, Brian is clearly not presuming any such claim to "truth". If you had read his articles, that would be obvious to you. Quite the opposite. And the same goes for myself and Tucson and others. To put it bluntly, you are really 'full of shit'.

"I feel this has to be asked"

-- And you heard my answer.

I would also mention that if you really wish to participoate here, it would be helpful if you would simply and honestly join into the discussion, and not take such an oblique stance, or jump to such absurd conclusions and judgements, without any real basis in fact. Otherwise, you are merely behaving like just another cheap internet troll, with an RS agenda.

[the elephant]

A comment I posted earlier in another section but this nugget may of interest for Catherine ...

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.

[Catherine Muller]

Dear tAo,

You wrote:

"Later, miss ugly little bitch.".

In my book that would count as misogynist hate speech.

Brian, as unpastor, moderator and site owner, would you care at this point to comment on your good friend tAo's words here?

Or is this kind of thing permissable because tAo is deep into dzogchen and therefore, QED, he can speak as he likes?

For the record, tAo. I'm not "debating Sant Mat" philosophy.

Read my posts super carefully.

All along I have been defending three things:

1. Defending my right to believe what I choose.
2. Defending my right to eat what I choose.
3. Answering the question of what my belief-system is based on, namely, what I see, hear, observe, experience ...

All along I have said: feel free to believe what you choose, I am entitled to believe what I choose.

Really, I fail to see the problem with any of this.

All the best,
Catherine

[Catherine Muller]

Brian,

On the matter of astral realms / meditation / supernatural experiences, I did not speak about these happening during Sant Mat meditation specifically. ( I know how to observe the protocol of what one does and does not discuss .. )

As the astronaut Neil Armstrong said:

"there's a lot to see out there ..."

And that's available to everyone on this planet and many things - dreams, different states of states of consciousness - make that possible.

Regards,
Catherine

[Adam]

Catherine, tAo, Brian,

Catherine, I was just getting ready to respond to tAo's calling you a "bitch."
tAo, this is rediculous. And do not respond with your usual
"people can't tell me how to express myself."
This is not a matter of expression--calling someone a "bitch" is expressing no content whatsoever. If it's an expression of anything, it's an expression of a bruised ego.
I second Catherine's motion for your, Brian's intervention on this particular point.

[Roger]

Catherine,

What kind of cameras do you use in your photography?

Thanks for any change away from this "bitch" commentary.

Best wishes,
Roger

[Brian]

Catherine, I used to make attempts to moderate comment discussions on my blogs. If you think language gets insulting and raunchy on Church of the Churchless, you should read some of the comments on my most beautiful woman in the world post on HinesSight:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2005/01/most_beautiful_.html

I closed the comments for quite a while, because the Indian vs. Pakistani back and forth was so nasty. Then recently I changed my mind. Censorship isn't my thing.

A judge has ruled that bloggers aren't responsible for the content of comments posted on blogs. It's an interesting ruling. See:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145

He said:

"Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar -- in a word, 'indecent' in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice."

The judge spoke about the freewheeling nature of speech on the Internet. Once you start to put brakes on the wheel, where do you stop?

There seems to be a self-regulating side to the Internet, as with life. A lot like how Taoism says the world works. When there's an excess in one direction, a counter push in the other direction occurs.

For example, people will come to the defense of someone unfairly accused of something. Truth seems to win out in the end, if free speech is allowed to flow, well, freely.

[Catherine Muller]

Thanks, Brian,

I didn't ask for censorship. We're all adults here.

Glad to know your position.

All the best,
Catherine

[Catherine Muller]

Hi Roger,

I use a Pentax Asahi that's as old as I am - totally manual settings and 50mm lens and portrait lens; but I also use a digital Canon (which I love too). When I shoot documentaries I work totally digitally on a Sony mostly.

I've played around with making my own light-sensitive photographic emulsions with mercury and what not (I got the recipes out of a book about 18 years ago ...) and you get gum bi-chromate prints. Very magical. You create a negative to size and then do a contact print exposing the emulsion to sun-light ... A lovely process that harks back to photography in the 19th century.

I used to enjoy doing Cibachrome colour printing in a darkroom, but the process is very noxious (ammonia-based chemicals). Unlike black and white printing where you work with a safety light, Cibachrome requires you work in pitch blackness and you load the paper into the developing drum in the dark working by touch ... I used to develop my own black and white film too. Very, very happy times doing all of this. (I did my first prints age 10 years old). I also made pinhole cameras and did black and white and colour pinhole prints ... However, the chemicals are horrendously noxious so these days I mostly do digital.

I work on a Mac and grade the prints using Photoshop but would love to try playing with Apperture software ...

Photography is a trip. I just love it :-)

Happy days, C

[Roger]

Catherine,

Thanks for the reply.

I have a Nikon Coolpix 5600. This camera, I purchased 5 years ago, to photogragh the size of Flares, at natural gas drilling sites. My first week of consulting work, paid the $1000.00 purchase cost. Digital photography is so easily to manipulate, my pc has 5 different ports, one for my Nikon data chip.

Investors in gas well drilling projects like to see the size of the flare, produced when the desired formation is drilled into. Flares are produced under controlled conditions.
The good ones, flared greater than 25 feet.
I would then e-mail a pic of the flare to the list of investors.

I've used my camera in many other projects, the flare example was just one.

Again, thanks for the fun and informative comment.

Roger

[Roger]

???? did my comment go through?

[Catherine Muller]

Roger,

You work in the oil industry? Do you only do USA or travel globally? Something kind of intrepid about that. I know the flares you mean, only I've seen them at oil refinery sites (where they're probably much smaller in comparison) but I've never been near a drilling rig.

Best, C

[Roger]

Catherine,

It was a temp assignment, I obtained through a friend, who setup drilling packages. I made roughly $6,500.00, then went on to other work. The flare comes from a horizontal steel tube that is attached to the well "head" and extends appox. 30 feet from the rig. Location was 70 miles west of dallas ft. worth area.

P.S. I have a Nikon Nikromat ftn, from my college days, working summers, at a privately owned camera store.

[tAo]

Dear tAo,

You wrote:

"Later, miss ugly little bitch.".

In my book that would count as misogynist hate speech.

-- Oh really? I wonder why you are a racist who makes racist comments?

And btw, how do you know for sure that I'm a "white guy"?

Well at least I am not a South African RACIST bitch like you are Catherine.

Here is the evidence from Catherine's own statements:

"Now I totally get it. You don’t want to be tAo. You really want to be Kanye West. He's a rap star. For a 60+ guy you’re kind of “hip”. Oh, I’m laughing."

"I just tripped over an Olympic-size white male cliché and I can’t take any of this so-called “discussion”..."

"I bet those girls in Jamaica love ranting old white guys."

Catherine... you are really pathetic. You are worse than I suspected. You really are a sore loser, and you've got some nasty liitle race issues as well. So much for being a satsangi.

Catherine said: "Brian, as unpastor, moderator and site owner, would you care at this point to comment (...) Or is this kind of thing permissable because tAo is deep into dzogchen and therefore, QED, he can speak as he likes?"

-- Oh poor little Catherine... she can sure dish it out, but she can't take it. How sad.

LOL

[Jayme]

It's loud in here :)

I seldom hear much discussion about RS. I didn't know that Gurinder had forbidden RS debate by satsangis on the internet. I suppose it makes sense that he should say something like this. Thanks tAo.

As for Brian's question:
"Does understanding reality come from experiences, or from what lies at the foundation of experiences?"

"Understanding" in thinking/conceptual terms certainly comes from the outer experiences in one form. "Undertanding" in the spiritual wisdom context is the foundation from which all else proceeds and can't be discussed only alluded to. This question is like one of those optical "delusions" that keep flipping in the mind :)

I'm not a scholar but from the bit I gather off Dr. Berzin's webpage, dzogchen seems to be a logical step in rounding out Mahayana Buddhism and if I "understand" correctly, it fits nicely in answering Brian's question. Both conceptual and emotional aspects are brought to rest in order to come in contact with this underlying foundation of understanding.

I don't eat meat but vegetarianism is another "ism." This practice isn't spirituality. If we go by the doctrine of karma, there may be a lot of tasty creatures that will fill our bellies before we make it through the "narrow gate." It seems wrong to me to kill an animal for its flesh when there are alternatives but I think it is equally wrong for me to judge someone who does eat meat. I admit I sometimes buy simulated cow or other simulated vegan animal flesh to consume. I usually take a full stomach for granted and think this is often the case in the "western world." The sacred understanding of the source of nourishment is lost. The difference between the sacred understanding of the spirit and the profane understanding of the world establish two answers to Brian's question of understanding in context of the vegetarianism issue. Vegetarianism as an "ism," is an external understanding and one who does not eat animal flesh because of their understanding out of sacred reverence is a different beast altogether. I rather liked Joe Miller's commentary on this topic as to why he was a vegetarian - if only I could remember it.

As for social lives... I've got to get a life אױ װײ'ז מיר. I haven't got a clue what it says but I got this from the wikipedia - oy vey. :)

[tAo]

Jayme,

Yes, its a true fact that Gurinder clamped down and officially forbid all satsangis (initiated) from engaging in any sort of RS discussion or debate on the internet.

However, it is quite obvious that individals like Catherine either does NOT respect abd abide by the official published orders and will of her guru, or else she is not really and truly an initiated disciple of Gurinder and RS Mat as she claims to be.

Perhaps Catherine needs to decide if she is going to follow the instructions of her master, or not. Otherwise, as far as her talk and claim to being a sincere RS satsangi goes, she is a total hypocrite.

Sorry Catherine, you can't have it both ways. You either are a true follower/disciple of your master Gurinder and RSSB, or you aren't.

If you continue to mention or to discuss anything pertaining to Sant Mat & RS in any way, then you are violating your master's will and his instuctions.

And for anyone that desires verification of this... Here is the official notification put out to all initiated satsangis from the RSSB Dera, that was published in all of the 1996 RSSB-A Newsletters:

Following are the relevant excerpts from the official RSSB-A Western USA Newsletter.

[ RSSB-A = Radha Soami Society Beas-America ]

All text below (except for the inserted month and year in brackets) is absolutely verbatim and complete:

============================================================

[RSSB-A Newsletter - MARCH 1996]

Use of E-Mail and other electronic media for Sant Mat purposes

The following statement was recently received from the Dera:

"Satsangis should not use E-mail or other media such as Internet to conduct satsangs, formal or informal, or to communicate or distribute Sant Mat teachings, Sant Mat addresses and initiation data, or other similar material of confidential nature. In addition, Web-Sites and homepages should not be used for any purpose at all connected with Sant Mat."

Possible exceptions to the policy may be made only for projects under the direct supervision of the RSSB-A Board.

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

[ RSSB-A Newsletter - MAY 1996 ]

Use of Electronic Media for Sant Mat Communications

As a follow-up to the statement in the March issue regarding the use
of E-Mail and the Internet for Sant Mat communications, we have recently
received the following letter from Dera:

"With access to electronic media such as the Internet and the Web Site now
being available to many in this age of communication, it is found that they
are being used increasingly for the exchange of information between
satsangis and other groups concerning Radha Soami Satsang Beas and the
spiritual teachings of Sant Mat. This information may be factually correct;
however, there may be inaccuracies in either of fact or interpretation.
Sometimes we are portrayed positively, sometimes negatively.

Naturally, satsangis can get perturbed at seeing us presented in an
inaccurate manner or interpreted in an incorrect way. It is emphasized,
however, that our path is one of pure spirituality, and concerns an
individual personally. It is a path where we try to avoid controversies. We
do not want to react to others, criticize others, nor to create any kind of
disharmony or unpleasantness with anyone by pursuing the matter
unnecessarily.

Therefore, it would be better to ignore whatever may appear on the
electronic media concerning ourselves. We need not bother or worry ourselves
about how other portray us or see us, even if they view us in an
unfavourable light.

Satsangis are advised NOT to use E-mail, or other media such as Internet to
conduct satsangs, formal or informal, or to communicate or distribute Sant
Mat teachings, Sant Mat literature, Sant Mat related photographs, satsangi
names addresses and initiation data, or other similar material of
confidential nature. In addition, Web-Sites & Home Pages should not be used
for any purpose at all connected with Sant Mat."

============================================================

[Catherine Muller]

Hi there, please explain:

How have I done this? (below)

"it is found that they are being used increasingly for the exchange of information between satsangis and other groups concerning Radha Soami Satsang Beas and the spiritual teachings of Sant Mat. This information may be factually correct; however, there may be inaccuracies in either of fact or interpretation. Sometimes we are portrayed positively, sometimes negatively."

Or this? (below):

"Satsangis are advised NOT to use E-mail, or other media such as Internet to conduct satsangs, formal or informal, or to communicate or distribute Sant Mat teachings, Sant Mat literature, Sant Mat related photographs, satsangi names addresses and initiation data, or other similar material of confidential nature. In addition, Web-Sites & Home Pages should not be used for any purpose at all connected with Sant Mat."

Please provide examples.

I once again re-iterate, I have done the following:

1. Defended my right to my belief.
2. Defended my right to my diet.
3. I in no way discussed the teachings.
4. I explained how my practice worked.
5. I did a totally "straight" Vedic astrology reading looking at data and a date, time, place according lunar position.

Thank you,
Catherine Muller

[zenjen]

Thanks tAo,

I didn't know about this, so I am outa here.

Wishing you all the best,

Love is the key,

Cheers darlings

[Roger]

Catherine,

I was hoping that you could give your opinion, regarding a Vedic astrology reading of a GodMan determination.

That is, can One use the a Vedic astrology reading to determine if a person is a Godman? One has all the accurate data(birth time/place) and this person has nothing to do with Santmat or the RSSB.

Again, can Astrology of any category, accomplish this revelation?

You know, this is just a Blog, you can write anything you desire. In blogging, there is no requirement to give One's real name or place of residence.

Thanks for an answer, that is your opinion.

Roger

[Catherine Muller]

Hi there, Roger,

Well, all I can tell you - and this is my understanding - is that there are certain Shastras (Vedic texts) and they say: this constellation in this degree within this or that house denotes an interpretation of X, Y, Z.

The Shastras speak of consciousness as tamasic, sattwic, rajasic and so on and one would look for sattwic placements in moksha houses - those concerned with liberation and enlightenment - while other houses are dharma, artha or kama houses, dealing with right action, rightful acquisition and so on ... therefore, more planets in moksha houses of a sattwic nature denote someone whose destiny in this lifetime may be characterised by a pursuit of spiritual liberation.

However, as my dear Vedic astrology teacher says, "nobody comes to God by winning the lottery" - in other words, it would be wrong to think that a lifetime geared towards liberation may necessarily be easy ... It can be very hard and challenging (in fact, it often is) so that one is encouraged, through tough times and trials, to grow disillusioned with this world and turn inward / elsewhere.

Of course, if you are a Vedantist you believe God is in everyone and in everything ...

I hear what you're saying about one's own name and place, but I choose this because I don't mind being held accountable. Just my choice. It also keeps me on track, if you know what I mean ...

All the best, C

[Roger]

Catherine,

Thanks for your reply.

Focusing on just a Godman. God personified (uniquely) in just one person, doesn't exist in any spiritual teachings that you have been exposed to?

That is, the "GodMan" is nothing but a concept, and nothing more?

I have nothing for or against the GodMan topic, just something interesting to discuss in a harmless blog format.

Thanks for any continued opinions, not related to the RSSB.

Roger

[Godman]

I am not a concept, Roger.

You better watch it matey, I can make your life (or 8,400,000 lives) a real nightmare dude.

Conceptualise that.

I don't often check out this blog, being fairly busy what with running the 5 regions and all (mainly adminstrative blue-tape, y'all understand). If you wish to discuss this further with me, you can contact me on [email protected].

Blessings.

[Catherine Muller]

Godman, that is delightful!

Thank you for your blessings and for keeping an eye on this show :-) Blessings straight back at You!

Roger, my understanding - own opinion here - is that The Force that put electricity in our cells and breath in our lungs is unfathomable because we're in 3 dimensions and life on planet Earth is totally dualistic ...

That Force goes beyond all that.

So, to be honest, I don't know what God is because I'm like the frog at the bottom of the well ... therefore, what is a GodMan?

I'm being asked to define something from a point of disability and ignorance, therefore whatever definition I come up with will be incomplete because dualism can't embrace boundlessness.

It's a cognitive short circuit if we try to do this with a lizard brain / rational mind.

However, I certainly believe there are people on our planet who are Divine; who are mystical for their ability to get sustained experiences of non-duality and bliss; and who try to teach us how to be the very best we can be while living on our planet ...

For the record, I believe we have spent time on planets other than this one where other possibilities and laws operate.On those planets they probably have their own concept of the Creator.

I can't prove it ... But when people say Krishna was from Saturn and Jesus from Venus, I don't laugh.

All the best, C

[Roger]

Godman,

I have just reviewed the Book of Godman. Chapter 6, section 44b, it clearly states the following,

"A Godman is advised NOT to use E-mail, or other media such as Internet to conduct god**n meetings, formal or informal, or to communicate or distribute Godman teachings, Godman literature, Godman related photographs, god**n names addresses and initiation data, or other similar material of confidential nature. In addition, Web-Sites & Home Pages should not be used for any purpose at all connected with a Godman."

With your comment, as evidence, that points in the direction of your guilt, I am forced to set forth your punishment.

Truly yours,
Roger

[Roger]

Catherine,

Thanks for your reply.

and

Godman,

Godman punishment is as follows,

--No naked pagan dancing around a campfire for the next 6 months.
--No use of a yacht or sailboat for the next 666 days.
--No biking around on a Harley, up and down Las Vegas Blvd. for the next 72 hours and 26 minutes.
--No checking out the bikini clad chicks on Venice beach for 1 full year.

This punishment is final and non-reverseable.

[Catherine Muller]

Roger and GodMan, I like your style :-)

I went for a bike ride tonight (I like free-wheeling through the suburbs when it's dark and there are very few cars and people ...) and I thought long and hard while i was pedaling. All I could come up with is this:

The past is unsalvageable because every moment the passes is gone forever. The future is a blank. I could drop dead tomorrow. How do I know I'll continue to exist beyond the next hour?

All I have control over is the present moment I am in. And right now I have a choice: positive or negative ... I do believe it comes down to energy.

So, whatever makes the present moment happier, or more bearable, or more positive, or closer to feeling whole instead of empty - for tAo it could be dzogchen; for me it's my practice; for GodMan it's his own godly trip ... that's okay.

I think we're just being asked to choose.

[tucson]

Catherine wrote above:

"I think we're just being asked to choose."

--This is not being written to challenge or contradict her comment above which I think is a good one, but it got "me" to thinking.

This mechanism of living seems to be based on the notion that what we do is an act of free will on our part..that we can actively choose our reactions to phenomena.

It seems obvious to me that we react rather than act and our living is conditioned by instinct, habit and various influences like progaganda, traditon, culture, etc. Our way of life is primarily a series of reflexes which leaves little room for deliberate, planned action; that is, purposeful action which superficially considered might APPEAR to be the result of volition or free will.

However, "free will" is only an inference because no matter how hard we search, we can find no entity to exercise it. All we can find is an impulse which spontaneously arrises and appears to be an expression of the notion of 'I'. It seems unreasonable that such an impulse could be capable of affecting the inexhorable chain of causation which produces apparent events aka maifestation. Rather, the impulse is PART of the chain of causation.

So, rather than being autonomous entities who independently make their living decisons; this is an illusion, and the reality is that we are being lived by Reality as a whole and what we imagine ourselves to be is just a phantom.

We are no "thing" at all and at the same time all things at once. Right now.

[tAo]

Roger,

Just to make sure you don't continue entertaining your mistaken idea, I did not post under the name "Godman". Seriously. That was definitely someone else, not I. And I have been posting only under the name "tAo" for a long time.

Furthermore, the statements that I copied and posted were taken from the 1996 RSSB-A Newsletters that was issued by the RSSB Dera regarding Gurinder's prohibition against posting or discussing RS on the internet... and they are not a joke either. Those are quite real and were really published to all satsangis. So please don't assume (or even pretend) that they are just some kind of fabricated joke. Thanks.

I posted those so that anyone who may have any doubts as to whether or not the RSSB actually prohibits and forbids inititated satsangis from discussing Santmat/RS on the internet, will be duly informed. To date, the RSSB has not retracted or dropped that prohibition.

I also posted it for Catherine, so that she might see that she has been, in fact, violating HER own master's will and instructions, by any kind of discussing of her RS meditation practice and experiences, other Sant Mat and RS subject matter, etc etc. She continues to deny that, but one can see the evidence if one goes back and reads her previous comments. However, I am NOT faulting her (especially if she has been unaware of the position of the RSSB regarding prohibiting all initiated satsangis from discussing Sant Mat and RS on the internet). I am simply informing her of this fact. Of course, she is free to do as she pleases. But if she discusses any aspect of RS in this Blog or elsewhere on the internet, then she is ignoring and disregarding her own master's will and stated instructions. But that is for her to decide and to deal with.

My position about this is that if people claim they are initiated RS satsangi-disciples, and yet they ignore and refuse to respect and to abide by their master's clear instructions, then they are obviously hypocrites. But that does not mean that they still cannot do as they please, it just means that their claims of being true RS satsangis is simply hypocrisy and is false. It doesn't matter if they do the meditation practice... because as long as they do not abide by all of their master's instructions and will, then they are not true disciples. Its not a matter of having it their own way. Either they follow their master's will, or they do not. So far, Catherine has not abided by her master Gurinder's will in this matter. But perhaps now she will refrain from any further discussion of any aspect of Santmat/RS.

I was going to relate this in another response to Catherine, but perhaps she will read this comment, and that will answer her issues in her last comment to me. In any case, this is about all I have say on this issue.

[tAo]

Roger,

PS: I forgot to mention... You're kind of funny Bro. Heh Heh Heh. In fact I kind of laughed when I read your last humorous comment, even though I was not the one behind the Godman's post. But you can rest assured that I'd definitely rather be hanging out with all the hot California babes on Venice Beach doin some naked Pagan dancing around a campfire, than I would ridin my old Harley around a bunch of idiot tourists and gamblers on the strip in Vegas.... if you know what I mean.

That is, unless Brian decides to have the first annual 'Gathering of the Churchless' Convention in Vegas.

Vegas seems like the perfect place for that.... lots of NON-religious folks, sexy strippers, and hedonism. Just the kind of thing that most hard-core Churchless goers revel in.

Maybe we should even take up a travel expenses collection fund so that our loyal international brethern like Manjit in the UK, and others canafford to attend.

But considering her uptightness and her ridicule about me and my uhhh, sexy Carribean girlfriends, I doubt that Catherine would care to bother to come all the way to Vegas and PARTY with a bunch of old white spiritual hippie, surfer, and biker dudes like Brian, Tucson, and myself. I am sure you'll no doubt want to be there Roger. Be sure to bring your camera so as to capture any flame-ups.

Maybe we can even get our omnipotent "Godman" to arrange for a special deluxe VIP afternoon tour all around Sach Khand for us. How about it Godman?

And I'll even throw in free Jamaican cigars and a gift bottle of Jack Daniels for each of the good ole boys and girls. But in Brian's case, since he's the big MC, he'll receive a deluxe case of vintage California red wine, and a weekend ticket to the Bunny Ranch.

[Roger]

Tao,

Thanks for the replies,

Trust you are recovering nicely from your injuries at the gym.

Please make sure, if you can, to place my name on the, "Gathering of the Churchless" Convention in Vegas or Venice beach. Sounds like total fun.

The advisory that Gurinder published, regarding communications on the Internet, I find serious as well as rather silly.

In the form of comic sarcasm, I thought it would be funny to create an example of someone "caught" in the act, and the subsequent punishment rendered.

Godman offered the opportunity.

Tao, in an honest attempt to examine your sense of humor, could you give,

--definition of a Godman.
--definition of a Master.
--His Holiness ______ Singh
--specific directions to Sach Khand.
--lowest outside temperature, One can safely dance naked around a pagan campfire.

I, and only I shall be the judge.

Sincerely,
Judge Roger

[Catherine Muller]

tAo,

You funny man.

You write:

"I doubt that Catherine would care to bother to come all the way to Vegas and PARTY with a bunch of old white spiritual hippie, surfer, and biker dudes like Brian, Tucson, and myself."

Er, actually I would. I'd love to.

I'd pass on the spirits and tobacco, but the for the rest, it would be a lark.

Okay, for a bit of amusement - instant karma in action in line with that fantastic saying "From your mouth to God's ears", I posted this clip.

Do you guys know Vimeo? It's got a much nicer-looking interface than YouTube, things load faster and it's smaller (no advertising).

http://vimeo.com/2506452?pg=transcoded_embed&sec=2506452

So, that's the madness I get up to ...

All the best, C

[Roger]

Catherine,

Glad you're still around. You are Ok in my book. Keep offering your ideas and opinions. Don't be concerned about discussing the Santmat topics, you have information to offer in the mix. In addition, keep enjoying the hobbies that you are interested in.

Best wishes,
Roger

[Brian]

Catherine, that's a dramatic video. You've got guts (assume you were the one who made it). I wouldn't want to get into a fender-bender with those guys.

[Catherine Muller]

Thanks, Brian. The most touching part is that one of the guys in the gang had ambitions of being a choir master and running a gospel group. The kid who gets smacked - Grey - disappeared and the others landed in jail. The last interview takes place in prison as they're awaiting trial for hi-jacking a car ... For me, these guys are a direct product of a hopeless education system and a political regime that robbed folks of their land in 1913 and relegated them to close to a century of poverty. People so often moralise, but I seriously do wonder how the creation works - if I had options that limited and I landed in those shoes, would I have chosen better? It's easy to be good when life is easy ...

All the best, C

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian and Ms. Muller,

Sebokeng somewhat reminds me of the Church of the Churchless neighborhood, full of braggers, thugs, and bullies .......and others.

Robert Paul Howard

[Brian]

Robert, what do you mean? There's only kind, gentle souls here. You just have to dig under the surface a bit to find everybody's warm and fuzzy side. Well, sometimes more than "a bit." But it's there.

[frequent commenter]

Hey Catherine,

Great video. Stirs up nostalgia of the good old days. My wife, an uninhibited-in your face Aries, used to get us in situations like that upon occasion. She would flip-off every driver who she perceived had done her wrong. Of course this left me to deal with the consequences. I never could get it in her head that you just don't know who you're dealing with out there.

We, as a result, have had some confrontations, car chases, and attempts to run us off the road and a brawl where somebody was left unconscious on the ground covered with dust from our spinning tires.

She has mellowed a bit, but did take offense at one guy not too long ago who would not let her merge onto the freeway. She cut him off and he went ballistic. He followed us for miles pulling up alongside and gesturing for us to pull over to fight or he would speed up and cut in front and then slow way down to hassle us.

This got tiresome, and when he pulled up alongside my side the next time, he was in for a surprise because I happened to have a shotgun (left over from my days in the wild west of Oregon) that had been at the gunsmith's for appraisal.

He thought he was dealing with a conservative middle age couple in a minivan who he could terrorize with impunity. So, when he pulled up alonside my side of the van to hassle us some more he had a 12 gauge pointed at his face which very rapidly turned ashen with his eyes bugging out. He nearly killed himself escaping via the nearest offramp.

Fortunately, this sort of thing is the exception rather than the rule these days. I'm too old for grappling on side streets and parking lots, but my wife's temperment is changing slower than our age, so I guess I could be in for more of this until I'm housebound hooked up to an oxygen tank, assuming she is too or else all bets are off.

[Catherine Muller]

Hello, there,

Apropos the discussions around what we eat and why we eat it, I found that Nikolaus Geyrhalter documentary 'Our Daily Bread' that coolly chronicles food production in the European Union (the full gamut from olives, wheat, lettuce, fish, meat, you name it ... ) was broadcast on the Sundance Channel last year.

A clip has been posted on YouTube.

I'm simply posting to say it's there should you wish to view some of this extraordinary documentary that has no emotive commentary, music, text or interviews to slant the viewer's opinion this way or that. The camera simply observes in a quiet way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzSq0AdvAbE

Mr Robert Howard Paul, I suspect the difference between the good folks posting on Churchless and those living in Sebokeng is that the former have access to options and resources presently inconceivable to the latter.

All the best, C

[James]

Catherine

You were the Sebokeng gang's option; you were their opportunity. What did you do with the profits? What did you do with the gift of exposure that they gave you? You took photos, a living and glory from them. What have you given back directly to them? Some of us have only one opportunity in life; You are their opportunity.

Doing something shows true empathy.

And your commentary here on this posting; there's so much posturing, boasting and charming. A good title for this show of yours: Flying Pussy; Shooting Penis... or would the second adjective be Crouching. The caption: All about Me. and A Whole lot of Positive Half-baked Fluff.

A lot of satsangis read this post and they will all be looking for the big mouth who enters and leaves the satsang hall from the back tomorrow morning in Johannesburg --who who really has a different and superior take from 'the group'. Entering and leaving from the back of the hall is a loaded action. It speaks volumes and one thing it says is; I am the queen, you are my slaves; you put out the chairs, sweep, give the talk, provide the setting, I'll come in, use all of it and go, then you can clear up. The satsangis who I know are warm individuals, many of whom are trying out an experiment in their own bodies. Again, I state, individuals. You may even find they can teach you something if you were to connect with them.

[Catherine Muller]

Hi James,

Thanks for your feedback ...

The film was made through the Centre for Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) a really good NGO in Johannesburg that works to re-integrate gang members into their communities in a meaningful way. Once broadcast, it served as a way of uniting one the subjects who had lost touch with her family.

For me, the clip was posted as a somewhat bizarre example of instant karma in action based on what one character says and what unfolds ... Really, no more than that.

So, everyone in the film began to work with CSVR ... Some stayed and have done great work through community out-reach projects. Others moved away ... In terms of payment, I never owned the rights and still don't - so no profit for me at all. However, it was a mind-opening experience on many levels.

A subsequent film about Rent Boys in the inner city involved making many interventions around job-creation and getting the guys into shelters for jobless people. That was a whole other process. Again, no personal profits made, no money gained ...

In terms of my view of Sant Mat and satsangis, the Johannesburg centre is truly wonderful. I am low-key and stay away from groups because I am somewhat shy, James. (Believe it or not - isn't that so often the case?) No more than that.

All the best, C

[Jayme]

Hi Cathrine -
Thank you. I looked at a few of the YouTube short takes on animal processing for consumption.

I offer a couple of observations and opinions:

It is true there is little commentary but the videos "speak loudly" about our unintended effects on the lives of these creatures - a picture being worth so many words and such. We certainly should be more aware of our actions and have compassion for all beings. That is an awakening that many who visit the Church of the Churchless seem to be seeking (and some may have). Certainly, many people in the world might react to such slaughter with an equal or even greater vindictiveness.
C.S. Lewis realized something to the effect that "War did not increase death. " I add to this the corollary that birth is the leading cause of death and in fact the only cause of death in animals. War can actually decrease death by decreasing birth. But what is the worth of a planet devoid of life? The fact that we eat animals means we breed animals and there is more opportunity for a particular kind of animal to come into being from these acts. But is it the right way to conduct ourselves seeing the conditions in which these animals live? Of course I agree that such treatment and slaughter is terrible - but that is more of an emotional reaction in me than one of compassion.

We are always killing but are we truly compassionate in this action and have we done our best to ensure that what we destroy is done so with Understanding? The supervisor of one of the chicken videos indicated that it was acceptable for 40 birds to be scalded alive per day (increased from 15 per day) in the chicken processing plant. As Stalin said, "a single death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic." He also said "Hitlers come and go, but Germany and the German people remain.... so don't think all Germans are Nazis." (Wikipedia) I'm not a Stalin fan nor am I a fan of Hitler. I only wish to point out that life is suffering and that it is up to us to engage with compassion without reaction as a collective whole. This is taking responsibility for our actions and our lives. Your work seems to indicate that you are doing this. When Jesus Christ came into the world, there was tremendous oppression by the Roman state and the Jewish priesthood which heavily taxed the citizens of the day but still there was "salvation."

In any case, such videos often evoke a reactionary position making them completely biased through the reactive projections of the witness. I think it is good and responsible to ask ourselves if we place value on this kind of existence, whether it be of gang violence, animal slaughter, or genocide. Then act accordingly. Anyway, you certainly indicate empathy and your contribution in placating suffering seems good in your offered works. Keep it up - it's a good example to follow.

On a lighter side of this dream we share - the following videos are a couple of my favorites:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=dkadagian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNfSKMlNquE&feature=channel_page

Regards,

[ander]

Ive been visiting the site periodically the past 2-3 years.

-Ive raised the point that Brian as the authority figure controls the site and the truth is promotes way back. I chose to write words suchs fuck,f-----, which brian would delete.

There is the Brahma of this site/creation which controls his site/creation, in a realm of many creations that is called internet.

- That counting backwards to 2.5 hours is not meditation.

-That deconstructing people's article like tao does, is not necesseraly a good analysis of the article. Tao smells shit everywhere and in everyone. Like i told hinm in the past is that, like rumi says, if you feel like shit its cause u r the shit.

-That passages from science are selective

-passages from religion are selective. as in the case of kabir, who also writes about his guru with love, submition and devotion.

-That in a soviet way, all discussions and advocations of religions by anyone, in this site, it is viewed with negativity. Anyway how expresses his search for the infinite using religious discourses is seen as naive and not mature at the least. Religion is not tolerated in this church, unless the religious persona talks against or talks about the unknowingness of god.

-That love and human brotherhood is completely forgotten in most covnersations.

-That the possibility that someone has or might have discovered a truth that cannot be expressed is also surpressed.

The universe is infinite, the earth is very old, and i, personally, live the possibility that someone has discovered something within him/her that i have not. And this realisation is beyond phds.

-That human dynamics, personalities, cultures, history, idiosyncrasies etc etc are not taken into account when thinking of santmat,which has in its group, ppl from all around the world, from different backgrounds and different point of views. It does not make us better or more advance, us westerners, the fact that we have an over-analysing and scientific attitude.

Ppl in greece understand it differently, in the uk differently, in india, java, ecuador , panama, canada...still all different.

I like the fact that santsangis do not generally agree with each other most issues apart from the belief to the sound current, which its knowledge depends on meditation.

-That the santmat gurus submit to karma in its effects. Sawan dropped from a horse broke his legs. Charan did not want the discipleship.He had to face political turmoils. Before that, in the Letters you can see the actual human emotions in trying to built the Dera. Also, if they had come karmaless they would have been born enlightened. All the gurus meditated for years and still meditated throughout the lives.

-Meditation is the key to the answers. Hopefully we will have that desire for it. hope gets you off the sit to meet the unknown. Faith and hope have been an abomination in this site.

-Taoism and zen have a doctronie like all other religions.

-Here in this site we are talking politics of confrontation. It didnt used to be this way.

-Krishnamurti San Diego 1970. Excellent

[Brian]

ander, you don't make much sense. I can't recall when I've censored language in a comment. Occasionally I delete spam comments, or comments totally irrelevant to a post (religious spam, basically).

Have you noticed what this blog is called? Church of the Churchless.

So why do you complain that religion isn't welcomed with open arms here? If you go to a vegetarian restaurant, you won't be able to order a hamburger. Do you think that's unreasonable also?

You obviously have your own point of view, which is reflected in your comment. Yet you don't want people to express their own opinions.

This is all that goes on here: expressing of opinions.

Have you written to RSSB leaders about why it isn't possible to post dissenting views on their web site? Or to the Pope, about the Vatican web site?

Guess I can't understand how you see closed-mindedness on this blog. You accuse others of being what they see in others. Could it be that the closed-mindedness to new ideas that you see in me and others actually is coming from you?

[Jayme]

Hi ander,

I've gone through many of the postings on Church of the Churchless and have examined the deconstructive "way of tAo" (har har - ugh). His arguments are certainly bold and the expletives can be jostling but fundamentally, it seems to me that often there are rather good analyses spoken from his experience for which I have few arguments. Likewise, I have found Catherine's feedback to James above to be genuinely reflective of a considered open-minded non-emotive response and not based on sophisms or empty closed-minded beliefs. There are quite a few other examples through much of this blog.

tAo posted notice to Radha Soami (RS) persons of the Master's policy toward internet use by initiates. This is a must read for any concerned with RS policy. (Posted by: tAo | December 11, 2008 at 12:17 AM under "Why I'm not a Sant Mat true believer")

Brian asks - "Could it be that the closed-mindedness to new ideas that you see in me and others actually is coming from you?"

I know that I have found that I think I am right more often than I am. (lots of I's)

Just a thought. I could be wrong.

[Karan]

Brian,

I had heard about your website from one of my friends and decided to have a look today.

I went through the entire debate and some other posts by tAo. It totally dumbfounded me that people like tAo attempt to discuss truth and you even seem to endorse some of his views.

You say that it is through experience you endorse tAo's views. To be honest an old man calling someone a "ugly little bitch" and claiming to be wise sounds ridiculous.

tAo just seems frustrated.

I think I bumped into the wrong site,
there doesn't seem to be any information out here.

I know what tAo and Brian would have to say to this - "close-minded, narrow-minded, blah blah". Maybe tAo would call me a "ugly little dog" :)

Catherine - You seem to be a very wise person and I am sure it will be good to talk to you. Can I contact you on your email please?

Thanks.

[tAo]

About Ander and his comment:

I had some things to say back to Ander (which I will still post), but Brian's comment above nails it (and nails Ander) pretty succinctly. I can't improve on that much. Nevertheless, I will go ahead and post my OPINIONS and responses to Ander's troubled and confused mind, which sadly, he again reveals in his latest comment. So here it goes:

Ander wrote:

"Brian as the authority figure controls the site"

-- Man, you need your head examined. And I'd like to see any evidence that Brian exerts any such "authority" or "control" here. Brian posts his thoughts opinions, and we all post ours. Brian sometimes disagress with some of us, and sometimes some of us disagree with Brian. That's just life, NOT "authority figure control". So Ander, imo you are a stupid idiot and you're awfully immature. Grow up.

"That counting backwards to 2.5 hours is not meditation."

-- Ander, you don't get to decide what is meditation for other people.

"That deconstructing people's article like tao does, is not necesseraly a good analysis of the article."

-- Oh really? In other words, in Ander's opinion... the use of logic, reason, and objective rational thinking are "not necesseraly a good analysis" according to Ander. Ander, you are such a fuck-head, and your're fucked IN THE HEAD as well. You've made yourself a fool and a joke on this site. Take your head out of your ass, and grow up and go learn how to engage in intelligent debate. This is not a site that is soley devoted to Radha Soami and religious dogma. Not at all. If thats what you want, go eleswhere. This site simply IS what it IS, and it also includes a forum for various opinions, and those oponions may sometimes be critical of other opnions. So either get used to it, or take your whiney trip and go somewhere else. You are acting like a cry-baby.

"Tao smells shit everywhere and in everyone. Like i told hinm in the past is that, like rumi says, if you feel like shit its cause u r the shit."

-- I don't smell "shit" at all, anywhere... and I don't "feellike shit" either. Ander is the one who sees shit, and smells shit, and acts like he "feels like shit". I myself see everything in/as primordial awareness, the self-perfected state. I am not fixated on or within dualities such as good vs bad, life vs death, love vs hate, sacred vs profane, positive vs negative, right vs wrong, or gems vs shit, etc etc. So Ander, get a god-damn clue why don't you? Instead of just babbling more and more of your typical confused nonsense.

"passages from religion are selective. as in the case of kabir, who also writes about his guru with love, submition and devotion."

-- Like you are some big expert on Kabir? Give me a fucking break! Ander, you're about as hip to the meaning of Kabir as you are to this blog.... zip.

"That in a soviet way, all discussions and advocations of religions by anyone, in this site, it is viewed with negativity."

-- "soviet" my ass. Ander, if you like religion, then go join a religious site.

"That love and human brotherhood is completely forgotten in most covnersations."

-- Thats all according to YOUR idea of "love" and "brotherhood" Ander. And thats funny because I wonder why this so-called "love and human brotherhood" has been so glaringly ABSENT from Ander's comments.

"That the possibility that someone has or might have discovered a truth that cannot be expressed is also surpressed."

-- Huh? Touting meaningless abstract mumbo-jumbo such as "a truth that cannot be expressed" will get you nowhere Ander.

"i, personally, live the possibility that someone has discovered something within him/her that i have not."

-- Oh really? Then why don't you apply that view, that possibility, to the others here on THIS site? You're a hypocrite Ander, and your dim-witted blind faith and guru-cultish foolishness is far more "selective" than the open-mindedness regarding the great mystery that is offered on this site.

"And this realisation is beyond phds."

-- And exactly what "realisation" is that? I haven't seen you exprtess or present any sort of "realisation" here, ever. So what "realisation" are you talking about? Maybe you are just jealous and so you feel a need to trivialize those who DO have academic creditials and PhDs, and who can think rationally and scientifically, instead of relying upon unproven theological dogma and myths?

"are not taken into account when thinking of santmat,which has in its group, ppl from all around the world, from different backgrounds and different point of views."

-- So what? So what if santmat satsangis are from diverse locations? That doesn't validate anything.

"It does not make us better or more advance, us westerners, the fact that we have an over-analysing and scientific attitude."

-- Its not an "OVER"-analysing scientific attitude. Its simpole a more rationa and objective attitude, not one given to super-naturalism and superstition. But the west has many many millions of people who do believe in supernaturalism and religious myth as well. So your comment is unfounded and absurd Ander.

"Ppl in (...) understand it differently, in (...) still all different."

-- So what?

"I like the fact that santsangis do not generally agree with each other most issues apart from the belief to the sound current, which its knowledge depends on meditation."

-- Now THAT is a crock of shit. Satsangis are very much in agreement, and have very similar mindsets, in many ways especially including sant mat.

"That the santmat gurus submit to karma in its effects."

-- Why wouldn't they? There are just as ordinary and human as anyone else. Though pparentlly you think otherwise.

"Sawan dropped from a horse broke his legs (...) Also, if they had come karmaless they would have been born enlightened."

-- Ander, its quite obvious that you have various irrational beliefs in the supernatural, and in karma and 'enlightenment' etc. The problem with people like you is that you take these beliefs to be real and absolute, when they are not.

"All the gurus meditated for years and still meditated throughout the lives."

-- So what? That doesn't make them any better than anyone else.

"Meditation is the key to the answers."

-- Meditation can be quite useful, but it is definitely NOT "the key" to all "the answers".

"hope gets you off the sit to meet the unknown. Faith and hope have been an abomination in this site."

-- Ander, you know nothing about the "unknown". The "unknown" is the not-known. But you are full of shit. Faith and hope is only needed and valued by those who fail to accept and abide in reality.

"Taoism and zen have a doctronie like all other religions."

-- Then clearly, you do NOT at all understand the nature of zen and taoism. You do not have a clue what you are talking about.

"Here in this site we are talking politics of confrontation. It didnt used to be this way."

-- Then why are you confronting others? HYPOCRITE.

"Krishnamurti San Diego 1970. Excellent"

-- You certainly don't speak like someone who has any familarity with J. Krishnamurti.... nor with U.G. Krishnamurti. You are just a joke Ander. And a rather lame joke at that.

[Brian]

Karan, call me defensive ("You're defensive!"...there, I did it to myself), but when you say that there's no information on this blog my response is: have you looked around?

I'm way behind on my compendium of posts -- over a year -- but I impress myself every time I scroll through the many and varied subjects that have been discussed the past four-plus years. See:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/compendium.html

If you don't consider this to be "information," then I'd have to say that you've not looking for fresh or creative ideas, but only want to reinforce your current beliefs. But maybe this is an unfair characterization, and you just haven't browsed around much.

[the elephant]

Dear Tao:

Since you never commented on my remark and I am very curious: could explain to me how you were able in the same frame of time (about 8 years (late 60s; early 70s)) to defend two doctoral thesis on two different American coasts (Stanford and Princeton) nonetheless while during the same period being a Yogi traveling around the middle east and Asia who then "returned to the US" at the end of the same period?

I always like to read exceptional story--which I can only imagine such accomplishments must be ...

[tAo]

Karan,

You've probaly already gone on your merry ignorant little way. But if not, then here's what I have sto say back to you:

Briefly, first of all you could not have possibly read this entire site and all of the commentary in one single day - today. You must be merely refering to this one single article and its comment thread.

Therefore, your view is extemely narrow, limited, and lacking in over-all perspective. You are simply not familiar with the over-all range of discussions, in the past, and on other threads etc.

"I went through the entire debate and some other posts by tAo. It totally dumbfounded me that people like tAo attempt to discuss truth"

-- And what do YOU know about "truth"? Put your money where your mouth is Karan. Its easy for poseurs like you to make little jabs, but where is your substance? You obviously know nothing - nada - about me or about my perspective and my commentary.

"To be honest an old man calling someone a "ugly little bitch" and claiming to be wise sounds ridiculous."

-- First, I am not exactly "an old man". And second, I didn't "claim" any such thing as "wise". And third, if someone such as Catherine acts like an ugly little bitch towards me, then I have the right to be candid and to call them an "ugly little bitch". Period. Just becsue you don't approve of that, only shows that you have some personal issues and hang-ups.

"tAo just seems frustrated."

-- Heh heh heh. Actually not at all... and you would already know that if you were more familiar over-all with the diversity of my commentary on this site over the past 3 years. And in this case here, it is clearly YOU Karan who are the one who is "frustrated". You are merely projecting your own frustration upon others. Get over it.

"I think I bumped into the wrong site,
there doesn't seem to be any information out here."

-- Thats becasue you haven't even scratched the surface. All you have done is to read one article and a few odd commentaries, most of which you have no perspective about.
So your conclusion about this site is extemely ignorant and uninformed to say the least.

"I know what tAo and Brian would have to say to this - "close-minded, narrow-minded, blah blah". Maybe tAo would call me a "ugly little dog""

-- Here is an good example of your faulty presumption. I don't know if you are close-minded or not, simply because you have not posted here enough for me to tell. And I offer you the same benefit of the doubt as I give to everyone else. It is YOU who are the one who is jumping to mistaken conclusions here. Also, you are being offensive to me by prematurely assuming that I would use derogatory terms about you. I don't know you at all, and I don't know what your views are either. All I know about you so far, is that you have made some premature judgemwents about Brian, about this site, and about me which are not at all accurate or realistic or informed. So you're not exactly off on the right foot here.... but much still remains to be seen. Therefore, I give you all the benefit of the doubt until you prove otherwise. Thats only reasonable, and I do happen to be a reasonble man, contrary to what you assume and which you seem to wish to jump to falsely portray me as being something else.

I also don't know anything about your background (mainly becsause you haven't shared any yet) but you have found your way here, and so I and I am sure others hope that you stick around long enough to at least get a better and more real understanding what this site (and the commentary) is really all about.

Are you a SantMat or an RS kind of person? or some other path? Are you a spiritual seeker? a believer? a meditator? etc. It would be nice if you would indicate where you are coming from before you go jumpting to such mistaken conclusions about Brian, about myself, and about this site. I am only just one of many guest commenters... I am not in league or in cahoots with Brian. Brian has his toughts and opinions and I have my own... as do others.

So... what are yours?

Peace.

[the elephant]

On the one hand Tao writes: "And third, if someone such as Catherine acts like an ugly little bitch towards me, then I have the right to be candid and to call them an "ugly little bitch"."

On the other hand Tao writes: "Oh really? In other words, in Ander's opinion... the use of logic, reason, and objective rational thinking are "not necesseraly a good analysis" according to Ander ... You've made yourself a fool and a joke on this site."

Tao wrote: And second, I didn't "claim" any such thing as "wise".
Tao wrote: I myself see everything in/as primordial awareness, the self-perfected state. I am not fixated on or within dualities such as good vs bad, life vs death, love vs hate, sacred vs profane, positive vs negative, right vs wrong, or gems vs shit, etc etc.

Some very self-serving ways to decide what certain words mean and don't :)

P.S. Tao: if you can get a senior discount at the movie theater, you are 'old' ... Why don't I "have the right to be candid and to call" it as it is.

[tAo]

Elephant,

You are still wasting your time foolishly trying to ferret out some minute discrepancy in my comments. But you still haven't found any. What a doofus. LOL

Elephant writes: "Some very self-serving ways to decide what certain words mean and don't"

-- I will again re-terate what I said previously: I didn't "claim" any such thing as being "wise". You are attempting to infer and prove that I did, but you have failed. Thts because you are trying to twist the meaning of my words to suit your attempts to cast aspersions upon me.

Elephant writes: "if you can get a senior discount at the movie theater, you are 'old'"

-- I don't get discounts, and I also don't go to theaters.

Elephant writes: "P.S Why don't I "have the right to be candid and to call" it as it is."

-- You DO. However, whether or not you are right, or correct, is quite another thing. As I've always told you Elephant, you shold find something better to do than trying in vain to discredit me. Use your intelligence for something more productive. You just ain't gonna get nowhere barking up the wrong tree, as you are.

[tAo]

To the elephant,

Elephant, regarding your previous remark and your questions about my academic career versus my time in India...

I did in fact notice your question previously, but it didn't seem all that urgent. Also, you sounded slightly doubtful, and more than slightly cynical... as you have typically been towards me at other times in the past.

You also called me something like "duplicitous" or "dupicity". That kind of unfounded bullshit certainly doesn't make me want to respond to you. And I generally try to ignore assholes who cast such asperions upon me, and who try to twist the meaning of my words in order to then dicredit and ridicule me.

The thing is, I was actually planning to try to answer your question with a whole list of dates and academic info that I had already written up... that is until I stipped and concluded that I do not need to reply to attitudes such as yours.

I am not obliged to divulge such detailed information about my personal history and career to antagonists such as yourself.

So I will hold off until perhaps some other time in the future, when and if your attitude towards me improves noticeably.

[Catherine Muller]

Jayme ... Lovely vids, thank you ... Robert Bly's voice reminded me of a cross between Joseph Campbell's and Johnny Cash and that made me like them even more ... Gaia is beautiful.

Watched the movies then read this article in NY Times about Dharma Punx.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/nyregion/13metjournal.html?_r=1&hp

The article begins with Josh Korda, said Dharma Punk, saying: "“O.K., tonight’s class is about how to forgive impossible-to-forgive people,” Josh Korda, the leader of the New York City group, said at a recent session. “So this is good in case you’ve been angry at anyone ever in your life. If you haven’t, just listen in.”

tAo, I have made my peace with you because even though you sometimes remind me of a grissly bear I have enjoyed our exchanges and you have taught me a thing or three. Thank you, signor.

Karan, from your mouth to God's ears. Am probably among the more ignorant folks around on Churchless but feel free to email direct: [removed at request of Catherine]

All the best, C

[tAo]

Alright Catherine.

Sorry I called you a bitch. I'm sure I too can seem like a real bastard at times. It was really only in jest anyway. You know, like... "all's fair in love and war" *grin*

And as one special old acquaintance of mine (now deceased) U. G. Krishnamurti used to say:

"they're all a bunch of Bitches and Bastards... the whole damn lot of them"

yeah... heh heh heh

[I believe you may even find some videos of U.G. saying something approximating that on YouTube]

And byw, I'm really rather glad to see that you're still here with us. You've uhh... passed the test... or maybe the guardians at the gates of heaven? or hell? (you probably how that works, right?)

Never-the-less... Jah Love and Peace, and Radha Soami sister.

[the elephant]

tAo: -- I will again re-terate what I said previously: I didn't "claim" any such thing as being "wise". You are attempting to infer and prove that I did, but you have failed. Thts because you are trying to twist the meaning of my words to suit your attempts to cast aspersions upon me.

-- It is for the pleasure of others to judge ...

tAo: -- I don't get discounts, and I also don't go to theaters.

--The point is not that you do or not but that you could ...

tAo: "I am not obliged to divulge such detailed information about my personal history and career to antagonists such as yourself."

--No you are not ... but to any reasonable person it looks that sometimes you write about yourself through a certain dynamic that involves making stuff up as the ride goes ...

tAo: "The thing is, I was actually planning to try to answer your question with a whole list of dates and academic info that I had already written up... that is until I stipped and concluded that I do not need to reply to attitudes such as yours."

--I sure hope you yourself buy that lame-ass excuse because I have the feeling that many won't ...

tAo: So I will hold off until perhaps some other time in the future, when and if your attitude towards me improves noticeably.

-- LOL Am I the only one who is almost floored by the irony here?

tAo 'cop out' reminds that of another old fart. McCain explained why he and his Camp went so shamlessley negative--it was because the other guy had refused to do the Town hall meetings with him. If the latter would have agreed everything would have been different! Like we believed that story ...

---

P.S: tAo: "You also called me something like "duplicitous" or "dupicity". That kind of unfounded bullshit certainly doesn't make me want to respond to you. And I generally try to ignore assholes who cast such asperions upon me, and who try to twist the meaning of my words in order to then dicredit and ridicule me."

--Humm. Somehow I thought the word meant something like "being at two places at the same" (a dual and limited version of ubiquicity). I should have checked more carefully. Instead, I made what turned out to be a nice lapsus.

[Catherine Muller]

tAo, straight back at you, brother :-) Jah, love and peace ... I have a dear friend called Yunus who has been to Mecca and went to Konya to follow in Rumi's footsteps. I've known him since I was 18 and he can, at times, be totally outrageous (to the point where he was once locked up in jail for a week for threatening to blow up a cinema - it was stupid thing, I forget why and he didn't mean it - but his partner had to ride the bus every day to take his sandwiches in prison which, at the time, I found very funny because if had kept his mouth shut none of it would have happened ...) but Yunus has a great big heart; has a good sense of humour and is a truly devoted dad who would give his life for his son. In a way, you remind me of him. So yup, no hard feelings at all ... Why should there be? It's been a great deal of fun.

[Mr. A]

Vegetarianism, if not veganism, (at the very least...) is simply common sense, especially in this day in age... People who tend to debate this and complain are the same people who are stuck in their heads with limited experience but a whole lot of opinions -- I suspect, since I teach a raw vegan lifestyle and tend to meet these doubtful people all the time. And furthermore, do you know anyone whose actually succeeding -- thriving, not surviving -- on a meat-heavy, processed, modern-day SAD diet? If so, please do offer that better solution.

I haven't been sick for nearly 15 years on a simple, vegan diet.
I'm able to meditate and think clearer than ever.
My addictions -- sex, food, money, things -- are ceasing.
My mind and thoughts have shifted from capitalistic obsession to a focus on simple living, being happy, and the higher realms of life.
I'm able to love more.
My whole life has become about releasing and working through past traumas.
This is a good thing. The diet works if you work it.

Regarding the practice, the masters say, "believe no one -- even me -- until you realize yourself. Give it a worthwhile try." They also say that Sant Mat is "a fools path," and that over-thinkers and very analytic people won't find solace and peace in this practice, and that there's more than one path to freedom, if you so choose.

To me, these sound like words of wisdom considering every moment of everyday, we're being told what to think rather than how.

There's always someone who makes a fuss on the internet and posts about how something didn't work for them. Where are the posts about how Sant Mat DID?

Sant Mat is a very personal experience and we're recommended to keep private.

[Los Otros]

Mr. A

You say “we” but nobody on this site actually follows the path you are talking about other than maybe 2 people. This isn’t exactly a site that’s geared towards what you practice.

[Ugh]

Sant Mat is a very personal experience and we're recommended to keep private.

Posted by: Mr. A | December 09, 2020 at 06:31 AM

Yes, please keep it private.

Sounds like from what you’re saying that your vegan / raw foods diet is what helped you overcome your addictions. Good for you. 👏

What do you take for self-righteous hypocrisy? Oh, right... nothing. 👌