« 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.

"When a REALIZED person speaks - it is not the same as someone speaking who has just read books and knows lots of theory."

hmmm, see that is where i disagree with all of you, i don't believe such perfected ppl actually exist, regardless of belief system, i don't believe any single human being has all the answers, or know the Truth or knows reality.

It is possible that such a 'realized' person exists, the same as it is possible that god exists, but there is no evidence for it at all.

No person is my master. I will listen to the viewpoint of any person, and they may indeed know more or less on a particular topic, regardless of that, what they say is not fact or truth, merely their own opinion

Robert Ornstein provides some compelling arguments as to why certain mystical experiences might exist.

Ornstein argued that our consciousness is merely a model of reality, an imperfect one, which i agree with. He then distingsuished between a 'normal' consciousness (learnt or experienced through the physical senses) and a more raw basic instinctual consciousness.

He believed our 'normal' consciousness was learned and hence could be unlearned and the mind trained or program to focus more on experiencing reality through our more basic instictual consiousness. The latter presumably being the self-realized state of nonduality or oneness that most mystic traditions aspire to.

Perhaps rather than a dinstinction between a learned and instictual consciousness, we all have varying and complex combinations of a spectrum of these. Perhaps our most basic emotions, insticts and intuitions developed first, like our animal brethren, but as man evolved so did his consciousness towards a more intellectual or learned approach. Its the intellect, which appears to have lifted us to the top of the food chains, despite our relatively puny bodies and weak instics. Thus, it seems unsuprising that our strongest trait appears to dominate our modern human consciousness.

I think its possible ppl (mystics) have learnt to train or still their minds to supress or pierce the intellectual consciousness, but there are probably degrees to having done so. Just as someone who has only experienced normal consciousness cannot begin to fathom the supposed 'realized' consiousness, so i would argue the 'realized' person has no reference system to understand how realized they actually are.

However, it remains speculation, since there is no evidence to confirm a person is realised or not, or how realised they are, or what being realized actually means and how accurately such realisations accurately mimcik reality OR whether it is an entirely false psychosis created by the mind.


George,

I notice you often take peoples words and put a spin on them according to your conditioning, beliefs and assumptions. I do not mean to say this unkindly. Most of us do this at times. I am just suggesting that you watch out for this tendency.

As an example:

Osho wrote: "When a REALIZED person speaks - it is not the same as someone speaking who has just read books and knows lots of theory."

and you responded: "hmmm, see that is where i disagree with all of you, i don't believe such perfected ppl actually exist, regardless of belief system, i don't believe any single human being has all the answers, or know the Truth or knows reality."

---Osho did not say a realized person is perfect or has all the answers. Knowing truth or reality does not necessarily imply perfection or omniscience. It may simply be the recogniton of who we are (or are not) in the ever unfolding present moment, and thus their words come from a personal, living perspective rather than just rote.


Tucson,

I do not misquote ppl, i take phrases exactly as they are. It might be my intepretation is different to their intended meaning or YOUR interpretation, but that can be said for anyone.

If you are looking for a return to the Tao intepretation argument, we can do so, since i am not taking a step back on that issue. That was very clear imo.

My point here was to examine exactly what a so-called 'REALIZED' person actually is. Its totally vague and open to interpretation you see. As such, i tried to flesh it out as to what it could mean. You will notice I purposefully did not even mention Osho's name in reference to the comment, since its not he I wanted to attack, rather its the general point on REALIZATION i wanted to clearly understand. Do you understand?

On your point that a realised person may not have all the answers, rather he may simply be the recogniton of who we are. He may be, and he may not be. My point is what makes him any more realized than anyone else, other than him saying he is so. And more precisely, what is the mechanism by which he can claim to be be more realised as to who 'we' actially are? What happens if he is in fact, psychotically deluded, and has not realised anything, or indeed what has been realised is false and not a representation of reality or our true natures?

You see i have a problem with terms that cry out for a whole bunch of interpretations, where some simply assume them to be self-evidently true, i have no such conditioning, i prefer to question everything, to see exactly who has been conditioned. Indeed, reasoning and logic were the very cornerstones of western enlightement, i.e. the science and rational thinking of the 18th century to our modern day.

Perhaps, the person of reason is the 'REALIZED' one, not the one of faith or learning? Or perhaps there's a bit of each which contributes to the truth, which no-one has?

George, I have to agree with tucson. You equated "realized" with "perfect." But that was your addition to Osho's comment. Actually Osho said:

"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."

When I read those words I thought of my Tai Chi teacher, or my ballroom dance instructor. Their words carry more weight because they are skilled in the activities they are talking about. Someone who has only watched videos or read books about Tai Chi/ballroom dance isn't going to sound as convincing.

How much does a REALIZED person need words? Do words and sentences help a REALIZED person? Would silence be more in line with a REALIZED person. Maybe, maybe not.

Osho had written:

"When a REALIZED person speaks - it is not the same as someone speaking who has just read books and knows lots of theory."


George then responded:

"that is where i disagree with all of you, i don't believe such perfected ppl actually exist, [...] i don't believe any single human being has all the answers, or know the Truth or knows reality."

-- This is a clear and obvious example of how George typically misinterprets and confuses what other people write. And then consequently he implies that they said someting that they did not say or mean. He has chaged Osho's point here entirely. Osho simply said " when a realized person speaks". Osho did NOT say anything about "perfected ppl". George has. Osho said absolutely nothing about being "perfected". George has tanken Oshos simpple statement and put his own spin on it, which has nothing to do with what Osho said or the meaning behind what Osho said. George does this fairly often. And it ends up creating quite a bit of resulting unnecessary argument. In the is case George has actually replaced Osho's term "realized person" with a totally different term and idea: that of "perfected ppl". But there was no implication here on the part of Osho about anything concerning "perfected". This is the problem. In George's mind, "realized" indicates "perfected". But it does not mean that at all. The term "realized" has nothing to do with perfection or "perfected". It means awakened


You see, this problem occurs when people (like George) do not stick to the simple facts. They do noot stick to what someone else (in this case Osho) have written. The "facts" in this case were that Osho simply said "realized". He did NOT say "perfected". Not even close. Osho said "realized". Yet George went and inserted his own meaning and term ("perfected ppl") into this, implying that that is what Osho meant, when in fact Osho neither said "perfected", nor meant "perfected" at all.

And then as we can see, George then launched into a totally different argument based soley upon George's own false and mistaken interpretation/assumption and his insertion of a different term and meaning, namely that of "perfected ppl". But Osho didn't say "perfected ppl". Osho was simply talking about realization, not perfection. George's argument about perfection or "perfected" may indeed be valid, BUT, in this case it has absolutley nothing to do with what Osho actually said.

And as many of us have observed over time, George does this sort of thing fairly often. George's deviation from the facts of what other people actually say, and their actual words, has caused quite a bit of misunderstanding and conflict here for no other reason than George's tendency of putting his own words (and ideas) into other people's mouths, that they did NOT say or write.

That all having been pointed out, I will go on to briefly address the rest of what George has written in response to Osho and Tucson....


George went on to say:

"It is possible that such a 'realized' person exists, the same as it is possible that god exists, but there is no evidence for it at all."

-- This comment is obviously based upon George's own interpretation of what a "realized person" means. Realized is not a claim that anyone has made here. All that was said (by Osho) was: "When a REALIZED person speaks - it is not the same as someone speaking who has just read books and knows lots of theory." Osho isn't claiming that he or anyone in particular is realized. He is simply saying that what differentiates someone who has 'realization' (and that can be various things such as clarity, insight, deep understanding, wisdom, awakening, self-knowledge, or what have you)... is that (the "realized person") doesn't derive their understanding or insight from mere books or theories or doctines. They derive their understanding from their own direct experience and insight. That was all that Osho was saying, and noot anyting about perfection or being "perfected".


"the viewpoint of any person, and they may indeed know more or less on a particular topic, regardless of that, what they say is not fact or truth, merely their own opinion"

-- But no one has argued against that. So why be so defensive?


"Robert Ornstein provides some compelling arguments as to why certain mystical experiences might exist."

-- OK fine, but lets be clear... nobody here has ever said that mystical experiences do not "exist". No one in this discussion group has evr said or implied (to my knowledge) that people have not had mystical experiences. Brian hasn't, Tucson hasn't, Osho hasn't, I haven't, and I don't know of anyone else here that has ever said that mystical experiences don't exist, or that people do not have them.


"Just as someone who has only experienced normal consciousness cannot begin to fathom the supposed 'realized' consiousness, so i would argue the 'realized' person has no reference system to understand how realized they actually are."

-- Yes, that may indeed be a valid point.

"However, it remains speculation, since there is no evidence to confirm a person is realised or not, or how realised they are, or what being realized actually means"

-- There is no evidence, other than perhaps the insight, understanding, or wisdom that the so-called "realized" person expresses and shares with others. But you see, evidence is not the issue here, unless of course someone says and makes a direct claim that they ARE "realized". No eveidence is need if we are simply discussing the subject of 'realization'. Which is all that Osho was doing.

"Tucson, I do not misquote ppl, i take phrases exactly as they are."

-- No George, you don't "take phrases exactly as they are". You did not do that in this case... as I have shown and explained at length above. You said "perfected ppl". Osho said "realized". There is a significant difference.

"It might be my intepretation is different to their intended meaning or YOUR interpretation"

-- Your 'interpretation was OBVIOUSLY "different". But thats the problem. And it has nothing to do with Tucson's interpretation. It has to do with what Osho actually said and WROTE. Osho wrote "REALIZED person"... NOT "perfected ppl". So yes, your interpretation of "REALIZED" was different. But thats the whole point. Osho dis NOT say "perfected", he said "realized". And there's the rub. In a sense, you put words (and meanings) into Osho's mouth that he did not say or mean.

"If you are looking for a return to the Tao intepretation argument, we can do so, since i am not taking a step back on that issue. That was very clear imo."

-- Yes, it was and it is clear, that you choose to continue to misunderstand and misrepersent my position, even long after I have explained my position at great length. This is yet another example of how YOU deliberately misrepresent other people, and what the mean.

"My point here was to examine exactly what a so-called 'REALIZED' person actually is."

--Then you should have simply said THAT, instead of going into this whole "perfected ppl" thing.


"Its totally vague and open to interpretation you see."

-- No it was NOT vague or open to interpretation. Osho clearly said: "a REALIZED person". He did NOT say anything about: "perfected ppl".


"i tried to flesh it out as to what it could mean."

-- Then you should have made that clear to begin with, instead of

"a realised person [...] My point is what makes him any more realized than anyone else, other than him saying he is so."

-- But no one is denying that question.


"what is the mechanism by which he can claim to be be more realised"

-- Who is claiming this?


"i prefer to question everything"

-- Fine, but at least confine your questioning annd skepticism to what other people actually SAY and write.


George,

Here is the answer to all of your questions, and your misunderstandings, and your misinterpreations, and... and... and...

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


George wrote: "My point is what makes him any more realized than anyone else, other than him saying he is so."

---Nothing. You're right. No one can know what he knows, or if he knows it, but him. Even if she shouts it from the rooftops.

"And more precisely, what is the mechanism by which he can claim to be be more realised as to who 'we' actially are? What happens if he is in fact, psychotically deluded, and has not realised anything, or indeed what has been realised is false and not a representation of reality or our true natures?"

---Absolutely correct. These are questions one is confronted with when considering a guru, path or religion, and there is no answer.

"Perhaps, the person of reason is the 'REALIZED' one, not the one of faith or learning?"

---Realization is said to be direct comprehension or understanding. It is not faith because it IS known, but only by the entity that knows it.

So, if we want to know it, to recognize it, if there is anything to be known or recognized, we are totally on our own to discover it. All we can do is follow our best instincts, and those instincts may lead us to a certain religion or teacher who APPEARS to know the truth, keeping in mind that at some point we may discover that was not the case at all.

George said: "Perhaps, the person of reason is the 'REALIZED' one, not the one of faith or learning?"

-- I'm all for reason, always have been. So I don't really see why you mention this. I do agree that reason is superior to faith. But that leads me to my next point: Who (on this blog) said that realization or being "realized" has anything to do with "faith or learning". The only folks here that cme close to that are the believers who claim or imly that having faith is the way to realization or enlightenment. Namely the people that claim that having "faith" in the master or guru leads to realization. But I haven't ever said that, nor have the other so-called non-believers here that I know of. I have never indicated that realization comes from "faith or learning". So then yes, I would generally have to agree with you when you say: "the person of reason is the 'REALIZED' one, not the one of faith or learning". Bit I would also say that realization is more than just reason. As Tucson said and pointed out, it is more along the lines of: "Realization is said to be direct comprehension or understanding. It is not faith because it IS known, but only by the entity that knows it." And thats how I see it too.

But then this leads me to my next point, which I will address in a subsequent separately posted comment, which will proceed after this one... so stay tuned.


You guys seem intent on trying to salvage some pride after a few reputations were left in tatters, and wish to continue the old argument, so let me repeat it:

Tao made 3 statements:
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.

If you dispute any of these statements, let me know which one and i will provide Tao's exact wording as support thereof.

These statements are logically inconsistent, they cannot all be correct. One must be incorrect, if thay incorrectness was deliberately intended, then that is what is known as lying.

The only interpretations imported were by you guys (and they were also inconcistent), who decided on what initiated 'actually' meant, i.e. meditation only, which is a total and utter distortion.

Then Tucson decided that i was putting words into Tao's mouths, i then showed him the relevant Tao quote which made him look slightly foolish, but he compounded matters by then putting Manjit's words into my mouth. LOL.

You guys just will not leave well enough alone. You are dogmatic and you are wrong for the simple reasons i have set out above. By all means lets thrash this horse to oblivion and back.

Osho says: “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.”

--This is a very one-sided viewpoint Osho. I didn’t join “a cult” and I don’t feel the need to be involved in the organization or feel pressured in to doing seva.

--I don’t agree that I was “sucked in” to any thing. I don’t think I have wasted my life and in fact my life has been greatly enriched by being a satsangi. I have not “forgotten the original reason I joined” also “that even after a lifetime there is no guarantee of a result”… I always thought if it takes many lifetimes then so be it.

You say: “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.”

--It seems that this is the problem for a lot of people – that its too difficult to follow. Its not that difficult and I’m not “some kind of emotionless robot”.

You say: “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”.

--Wow, Osho, you sound like a wannabe guru, do you really think you have all the answers?!

“When a REALIZED person speaks - it is not the same as someone speaking who has just read books and knows lots of theory”.

--Osho, I’d like to know what exactly do YOU mean by “REALIZED” and also do you know anyone who is “REALIZED”?

"Realization is said to be direct comprehension or understanding."

--I like this, however, what does "understanding" mean? Tucson or Tao write a comment on such, if you desire.

I'm not searching for something. I just like the flow of this discussion.

Is it really that simple to have faith in a phenomenon or person? Be it your friend, neighbour or even your life partner. It is a life long exercise. You continue to have faith in a person so long as things are in accordance with your expectations. If they do not, you tend to loose faith.

Faith leads to realization but it can never be a part of realization. e.g. I realize that my journey would be fine if I have faith in my driver. Any explanation would be inadequate here that those who have the capacity to reason are the ones who can develop unshakable faith in a person/phenomen etc.,

I wrote: "Realization is said to be direct comprehension or understanding."

and roger said: "I like this, however, what does "understanding" mean?"

--The word "understanding" is not very satisfactory in the context I was using it.
To me, realization is more like "getting it". It is sort of like suddenly getting a riddle or joke. But it is not exactly like getting a riddle or joke because that is accomplished via reasoning.

Realization is not a result of reasoning. It is a 'seeing' how things are when reasoning stops. It just dawns on you and you see from a perspective that sheds light in a different way. Somebody called it a paradigm shift. It is a shift in the perception of subject-object relation. It is a shift from:

"I am an entity and things are other or separate from me."

to:

"I am those things (everything) but 'I' am not."

The actual experiential recognition of this, however, does not contain any 'I' at all. There actually is no 'I' seeing or being seen. There is just This..an immediate presence with no center. The word 'I' is inserted in order to make a sentence and convey an idea, but the idea is never the realization. It is only an indicator, a pointing to what really is meant but can never be said or intellectually grasped.

A good intellectual attempt at explaining this is by Alan Watts in his book "The Book-on the taboo against knowing who you really are". But even after reading this and understanding it intellectually the understanding has to come alive in your own awareness. It's a flip of the switch and the light comes on. Ah-ha! But don't try to grasp it or own it, just let it be as it is.

So, when someone says something like what Jen said above regarding spiritual progress: "I always thought if it takes many lifetimes then so be it."... I always wonder who it is going to happen to.

'I' never was in the first place so how could 'I' die and have another life? 'I' am not even having this one!

Where is this object 'I' that was born and will be born again? Dig deep and try to find it.

Jen,
this is in answer to the questions you pose.

You wrote "I don’t agree that I was “sucked in” to any thing. I don’t think I have wasted my life and in fact my life has been greatly enriched by being a satsangi. I have not “forgotten the original reason I joined” also “that even after a lifetime there is no guarantee of a result”… I always thought if it takes many lifetimes then so be it."

Hmm... maybe so. May I ask, what was the original reason you joined? Was it for mere entertainment (in which case - I think RSSB can be pretty entertaining - so that is fine), or was it to get to Self-realization or God-Realization.

If after a lifetime there is no guarantee of a result - then why would you join? Just curious.

How is your life enriched by being a satsangi. I am not denying it - just asking how.

You wrote: It seems that this is the problem for a lot of people – that its too difficult to follow. Its not that difficult and I’m not “some kind of emotionless robot”.

So you have overcome lust anger greed attachment and pride? Well done. I'll send you a medal.

You wrote "Wow, Osho, you sound like a wannabe guru, do you really think you have all the answers?!"

Maybe I am a guru - you want to be my first disciple? I have pondered over sant mat for many years and I can see how the teachings can easily be interpreted differently and then they make sense. I am simply sharing this. Does that make me a guru? Not in the sense you take the word.

I followed many sant mat gurus in the past. After that, I went to some realized people and they turned all the concepts upside down and helped me to see that everything I used to believe was all nonsense.

I now laugh at myself and how I used to follow sant mat. I was serious - I wanted to get to Sach Khand and sit with Sat Purush and have a cup of tea with Him and talk about old times. I was so full of concepts.

So now what is different? Now it has all become clear - I have dropped the idiotic concepts that I used to hold so dear. I have no faith and belief because they keep you blind. Truth does not require faith or belief. Rather it requires you to be bold enough to drop your faith.

George DOUBTS. Manish BELIEVES. Both are in the range of the mind. Belief and doubt are both two sides of the same coin. When you realize the coin is counterfeit - they both drop. Now you NEITHER believe NOR doubt. Truth is NOT a belief. So I don't care if someone DOUBTS me or BELIEVES me. Both are blind.

Truth requires you to be OPEN (which is not the same as believing - which is a closed state).

What do I mean by REALIZED? Suppose you are CONFUSED then someone says something and the penny drops and you say "Ohhh... now I get it - I just realised what you have been saying all this time...."

That is realisation. In self-realization - it means you realize who you really are - that as a THEORY - not as something you read or something that the Guru taught you - not as Advaita because you self sant mat and became an Advaita follower. That is just another trap.

I am saying - come out of the trap totally - come out of the mind. Never mind the mind. I am not even saying use reason. Even forget reason and logic. What makes you think reason works in the world of ONE? Truth is beyond reason. Someone who wants logic will never find truth because he is looking with the mind and the mind cannot find truth.

Why? because mind is unable to grasp truth - it thrives on doubt and belief. Mind always looks from a distance. Truth requires you to take a leap and jump in the water. Mind just wants to stand and watch and question forever. What if... what if... what if....

Maybe I am psychotic and disfunctional and deluded and have not reached the HIGHEST state of enlightenment. So frigging what? Maybe... and maybe not... Whose the judge and jury? There is none. How will I ever know for sure? I am no interested in knowing for sure because that is the mind seeking certainly. There is none and I have embraced uncertainty.

By the way - I also say there is no such thing as enlightenment. Now - all you logicians - have a field day with this post and find all the hundreds of contradictions the prove A and B and C. I also embrace contradiction.

I am just a person and something has CLICKED for me. I am on a journey. Do I have all the answers? No - but I have stopped seeking answers because all questions are absurd. No questions - no answers. Maybe that is silence.

at www.tinyurl.com/SantMat - I have just presented a new way to understand some of the concepts of sant mat. maybe they had a different meaning in the early days.

Just another way of looking at sant mat.

Jen,

"Osho, I’d like to know what exactly do YOU mean by “REALIZED” and also do you know anyone who is “REALIZED”?"

Spot on, exactly, right to the heart of it. That is exactly what i would like to know, but in addition i also want to know based on what evidence is a person REALIZED and just how realized is such a person?

i understand a person who is REALIZED thinks he/she gets it, or thinks they've had a paradigm shift, or thinks something has dawned on them - but what is the evidence for this?

There was an article on blind faith recently, but this is precisely what you require for anyone else to accept the claim of a 'REALIZED' person.

Osho,

"George DOUBTS. Manish BELIEVES."
- and you forgot to add 'Osho REALIZES', which is also in the mind.

Moreover, i don't solely doubt, i also believe, the difference is that i doubt or believe based on reason and evidence. Blind faith and the REALIZED are all based on conditioning, reason is not, it follows the evidence, previously held views are overturned, that is what the western enlightenment was all about.

Osho

"So I don't care if someone DOUBTS me or BELIEVES me. Both are blind."

- LOL, Good, because i don't believe you.
But i am happy for you to believe what you want, but the issue arises when you argue that a 'REALISED' person knows more than someone else, because i will want to know what that means and what the evidence is for this to see if there is any validity to the statement, other than your personal belief. There is none, and in fact it is this sort of thinking which is blind.

There's a difference between being open-minded and being so open minded that your brain falls out and you believe in every self-proclaimed guru or messiah bounding naked down the street with microphone announcer in hand.

Besides, I don't believe anyone know the Truth, or what the truth is, and moreover it seems to me there are varying degrees of truth.



Just as the rational scientific view is used to expose these so-called cults like RS, so it must be applied to the realized nondualists.

After all, Brian posted that whole article on the dangers of blind faith, and now you want us to accept your claims are valid based purely on that, blind faith.

Something is very rotten in the state of Denmark.

George wrote: "i understand a person who is REALIZED thinks he/she gets it, or thinks they've had a paradigm shift, or thinks something has dawned on them - but what is the evidence for this?"

--There is no evidence of it except to one who realizes it. There is nothing to demonstrate. Yet it is obvious to them.

All we know is that there are individuals who deliberately teach or convey tacitly via their attitude, words and actions that there is realization, awakening or whatever you want to call something that has no description or name.

We may or may not be attracted to what they have to offer. They may be deluded or not. We may think they are on to something but we have no way of knowing for sure. Outwardly, objectively it's a crap shoot.

The reason for this is that realization is not an objective thing. For instance, a person can't show you their ACTUAL feeling of happiness or sadness. They can only indicate that via behaviour, outward proclamations and descriptions which could be a ruse or delusion.

We are alone and absolutely helpless in this regard. Go into that aloneness and helplessness which is really a plenum of infinite possibility, of infinity itself. Drift into the vasness of it. See what, if anything, is there.

Tucson

Sure, there are many ppl capable of commanding and engaging rhetoric which attracts, indeed most of the cult leaders have precisely this ability. Adolph Hitler was magnetically captivating to his ppl, which were supposedly the most sophisticated nation in the world at the time.

It does not mean that whatever these ppl say or believe or realise is correct, there must be some criteria to judge the validity of their claims.

George,

A Realized person does not require or need your acceptance or belief. In fact if you believe - that is a barrier to your own realization.

Realization is not of the mind. Mind is in a DUAL state - yes/no right/wrong belief/doubt. You say: "I don't solely doubt; I also believe." Doubt and belief are both of the mind.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with that - enjoy it all. I am not even saying that anyone should seek enlightenment - because it is already your nature - there is nothing to seek and the act of seeking just shows and reinforces the ignorance of the seeker.

You wrote; "Blind belief and the REALIZED are all based on conditioning" Says who? Realization is the end of conditioning - it is not based on conditioning. It is a paradigm shift - something happens and you aer never the same again. Of course you continue living an ordinary life too.

In zen they say "Before enlightenment I used to go to the forest and chop wood. After enlightenment I go to the forest and chop wood."

George wrote "But i am happy for you to believe what you want, but the issue arises when you argue that a 'REALISED' person knows more than someone else, because i will want to know what that means and what the evidence is for this to see if there is any validity to the statement, other than your personal belief. There is none, and in fact it is this sort of thinking which is blind."

Who says a Realized person KNOWS more than anyone else? I never said that - A realized person KNOWS LESS. He is not interesting in KNOWING at all. I am not interested in KNOWING. It is the seeker who wants to KNOW more and more.

What evidence is there that someone has realized? There is none that you can use to SEE the enlightenment. There is no absolute proof because there cannot be any objective proof. What kind of proof could you possibly seek, when it is an ORDINARY state.

It is not like in Sant Mat - the Master can apparently do miracles and KNOWS everything and has immense power etc. Which by the way is all nonsense.

You wrote "Besides, I don't believe anyone knows the Truth, or what the truth is, and moreover it seems to me there are varying degrees of truth."

It does not matter what you believe. I am not even talking about belief and knowing. What are verying degrees of truth? Truth is absolute - it is the mind that creates all these varying degrees and measures it and attempts to understand.

It is not the MIND that gets enlightened - it gives up the struggle - and truth emerges - it was already always present but the mind was the barrier. Certainly you cannot think your way to enlightenment because it is not a concept to grasp.

You can easily make a theory of enlightenment - try to understand it. I cannot be understood. At most you can understand the concept.

It is like a man standing by the sea. He can wonder what the water is like. The only way to EXPERIENCE is to jump in. And if someone jumps in - what proof do YOU have that he has experienced? None - you will have to jump in yourself then you will know firsthand or you can stand and talk forever.

George Wrote "After all, Brian posted that whole article on the dangers of blind faith, and now you want us to accept your claims are valid based purely on that, blind faith."

Who said anything about me WANTING anyone to accept my claim. First I have made no claim. Enligthenment is NOT a claim because it is NOT an achievement. I don't HAVE anything - so what can I claim. And who am I to claim? How do you claim when the claimer has disappeared? That is why it is contradictory and your logic will not work.

Tuscon nailed it well : "We may think they are on to something but we have no way of knowing for sure. Outwardly, objectively it's a crap shoot."
There IS NO objective proof - because it is subjective by nature.

George - perhaps you doubt that there is any such thing. That is great - doubt and enjoy the doubting. Nothing wrong in doubting or believing - it is all the mind doing what it does best - trying to understand and grasp the ungraspable. Perhaps one day you will give up - perhaps not. It really does not matter. However, you are right in that you will never find any objective proof because it is impossible. No enlightened person can extract the enlightenment and place it on the table for you to examine but he also does not care in the slightest whether you believe - because even he himself does not believe. Why? there is nothing to believe.

Osho,

I fully agree that it is largely irrelevant as to whether i believe you are REALIZED or not. What is important though is a method for assessing various claims, otherwise how easily do we get taken in by propaganda?

Unlike you i do believe life is a journey and that it is worth seeking some answers even if they are not revealed. I believe this material world is reality and very special.

It may well be there is something unfathomable behind it all, but we don't really know that. Some might claim to have realized or glimpsed the unfathomable, but i would say there is about as much chance of that as there is of a god.

These things may all be quite true, i will keep an openmind and probe for answers, but i'm not going to simply swallow things.

The human brain is the most complex organism in the known universe, it is capable of incredible feats, and self-delusion comes very easily.

My example of nazi germany shows how intelligent ppl were brainwashed and conditioned into accepting concepts that were totally irrational.

One sees this phenomen repeating itself in cult movements and religions too. We are all open to suggestion. I have no doubt that i am prone to the same programming, which is why we need to be ever-vigilant and why the power of reason is such a powerful tool.

How many wars have been fought in the name of science or logic?

there is little doubt in my mind, that were i too join an organisation and repeat mantras for 2 hours a day for 25 years that i would experience something, it is the validity of that experience that i question.

Your track record shows you guys are precisely the right canditates for this type of suggestive programming, since having been initiated, your mind is halfway there already whether you care to admit it or not. You want to believe.

People don't join things they believe are total rubbish, it does not work that way, there are things which appeal and from there the programming starts.

Jen said: "I’d like to know what exactly do YOU mean by “REALIZED” and also do you know anyone who is “REALIZED”?"

George adds: "That is exactly what i would like to know, but in addition i also want to know based on what evidence is a person REALIZED and just how realized is such a person?"

-- Osho and Tucson have already given you some basic explanation of what realization means. And there is no "evidence" needed or required. You can think whatever you wish. Realization is not about evidence. Its not a claim to be proven It can't be proven, except to the one who realizes. Relaization is like direct insight, or awakening. And there is no one with who to prove it TO.


George writes:

"i understand a person who is REALIZED thinks he/she gets it, or thinks they've had a paradigm shift, or thinks something has dawned on them - but what is the evidence for this?"

-- See my comment above.


"blind faith [...] this is precisely what you require for anyone else to accept the claim of a 'REALIZED' person.

-- Where is the claim? There is no "claim". And no one has been asked to "accept" anything. Relization iis for the realizer alone. Its not something to be proven to others. No one asked you to believe anything. The day that realization dawns for YOU (if that ever occurs), you WILL understand. There will be no doubt. But not before.


"you forgot to add 'Osho REALIZES', which is also in the mind."

-- Wrong. Realization is not of the mind.


"i don't solely doubt, i also believe, the difference is that i doubt or believe based on reason and evidence."

-- Realization has nothing to do with "reason and evidence".


"faith and the REALIZED are all based on conditioning"

-- Realization is not like "faith" at all. And realization is not "based on conditioning" at all either. Realization is devoid of, and free of, conditioning.


"reason is not, [...] that is what the western enlightenment was all about."

-- Realization has nothing to do with "reason" or thinking. And "the western enlightenment" is irrelevant to realization.


Osho said: "I don't care if someone DOUBTS me or BELIEVES me. Both are blind."

George responded: "i don't believe you."

-- You don't have to believe. It's not about believing. And no one asked you to believe anyway.


"i am happy for you to believe what you want"

-- Can't you read George? Osho did NOT say that he 'believes' anything. He said that doubters and believers are both blind. He didn't say he was a believer at all. This is the big problem George, you constantly misread people. You don't just read what they say. You put your own spin on it. This is the problem that runs through all your misunderstandings about what other people are saying here. You don't listen to (ie: read) what others are actually saying. You misread and then replace what others have said with your own ideas and words, and then you respond that misinterpreation that YOU have made. Why don't you just simply adhere to what others say, instead of changing and replacing their words and meanings with your own very different ideas? You really have a problem with this George, and everyone else sees it but you. Just stick to what other people actually SAY. Don't try to change it to fit your mistaken interpretations. If you aren;t clear about what they are saying, then ask them to clarify or elaborate. But stop putting words in other people's mouths, misrepresenting and distorting what they have said.


"but the issue arises when you argue that a 'REALISED' person knows more than someone else"

-- This is yet another example George. You keep repeating the same mistake. Osho did NOT SAY (or even imply) that "a 'REALISED' person knows more than someone else".


"because i will want to know what that means and what the evidence is for this to see if there is any validity to the statement, other than your personal belief."

-- He was NOT talking about beliefs George. And there is no evidence necessary, because he didn't ask you to accept or believe anything. Realization isn't about KNOWING or claiming to KNOW anything. Its about dropping all that. Again, you didn't read (you didn't listen) to what Osho actually said. You are stuck in the duality of your own mind. You don't hear what other people actually say.


"There is none [evidence]."

-- Of course there is no eveidence. Its not about "evidence". Its all about realization. You should go study the teachings of some true sages so that you get a better undertanding of what this "realization" really means... because its obvious that you haven't got a clue. But actually Osho has done a pretty good job of explaining it, and Tucson has also explained quite well, and even I explained it to you way back when... but you donlt listen. So go read the teachings of some sages so that you can get at last a basic understanding of what "realization" actually means. Because so far, you just don't get it, and thats causing alot of needless arguement and misunderstanding here.


"it is this sort of thinking which is blind."

-- No George, you are the one who is blind, because you refuse to see and hear what other people are saying.


"There's a difference between being open-minded and being so open minded that your brain falls out and you believe in every self-proclaimed guru or messiah"

-- Here's yet another example. No one here has said to "believe" in any such "self-proclaimed guru or messiah". So you are talking nonsense. Nobody said to believe in a guru or a messiah. YOU are the one who is implying this.


"I don't believe anyone know the Truth, or what the truth is"

-- Again, no one ever said that they "know the Truth". And no one said "what the truth is". People are simply sharing their own views and understandings and insights here. Why do you take everything to be so black and white? Why do you want to piss on everything that other people offer? No one asked you to believe anything. People are simply sharing their own conclusions. And in the case of "realization" its not about providing YOU with evidence. Realization is about waking up from the duality of belief and doubt, of knowledge and ignorance, of self and not-self. But your problem is that you are closed-minded and stuck in your own duality of logic and reason, and so you don't really hear what other people are actually trying to say.


"moreover it seems to me there are varying degrees of truth."

-- But no one has indicated otherwise.


"Just as the rational scientific view is used to expose these so-called cults like RS, so it must be applied to the realized nondualists.'

-- There are no "realized nondulists". There is only that which is always already the case. You either wake-up to it , or you don't. But actually there really is no 'you'. There is just IT. The waking-up is the dropping or falling away of the presumption of 'you'. But that will never be understood by the mind.


"After all, Brian posted that whole article on the dangers of blind faith, and now you want us to accept your claims are valid based purely on that, blind faith."

-- Osho did not ask you to "accept" any "claims. He made no such "claims". Here once again George, you are putting your own spin and distortion and mistaken notions on this, on Osho.


"It does not mean that whatever these ppl say or believe or realise is correct"

-- "Correct" according to WHO? According to YOU George?? How would YOU know what is "correct"??? At best all you can do is to listen and consider what people have to say. But you can't say what is true for them, or what is ultimately "correct". You can only have your own single opinion, which does not, and can not ever invalidate someone else's insight, understanding, or truth. And also, there is no certainty that whatever YOU say or whatever YOU believe is "correct" either.


"there must be some criteria to judge the validity of their claims."

-- Wrong George. He didn't make any claims. He just shared his own personal views in insights.


George said:

"What is important though is a method for assessing various claims, otherwise how easily do we get taken in by propaganda?"

-- Where are the "claims"?? ... Or rather, who made "claims" you are referring to?? People have simply been discussing realization. No one made any claim. So what "claims" are there to assess??

"Unlike you [...] I believe this material world is reality and very special."

-- Osho didn't say that the material world is not real or not special.

"It may well be there is something unfathomable behind it all, but we don't really know that."

-- He didnlt say that there is "something unfathomable behind it all" either.

"Some might claim to have realized or glimpsed the unfathomable, but i would say there is about as much chance of that as there is of a god."

-- How do you know what other people have "glimpsed"?? You don't. So you can't deny that they have. Only they know what they have "glimpsed" and/or realize. Realization is a direct personal insight or an awakening, its not like somebody merely having a belief in God.

"These things may all be quite true, {...]but i'm not going to simply swallow things."

-- Again, no one asked you to "swallow" anything.

"ppl were brainwashed and conditioned into accepting concepts that were totally irrational."

-- Realization has nothing to do with "accepting concepts". None whatsover.

"One sees this phenomen repeating itself in cult movements and religions too."

-- But 'realization' has nothing to do with "cult movements and religions".

"there is little doubt in my mind, that were i too join an organisation and repeat mantras for 2 hours a day for 25 years that i would experience something, it is the validity of that experience that i question."

-- Perhaps, but 'realization' has nothing to do with "join[ing] an organisation and repeat[ing] mantras for 2 hours a day for 25 years".

"Your track record shows you guys are precisely the right canditates for this type of suggestive programming"

-- Realization has nothing to do with "suggestive programming"... in fact, it is quite the opposite. Realization is the loss of all "programming".

"since having been initiated, your mind is halfway there already whether you care to admit it or not."

-- That is absolute rubbish. Realization has nothing to do with the mind. And sant mat initiation is not in any way a detriment or "programming". It is simly an instruction about shabd yoga meditation. And moreover, your (uninformed and inexperienced) opinion on on this, holds no significance or relevancy or knowledge regading initiation.

"You want to believe."

-- No, you are the one with all the beliefs. Realization has nothing to do with beliefs.

"from there the programming starts."

-- You know virtually nothing about the shabd-yoga initiation or the meditation. So your opinion on this issue is worthless. Its a joke that you would presume oitherwise.


Tao says:

"And there is no "evidence" needed or required. You can think whatever you wish. Realization is not about evidence."

Well then if no evidence is required it is purely a subjective view and as such carries no gravitas over anyone who believes in a religion or RS.

Indeed, if a person believes the satguru is GIHF, that is perfectly acceptable since no reasoning is required. As such your criticism of this organistation are hypocritical.

If your reasoning is consistent then the satuguru is perfected and there is no-one whom he has to prove that too, which is precisely what those in RS argue.

"You don't have to believe. It's not about believing. And no one asked you to believe anyway."
--- I am well aware of that, but i am giving my view of your being REALIZED, which is that it is bogus. Whether you asked for it or not, is irrelevant, i have given it. You can choose to ignore it or respond to it, and its clear what you have done.

"Wrong. Realization is not of the mind."
--- Oh really. What is it of then? Have you discovered some other means human beings are able to percieve the world? Please describe it.

"Can't you read George?"
--- I can read perfectly well. While Osho and yourself might claim to have had some sort of etheral 'REALIZATION', i believe it remains a belief of deluded minds.

"Why do you want to piss on everything that other people offer?"
--- LOL, that is bloody rich coming from you.

"You either wake-up to it , or you don't."
--- i am already fully awake.

"But actually there really is no 'you'."
--- That is what the realized nondualists claim and believe. I do not. The evidence is that there is this material world and there is an I, self and you.

"Osho did not ask you to accept any claims. He made no such claims."
--- Statements were made about so-called REALIZED ppl, this is a claim, however you care to spin it. The claim is that there are some who are REALIZED and others are not. I for example am not realised, because i have not recognised nondual selflessness.

"Wrong George. He didn't make any claims. He just shared his own personal views in insights."
--- Wrong Tao, you are all making claims when you assume terms like being being 'REALIZED' actually mean something. Moreover, your nondual beliefs itself are claims, statement if you will - but all totally unsupported without a shred of evidence - the same as any religion however benign.

"Why do you want to piss on everything that other people offer?"
--- LOL, that is bloody rich coming from you.

Actually this one really does take the cake.

Can Brian not frame this one, so we can refer to it as Exhibit A in any future correspondence when ppl care to offer their RS experiences?

Tao said:

"How do you know what other people have "glimpsed"?? You don't. So you can't deny that they have."
--- I never did. How do you? Ask yourself the same question about RS experiences and insights.

"Realization has nothing to do with "accepting concepts". None whatsover."
--- In that case why bring it up, since it cannot be discussed? Yet you've said ppl are discussing it. Another etheral untouchable. Oh look, how convenient, another self-realized master. Of what? Nothing. Why do they discuss it then? ermmm...tough one.

"But 'realization' has nothing to do with cult movements and religions".
--- Says you. I believe it does. Rather than simply believe implying some doubt, you KNOW or have REALIZED.

"That is absolute rubbish. Realization has nothing to do with the mind."
--- Says you. I would say everything has to do with a mind and am still waiting for your explanation of an alternative means of perception. In fact, its you who is talking absolure rubbish by evidentiary standards.

Dear Osho,

You say: “May I ask, what was the original reason you joined?”

--I have always lived with the feeling that there is more than ‘this’ and that we live in a world of illusion and I want to see through this illusion. I think of the Master as an inner guide and have not closed myself off to this eventuality… I will know from my experiences ‘within’.

--Definitely not for “mere entertainment” lol, my path is my life and I readily admit that I am still a ‘seeker’.

“If after a lifetime there is no guarantee of a result - then why would you join? Just curious”.

--Maharaj Ji used to quote: “Many are called and few are chosen”… it depends on one’s commitment and unwavering intent.

“How is your life enriched by being a satsangi.”

--If one looks at the way people live and sees their urgent need to acquire material possessions, to fulfill all their worldly desires and then when they die they leave it all behind.

--I have been enriched by the knowledge and inner growth I feel within myself.

“So you have overcome lust anger greed attachment and pride?”

--Yep, send your medal, I’m almost perfect (yeh, yeh, I’m only joking!)

You say: “Maybe I am a guru”.

--Well now Osho, where is the PROOF?

--I’ve also dropped many of my old concepts, my mind is more open and I have had many realizations and more importantly I don’t feel the need to go to the extreme and ridicule and deny the path of Sant Mat. I really would not change anything in my life and am extremely grateful for what I have learned from Sant Mat, it has been the whole basis of my life and I am a better person for it.

Osho, you say you have: “Just another way of looking at sant mat.”

--I see where you’re coming from and don’t disagree entirely with everything you say. I also have found another way of looking at Sant Mat.

Love and peace

You know what? I think George is clever and understands what we are saying quite well, but deliberately distorts statements and creates unnecessary arguments because he enjoys being contrary, pushing people's buttons and getting reactions. It is a power play game, a competition for him and I guarantee that he will not concede anything to anyone unless it serves his purposes, especially to tAo, no matter how clear the logic and explanations are. I don't think George is here for constructive reasons, otherwise these discussions would not have gone in the direction they have.


Tucson,

You speak of changing from: "I am an entity and things are other or separate from me."
to:
"I am those things (everything) but 'I' am not."

--I can understand non-duality with my intellect but I can’t pretend to be at one with everything.

Also: “So, when someone says something like what Jen said above regarding spiritual progress: ‘I always thought if it takes many lifetimes then so be it.’... I always wonder who it is going to happen to.”

You continue: “'I' never was in the first place so how could 'I' die and have another life? 'I' am not even having this one!”

--This ‘I’ is probably the ego, but the real ‘I’ is what continues on from life to life, it may be just a wave of consciousness, it may be a ball of energy and light that is the life force within every living thing on this planet… I don’t know.

You say: “Where is this object 'I' that was born and will be born again? Dig deep and try to find it.”

--Precisely what I am doing, digging deep to find this part of me that will continue.

You say: “I don't think George is here for constructive reasons, otherwise these discussions would not have gone in the direction they have."

--I think George understands how to have a proper debate, not just supporting others who agree with you, but also giving alternative views to the subjects being discussed.

Jen says: "I can understand non-duality with my intellect but I can’t pretend to be at one with everything."

--But on your current path you are pretending as well. Are you not? Until you know it is real you pretend it is real if you act as if it is. But it was not suggested that you pretend anything.

Jen says: "This ‘I’ is probably the ego, but the real ‘I’ is what continues on from life to life, it may be just a wave of consciousness, it may be a ball of energy and light that is the life force within every living thing on this planet… I don’t know."

--All these are just concepts of what might be, but "I don't know" frees you from the cage of concepts into the freedom of what is. Go with that. There is no pretention there.

Jen says: "Precisely what I am doing, digging deep to find this part of me that will continue."

--Good. One respected sage encouraged self inquiry... Who am 'I'?

Jen says: "I think George understands how to have a proper debate, not just supporting others who agree with you, but also giving alternative views to the subjects being discussed."

--I disagree. George probably understands how to have a proper debate but he does not demonstrate that here. I don't think he wants to. George does not just offer alternate views. He also deliberately distorts others statements and then creates a challenge to the distortion. This way he maintains his position in the game of one-upmanship which I think is his real agenda here.

George responds to tAo:


"Well then if no evidence is required it is purely a subjective view and as such carries no gravitas over anyone who believes in a religion or RS."

-- But nobody ever said that it is not subjective, or that it "carries" more "gravitas over anyone who believes in a religion or RS". The difference is that religion and RS is composed of beliefs and dogam, and realization does not. Realization is not a theology, or beliefs, or a practice, or a cult. That is the point, and not whether realization is subjective or not. Again, this seems to be another one of George's deliberate diversions and digressions away from the point that was being discussed. The issue was NOT about the subjective nature of realization. No one here has claimed that realization is not subjective. George is simply trying to crate a diversion.

"Indeed, if a person believes the satguru is GIHF, that is perfectly acceptable since no reasoning is required."

-- But I never said that someone cannot believe that "the satguru is GIHF". People can and do believe what they want, and some satsangis do believe that "the satguru is GIHF". However, I have never said that their believing "the satguru is GIHF" is unacceptable. My point, as well as Brian and others has simply been that there is no evidence that that BELIEF is true. Because the RS "satguru" exhibits no evidence or proof of any Godly powers whatsoever. Thats all.

So again, this is just another example of George implying that I don't accept that some people believe that "the satguru is GIHF". But of course they believe that. I myself don't believe that, but some people DO believe that.

So what is George trying to say here? He is apparently stating that myself and others find the fact that some people believe "the satguru is GIHF" to be unacceptable. But I and others have never denied that some people DO believe "the "satguru is GIHF", and yes they do that without any "reasoning". So whats the point? The point is that George is agin diverting the discussion into things that other people (like myself) have never said. I never said that its not "acceptable" that satsangis believe in a GIHF. Some satsangis obviously apparently do believe that. All I and a few others have said, is that there is no proof nor evidence that the RS master is indeed GOD incarnate. Period.

"As such your criticism of this organistation are hypocritical."

-- How is that? The organization is quite a different matter from the GIHF issue. And there is some valid criticism regarding the organization. So again, George is clearly attempting to divert from the issue at at hand. He is mixing two entirely separate issues together. Frankly, that's blatant bullshit.

"If your reasoning is consistent then the satuguru is perfected and there is no-one whom he has to prove that too, which is precisely what those in RS argue."

-- I said nothing about anyone, especially including the "satguru", being either "perfected" or not perfected. "Perfected" is entirely George's term which he is inserting here.

As to whether the RS master is "perfected" (George's term, meaning I suppose a "GIHF"), then NO, there is NO evidence for that whatsoever.

But the all-important big difference is, that RS and RS satsangis DO CLAIM that the RS master is "perfected" AND "realized"... whereas no one here in this discussion is claiming to have realization or that they are "realized" (except of course those RS satsangi believers who DO CLAIM that the RS master is supposedly "realized"). So once again, George is bluring and distorting and diverting from the issue, by creating a false and bogus and unfounded arguement.

"i am giving my view of your being REALIZED"

-- Whooooa there, hold on there George, not so fast. I NEVER EVER SAID that I am "REALIZED". So this is clearly another outright distortion and misrepresentation on YOUR part. I never said anything whatsoever about MY "being REALIZED". So you see, this is yet ANOTHER example of YOU GEORGE, putting words in other peoples mouths. Its apparently compulsive with you. Or as Tucson pointed out, more like quite intentional and deliberate on your part. I've had enough of your shit George, and so have others. Its time to cut the crap and quit misrepresenting other people and claiming that they said things, that they did NOT say. Its bullshit George, and its dishonest. And you are still doing it. And this right here is a good example.

Right here George, YOU yourself just said it, quote:

"i am giving my view of your being REALIZED"

-- Wrong.... YOU said that George. Nobody else said that. I never said anything about me, or about my ["your"] "being REALIZED". Nothing at all. So here's the proof that YOU twist and misrepresent the facts and what other people say or dont say George.

tAo said: "Wrong. Realization is not of the mind."

George replied: "Oh really. What is it of then?"

-- Realization is not a matter of the duality of the mind. Realization is like direct insight. It is not a matter of thinking or reasoning or concepts or beliefs. It is direct apprehension. It does not occur in the mind. But the problem you fail to understand what this means is likely due to your notion, your definition of the mind. This seems to occur fairly frequently with you in these discussions. So again, realization is not a matter of thinking, or concepts, or the ego/ahamkara, or the duality of the mind.

"Have you discovered some other means human beings are able to percieve the world? Please describe it."

-- Realization is not a matter of perception, or of "perceiv(ing) the world". It is like direct insight, non-conceptual.

"I can read perfectly well. While Osho and yourself might claim to have had some sort of etheral 'REALIZATION'"

-- Well you obviously DO NOT read George. Neither Osho nor I calimed to "have had some sort of etheral 'REALIZATION'". Go back and read the previous comments George. You are again falsely putting worfds in other people's mouths. This is now very obvious to me as well as to other folks here. So after finishing this post, I have nothing more to say to you. You are dishonest and you misrepresent what other people say. Tucson is quite right. You do this on purpose. You know very well what people are saying. But you deliberately disrort and misinterpret and misrepresent what other people say. Its a game. You do it to push peoples buttons and to make false staemts about them and to aggaravate them. You are a TROLL. Thats now quite obvious. So after this post, I will not engage with you anymore. You are dishonest, and you are here to cause confusion and aggaravation and distortion. Thats what trolls do.

"i believe it remains a belief of deluded minds."

-- Again, realization is not a "belief".

"i am already fully awake."

-- No, not in terms of realization, you aren't.

"That is what the realized nondualists claim and believe."

-- Nobody here is claiming anything George, except for the believers and the dogmatists.

"The evidence is that there is this material world and there is an I, self and you."

-- There is indeed a material world. I never said there wasn't. So quit falsely implying that I and others have said otherwise. But as for an "I, self, and you"... well that remains to be seen. If there is (an "I, self, and you")... then show it, prove it.

"Statements were made about so-called REALIZED ppl, this is a claim"

-- No it isn't Nobody claimed anyting. Osho simply offered his views. He made no "claims". So you're wrong again George.

"The claim is that there are some who are REALIZED and others are not."

-- Thats not what he said.

"you are all making claims when you assume terms like being being 'REALIZED' actually mean something."

-- That is NOT a "claim". It is just a way of explaining something.

"Moreover, your nondual beliefs itself are claims, statement if you will"

-- Wrong again George. I don't have any such "nondual beliefs". You don't know what I believ, if anything. You simply do NOT know what I believe. And fyi, I do NOT have nondual BELIEFS. Period. I don't have any such beliefs. So again, you are, in a sense, putting words in my mouth, or ideas in my mind that I do not say or think or believe. Thats bullshit George. But thats exactly the stuff that trolls do.

tAo had said previously: "How do you know what other people have "glimpsed"?? You don't."

George replied: "Ask yourself the same question about RS experiences and insights."

-- But I never said that I Do know what other people, RS people, have "glimpsed". I don't know what other people experience. I don't claim to. I also don't even care. So what's your point? Your argument has no basis because I have never denied that other people have had experiences. I've had experiences too. But experiences don't prove anything. And I never said that they do. You are grossly distorting me, as well as other people George. In fact, you do it a lot. Its time that you stop. People are getting sick and tired of your bullshit George.

tAo said: "Realization has nothing to do with "accepting concepts". None whatsover."

George replied: "In that case why bring it up, since it cannot be discussed?"

-- I didn't say that it couldn't be discussed. I merely said that realization is not about concepts. And furthermore, I didn't bring it up... YOU DID.

"Oh look, how convenient, another self-realized master. Of what?"

-- What are you talking about George? Sarcasm will get you nowhere. No one claimed to be a "self-realized master"... except for the RS believers who cailm that nthe RS master is self-realized... which btw is an absolute joke imo.

tAo said: "'realization' has nothing to do with cult movements and religions".

George replied: "Says you. I believe it does. Rather than simply believe implying some doubt, you KNOW or have REALIZED."

-- WRONG George. AGAIN... nobody, I repeat, NOBODY said or claimed that they 'KNOW" or "have REALIZED". THis is all your own bullshit distortion and misrepresentation. Show us where anyone (besides you) said that? You are a total bullshiter George. You lie and distort and misquote, or rather misrepresent, what other people say. You claim and imply that they said things they have NOT ever said. That is dishonest and deceptive.

tAo said: "That is absolute rubbish. Realization has nothing to do with the mind."

George replied: "Says you. I would say everything has to do with a mind"

-- Again, realization is not a matter of thinking. or concepts, or the duality of the mind. It is direct non-ceptual insight, aka 'self-knowledge' or atma-jnana. One problem apperas to be your apparent significant lack of education regarding terminology and defitions, and eastern philosophy. But that's not why you play this game that you do. You do it because you are a troll. You are here to cause disruption and confusion and argument and conflict, and to distort and misrepresent others, and to give sarcasm and ridicule. Its written all over you George. I will be glad when you leave here. This forum will be better without trolls like you. Until then I'm done with this discussion.

Have a nice life George, but please take your trollish ways somehere else.

And in conclusion, I do agree 101 percent with Tucson, who said:

"You know what? I think George is clever and understands what we are saying quite well, but deliberately distorts statements and creates unnecessary arguments because he enjoys being contrary, pushing people's buttons and getting reactions. It is a power play game, a competition for him and I guarantee that he will not concede anything to anyone unless it serves his purposes, especially to tAo, no matter how clear the logic and explanations are. I don't think George is here for constructive reasons, otherwise these discussions would not have gone in the direction they have."

And btw Jen, I do NOT agree with you at all. George is NOT engaging in "proper debate" here. His disorting and misrepresenting what other people say, and constanly diverting from the issue, is not a "proper" way to debate. Its dishonest and devious and deceptive, and its what trolls do. Regadless of whether you want to defend RS, look at the evidence Jen. George's game is to create conflict.


Jen,

I too also completely agree with tucson with regard to George, where tucson says:

"George probably understands how to have a proper debate but he does not demonstrate that here. I don't think he wants to. George does not just offer alternate views. He also deliberately distorts others statements and then creates a challenge to the distortion. This way he maintains his position in the game of one-upmanship which I think is his real agenda here."

-- This is very right on target. I have suspected this for quite sometime, but its taken other folks a little bit longer to finally see it. But its pretty evident if you notice how George typically distorts and misportrays other people's statements and meanings, and then he fashions a challenge to that perveted distortion that he has substituted for the real issue or what other people have really said. He creates a false straw-man, a bogus misrepresentation of other people and what they do or do not say, and then he tries to either falisfy that, or ridicle it. Its extemely dishonest and devious to do this repeatedly. This isn't jast a case of an occasional misunderstanding, George knows exacrly what he is doing. George is not stupid. George does this to maintain his position in a trollish game of one-upmanship and creating conflict, which is his real agenda here. Tucson knows it, I know it, and so do a few others whom I will not mention. They will come forth when they feel ready. But there is no doubt in my mind that George is up to no good here. My last post in response to George shows it and proves it unquestionbly. Thats also whay George would not give up his calling me a liar about my initiation, even after was proven to be wrong. George is a devious fraud and a troll, and has been so from the get-go. The truth always comes out eventually. I hope George leaves because he causes too much deliberate distortion wich results in unnecessary bad vibes here.

You can think whatever you like Jen, but if you look deeper, you will find out sooner or later. George's game is a no-brainer to me.


Religions REQUIRE your belief. If you DOUBT - that is considered a BAD thing. Jesus is meant to SAVE mankind. Muslims BELIEVE in Muhammad. Sikhs believe in Guru Nanak and the ten gurus. Radha Soamis believe their guru is God Incarnate.

This is how the mind continues to seek. It is looking for answers and in the meantime it believes. The mind is always WAITING for Realization to happen - for God to come - for the heavens to open up etc. Always waiting...

Enlightenment means the end of waiting - which happens once you recognize your true nature. This recognition is NOT a theory. It is not matter of dropping one belief and taking on another. Enlightenment is not a belief system. It is a recognition. Once you RECOGNIZE something - it changes your life. Why? Because now you are no longer living in illusion and beliefs - which is all the mind ever creates. Belief/Doubt are both mind-games. Recognition is not. It is the difference between SEEING and BELIEVING. In sant mat - the promise is made that you will SEE - but you never do - and it the meantime you are waiting and waiting. Enlightenment is not WAITING. It is not an achievement - it is not something you attain to or arrive at. You recognise what ALWAYS was. It is immediate - not tomorrow. You are no longer trapped by concepts and the mind. Does that mean that you have no mind and no concepts? No. Of course you still have a mind and you can still conceptualize - but you are not living in the mind or in thw world of concepts anymore. You have dropped them because you see through the mind-trap. Mind always keeps you running after one thing or another - with the promise of a paradise that never manifests. Enlightenment means the end of all seeking because seeking is a mind-game. Once you recognise HERE and NOW (again - don't make a concept of here and now) the journey ends. There was no journey in the first place - you were always at home - you just thought you were somewhere else.
Enlightenment is a journey - the destination of which is the realization that there was no journey to make and nobody to make the journey.

The journey is to yourself. Sant Mat and other religions tempt you to seek and the promise is in the future. You never get to the future because you are always in the now. Tomorrow is always a distant dream. All you ever have is NOW. Enlightenment makes no such promise. It is NOW or NEVER.

None of this is meant to make sense to you - it is not designed to satifsy your mind so that you believe. The purpose is to frustrate your logical mind because logic cannot operate in the sphere of oneness. Logic only works well in duality. If you try logic to understand ONENESS - all you will get is confused.

tucson,

A quick question, when you say: “But on your current path you are pretending as well. Are you not? Until you know it is real you pretend it is real if you act as if it is.”

--What you say is confusing. I don’t think I am “pretending” my path is real. Surely my search IS for that which is real… whatever that is. I don’t get it, could you please explain - thanks.

tAo,

Such a pity, I like George, can’t we all just get along… :)


Quote from Tao Post 19 sept 04:13PM


"i am happy for you to believe what you want"

-- Can't you read George? Osho did NOT say that he 'believes' anything.


This is how truth is communicated. Tao is straight to the POINT. He says "Can't you read George?"
If George is open - he will see his own pattern of projecting his own ideas onto everything he hears and reads.
He is not alone - almost everyone does this.

Tao is very clear and very direct. He uses language very precisely while at the same time recogmising that language has inherent limitations.

George does not understand that MIND and LOGIC cannot (by their very nature) enter the world of Enlightenment/Truth/Nirvana etc.

Enlightenment has nothing to do with any words - but does that mean an enlightened person cannot use words? He uses them - but only to play with. He knows that words are just pointers. In Zen they say "The Master is a FINGER - pointing to the moon." Most people grab hold of the finger and think they have the moon.

Tao is very clear and articulate but in order to benefit you have to bing a quality called READING and BEING OPEN - otherwise it is all words and more words - never ending.

To Jen,

Osho asked Jen: “If after a lifetime there is no guarantee of a result - then why would you join? Just curious."

Jen replied: "Maharaj Ji used to quote: “Many are called and few are chosen”… it depends on one’s commitment and unwavering intent."

-- Osho had asked you, if the goal of Sant Mat cannot be achieved in one lifetime, then why did you join? But you really did not give answer. All you said was: "it depends on one’s commitment and unwavering intent." But what does "commitment and unwavering intent" have to do with why you joined? And if the goal cannot be achieved in one life, then what does commitment or intent matter anyway?? That was Osho's poit. Your response to that doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't answer the question "why would you join?". Also, what does "many are called and few are chosen" have to do with this? Are you saying that you joined because you were "called" or were "chosen"?? If so, then WHO called you to join? Or WHO chose you to join? You didn't just apply on your own? Someone "called" you? If that's the case, please explain.


Osho also asked Jen: “How is your life enriched by being a satsangi.”

Jen replied: I have been enriched by the knowledge and inner growth I feel within myself.

-- Alright. Could you relate something more specific about this "knowledge" that you "feel within" yourself, and also about the "inner growth" that you say has occured within yourself?


Osho remarked: “Maybe I am a guru”.

Jen responded: "Well now Osho, where is the PROOF?"

-- What proof Jen? What proof is needed for being guru? However, Osho didn't claim to be guru, he just say "maybe". Also, a guru is simply a teacher, so what is there to prove as far as being a teacher? If someone has even one single disciple or one student, then that person is guru. Also, are you aware that the actual meaning of guru is: 'to bring light to the darkness'?? So if Osho is bringing any light, shining light into the darkness (of ignorance and/or illusion), then he is guru as well. In that case, he doesn't even need any disciples to be guru. Anyone who brings light, who dispels ignorance or illusion, is considered guru. Also, guru is actually one's own true nature, so guru is in everyone. And therefore, anyone who knows this or who embodies this, is also guru.


Jen also said: "I don’t feel the need to go to the extreme and ridicule and deny the path of Sant Mat."

-- Please explain, who is ridiculing and denying San Mat??

Tucson,

Of course i've understood whats been said, its not complex.

As for being contrary, maybe, but its not intentional, and in any event even if it was, what harm is there in that? If a person's views cannot be tested, just how strong are they?

You also miss something, which is you guys are all highly skeptical when it comes to RS and apply one heullva magnifying glass to this tradition AND as soon as someone provides some RS insights they are automatically ridiculed for speaking 'dogma'.

So I figure, what's good for the goose is good for the gander and i apply the same magnifying glass to your beliefs or REALIZATIONS.

Dear jen,

This is in reply to your posting 19 sept 06:21pm

You wrote: "I think of the Master as an inner guide and have not closed myself off to this eventuality… I will know from my experiences ‘within’. "

Jen, you are living in the future - in ONE DAY - which never happens because all you have is today.

Yes - you are still a seeker - which is fine - but truth never dawns until you go beyond seeking and get serious about what you are really looking for.

Commitment does not help when the road leads to a dead end. Nothing against RSSB personally - but all duality paths keep you seeking forever.

The man of the world seek wealth, relationships etc. The so-called spiritual man just changes direction slightly - he seeks God/Enlightenment/Sach Khand. But he is still seeking. It is the same mind that continues to seek - only it has become greedier now. Before it was enough to get wealth - now it is after ther BIG prize - it is after the big man himself - God or Sat Purush.

Just as the material man seeks wealth - the RSSB follower seeks Sach Khand. The same greed - the same mind is just as greedy as ever. Only the prize is now God.

Jen: "I have been enriched by the knowledge and inner growth I feel within myself."

What knowledge? It is a nice theory - not knowledge. The inner growth you speak of is a trap - you always seem to be getting closer and closer - but you never arrive.

I'll send you your medal - I will sign it personally and you can show it to others at the satsangs.

I said "Maybe I am a guru." Well I am not - I don't have a certificate and proof of being the successor to any well-known gaddi - but I'm working on it.

Maybe Tao is a Guru as is Tuscon. Anyone who helps you to truth - could be called a guru. Only if you want to use that terminology. Where is the proof that Gurinder Singh Ji (may as well show some respect) is a true Guru? Is it the successorship? What if someone else had been appoined successor - who would Guringer be today? Would anyone listen to him at all?

Jen: --I’ve also dropped many of my old concepts, my mind is more open and I have had many realizations and more importantly I don’t feel the need to go to the extreme and ridicule and deny the path of Sant Mat. I really would not change anything in my life and am extremely grateful for what I have learned from Sant Mat, it has been the whole basis of my life and I am a better person for it.

You have missed again. It is not a matter of dropping SOME concepts - but to recognise that all concepts are mind-creations and are not going to help you in the quest for truth. "More" open is not enough - it has to be totally open - otherwise you will never lot go of the 'old' that keeps you in the mind, and the 'new' cannot enter as long as the 'old' remains.

There is not NEED to ridicule sant mat. But also have the freedom to do so if you wish. Sant mat is a good beginners class. It has it's benefits - it prepares the way but it cannot take you to the end - because it is a duality path. Just as a exercise - ridicule sant mat - just to see if you can do it and still feel good.

go to www.tinyurl.com/SantMat and see what you think of the 'new slant' on sant mat.

Love and Peace to you too Jen.

Jen,

"I think George understands how to have a proper debate, not just supporting others who agree with you, but also giving alternative views to the subjects being discussed."

--- Thank you Jen, imo you have understood my intentions far better than these so-called REALIZED folk. Also, from what i've noticed on this board, it is the devoted RS satsangis who are the most honest and nicest of ppl, and actually i would also say the most openminded.

Your personal account of what RS means to you above is actually very moving and i cannot see what harm at all there is in you continuing to follow such a path, which brings only personal benefit and enrichment.

Tao says:

"I too also completely agree with tucson with regard to George"
-- How suprising, of course you do, your guys default position is simply to join ranks to boulster yourselves.

On the RS issue, you guys clearly are againt it. The agenda and criticism on here is widespread, so please don't talk BS to me. That is real distortion, just like your three statements above, totally inconsist. I will happily sift through the archives for some of your quotes on RS, to prove just how inconsistent you are.

"Its time to cut the crap and quit misrepresenting other people and claiming that they said things, that they did NOT say"
--- You are a hyprocrite and are still sore that i picked out your 3 statements which brazenly exposed your hyprocracy for what it is. I believe you will say anything to save face, and as such, i will adopt the same policy of rhetoric, until such time as more honesty is forthcoming. You accuse ppl of the very things that you are most guilty of and you actually cannot even see what is blatantly obvious to others.

"You are a total bullshiter George."
--- I believe you are the total bullshitter Tao, which is really why you are so upset.

"Have a nice life George, but please take your trollish ways somehere else."
-- ah yes, everyone else is a troll who gives an alternative viewpoint, you so predicatable its laughable. You are about as openminded as a frothing evangelist.

"George's game is to create conflict."
--- LOL, this and that other classic about me pissing on everyone else's insights, must surely rank as the most brazen hypocracy in the history of mankind. In fact, I actually did laugh out loud when reading these two comments. You are absolutely barking mad insane, do you know that?


Tao

Just how many ppl over the years have you actually called a 'troll'?

Do you not find it kinda strange that over the years there have been so many trolls out to try YOUR patience?

Let us say you are right and my sole intention is to cause conflict, do i swear at ppl? Do I preach dogma? Do I abuse ppl (self-defense excluded)?

You will of course, answer yes to all of these things, but your view is all just overblown ego who cannot stand getting a taste of his own medicine.

In fact, the strange thing is i seem to get on fine with the majority of folk on here and am still scratching my head why you dumbos have chased off others with genuinely openminded propositions, including Ashy, Phil and Barry. You sit back and spew bile at someone's most cherished beliefs, and then wonder why the most sincere of people like Manish get upset.

But the piece de resistance is the sheer gall of accusing others of creating conflict and pissing on insights. Mad mad mad!

Keep going, George.

A person cannot be initiated into a cult and not be a member of it. If the initiate does not believe that there is power behind the words, does not believe that the guru is anything special and does not involve himself in the seva or satsangs of the cult, then why get initiated? Why not just find out what the words are along with any other techniques, and repeat them outside of initiation.

As far as Realisation is concerned, it is possible i.m.o.that virtually every person alive, just through life experience, becomes realised to some extent ie: experiences a realisation regarding the inherent nature of anything and then has the will to change or is changed for the better as a result.

Cultists may actually be the most daring free thinking experimenters of all; able to think out of the conventional box and willing to put in the hours to use their own bodies and minds in the experiment.

Maybe, a charismatic leader could eclipse all the bright intelligent free thinkers and bind them to an experiment until they are reduced to the opposite.

Precisely Catherine.

I also agree with your far more sensible description of what a realized person might be, through experience.

I also agree that cultist may indeed be the most daring experimenters of all, since they are actually putting their very mind at risk.

Osho,

It is you guys who are not clear. You continually refer to someone who is REALIZED as someone who apparently has 'got it'. What have you actually got? Nothing.

I read your website, some of your views on RS are interesting enough, but when you started banging on about a REAL dialogue being between a REALIZED person and someone who wants to 'get it', i REALIZED its just more religious parochial brainwashed nonsense.

what we are having is a debate, it is when ppl agree and disagree and question - what you call a real dialogue is a sermon or lecure which is one way.

Jen asked: "What you say is confusing. I don’t think I am “pretending” my path is real. Surely my search IS for that which is real… whatever that is. I don’t get it, could you please explain - thanks."

---It was in response to your saying, "I can understand non-duality with my intellect but I can’t pretend to be at one with everything."

So, I took that to mean that since you do not directly apprehend non-duality it doesn't help just to intellectually understand it. You are saying, I think, that you need a "way" to get TO the actual experience of whatever truth is.

I understand your position. I was only indicating that by accepting and acting upon RS teachings you are in a sense pretending they are true until you directly apprehend the truth of those teachings, if you ever do.

All of these teachings and paths are just concepts, at best mere ideas of what our inherrent true nature MIGHT be.

These ideas and concepts (realization, Sach Khand, non-duality, satguru) can be pictured as electrons buzzing around the nucleus of what you are which is a steady, non-objective presence. You don't need a path to get to what you are, you just need to recognize it by dropping the electron concepts and being fully present as the nucleus.

George wrote: "Thank you Jen, imo you have understood my intentions far better than these so-called REALIZED folk."

--Here, one last time, is an example of what you do, George. No one has "called" themselves 'realized'. That is you putting your spin on what others have said in order to create your sarcastic remark, and you have welcomed Jen's naivite' regarding your motives to support your trollish behavior.

Then you say: "It is you guys who are not clear. You continually refer to someone who is REALIZED as someone who apparently has 'got it'. What have you actually got? Nothing."

--First of all, Osho didn't say 'got it'. That was me. He may have no such concept. Then you make an antagonistic remark rather than a constructive one by saying we have 'got' nothing. How do you know what anyone has...really has? You say we have nothing but then you imply you do because you say you know we know nothing!!

I am not playing your game anymore either George. It is intellectully dishonest.

But inadvertantly you have stated the truth of what there is "to get"...nothing. But you have 'to get' that there is nothing to get.

All these paths and religions and philosophies. It is like an apple straining to be an apple and having all these ideas of what it might be like to be an apple. God-damn it! It IS an apple!

Tucson,

Go and read Osho's blog, the one which lectures about REAL dialogue between those who are REALIZED and those who want to 'get it'.

Stop talking crap. It is you who is distorting things. i have in fact listened and read all of the utter shite you have posted, and now am also losing patience.

i think you guys fancy yourselves as some sort of grand master jedi or something, but of the american fastfood variety as opposed to the ancient eastern veggie lineage.

this is what is going to happen, you will die at some stage, your prescnece, cosnciousness and realization will all cease at that point in time, over the next few decades all memory by others and trace of your existence will also eventually dissapear, there will be nothing, no electrons buzzing around a conitinual prescence, nothing, it will be as if you were never here.

why not get on with living your own life in the time you have left rather than worrying about passing your pearls onto others, cause your realizations are utter delusion. in fact, you might as well take a whole shedload of drugs and get out of your mind, cause you are presently living in neverneverland.

I don't know what Osho writes on his blog, only what he has said here.

And now I am losing my patience. You have again failed to offer anything constructive.

Game over.

An observation from a Libran (who, however, doesn't believe in astrology) -- in an attempt to depersonalize the debates on this blog thread by reconciling or balancing opposites:

This morning I starting re-reading a book by Don Cupitt, "After God." I've written several posts citing the book, including:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2006/09/the_joy_of_nihi.html

What strikes me is how Cupitt's central theme nicely mirrors the contrasting positions of, say, George vs. Tucson. We could call them Georgian and Tucsonian views of reality. But if we personalize the debate, it (obviously) becomes personal.

I'll probably write about this in a blog post tomorrow. Just wanted to point out that what seems to be underlying the passionate recent discussions on this comment thread are two contrasting ways of looking at the world:

(1) Objective truth about what we can call "ultimate reality" exists, we can know it, and human language is marvelously capable of reflecting what this truth is.

(2) Human language is how we construct our view of reality, and we shouldn't mistake the words and concepts in our heads for something objectively real -- especially when it comes to metaphysics.

This is a simplification, of course. I'll try to do a better job of describing Cupitt's take on religion in my blog post.

My main message is that while commenters on this thread aren't purely in the objectivist vs. subjectivist camps, people tend to lean one way or the other. Then, when they see an argument founded on the other philosophical foundation, they think "Wrong! Bullshit!"

However, the "Wrong!" comes from choosing a certain Truth Target criterion, seeing whether an argument hits it, registering the "score" on the target, and then triumphantly proclaiming the falsity of the argument.

We take discussions, on a blog or elsewhere, more lightly if we can see that we're the one who has set up the Truth Target -- that it doesn't exist out there in the world like the sun does.

More, in Cupitt's words, like Donald Duck does. There is no "real" Donald Duck. Every image of Donald Duck is the real one, because there is no real one -- no Platonic Form of Donald Duck. He argues, the same is true of God. Or Ultimate Truth. These are human concepts, our inventions, and we should feel free to have fun playing around with these notions, just as Donald Duck is fun.

But to take this all super-seriously... not justified. Cupitt advises that we lighten up on our view of reality, because we don't know, none of us. It's all Donald Duck'ing.

George said:

"you guys are all highly skeptical when it comes to RS [...] AND as soon as someone provides some RS insights they are automatically ridiculed for speaking 'dogma'."

-- NO George, people have not been "ridiculed" for providing their "insights", they have been critcised for preaching and parroting RS dogma. There is a big difference between preaching and parroting RS DOGMA, and sharing personal insights about RS. Personal "RS insights" are quite welcome here, but preaching and parroting DOGMA is not. Brian has made that clear on numerous occasions. So here again George, YOU are attempting to distort and misrepresent what the facts are in regards to criticism of RS here in this forum. You are trying to make it look as if personal insights are not welcome and are ridiculed. But that is absolutley wrong. What is criticised and ridiculed here is when believers come and preach and parrot RS dogma. Personal "RS insights" are always welcome and Brian has made it a point to empahsize that many times. And sdo have I and others. So YOU are WRONG again George, and YOU are trying to make others here look bad with no legitimate reason or basis.


George said: "I figure, what's good for the goose is good for the gander and i apply the same magnifying glass to your beliefs or REALIZATIONS."

-- No one here claimed to have any "REALIZATIONS". You are implying a false premise George. That's incorreect and misleading. Nobody claimed "REALIZATIONS". The issue was simply a discusion of what the nature of 'realization' is, or is not, and the difference between 'realization' and 'belief'. You are impplying that people have claimed "REALIZATIONS". YOU said: "apply the same magnifying glass to your beliefs or REALIZATIONS." The key word here being "your".


George said: "Jen, imo you have understood my intentions far better than these so-called REALIZED folk.'

-- Fyi, NOBODY in this forum has said that they were "REALIZED". So here again George, YOU are twisting the facts by implying that people have claimed to be "REALIZED folk". That's bullshit George, because no one here said they were "REALIZED folk". YOU are the only one saying this... about other people.


Also, from what i've noticed on this board, it is the devoted RS satsangis who are the most honest and nicest of ppl, and actually i would also say the most openminded.

tAo said: "I too also completely agree with tucson with regard to George"

George responded: "How suprising, of course you do, your guys default position is simply to join ranks to boulster yourselves."

-- No George, you are twisting and distorting what I said again. I agreed with tucson, only because he is right... not simply to "join ranks to boulster". I made that very very clear in my comment. So this is yet another example of YOUR deliberate intent to make false and erroneous accuations against other people, even when those other people (in this case myself) have stated their reasons behind their very clearly. You are foling anyone George, except one or two people who haven't yet realized and understood what it is that you are really doing here underneth your phony facade of "reason".


George said: "On the RS issue, you guys clearly are againt it."

-- Wrong. I am not "against" RS. I simply criticise RS for the things about it that I feel deserve criticism, like the dogma, the theology, the hype and myth about the master, and the over-all dualism of its approach. So again, you are deliberately misrepresenting myself and others. I am not "against" RS or Sant Mat at all. I am merely critical of various aspects of its philosophy and the cult of it.


George said: "You are a hyprocrite and are still sore that i picked out your 3 statements which brazenly exposed your hyprocracy for what it is."

-- No you did not expose anything. It was shown in the record that I nnever said I have "never been initiated" as you claimed I had said. So it was proven that your accusation that I was "a liar" was totally wrong. And now YOU are lying... becuse I did NOT make those so-called "three statements" George, YOU MADE THOSE THREE STATEMENTS. Its on the record George. I can only conclude that you are either extremely unaware of what you yourself actually say, or you are an outright deliberate deceiver and twister of the facts... and most likely the latter. Almost everyone sees your dishonest game George. And every time you try to pull off another devious misrepresentation and distortion of the facts, you only reveal yourself more. Anyone who does this sort of deceiptful thing as much as you do, IS definitely a troll.


George said: "I believe you will say anything to save face"

-- Thats exactly what YOU do George, as Tucson already pointed out. Eveyone can see this about you George. And they can see the truth and facts about me as well. You have hung yourself George with all your distortions and deliberate misrepresentations and your attempt at putting words into other peoples mouths. You are basically a very dishonest and hostile individual. You don't belog here. You create way too much trouble here and lie about other people.


"You accuse ppl of the very things that you are most guilty of and you actually cannot even see what is blatantly obvious to others."

-- This exaclty YOU position George. Almost everyone can now see what you are up to. It is "blatantly obvious to others", including Brian. You so obvious that you are a bad apple George, bad news.


George said: "I believe you are the total bullshitter Tao, which is really why you are so upset."

-- You keep trying to discredit me George with your stupid little flame war, but the truth is all on my side. And fyi, I am not "upset" at all. You are a joke George, a pathetic joke. And you are the one who has proven that all by yourself. You do it every time you try to twist and distort the facts and other people. You have been doing this since day one. You try and hide behind your fake facade, but its all catching up with you now. You can't fool everyone forever. I think you are a real sick dude. Anyone who intentionally and repeatedly tries to distort facts and put words into other people's mouths that they did not say like you do, is a very sick individual imo.


George said: "yes, everyone else is a troll who gives an alternative viewpoint"

-- You don't give "alternative viewpoint" George... you create deceipt and distortion by making false claims and misrepresenting other people and what they say. You haven't presented any "alternative viewpoint". All you do is twist and make false assertions about other people and their words.


George said: "You are absolutely barking mad insane"

-- Take a real good look in the mirror George. I am sure glad I am not you.


George said: "find it kinda strange that over the years there have been so many trolls"

-- Most all of the so-called "trolls" that have come here bent on harassing Brian and this blog and other ex-satsangis, have been people who are RSSB cult believers... with one or two exceptions (such as you George, and a couple others). If you don't beleive me, just ask Brian.


George said: "Let us say you are right and my sole intention is to cause conflict, do i swear at ppl? Do I preach dogma? Do I abuse ppl (self-defense excluded)?"

-- You lie about what other people have said, you misrepresent others people's position and meanings, you put words in their mouths that they didn't say, you twist and distort issues, you attack other people's characters, you ridicule other people, and you make false claims that have no basis in fact.

Those are far more trollish and detrimental and create far more conflict than any mere "swearing" at people (which btw I no longer engage in for some time now). Practically everything you say and do here George, is what trolls, who are out to create conflict and disruption, say and do.

George said: "your view is all just overblown ego who cannot stand getting a taste of his own medicine."

-- The "overblown ego" is your own George. Its totally obvious to those of us who are hip to your game.

George said: "In fact, the strange thing is i seem to get on fine with the majority of folk on here"

-- I am sure you'd like to think that, but you're mistaken George. Quite a few folks can see what you are up to, and especially in regards to your little war against me. You're not fooling everyone, on a few, and they are slowly waking up too.


George said: "[I] am still scratching my head why you dumbos have chased off others with genuinely openminded propositions, including Ashy, Phil and Barry."

-- LOL!!! You just proved without any shadow of a doubt, where you are really at George. Defending blatant trolls like Ashy, Phil and Barry/Obscre/JAP. Heh Heh Heh! There's no doubt about it now. Case closed.

George said: "You sit back and spew bile at someone's most cherished beliefs, and then wonder why the most sincere of people like Manish get upset."

-- That's total bullshit. Fyi George, I DO NOT "spew bile". I simply make fair and reasonable criticisms of people's so-called "cherished beliefs". And so what? Anyone who comes here and preaches their dogma or their religious beliefs, well then those beliefs are fair game to be questioned and/or criticised by me or anyone else. If they don't want their beliefs to be questioned, then they shouldn't be posting and preaching them here.


Catherine said:

"A person cannot be initiated into a cult and not be a member of it."

-- WRONG Catherine. Absolutely wrong. As I said, in my case, I DID NOT get "initiated into a cult". i got initiated into a type or path of MEDITATION. I DID NOT get initiated into a CULT. Thats not what I did. I did not JOIN a CULT. I got INITATED in a particular type of MEDIATION, namely shadbd yoga meditation.

You can go on thinking and believing whatever you wish about YOURSELF and YOUR OWN initiation, but your opinion is only aboout YOU, and has nothing whatsoever to do with ME. You don't determine what MY shabd yoga initiation meant. And it had NOTHING to do with being "initiated into a cult". Even RSSB itself does not regard RS initiation as anything to do with being "initiated into a cult". It is initiation into the SPIRITUAL PATH of Sant Mat, which is ALL about the practice of SHABD YOGA MEDITATION... and NOT joining any cult.

It doesn't matter what YOU may think. You can only speak for YOURSELF alone. You cannot speak for ME. So quit trying to. All you are doing is to show what a cult mentality YOU are.

Catherine said: ""If the initiate does not believe that there is power behind the words, does not believe that the guru is anything special and does not involve himself in the seva or satsangs of the cult, then why get initiated?'

-- Why? Simply to learn the MEDITATION. I have already made that very clear in reagrd to my own case. Other people no doubt may have different reasons.

"Why not just find out what the words are along with any other techniques, and repeat them outside of initiation."

-- Because... at that time over 30 years ago, it was virtually impossible to learn the precise meditation procedure without getting initiated. And whats the bif deal about getting initiated? You act as if it required some big effort. It didn't require hardly any effort on my part to get initiated. I simply applied and then waited a few months. Big friggin deal. Whats your problemm Catherine? I don't get what you issue with this is? I mean, whats it to YOU what my reasons were for getting initoated? Its really none of your damn business. But I have been kind enought to explain my reasons and my situation to you. So what do you think you are trying to prove? You aren;t proving anyting other than how YOU view initiation. But your views have nothing to do with me. So why do you have so much difficulty understanding this? Its actually really simple. I got intited only for the meditation, nothing else. Period, end of story.

Catherine said; "Cultists may actually be the most daring free thinking experimenters of all; able to think out of the conventional box and willing to put in the hours to use their own bodies and minds in the experiment."

-- LOL! That's quite absurd and ridiculous thinking imo. Simply in order to "think out of the conventional box", definitely does NOT require joining or being part of any cult, or being "cultists". And the most "daring free thinking" people have no interest in or use for cults, for cult leaders or for cult-gurus.


Catherine please email me at manishfantastic(at)gmail.com i want to discuss personally with you.If you wish to.
thanks

SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE

George is arging as follows :-
1. RSSB is a cult. (A is equiv to B)
2. Tao took initiation and therefore joined RSSB (C joined A)
3. Therefore C joined a cult (therefore this is equiv to C joined B)

This is OBJECTIVE - hence logic can be used. However, the situation is not
about logic. It is SUBJECTIVE. How? Tao is saying that they WAY in which HE
PERSONALLY took the initiation was different - he did not join a cult.

George is arguing logically. Tao is explaining his OWN PERSONAL INTERNAL STATE.

The two are different.

This is also why George cannot understand Realization. It is SUBJECTIVE and he deals only with the OBJECTIVE. George wants PROOF for everything - objective proof. Some things like Realization cannot be objectively proven because they are subjective. The very act of asking for proof is foolish as proof is impossible.

Osho,

I disagee with some of your reasoning. Here is why:

You said, that "George is arging as follows" -- Yes, YOUR description, of what GEORGE'S reasoning is, seems correct.

However, not all of these premises are correct:

"1. RSSB is a cult. (A is equiv to B)"

-- YES. It is reasonable to assume that the RSSB organization, RSSB leader, and RSSB sangat, constitutes a cult.

"2. Tao took initiation and therefore joined RSSB (C joined A)"

-- NO. I DID take initiation, but taking initiation is NOT "therefore" joining the RSSB. I did not take initiation INTO the RSSB. I only took initiation in the sant mat spiritual teaching and practice of SHABDA YOGA. I did NOT take "initiation" into any organization. When I took initiation, I was NOT told that I was taking initiation into the RSSB ORGANIZATION. I was simply told that I was only taking initiation in SHABDA YOGA, aka Sant Mat ('the path of the saints'). The initiation I took was not represented or given as being initiation 'into the RSSB organization'. When I received my initiation in shabda yoga from Charan Singh, via his formal representative Mr. H. Weekley, Mr Weekley specifically advised me that the initiation was into the practice of shabda yoga as prescribed in the 'Sant Mat' (the path of the saints). He did NOT say that initiation (nor my initiation) was "into the RSSB". He made it very clear that my initiation was only into the spiritual path and practice of shabda yoga. So yes, I "took initiation"... but NO, I did NOT "therefore joined RSSB". I did not JOIN anything. I only receeved initiaon in shabda yoga. Shabda Yoga is NOT the RSSB. The RSSB is an actual organization and a colony. Shabda Yoga is simply a type of meditation practice. They are totally different things. So #2. is incorrect.

"3. Therefore C joined a cult (therefore this is equiv to C joined B)"

-- NO. Wrong again. As I already explained, I (tAo) did NOT 'join the RSSB'. I took initiation in Sant Mat Shabda Yoga only. And so therfore, since I did NOT "join the RSSB"... also neither did I "join a cult". The (false) premise, that supposedly I had "joined the RSSB", is the critical error here. I DID NOT "join" the RSSB. Initiation is NOT at all a 'joining of an organization'. Initiation is only concerned with the instruction in the practice of Shabda Yoga, nothing more. So #3. is also incorrect.

"This is OBJECTIVE - hence logic can be used."

-- As I have indicated, the supposed "logic" is totally faulty. It is based upon a false premise, therfore it is faulty and incorrect.

"However, the situation is not
about logic. It is SUBJECTIVE."

-- No, it is not subjective. It is objective. I was not given initiation into the RSSB. I was given initiation in Shabda Yoga. That is what I was told at the time of my initiation. I have already made this clear numerous times.

"Tao is saying that they WAY in which HE
PERSONALLY took the initiation was different - he did not join a cult."

-- No, not exactly. Its not about me personally, its about the difference between Shabda Yoga, and the RSSB organization. They are two very different and separate things. This is an undeniable fact, and it was also one which was made clear to me at the time of my formal initiation in Shabda Yoga by Charan Singh's direct representative, Mr. Hank Weekley (who btw, was very close to Charan Singh) in St. Petersburg.

"George is arguing logically."

-- No George is not logical, George's logic is faulty, because George's premises are fundamentally incorrect.

"Tao is explaining his OWN PERSONAL INTERNAL STATE."

-- No Osho, that is definitely incorrect. This has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with MY own "PERSONAL INTERNAL STATE". It is all to do with the fact that Sant Mat initiation is initiation in Shabda Yoga, NOT the RSSB organization. Initiation and Shabda Yoga has nothing to do with the RSSB organization, or 'joining" that organization. I did NOT "join" and organization. I simply took initiation in the spiritiual practice of Shabda Yoga (sant mat). So it is these two, which are "totally different".

"This is also why George cannot understand Realization. It is SUBJECTIVE and he deals only with the OBJECTIVE."

-- I would probably agree with that. That seems to be the case, and the problem here. No one can understand realization, until realization occurs for them. It is just like you can not ever know what a strawberry tastes like, until you have actually eaten a strawberry.

"George wants PROOF for everything - objective proof. Some things like Realization cannot be objectively proven because they are subjective."

-- Yes, that is more or less correct. Realization is not a matter of something that requires proof to others. It doesn;t matter what anyone else beleives or thinks. Realization is for the Realizer alone. Realization is something known or experienced by the Realizer alone. So it does noot matter what George thinks, or what George believes or doesn't believe. Its an absolutely ridiculous thing to argue about. George asked for an explanation of what rwalization was, and he was given one as best as can be explained. But he wasn't ever really interested in understanding what realization is anyway. George was only interested in arguing with, and then laughing at those folks who had sincerely tried to offer the explanation about realization that he had asked for. It would be much like George arguing about or against realization, with Sri Ramana Maharshi. But in that case, it would George who would be the only one doing the arguing. LOL George isn't interested in understanding realization. He is only interested in the 'bait and switch' game.

"The very act of asking for proof is foolish as proof is impossible."

-- Yes, in the case of realization, proof is impossible to see or to know from an outside viewpoint. But its not any outside viewpoints that count anyway.


It does not matter what anyone THINKS about 'realization'. Or what they think about what other people think.

Realization is not a belief, nor it is a matter of the holding of or subscribing to some belief. It is more like a direct insight.

As such, it (realzation) need not be proven to anyone. It cannot be proven. There is nothing to prove. And there is no one to prove it.

Who is the realizer? Who would be the prover of that realization? And who would it be proven to? Who are you?

That, is the question. Not whether it can be proven or not.

To an outside point of view, realization is never understood, it can not be understood from an objective point of view.

Realization is not an object. It is not an idea or a concept, or holding an idea or concept. It is not a thought or a thinking process. It is not reasoning.

Realization is like a seeing or perceiving or knowing, but without thinking. But in realization there is no seer or perceiver or knower. In realization, the seer and the seen are one, the pereceiver and the perceived are one, the knower and the known are one.

Realization is simply BEING... not thinking or perceiving or knowing.

In realization, there is no thinker or perceiver or knower.

In realization, there is only that which always already is the case... that which always already and only IS. It is neither subjective, nor objective.

That is why realization makes no sense from an objective pint of view, no sense whatsoever until realization actually occurs.

Non-duality can never be understood from the point of view of duality.

There is no 'one' who realizes, and there is no 'thing' which is realized.

Please note: The above is simply an offering if you will, of an explanation as best and as clearly as words are able to convey (which is poor at best), and not any claim nor any belief nor any kind of position to argue for or against. It is only simply something consider and to contemplate. It is only mere words, and therfore does not equal actual realization in any sense whatsoever. Realization occurs spontaneously and not as a result of any actions or strategies. It can happen in less than an instant, or may take a hundred years. There is no telling or knowing when. Nor is there is any guarantee that it will happen. And if, and when, it ever does happen, it will simply be like silently awakening from a dream. There won't be any fireworks or heavenly rainbows or the sounding of angel's trumpets.

There won't be anything different than what always already IS.


I don't know how tAo could explain either point in his last two comments above any clearer. I hope this lays certain issues to rest.

Actually, I may be able to add a little bit more:

Another was of putting all this is...

This so-called 'realization' is really nothing more than a dropping or falling away of the duality of subjective vs objective.

It is a spontaneous cessation of the dualistic viewpoint which includes both the objective and the subjective.

Realization is neither objective nor subjective. It's not an subjective experience, nor an objective perception.

Realization is when the sense of subjectivity and the sense of objectivity ceases or vanishes.

It has really nothing to do with having any concepts or beliefs... in fact, its quite the opposite.

It's the ceasing or the dropping away of all concepts and beliefs, leaving only beingness.

Its not a matter of thinking. It is not a matter of thoughts or ideas at all.

Thoughts and ideas appear and then vanish again. Realization cannot be understood in terms of thoughts or ideas, or words. That is why it is difficult to say anything truly meaningful about it in words.

Realization is not something that an individual achieves. A person does not become "realized". Realization is not an attainment of something, like a state of mind, or a knowledge about something.

Realization is the opposite. Realization is the loss of duality.

But also, non-duality is not simply "oneness". That is a common assumption and it is a mistake.

Realization is the loss of all duality, in which non-duality is that which remains.

However, non-duality is not merely a 'state' of "oneness". Non-duality is what remains when all concepts and all dualistic points of view dissolve and vanish.

Nothing changes other than there is no longer any sense of the objective or subjective, or one versus the other.

Non-duality is simply an absence of dualistic concepts. It's not nothing-ness, nor is it something-ness.

It is simply that which is always already the case. It is not oblivion, nor is it heaven. It is simply that which IS, without any tint of duality.

So realization is said to be like awakening from a dsream, but there is nobody who actually wakes up.

The waking-up is simply the spontaneous falling away of the sense of the duality of subjective versus objective.

There is nobody who ever 'becomes' "realized". In a sense, it's just the loss of that entire notion.

It not like there is an individual, and then that individual wakes up and becomes "realized". No. No one beomes realized.

Realization is simply the loss of the sense of duality that there is a someone who is un-realized, who then has or achieves realization, and then beomes realized. Thats not it at all. Not even close.

Realization does not happen to anyone. It is not an attaining or an achieving of anything or any state. It is the opposite.

Realization is the end of all that. It is the total dropping away of all such dualistic notions of 'un-realized' versus 'realized', or a subjective "me" versus an objective "world".

And the last thing I think needs to be mentioned here about all this is... that inevitably someone will say:

"Who says that this is the way it is?"

Well, I am only offering the above for consideration and contemplation, and not as something written in stone.

People can think whatever they like, they can agree or disagree. The point is that whatever can be said is only words and ideas, which in terms of realization, is all irrelevant anyway, including what I say.

Wnen realization actually does occur, then thoughts and interpretations and conclusions, and agreeing or disagreeing, and son and so forth... will all end.

I am not asking anyone to believe what I have offered. I am only presenting this as a way of coming to some understanding about it.

Realization is simply whatever it is. And if, and when, realization ever does occurs, then it will become quite clear what that means.

No one has to take my word for it. Go find out for yourself. I don't care whether anyone believes me. It's not about believing me or disbelieving me.

This matter of "realization' is, in a sense, it's own proof. Becasue there is nobody who can prove it. And anyone who desires proof, simply does not understand it at all.

Realization requires no proof, as there is actually nothing to prove. And when realization finally occurs, proof is irrelevant.

There is nothing to prove, and there no one who is "realized" to be able to prove it.

Realization is neither a subjective experience nor a state of mind, nor something objective that is reached or attained by some individual.

At best it can only be described as like an awakening from a dream... but there is no dreamer nor is there anyone who awakens or who becomes 'awakened' or 'realized'.


That not only laid certain issues to rest. I think it put them sound to sleep. Now what are we going to talk about?

Don't worry Bro... eventually somebody will come along in their big karma with their frisky pet dogma.

They will park their karma in the comment parking lot, and then their dogma will jump out and it will either wag its tail and bark a bit, or it will piss on the sign at the entrance to the Church, or else sometimes it will take to biting somebody in their philosophical butt.

Then the Reverend Brian will come down from his pulpit and tell the driver of the karma to put their dogma on a leash, or else possibly have their karma towed away (ie deleted).

But, as we all know, by then the dogma will have already pooped all around the Church grounds, to the dismay of the Churchless brethren.

And so it goes...


Tao,

Thanks for the two comments on Realization. I shall copy and read on my pc tonight at home.

The issue of initiation, or non-initiation, RSSB cults, and RSSB membership is not an important topic for me. Hopefully, this debate can end, and other topics can be reviewed.
Again, thanks for the info. As stated before, I am not searching for anything. However, there are times for clarification of what is being discussed.
Roger

I liked tAo's two comments above about realization and sent them to a friend who replied:

"perhaps you know the Jewish Koan:
'If there is no self, then whose arthritis pain is this?'"

I provided an answer of sorts, but I'll save it for some other time.


RSSB does a specific type of Shabd Yoga which is considered inferior by some S.Y. schools. Initiation into RSSB shabd yoga is initiation by a specific guru guardian into his style of S.Y.

Logic is neither subjective or objective- it stands on it's own.

For instance; a man joins the army; he trains, he holds a gun, he fires. Say he goes into the army either because it's compulsory or because he wishes to learn discipline. In his heart he doesn't believe in war only in army-style discipline - but he's joined the army, he's part of it.

Another example would be: In an art class, a teacher has a painting of a bicycle and asks the students to copy the painting. The students do so and some of the paintings look very different to the original. Students have brought their subjective interpretation to their paintings, however the bicycles are still bicycles.

I can't believe this is continuing.

How about someone who wants to learn to swim and gets lessons from someone who belongs to a swim club. Does that make them a member of the club?

"Initiation into RSSB shabd yoga is initiation by a specific guru guardian into his style of S.Y."

is that right? well then i'll just have a regular cheese pizza without any of that guru style topping, please.

actually, make mine a ZZ Top, with no RSSB please.


Btw in case anyone is curious, "S.Y." is one of those secret abbreviations used by mystics which means Sanctimonious Yodeling.


Tucson, there's more. Initiation would be the swimming club membership, otherwise no swimming lessons. Now, I rest my case.

I am still considering what tAo means by Realisation. If Realisation is the awakening to non-duality or the spontaneous cessation of duality, then is it possible or necessary to consciously and successfully work at building up to a state where such spontaneity best occurs through, say, specific meditation, study, discussion? But then what exactly is meant by non-duality? It is such an abstract concept. When we're familiar with these terms, we take for granted that non-duality can be experienced.

tucson stated to catherine:

"How about someone who wants to learn to swim and gets lessons from someone who belongs to a swim club. Does that make them a member of the club?"

catherine responded:

"Initiation would be the swimming club membership, otherwise no swimming lessons."


no, its plain to see that catherine is wrong. just because someone got swim lessons from another person, it does not make the person getting the lessons a member of any swim club. because the person who got the lessons, only got them from "someone" else who simply happened to also belong to a swim club.

the person who got the lessons did not get the lessons from a "swim club", but only from another person who also just happened to belong to a swim club.

the one giving the lessons is the one who happens to belong to the swim club, not the one who simply received some private lessons. nothing was said about a person getting lessons from any swim club, but only received lessons from someone else who just happened to be a member of some swim club.

so just because the person who gave the lessons happened to also belong to a swim club, does not mean that the person that received the lessons, must also now belong to the same swim club.

in tucson's story, the person giving the lessons is the only one who has the swim club membership, and it was not indicated that the person was give lesson for the swim club. so just because the swimming instructor also happened to belong to some swim club, that does not automatically mean that the person who was receiving the lessons, also must now belong to that same swim club.

in tucson's example, nothing was said about the student getting lessons from any swim club, but only lessons from someone who also just happened to belong to a swim club themselves.

nothing was said about the swim instructor representing any swim club, or that the they were giving lessons for the swim club.

the idea that was conveyed was simply that the person getting the lessons was getting some private lessons, not lessons that were from, or under the auspices of, the swim club. so therfore it does not make the person receiving some private swim lessons, automatically a member of some swim club.

this is an example of how some people try to blur the lines and ignore or change the facts, just to suit their own personal agendas.


Ah zz, all I can say is zzzzzz! In RSSB Sant Mat a person does have to belong to the 'swim club' through initiation. That's the point. Now I not only rest my case but put it completely to zzzzz sleep.

I go along with George's 18 September entries (barring the equation with realised being perfect part).

"In RSSB Sant Mat a person does have to belong [...] through initiation. That's the point."

-- That may be YOUR point, but that doesn't mean that it's valid. Initiation does NOT make the one who receives the initiation "have to belong" to anything. There was, and there is no "HAVE to belong" to the RSSB, no matter how you cut it.

Initiation is not into the RSSB. Initiation is for a path of spiritual meditation, not an organization.

Belonging to anything (whether it be RSSB or anything else) is an entirely VOLUNTARY affair. Also, the RSSB does not force people to "belong" to the RSSB.

So there is obviously a very serious flaw in your thinking. It's akin to a type of dictatorial fundamentalism. It denies that people have any freedom of choice. Its pretty sick imo.


"I go along with George's 18 September entries"

George is not an initiate, so in regards to the initiation into sant mat meditation or the RSSB, whatever he may think is totally irrelevant.

It's no wonder you are not awake.

catherine email me at manishfantastic(at)gmail.com

Last three lines from awake zz: The producer is not part of a documentary usually, but has a clear, unique perspective.

first, Catherine was the one who said that she had "rested" her case, and had also put her case "completely to zzzzz sleep".

second, George is not a producer of any documentary about initiation or the RSSB.

third, George also has had no experience with initiation, and no first-hand knowledge about the RSSB organization. thus George is completely unqualified, and he has NO such "clear, unique perspective" at all compared to someone who HAS initiation and who HAS first-hand knowledge regarding the RSSB organization.


The analogy, as well as you and tAo imply through your previous posts that initiation into and first hand knowledge of the RSSB org are not pre-requisites for clarity, realisation(s), insights, vision, wisdom and so on. An outsider can have a very good insight into a tribe for instance.

This talk about realised persons... My impression is that anyone can have realisations, but that there are absolutely no realised people. I understand how realised can be interpreted as perfect because a constantly realised person who acts constantly on such permanent realisation could be considered to have perfect knowledge caused by the realisation. With perfect knowledge and realisation, the body and environment for example, could be mainpulated at will- to perfection as such.

The realised ( possibly also called enlightened) person is something we may hope, strive for or hope, strive to be. In this context, it implies a perfect living master (constantly realised) is possible.

I have no such hopes. In my opinion all people whether they've meditated, tried, not tried etc have realisations and we all project in our refined or unrefined selves- a vast mixture of variations. This approach should help us to accept one another but our survival skills based on insecurity automatically place us in a position where we think we'll best survive.

Catherine wrote: "there are absolutely no realised people."

--This is an important point, I think. For all practical purposes no one has ever been realized because ordinarily it is impossible know the actual state of anothers perception. Someone can say Joe Blow is realized, or Mrs. Blow can say she is realized, but so what? How is the actuality of that determined? Do they say wise things and are patient with fools and idiots? They sit surrounded by flowers and adoring throngs of devotees? That proves they are realized? WTF is realization? Really. WHAT is it?

Catherine wrote: "I understand how realised can be interpreted as perfect because a constantly realised person who acts constantly on such permanent realisation could be considered to have perfect knowledge caused by the realisation. With perfect knowledge and realisation, the body and environment for example, could be mainpulated at will- to perfection as such."

--With all due respect, this statement is based on so many assumptions. How do we know that any of that applies to whatever realization is? That is just our concept of realization. We figure realization must be a big deal that confers all these powers and such. We think it is some sort of thing that happens to someone without actually having the slightest idea of what it really is, if anything at all!

I have this book sitting on the shelf called "Awakening TO the Dream" by Leo Hartong. I am not telling anyone to read it or not. I don't remember it very well because I read it years ago. I thought it was good at the time.

Anyway, the title reminds me of waking up IN a dream. Maybe that is all realization is. You just wake up and the show goes on. Rather than being caught up in it you observe it from a point that can't be found.

zz top,

Catherine can see nonsense spin from a mile away, its as simple as that.

You just don't get it, because your ego is too big. You will never be REALIZED for precisely this reason, rather DELUDED.

George,

first, you are the one who with the "nonsense spin". an you are the one who doesn't "get it" imo.

second, contrary to your implication, I have never claimed to be "REALIZED" or said that I am seeking relization. in fact, I don't even believe in realization at all. realization is complete a myth imo.

so it would be more respectful of other people if you would try to refrain from your often attempted distortions of what other people do say, and, your manufacturing false implications about what other people believe or do not believe.


Catherine,

"you and tAo imply through your previous posts that initiation into and first hand knowledge of the RSSB org"

-- Again, just to make my own position clear, I have not ever said that 'initiation' was "into" "the RSSB org". This may be YOUR contention, but it is not mine. If you were possibly referring to me in this instance, then I would have say please stop trying to put your words into my mouth. It may be YOUR belief that initiation is "into" the RSSB organization. But I do not hold that view at all. For myself, I do not regard spiritual initiation as being INTO an organization in any way whatsoever.

"An outsider can have a very good insight into a tribe for instance."

-- Perhaps... but as far as this issue goes, I did not join, or belong to, or get initiated into, any "tribe"

"My impression is that [...] that there are absolutely no realised people."

-- I agree. Realization is a myth imo, and so I don't believe in "realised" people.

"realised can be interpreted as perfect because a constantly realised person who acts constantly on such permanent realisation could be considered to have perfect knowledge caused by the realisation."

-- There are several assumptions in this that I do not reagrd as valid. I don't believe in "perfect". I don't believe in the notion of a "realised person". I don't believe in the notion of "permanent realisation". And I don't believe in the notion of "perfect knowledge". Maybe you do, but I don't regard any of those as being real. Those are all conceptual myths imo.

"With perfect knowledge and realisation, the body and environment for example, could be mainpulated at will- to perfection as such."

-- I don't believe in any "perfect knowledge and realisation", and I also don't believe that "the body and environment for example, could be mainpulated at will"... other than by the normal physical and material means.

"The realised ( possibly also called enlightened) person is something we may hope, strive for or hope, strive to be."

-- I ppersonallly do not believe in "realised person" or in "enlightened person". "Enlightenment" is a complete myth imo.

"a perfect living master (constantly realised) is possible."

-- I do not believe in the existence of "perfect living master"s, nor in anything such as "constantly realised". I do not regard any human being as having any 'constant' attibute.

"our survival skills [...] place us in a position where we think we'll best survive.'

-- That's a reasonable assumption.


Osho, I can't agree less with you.

The Master may know all about it (been there, done that) but seeing the produce, it is very clear that what needs to be attained is repeatedly taught but the self-realisation that one needs to achieve to attain what is being taught - is not being pushed. If my actions (karmas) are limited & stuck in this material world, how much ever I may try, I will not reach the other side.

Constant (successful) meditation will help in mind control which in turn helps in self-realisation. Once I attain self-realisation I easily become an observer to the countless stimuli created by this world thus not being affected to respond in a likely (worldly) manner.

With so less time with each one of us, it becomes more important to spend more time on Simran and less on Seva. As long as each one of us is going on with our worldly responsibilities and duties, we are doing our bit of seva. Once one achieves the self-realisation our Seva priorities will automatically change for the bettterment of human life.

tucson - Sorry to have responded so late. I'll surely share my questions (and answers) when I find all the answers to my questions. I am yet digging (positively) daily.

P.S - There is another 'Naresh-D' here. I humbly request we all use proper un-identical names on Forums. This will help the non-administrators know who-is-who.

Naresh.

Tao,

(1) "Again, just to make my own position clear, I have not ever said that 'initiation' was "into" "the RSSB org".

--- That is totally false and contraictory to what you have said before (see quote below), where you have made it unwaveringly clear (sic) that you were intitiated into both shadbd yoga AND Radha Soami Sant Mat.

(2) "Let me be very pointed and very clear about this: There is one thing ...that I have never ever wavered on ... 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."

--- Lies to suit the particular argument being had with the person at that time to make out that the other person knows nothing. Well thats the thing about lies and spin, they catch up eventually.

Naresh commented:

"The Master may know all about it"

...master of what?? what master?? and what says the master knows "all about" anything?

"If my actions (karmas) are limited & stuck in this material world, how much ever I may try, I will not reach the other side."

...what "other side"??

"Constant (successful) meditation will help in mind control which in turn helps in self-realisation."

...thats just an opinion. and what "self-realisation"??

"Once I attain self-realisation I easily become an observer to the countless stimuli created by this world thus not being affected to respond in a likely (worldly) manner."

...what makes you so sure about that?? and "attain" what self-realisation?? and are you not already an observer of the world??

"it becomes more important to spend more time on Simran and less on Seva. As long as each one of us is going on with our worldly responsibilities and duties, we are doing our bit of seva."

...that is only your opinion. it is also preaching. you are preaching. preaching simran, seva, and duty. not everyone cares for preaching.

"Once one achieves the self-realisation our Seva priorities will automatically change for the bettterment of human life."

...that is only your opinion. how do you know this to be so?? what makes you assume anyone "achieves the self-realisation"?? what self-realisation?? and how do you know that "priorities will automatically change for the bettterment of human life"??

"I'll surely share my questions (and answers) when I find all the answers to my questions."

...LOL... and I will have to question the answers to those questions, as well as question all the questions.

"There is another 'Naresh-D' here."

...yes, that other "naresh-D" is a troll who lives along the way to Churchlessness.

"I humbly request we all use proper un-identical names"

....ok, here's my proper un-identical name:

(1) "I have not ever said that initiation was into the RSSB org"

(2) "my own formal initiation into shadd yoga and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (the Radha Soami Mat)"

Spot the inconsistency. LOL. This is most amusing and about as clear as mud.


(1) "Again, just to make my own position clear, I have not ever said that 'initiation' was "into" "the RSSB org"." Posted by: tAo | September 27, 2009 at 05:33 PM

George responds: "That is totally false and contraictory to what you have said before (see quote below), where you have made it unwaveringly clear (sic) that you were intitiated into both shadbd yoga AND Radha Soami Sant Mat."

-- Wrong. Fyi George - since you are so terribly uninformed and uneducated as to the actual meanings of these terms - "Radha Soami Mat" simply means The 'Radha Soami Spiritual Path'. "Radha Soami Mat" DOES NOT MEAN "the RSSB org". "Radha Soami Mat" DOES NOT MEAN 'the RSSB'. Radha Soami Mat means the SPIRITUAL TEACHINGS of the Radha Soami PATH, which is the SPIRITUAL TEACHINGS of Sant Mat. So please get the correct and proper meaning of these terms and their definitions, before you go accusing other people like myself of being "false and contraictory".

(2) "Let me be very pointed and very clear about this: There is one thing ...that I have never ever wavered on ... 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." Posted by: tAo

George responds: "Lies to suit the particular argument being had with the person at that time to make out that the other person knows nothing."

-- Wrong. Absolutely wrong. You are wrong simply because I had said (as George has quoted): "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." I had secifically clarified my statement when I said: "(the Radha Soami Mat)". That indicates that I was referring to the Radha Soami MAT rather than the RSSB organization. The Radha Soami Mat is not the same as the RSSB organization. There are other organizations who follow the Radha Soami Mat (the Radha Soami path and spiritual teachings) besides just the RSSB organization. That is why I made it a point to specify "(the Radha Soami Mat)" rather than tyhe RSSB.

George is the one who is lying here... by distorting and misrepresenting my words and terms, and George is the one who is making "false and contraictory" assertions.

George has repeatedly attempted to dishonestly misrepresent and distort the actual meanings and definitions of terms, and has also attempted to make blatant false accustions against me, when I have already made my position and statements very clear at great length.

George should accept what other people say about thmeselves, instead of repeatedly distorting and misrepresenting their words, and then calling them liars about things they did not say or claim.

LOL, what a load of utter nonsense, sheer stubborn dishonesty.

You have said you were initiatied into the RSSB, in fact it it clearly unwaveringly said:

"my own formal initiation into shadd yoga and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas"

So you did say you have been formation ininiated into RSSB.

You clearly said it. what are you trying to convince me of, that black is white?

It is there in black and white text for everyone to see, word for word.

People - what is going on here. It's ok to disagree, but lets not create WARS here, i'm sure if some of you were in the same room that you would want to get into a little punch up? Manish, not sure what you are defending here, as there is nothing to defend? TAO is correct in what he says as is everyone else, we all have our own viewpoints? What does RS teach? or for that matter any TRUE master/religion that may exist today, or in the Past, that is to rise above it, meaning that reality/enlightenment would dictate that this blog has NO significance, its just a game.

People like Manish are fanatical individuals who have mis-represented there beliefs and the teachings by there guru's. Today we see WARS going on around the world, as we can not tolerate each other, its a quest to be RIGHT? Right in what sense, we are all right and we are all wrong depends which viewpoint you are looking at the situation from. From an enlightened perspective I guess it doesn't matter either way, it is what it is?

Manish do you recognise who TAO is? Do you recognise who Brian, Osho etc is? They are also your guru's in the truest sense, there is something to be learnt here and you are missing the point.

Fanatical beings like yourself attribute to alot of the problems we see in today's society. Everyone has there viewpoint and they are entitled to it. Also there is great wisdom to be had if you actually listen and understand what is being said here. The whole purpose of this dialogue is to shake you and WAKE you up?

If you understood what it means to be enlightened it wouldn't matter who is saying offence remarks to who as you are not Manish the peronality, you are something far greater, you are THE ONE. WAKE UP and STOP Fighting? You will realize the truth in your silence.........

Harry i do not know who you are and what you meant to say?

well but let me tell you..
well if at all i m fighting from your view point i m fighting for the right which is according to my view point..is right and shown wrong here..

i m just correcting the incorrect.
and harry..

what you said..TAO and Brain my guru..

oh ho..a very good joke..

and about recognizing..
DO you recognize WHO I M ,

unfortunately you do not..then do not make false claims dear..

and i liked the word fanatic..you used for me
good word...i liked it..

about realising the truth..
i have master to guide me and i m realising the truth 1000% better than you guys..

what all you guys claim is all just your personal point of view..

To give the appearance of throwing more oil on a fire that has been burning for way too long I would like to observe that FORMAL initiation was written ...

If we look the definition of the adjective formal:
Relating to or involving outward form or structure.
Being or relating to essential form or constitution: a formal principle.
Following or being in accord with accepted forms, conventions, or regulations: had little formal education; went to a formal party.
Executed, carried out, or done in proper or regular form: a formal reprimand; a formal document.
Characterized by strict or meticulous observation of forms; methodical: very formal in their business transactions.
Stiffly ceremonious: a formal manner; a formal greeting; a formal bow to the monarch.
(see www.answers.com)

Formal entails a relation to accepted forms, conventions, or regulations, which entails traditions. You don't learn 'formally' to swin from a stranger in dirt puddle ...

Tao has already written that he did not expressed correctly what he meant -- what he wrote was not what he meant ... fine ...
As I said before we will never know what were Tao's states of mind at the time ... As far as I know none of us (beside Tao) were there ... However, that does not mean that we have to take without any discrimination what Tao tells us about his intentions or the 'facts' about his life. Just like we cannot without critical thinking take for face value the claim of innonence of whoever has been accused of something ... In the case of Tao, some of us have wisely learned better over the years.

George's observations must be considered in the contexts of Tao's interventions on this blog, which perspectives often shift whenever convenient. For example, one case of Tao's 'Best of' compilation

tAo wrote:
"Late 1960s thru early 1970s -- I was drawn and traveled to Morocco, the Mediterranean and the Middle East, and then on to Iran, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Afghanistan, and back again to India. I continued to live and travel all about India and the Himalayas as a serious yogi/sadhu/sannyasi for a few years. I visited many ashrams and met and hung out with many yogis, sadhus, swamis, gurus, and sages... some well known and others more obscure.
Early 1970s -- Later on, after I returned to America, ..."
tAo wrote:
"However, btw, I DO "know a whole lot about science and the scientific method"... because I just happen to have earned two PhDs, doctorates in two separate scientific fields (Psychology, and also Physics & Electronic Engineering) during the late 1960s and early 1970s - one from Stanford Univ. and the other from Princeton Univ. - so don't even bother trying to say or imply that I am somehow not familiar with science... or to try to bullshit and skirt your way around this issue again Marcel. You just don't have the 'right stuff'."

George blatantly accusing me (tAo) of "sheer stubborn dishonesty"... in the face of all the obvious facts, and in spite of, and in denial of my own accurate statements about myself, as well as about Sant Mat shabd yoga and initiation, and if and how it may or may not relate to the RSSB ORGANIZATION, is what is actually so OUTRAGEOUSLY DISHONEST and STUBBORN.

George falsely stated:

"You have said you were initiatied into the RSSB"

-- NO. That is totally incorrect. That is an outright lie. What I DID SAY, was that I had been initiated into RADHA SOAMI MAT, which is the Radha Soami SPIRITUAL PATH (and not the RSSB organization). That is what I said, and NOT what George is so deviously twisting into something different.

I did not say that I was "initiatied into the RSSB" as George so dishonestly and falsely claims and lies about.

The Radha Soami Mat is NOT the RSSB. The Radha Soami Mat is (means) the Radha Soami Spiritual Path, it means the Radha Soami Spiritual Teachings, which are the teachings of SANT MAT (Sant Mat means the "Sant Path" or "the Path of the Sants". Radha Soami Mat does NOT mean the RSSB organization. Period.

Neither "Radha Soami Mat" nor "Sant Mat" means or indicates the "RSSB". The RSSB is an ORGANIZATION and a physical spiritual colony located near Beas, Punjab, India.

"Radha Soami Mat" is simply the spiritual teachings and the spiritual path (the spiritual practices) of Sant Mat, or the 'Path of the Saints'.

The Radha Soami Mat is NOT the RSSB organization in any sense whatsoever.

George falsely stated:

"you did say you have been formation ininiated into RSSB."

-- Absolutely wrong. This is a lie. I never said that I was initiated "into RSSB". I said clearly that I was initiated into the Radha Soami Mat, which is the SPIRITUAL PATH of Radha Soami, aka Sant Mat.

Radha Soami Mat is NOT an organization. Radha Soami Mat is only the spiritual teachings and shabd meditation practice of Sant Mat, not any sort of organization.

George said: "what are you trying to convince me of, that black is white?"

-- NO, that is what YOU are so dishonestly trying to do. You are desperatly trying to distort or deny the basic facts, and twist and misrepresent my words and my statements and their meanings.

George said: "It is there in black and white text for everyone to see, word for word."

-- Yes, my words speak for themselves. My words clearly stated that I was only initiated into the RADHA SOAMI MAT (the spiritual path of Radha Soami/Sant Mat), not into any organization.

George, on numerous occasions, has deceiptfully twisted other people's words, and he has claimed they have said things they did not say, and he has misrepresented what other people have said.


More examples of personal attack, abuse, and ridicule, and lies and preaching dogma, as well as anti-American rhetoric that was posted by the fanatical RS fundamentalist troll, formerly known as "Manish", who now calls himself "mla":

Posted by: mla | September 28, 2009 at 02:45 PM:

"TAO and Brain [...] they are just grown up old guys..
they are all immature..innocent
many times meaningless and many time senseless."

"tao and brain and there admirer are fall asleep."

"i have master to guide me and i m realising the truth 1000% better than you guys."

"tao a very fake person."

"surat shabd yoga a spiritual meditation system taught by master (charan singh ji)and this is taught in RadhaSoami satsang beas."

"tao has been initiated to RSSB."

"[tao] i think he is the most foolish and dumbest person alive on this planet."

"all i have come to know like many AMERICANS he is just another FAKE PERSON."

The above quotations were Posted by:
mla | September 28, 2009 at 02:45 PM


As usual, the elephant pops out of his jungle of ignorance to make yet another futile and bogus attempt at discrediting me, just like all the other ones that he keeps recycling:

tAo wrote [some time ago]:

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

-- That is all very correct.


tAo wrote:
"I just happen to have earned two PhDs, doctorates in two separate scientific fields (Psychology, and also Physics & Electronic Engineering) during the late 1960s and early 1970s - one from Stanford Univ. and the other from Princeton Univ. - so don't even bother trying to say or imply that I am somehow not familiar with science."

-- That is what I stated as well.

Going to India for periods of time, did not conflict with my academic pursuits.


tAo,

"My words clearly stated that I was only initiated into the RADHA SOAMI MAT (the spiritual path of Radha Soami/Sant Mat), not into any organization."

--- Again, this is inserting qualifications and words that simply did not exist in your original quote, which made absolutely no mention of the 'spiritual path' of RSSB. Your original quote is repeated here again for the gazillionth time verbatim: "the simple fact of my own formal initiation into shadd yoga and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas...."

--- On a seperate point, and since i am now very weary of your sublte rhetoric, in your responses to elephant in which you again listed your wondrous achievements incl two PhDs from different ivy league universities, you responded "That is what I stated as well", but were these statements "all correct"?

Generally, I have a slight problem with all you supposed 'experts'. Firstly you tell big stories with little too support any of them. You want to list your credentials and experience fine, but how do we know any of these statements are accurate?

Secondly why are you having to list all your credentials at all? Are your positions so weak that they cannot stand on their own reasoning and logic, and instead you need to try browbeat your opponent into submission?

Thirdly, many would say the experiences of a spiritualist and academic are about as devoid from the real world as one could possibly get - so just how well placed are you to be lecturing on reality or anything at all, apart from those narrow areas where you collected your supposed PHD's?

Finally, you miss the whole point about a public forum and its intellectual strengths where ppl from all walks and experiences can contribute. Moreover, you have no idea about the other ppl you are dealing with, absolutely none about their academic experience or general breadth of knowledge, which which might well surpass your own.

Manish, please tell me who you really are, you are missing so much here?

you are right the master is there to guide you, so don't cling to the master, understand what is being said, it is like the master pointing to the SUN and say there is the SUN in the sky, but instead of accepting the beauty of the SUN you start to cling to the master, and start saying I got it, i know what the truth is? The truth in this scenario was the SUN not the master? the master was just a vechile to guide you, to point you in the right direction.

Self realization is alot more subtle than you beleive it is?

Your life and the people you come into contact with daily are teaching you so much about yourself, especially the ones who actually challenge your beleif system, the ones who take you out your comfort zone.

Now it has started looking like a agenda to malign 'Tao' unnecessarily as he has always been pretty vocal against RSSB and its followers.

So far all the followers of RSSB were not able to impose their blind faith in this blog as Tao would scrutinize them. So they found a way to challenge 'tao' on a silly discussion which has been discussed and clarified hundreds of times now. But RSSB people won't let this opportunity go even if it proves that 'their mind can only understand literal meaning'

May be 'Tao', you can stop replying to this discussion and show your greatness as I wont expect it from satsangis :)

Radddddhaswamiiiiiiii!!! ( again bending myself completely to show my artificial humility)

Brian is welcome to ban George, in fact Feorge tries not to comment too often, since it seems his comments rile folk up for no good reason other then expressing an opinion.

On this particular thread, George is not happy with Tao since he feels Tao is not playing with a straight bat at all. But George will now leave this too, since all good things must come to an end.

With hugs and kisses
George

Oh and one more time, George has not distorted a single word, here is Tao's quote verbatim:

"...my own formal initiation into shadd yoga and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas..."

tAo (and others), personal attacks get edited or deleted. Read the comment policies for this blog. "Flame wars" are hugely boring, disruptive, and not what most visitors to this blog want to read.

This "RSSB initiation" issue has become a flame war. Everything that could be said about it has been said by both sides-- over and over. Time to move on.

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.