« Seeing differently vs. seeing different things | Main | Q and A about me and Sant Mat »

March 25, 2009

Comments

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

zenjen - I have to say you have some honest to goodness sincerity in you, you and George who may be a little new to all this deep thinking pseudo spiritual philosophical indoctrination politics. Appreciate the integrity in you both.

You two are one of the few here that may have a modem of relatively free and unconditioned thinking going through your brain.

the bulk of these guys in here are on a fundamentalist witch hunt.

and then you get some like Catherine who are really just like a nobody fence sitter, going with whatever is popular or in vogue, a little like tAo in this regard, whatever fanciful notion or teaching we like to catch a little breeze on we'll go with it, for the moment or for the joy ride, like an easy rider on a Harley Davidson

A little like a prostitute that don't quite know which lover or aspect of love they want to get close to, just anything and everything goes, as long as they don't have anything sincere or honest they should be committing to.

George,

You said:

"How very trite, picking off each point without any honesty whatsoever."

-- Well yes and no... I tried to address or answer each point of yours that I feel needed to be addressed. If you don't like that - or my style of response - then I'm sorry that's just too bad.

However, for you to assert that I am somehow dishonest simply because you don't like or agree with my opinions, is itself being disingenuous. You are apparently looking to challenge and pick some sort of fight with me, but I am not interested in wrangeling or competing with you. For instance, you attempted to one-up me regarding education, yet you know absolutely nothing about me or about my academic background.

Suffice it to say this: a.) I do not agree with you at all about the matter of Ashy... and, b.) As a matter of fact I was intending to respond to your questions about your '4 principles', just as soon as you re-posted them.... but you seemed to be extremely impatient and then jumped to premature and false conclusions about all that.

Also btw, you should also understand that my last post to you was written in a great deal of haste, and that was because I had other very immediate and pressing matters to attend to, and I had to abruptly get offline. So I will try to edit and re-do that message over again, and then post it to you separately, subsequent to this one.

"This whole little spat is because of your personal differences with Ashy's whose opinion you seemingly cannot seem to stomach for some reason."

-- Is not about Ashy's opinions. Its all about Ashy's excessive preaching of Santmat dogma and fundamentlism; Ashy's ridicule derision towards people who reject that kind of dogma and guru-cultism; and Ashy refusing to engage in any sort of reasonable positive open-minded discussion... all of which is very typical behavior for an internet troll.

However, you seem to want to lend support to, agree with, and make excuses for Ashy... and so that is why I do not agree with you. You can think and say what you like about Ashy, but that does not make it right. If you support the kind of disrespect and conflict and dogma that Ashy has brought to this forum, then I will have to reagrd you the same why that I regard Ashy. And I also suspect that both you and Ashy are playing a similar game with more or less the same agenda.

"Even if he's totally wrong and you are totally right (which is highly unlikely), your fundamenal zeal for attacking everything he says or anyone that agrees with him in any form, points to who the actual fundamentalist here is."

-- That is totally incorrect. My comments are founded in reason and speak for themselves, and there is no such "fundamentalist" on my part. And I am hardly the only one who has criticised Ashy. Many others including Brian have remarked upon Ashy's fundamentist attitude and rhetoric.

Moreover, by this here comment of yours, it is now becoming quite apparent to me that you too are playing the same twisted game as Ashy. Ashy is clearly an RS religious fundamentalist, there is no doubt about that. And for you to attempt to turn that around and stick it on me indicates what your agenda is here.

This blog is not a venue to preach loads of Santmat dogma, or to deride and ridicule ex-satsangis and critics of RS. This is a place to engage in open-minded discussion and sharing of information. Ashy clearly did not come here for that reason, and has not engaged in any degree of open-minded discussion. Ashy came here to preach RS dogma and chastise and ridicule those who don't accept and agree with that dogma.

And at this point, you apparently seem to be going much the same way as Ashy. If not, then please explain what you ARE doing and where you are at. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt (which is alot more than you have shown me thus far).

"You are clearly a very arrogant individual who simply needs to be put firmly in his place and it will happen, and probably has happened repeatedly."

-- All you are telling me and showing others here is that you don't know what you are talking about. Your comment exudes arrogance and false bravado. You haven't got a clue as to who I am or what this blog is really about. You are really just a bag of hot air. You think that you are so smart, but you're not.

"Do me a favour don't respond to me, what a loss."

-- Then don't direct your comments to me. If you don't like the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. If you think you are going to dump crap on me, and I am not going to respond, then your're just a stupid asshole. You have turned this into what it is now. You are just like Ashy... if other people don't agree with you, then you dump your twisted crap on them. You don't belong here, nor does Ashy.

"My reactionary attitude was exactly deserved. I am not going to be walked over."

-- Nobody "walked over" you - I did not "walk over" you. I tried to respond to your query, but you deliberately jumped to false conclusions. I just don't agree with you at all about Ashy, and I have a right and a reason to my opinion, just as you have a right to your opinion. But you semm to want to attack me simply because I am rather critical of Ashy who is an obvious extremely self-righteous religious cult goon.

"I started off addressing you politely and with respect only to be belittled for seemingly supporting a part of what Ashy has to say."

-- And I responded to you politely. I did not "belittle" you at all. You have apparently misinterepreted me. However, I definitely do NOT agree with any of your views about Ashy.

"But the worst of this whole thing, is the part that i agreed with Ashy about, is that not one of you supposed enlightened fellows had even the foggiest clue what he was trying to say."

-- First, no one here claims to be "enlightened", so making such a remark is clearly sarcastic on your part. Are you aware of your sarcastic attitude? Well it is not helping this discussion. Second, we all know what Ashy was/is trying to say. So don't assume that we don't understand. But whatever you may think Ashy is about, is not necessarily the case. Some of us, myself included, have been here a lot longer than you have, and we have seen a number of people very similar or identical to Ashy come and go. So I am certain that you do NOT have the same level or degree of perceptiveness and insight and experience relative to people like Ashy, that the rest of us here do. But yet you come off as though it is myself and others who don't have "even the foggiest clue" about Ashy or what Ashy is saying. So that's why I say that you really don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to Ashy.

"In fact you misunderstood him so completely and wantingly in your attempt to denigrate"

-- Again George, it is quite obvious to myself and many of us what Ashy is really about, and we have not "misunderstood" at all. It is my contention that YOU are the one who is not familiar with, and not understanding the over-all issue of Ashy and Ashy's agenda.

"Ashy's basic point that I agree with was that there are many different paths to reach spiritual enlightement, not only Sant Mat, Sant mat being one of number of highways with its own signs to get to the destination."

-- That is true, but THAT is NOT what Ashy was saying. Ashy said, on several occasions and in almost identical terms, that Santmat is the ONLY REAL TRUE path to enlightenment. If I had the time to spend, I could go back and show you exactly where Ashy clearly said something to that effect on several different occasions. Brian could probably find it as well, as he too pointed this out. So George, you need to just look at what Ashy actually said, not what you would like to intrepret it as. And moreover, Ashy also said a great deal of other stuff that obviously reeks of the same narrow-minded Santmat religious guru-cultic fundamentalism.

All I can say is that I find it quite curious and odd and revealing that you desire to defend Ashy, and say that we are wrong, when in fact it was Ashy him/her self who posted all of that fundamenaltist RS dogma and sarcastic ridicule towards ex-satsangis. So the question in my mind is, why do YOU support and defend that sort of thing?

"Now I personally dunno if there is a destination, but the idea of many of the mstic believes sharing common principles is well known, as I have Huxley and Liebniz felt as much, so however great you think you are, Ashy happens to be in some pretty exhaulted company."

-- First, Ashy is in no such "company" at all. Ashy simply parrots dogma. And no one here thinks they are "great", so that thype of sarcasm is not useful. And second, I am well aware that there have been many mystics and sages throught hisory. I am very well acqainted with a great many of them and with their teachings and philosophies. But their wisdom does not automatically rub-off on Ashy. And frthermore, you know next to nothing about my own spiritual state, knowledge, wisdom, realization, etc., or how it compares to the sages of the past. If you were wise, you would not make presumptions about other people like myself. What do you know about me? Or about my background, or about my spirituality? Do you think and assume that I am just some joker? I think that you have no clue as to where I am at. I think you are here to support and defend Ashy and Ashy's religious cult dogma and rhetoric. Why? Simply because that is more or less what you have been doing since yhou appeared here. If thats not your agenda, then perhaps you should clarify and explain otherwise.

"As for whether he is a troll or not, that is your opinion, no-one else needs to be press-ganged into accepting it for fear of incurring your sarky comments. I think you are a troll."

-- That is incorrect. I did not "press-gang" anyone into accepting anything. I have simply stated my opinion that Ashy is a troll. Ashy exibits much behavior which is quite indicative of a troll. Apparently you do not understand what troll means, because you are now twisting this around so as to call me a troll. And that is also exactly what Ashy does (ie: to call others who are outspokenly critical of fundamentism as being "fundamentalists").

So now when you attempt to twist the matter around, and label someone such as myself (who has NO such troll type behavior whatsoever) as a "troll", well that simply makes you appear to be playing another troll type game similar to Ashy. So if you are going to call someone a troll, then at least show or produce some valid evidence that they are behaving as a troll. I don't exhibit troll type behavior, nor does any of the other folks here. Ashy is the one who has been behaving like a troll in many ways.

"What certainly was not needed was your arrogant dismissal of these valid points he did raise."

-- Ashy did not raise any valid points. If you think otherwise, then copy and paste those quotations and I will address whether I think they are valid or not. Just because you think they are valid, does not make them so. So simply post the particular exact quotes from Ashy that you think are valid points, and we will go from there. If you have something to debate, then by all means present it. But don't just say that Ashy is right and others are wrong without being specific.

"If this is what you consider a free thinker to be, or a free thinking forum, then you are the one who is not very bright."

-- Again, you are not just ridiculing me, you are ridiculing Brian and everyone else here. That is lame, and vague, and its not reasonable. If you have a specific issue, then present it.

"Dare i state the obvious, there is no small amount of method in Ashy's apparent madness, the results are right here for all too see. The reactions he illicits are of such variety and passion that one's gotta laugh at the sheer irony of it all.'

-- Yes, there is a "method". THAT is EXACTLY why I say that Ashy is a troll. Because THAT is exactly what trolls do... they stir up trouble, they preach, they ignore those who try to reason with them, they do not engage in open-minded discussion, and they do it all to elict reactions and to get attention and to annoy others.

"he's leading you around by the nose, and you cant see the wood from the trees such is the amount he's shaken you up"

-- You are so wrong George. You are are so stupid. Ashy has not fooled anyone here but you. Ashy has not lead anyone "around by the nose". Ashy has not "shaken" anyone up. All Ashy has done (and all you are doing I might add) is to show the rest of us what an extremely narrow-minded and dogmatic religious guru-cult fundamentalist troll Ashy really is.

And now I am starting to see that you too are most likely in collusion with Ashy. Its kind of funny but also sad how dumb so many of your ilk are. No one here cares at all if you choose to go believe in and practice Santmat... so why is it that people like you and Ashy can't stand that others like us choose not to believe in that sort of thing, and you want to come here and harass us because we don't believe as you do? We did not go looking for you. You came here. If you wish to openly discuss the pros and cons of mysticism then thats fine, but its not fine if you just want to come here and harass and ridicule people who don't buy your particular dogma of religion and mysticism, or who believe in your "master" cultism.

"you are simply unable to even recognise the valid points he makes, which is precisely his tiff with the intellect."

-- He/she (Ashy) has made no such "valid points". And Ashy emplys intellect just as much as eveyone else does. So your claim is simply hogwash. If not, then show us these so-called "valid points" that you say we have recognised.

"well played Mr Ashy, well played indeed."

-- All you are doing here is telling me that underneath it all, you are really in colusion with Ashy. This forum is not here for your little games. And you obviously view this forum as a game in your agenda. That's unfortunate.

--- aum shanti ---

here we go with the goddamn knit picking again

and this is supposed to be a site for elevated free thinkers

seriously Brian you should absolute seriously start evaluating what on earth you on about over here, what in carnation you looking to achieve

you got hogwash knit picking ego fundamentalists looking to knit pick their arguments to oblivion and back, without achieving one iota of truth amongst it, not a goddamn sausage of a truth amongst it all

what on God's good earth are you looking to harbor over here, your backslapping camaraderie mutually acquainted admiration society, or some honest to goodness unadulterated Truth?

Looks firmly to me like you are in absolute infatuation with the former, you not interested in Truth one iota, just this endless fastidious going on about arrogant knit picking anti fundamentalist dogma.

That about sums this lot up, Aum Shanti's and all.

ashy, please note my comment to you on today's post:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/03/commenters-heres-how-to-reduce-blog-visitor-aggravation.html

You need to stop the dogmatic, repetitive content-less "spam," or it will be handled like other spam.

Comments are for discussing subjects with other people and sharing views on the substance of a blog post. You have settled in to a meaningless stream of insults and name-calling, which is both boring and irritating.

Too bad Brian

Too bad for you and too bad for your bunch of goons

You are NOT on any ideal or mission for truth at all

You got the ass end of the stick here

You got a bunch of no hope deluded knit picking schmucks running around thinking they are elevated aggrandized figments of their imagination enlightened fool freaks, they are leading you around on a merry go round to nowhere, you I am afraid are on a mission to nowhere with this churchless indoctrinated rubbish

so keep it going round and round on your eternal wheel of merry go round garbage

you got unadulterated idiot fool arrogant punks on here man and you don't even know it.

I said my pieces now

I sure hope you leave them up for all to see what a sham bunch of indoctrinated illusory infatuation is the order of the day around here

Anybody looking for Truth, this ain't the place to find it

So long.

In response, i notice a distinct change in tone, which appears far more reasonable.

I am not looking to pick a fight with you or anyone else, perhaps we have a different sense of manners. I took your original post to me to be incredibly rude, fair enough, lets be charitable and put it down to my oversensitivity.

If you consider me to have a Sant Mat agenda you are clearly bonkers. Where did such a notion every come from? Because i happened to agree with a point from a blogger whom you clearly have already judged and sentenced.

I don't have a religious bone in my body, but there are some things about the mystical tradition, which intrigue me a great deal and i came onto this website to try and find more in this regard, not to be talked down or belittled because i happened to agree with a point made by a believer in the mystic traditions.

There's very little I, you or any other human being on this planet can be certain about, apart from the fact that there is very little to be certain about, that virtually anything is possible and that no-one has all the answers.

So with that in mind, i try and keep an open mind and where someone makes a point albeit in a metaphorical poetic manner, i try understand it before consigning it to the rubbish dump of ideas.

Now on Ashy's demeanour, i should imagine he, like you, is perhaps naturally not the most docile of individuals - however, i also believe that if he is treated with respect, he's more than likely to reciprocate that attitude. I dont think he has a problem if his views are challenged, indeed i did that repeatedly above. However, if one dismissed his views arrogantly and summararilly out-of-hand, well then he's going to come at you like bull to a red flag.

One closing thing, which is that i wholeheartedly agree with Brian's call on the other thread to at least post something meaningful aimed at the subject of the thread. The funny thing is, i am yet to recieve any comment as to my or ashy assertion into some sort of overlapping perennial or ancient philosophy.

You will remember this was the point in the argument above where everyone started shouting about Ashy's dogmatism and fundamentalim, and totally ignored his point of a spiritual destination capable of being reached by a number of highways each potentially having different roadsigns.

This is a believer in spirituality alright, but not a Sant Mat fundamentalist as he has been incorrectly misunderstood or wantingly misrepresented above. If one is going to paint people into boxes, at least lets do say with a modicum of intellectual honsety.

Catherine,

Thank you for your more balanced input on a particularly bitchy, albeit fairly robust, thread.

ashy, I would have deleted your further dogma spam, but if this is the end of it, I'll leave it up.

again you misunderstand my praise for ashy's style, you attribute it to being a wholehearted endorsement of all his ideas, it is nothing of the sort.

My take on proceedings here is that Ashy has revealed with his own very robust style, almost most profoundly, what cannot be expressed in words or when is so expressed is merely taken as insult.

Which is that those ppl that put a preponderance on the intellect, of which i am one, not only become so arrogant as to be devoured by their own egos in such a debte of wills that they totally lose sight of the truth.

I repeat for the 100th time, Ashy has clearly given a metaphor for embracing a wider mystical tradition then the Sant Mat fundamental you are all portraying.

This is quite simply wrong and actually totally intellectually dishonest on most of your part and in my opinion Ashy has exposed that spectacularly with his supposed troll-like style on this thread.

George, please point out some wisdom that Ashy shared. I can't think of anything that hasn't been said before, and better, on this blog by many other people. Including me.

Namely, that ultimate reality can't be put into words. That's a given. Virtually all (and probably 100%) of the churchless folks here accept that. Ultimate reality is a mystery. Yet Ashy clearly was espousing Sant Mat as the best way of penetrating that mystery with his talk of the sound current, need for a guru, and such.

That's fine. But many of us here are in the "been there, done that" mode. We're interested in exploring other avenues toward truth. Ashy never realized that just because someone has chosen to embark on a different path, or a pathless path, his or her search for truth is continuing just as fervently as before.

Brian, as i have pointed out, many times Ashy talks about many different highways to the spiritual destination each with their own road signs.

It is quite clear therefore that he is not intolerant of traditions other than Sant Mat, but that is what is being said about him.

I believe this point to be extremely profound, which is this idea of an ancient philsophy which underless most of the mystic tradtions and a great many of the mainstream religions and metaphysical phsilosophies as espoused by the neoplatanit and as espoused by Huxley.

Now, whether there is a common perennial pshilosophy or not may indeed have been discussed to great depth on here already, but it certainly was not considered here, instead it was simply dismissed out of hand and he has been painted a Sant Mat fundamentalist.

Ashy may consider Sant Mat to be the best way, I dont know about that, but he clearly does not believe its the ONLY way, which is what a dogmatic fundamentalist believes.

second, and perhaps, the most profound point that Ashy appears to make with his robust style is that he appears to have exposed the very limits of the intellect that are appear to be such a common principles of the mystic traditions, and that he adheres too.

In this intellectual rush to paint one another into their 'fundamentalist' box, these wailing gnashing intellects have skipped the truth, which is that he clearly is not a Sant Mat fundamentalist. The evidence for this is clearly set out in his highway metaphor.

Thirdly, what is also profound is the sheer volume and effort of responses devoted to Ashy's posts. If he is really such an insignificant crazed fundamentalist, why are the overwhelming responses directed too him? and why do his fiercest detractors spend so much time trying to convince him and themsevles how totally clueless he is?

So yes, i think he's given us all a tremendous amount to think about.

George, most of what Ashy posted was vehement insulting personal diatribes. This is what irritated people so much, not his occasional coherent observations.

I read every comment Ashy posted. I think you're mistaken about his supposed non-fundamentalism. He was very much opposed to skepticism about his spiritual beliefs. He refused to state them clearly and to defend them.

Several times I invited him to stop attacking other people personally, and to discuss his ideas thoughtfully and respectfully. He never did this. I've found that when someone doesn't have a leg to stand on, they like to call other people cripples.

Anyway, I'm going to try to find your perennial philosophy comment, with the four principles, and respond to it. I much prefer discussing philosophy than dealing with ranting.

George, I found the principles you listed:

"The principles common to mystical beliefs appear to be:
1) the existence of a Divine formless force underlying everything.
2) each person has a true inner self, kernel or spark surrounded by egos or wills clouding their perceptions and ability to know thy inner self and the Divine.
3) using meditation to allow connection or alignment of the inner self with the Divine and thus experiencing direct knowledge of the Divine, rather than thru the intellect with its egos which is inherently limited.
4) our purpose is self knowledge of the inner self, to know who we are, to know thyself."

Its kind of a big subject, to comment on these. This would make a good subject for a separate blog post. So I think I'll respond in that fashion. I've got a cup of coffee and some free time, so probably will post your principles and my thoughts about them this evening.

For those still following the tale of Ashy, after he said "so long" in a comment above, and I agreed to leave up his farewell insults, he returned with more rants.

Which I deleted. I don't want to ban Ashy's IP address completely at the moment, because I believe in change, and he might decide to start commenting respectfully, intelligently, and courteously.

Just wanted to mention this in case someone notices that Ashy's comments have a "here, then gone" quality to them. If they aren't dogma spam, I'll leave them up. Otherwise, they'll be gone.

George,

I would appreciate it if you would start by saying, naming who it is that you are responding to. I don't like to have to sort around and wonder.

You said (presumably to me):

"i notice a distinct change in tone, which appears far more reasonable." -- Well I haven't really changed at all. Your angle of perception may have changed though.

"perhaps we have a different sense of manners." -- I really don't what you mean by that, but I, more than most people here, am a man of manners.

"If you consider me to have a Sant Mat agenda you are clearly bonkers. Where did such a notion every come from?" -- Well, you sounded to me like you were advocating Santmat. But perhaps not.

"i happened to agree with a point from a blogger whom you clearly have already judged and sentenced." -- No George, I have only addressed and challenged the outrageously warped judgements of that blogger.

"I don't have a religious bone in my body, but there are some things about the mystical tradition, which intrigue me a great deal and i came onto this website to try and find more in this regard" -- Alright, that is reasonable. I have have no problem with that.

"...not to be talked down or belittled" -- Again, I was not belittling or talking down to you. If it seemed that way to you, then you misnderstood me.

"There's very little I, you or any other human being on this planet can be certain about, apart from the fact that there is very little to be certain about, that virtually anything is possible and that no-one has all the answers." -- In case you don't already know (which seems to be the case), may I inform you that I am in agreement with all of that.

"Now on Ashy's demeanour [...] i also believe that if he is treated with respect, he's more than likely to reciprocate that attitude." -- George, he WAS treated with respect. However, from almost the very get-go, from Ashy's very first comment, Ashy was not at all respectful to Brian or others here. And I am not the only one who noticed that. So I cannot agree with your supposition, although I sense that you mean well. It just does not correspond with the fcats of Ashy's history here, from the very beginning.

"I dont think he has a problem if his views are challenged" -- George, I think you are seriously missing something. The entire diatribe that Ashy has repeated in different forms numerous times, is almost wholly predicated upon the fact that Ashy can not handle his views (which is basically a parroting of Santmat dogma) being challenged. He has offered nothing to substantiate or defend his views. He has merely made repeated personal insults and attacks and endless vacuous rhetoric, offering nothing of any real substance.

"However, if one dismissed his views arrogantly and summararilly out-of-hand, well then he's going to come at you like bull to a red flag." -- No George, his views were not at all dismissed summarily out-of-hand. The problem was (and is) that he offered absolutley nothing positive or substantial to support his views... only shallow and knee-jerk impudence and name-calling towards those who invited him to show some evidence in support and defense of his views. You are probly unaware of the fact that we here at CotC have been around this block man many times before with many other dogmatic posters just like Ashy. Its an old story here. You are apparently a late-comer and so you don't have the same broad perspective as others here do. Ashy got the same chances to tell his story and offer something meaningful that eveyone gets. But Ashy failed to take that opportunity. Its Ashy who cooked his own goose.

"Brian's call on the other thread to at least post something meaningful aimed at the subject of the thread. [...] i am yet to recieve any comment as to my or ashy assertion into some sort of overlapping perennial or ancient philosophy." -- As I told you before, your own comment/assertion/questions are a large subject to address, but I will give you some feedback soon. As for Ashy's comments, I don't agree that Ashy was saying specifically that there is "overlapping". To my percerption, Ashy was asserting that Santmat is at the root of all religions and philosophies.... that all philosophies have the same ultimate goal, and the only true way to reach that goal is via Santmat/shabd-yoga... and I simply do NOT agree with that. Buddhism is very different than Hinduism, and Hinduism and Vedanta is very different from Sufism, and none of them are anywhere close to Santmat except for Sikhism. and even with Buddhism and Hinduism are very different schools. For instance Hindu Vaishnavism is diametrically opposed to Advaita or Shaivism. And nither of those are like Santmat. Nor is Jainism at all like Hinduism. To say that Santmat is at the core of all philosophies, or that all religions and philosophical approaches are directed to the same goal and proceed along the same path as Santmat, is absolutely incorrect. And amongst scholars of philosophy, this is not something which is debatable. That is merely Ashy's twisted nonsense and I am nolt going to waste any more of my time debating it. If you don't believe me, then you can research it for yourself if you care to spend a few days, or over 40 years at it like I have.

"You will remember this was the point in the argument above where everyone started [...] totally ignored his point of a spiritual destination capable of being reached by a number of highways each potentially having different roadsigns."

-- That's not what I remember reading Ashy as saying. I would have to go back and read exactly what Ashy said, and I am not willing to do that thankless job. If you can locate the area and statements in question, then I will be glad to review it again. I just don't think that your interpretation is what Ashy was actually saying. But although I doubt it, I could be wrong.

"This is a believer in spirituality alright, but not a Sant Mat fundamentalist as he has been incorrectly misunderstood or wantingly misrepresented" -- Well I have to disagree with you George. I know you seem to believe that, but I have seen this sort of thing enough times to see and know when someone (like Ashy) is obviously (to me) posting and preaching religious fundamentalism. I think maybe you just don't have the insight and perspective to be able to detect it like Brian and I do. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I think eventually you will be able to see that there is already a significant degree of fundamentism is inherent in Santmat/RS theology, and especially in the mindset of rigid believers like Ashy.

"If one is going to paint people into boxes, at least lets do say with a modicum of intellectual honsety." -- I happen to be brutally honest... to a fault. So George, I must take that implication as an insult. No offence, but you are questioning my intellectual honesty, yet you have no basis to do so other than you simply want to cut Ashy way more slack that he deserves. And THAT my friend, is far less intellectually honest than my taking Ashy's comments at face value.

I would suggest that you go back and re-read Ashy's comments, and you may find that the facts don't reflect how you are choosing to interpret them. And if not, then we can agree to disagree.

George,

My comments on your statements to Brian... you said:

"My take on proceedings here is that Ashy has revealed [...] what cannot be expressed in words or when is so expressed is merely taken as insult."

"Which is that those ppl that put a preponderance on the intellect"

-- Ashy has not "revealed" any such thing. Ashy's criticism towards the intellect, all the while being extremely flamboyant and wordy in his own comments, is no revelation at all other than of Ashy's own hypocrisy and self-contradiction.

This mindless dismissal of intellect is incredibly lame. It is what RS sometimes teaches, but oddly enough, all of the RS masters and the RS hierarchy have all been intellectual and highly educated educated men. So this is just Ashy parroting RS anti-intellecual bias... which is just a load of hypocrisy if you consider the RS masters and their hierarchy.

The RSSB admonishes westerners and indians alike to be like the so-called "Hill people" who live out in the sticks and mountains of northernn India, and who have little or no education or much literacy. Its a sham because those same RS leaders and pundits who advocate and criticise intellect, are all highly intellectual and academically educated fellows who are not at all like those poor un-educated Hill people.

So don't be fooled by Ashy's hypocritical parroting of RS rhetoric. This is what I mean when I say that you are not really familiar with these issues, and so you are apt to make naive mistaken conclusions.

"[the more intellectual folks] ...not only become so arrogant as to be devoured by their own egos in such a debte of wills that they totally lose sight of the truth."

-- That is simply not ture. It is a fallacy that intellect breeds ego. I don't subscribe to the notion that ego is a problem... nor is will. And to discern truth, requires the clarity and awareness that comes from a sharp mind and a keen intellect (buddhi). It is my experience and conclusion, gleaned from more than 60 some years of livng and encountering many thousands of people from all parts of the world, that people of low intellects generally have little or no appreciation, value or interest in the search for truth or enlightenment. They are basically satisfied and content to live relatively mundane lives and they don't aspire to deeper understanding or greater enlightenment. And they are ususally religious and very superstitious and tend towards faith in supernaturalism. And those who have less than average or average intellects are much more prone to adherence to dogma and blind faith, whereas those who have very high intellects are not religious, are more scientifically oriented, are not superstituous and do not not tend towards supernaturalism.

"I repeat for the 100th time, Ashy has clearly given a metaphor for embracing a wider mystical tradition then the Sant Mat fundamental you are all portraying."

-- OK, then would you please copy and paste Ashy's specific statement(s), and also please indicate exactly where you found that or where you believe that was expressed by Ashy? I would like to see what you are referring to.

"This is quite simply wrong and actually totally intellectually dishonest on most of your part and in my opinion Ashy has exposed that spectacularly with his supposed troll-like style on this thread.'

-- George, Ashy has exposed no such thing other than Ashy's own dogmatic stance. To accuse the rest of us of being intellectually dishonest, while at the same time propping Ashy up like some paragon of insight and wisdom is frankly absurd. If thats what you think, then brother you need to have your head examined. Seriously, to say that those of us who collectively have over a hunderd years of knowledge and experience in Santmat, are not being fair or intellectually honest towards a person who merely parrots RS dogma and nothing more, is downright insulting. So I am having serious doubts about your credibility or motives here. There is something a bit odd and fishy about your continued ridiculous defense of a glaringly obvious spam-posting dogma-spouting guru-cult fundamentalist. All I can tell you is that I am now becoming more suspicious of your honesty and your motives.

"as i have pointed out, many times Ashy talks about many different highways to the spiritual destination each with their own road signs."

-- Since you are probably quite unfamiliar with Santmat cosmology and teachings, you most likely do not nderstand what Ashy is really getting at. Ashy is not saying anyting original. Ashy's rhetoric is all standard RS dogma. Question: Are you well versed in the Santmat/RS teachings and cosmology? If you are not, then you simply do not comprehend what it is that Ashy is parroting, or what it means. Ashy is not saying what you think.

"It is quite clear therefore that he is not intolerant of traditions other than Sant Mat, but that is what is being said about him.'

-- Wrong again. Ashy said in his very own words that Santmat is the only true path to God consciousness. And not only that, he also was critical and derogatory towards "buddhism", advaita and vedanta, and several other paths and teachings. I will try and find the exact statement that Ashy made to that effect.

The question now in my mind is WHY are you attempting to re-intrepret and basically distort Ashy's own statements, to fit your rather lame defense of him? ... And when he himself has blatantly shown in his own numerous statements that he IS indeed "intolerant of traditions other than Sant Mat"? Why are you the only person here who is defending Ashy, when even Ashy can not not defend himself due to his own negative and intolerant statements? This tells me again that there is something less than honest going on here.

"I believe this point to be extremely profound, which is this idea of an ancient philsophy which underless most of the mystic tradtions and a great many of the mainstream religions and metaphysical phsilosophies as espoused by the neoplatanit and as espoused by Huxley."

-- I beleive you are referring to what is termed in vedanta as the 'sanatana dharma', the timeless truth, the eternal path of truth. There is nothing new or unique about this idea.

"Now, whether there is a common perennial pshilosophy or not may indeed have been discussed to great depth on here already, but it certainly was not considered here"

-- On the contrary, it is always considered here, and if not by others, then at least by myself. So George, you really don't know what you are making premature conclusions about.

"instead it was simply dismissed out of hand and he has been painted a Sant Mat fundamentalist."

-- As I said before, it was obvious to many that Ashy was/is touting RS fundamantalism. That is not even a question, except in your uninformed mind. Nor was Ashy "dismissed ou of hand". Ashy proved his motives by repeated posting of fundamentalist dogma and excessive personal insults and attacks.

"Ashy may consider Sant Mat to be the best way, I dont know about that, but he clearly does not believe its the ONLY way, which is what a dogmatic fundamentalist believes."

-- George, it is a FACT that Ashy himself stated his opinion in 'black and white' that Santmat was the only true genuine or effective path to God-consciouness. So you are disgreeing with what Ashy himself has said. If Brin has not deleted it yet, someone can go back and find Ashy's exact words. I am tire of arguing this with you. You are far too closed-minded to the actual facts, and that is just too similar to Ashy for my likes. My intuition about you is growing worse and worse, and you are quickly losing credibility (imo), the more you continue to pursue this absurd and bogus arguement.

"Ashy [...] appears to have exposed the very limits of the intellect that are appear to be such a common principles of the mystic traditions, and that he adheres too."

-- Ashy has exposed nothing other than his own less than sincere motives here.

"In this intellectual rush to paint one another into their 'fundamentalist' box, these wailing gnashing intellects have skipped the truth, which is that he clearly is not a Sant Mat fundamentalist."

-- George, you are simply full of it. You sound just like Ashy. Furthermore, you know nothing about my (or others) awareness of truth. You are really just grasping for straws. You just don't know squat about my spiritual realization or understanding of truth. And to pretend as if you do, merely shows that you don't.

"The evidence for this is clearly set out in his highway metaphor."

-- That was an irrelevant bunch of meaningless babble.

"Thirdly, what is also profound is the sheer volume and effort of responses devoted to Ashy's posts."

-- Yes, because Ashy flooded this comment forum with lots of dogmatic spam and personal insults, thats why. Why don't you get that?

"If he is really such an insignificant crazed fundamentalist, why are the overwhelming responses directed too him?"

-- Because we don't particularly like religious nuts and annoying fundamentalists who load up this blog with their spam. Why don't you understand that?

"and why do his fiercest detractors spend so much time trying to convince him and themsevles how totally clueless he is?"

-- I am not trying to convince him of anything. Thats where you are totally mistaken. I have spent far mre time responding to your misinterpreations and confusion, than I ever spent on that stupid jerk Ashy.

"So yes, i think he's given us all a tremendous amount to think about."

-- If thats what you think, then you don't have much of a mind of your own. Ashy has presented nothing of any value or significance here. If you want to get into something more profound and meaningful, then go read Sri Ramana Maharshi, or Nisargadatta, or SAdi Shankara, or Huang Po, or Manjushrimitra, or Dzogchen, or our own Tucson Baba, or Brian's articles and books, or even my own. Go get some real perspective.... not a bunch of baloney dogma and nonsense posted by a guru-cult parrot.

If you want profound enlightened wisdom teachings and transcendental knowledge, then you won't find it from goofballs like Ashy. If you actually think Ashy has anything to offer, then brother I am sad to say but you have a very long ways to go.

Brian, Thank you for your comments and your post to address the questions I asked. There was no need for a separate blog post, but I thank you anyway. Some simple discussion on it would have been sufficient, since it seems so basic and core to the mystical traditions that it has probably been discussed many times before.

Tao, I looked at your opening comment and its clear to me nothing will be gained from conversing with you, so here ends our discussions. You have not acknowledged a single point, of which Ashy made at least one very valid one, and as such I have no interest in continuing this battle of wits (if it could even be called that), since you are clearly so utterly deluded its frightening. Please don't tell me about profound enlightened wisdom or anything else, since clearly you have nothing to offer me.


George,

If you are not even going to read my responses, then you are indeed a very closed-minded individual. You are not worth the time or the attention that I spent trying honestly to address most of your issues. I see now that you are just a poseur and a troll like Ashy.

Also, I did in fact address the matter of Ashy, and I clearly explained to you why I do not consider that Ashy has any such "valid points" as you would like to pretend. Ashy has no "points" other than his stupid pointed little head.

But why should I bother with someone who has his head stuck up his ass like you do?

Then you actually have the nerve to call me "deluded"... and your pompous and stubborn ignorance is what is "frightening".

It is your own "battle of wits" that you see reflected. Go take a good look in the mirror George. You will see an incredibly self-possessed and disingenuous individual. A real stinking asshole in the place where your head should be.

Furthermore, you wouldn't know "profound enlightened wisdom" even if it hit you upside the head, you little asswipe moron.

And all I would offer you at this point is to kick your wimpy little punk ass off your high tin horse.

Sooner or later my intuition about you and your phony game will prove to be right. It always is. You may fool Brian for awhile, but you can't fool me.

The way you act and treat people, you don't deserve another moment of my time... so go fuck yourself and the lame horse you rode in on, you stinking piece of rotten pig-shit.

Fair enough Tao, lets call it a day, i really don't wish to converse with such an unpleasant intolerant individual any further.

lol, is this guy for real?
free-thinker, who are you actually fooling?
An intolerant potty-mouthed pipsqueak is all you are.

Brian,

The four principals sounds like a good post to start a new discussion.

"The principles common to mystical beliefs appear to be:

1) the existence of a Divine formless force underlying everything.
---How did the word "Divine" orginate in mysticism?
2) each person has a true inner self, kernel or spark surrounded by egos or wills clouding their perceptions and ability to know thy inner self and the Divine.
---how did the "inner self" originate in mysticism? Is this the Soul?
3) using meditation to allow connection or alignment of the inner self with the Divine and thus experiencing direct knowledge of the Divine, rather than thru the intellect with its egos which is inherently limited.
---So this "direct experiencing" is non-mental? So, One has no mental record of this type of experience? Nothing to converse about with others?
4) our purpose is self knowledge of the inner self, to know who we are, to know thyself."
---who decided that "inner self knowlwedge" was our purpose?
Nothing wrong with such, however, who created the principles?

Food for another thread,
Roger

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

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

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

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

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

Welcome


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