« Open Thread 5 | Main | I answer questions about the once-churched me »

August 30, 2009

Comments

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

manish,
to be fair if ppl give a particular path a go and decide they've had enough thats also perfectly up to them.

perhaps they are failed, but the question is how many succeed, and what do you define as success. i mean perhaps even a little bit of spiritual progress helps them if the RS teachings of multiple life times are believed. Are they not many different levels of attainment with very few, only the satguru, having rached sach kand or being perfected?

This blog has been a wonderful read. I doubt if I can be as articulate as you guys & choose the right words to express myself.

I would like to share my thoughts and beliefs and would like to be excused if they may not be true for anybody else but me.

I have been in search of a spiritual Guru (since some years now) to guide me grow spritually as it has been difficult to follow the spritual path alone, when carrying on one's worldly duties and trying to be detached from the material world and the negativity.

My mother and one of my sisters are involved with RSSB since a couple of decades. Since some time now, I had been contemplating being under the guidance of the RSSB Master's teachings by referring to the RS literature. For me Seva means being always available for the needy (without neglecting my worldly duties) and I do not feel the need to travel from Bombay to Punjab (BEAS) to do seva.

Many of my relatives are RSSB followers and I have seen the worst kind of thinking & attitude and the best kind (spritual inclination) as well (my mother - Yes, my sister - No).

It all depends on how well one follows the spiritual path to reach one's spiritual goal.
- A guru may not be needed by the ones who have found the path and are dedicated enough to just follow the path.
- A guru is needed if one does not know the path but is dedicated to follow the path (once known).
- A guru cannot help if there is no dedication (as in case of some of my relatives and my sister who spend good amount of time doing Seva but no Simran)
- A guru can be any entity from whom one can learn (literature or human being). However, a guru who has experienced the path is preferable compared to books or reading material which may give an excellent read but may not be true (unless by somebody who has experienced the path).

I agree with all those who wish to drift away from RSSB, and also with those who wish to stay with RSSB because they feel they are gradually achieving their spiritual goal and not because they simply feel good about being associated with RSSB.

I am still in search of the many questions that I have in me and am working towards finding their answers. I see the light but not the complete tunnel that I need to travel. I hope I find the answers and the path through the tunnel, or a guru to guide and direct me through.

I thank the great power for helping me find the many answers and helping me analyse and understand.

I wish you all the best in your quest.

Till life remains,
Naresh

Manish,

Your comment above dated September 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM states:

it is the master who has failed and not us?
my dear holy dear tuscon the above words of your itself the proof of your ignorance, [etc etc etc...]
Posted by: Manish arora | September 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Since you did not use quotation marks, I did not notice that you were quoting Tucson. So yes you are correct, I now see that you did not make the statement: "it is the master who has failed and not us?"

However, next time it would help a lot if you are repeating what someone else has said, that you do use quotation marks to show that. That way no mistake or confusion will result, as it has in this case.

If you had used quotation marks around that statement, instead of merely saying:

"my dear holy dear tuscon the above words of your..."

Then it would have been much more clear to me that the statement in question...

"it is the master who has failed and not us?"

...was actually not yours, but was from Tucson.

It is very easy for people (such as myself) to make such a mistake like this if you don't bother use quotation marks in order to show that someone else made the statement. So in the future please use quotation marks, otherwise other people may not know who said what.

You also said that simply because I could not tell that you had noot made that statement, you then have called me: "dumb and foolish" and "silly and dumb". But Manish, my mistake was not silly or foolish or dumb. It was you who were that way because it was you failed to use appropriate quotation marks so as to clearly to indicate that Tucson was actually the one who had made that statement. It was really your fault, not mine. It is difficult to tell who said what if you don;t use quotation marks. But this is all really very elementary. Anyway, next time try to use quotation marks when you are quoting someone, then there will be less likelyhood of this kind of mistake or confusion. Its real simple. If you don't bother to show more clearly who said what, then you can't blame others for not being able to tell the difference. You need to improve your communication in terms of proper writing and punctuation skills.


Moving on to other things now... you said:

"i said honestly is i know more than you guys on regarding RSSB and its spirituality"

"i say honestly i know more than you regarding rssb."

"my dear tao,you really being very stupid."

-- No Manish, unfortunately you don't know more about RSSB than other people do. You just think that you do. You have little or no humility relative to people who happen to much older, wiser, amd more spiritually mature than you are. Everyone sees that but you.


"when tuscon shared his story regarding is experience with rssb [...] his experience with rssb was anti and negative
you guys appreciated tuscon welcomed him and praised him"

-- No, Tucson's story was not "anti"
or "negative". It was about the fact that the RSSB did NOT ask or solicit any donations while Tucson was at the Dera. So his story was not "anti" or "negative".


"i really dont like using words like dumb silly stupid for an elderly person like you, but your reaction forces me to use this kind of words for you"

-- No, nobody is "forcing" you to do or say any such thing.


"when you people havent respect for the rssb masters or any other spiritual masters
you people can be called and referred by any kind of language with any kind of slang"

-- No, and nobody must, or is required to "respect" RSSB masters. People have a freedom and a right to have their own views and opinions about RSSB masters. However, you do NOT have the right to use and express, as you say, "any kind of language with any kind of slang" you wish here on this site.

"and brian come out of the myth
i m not at all preaching"

-- This is Brian's site Manish, and if Brian says that you are preaching (which btw you are), then you are indeed preaching. Again, everyone can see that except for you Manish. And I think Brian's patience with you is now growing very thin, as is mine, and other people's as well. Its high time for you to cut the crap, or go somewhere else. This is not a place to preach and to endlessly argue and defend RSSB. Its rather tiresome, just as you are also fast becoming.

"tao who does the preaching part"
"you all are dumb silly and selfish people"
"when i spelled the truth"
"seeing your egosticism"
"the aim in this blog is the defame RSSB thats it"
"bashing and saying any path a cult"
"i m a failed person"

-- LOL! Yes indeed Manish, you are indeed a "failed person"!

"fill your egos
about anti rssb
to count how many more are getting out of rssb"

-- Sad. You really do need to go get yourself a real life Manish, and quit harassing Brian and other people here.


George said:

"Tao,
Thats alot of nonsense, you did lie and i will repeat what was said...."

George, the comment you posted above (on September 11, 2009 at 01:37 AM) is absolute utter bullshit.

You say that I "lied". What did I lie about George? I never said anywhere in any of what you have copied and posted that I was not an RS initiate, as you had so claimed previously.

Your blatant dishonesty and distortion of the facts is appalling. I see that, and Brian sees that, and anyone else who reads what you have copied and said here can see that as well.

There is nothing anywhere in what you presented, where I had said that I was not an RS initiate or that I was into the RS cult. That was your claim, and it just ain't there. End of story.

After quoting my comments of last July, you now said to me: "You are the one who is clearly wrong and you are the one who lied, since by your own admission you have been into RS which is a cult."

-- I never admitted any such thing. I very clearly stated that I had merely been INITIATED in the RS meditation path. That does not mean an "admission" that I "have been into the "RS cult".

I clearly explained that being initiated is not the same as being "into" a cult. There is a big difference. I was never "into" the cult aspect of RS in any way. That is a fact, and I have maintained that all along, and long before you ever showed up.

I simply received the initiation into the RS shabd yoga meditation. I also visited the RS ashram/colony in India. That does not mean or make me "into" the RS cult.

So you are very very wrong George. Very wrong. You do not get to say what I am and what I am not. That is mine to say, not yours.

Somehow you fail to understand there is a difference. That's because you desire and agenda is to call me a "liar". But YOU are the liar George. You are asserting and claiming something about me which is not true.

What you say is a lie. I know my life and who I am, you don't. I know that I was never into the cult aspect of RS in any way. I also know that I was never into the beliefs or the religion of RS. There is a difference.

So YOU are distorting the truth about me. And that is dishonest and despicable.

Therefore, it is I who "actually cannot believe you are defending the indefensible". And it is YOUR mind that is "so closed it is frightening".

I took great pains and sincere effort to try to explain at length to you as honestly and as clearly as I could, as to where I am at with the RS path, and where I was at with it when I got initiated, and all down the line.

But you have again chosen to distort and twist and misrepresent me and all that I have honestly said about myself.


I had my suspicions about you way back when (and so did Brian btw) but we gave you the benefit of the doubt.

But now you deserve it no longer. Now I know why you defended and supported those low-down deceiptful troublemakers Ashy and Walker/JAP.

Adios to Brian and Tucson and all you other good folks.


Why is this joining, or not joining virus so important? I don't give a flip if someone is a member or not of RSSB.

george just give me sometime..a couple of days will definitely get back to you personally through email.

""perhaps they are failed"

well you are very right,by understanding they have failed,but can you see anyone accepting the truth,No,
why,because of their Ego and their inability to accept the truth that they finally are failed and waste lot many years,its all there frustration you can very easily see in their comments.

"but the question is how many succeed, and what do you define as success. i mean perhaps even a little bit of spiritual progress helps them if the RS teachings of multiple life times are believed. Are they not many different levels of attainment with very few, only the satguru, having rached sach kand or being perfected?"

about the above message will surely talk to you personally.
this is not the place to discuss spirituality at all,

though they say i preach
i do not preach and their minds have damaged to understand this fact
i do not preach spirituality or rssb
but yes if you try to let down and path,
no true devotee is going to accept it.

and again finally i will stick to my words
brian and tao and even tuscon are spiritually illiterate.

And it is absolutely fine.

George you always make good sense and good comments.
you simple language is always understood clearly.

Manish said:

"but yes if you try to let down and path,
no true devotee is going to accept it."

--Here is where you are wrong Manish. It indicates very clearly YOUR lack of understanding of the Sant Mat path.

The job of a true devotee is to attend to their simran and bhajan, attend to their necessary duties to family and employment and that's it.

The masters specifically teach that a devotee does not unnecessarily involve themselves with worldly matters or concern themselves with slander and criticism. That is not the true devotees' duty at all. All of that is to be left in the hands of the master and not to be worried about. The world will function as it must whether you involve yourself or not. The devotees' only responsibility is to remain within the four vows.

So, it is YOU who are deliberately disobeying the instructions of the master by coming to his defense here. It is YOUR obsessed ego which is driving you on this mission which you have fabricated in your own mind, and it is a mission the master would not approve of. That I can guarantee.

You are a hypocrite and a fool to behave as you do on this blog. You resent others for their criticism of Sant Mat and the master when it is YOU who dishonor him and his teachings by engaging in debate and argument when you could be attending to your true spiritual duties.

It is YOUR actions that you should not accept any longer not ours. Otherwise, your karmic burden will only increase and delay of your spiritual progress will be assured.

George,

It is possible to accept the premise of Sant Mat teachings and get initiated without desire or acceptance of cult mentality and activities.

Really, the only obligation of a satsangi is:

1) meditation
2) vegetarian diet
3) moral living
4) no intoxicants

That's it.

And that may have been tAo's approach.

I think it is time to lay this hair-splitting to rest.

Tao,

LOL, i think you are absolutely barking mad to be honest, you first told me that RS is a cult, then you told me that you have never joined, been in or into any cult, and now you tell me you have been initiated into RS for two decades.

Spot the inconcistency. I don't even know what you are trying to say anymore.

Best i just leave it again, but its inconcistency.


Manish,

Yes, i too sense alot of frustration, but perhaps ppl truly just have had enough and that is also fine, and it also seems fair enough that they talk about the aspects of the RS path that they did not like or agree with, not so?

Tucson,

I read your post above with a great deal of interest. Those experiences you talk off sound quite extraordinary, I have never come close to anything like that.

Yes, I will leave the hair-splitting well enough alone now, but there is inconcistency.

Do you think one really needs to stick to a non-vegeterian alcohol free diet?

George wrote: "I have never come close to anything like that."

---It doesn't happen with me every day either. Generally, you have to do something that takes you out of your habitual mental patterns but it is not a prerequisite. Meditation, fasting, silence, ceremonies, vision quests, etc. are commonly used. Even hallucinogens can be a shortcut but are unreliable and risky. Ultimately, such experiences are just experiences and have no bearing on perception of 'reality' which is not an experience but a recognition of how things are.

I don't think a vegetarian diet is required for "spiritual" understanding, but it is a natural outcome of a more compassionate, sensitive view of life. It's personal choice, but if you ever find yourself in an extended survival situation in the wilderness you eventually discover what the human body requires to maintain strength and vitality. Biologically, humans are omnivores. If you can't find a tofu tree you may have to settle for an alternative such as a squirrel.

All of the above is just my opinion, of course.

perhaps they are

George,
I have been casually reading the issue between you and Tao.

Not that it is of any real interest to me, but I thought I would make a few comments.

Firstly it appears that it is a simple mis-understanding that has become personal - because you have called Tao a liar.

Tao has given a very detailed account of what he actually said and the logic behind it.

He is saying that he never joined a cult and you assumed it means he never joined RSSB.

In fact he did get initiated - but did not get into all the culty part of it.

Pretty clear really.

You are thinking
(1) RSSB is a cult.
(2) Tao was initiated and therefore joined RSSB

conclusion
Tao joined the cult.

While Tao says that RSSB is a cult - he is also saying that you can get initiated (technically - joining RSSB) and still not be a cult member.

How? by not getting involved in the cult part of it.

You cannot see beyond you circular argument which you state as follows:

"You are the one who is clearly wrong and you are the one who lied, since by your own admission you have been into RS which is a cult."

Tao agrees with part 1 - he has been into RSSB. He also agrees it is a cult.

However, he did not becomes a cult member - he just got initiated.

You can get initiated and attend a few satsangs - but not worship the Guru
and not dedicate your life to seva etc. You are not really a cult member, unless you are 'brain-washed' into believing it is the only truth.

If you can understand the distinction which Tao is making - then the argument ends there - it was a simple mis-understanding.

Tao is not a liar - he is very outspoken. He is also very clear and thorough when making a point.

If he had lied - I think he would be the first to admit it.

He has not hidden agenda and has no reason to lie.

Forget this 'lying' business. Tao has made it as clear as possible.

(1) YES - he was initiated into RSSB
and (2) NO - he did not follow it like a cult member.

What is so diffifult to understand about that?

He is simply saying he has never joined a cult - which is true in his case.

So where is the lie, George?

Naresh,

I think many of us here appreciate that you appear to have an open mind regarding spirituality and Sant Mat teachings. It is refreshing after many conversations recently with certain inflexible fanatics.

I wonder what specific questions you hope to find answers to some day regarding your personal spiritual journey.

Manish, George,

Regarding the question of 'failing in RS'

If you bother to ASK Tucson, Tao, Brian or myself
you would realise that we have not FAILED at all!!

We have succeeded.

It is all a matter of perception.

The Buddha spent YEARS seeking and searching for Enlightenment.

What he finally realised was emptiness - so he called it Nirvana.

It is the ABSENCE of all attainment. He did not ATTAIN anything.

If you ask the Buddha - he will say he found nothing.

Did he fail? No - because his realization is absolute - so the seeking ends.

Once the seeking ends - you are complete - because there is nothing missing.

You are no longer seeking to get to salvation or to get to Sach Khand or to
do good karmas etc. It all ends because you realise the simple truth.

To someone who lives in duality - it will not make sense because he cannot see
the simplicity of it.


FOllowers of RSSB want to get to Sach Khand - or at least they want their guru
to come at the time of death and save them.

Tucson Tao, Brian and myself - we are not waiting for the guru to save us.

Why? because we don't need saving. We have no desire to reach Sach Khand.

Why not? Because we KNOW there is no such place. It is a fiction.
As is Sat Purush and the regions!

And by now all followers of RSSB ought to know there is no such place because
the present master has said so.

But they still keep following blindly.

By the way, manish - the guru granth sahib does not say follow blindly.

It also says "Until I see with my own eyes - I will not believe even what
the guru says."

Osho, thanks for sharing your thoughts about the initiation issue. Good example of how a little clear thinking resolves unnecessary confusion.

"Regarding the question of 'failing in RS'

If you bother to ASK Tucson, Tao, Brian or myself
you would realise that we have not FAILED at all!!"

Ok if a person joined with a belief may be what kind of belief if may be?
if he joins and later on 30 years if he does the mediation and stuff and later on realises the truth?
now tell me 1st of all will you not called it a failed thing
because you lost the belief
and now consider it as cult
which at one point you were very much ok with everything rssb did..


you later on said you have succeeded..

what success you claim to be succeeded..

well onething is sure you were neither succeeded nor failed before joining rssb

but when you joined rssb and being in rssb
according to you guys you realised the truth..

i mean your version of the truth..whatsoever you may call it..

so either this way or that way
RSSB is the main source for making you people realise..

it means if at all you would never would have been into rssb you would have never been successful in your spiritual understanding that too as per you claim..(i still do not agree your understanding towards spirituality especially rssb)


And about buddha
whatever you guys speak about any spiritual leader you guys speak only with your own point of view..

which can not always be correct..
you still have to gain more knowledge about buddha osho..

and what the present master as said probably like many people havent understood you guys are among those who havent understood,
and its very natural.

and you just bought a single line from guru ganth sahib,which you guys havent understood at all..

it very means ..guru helps you to show you the way,
master guides you
its ultimately you who have to carry on the spiritual journey..

osho you guys really havent understood spirituality..
especially rssb..


guru has given you the way..but you guys havent able to follow it and havent able to the see truth from yourself and failed and came out of it..
and now claim to say that you know all..
what all you claim to say is what you all have learned and gained from rssb only..

but as its written by kabir sahib,guru nanak dev ji,soami ji maharaj,
you people start thinking your spiritual inner enlightened to be yours..you people started involved the "I"ism and there you guys got distracted..and now are completely out of it..


well osho..its very natural..happened in my family as well..with few of my relatives..

and osho i do not know you follow my post completely o r not..

i said already many times

you guys asks for proofs and stuff..
if suppose i give you a proof that theres is sachkhand,theres is satpurash,

how can i trust you guys that you will believe my words...

when till now you guys never agreed to me with any single point..


and you speak on behalf of tao supporting him,
i thought you were a very nice gentleman
but supporting tao..now i doubt about you as well,

tao has committed blunder mistakes in this blog the way he said about rssb masters i very well remember..

if at all i would not been an rssb follower..
if i would be any normal person like tao,brain and tuscon..

then for the blunder tao has done..i would have chopped his head off..

he accused and said bad about my master..
which is not at all tolerable for me,if i think myself as a normal person..if i think with my mind..then i have that harsh hatred feeling ...for tao alone..this happened when i was new to this blog..


but the best thing is i m into rssb..
i understand it..
and i m happy..that i m changing day by day..getting better..

now my blood pressure doesnt rise now and then like it use to happened before..
i feel more relaxed..

so hatred for tao vanished..
no need to chop is head..because i know i m no one to think like that ..and judge about tao like that..

and we have to be compassionate..


i know master will take care of tao..
in spite of his disagreeing habits.

osho..i already said you gave you my email
if you want to discuss with me ..i m ready to talk to you personally not in this blog.

according to me until tao like minded people are taking part here..theres no use in discussing here..


osho..

i do not know whats your real name..

i just want to ask you a question..

lets take your name as osho..ok

So osho
how can you say you are osho..
how can you be sure you are osho..

when you werent born yet..osho also never existed..

you were born..but it was you who was born
not osho..

because no one know who is osho..


its just after somedays your parents decided and gave you a name called osho..

but to whom your parents gave the name osho..
oh so it was you to whom the name osho was given
when you were given a name..
that means who were not osho..till then..you became osho after you got birth and your parents gave your name..
who actually you are..

i know this applies for all

no one is born with the name..
but then who is born?who is that born person?

i personally ask you to comment for this question..

just diverting the rssb topic..
as i know theres no use for speaking about rssb..

Because according to this blog rssb is this rssb is that..

and at any cost..they will never agree and listen to any person...

osho this is especially for you few more sayings from guru grant sahib

You Yourself are the Creator. Everything that happens is by Your Doing.
There is no one except You.
You created the creation; You behold it and understand it.
O servant Nanak, the Lord is revealed through the Gurmukh, the Living Expression of the Guru's Word. ||4||2||
Aasaa, First Mehl:
In that pool, people have made their homes, but the water there is as hot as fire!
In the swamp of emotional attachment, their feet cannot move. I have seen them drowning there. ||1||
In your mind, you do not remember the One Lord-you fool!
You have forgotten the Lord; your virtues shall wither away. ||1||Pause||
I am not celibate, nor truthful, nor scholarly. I was born foolish and ignorant into this world.
Prays Nanak, I seek the Sanctuary of those who have not forgotten You, O Lord! ||2||3||
Aasaa, Fifth Mehl:
This human body has been given to you.
This is your chance to meet the Lord of the Universe.
Nothing else will work.
Join the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy; vibrate and meditate on the Jewel of the Naam.

Manish wrote:

"but when you joined rssb and being in rssb
according to you guys you realised the truth..i mean your version of the truth..whatsoever you may call it..so either this way or that way
RSSB is the main source for making you people realise.."

---Someone is looking for their glasses. They go to the desk and search in all the drawers. The drawers are called Islam, Bhuddism, Christianity, Kundalini Yoga, Hinduism, Judaism, Vedanta, Sant Mat and many more drawers with different names. After all, this is a big desk..an infinite desk.

Finally they realize their glasses were never lost, were on their nose the whole time and they were looking through them for something that isn't seen but always present. You can't see your looking. It is the seeing you are looking for. Looking is looking for itself. A tough assignment, but the remedy is simple. Quit looking and just see!

So do you understand Manish? RSSB is just a drawer and there are no glasses in it.


Osho,

Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but I'd like to clarify about some things you said about me:

"Tao [...] He is saying that he never joined a cult and you assumed it means he never joined RSSB."

-- correct.

"he did get initiated - but did not get into all the culty part of it."

-- correct.

"While Tao says that RSSB is a cult - he is also saying that you can get initiated (technically - joining RSSB) and still not be a cult member."

-- not exactly correct. I took initiation, but I wasn't "joining" the RSSB. I simply took initiation of the path of meditation. I was not interested in the RSSB organization or society or the master at all. I simply wanted to know about the meditation. I was not in any way "joining" the RSSB. I have explained all this in detail at other times in the past, but some people are relatively new here and they are not familiar with my story. So they assume that I was like other satsangis who did "join" the RSSB.

"by not getting involved in the cult part of it."

-- correct.

"Tao agrees [...] he has been into RSSB. He also agrees it is a cult."

-- incorrect. I was never "into" the RSSB... only just the meditation. And apart from visiting the Dera a few times when I was traveling about India, I did not participate in the RS satsangs meetings or seva, or the organization or even hang out with RS satsangis. So I was not, as you say, "into the RSSB". I had no interest in it whatsoever.

"he did not becomes a cult member - he just got initiated."

-- correct.

"If you can understand the distinction which Tao is making - then the argument ends there - it was a simple mis-understanding."

-- correct.

"He has no hidden agenda and has no reason to lie."

-- correct.

"Tao has made it as clear as possible."

-- correct.

"YES - he was initiated into RSSB
and NO - he did not follow it like a cult member."

-- correct.

"He is simply saying he has never joined a cult - which is true in his case."

-- correct.

"So where is the lie, George?"

-- Indeed, there was no lie on my part. I don't see why it is so difficult to get that I was only interested in the meditation, and had no affiliation or involvemetn with the RSSB organization, society, or cult. And visiting the Dera does not imply being "into" or a part of the RS cult either. Anyone could go to the Dera back in my day, no matter whether they were an initiate or not. There was never any requirement to be "into" or involved with the RSSB.

I have already said more than enough, and my position should be quite clear by now. Anyone who tries to say differently or says that I am inconsistent (like George continues to do) is simply wrong and is intentionally ignoring the facts and the truth, and for for less than honorable intentions.

I am not going to continue to be distorted, misportrayed, or misrepresented by such people like George or Manish, and so thats all I have to say.

So to you Osho, and to all the other good folks, my sincere best regards.


tuscon i very well understand and understood by the grace of lord,
its you have to understand..

what you gave me is a mere example..

yo guys keep scratching your minds...the itch will never go anyhow..
keep continuing..

""-- not exactly correct. I took initiation, but I wasn't "joining" the RSSB. I simply took initiation of the path of meditation. I was not interested in the RSSB organization or society or the master at all. I simply wanted to know about the meditation. I was not in any way "joining" the RSSB. I have explained all this in detail at other times in the past, but some people are relatively new here and they are not familiar with my story. So they assume that I was like other satsangis who did "join" the RSSB.""

Tao now this is the strike point
this is the reason you failed in spirituality
this is the reason you failed is rssb
your motive itself was the reason of not gaining any spiritual progress...
because you came for a purpose for a motive...which means you were there to satisfy your ego..
my darling tao..
when you say you are not interested in the master or organization,then why you took inititaion,you thought that it will be enough..

dear tao your so very much silly

the basic foundation of any spirituality is
Belief ,
Unless until you believe have faith in your master you cannot gain any progress as said by guru nanak dev as well as kabir,
i already gussed right and today it came out from you directly..

your approach was null,grown up tao..

just for learning meditation you would have join any YOGA institute there are many wonderful yoga institute who will teach you meditation..

they why you joined rssb..
when you from starting had this type of thought of not caring about the organisation and its master..

you failed in your very basic attempt of understanding santmat and rssb..

thanks for your post..it proved.. the reason behind your failure..

George save the post of tao..in future it will help you a lot...


Manish,

In case you missed it...

http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/08/a-dialogue-about-radha-soami-satsang-beas.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e20120a56447d3970b#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e20120a56447d3970b

Manish,

I have nothing more to say to someone like you. You have no understanding about me at all. You can keep on posting comments about me (until Brian deles them), but it says nothing meaningful about me. And this latest bunch is merely more of the same nonsense:

"Tao [...] this is the reason you failed in spirituality this is the reason you failed in rssb [...] the reason of not gaining any spiritual progress."

-- I have not failed at all, and I never said that I had no "gaining any spiritual progress". You are confusiing me with other people. Because I never said that I had not gained spiritual progress.

"you came for a purpose for a motive...which means you were there to satisfy your ego."

-- That is also incorrect. I was interested in the shabda yoga and meditation, not for any such ego satisfaction. So again, you are wrong and you don't know anything at all about my spiritual life or path. I am not interested in debating this with you because you are presumptious and closed-minded.

"when you say you are not interested in the master or organization,then why you took inititaion,"

-- I already explained that Manish. You did not pay attention. I said that I was only interested in the shabda meditation. I already had a sufi teacher/guru and so I was not interested in any master or the RS organization. My interset was only in the meditation, not the master. I did not need or want any master or doctrine or to be a part of RSSB. The meditation was enough and sufficient for me. And that was my choice and not yours or any oof your business. In the Sant Mat meditation path, there is no requirement other than following the four vows.

"tao your so very much silly"

--No Manish, you are the "silly" one. My meditation and spiritual path is none of your business.

"the basic foundation of any spirituality is
Belief"

-- That is true for religion, but not true for all spiritual paths, especially not for meditation. You have a very narrow and limited understanding of range of spirituality and meditation.

"Unless until you believe have faith in your master you cannot gain any progress"

-- That is only your opinion. It is not the case for all.

"your approach was null,grow up tao."

-- You have no idea who you are talking to, or what you are saying. You know nothing about my spiritual life and path. All you have done is to show how very narrow-minded and foolish religious fundamentlists like you are.

"just for learning meditation you would have join any YOGA institute there are many wonderful yoga institute who will teach you meditation."

-- I did noot need to learn meditation, I was already very knowledgeable and very experienced in other types oand forms of meditation. I simply wanted to learn more about the Sant mat shabda-yoga meditation. I had already spent a few years living in the Himalayas doing other types of meditation.

"they why you joined rssb."

-- I just told you above, But I did not "joined rssb". I simply took the RS initiation into shabda yoga meditation. I did not do that to "join" the RSSB. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

"you from starting had this type of thought of not caring about the organisation and its master."

-- That is correct. I was not interested in the RS organisation or the RS master/guru.

"you failed in your very basic attempt of understanding santmat and rssb."

-- No Manish, I did not fail. I learned and practiced the Sant Mat meditation. I accomplished exactly what I had intended.

your post..it proved.. the reason behind your failure."

-- Again Manish, there was no "failure". I succeeded in learning and practicing the meditation, and gainmed experience, and then I moved on to other things. Its not a matter of failure at all. My endeavor in shabda yoga was a success. You are confusing me with other people, which obviously you have a tendency to do.

"George save the post of tao..in future it will help you"

-- Yes, I agree. My post should further clarify my position and experience with regard to the path of Sant Mat and the RS initiation and meditation. And I hope you have a better understanding as well Manish. This will be the last and final time that I discuss this particular issue.

Good bye and good luck to you in your spiritual path Manish.


thanks for your good luck
and yeah your right its no use discussing spirituality...atleast related to rssb with you

may be you are 40 years elder to me..
but when it comes to spirituality you dont know anything..

what all you did..what all you say,itself proves..
that you do not know about spirituality at all..
and brian thanks for deleting the post which contains sayings from guru granth sahib..
i can expect these kind of reactions from you..

ok bye..
both tao and brian enjoy your nonsense preaching and claims.

god bless you both.

manish - Nice compliments about Tao.

"rather - no minded"

that is correct - to arrive at truth means to arrive at NO-MIND - so that is correct and a compliment

"You failed at spirituality"

The Buddha FAILED, I FAILED and everyone who eventually finds "Truth" has to fail. Why? Because it is the EGO that is trying to GET to God. The ego wants God to be a decoration to hang on itself. It wanted a certificate to prove it has acheived God.

However, it does not happen that way. God is not an achievement. It is a total and utter failure of the attempt to acheive.

"About your future I do not know..."
Truth is always in the NOW - not a future goal.

"you haven't yet achieved any spiritual knowledge."

Again - nice compliment. Those who get to Truth have dropped all 'knowledge' on the way. There is nothing to 'know'. All knowledge is the mind creating concepts about that which can never be known by the mind. There is no sporitual knowledge - there is only realization - and that comes when you drop all your so-called knowledge which is all created by the mind.

I have created a blog just a while ago - to explain my version of sant mat.

It is called www.TrueSantMat.Blogspot.com
http://www.truesantmat.blogspot.com/

I explain there that a lot of the ideas behind sant mat are not meant to be taken literally.

Sant mat is mis-understood. There is a real meaning behind the teachings - but not the meaning that sant mat assumes. From the enlightenment view - there is a way to make sense of sant mat - but you have to look beyond the obvious meanings that given in traditional sant mat.

Go take a read.

And by the way - your own master tells you not to impose your own beliefs onto others. Let them find their own way - it is not your job to convert the world.

And besides - what are you converting to? If you yourself have not arrived at the destination - you cannot be sure that the road you are travelling is the correct one. It is best to keep quiet until you arrive. Othewise you could just as easily be mis-leading people. What you BELEIVE does not matter as everyone who follows some religion or path believes it is the truth.

Osho,

Very good comment. No-Mind and Failed-spirituality is an excellant way to get the message over.

Manish, you're welcome. I guess you forgot that religious "spam" (such as posting lengthy quotes from a scripture) isn't allowed on this blog. No problem. I was pleased to correct your error by deleting your comment. We live and learn.

Osho, congratulations on starting your TrueSantMat blog. I've looked it over, but haven't read it in detail yet. Good stuff. I'm sure it will prosper and be a forum for interesting discussion.
http://www.truesantmat.blogspot.com/

Osho,

No, there is nothing circular about my argument at all, it is purely logical.

1. Tao said RS is a cult (not me)
2. Tao said he has never been in a cult.
3. Tao said he has been initiated into RS.

There is nothing more to say on this imo.
At best its rhetoric and at worst lying.

Tao

I am not going to fight with you, you have many good points, but your stubborness is embaressing and i don't say that too belittle you. In fact someone of your intellect should also be capable of making certain recognitions. I've said my peace here.

Manish

I don't know if they have failed, perhaps at RS but not at spiritual development, unless you consider RS to be the only path? But surely you are not saying that RS is the only path or mystic tradition? It might be what you consider to be the best but that is your opinion, which cannot be forced on others.

Anyway, thanks for the literature i will have a read.

Tucson,

Yep pretty sensible honest answers as usual. I do kind of understand the vegetarian argument from a moral perspective, but living organic material is still consumed. I guess the arguement is that these plants or eggs are lower lifeforms with less developed nervous systems and therefore are arguably conscious of less or feel less pain. Seems its all about the intention on the part of the veggie to inflict the minimum pain in the world?

George, I think this dispute between you and tAo comes down to the theme that I wrote about in my latest post: the difference between "common ground" and "private ground."

Common ground is shared reality, what people often call objective truth. In this case, the truth is that tAo was initiated into RSSB some thirty or so years ago. There was some confusion on your part about this. Now there isn't.

So it does seem that a "Sorry, tAo, I was wrong" is in order. That's up to you, of course. But it would help to clear the air.

Your contention that you are right revolves around some logical linkages. They're logical in your mind, but not in tAo's, or in the minds of others. This is the sphere of "private ground," where people look at things in different ways.

You seem to be mixing the two together. A lie usually pertains to common ground, an objective truth. Otherwise how would we know a lie isn't the truth? But perceptions are something else.

You and tAo agree what the objective truth is -- he's a RSSB initiate. Your disagreement is over personal beliefs about how that truth was communicated, which falls into "private ground" territory of subjectivity.

Brian,

I think you are misreading me totally.
I am not wrong at all.
The 3 statements 1, 2 and 3 have all been made by Tao.
They are totally inconsistent.
I have no idea where the confusion lies.

Logic is logic, your private ground is illogical.

George, interesting question: is "private ground" logic the same as "public ground" logic? Meaning, does every individual use the same sort of reasoning processes inside their own heads?

I think the answer, pretty clearly, is "no." I base this partly on my 37 years of marriage, where I have learned that women look at things quite differently than men do. Here's a humorous graphic portrayal:
http://imgur.com/3iXvy.jpg

You say that "logic is logic." I don't think this applies in the private ground of individual minds, where people do indeed have idiosyncratic ways of processing information and viewing the world.

For example, you seem to operate under a binary sort of logic. RSSB either is a cult, or it isn't. Thus if tAo says he has never been a member of a cult, and he was a member of RSSB, he must be lying or deceptive.

But this only applies within your own system of logic. tAo has explained that the way he sees things, RSSB can be a cult for initiates who buy into the cult'ish aspects of the organization, where others (like him) can be initiated for other reasons.

That makes sense to me. It is a private ground sort of logic that allows for individual differences, while you appear to operate under a public ground sort of logic where an organization has to be one thing or the other in an objective truth sense.

At any rate, it's been interesting to follow along with the different thinking styles here. This issue points up the need for clear explanations and open discussion of any subject, because first impressions often can be wrong -- owing to different people using different ways of looking at the world.

George inquired:

"I guess the arguement is that these plants or eggs are lower lifeforms with less developed nervous systems and therefore are arguably conscious of less or feel less pain. Seems its all about the intention on the part of the veggie to inflict the minimum pain in the world?"

--Certainly that is the motivation of most vegetarians. A secondary motivation is that a vegetarian diet is believed by some to be healthier than a diet that contains animal products due to concerns about cancer and cardiovascular disease. But the evidence for and against this is very conflictive depending on which studies you read. Also, individual physiological idiosyncracies need to be taken into consideration. In modern society we have the luxury of many food choices which make it possible for omnivorous humans to maintain health according to the ideals of a variety of dietary theories or systems.

According to Sant Mat and other philosophies meat eating causes suffering and thus bad karma which interferes with spiritual progress. It is also believed that meat and eggs excite the nervous system and stimulate "lower" tendencies and passions, again thought to be barriers to spiritual progress.

All this is a complex issue which can't be resolved or explained sufficiently in a few paragraphs. Many books have been written and whole blogs are dedicated to dietary debate with the usual inflexible fanatics on both sides of the fence.

You asked earlier about the prohibition against alcohol and intoxicants in Sant Mat. It is simply believed, and reasonably so, that abuse of substances leads to errors in judgement, bad behaviour and thus, in the view of sant mat, the resulting bad karma and hinderance of spiritual progress.

In practical terms however, there is a big difference between someone who has a glass of wine with dinner and the person who finishes the whole bottle and another one afterwards. In sant mat even the former isn't allowed as it could lead to becoming the latter. So, alcohol is off limits altogether.

Personally, I think for a religion to require someone to VOW NEVER to knowingly consume even a portion of an unfertilised egg or drink one glass of wine for the REST OF THEIR LIVES to be absurd, irrational, compulsively restrictive and originating from a decidedly unenlightened perspective.

George,

You are the one who is being stubborn. You called me a liar. You said that I had said that I was "never initiated". You then presented my comments of last July as supposed evidence of that. But upon examining the evidence - namely my comments of last July - there is no evidence there that I said that I was "never initiated". So the evidence really shows that your claim is wrong, and that I did not lie. I did not lie because I did not say I was "never initiated" as you claimed.

Secondly, you have present these three suppositions or claims:

1. Tao said RS is a cult (not me)
2. Tao said he has never been in a cult.
3. Tao said he has been initiated into RS.

So I will go over this once again, because you clearly still do not understand, and you refuse to acknowledge the crucial point.

If you were an RS initiate, you would have no difficulty understanding this issue, as you would would already know exactly what I am saying, and that it is quite accurate.

Here are your three suppostions and how they may or may not be correct:

# 1. is correct, because yes, I have indeed said that the RSSB is a cult. RSSB satnds for the Radha Soami Satsang Beas. It is an organization and a society, and it also a actual spiritual colony which is located near Beas in the Punjab, in India. That is what "RS" and "RSSB" stands for. The RSSB is a spiritual guru-cult organization if you will, and it is also a large colony and the headquarters of the RSSB.

However, the receiving of the initiation, which is simply the instruction regarding the shabd yoga meditation and the vows, does not mean nor imply nor require that one "must join" or be a part of or particpate in the RSSB, in the RSSB cult. It does not mean that the initiate has joined the RSSB cult.

Initiation is simply an instruction about the mantra and the meditation. Participation in the actual RS cult organization or satsangs is totally voluntary.

So being initiated, being instructed in the meditation, does not mean that one must necessarily go on and be part of or participate in the RS guru-cult.

# 2. is also correct, I have indeed said that I have never been in 'a cult', or in the RS cult. As I clearly explained (but which you continue to ignore and deny), I simply applied for, and I was then given the initiation of the Sant Mat shabd yoga meditation procedure. That meditation initiation does not constitute any "joining" of, or being "into" the RS cult.

It is simply a receiving of instructions on how to do the shabd yoga meditation, and the four vows (which have been listed elsewhere). Neither the meditation instruction, nor the four vows, constitutes being in or being a part of the RS guru-cult. That is entirely separate and voluntary. A person could receive the initiation into the meditation but never have anything to do with the RSSB cult, RSSB organization, RSSB satsangs, RSSB master, or any other aspect of the RSSB society and guru-cult.

# 3. Yes, I have indeed said that I was initiated in the RS MEDITATION, but I did NOT mean to say that I was initiated "into RS", meaning into the RS cult. There is a difference, and that is the crux of your misunderstanding. Even though you are not an initate (as far as I know), and so therfore you don't really understand this difference, you still refuse to accept the fact when other initiates tell you.

That is your fault and your error George, not mine. I have never changed or been inconsitent with my position regarding this fact, this difference. You are the one who insists on interpreting it your own way, and your interpretation is incorrect and faulty.

The simple act of getting initiated in the Sant Mat meditation procedure does noot constitute any being in, or joining, or bveing part of the RSSB guru-cult. That side of it is entirely voluntary and is not required in the initiation.

So its high time that you accept the facts George and reliquish YOUR stubborn insistence upon me being a part of the RSSB guru-cult just beacuse I was initiated. As I said, I never joined the RSSB guru-cult, I simply got the initiation into the Sant Mat meditation procedure. End of story.

And the fact that I visited the RSSB headquarters, the RS colony near Beas, also does not constitute my being "in" the RS cult. At that time, anyone could visit there. There was no requirement to be part of the RS organization or cult.

One more thing: Following or practicing the spiritual teachings and theology of Sant Mat does not constitute being a part of the RS cult either. The teachings are available in books and satsangs, to everyone, whether they are formally initiated in the meditation or not. Studying and/or believing in the teachings of Sant Mat has nothing to do with having to be part of the RSSB cult. There are other branches of the over-all path and teachings of Sant Mat that are quite spearate and apart from the RSSB. So simply because one meditates or follows the teachings of Sant Mat, also does not mean that they are "in" or part of the RSSB society, the RSSB guru-cult.

So George, it is high time you accept these simple facts (which any initiate of any branch of Sant Mat will also tell you), instead of stubbornly insisting that I am a "liar" or a hypocrite or that I am being "inconsistent".

Brian will tell you the same, Tucson will tell you the same, and any other non-fundamentalist initiate of Sant Mat will tell you the same.

And you should also know, if you don't already, that Sant Mat is the teachings and the path, and RS or the RSSB is only an organization - a branch of the over-all Sant Mat path. So one can be "into" Sant Mat and even get initiated and meditate, but not be "into" or be part of the RSSB cult.

If you have any more questions or need any further clarification I'm sure Brian or Tucson or Osho will be gald to help. I'm done with this now.

Cheerio.

tAo, as I've already noted in my own comments, I understand where you're coming from. There's a difference between speaking of "cult" in an objective sense ("XYZ is a cult") and in a subjective sense ("I felt I was in a cult").

You never felt you were in a cult when you joined RSSB, because you didn't buy into the cult'ish aspects. George has been looking at RSSB from the outside, objectively, so he figures that if someone was initiated by a RSSB guru, they joined a cult (assuming RSSB is considered a cult).

Like you, I never felt that I was part of a cult. I was never as devotional to the guru as many disciples. And I took more of a scientific attitude toward the meditation practice.

I feel like both of you, tAo and George, offer up a lot of cogent comments on this blog, so I hope you'll get back to discussing more than this issue.

Brian,

Yes, you are right in the over-all sense, but here's the thing for me:

You said: "when you joined RSSB [...] you didn't buy into the cult'ish aspects."

But what I have been trying to clarify is that at that time I wan't interested in joining the RSSB. I didn't "join" the RSSB. Thats not waht I did regardless of howother people see it. I just applied for the initiation because I wanted to learn and practice the meditation, and so getting initiated was really the only way to do that. I wasn't interested in Charan Singh as a guru, or being my guru. All I wanted was the meditation.

Other people got into it because they wanted a master, a guru. I didn't, so I wasn't the least interested in being part of the RSSB sangat or being a disciple of Charan Singh. I already more or less had an unofficial guru. I didn't want a guru or to be a memebr of the RSSB sangat (ie: cult). So even though I did receive the initiation, I did not consider myself part of the RS sangat/cult.

This is the crux of this thing for me. I know its hard for some people to understand maybe because of the whole dhyan thing, and also because most people assume that becoming initiated implies being a member of the RS sangat. Itr does and yet it doesn't. Because for me, even though I got initiated, and even though I went to visit the Dera, I never considered myself to be a willing member of the RS sangat, or what I call the cult, or a diciple of Charan Singh, or that Charan Singh was my master.

I simply learned the meditation, practiced the meditation, but I hardly ever went to any satsangs or took part in those sort of aspects of RSSB.

I did go to the Dera, and while I did speak with Charan Singh when I was there, and I attended a few of Charan's satsang meeting on the second floor of the old guest house... I rarely ever went to the morning darshans at the satsangar or didn't do any menial labor seva.

While at the Dera, I spent most of my time either meditating, or walking around the grounds and hanging out with the Indian guys outside the guest-house, or going down by the river, or at the library, or hanging out on the roof, or going to Amritsar. I hardly ever went to the morning darshan or hung out with other foreign satsangis at the guest-house.

Like I said, I just was not into the whole RSSB sangat participation thing. I was very unlike all the other western satsangis. I had lived in India and Sri Lanka and Nepal for years in the late 60s & early 70s, and I was very familar with Indian culture and spirituality, and I just wasn't into any part of the RS sangat/society thing at all.

I really was an oddball compared to all the rest of the western satsangis. I guess this is why most satsangis, and also people like George, just have a really hard time understanding my trip with Sant Mat and my non-realtionship with RSSB. Even a lot of initiates don't get it, much less non-initiate people like George.

Anyway, thanks for your input. I just wanted to explain about that.

You also said: George [...] figures that if someone was initiated by a RSSB guru, they joined a cult (assuming RSSB is considered a cult)."

-- Yes, that seems to be the problem here. So George needs to listen to what I say about myself, and not hold to his interpretation and version of what RS initiation means.

And i will repeat for the narrowminded dogmatic folk, three clear statements were made by Tao, they were delivered with absolute certainty and clarity, there were no ifs or buts or interpretation attached.

1. Tao said RS is a cult
2. Tao said he has never been in a cult.
3. Tao said he has been initiated into RS.

Logic dicates these statements cannot all be correct, at least one must be false.

Either RS is a cult (as Tao said) or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.

That is how logic works, why the greyness? logic is very simple. One is either consistent or inconsistent. If there is inconsistency, the question then becomes subjective which is what was the subjective intent behind this inconsistency? Was it deliberate intent, in which case it is lying or undeliberate, in which is case it is inconsistency. Regardless of Tao's subjective intent, at least one of these statements is incorrect.

Tao

"#3. Yes, I have indeed said that I was initiated in the RS MEDITATION, but I did NOT mean to say that I was initiated "into RS", meaning into the RS cult."

But how am i meant to mindread what you meant to say? I can only understand what you actually say. You did not make the distinction between the meditative aspect of RS and the others aspects of the tradition. Instead you said with absolute certainty that you were steeped in the RS tradition having been initiated into it and with decades of experience.

I repeat what you said to me above:
Tao said: "Let me be very pointed and very clear about this: There is one thing, above all else, that I have never ever wavered on, or changed, or have said anything otherwise or to the contrary. And that is the simple fact of my own formal initiation into shadd yoga and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (the Radha Soami Mat) by the previous RS master Huzur Charan Singh."

After all that, now there does appear to be some wavering?

Even if you did only join for the meditation (as if i can mindread that), the objective fact (as you have said) is that you were voluntarily initiated into RS. Therefore, you did join this movement and were into it.


Was it reasonable for George to think that joined/participated and respect some rules/was initiated by RS involved a certain dynamic of being 'in' a cult? Personally, I think so. And it seems reasonable according to the dominant norms and conventions of sociology and philosophy of religions. Tao does not have the monopoly of deciding what 'in' means and can be interpreted or any other words for that matter (although he usurpates that power quite often).

What was Tao's state of mind at the time and true motivations and intentions AT THE TIME. Why going to all that extent if you don't believe in some aspects of RS? Does it make a lot of sense to say that I would like to become a part time scientologist or a scientologist not-believing in the tenets of scientology? Why bother? So far, what we have is a very partial and biased account/recollection of what has probably REALLY happened. But we will never know ...

Looking back at Tao's description of his own relation with RS, we see someone who has the tendency to downplay or overemphasize it depending how convenient it can be for him: either someone who knows the tradition very well and can talk about from experience or the free man without beliefs that he is (and was I guess) ...

Can Tao be trusted? It is up to you and at your own peril if you do so! Brian will excuse almost anything in public abou it(working out things in the background). How edifying ... But not if you ask Manjit ...

We also know he can be deceiptful -- like using his another name to comment about himself and how great he is ... which he did a few months back ... that was sad from a man "without beliefs" and "spontaneously living"

Sant Mat Initiation and Meditation means in as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding Elephant, George and this huge problem over Tao's initation, I have to say that this is getting stupid. He was very clear in what he said. Sure some of you may not have understood him. I would say refused to understand him. I understood him in exactly the same way as he is saying now. Why are you talking about logic George? Logic is just one small part of human mental abillities and it is nothing more than rules that come from general human experience of dialogue and thinking. If we want to understand others it is simply not enough to rely only on the rules of logic, instead we should try to understand the logic behind a communication. If one only goes by the formal rules of logic, he will probably understand very little of what people have to say. Tao was for me completely logical and in no way inconsistent. Sure if you take those three sentences and make them into a logical argument alone, they will be inconsistent. But this discussion was not a logical tractatus, so you cannot expect people to limit themselves to that kind of expression.
I do not agree that just because one is formally initiated into something, that one also becomes involved in all the aspects of that thing. One can be baptised to be a christian for completely different reasons. One does it because he has faith in christian teachings, one does it because he wants to get married to a christian woman, another does it simply because he would like to know the insider life of christians (because of a study or something). Same with RSSB initiation, to want to try out a meditation tehnique does not mean that you become a satsangi. Formally yes, but in reality it can be quite a different matter. That was completely clear from what Tao was saying. And even if it was not to some, it is now as he has completely explained it and I cannot see how one could still misunderstand him except out of spite.

Amaranth,

No, I simply require consistency, thats all. Two was assertively clear in making those three statements, and they are not consistent.

I am talking about logic, because it is often the only tool able to cut through conditioned dogmatic responses which are not objective, and to highlight them for what they are.

I cannot read into or interpret what anyone says, this is a blog, i cannot even see the other person's body language. I am not importing or distorting their meaning, they are precisely what Tao has said.

I never said anything about becoming involved in all aspects of RS. Tao said quite clearly that he had been formally intiated into RS, in fact he made it clear that he had never wavered from this claim, so what would you have me interpret to mean by that?

You guys are fooling yourselves, its madness.

George, I simply am wondering why this supposed particular breach of logic fills you with such outrage, while others do not. For example, what about the logic of people such as Obscrene/JAP/Walker/Neut er all posting comments under various self-contradictory identities?

The illogic of pretending to be various people (research director, academic, friend of Stephen Hawking) is obvious and deceitful. Yet so far I haven't seen the same outrage from you about these displays of deceit.

George,
put this thing to bed - there has been enough said about it.

You want to be RIGHT, so you cannot see the obvious.

You probably still wont be able to see after this post - but let me write it anyway.

In YOUR mind "INITIATED into RS" EQUATES TO "INTO RS (The Cult)"

And indeed it MAY be the case for many people.

However, Tao has explained at great length - that he WAS NOT into the cult side - he did not even consider Charan Singh to be his guru.

Now that is pretty clear to me. Of course it might not be the normal way that most people join RS - but so what? That is how Tao did it.

Tao was clearly NOT INTO the cult side of RS. Why is that so difficult for you to see?

Imagine a journalist getting initiated to find out about the RS meditation. Does that make him a cult member? Of course not - he simply got initiated to find out about it.

Tao is similar - his interest was the meditation - not the guru relationship.

Therefore in Tao's case it IS possible to get initiated and still not be into the cult.

So this paragraph that you wrote is not logic - it is your internal way of processing the information because you are not accepting all the information given to you.

You are DELETING what Tao is saying when he says "I joined ONLY for the meditation".

You wrote:

"Even if you did only join for the meditation (as if i can mindread that),
the objective fact (as you have said) is that you were voluntarily initiated into RS. Therefore, you did join this movement and were into it."

The last sentence does not follow logically - it is your interpretation.

While it is true that you could not mind-read - all you had to do was ASK Tao to clarify the apparent contradiction instead of jumping to the conclusion that he is a liar.

I am sure he would have been more than happy to clarify his position and it would have avoided all these accusations.

Even when he did clarify after you called him a liar - you are refusing to accept his way of thinking. Tao is entitled to take the RSSB initiation and not join the organisation if he so chooses. In your mind that is impossible as you are saying the two cannot be separated when Tao clearly has separated them for himself.

Logic will only work if you apply all the information - you are deleting some of the information and relying on logic to tell you Tao's internal motivation for taking the initiation.

Osho, good analysis. We err when we assume that inside people's heads is a purely logical analysis machine. Humans arent like that. Life isn't like that. Rationality has a wonderful role to play in understanding the natural world. But when it comes to understanding people, and what they say, we have to apply additional skills.

Brian,

I was willing to let this go until you guys seemed intent on convincing me i was wrong. Madness, why are you trying to convince me that black is white?

Tao has left me frustrated because i assumed we were engaging in open honest discussion rather than semantic obfuscations and inconsisent rhetoric.

I understand Tao views RS as an evil poisonous cult, fine, but then wondered why any sane person would still be initiated into such a movement?

Instead of acknowledging statement 3 is also correct, i am getting fancy footwork about meditative aspects and such like, which were never mentioned.

The most telling thing is that no-one has actually questioned my logic, since its quite clear that those 3 statements are inconcistent. Instead, some have tried to argue that these statements mean different things, none of which were said.

This is rhetoric and self-justification. All the things reasoned thought is not.

Osho,

Wrong. I don't want to be right, I want consistency. Its you lot who 'want' to be right, by trying to justify how clear statements mean something else.

Tell me where i am wrong. Tell me my logic is wrong or tell me one of those is statements is wrong, and i will admit it. But don't tell me rubbish. Don't interpret extra words or meaning into those clear statements, such as 'meditative' aspect. Tao has acknowledged statements 1 and 2 as being correct and has wavered on statement 3. However, there should be no wavering on statement 3 either, since Tao has clearly said that he's been formally initiated into RS. There was no mention of a meditative aspect or anything else, which instead are belated meanings bestowed by some merly trying to join ranks and be right on an indefensible position.

oh please, you guys have posted article after article about reasoned thought and the scientific method, now all of a sudden its subjective and i'm the one who needs to understand the intricate complexities of reality. Please man, more rubbish inconsistent rhetoric.

You don't like RS, fine, thats subjective dogma cos your reasons are inconsistent crap. If such dogma is allowed, then why are those RS 'fundamentalists' banned?

George wrote: "I understand Tao views RS as an evil poisonous cult, fine, but then wondered why any sane person would still be initiated into such a movement? "

--Because maybe they were curious about the meditation aspect of the cult.

I personally knew an RS initiate who did not go to satsangs, or India or even have a picture of the master on his wall. All he did was meditate, work, eat and sleep. This guy had nothing in his rented room but a few odds and ends, a sleeping bag and the bike he rode to work. He had great disdain for all the organizational (cult) aspects of RS. He thought it was all BS. But he had faith in the meditation.

George, first I want to tell you that I really enjoy your posts and that I am not attacking you or anything like that. But on this occasion I think you are mistaken. And I do not mean that you are mistaken in saying that Tao joined RSSB as that is clearly not an issue here. But as you said, Tao was formally initiated into RSSB which is the whole point of pretty much everything most of us have been saying. Formally initiated does not mean that you also accept the cultish elements of an organisation. If I entertained the possibility of joining any religious organization I could do that with the knowledge that some aspects of it are dogmatic, not proven, even contrary to my understanding of reality, but I would still join it for any number of reasons. Thus I would be formally initiated into the group but would I accept the cultish aspects? Well no. This is where I give credit to RSSB as in my experience people who do get initiated are not obliged to actually accept the belief system behind it, except for the four vows where from my experience of hearing Gurinder speak, are not to be taken as absolute but rather as general practical things to do in life, as ethical and practical ideals.

Amaranth,

fair enough, you are entitled to your view.

however i find it very difficult to seperate out what are considered the cultish aspects of RS from the non-cultish aspects, but more importantly this distinction and qualification was in no way made when the orginal statements were made.

Tucson,

The meditation qualification was never made in the original statements. I still find it bizarre someone who feels an organisation is an evil poisonous cult would actually go to the trouble of being initiated in it at all, for any aspect. Also, lets not forget about the context of the orginal argument on here, which is Tao implying his extensive direct familiarity of RS he 'knows', where in fact under the meditative intepretation you put forward, the only thing he could claim to know is the the meditation aspect itself, none of the RS aspects since apparently he was not interested in such cultish aspects. Its all become totally distorted, which is what inevitably what follows from inconcistency.

My thanks to Brian for reiterating and emphasizing and supporting my position.

First of all, this is the last time that I am going to say this, and for those of you who seem to want to presume and act as if their mere opinions carry any weight or any authority in this matter, I am now telling you that I AM the ONLY one who has any authority to speak for ME, and I am the only one who gets to determine the following about this issue and especially about myself:

You all are entitled to your own personal opinions, but your personal opinions and points of view DO NOT determine who I am, or what I think or say, or what I do or have done in my own life, or the nature of my spiritual life and path and practice, or what my relationship is to any institution such as the RSSB. You have your opinions, but that is ALL they are: mere opinions. I am the ONLY one who has the authority to say what my life and my initiation means TO ME. It does not matter what it means to you, other than it being a mere outside opinion. YOU are not ME (and I am speaking to everyone). So YOU do not have any right or authority whatsoever in determining what my initiation means to ME, or what my initiation implies reltive to the RSSB. THAT is MY priviledge alone. None of you have any position whatsoever to determine or establish what my initiation means to ME. All you have a right to is your own personal views and opinions, but those views and opinions of yours do not ever, in any way whatsoever determine what the nature of MY OWN RELATIONSHIP to the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult is, or what MY OWN initiation MEANT to ME.

All any of you get to say or determine, is what YOUR initiation means to YOU, and what YOUR relationship to the RSSB is (depending on whether you are an initiated satsangi).

If you are not an initiated satsangi, then you have no say at all in what initiation means, and you have no say about how initiation relates to the RSSB organization and sangat.

Those of you who are NOT initiates, simply have no business even presenting your opinions, as you have no legitamte basis or authority or experience with which to say anything about this matter of initiation and how initiation reltes to the RSSB.

And for those of you who ARE initiates of Sant Mat, you ONLY have the right and the authority to say what YOUR initiation means to YOU, and the right and authority to determine what is the nature of YOUR relationship to the RSSB (or to any other branch of Sant Mat).

None of you (and especially George, the elephant, Catherine, or anyone else that thinks and assumes that they have ANY say whatsoever in determining what MY OWN shabd yoga initiation meant to ME, or what was and/or is the nature of MY OWN relationship to the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult)... I repeat, NONE OF YOU has any RIGHT or AUTHORITY whatsoever to say or to determine what MY OWN initiation meant to ME, and/or what MY OWN relationship to the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult is.

All you have is the right to YOUR own OPINIONS about what all these things may mean TO YOU. However, what they mean to YOU, is again, merely your own opinions, and it does NOT determine in any way whatsoever what these things mean for ME or for others.

This is the central crux of this entire issue, this entire debate and argument.

The problem is that some people here (like George) apparently think and assume that they have some sort of right or authority to determine what MY OWN initiation meant and implied, and HOW MY OWN initiation relates to the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult. But they do NOT have any such right or authority. All anyone has a right to is their own personal views and opinions. But their personal views and opinions DO NOT determine what my initiation IMPLIED or how that initiation relates to MY reationship with the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult.

All any of you people have, is your own personal views and opinions (and especially in the case of George who is not even an initiate, and who also is admittedly more or less fairly UN-familiar with these aspects of Sant Mat, shabd-yoga initiation, and the RSSB), which has NO BEARING whatsoever on the meaning or the implications of MY OWN initiation, nor any bearing on the nature of MY OWN relationship to the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult.

George is not ME, and George is NOT an initiate, and so George has no right or any authority or even any experience required to determine what MY initation means, or how it applies or does not apply to the RSSB, or how it relates or does not relate to the RSSB organization,sangat,society, & guru-cult. And this also has nothing whatsoever to do with George's supposed, but totally faulty "logic" which is based on mere words and not on what MY initiation means to ME, and/or how that relates to the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult.

That all being said, I will address these remarks one last time:

George wrote:

"Even if you did only join for the meditation (as if i can mindread that),
the objective fact (as you have said) is that you were voluntarily initiated into RS. Therefore, you did join this movement and were into it."

-- Well the first part of that is one-half correct... I did volutarily apply for and I was given initiation of or in the SHABD-YOGA MEDITATION. However, George said "initiated into RS". That is not correct. I have made that clear. George assumes that the initiation is "into RS" meaning into RSSB. However, I have very clearly indicated that I myself was not interested in the RSSB. I was only interested in the SHABD-YOGA MEDITATION. For ME, my initiation was only "into" the SHABD-YOGA MEDITATION, not "into" the RSSB cult. I have made that absolutely clear numerous times now. Yet George insists that my initiation was "into RS" meaning into the RSSB. But that is NOT what it meant for ME. And ONLY I am the one who determinse what that initiaon meant for ME. Is that clear? It does not matter WHAT George says. George is NOT ME. And George is also NOT an initiate. George has no authority to determine WHAT MY initiation meant to me, or how that related to the RS or RSSB. ONLY I get to determine that.

So it is pretty clear here that GEORGE has a serious problem in that he thinks that his personal view and opinion determines what MY initiation meant, and that my getting initiated meant that I was "into RS" and that I "join(ed) this movement and were into it."

But I have already repeatedly said over and ove and over: NO... I did NOT, I repeat NOT "join this movement"... and NO, I was NOT "into it". PERIOD.

George has absolutley NO right or authority whatsoever to speak for me, or fto say what I did, or what I intended, or what was implied, by my initiation. George has no say whatsoever in this. The same goes for The Elephat or anyone else who thinks they have business determining what my initiation meant or implied or how it relates to the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult.

One more thing, George claims:

"Tao said he has been initiated into RS."

NO, I have already made this very clear, I did not get "initiated into RS" (meaning into the RSSB). I simply got initied "into" the SANT MAT SHABD-YOGA MEDITATION, not "into" the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult.

INITIATION is concerned ONLY with the spiritual path of shadd yoga meditation, and NOT with the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult. Initiation is all about meditation, and not about the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult.

If any of you don't believe me, then simply go ask the RSSB yourselves. I assure you that they WILL tell you exactly what I have told you.... That RS initiation is initiation into the Sant Mat shabd-yoga MEDITATION PATH, and NOT "into the RSSB organization & sangat/society/cult.

It is absolutely ABSURD for this debate to go on this long, centered around someone like George, who is NOT an initiate. It is ridiculous. George is quite obviously here to disrupt productive discussion with his personal vendetta against me. Its time for this nonsense to stop. I have spoken to Brian, and he agrees with me on all accounts. And he wants this ridiculous bullshit that George (and now also the elephant) is perpetuating to stop as well. George's arguement has no foundation or legitimate basis to it whatsoever. Why? Because of one central and crucial fact: George has no authority or right to say what my inition means or implies or how it relates to the RSSB. ONLY I have that right and authority. Not George, not The Elephant, not Catherine, not Manish, and not even Osho or Tucson or Brian has that authority. ONLY I am the one who gets to say and determine what MY initiation meant to ME, and what MY relationship is with the RSSB (if any at all).

End of story.

It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or says. They have no authority to speak for me or to say what the nature of my relationship to the RSSB is.

You can all go on debating this forever if you want, and I am sure that some like George and others will. BUT... nothing any of you say, can or will ever change or determine the TRUTH about MY initiation and MY relationship to the RSSB.

So all this entire ridiculous debate has really shown here, is to reveal how and what people think, how honest and rational they are, waht their agenda is, and where each person stands in relation to other people. In that sense it has been very revealing.

But as far as anyone (like George) having any say-so whatsoever in determining what RS initiation means and/or implies in MY case... well I have already made that quite clear that in MY case, they absolutely DO NOT.

You all can go on debating this forever if you like, but I don't think Brian is going to appreciate it, or tolerate it. There has been enough said already, and in the end, I am the ONLY one who can speak for me... not George or anyone else.

One last thing, relative to some other folks and comments that they have made:

I would like to thank Osho for a very clear and acurrate analysis of this, and for clearly explaining to Geoerge where I stand. Osho has articulated my postion perfectly, and he has also clearly shown the error of George's thinking and conclusions and supposed (but totally faulty) "logic".

So Osho, I sincerely thank you my friend for your honesty and for expressing and clarifying my position so well and so simply. Well done.

I would also like to thank Amaranth for his honesty and clear-sightedness in undertanding me and my position.

If anyone wishes to understand in a simple way where I am at and where I stand in regards to this issue, and especially about George's insistent but faulty reasoning and faulty conclusions, then I would direct them to go read Osho's comment posted on September 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM.

Beyond that, everything that I have said in my own previous comment posted on September 13, 2009 at 02:50 PM about this issue and about myself still applies. And that is where it ends as far as I am concerned.

Any further discussion or further hair-splitting, or opinions by other parties (other than Brian) on this matter, is totally irrelevant.

Lastly, The Elephant has (quite wrongly) stated:

"Tao does not have the monopoly of deciding what 'in' means and can be interpreted or any other words for that matter (although he usurpates that power quite often)."

-- Sorry The Elephant, but unfortunately YOU are terribly and fundamentally wrong here.

I in fact DO have the so-called "monopoly of deciding what 'in' means"... in my own case. You don't. You have absolutely no say whatsoever about the meaning of my initiation or the nature of my relationship to the RSSB. Only I have that say.

And THIS is the real issue here, not what The Elephant may think, or or what anyone else may think about MY own initiation and about what MY own relationship is, or is not, relative to the RSSB

Elephant, YOU don't have that say-so, that authority, that so-called 'monopoly"... only I do. So you really need to understand that, because you have no right or businees to assume that you determine what is what in MY case.

All you have is a right to YOUR own opionions about what initiation means TO YOU, and about how initiation relates to being "in" the RSSB, or not being "in" the RSSB for YOURSELF. In this case, your opinion only applies to YOU, not to ME.

I am the ONLY one who gets to determine what this all (my own initiation and its relation to RSSB) means for ME.

So don't think and presume (like George does) that YOU have ANY right oor say whatsoever about what MY initiation means or how it relates to the RSSB.

Because YOU DO NOT have any say in reagrds to ME. Only I do for myself. You can only speak for YOURSELF, not for ME.

Your opinions only apply to YOU, not to me. So you obviously need to get this straight. You have the same problem that George does. You seem think (quite wrongly) that you get to say what my initiation means for me, and how it may relate to being "in" or not "in" the RSSB.

This critical problem in thinking and reasoning and authority, which George and The Elephant obviously have, is the real actual "madness" here, and not what Brian or Osho says, or what I say about myself and my position relative to my initiation and my relationship to the RSSB.


Well, the hair-splitting and nit-picking continues, so when in Rome, do as the Romans do...

George wrote:

" I still find it bizarre someone who feels an organisation is an evil poisonous cult would actually go to the trouble of being initiated in it at all, for any aspect."

--You are assuming tAo believed that RSSB was an "evil poisonous cult" AT THE TIME he was initiated into the meditation practice of RSSB which, again, does not imply acceptance of RS cult activity.

Furthermore, are you certain tAo used the terms "evil" and "poisonous" in regard to RSSB? You have a way of putting words in people's mouths.

George says:

"Tao has left me frustrated because i assumed we were engaging in open honest discussion rather than semantic obfuscations and inconsisent rhetoric."

-- I believe that it is clearly George who is the one who is engaging in "semantic obfuscations and inconsisent rhetoric." He keeps shifing his angle and argument as was shown above.

George also says:

"I understand Tao views RS as an evil poisonous cult, fine, but then wondered why any sane person would still be initiated into such a movement?"

-- I did not say that it is an "evil cult", I simply said that the RSSB is a guru-cult, which it is.


Also, and actually even more importantly, George says: "[I] then wondered why any sane person would still be initiated into such a movement?"

-- This statement indicates that George thinks that initiation is something that one (an initiate) can somehow drop or leave behind or dispense with. THat is incorrect. This assumption is indicated by the part where he says "still initiated" within his statement: "why any sane person would still be initiated".

Fyi George, initiation is not some thing that one acquires, but then they can later drop or dispense with. Initiation is not a matter of something that one has, but later on gives up.
Also, again, initiation is spirtual and is not about being"into" "a momovemet". In this specific case, the RS initiation is an actual instruction in the shabd meditiation practice and the four vows, and it has nothing to do with any "movement". Its not ablout a "movenet" at all. It is about the Sant Mat meditation. If you were more familiar with Sant Mat and RS than you would know and understand that. So clearly George, you still do not understand the nature of RS initiation.

You can ask almost any person in India what 'spiritual initiation' means, and they will tell you pretty much the same thing. Initiation is a spiritual thing, and is not about being "into" or a part of any "movement".

Of course there are different and others forms of spiritual initiation, such as the traditional Hindu initiations of brahmachaya and sannyasa, or the Buddhist tantric initiations, or various sorts of meditation initiations. But the point here is that initiation is entirely a spiritual thing, and not a political thing or a being "into" a so-called "movement". Initiation is a spiritual matter, and it has nothing to do with any sort of "movement".

George then goes on to say:

"Instead of acknowledging statement 3 is also correct, i am getting fancy footwork about meditative aspects and such like, which were never mentioned."

-- That is not so. I have always maintained that initiation is about the shabd yoga meditation. I have never said otherwise. This is simply another evasive or shifting manuever by George. He keeps dodging the central issue that INITIATION is spiritual and is about the shabd yoga meditation, and it has nothing to do with joining or being part of a cult or a "movement".

George started this entire thing by initially calling me a "liar"... because he (falsely) claimed that I had supposedly said (a few months ago) that I was "never initiated". So he asserted that I was not an RS initiate.

I then told him (again) that I was indeed an initiate, and that I had never ever at any time that I was not initiated.

Then, upon examining those comments of mine in question, that George had referred to, it was quite clear there was no evidence therein where I had ever said that I was not or "never initiated".

So then, since George's claim of me being a 'liar"had been proven to be unfounded, George then switched his ange of approach to this:

George claimed these three things about what I (supposedly) have "said":


George asserted:

1. Tao said RS is a cult (not me)
2. Tao said he has never been in a cult.
3. Tao said he has been initiated into RS.

This was Posted by: George | September 12, 2009 at 11:19 AM


And then this was my subsequent response to those three claims that George made about what I (supposedly) had "said":

Here is what I (tAo) said about George's three statements/assertions:

# 1. is correct, because yes, I have indeed said that the RSSB is a cult. RSSB satnds for the Radha Soami Satsang Beas. It is an organization and a society, and it also a actual spiritual colony which is located near Beas in the Punjab, in India. That is what "RS" and "RSSB" stands for. The RSSB is a spiritual guru-cult organization if you will, and it is also a large colony and the headquarters of the RSSB. However, the receiving of the initiation, which is simply the instruction regarding the shabd yoga meditation and the vows, does not mean nor imply nor require that one "must join" or be a part of or particpate in the RSSB, in the RSSB cult. It does not mean that the initiate has joined the RSSB cult. Initiation is simply an instruction about the mantra and the meditation. Participation in the actual RS cult organization or satsangs is totally voluntary. So being initiated, being instructed in the meditation, does not mean that one must necessarily go on and be part of or participate in the RS guru-cult.

# 2. is also correct, I have indeed said that I have never been in 'a cult', or in the RS cult. As I clearly explained (but which you continue to ignore and deny), I simply applied for, and I was then given the initiation of the Sant Mat shabd yoga meditation procedure. That meditation initiation does not constitute any "joining" of, or being "into" the RS cult. It is simply a receiving of instructions on how to do the shabd yoga meditation, and the four vows (which have been listed elsewhere). Neither the meditation instruction, nor the four vows, constitutes being in or being a part of the RS guru-cult. That is entirely separate and voluntary. A person could receive the initiation into the meditation but never have anything to do with the RSSB cult, RSSB organization, RSSB satsangs, RSSB master, or any other aspect of the RSSB society and guru-cult.

# 3. Yes, I have indeed said that I was initiated in the RS MEDITATION, but I did NOT say that I was initiated "into RS", meaning into the RS cult. There is a difference, and that is the crux of your misunderstanding. Even though you are not an initate (as far as I know), and so therfore you don't really understand this difference, you still refuse to accept the fact when other initiates tell you. The simple act of getting initiated in the Sant Mat meditation procedure does not constitute any being in, or joining, or being part of the RSSB guru-cult. That side of it is entirely voluntary and is not required [or implied] in the initiation.

THis was Posted by: tAo | September 12, 2009 at 09:25 PM


George now says:

"Tao has acknowledged statements 1 and 2 as being correct and has wavered on statement 3.

-- No I have not "wavered" on statement 3. I said "yes" that I was indeed initiated, that I received the initiation, and then I went on clarify what initiation is and that it is all about the meditation, and not about the RSSB organization, the RSSB cult, the RSSB sangat, etc.

"However, there should be no wavering on statement 3 either"

-- I did NOT waver on statement 3. I clearly said that I had been initiated. Period. However, George had said "initiated into RS" in his statement 3. I was indeed initiated, but I was not initiated "into RS", which means into the RSSB. I clearly explained that I was initiated into the MEDITATION, not into the "RS" or the RSSB, the RSSB organization, cult, or what have you. That is the difference. George stated: "initiated into RS". But I was not initiated "into RS".I was initiated into the Sant Mat shabd yoga path of meditation, not into any organization. This is the difference. George is trying to impose HIS version of initioan upon me, which I do NOT accept.

Again, I was only initiated into the Sant Mat shabd yoga path of meditaion, and not into the RS or the RSSB. George has absolutley no position to be able to say or determine what my initiation meant. And if he doesn;t believe me, then he can go ask the RSSB who will tell him exactly waht I have told him.

"Tao has clearly said that he's been formally initiated into RS."

-- That means into the Sant Mat path of shabd yoga and meditation, not into the RSSB organization or cult. Go ask the RSSB and they will tell you the very same thing I am telling you George. Initiation is entirely a spiritual thing, not an admistrative or political thing.

"There was no mention of a meditative aspect"

-- That is not so. I have been maintaining this exact same position ever since I first came to this blog back in 2005. I have also maintained this same position ever since I was initiated 30 years ago.

"an indefensible position."

-- No George, your position is clearly the "indefensible position". You are not an initiate, and so you have no authority whatsoever to say or determine what initiation is about or how it realtes to the RSSB. The best you can do is to admit that you made a mistake because you did not UNDERSTAND what RS initiation is about, and what it implies, and what it does not imply.

So to be very clear here:

There has been NO such "inconsistency" in anything that I have ever said that is related to this matter of initiation and/or how it may or may not relate to the actual RSSB organization and guru-cult.


George has been twisting and distorting and misrepresenting and confusing this matter from day one.

He has no intention of acknowledging the facts in this matter.

He shifts his focus and the angle of his argument when cornered.

He is not an initiate, and yet he refuses to accept the facts about Sant Mat, initiation, and the RSSB when they are told to him by initiates.

He says and admits that he has very little understanding of Sant Mat and Radha Soami Mat and the RSSB, and yet he asserts and claims that initiation means that one who gets initiated has joined a cult.

He does not understand initiation, and he refuses to accept the explanations and facts about it given by other initiates like myself, and yet he claims that I am a liar and that I am "inconsistent".

Therefore, it is quite obvious that George is not here to discuss and/or to learn about Sant Mat or the RSSB, or to respect the knowledge and experience and explanations of others. He is here only to incite and perpetuate needless confusion, needless arguement, and needless disturbance and discord.

Every comment that he has posted on this thread regarding this matter, or in his responses to others, continuing to argue and defend his faulty logic and his mistaken presumptions about me and this entire subject in spite of the fact that I and others have tried at length to resolve his misunderstanding and errors, is clear and obvious evidence of his negative agenda.


Tao,

"I did not say that it is an "evil cult", I simply said that the RSSB is a guru-cult, which it is."

--- Wrong again, you did say that.

Here's your full quote: "Watch this video and perhaps you may start to understand why RS (just like the cult described in the video) is so poisonous and destructive and evil."
Posted by: [email protected] | July 11, 2009 at 02:26 AM
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/07/tai-chi-doesnt-have-much-to-do-with-qi.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e2011570ff1101970c#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e2011570ff1101970c

Tucson,

I don't put words into people mouths or distort the meaning, the exact wording Tao used is in the link above. Helluva thing hey.

By and large its all just lies, but the thing with lies and inconcistency is that they eventually catch up.

Tao said:

"3. Yes. I have indeed said that I was initiated in the RS MEDITATION, but I did NOT say that I was initiated 'into RS'..."

--- Wrong, here is your quote:

"And that is the simple fact of my own formal initiation into shadd yoga and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas..."
Posted by: tAo | September 09, 2009 at 09:59 PM (posted on this thread above)

So you state you were initiated into RS AND shabd yoga, there is nothing about only being initiated into "RS MEDITATION". That is your belated skewed intepretation.

Tao also said: "I was initiated into the Sant Mat shabd yoga path of meditation, not into any organization."

--- Wrong. You original statement makes clear that you were initiated into shabd yogo AND Radha Soami Satsang Beas (i.e. the RS organisation).

This is actually a joke, i am done.

OK, he said "poisonous and evil" but what you don't get is that initiation into the spiritual practice is not initiation into the RSSB organization. There is no such initiation.

The initiation has only to do with the spiritual practice and vowing to avoid meat, intoxicants and to live a moral lifestyle.

Anyone can participate in RSSB activities without initiation or doing meditation or regarding the guru as GIHF.

He he - Hey Osho, how's it going dude? Give me a call sometime...

Let me settle this for you.

This issue of initiation or not into a cult - is one very, very small drop in an ocean of Tao's lies, dishonesty, exxagerations etc.

WHat's the big deal?

Trust me Osho - this guy has made numerous bare faced lies to me, in private email on this & another forum. 100% unmitigated falsity & deception. It's actually very interesting that several have lept to his defense in the face of this glaringly obvious truth - I guess when we're taking sides in this war of RS Vs I'm-so-beyond-RS-coz-I'm-really-wise, any issues with integrity, honesty, nobility etc are thrown out the window? Tao can talk whatever lies & non-sense he wants, *as long as it's pro-Brian & anti-Beas*. Simples. As my meerkat friend would say.

Lasltly - you included Brian & Tao in your list of people who no longer desire 'sachkhand'. - I would have to disagree. Sachkhand is the supreme OBJECT of desire. Unless one is utterly desireless (liberation), then sachkhand is the highest object of that desire.

Unless you are desireless, then you have not transcended the form of sach khand. (now THAT'S the contra to the pseudo-advaitic position/criticism of RS)

I thing it ridiculous to suggest Tao or Brian even understand what I'm discussing here, let alone have attainment of it. I wager they would trade everything they own or understand for a permanent shift into the energetic matrix of Shabd or Kundalini....wager everything *I* own on it (which isn't much, granted). If there was a heirarchy of bliss/profundity, I would place psuedo-advaita at the bottom, followed by Shabd Yoga, THEN followed by the *genuine* advaita realisation.

I strongly suggest people re-address which one is being parroted by Tao on this site?

Hey Osho - WOuld love to talk, give us a call - did you know this forum now gets moderated and censored against anybody who can pose a more coherent and cogent argument at all critical than Tao or Brian?

Bizarre isn't it! SO afraid of the appearance of weakness......

So this will be deleted soon - hope you see it, I lost my mobile phone with your number.

Cheerio!

Don't mistake someone who listens to someone else opinion's for someone who is subservient or a fool or wants to be taught or acknowledges you guys as experts of any kind whatsoever.

you have been kind enough to share your honest views, it does not make them facts or right, it only makes them your own.

Hey Tucson - I find this argument incredibly funny.

In the desperation to get Tao of the hook with one of his many inconsistent statements (believe me, there are hundreds!), playing rather wonderful games of semantic jugglerly and other general clowning around - you guys have missed the rather wonderful UPSHOT of this.

I know how difficult this is for some here, but take a moment to ponder over this (until it get's deleted)
.
Yes, Tao got initiation by the RSSB group into SHabd Yoga. But he DIDN'T get initiated into the 'CULT'. Right?

He he - isn't that precisely what you guys have been arguing for the last 5 years? That RS is a cult?

So - why not allow ALL the millions of RS initiates continue going on their merry way, with their (now what you guys are also calling it! :-o) 'SPIRITUAL' practice and non-cultic associations.

Actually - isn't that what all the RS groups have been saying all along?

So - doesn't that make the vast majority of criticisms that you guys make, errrm, irrelevant?

What if ALL RS initiates (not cult members, of course) considered themselves as if individual spiritual practitioners, rather than members of a cult? Or is it only Tao's decision of when you're in a cult, or when you're a 'spiritual practitioner' count - based on it's convenience to whatever fiction he is promoting at that time? He he.

What HAVE you guys been banging on about for the last 5 years then, if you can be initiated into RS, and not be a 'cult' member?

That settles it then, we'll hear no more of the 'evil' & 'poisonous' cult (unlike the wonderful Hare Krishnas) that is RS, right?

No - that just wouldn't be convenient for our soap box, and our grand internet personas, would it?

;-)

George - never mind.

This is the human condistion.

Don't expect honesty, integrity, openness, freedom of thought, nobility, self-deprecation etc here.

ANYTHING goes - for the cause.

Even if, as in this case, it wraps everone up into a deeply inconsistent position with all the semantic juggelry.

You have just found yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And in the desperation for the illusion of integrity, a whole new semantic beast has been created.

For several years RS has been a cult, with goon-gurus, fools and moron initiates. A cult par excellence - and as you rightly observed, 'evil' and 'poisonous'.

Until, however, Tao's creative, but never honest, use of language got them into a twist. Rather than just call it a misunderstanding - they've sought to explain it - probably because this is *one* of Tao's claims that has *some* truth to it - by golly, if he's not gonna defend THIS one, he'll never defend anything! (because a lot of the other stuff is just plain lies with NO truth whatsoever to them).

And in this desperate rush to uphold Tao's integrity (whislt simulatenously deeply questioing the integrity and honesty of other posters here) - we find outselves in this rather wonderful position.

Where it seems everyone - Amarnath, Tao, Tucson, Brian & Osho - is now agreeing 100% with the official RS line - that it is not a cult, and that it's all about the individual and their spiritual practice. The organisation is a neccessary evil, but irrelevant to the individual's spiritual growth.

So - what has all the loud noise for the last 5 years been all about?

What's with all the meaningless, irrelevant & often profane criticisms of the cult RS all about?

Nothing, it now appears.

Because the 'cult' apparently has nothing whatsoever ever to do with the individual. And it's only the individuals who matter, right?

Such delicious irony.

Who can understand it?

:)

manjitd, you're wrong again: I only delete comments that are outrageous personal attacks, and either commercial or religious spam.

As I often say to critics of me and my blog, if you dislike it so much, why do you spend so much time here? It must appeal to you, resonate in some churchless fashion with you, or you wouldn't be drawn here.

So thanks for giving the Church of the Churchless your "thumbs-up" by your active participation. This blog's tag line is "preaching the gospel of spiritual independence." Debate and discussion are always welcome. I just wish you and others wouldn't feel such a need to engage in personal attacks, and would stick to substantive discussions.

George wrote:

"So - why not allow ALL the millions of RS initiates continue going on their merry way, with their (now what you guys are also calling it! :-o) 'SPIRITUAL' practice and non-cultic associations."

--The cult aspects of RS have never been my main concern here. You throw Brian, tAo, me and others into the same box, but while we share common views we also diverge in certain areas. I tend to challenge the basic spiritual premise of Sant Mat more than the organizational and cult mentality aspects.

RS followers ARE free to go their merry way as far as I'm concerned. I don't initiate these discussions regarding RS, but if RS devotees make certain dogmatic assertions on this blog then I might ask a few challenging questions in return.

"Actually - isn't that what all the RS groups have been saying all along?"

--No, because most RS followers are brainwashed cult followers basing their lives on what, in my opinion, is an illusory premise. Certain fanatical followers that come here will not accept or tolerate critical or contrary views of RS and prolonged debate ensues.

"So - doesn't that make the vast majority of criticisms that you guys make, errrm, irrelevant?"

--No. because RSSB IS a quasi-religio-guru worship cult by any objective definition. My current point, irrespective of that or how tAo fits into all this, is simply that it is possible to get initiated and do the meditation practice without being in cult worship mentality. However, this is not to say that the spiritual premise upon which this path is based is valid.

You do not have sufficient experience with the RS movement and philosophy to understand this.

Again, it is possible for someone to recognise that RSSB is a cult but at the same time want to give the meditation practice a try. That may have been tAo's position. Only tAo knows that and I can't speak for him.

Ararnath,
I refer to your comment 13 sept 1:59pm
You wrote:
"This is where I give credit to RSSB as in my experience people who do get initiated are not obliged to actually accept the belief system behind it, except for the four vows where from my experience of hearing Gurinder speak, are not to be taken as absolute but rather as general practical things to do in life, as ethical and practical ideals."

Hmmm.. interesting that you make that comment. That is not how I would view RSSB. Rather they say "Take your time to decide BEFORE you join to make sure you agree with it all - and once you are in - don't question it."
Charan Singh would say "It is time gained not lost when you first research to make sure this is for you." This means that they want you to be sure you agree with the ideas presented. In other words - do you believe what they are offering you. If not - then it means they don't want you to join. That is why they used to (still do?) insist that you have read several books before you can even apply for initiation.

Also you say the vows are not absolute but just general ideals. If that is the case - why call them vows. My understanding is that the vows are absolute. You are expected to take them seriously and not just have them as an ideal. I would be interested in what you have heard that makes you think they are not required and are just ideals.

I know Gurinder has made a quite few changes - but has he said the vows are just ideals to aim for? In which case why call them vows anymore?

erm Tucson, stop putting Manjit's words into George's mouth - LOL, this is surreal.

George,

Yes this is getting surreal. Correction.

Manjit wrote....

see my comment above at 9:55 AM with the exception of possibly leaving out the part about lacking experience with RSSB.

[tAo had previously said]: "I did not say that it is an "evil cult", I simply said that the RSSB is a guru-cult, which it is."

George now responds: "Wrong again, you did say that. Here's your full quote:"

[where tAo had previously said]: "Watch this video and perhaps you may start to understand why RS (just like the cult described in the video) is so poisonous and destructive and evil." Posted by: [email protected] | July 11, 2009 at 02:26 AM

George now says: "I don't put words into people mouths or distort the meaning. By and large its all just lies, but the thing with lies and inconcistency is that they eventually catch up." Posted by: George | September 14, 2009 at 02:21 AM

-- Yes you do George, and if you are going to call people liars, then you had better present clear and solid evidence to suppost that. But you haven't.

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

[Tao had previously said]: "3. Yes. I have indeed said that I was initiated in the RS MEDITATION, but I did NOT say that I was initiated 'into RS'..."

George now says: "Wrong, here is your quote"

[where tAo had previously said]: "And that is the simple fact of my own formal initiation into shadd yoga and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas..." Posted by: tAo | September 09, 2009 at 09:59 PM

George now says: "So you state you were initiated into RS AND shabd yoga, there is nothing about only being initiated into "RS MEDITATION". That is your belated skewed intepretation."

-- Wrong. "RS" can mean either one of two things: RS can mean the RSSB organization and guru-cult ...OR... it can mean the Sant Mat & Radha Soami TEACHINGS of shabd yoga. All initiates are aware of these two meanings to the term "RS". In the quote that you referred to above I was referring to the teachings of Sant Mat, namely shabd yoga, not to the RSSB organization. Its not my problem that you have interpreted "RS" to mean the RSSB. I usually and generally always write RSSB when I am referring to RSSB. And I write "RS" (which is an abbreviation for Radha Soami) when I am referring to the Sant Mat and Radha Saomi teachings.... unless I am speaking to an initiate who I know is awae of the difference. You were not aware, so hence your confusion and misunderstanding. But you are still refusing to accept the primary point, which is that I did not take inition into the RSSB organization, I took initiation in the Sant Mat practice of shabd yoga meditation. Period.

Therefor you are still wrogn George, so why don't admit that you made a mistake in interpretation. It's not my job to clarify my initiation down to the very last detail. You called me a liar, and you continue to do so, but your claim is bogus and wrong. You are clearly out to discredit me, but you have nothing to support that.

You have no right or authority to say or determine what mmy initiation meant to me, or what my retionshipt to the RSSB organization and guru-cult may or may not be.

So therfore, give it up George, you are wasting eveyone's time and energy for no legitimate reason.

[Tao had previously said]: "I was initiated into the Sant Mat shabd yoga path of meditation, not into any organization."

George now says: "Wrong. You original statement makes clear that you were initiated into shabd yogo AND Radha Soami Satsang Beas (i.e. the RS organisation)." Posted by: George | September 14, 2009 at 02:50 AM

-- NO George, it does not. My original statement as you ahve quoted above, says:

"And that is the simple fact of my own formal initiation into shadd yoga and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas..."

That was meant to say 'my own formal initiation into shadd yoga BY the Radha Soami Satsang Beas.' You are simply quibbling over two small words: "and the".

That was in fact, my own mistake, because I should have said "BY the Radha Soami Satsang Beas", not "and the".

So you are correct as far as my use of those two words goes, but as I have explained at great length, I did NOT get initiated into the RSSB, I got initiated in the Sant Mat meditation. I tend to type fast, as as everyone knows, I tend to make a fair amount of typos and grammatical and syntax errors. But that does not change the truth of my initiation or my relationship to the RSSB, or my position.

If this is the crux of this entire debate, then you should have said so in the beginning, as I would have been glad to clarify my actual position for you. Instead you call me a "liar" and waste everuones time and energy over virtually nothing, and because YOU are not an in itiate and therefore you are not very familar or knowledgeable about Sant Mat, Radha Soami, shabd yoga initiation, and the RSSB organization and guru-cult.

George, its time for you to accept the reality of this, and stop trying to bogusly and wrongly discredit me.


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

Manjit says:

"This issue of initiation [...] is one very, very small drop in an ocean of Tao's lies, dishonesty, exxagerations etc."

-- If you are going to say that I lie and am dishonest, then you must show the eveidence. Otherwise, you are the one who is making false and unsupported claims.

Trust me [...] this guy has made numerous bare faced lies to me, in private email on this & another forum. 100% unmitigated falsity & deception."

-- Why should anyone "trust" you manjit?? You have no credibilty. None whatsoever. Present your evidence Manjit for that. Otherwise, you are are the liar. You don't get to call people liars if you don't have evidence to support your claim. And in your case, there is no such evidence, its nothing more than your ususal phony antagonistic bullshit.

"It's [...] very interesting that several have lept to his defense in the face of this glaringly obvious truth"

-- Then what is that "truth" Manjit? Put it up for all to see, or shut-up. You have nothing on me Manjit. Nothing. You are just a bag of hot-air. Your attack to undermine my integrity and character and truth is baseless and hollow and deceiptful. Your reputation for doing this sort of thing is well known.

"Tao can talk whatever lies & non-sense he wants, *as long as it's pro-Brian & anti-Beas*."

-- Produce your evidence Manjit, or go away. I am sure that Brian does not appreciate or want your kind of derisive crap and false insinuations here. You are not welcome to make derogatory attacks on other people and call them liars without some solid legitimate evidence to prove it.

"I thing it ridiculous to suggest Tao or Brian even understand what I'm discussing here" "I strongly suggest people re-address which one is being parroted by Tao on this site"

-- And WHAT exactly is that, which you say I am 'parroting' Manjit?? Again, either be specific, or expect to be laughed at and then ignored.

"did you know this forum now gets moderated and censored against anybody who can pose a more coherent and cogent argument at all critical than Tao or Brian?"

-- That is absolutely not true. It only happens to people (like you Manjit) when they post derogatory personal attacks and insults against other commenters or the author, or attack the purpose and spirit of this blog. You should go back to RSStudies where you can do that sort of thing as much as you like. Commenters (like you) who do that are not welcome here.

"So this will be deleted soon"

-- This statement clearly shows that you are quite aware that the nature and content and vibe of your comments is disrespectful and unwelcome and in violation of Brian's wishes and policy, and yet you choose spit in his face anyway.

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

George says: "you have been kind enough to share your honest views, it does not make them facts or right, it only makes them your own."

-- But that applies to you as well George, even more so since you are not an initiate and have far less understandin and experience with Sant Mat.

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

Manjit says:

"to get Tao of the hook with one of his many inconsistent statements (believe me"

-- I have made no inconsistent statements. So again Manjit, present some clear and solid evidence, or prepare to be ignored. Why should anyone "believe" you, since you have produced nothing whatsoever to substantiate your claims against me??

"take a moment to ponder over this (until it get's deleted)

"Tao got initiation by the RSSB group into SHabd Yoga. But he DIDN'T get initiated into the 'CULT'. Right?"

-- I was only initiated in the shabd yoga meditation, not initiated in the RSSB organization. The initiation is only about shabd yoga meditation, not about a "group" or an organization or cult.

"isn't that precisely what you guys have been arguing for the last 5 years? That RS is a cult?"

-- Yes, "RS" (which in this case and sense means the RSSB, not the shabd yoga teachings of Sant Mat) is an organization and a guru-cult.

"So - why not allow ALL the millions of RS initiates continue going on their merry way, with their now what you guys are also calling it! 'SPIRITUAL' practice and non-cultic associations."

-- Huh? Neither myself nor anyone else here has said that the RS initiates aren't 'allowed' or shouldn't be 'allowed' continue their spiritual practices.

"isn't that what all the RS groups have been saying all along?"

-- I don't what they have been "saying". I only know what I say and have said. And I never said that initiates should not do their spiritual practice, their meditation.

"So - doesn't that make the vast majority of criticisms that you guys make, errrm, irrelevant?"

-- No, why should it? The criticisms were primarily about the cult aspect of RS, meaning the RSSB.

"What if ALL RS initiates (not cult members, of course) considered themselves as if individual spiritual practitioners, rather than members of a cult?"

-- Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Some do, some don't. Some definitely and obviously have a cultish mentality, yet a few others may not. So what? Your arguement doesn't really make any sense.

"is it only Tao's decision of when you're in a cult, or when you're a 'spiritual practitioner' [...] - based on it's convenience to whatever fiction he is promoting at that time?"

-- Your ridicule is baseless and pointless. I have promoted no such "fiction". I have simply stated the situation of MY OWN personal case, and not anyone else's. My "decision" as you call it, was only about myself, and no one else. I got into Sant mat for the meditation only, not to join the RSSB or for its guru, or its cultness. I did not get initiated in an RSSB organization. I got initiated in the Sant Mat shabd yoga path of meditation. I have already made that clear numerous times, yet like George, you continue to try and distort and misrepresent and deny that. But you have no authority to speak for me and for my initiation and my reletionshipt to the RSSB. Nor do you have any right to say that have spoken for others. I have not spoken for others. Your attempts at undermining me will always fail, because what you (and George) say and/or imply about me and about my initiation and/or my relationship to RSSB is is a deliberate distortion and falsehood.

"What HAVE you guys been banging on about for the last 5 years then, if you can be initiated into RS, and not be a 'cult' member?"

-- The difference is in what you reagrd as "RS". "RS" can mean the teachings of Sant Mat (shabd yoga and meditation), or "RS" can mean the RSSB organization and guru-cult. We are referring to the latter meaning of "RS" when we say that RS is a cult... meaning that the RSSB organization is a cult, not the initiation or the meditation. Thats is the difference that you and George are delibberately trying to blur. But it just doesn't fly Manjit.

"That settles it then, we'll hear no more of the 'evil' & 'poisonous' cult {...] that is RS, right?"

-- Wrong. The "RS" that I and others have referred to as being a cult is only the RSSB organization, NOT the Sant Mat teachings, initiation, and meditation.

"No - that just wouldn't be convenient for our soap box, and our grand internet personas, would it?"

-- You are the one with the "grand persona" Manjit. You are the one who is constantly posing as an egotistical spiritual know-it-all, but yet is admittedly not even initiated. I find it pretty laughable that people like you, who are not initiates, pretend to be such experts and critics of those who have been long-time Sant Mat initiates. The term "fool" comes to mind.

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

Manjit says:

"Don't expect honesty, integrity, openness, freedom of thought, nobility, self-deprecation etc here."

-- Thats a pretty apt description of YOU Manjit. Its time you stop attacking and trying to undermine this blog and the other commenters here. That isn't welcome.

"For several years RS has been a cult, with goon-gurus, fools and moron initiates. A cult par excellence - and as you rightly observed, 'evil' and 'poisonous'."

-- In some ways some of that may be true to some extent, but you have definitley missed the real point by instead merely focusing on language.

"Tao's creative, but never honest, use of language got them into a twist."


-- No it hasn't. There is no "twist" Manjit. Its just a matter of different views. But you aren't here to participate and share your views about the various subjects, you are here to ridicule and attack and try to undermine this blog as well as some of the other folks here.

"probably because this is *one* of Tao's claims [...] (because a lot of the other stuff is just plain lies with NO truth whatsoever to them).

-- If you are going to call people liars, then you need to show the evidence. Otherwise you are attacking the messenger, not the message. But thats why you are here in the first place... to attack and ridicule me and Brian and anyone else that you fancy. To put it to you bluntly, your shit isn't welcome here anymore Manjit.

"it seems everyone - Amarnath, Tao, Tucson, Brian & Osho - is now agreeing 100% with the official RS line - that it is not a cult, and that it's all about the individual and their spiritual practice.'

-- No, that is a total distortion of what is being said. RS, meaning the RSSB, IS a cult. The "spiritual practice" is not. That is what I an others are saying. So agin, you are attempting to distort and misrepresent and fabricate falsehood about us and what we have said. Thats not just a misunderstanding, thats downright dishonest.

"The organisation is a neccessary evil, but irrelevant to the individual's spiritual growth."

-- Sorry, I don't agree with that.

"So - what has all the loud noise for the last 5 years been all about?'

-- About the RSSB religion and guru-cult.

"What's with all the [...] profane criticisms of the cult RS all about?"

-- I just told you.

"Because the 'cult' apparently has nothing whatsoever ever to do with the individual. And it's only the individuals who matter, right?"

-- Wrong. Most of the "individuals" (the satsangis) ARE definitely influenced by, and part of, the RSSB "cult".

"Who can understand it?"

-- Well obviously not YOU Manjit.

I accidently overlooked responding to one of George's comments regarding the phrase "poisonous and destructive and evil". First the prior comments, and then at the bottom is my current response:

[tAo had previously said]: "I did not say that it is an "evil cult", I simply said that the RSSB is a guru-cult, which it is."

George now responds: "Wrong again, you did say that. Here's your full quote:"

[where tAo had previously said]: "Watch this video and perhaps you may start to understand why RS (just like the cult described in the video) is so poisonous and destructive and evil." Posted by: [email protected] | July 11, 2009 at 02:26 AM

-- Yes, I did say that "RS" (meaning the RSSB organization) is "poisonous and destructive and evil", similar to what was shown in the video. So what?

I do not generally call RSSB an "evil cult" or ""poisonous and destructive and evil". I usually always simply say that the RSSB a "guru-cult", which it is. But in that one comment of mine awile back, that was quoted above, I did say "poisonous and destructive and evil". I did not remeber saying that, but George has brought that to my attention. So George is correct that I did say that on at least one occasion. However, as I said I usually refer to RSSB simply as a "guru-cult". If you check the entre range of my comments over the years, you will find that I ususally always say "guru-cult". But yes, in this one case I did say "poisonous and destructive and evil". So George is correct on that point.

However, I still do feel that some aspects of the RSSB are indeed "poisonous and destructive and evil", as well as also no doubt being a guru-cult.

But in general, I am so not inclined to debate on those "poisonous and destructive and evil" aspects. That is my personal opinion, and so that is not productive to a unbiased critique of the RSSB.

Nevertheless, as I said, George is correct that I did in fact say that on that previous occasion. I just did not remeber that when he broungt it up recently, and so having forgotten that, I simply told George that I call the RSSB a "guru-cult" and not "evil".

So I hope that this clarifies any confusion or doubts about my views and opinions and statements about the RSSB. And I am sorry for my unintended mistake and my faulty memory in this particular instance.


There seems to be some confusion that there is initiation into Sant Mat (RS) meditation and also RSSB, the organization.

No initiation into RSSB (the organization) exists.

There is only initiation into Sant Mat meditation.

RSSB is simply the administrative organization.

One can be initiated and have absolutely no involvement or obligation to the RSSB organization.

Nor is involvement with the RSSB organization expected or implied by taking the initiation in the meditation practice.

Participation in RSSB organizational activities such as satsangs and seva (service, work, donations) is entirely voluntary and not a requirement for initiation into the meditation practice.

Tucson, thank you for putting that so concisely and accurately. That's exactly what I have been trying to say to these guys all along.

I very much agree with Osho Robbins where he says:

"My understanding is that the vows are absolute. You are expected to take them seriously and not just have them as an ideal."

From the very beginning of my involvement in Sant Mat, it was well known that the fore vows were not something, an ideal merely to strive for, or to be taken casually. Initiated satsangis were expected to follow and strictly adhere to the for vows. There was no maybe or sometimes or perhaps. There was no leeway. Sure, some satsangis did not always adhere t the no sex before marriage vow, but almost everyone followed the other three religiously. I knew of one woman satsangi who got into drinking for awhile, but she eventually stopped. I never heard of anybody eating meat at all. I am sure no doubt sometimes some satsangis would fail to meet the daily 2 and 1/2 hour meditation period, but most people tried.

The point is that back in the day when I was involved, the vows were not at all regarded casually, or as merely an ideal to try to reach 'someday', as Amaranth seems to interpret it. You had to follow the vows even prior to initiation.

I don't know how it is now, but I doubt that the vows have been loosened, as Amaranth seems to imply. So I would have to doubt that the current master has made following the vows more liberal. But then I haven't kept up with the current RS policies. I just can't imagine that the requirement to follow the vows hash been changed. I did hear awhile back that the time period for preparation before initiation had possibly been either shortened orlenghtened. But I can't remember which.

Its hard for me to believe that the vows are not required and are just ideals. So unless I find out otherwise, I have to think that Amaranth has a mistken interpretation. Perhaps Amaranth can elaborate on this more.

I have heard that Gurinder has made some changes, but at this point I have to doubt that he said the vows are just ideals to aim for, that the vows are not absolute but just proposed ideals. That just doesn't seem plausible to me.

Sorry I don't have time right now to read through all these comments but regarding the vows I have to say from my limited experience ( of attending some satsangs where Gurinder spoke ) is that when there were questions about following them strictly he said it depends on the situation. I think that the specific example was that if you were a guest somewhere and they happily prepared a delicious meal for you which contained meat in it because they did not know that you are a vegetarian, it could be better to just eat it if you knew that it would insult or hurt them if you refused to eat it. And when I say that one does not have to absolutely obey the vows I have never felt from Gurinder's words in satsangs that they are to be meant as absolute rules but are to be followed in spirit. But I have to emphasize, this is only my understanding of the matter, it has been a long time since I have been to a satsang with Gurinder speaking, so I cannot comment objectively but purely from memory. The one thing that I can comment on is the situation of RSSB in my country. There is quite a bit of initiates here but they seem to be set into two camps, there is one that goes the really dogmatic way where everyone has to agree on everything the speaker or the representatives say, and there is ( I believe a larger ) group that is not dogmatic, that freely talks about anything regarding RSSB, criticizes the cultish aspects of RSSB... I was at one satsang a few months ago and it was quite uncomfortable as the questions and answers part of the meeting was stopped right in the middle of it because the speaker did not agree ( or rather did not wish to hear ) with what somebody said and then tried to stop him from speaking, even being very rude which lead to the point that I told them that this kind of behaviour is cultish and simply wrong. So if I judge by the followers I would say that RSSB has elements of a cult but also elements that are not cultish. But I have to say that I am more of an outsider, because I am not initiated nor do I wish to be. Therefore I do not have a clear view of the whole situation. I am interested in the RSSB teachings but this has more to do with the fact that I am interested in just about all the views on life and in each I try to find something good but also seek the bad stuff.

Far too much hearsay goes on around here by people that think they know something about some things yet actually know nothing at all about that which they proposedly believe themselves to be authorities on. Anyone need to know anything substantial and true about anything rather go to the source of the knowledge than continue to protractedly beat about this non knowing, nonsensical, non enlightened, non open minded, derogatory, and subjectively inaccurate, foolish, idiotic bush.

tucson, wanting to give the RSSB meditation a try, means in the deepest sense, becoming a part of the cult. Think of what the meditation entails; repeating 5 names of regions that will be travelled through, listening for the sound current, visualising the initiating masters face. All this occurs every day for long periods of time. It is not just a process of trying out; it is a process of believing and immersing oneself in the doctrine.

Tao may believe that because he did no seva, didn't go to satsangs and never attended Bhandaras, that he was not part of a cult. The meditation immerses one far more than the outer connections.

Incidentally the outer connections such as seva are valuable in teaching humility and community.

Tao, like many of us, fools himself believing that he has never been in a cult. He has in fact.

George, you have over-reacted. It is difficult to realise that something got through the intelligent defence system.

Catherine wrote:

"tucson, wanting to give the RSSB meditation a try, means in the deepest sense, becoming a part of the cult."

---I think you are correct in most cases, but don't you think it is possible for someone to take initiation simply as an experiment or out of curiosity to see if it will work? After all, doesn't RSSB also call itself "The Science of the Soul"? (Which, by the way, is simply PR as far as I'm concerned.)

"Think of what the meditation entails; repeating 5 names of regions that will be travelled through, listening for the sound current, visualising the initiating masters face."

---Many people are initiated by proxy, i.e. a representative. While visualization of the master's form is advised, this is only for those who have actually seen the physical form of the master or the radiant form within. Visualization of photos or what you imagine the master to look like is not advised. Saying the names, listening for sound, etc. can be viewed as part of the "scientific" experiment.

"All this occurs every day for long periods of time. It is not just a process of trying out; it is a process of believing and immersing oneself in the doctrine."

---Belief, while assumed, is not a requirement for initiation or to do the meditation.

I'm not saying what you said is untrue, but there may be some who take a clinical approach to this path.

Only they know for sure.

Catherine said:

"wanting to give the RSSB meditation a try, means in the deepest sense, becoming a part of the cult."

-- No it does not. It is simply a meditation. Shabd-yoga meditation has nothing to do with participation in a CULT.

"Think of what the meditation entails; repeating 5 names of regions that will be travelled through, listening for the sound current, visualising the initiating masters face. All this occurs every day for long periods of time. It is not just a process of trying out; it is a process of believing and immersing oneself in the doctrine."

-- No. Maybe for you, but it wasn't that way for me, in my case. Sitting alone in meditation has nothing whatsoever to do with "believing" or with immersion in a "docrine". That is not what meditation is... at least it was not for me anyway. So don;t presume that your ideas and concepts about meditation apply to me. The cult is all about the organization, the satsangs, the darshan, the sangat, and the seva. Doing meditation has no connection to the RSSB cult. It is simply private individual meditation. The meditation has nothing to do with the cult. Not for me, and thats what this debate is all about. Maybe meditation for YOU is about being part of a cult, but it wasn't for me.... not in my case. I guess you don't undertand that, and thats the problem here. Apparently your concept and experience of doing shabd meditation is very different than mine was.

Also... internal repetition the 5 names is simply an internal repetition of a mantra composed of basic and well known sankrit words or syllables, and it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with participation in the RSSB cult.

Also... listening to the sound current (shabd or nam or nada) is one form of traditional yoga pratice, and it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with participation in the RSSB cult.

Also... visualization of the initiating masters face is not absolutely required (according to what Charan Singh himself told me), and I did not engage in that practice. Dhyan can simply be a receptivity to or a seeing of the internal light (in the same way as hearing the sound current), and it does not have to be specifically in the form of the masters face. The sound and the light are both aspects of the one shabd. Visualization is not essential or required. And that is what Charan Singh told me personally in private conversation with him. I think I may have heard/read that elsewhere as well. Perhaps in Spiritual Gems or somewhere else, I don't remember where.

So your arguement that meditation automatically implies participation in the RSSB cult, is unfounded.... and especially in my own case.

"It is not just a process of trying out; it is a process of believing"

-- No, one does NOT have to believe, simply in order to meditate. So that is not true.

The thing here catherine, is that you obviously have your view of meditation and all the rest, but that only applies to you. It doesn't necessarly and automatically apply to other people. Thats what you fail to understand and acknowledge. So what makes you assume that you can say what it is for other people? You have no position to determine that.


Catherine, I feel that you are terribly wrong here.

You do not know me, and you also do not know what MY motives were when I got initiated, what MY meditation meant, nor about MY relationship to the RSSB.

But actually, I have elaborated at great length on all of that, so in this case you have obviously chosen to deny what was true for me in my own personal situation, relative to my meditation and the cult side of RSSB.

Which actually says a lot about you, and very little or nothing about me.

It says that you think and assume that you know all about me and my life, when in fact you do not.

It shows that you think and assume that your opinion, your concept and version of what initiation and meditation means to YOU, somehow also applies to me as well. But it doesn't.

It says that you assume that MY practicing of shabd meditation somehow automatically immersed me and made me part of The RSSB cult. It doesn't.

Even Tucson explained that very well awhile back.

Catherine said: "Tao may believe that because he did no seva, didn't go to satsangs and never attended Bhandaras, that he was not part of a cult. The meditation immerses one far more than the outer connections."

-- Catherine, this is nothing more than your own personal opinion again, it is your own particular view and concept about the implications of the RS meditation and how that applies to the RSSB cult.

It does not at all refect nor determine what MY initiation, MY meditation, or MY relationship was to the RSSB.

And the meditation does NOT "immerse one far more" into the RSSB cult. Not at all imo. Not for me anyway. Maybe for you though.

But your situation and view was/is clearly not the same as mine. Thats what you seem to not be able to recognize or understand.

And imo, it is rather odd that you actually think and believe and then presume to know and to say and determine what MY meditation practice implied for ME, and what the nature of MY relationship was to the RSSB, in the way that you are doing.

In fact, its actually quite weird (imo) and highly presumptious of you, and a rather unbalanced view, that you would go so far as to assume that YOU could ever possibly determine what MY relationship was to the RSSB cult, and what MY initition meant, and what MY meditation practice implied.

It's actually extremely odd and absurd that you even think this way.

Which then makes me have to wonder, how you could ever think or presume that you are able to know or to determine what someone else's life and what their spiritual path was all about for them?

All you have really done here is to show what your own ideas and views are, relative to the RS initiation, the shabd meditation practice, and the RSSB organization, and the sangat or cult.

You can never know what my views and reality was, unless I tell you, but then actually, I have told that.

So now, for you to have the nerve to go and deny MY own personal reality and MY own truth relative to meditation and the RSSB, and then go so far as to assume and say what someone else's initiation and meditation means and implies, only shows how denying and incredibly presumptious YOU are.

You clearly have some sort of problem here Catherine. Otherwise you would never assume, much less claim to know or determine, what someone else's (such as myself) spiritual life and meditation practice was like or about.

You can only determine that for yourself, not for anyone else.

So it is wrong for you to presume to determine what you have about someone else's initiation, someone else's meditation, or what someone else's relationship was to the RSSB cult.

Think about it Catherine. Think about how incredibly foolish and absurd, and what nonsense it is for you to presume to determine what someone else's meditation or relationship to the RSSB was in their own life.

No offense, but I guess I had mistakenly thought that you had a bit more common sense and intelligence than that, but you obviously don't in this particular case.

Because how is it that you presume to know or determine what my meditation practice implied for ME, in relation to the RSSB ???

You are only saying what it was or is for you.


Oooh tAo, you do go on and on. Let's take you out of the picture then.

I like Wikepedia's many definitions of 'cult.' and this variety may be the cause of the confusion here.

Would meditating in a darkened room in the quiet, early hours of the morning, repeating the names of 5 rulers ( names which all correspond to well know sanskrit sounds) of 5 regions ( all unique to Sant Mat and in this case even to RSSB) for two hours or more, with or without darshan, constitute immersion in a cult?

Remember that there is also a vegetarianism and tea-totaling requirement. The seva, socialising and attending of satsang is in fact advisable but not a requirement of the cult.

In deciding, take note that the initiate choses ( or is chosen) to repeat those names which are supposed to be given power by the initiating guru. The meditation is given presidence over all others.

The meditation has to be practised with considerable dedication even if the initate is only curious. The initiate understands also that there may be no result in a lifetime's dedication.

Catherine, you said:

"tAo, [...] Let's take you out of the picture then."

-- But you can't, because I am the one that you were, and are, directing your comment to, and the one you have been making your false assumptions about.

"Would meditating in a darkened room in the quiet, early hours of the morning,"

-- But you see Catherine, what you don't know and understand about me... is that I did lots of meditation "in the quiet, early hours of the morning" when I lived in the Himalayas of northern India and Nepal, and in south India and Sri Lanka, more than a decade before I ever had any contact whatsoever with Sant Mat and RS.

"repeating the names of 5 rulers ( names which all correspond to well know sanskrit sounds) of 5 regions ( all unique to Sant Mat and in this case even to RSSB)"

-- Well, what you don't know and understand about me, is that I had already known and was quite familiar with all those sanskrit syllables, sounds, and mantras, many many years before I ever had anything whatsoever to do with Sant Mat. And btw, they are NOT at all "unique" to Sant Mat. Where do yoi get that idea? From the RSSB CULT? Most likely.

"Would meditating [...] for two hours or more, with or without darshan, constitute immersion in a cult?"

-- As I said before... NO, for me, simply meditating did not "constitute immersion in a cult"... not for me. I did meditation long before I came across RS. Simply doing editation never equated with a cult for me, in my experience. Why should it? Meditation iself has nothing to do with a cult.

"Remember that there is also a vegetarianism and tea-totaling requirement."

-- Well again fyi, (I don't know about YOU but...) I was a vegetarian since 1966. I didn't come into contact with RS until about 1976. I also didn't drink alcohol at all from about 1967 onward. So for me, being that I was already a vegetarianism and non-alcoholic on my own, more than at least 10 years before I ever came in contact with RS, it did not cause me to be part of, or "into" any RS cultism.

You see, all this is precisely why you are so foolish to assume something about someone, such as you have about me, without knowing anything about who you are judging. You knew nothing about me, or about my lifenow or in the past.

What you don't understand is that I was doing all those things that you mentioned above (including meditation), a very long time before I had anything to do with the RS shabd yoga initiation & meditation.

If you had simply asked me, I would have explained that to you. But instead, you jumped to a false and erroneous conclusion.

"The seva, socialising and attending of satsang is in fact advisable but not a requirement of the cult."

-- I rarely, if ever went to any RS satsangs, I did no seva, and no socializing with RS satsangis. I did not participate in the RS sangat.

"In deciding, take note that the initiate choses ( or is chosen) to repeat those names which are supposed to be given power by the initiating guru."

-- That is YOUR belief Catherine, not mine. I never believed any of that. I never needed to believe that kind of nonsense. And the internal mantra is nothing more than common sanskrit syllables/sounds. Those are not exclusive to RS. But apparently you are not aware of all that. The mantras was not unfamiliar to me, nor is it some mysterious or holy or sacred thing. Its just a mantra, used to fixate the attention. Nothing more. Anything other than that is a load of spiritual and mystical hype.

"The meditation is given presidence over all others."

-- The RS meditation is one form of shabd yoga. Nothing more. Yes, RS gives meditation great importance. So what? That does not make meditation itself, cultish. Cultish is all related to the RSSB organization, the sangat, and the dogma... not meditation. I don't know where or how you got this ridiculous idea that simple shabd yoga meditation equals cultism. There are other forms of shabd yoga meditation. Fyi, RS doesn't have any exclusive monopoly on shabda yoga or meditation. Are you not aware of that?

"The meditation has to be practised with considerable dedication even if the initate is only curious."

-- Again, I had practiced meditation with great dedication years and years before ever contacting RS. So for me, meditation had and has absolutley nothing to do with any cult, including RSSB.

"The initiate understands also that there may be no result in a lifetime's dedication."

-- That is noyhing more than RSSB dogma. I don't follow or accept that notion. I never have. In fact, telling people that they may have to wait until a furture life=timer is misleading and is a type of manipulative tactic used by cults to keep people in bondage to the cult.

Whatever you are going to do, you had better damn well do it in THIS HERE AND NOW life-time. There may be no other, no future lifetime. Don't bank on furure lifetimes. Thats bullshit of the worst kind.

Anyway... I think you need to wake up and realize that other people (like me) are not always going to be the same as you. That is the mistake you have made here... thinking that you can say what someone elses reality is. I am very different from whatever you seem to think I am. So I hope this has opened your eyes and your mind a little. Try not to make assumpotions about other people that you don't know.


If I may come in here, and reading both Catherine and tAo comments, it is clear that different people have different view of what is and what is not a cult. Catherine is not assuming tAo did or did not act or believe in any particular way, in fact she is very careful to use the words 'if' and 'may', but falling back to Brians rules and guidelines, at least one non-personal aspect of this discussion is whether quiet meditation every day, according to the instructions given by an RSSB guru, constitutes being a cult member?
If this is considered to be a cult member, then is it that time spent in meditation falls into cult category, or is it that the type of meditation justifies cult status.

When we use words, we should all be clear about the intended meaning. It is perfectly valid to be cautious of cults in the sense that they can be destructive, so it is therefore important to recognise what behaviour constitutes cult classification.

tAo, do you consider sitting in a quiet room alone, repeating names, as being cult like behaviour? If so, then how many names would relinquish cult status, because sitting alone reading a book might also be a cult, if the words in the book were repetitive.
If you dont consider quiet regular meditation as being of cult status, then I think you have misunderstood Catherine, because I suspect this is what she is saying.

Naresh, thanks for the objectivity. I am, however, not saying that all forms of meditating make a meditator a cult member.

Sant Mat meditation is loaded with belief in dogma and this makes a person practising it a cult member. The dogma can be seen in the following- initiate; 5 regions, silent repetition, secret sanskrit words, 2,5 hrs solitary meditation, the mudra, initiation by a perfect living guru, the guru's power behind the words, the light and sounds that might be heard on the journey, only a vegetarian or seeing person can be initiated; the royal highway etc.

There are however many types of meditation that do not connect people to cults.

Anyway, what's wrong with being a cult member for a while at least? Some of my best friends are bl... er, cult members.

As an aside,and almost completely off the track, but refering to previous posts, I have never met a haughty Sant Mat sevadar- they've always been genuinely helpful and they have been good for themselves and me.

If anyone has any information on the sanskrit words, where they first originated from, what their track has been and anything else, I would be interested.

Brian I would also be interested to read the post that you were intending to write on how religious people use metaphor fairly prolifically.

It would be interesting to note what exactly these haughty churchless cult members classify exactly as a 'cult' I mean where does 'religion', 'sect', 'cult', 'group', 'church', 'following', 'association', 'gathering', 'congregation', etc. begin or end?

far as I can make out, this little sect, cult, gathering, church, thingy majiggy you got going here is far more cultish than say RSSB, or any system of self evaluation or internal meditation.

I mean there are members here who brazenly decree they follow tenets and doctrines of Taoism, Advaita, Yoga, Tai Chi, Dogzchen, etc. etc. etc., what makes such cultish behaviour any better or any worse than someone following the precepts of a sytem as designated by a line of living teachers rather than dead ones. Far as I make out, its the reverse situation these drums are being banged about around here, its these Taoist, Dogzchen, Tai Chi, Buddhist, Yoga, Hari Krishna disciples here that are cult followers, not those that follow the precepts and teachings of living teachers who are still alive today.


I say Catherine is incorrect, where is the dogma in repeating say 5 sanskrit words as a mode of meditative concentration by which to attune your wayward mind towards centripital concentrated elevated energetic force of nature as is designated by a living teacher?

Explain which set of principles denoted by any one of the great teachings of yesteryear, whether Taoism, Buddhism, Hare Krishna - Hinduism, Sikhism, Sufism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, or for that matter modern Science, defers to 'truth', or where do you now align your set of dogmatic and personal affiliations or principles to?

If you have no affiliation to anything whatsoever, which leaves you entirely in a void of no being, no understanding, or no realization, well and good, but it still does not leave you in any position whatsoever whereby to judge and determine the spiritual or for that matter 'cult' status of any other following you have yet to understand or realize within yourself.


"If you have no affiliation to anything whatsoever, which leaves you entirely in a void of no being, no understanding, or no realization, well and good, but it still does not leave you in any position whatsoever whereby to judge and determine the spiritual or for that matter 'cult' status of any other following you have yet to understand or realize within yourself."

---Positions of judgement can exist in a Blog. Determining the spiritual status of a following (imo) is totally groovy. So what's wrong with understanding and realizing something on the outside of me?

Catherine, you ask for origins of the sanskrit words used in RSSB meditation, what are these words?
Brian, you have been initiate for many years, would you please publish these 5 words used in RSSB meditation, it would be most informative

I found the 5 words, a few years back, thru an Internet search. These words, my understanding are to be kept confidential. A no-no to reveal. Do a search and find yourself.

Its not always possible to believe what is on the internet. I thought, given Brians knowledge, he would be willing to divulge this information here on this blog, I am sure he is no longer supporting RSSB and in interests of discussion, we could call upon the wider knowledge of this blog members to perhaps find origins, even perhaps why these words have been chosen?

Catherine, thanks for reminding me about my intention to write a post about metaphors in religiosity and spirituality. My intent is to do that later today.

Naresh-D, I wrote a blog post about the Five Holy Names a few years ago:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2007/08/sant-mats-five-.html

This will give you a good start toward your own research in this subject, as Roger suggested.

".....we could call upon the wider knowledge of this blog members to perhaps find origins, even perhaps why these words have been chosen?"

---As a narrower knowledge type, I am insulted. Damn to you wider types. Damn you all.

Roger, sometimes "wide knowledge" can be like modeling. A size zero is more attractive than someone who has a lot of bulk on her (if she still has curves in the right places, of course). So strut your skinniness with pride.

To all:

"...the 5 holy names, jot niranjan, onkar [or "Omkar"], rarankar, sohung [or "Sohang"], sat nam..." are cited thereby.

Robert Paul Howard

Robert,

Will you be requesting an Internet search fee?

Dear Roger,

No.

But I fail to see the desirability for all the pussyfooting about facts that has been shown with regard to these mere words.

Robert Paul Howard

LOL

Robert, good point.

True, there is much "pussy" footing with the facts and words.

Naresh-D said:

"at least one non-personal aspect of this discussion is whether quiet meditation every day, according to the instructions given by an RSSB guru, constitutes being a cult member?"

-- Naresh, that WAS Catherine's main contention. That is what she has been claiming. But as I have said several times now, I myself DO NOT at all agree with that... especially NOT in my own case. I can not speak for other people, but I can speak for myself. MY meditation pratice had nothing to do with "being a cult member". No one can say that that claim applies to me. It doesn't, and it didn't. So you guys can keep on debating this and mincing words, but none of it applies to me. I have already said wher I was at with my meditation reltive to the RSSB cult. And in my case, there was no connection. Period. So please take me out of this debate. You guys are talking about the majority of RS satsangis. I was never part of the majority. And this IS my point, in my own case. So go on discussing it if you like, but please don't stick this claim of Catherine's upon me. Catheine's contention that meditation somehow equals cult involvement, has nothing to with me.


"If this is considered to be a cult member, then is it that time spent in meditation falls into cult category, or is it that the type of meditation justifies cult status."

-- Like I said, that is Catheine's contention, but it doesn't apply to me. It could very well apply to others though. I have already made my position in this very clear.


"tAo, do you consider sitting in a quiet room alone, repeating names, as being cult like behaviour?"

-- No. Many people use all sorts of mantras in spiritual practices and meditation. Very little if any of it has anything to do with cults. People have been using mantras and doing meditation for thousands of years. Meditation and mantras are not a cult phenomenon.


"If so, then how many names would relinquish cult status, because sitting alone reading a book might also be a cult, if the words in the book were repetitive."

-- Why do you say "If so", when I have already clearly stated my position on this in a number of my posted comments? Have you not read what I have said over the past week or two? Also, I don't think reading a book, any book or books, equals being in a cult. Readin is simply reading. This sort oof thinking that I see going on here lately regarding meditation as eveidence of being in a cult is absolute nonsense, imo.


"If you dont consider quiet regular meditation as being of cult status, then I think you have misunderstood Catherine, because I suspect this is what she is saying."

-- No I don't. Nor have I misunderstood Catherine. You have misunderstood. You say: "this is what she is saying". Saying what?
Catherine has clearly stated that she considers the activity of doing shabd yoga meditation as being indicative and equal to being entrenched in the RSSB cult. I do not, and definitely not in my own case. However, it may be that way for Catherine or for other people, but I can't say. I only know for myself. Doing meditation never, in any way, had anything to do with being in the RSSB cult. I was never a believer or a follower or involved in the cult side of RS. My own meditation had nothing to do with the RSSB organization, sangat, or guru-cult. And I have already said this many times.

And other people have their own individual relationships to the RSSB, but their situations have nothing to do with mine.

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


Catherine said:

"If anyone has any information on the sanskrit words, where they first originated from, what their track has been and anything else, I would be interested."

-- The Sanskrit language has been around a very very very long time. It has nothing to do with cults. You can research Sanskrit on your own. The point here is that using Sanskrit words and syllables and mantras, does not in any way equal participation and involvement in a cult. So it is absurd and ignorant to assume that it does, imo.

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


kukuri ki dayal (aka Ashy) said:

"these haughty churchless cult members"

-- This blog is NOT any cult. It is is simply a blog, which btw, YOU are posting comments on too, not just other people. Its just an internet blog-site. Nothing more.


"this little sect, cult, gathering, church, thingy majiggy you got going here is far more cultish than say RSSB"

-- Wrong.... see my comment above.


"there are members here who brazenly decree they follow tenets and doctrines of Taoism, Advaita, Yoga, Tai Chi, Dogzchen, etc."

-- I can not speak for others, but I myself do NOT "follow" any such "tenets" or "doctrines" of any of those. I do not "follow tenets" or "doctrines" of any sort.


"what makes such cultish behaviour any better or any worse than someone following the precepts of a sytem as designated by a line of living teachers rather than dead ones."

-- Well that is somewhat incorrect. Because those that you mentioned (Taoism, Advaita, Yoga, Tai Chi, and Dzogchen) DO have living teachers. That is well known. So I don;t know where you get this erroneous idea that the teachers of those paths are all "dead". You are obviously not informed.


"its these Taoist, Dogzchen, Tai Chi, Buddhist, Yoga, Hari Krishna disciples here that are cult followers"

-- Again, I simply can not speak for others, I can only speak for myself... and I myself am NOT a "disciple" nor any sort of "cult follower" of any of those. I am NOT a "disciple" of anyone, nor a "follower" of anything.


"not those that follow the precepts and teachings of living teachers who are still alive today"

-- I wouldn't know what "precepts and teachings of living teachers" other people follow. I am sure that some do, but that doesn't concern me.


"Explain which set of principles denoted by any one of the great teachings of yesteryear, whether Taoism, Buddhism, Hare Krishna - Hinduism, Sikhism, Sufism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, or for that matter modern Science, defers to 'truth'"

-- What? They all have attempted to point towards some so-called "truth" in their various ways and fashions. But what is this supposed "truth" that YOU speak of??


"If you have no affiliation to anything whatsoever, which leaves you entirely in a void of no being, no understanding, or no realization,"

-- Huh? What? I don't have any "affiliation", and yet I am certainly not in any such "void of no being". And what do you mean by "realization"??

Conclusion: It appears that you have a lot of erroneous ideas about other people, that have abslutley no basis in fact or reality.


Catherine,
17 sept 06:51; You wrote:
"As an aside,and almost completely off the track, but refering to previous posts, I have never met a haughty Sant Mat sevadar- they've always been genuinely helpful and they have been good for themselves and me."

All I can say is, Are you kidding me? We are not living in the same world at all.

I have in RSSB since childhood. The changes I have seen are so extreme that I cannot recognise it as the same movement.

Back then all satsangs were tape recordings of Charan Singh - no live speakers. Satsangis were actually real friends with each other and there was very little politics, unlike today.

However, my real point is this. You say "no haughty sevadars..." ? In my personal experience nothing could be further from the truth.

In my experience most of them are on a power trip. Their normal logic goes out the window because they think they are sevadars of the living God.

One example: I went to Haynes Park (UK) are a national bhandara. I was simply walking and did not realise that I was on the wrong side of a 'rope'. The sevadar said "can you please go back and come back on the other side of the rope?
At first I thought he was joking. Then I realised he was serious. I was going to just start laughing. "How will it help you?" I asked. "I am already here now. If I go back 12 feet and walk the other side of this rope - why is that important?"
"Which centre are you from?" was his response. "Centre? - I have no centre!" I replied. "I am my own centre!" I added just to confuse the heck out of him. I then walked on. He stopped me. "Please come back and walk on the other side." He said.

"If I walk on the other side - it is not going to make any difference to anything." I said and walked on. This is one example of the "Do as I say" mentality without any logic. I could give many other examples.
It all happens it the name of discipline. Sevadars in my opinion are mostly cult members who think that they are serving the master i.e. their God and will go to great lengths to do their so-called duty. Most of them also have no compassion - they are RSSB machines. You can replace them with a robot and nobody would know the difference.

Robert Paul Howard,
I hereby serve notice on you that by revealing the words here you have now taken on the karma of all the blog members and anyone else who may hear the words from them at any time in the future....

Just kidding. But it would be an interesting notice to serve on someone - maybe Sat Purush would serve the notice personally. At least you get to see the legendary dude - the highest being in creation.


Catherine wrote: "Take note that the initiate choses to repeat those names which are supposed to be given power by the initiating guru. The meditation is given presidence over all others. The meditation has to be practised with considerable dedication even if the initate is only curious. The initiate understands also that there may be no result in a lifetime's dedication."

When one first comes across RSSB or Sant Mat - the intention is clear - the seeker is seeking God / Enlightenment etc. RSSB appears to promise to get you there through the vehicle of the Living Master. It all seems really simple.

So - you join and sign on the dotted line. congratulation on being a member of RSSB. Welcome to the cult. You are now granted full cult-status but it would be helpful to your spiritual progress if you become a sevadar. So - again you sign up. After all - it's best to do every that helps.

This is how members get sucked in to spend decades of their life in service. And for what? They have even forgotten the original reason the joined! Then the are told that even after a lifetime there is no guarantee of a result.

Hello? I thought this was sold as a science. Now suddenly everything changes. And then - you realise that it is so difficult to follow that nobody actually succeeds. I mean you have to be beyond lust, anger, greed, attachment and pride.

Well - guess what? If you were beyond those - you would no longer be a member of the human race. You would be some kind of emotionless robot.

The words - are SUPPOSED to have some great power - because they are given by the Master. And that is why it takes over a lifetime to get to Sach Khand? What kind of amazing power do these words hold? Surely quite a few people would have arrived at the destination by now.

Oh yes - I forgot - they HAVE arrived - but they are not allowed to TELL. Hmmm... so you know that person that you spoke to who appeared to be so humble and said he had made no progress after a three decades of intense meditation. Guess what? He's probably Sat Purush's right hand man. Better go and keep his company and get a few tips from him.

I have a whole new slant on Sant Mat. The words don't have any power. It is all nonsense. Sant Mat has missed the point. The words of a REALIZED person DO carry power - meaning that they are spoken from his truth. This is what it really means when it says that the words carry power.

When a REALIZED person speaks - it is not the same as someone speaking who has just read books and knows lots of theory. This is what it is supposed to mean when sant mat says the words of the master/guru are charged with his power.

Sant mat - has taken many principles of spirituality and given them a different meaning and they is why there are no results.

For example - in my opinion NAAM is not some sound you hear. NAAM is actually REALIZATION of truth. You can hear the words (varnatmik) or you can realize (dhunatmik).

A completely different way to view what the real teachings behind sant mat are! Take a look at www.Tinyurl.com/SantMat (links to the blog)

Sant Mat has taken many ideas from other religions and then created a new belief system - which judging from results - does not work very well. You know a tree by looking at the fruit it produces. What does sant mat produce? What kind of people?

Osho, I really have to agree with you.

Santmat/RS has now become all about worshiping the outer form, not the spirit.

A true sage's speech has wisdom and power. Mere parroted words, mantras, etc have no power. They are hollow and empty. If people follow empty words and books and gurus who are not sages, they remain asleep, following mere empty form and pseudo gurus.

This is the case with RS. The followers of RS are merely going through the motions. Thats why their efforts of enre lives achieve nothing. They are caught up in an empty facade. Their master has no realization or true wisdom, so his words have no power. The mantra and its repetition has no power. The dogma has no power. Even in the meditation, they are not aware or awake. It's all for naught. They are lost in a dream.

Their master cannot awaken them because the perpetuation of the cult depends on their continued belief and participation. The cult is a trap. So they are all trapped, including the master. There is nothing in RS that will awaken them. It all has to leave them for awakening to occur. And then finally... after all that... there is only THIS. Tat Tvam Asi

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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

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

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

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

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

Your Information

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

Welcome


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