Why be shy about sharing mystical experiences?

I'm an admirer of Taoism. I resonate with these lines in the Tao Te Ching:

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know.

Makes sense.

How could the essence of the cosmos be encompassed by words? The human mind wasn't around at the big bang some 14 billion years ago, so it's difficult to see how a verbal explanation could capture the fullness of ultimate reality.

But silence has another side: speaking. Yin and yang are manifestations of the Tao. Too much of anything, for too long, is unnatural. We've got to have balance.

So I don't understand or agree with the reticence of many mystics, gurus, sages, and such to talk about their "inner" experiences (or lack thereof) of a supposed enlightened state of being.

Another Tao, tAo, is a frequenter commenter on this blog. Today he shared some interesting thoughts on this post.

Referring to gurus in the Sant Mat tradition who are considered by their devotees to have traversed higher spiritual regions of the cosmos, tAo said (with some typos corrected):

you see this is also where i disagree with you slightly. you say that this is "their claim". but they have not claimed any such thing. if you or anyone can produce any book or lecture where they have made such a claim, i will be willing to consider it. but i have not seen it. i have read all the books and i don't remember ever reading them making that claim. they talk all around it, but they don't actually claim to have experienced it. that is the thing that tricks most people (like yourself) into ASSUMING (and then believing) that these so-called masters have experienced what is described in the literature. but the truth of the matter is that they never actually admit that.

Good points.

I've been to India twice. I've attended numerous talks by two gurus, Charan Singh and Gurinder Singh, who are considered to be "God in human form (GIHF)." Like tAo, I've read every book published by the Radha Soami Satsang Beas organization (and there are lots of them), many of which were written by GIHF gurus.

But until today it hadn't fully dawned on me how rare it is for a direct claim of an inner mystical experience to be made by them. Not only rare, it may well be non-existent.

Why is this?

Well, two possible reasons leap out. (1) The gurus have never had a mystical experience of some spiritual domain of existence. (2) The gurus don't want to talk about their experiences.

Skeptics and true believers, not surprisingly, favor different hypotheses. Having been in the latter camp myself for several decades, I can understand how silence can be viewed as being akin to godliness.

"Ah, this shows how divinely humble the guru is," a devotee will say after hearing the guru respond to "Are you really God?" with "I'm no one special. I'm just a servant of my own guru."

Nice sentiment. But what if he is actually telling the truth? He hasn't had any special mystical experiences, and he doesn't have any special knowledge about the cosmos.

This is the problem with assuming that those who know do not talk, because those who don't know also do not talk -- since they have nothing to say. If you ask me how to fix the brakes on your car, I might smile and shrug my shoulders while pointing to the auto repair shop down the street.

If you believe that I'm a master mechanic who wants to hide his expertise under a mantle of enigmatic mystery, you'd be wrong. I'm simply clueless about most matters related to automotive inner workings.

The most honest thing for me to do would be to explicitly say, "I've got no idea how to fix your brakes. And for sure you don't want me to learn how on your car."

Of course, someone knowledgeable about brake jobs should be equally eager to offer you some advice. Either way, silence would be a cop-out, impolite, an unnecessary deception. Why not acknowledge one's experience, or inexperience, about something?

Often you hear that gurus don't want to speak about their mystical experiences to avoid being idolized by devotees, or out of a sense of humility.

But they already are put on a pedestal by their followers. And aren't enlightened beings supposed to be beyond the vagaries of an ego, which entails worrying about the proper level of humbleness to project to other people? What's the matter with simple straightforward honesty?

"Yes, I have experienced such and such. It's hard for me to describe those experiences. Yet if you want me to try, I'll do my best. What questions do you have?"

This would be a refreshing response from a guru, mystic, or sage. As would, "I'll be straight with you. I've never experienced anything out of the ordinary in my meditation. I'm sorry to disappoint my devotees, but I don't know what you think I do."

Naturalness is appealing to me. Fakery isn't.

Most gurus and spiritual leaders look like they're playing the role of a guru or spiritual leader. This is to be expected, but it also is off-putting to me.

In normal human conversations, people aren't evasive. If I ask someone, "Have you ever been to Paris?" they don't respond with "What is the reality of the one who is asking this question?" or "If I told you, how would this benefit your own international traveling?"

They just answer the simple freaking question! "Yes." "No." There's nothing difficult in uttering one of those two words.

Likewise, gurus should be able and willing to answer this question: "Have you personally experienced the mystical states that your teachings describe?" And entertain follow-up questions if the reply is "Yes."

Comments

[albert]

One should question one's Guru until the very end...that is, when He Himself takes the disciple's Surat past Maha Sunna into the lap of the Lord. Skepticism and doubt is absolutely natural and mandatory in order for belief and faith to take root. Little does this writer know the solicitous care and inner confirmations that are given to a disciple by a true Sat Guru. It is pitiable and will not be absolved until a true Sat Guru is found. So keep churning the waters of discontent and confusion until such an event transpires. When it does transpire, the Great Fortune will begin for you.

[Blogger Brian]

albert, are you serious? Or just making a joke by repeating something you've heard? Has your soul (Surat) been taken by the guru past Maha Sunna (Great Void, I think) into the lap of the Lord?

If so, please share details of your Great Fortune. If not, why should anyone believe what you say more than what the Bible or Koran says? (That true believers will be saved, one day, if they believe.)

[Trish Wareing]

"Realization" may be nothing more than a contented "ah-hah" or "oh, yeah" - an ultimate report so simple it would disappoint the curious - us unrealized types who love complication with our truth.
Also, it seems there's sometimes a thin line between "accurate reporting" and the immediate blossoming of religiousity/dogma. "Those who know do not talk" seems preferential to me. My non-scholarly, peripheral pursuit of matters spiritual has drawn me toward Taoism also.

[tAo]

albert,

your comment has already been addressed, but i will add some of my own reactions. i just wonder if you are still around to read it. i sense that preachy comments like yours are often posted by satsangis and believers who don't stick around to red the responses. a hit-and-run sort of thing. i guess we'll see if thats the case.

here are the statements that you made, and my responses which follow:

"One should question one's Guru until the very end...that is, when He Himself takes the disciple's Surat past Maha Sunna into the lap of the Lord."

-- how do you know that is "the very end"? and how do you know that the "Guru" can do this, or that this "maha sunna" exists? and how do you know that there is any "Lord"? how do you know any of this? have you actually experienced these firsthand? because if not, then why make presumtious statements such as these?

"Skepticism and doubt is absolutely natural and mandatory in order for belief and faith to take root."

-- why does "belief and faith" have to "take root"?? why is belief and faith important? who says that belief and faith are necessary? and if those are important to you, why must it apply to everyone else? it may be important to you, but thats only you. why do you think that what you believe should automatically be important or relevant to others?

"does this writer know the solicitous care and inner confirmations that are given to a disciple by a true Sat Guru."

-- how do you know that the so-called "Sat Guru" cares or gives? how do you know that this so-called "true Sat Guru" is any different than anyone else? and what is "inner confirmation", and what does it have to do with anyone besides you?

"It is pitiable and will not be absolved until a true Sat Guru is found."

-- how do you know what a "true Sat Guru" is? why do you feel that finding one is necessary? it may be important to you, but why should this be of any importance to other people? you said "skepticism and doubt is absolutely natural" so then why should anyone believe you just because you say these things?

"So keep churning the waters of discontent and confusion until such an event transpires."

-- what makes you think that others are in "discontent and confusion"?? you don't know what other people are like or how they feel. so therefore what makes you think and presume that others are in need of searching for any so-called "true Sat Guru"?? this is only something that you believe in. it doesn't appply to other people.

"When it does transpire, the Great Fortune will begin for you."

-- how do you know that? and how do you know what will happpen for others? and why should it, must it be any "Great Fortune"? this is all nothing but your own personal opinions, so what makes you think that it applies in any way whatsoever to other people?? it just doesn't. each individual and life is unique. what is meaningful to you, is not necessarily meaningful or even necessary for others. since you seem to not understand that as eveidenced by your statements and admonitions, then i would necessarily have to doubt that you have any significant degree of spiritual attainment, understanding, or wisdom. so then i wonder why are you suggesting that other people should see and believe things your way? think about that.

[Many Splits]

Albert,

The only one churning in any kind of waters is you, cause you've shut yourself from the limitless and boundless beauty and wonder of this world. The rest of us are not churning, we're perfectly happy with the way our lives are.

[Dungeness]

Likewise, gurus should be able and willing to answer this question: "Have you personally experienced the mystical states that your teachings describe?" And entertain follow-up questions if the reply is "Yes."

But, in a mystic's presence, there's a dumbing down. IQ's plummet. Conversations mirror what happens when the neurotic or lonely grab a captive audience for dear life. You get threads and follow-on's that'd well... drive anyone to drink. Were my departed cat and I together in a previous life? What does it matter if I occasionally eat a little meat... or do a little dope? Should I put financial trust in my friend Bernie M.? Suppose there were a "mystic experience tell-all". There'd likely follow: Why didn't Jesus talk about his experiences as you're doing? Hey, Saint John's description of the regions differs from yours..what's up with that? Could you give me a little inner taste of soul travel so I'll know what to expect?

Seriously, I think mystics have good reasons to avoid this dubious limelight.

[Roger]

"Skepticism and doubt is absolutely natural and mandatory in order for belief and faith to take root."

--Ok, ok, now the belief and faith have properly taken root. They are now growing and flowers are blooming with growth. Now that this is established, what is happening to the mandatory and natural doubt and skepticism? Is doubt and skepticism still thrieving as they are so mandatory? Thanks for any answers. This is a mandatory request.

[David]

Doubt, while positive in discrimination, is positively harmful when it comes to attempting to learn of the mysterious unknown. That is why skeptics aren't innovators. It takes trust in something as an initial condition to test it for there to be progress in any way. If you are bent on disproving something that needs no proof or cannot be proven objectively then you are wasting time that could be better spent figuring it out for yourself.

There are many things about you i cannot prove and nobody else can either, and vice versa. It is a product of simplistic thinking to attribute an objectivity to "God" in terms of proof. Nay, it is impossibly absurd.

People will not tell other people their intimate experiences with "God" to other people if they don't want to. It is not something that can be proven either. Only to the person themselves involved.

[Roger]

"People will not tell other people their intimate experiences with "God" to other people if they don't want to. It is not something that can be proven either. Only to the person themselves involved."

---Interesting statement. How would a person(themself) find a proof of their own intimate experience with God? Nevermind discussing with others. I want to absolutely know my experience with God is totally proven to myself. How do I do this? Please, no outward proofs, only inward(within myself) proofs. Again, responses are mandatory.

[Blogger Brian]

David, thanks for supporting a point that is made frequently on this blog: there is no demonstrable evidence of "God," nor likely will there ever be, because ultimate reality is not an objective phenomenon -- being the whole of existence rather than a part.

So beliefs and subjective experiences are all we have to go on in religion, spirituality, and mysticism. These experiences will seem real to the people having them, but can't be shown to be true to others.

This is also what happens in many other spheres of life. No one knows what someone listening to music feels, only the listener. However, in this instance other people can hear the music. The problem with believing in God as a really real truth is that there is no "there" there.

Not only can't we confirm anyone's experience of God, we can't even confirm that there is an entity to be experienced.

Lastly, skepticism isn't a barrier to knowing. Skepticism means that you aren't mistaking a belief for something true. Skepticism is an openness to reality as it is, not as how we would like it to be. The human mind is capable of coming up with all kinds of concepts that exist only in a person's brain.

The skeptic is after a more solid form of reality, something which exists outside of their own head (as well as inside, because consciousness is how we perceive reality).

[Rain]

As I see this question, it's not about whether someone might be shy about revealing a mystical experience but that the 'someone' is a teacher who is claiming to lead the 'follower' to some higher plane. IF the teacher has not had the experiences for which they are claiming they can take the student, why should anyone follow their guidance? If it's all about suggested mystical experiences but no specifics, then it might be a fraud. That's the issue here as much as reluctance to share with someone who might not totally 'get' it.

I, and I am betting many readers here, have had what I consider to be mystical experiences but I don't share them with just anybody for a lot of reasons. Some would be that others don't care or wouldn't believe. Some is what would be the point? I am though not claiming to be a teacher of the mystical. IF I was, I would think it necessary to share what I knew from my own experience. As the article Brian wrote said, can you really take someone where you have never gone? If you are teaching mystical experiences, you should have experienced them at the least. Even then a acolyte might seriously consider whether to follow as the path might not be right for them. That's the problem with teaching someone else about mysticism.

[David]

Well obviously if the seeker believed in a human being that was a GIHF and had no internal understanding of God as it meant to them, it is easy to see why such persons don't mature properly at the adequate early age.

[David]

Brian, your definition of skepticism includes open mindedness. However, you should also admit that it means bias against new scientific understandings. There is no getting around that.

As i see it, you failed to address my point, which was that if reality is subjective in the main as far as everybody's experience of God is concerned, there is no need to cite any authority on the matter, which is precisely what i see you have done by making another human being into God and endowing it with the power to liberate you without you having to make any effort yourself. It just doesn't cut it.

[George]

"Doubt, while positive in discrimination, is positively harmful when it comes to attempting to learn of the mysterious unknown. That is why skeptics aren't innovators. It takes trust in something as an initial condition to test it for there to be progress in any way."

An interesting statement, one which initially felt like a generalisation from a believer, and yet like all half-truths it remained an enticing question, i.e. whether the first step in all innovation is faith?

Some might point to examples in science, which superficially appear to begin with a theory, and are then only subsequently supported by the evidence.

But is this initial theory one of faith?

No, its more like a very educated guess based on expertise developed by a master over years having developed a feel for his discipline. Picasso did not invent relativity and Einstein did not invent cubism, there was a reason that they innovated in their own field, because this was the area they'd achieved mastery of.

Also, innovation occurs by accident all the time. Mankind's greatest discovery in medicine was an accident, antibiotics. Often innovation occurs without any preconceived theory. Ppl are testing for A and they discover B.

Stephen Hawking was initially accused of being nothing more than a skeptic picking holes in everyone else's theories. The father of western philosophy socrates' entire tradition was based on skepticism.

But whats crucial in distinguishing between a theory based in reality (truth) as compared to one in myth (false), is that the theory be supported by evidence. If the religious or those with faith are innovators, why don't they test for it? What is the evidence supports their innovative religious beliefs?

[Blogger Brian]

David, I'm not sure what you're referring to when you speak of me "making another human being into God and endowing it with the power to liberate you without you having to make any effort yourself."

I've never done that. Maybe some people have such a belief, but I sure don't, or ever have.

I was initiated into a mystical tradition that claimed it was possible to experience objectively real higher dimensions of existence, if one meditated diligently as instructed and followed other rules (vegetarianism, no alcohol/drugs, etc.)

Now I'm skeptical that those higher regions exist. Or that a being, "God," is at the top rung of ultimate reality. I put a lot of effort over many years (over 30) into testing these hypotheses and didn't find any evidence to support them.

But as I like to say, "your results may differ."

I agree with you that from my current perspective there is no need to cite anyone else's authority when it comes to God, because one person's opinion is as good (or bad) as anyone else's . But there also isn't a need to believe anyone else's opinion, because subjective beliefs aren't part of shared objective reality.

If you say, "I like brussels sprouts," or "I love God," I'll believe you. That doesn't mean I also like brussels sprouts or God.

[David]

Brian, can you write down all the "odd" experiences you have had with meditation? For examples - deja vu, precognition, hypnagogia (auditory and visual), OBEs, hearing sounds or seeing light, thought-free states (what are they??) and so on.

I would be more willing to accept your testimonies about having none of the experiences you were taught about in Beas but i wouldn't be encouraged by a lack of some of the experiences i gave examples for.

So if you would be kind enough to detail or write or describe the experiences you HAVE had, it may help me. Perhaps others. Cheers

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear Blogger Brian,

When at the time of initiation you are told to not to share your spiritual experiences. It is obvious that one would not share it, if one follows the tennets properly. Where is the scope of being shy or brave. You know that in santmat every one has a Guru and the instructions for pupils remain the same.

Who will take the risk by sharing inner experiences and displease one's Guru. Even Guru is someone's pupil.

(imo) this stands the reason to be shy for it.

with regards,

[Blogger Brian]

David, I haven't had any of the experiences you mention. At the moment I can't even think of any genuinely "odd" experiences. Hey, odd things happen to me all the time. That's because I have a human mind/brain.

After lengthy meditation I sometimes felt that I entered into a sort of blankness. But I had my eyes closed and was wearing earplugs. This was relaxing, yet not really odd. I'd sometimes hear some buzzing in my ears. However, my wife hears those sounds all the time (she suffers from mild tinnitus, like many others do, when she takes certain medications).

So my odd experience list is very short and not very entertaining. If I think of something else, I'll add to this comment.

[elizabeth w]

Brian, your writings/blogs give much stimulus to peruse. I was surprised and puzzled about how you have heard some buzzing during or after meditation and your wife hears this sound all the time but more especially with certain medications calling it, as many do, simply tinnitus. I need to ask you do you yourself hear this sound continuously, that this sound is always present within you? Could you just say yes or no? Would be appreciated.

[Blogger Brian]

Elizabeth, no.

[David]

Brian, i feel compelled to respond breifly even though i was about to go to bed. But your experiences do not seem to correspond with a lot of others.

I do not mean to sound mean when i say THIS - that i have experienced things i cannot rationally explain in any alternative way at all. I would love to show you directly what i mean but that would involve some kind of weird telepathy, a power i don't claim to possess. Nevertheless, your admissions to having almost zero experiences within meditation (or almost zeros) leads me to disagree with the entire premise of this website.

[tAo]

rakesh says:

"at the time of initiation you are told to not to share your spiritual experiences. It is obvious that one would not share it, if one follows the tennets properly."

-- unfortunately, you are wrong. the "tennets" are the teachings of shabd yoga and the four vows (meditation, vegetarian diet, etc etc), and that does not include any prohibition against sharing one's spiritual experiences. the advice give to refrain from telling about one's meditation experiences is basically just typical cult mind control. it has no prominance or bearing in the core teachings and practice. your statements is nothing but blind parroting of some minor extraneous dogma that is used to keep satsangis isolated and brainwashed.

rakesh says: "Where is the scope of being shy or brave."

-- the "scope" is personal mental freedom and the freedom of speech, thats where.

rakesh says: "You know that in santmat every one has a Guru and the instructions for pupils remain the same."

-- wrong again rakesh. those are not the instructions. the instructions are comnfinedc to the practice and the vows. period. there is no formal vow to keep one's mouth shut and not share one's meditation experiences. so you don't even know what it is that you are defending.

rakesh says: "Who will take the risk by sharing inner experiences and displease one's Guru."

-- fyi, Charan Singh never once told me not to share or tell about my meditation experiences. so this is all just in your head. and there is no displeasing one's guru. the guru would not be a genuine guru if he was so easily displeased. thus there is no "risk". so i don't buy your disempowered, weak-minded, cowardly and fearful mentality.

rakesh says: "Even Guru is someone's pupil."

-- so what. just because the guru had a guru, that is not relevant to this issue.

rakesh says: "this stands the reason to be shy for it."

-- there is no reason to be "shy". sant mat aka shabd yoga is not a matter of being shy and fearful and suppressing one's free speech. at least not the shabd yoga that i was taught and learned and practiced.

so i have to conclude that you are nothing but a blind dogmatic believer, another cultish mind-controlled parrot imo.

free your mind from these foolish self-imposed shackles.

[Familiar Face]

tAo stated correctly, imo.

There is the unwritten rule in RSSB that one does not discuss one's inner spiritual experiences. Why?

On the one hand I could understand this rule if many satsangis were indeed having "inner" spiritual experiences.

Imagine sitting in a room where everyone is discussing how wonderful the radiant form was in their meditation that morning or how refreshing it was to take a dip in Mansorovar, a purifying "lake" in the third spiritual region, or how the entrancing peals of the shabd sent them into a rapturous bliss prior to going out for the paper and a bowl of oatmeal.

But unlucky you have never had any such experiences after 15 years of meditating 2-3 hours daily. In fact, you have had absolutely zero experience of any kind at all except numb legs and some pressure in the forehead. Maybe there was that one time last year when you thought you heard some crickets. Man, that really got your hopes up. Finally, maybe, spiritual progress was beginning!! But no, nothing since that hopeful moment.

In this case you might feel a little left out and cheated or inferior in some way to these "advanced" satsangis who have been meditating for only 6 months.

"Why are they so lucky to be cavorting in the causal plane while I sit semi-catatonic in a closet? I guess my karmas are very heavy from past lives and master is doing his best to work them out, diminishing what would be a swordthrust into a pinprick. That's OK, I know at death the master will come and place me in some inner region where I can meditate more easily and make progress from there. Every minute of meditation is being stored in my account and will eventually bear fruit or I may be very close to a breakthough, master willing, if I can just keep up the effort."

IMO very few satsangis are soaring through vast inner regions and if everyone spoke up at satsangs and said they weren't having these experiences RSSB would soon descend into disorganization and be out of business.

So, everyone tiptoes around the issue. If no one says anything, then no one will know. Don't ask, don't tell. This keeps many satsangis guessing..."My, doesn't so and so seem unusually peaceful today. Such a serene look on their face. They must be going inside."

Or, "So and so spends so much time with the master, they must be very special and advanced to be in his inner circle."

This goes on all the time. Then you find out the special person has left his wife for a younger woman and is actually seen drinking beer, oh the horror. Then there is the excuse given...so and so is simply going through a period of heavy karma.

It's all a charade, a con and a waste of time and satsangis are fooling themselves. It's not the guru's fault. It's their fault for being so damn gullible.

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear tAo,

Thanks for your threadbare analyses of my comments which is not unusual of you. All I have written is wrong and all you have commented is write. Acceptable. Keep hand on your heart and ask yourself how seriously you have persued santmat (RSSB). You have read books only. Charan Singh very often used to say in his satsang if a patient vomits out the medicine just after consuming it. How can he be well? Similarly one should not share one's spiritual experiences otherwise progress stops.He also used to say as a boy grows, the father gives him some money to start the bussiness. If the boy shows progress in bussiness the father gives him his all wealth. If boy sqanders the initial money, the father also withdraws his hand and gives him no more money for bussiness. These were simple and straight explanations. I do not know whether you ever heard it it or not.

To million of followers, satsang is the only way to explain subtle things. Well heavens are not going to fall if you or I do not follow something.

There is no reason to believe that there will not be any counter arguemnet from yourside. But it is a FACT that one should not share one's inner experiences which an initiate is told.

with regards,

[Many Splits]

Great comments Tao and Familiar Face !

Dear Rakesh,

I noticed the word ' pupil ' in your earlier comment. I can tell you with certainty that an ordinary Satsangi or ' pupil ' will not be able to get an appointment with the present Master if he or she wants to discuss anything regarding meditation.

On the RS path, you're pretty much on your own !

If you're waiting for your ' Ah-ha ! Sach Khand ! ' moment, it may never come. You could choose to keep this in mind as you walk the RS path. Just make sure you're investing your time, energy, love and faith into something that doesn't leave you disillusioned later in life.

I know many Satsangis who come across half-convinced and yet they continue to walk the line - mostly, out of fear. They dread that something wrong will happen to them, they are petrified of the karmic implications, they become mistrusting of their own logical judgement.

There is no path, faith or religion in this world that reduces the human significance to such pittance like the RS path does.

I wonder if it takes you closer to God, or away from him.

[Many Splits]

I just read your last comment Rakesh and will for tAo to comment.

Quoting you -
'' '' But it is a FACT that one should not share one's inner experiences... '' ''

That is not true at all ! You are just subtly encouraged not to share your experiences. Nobody's ever told me or any other Satsangi explicitly not to share experiences. Of course, I've de-converted now, but I know the tenets and they have absolutely nothing to do with ' sharing experiences ' and exchanging thoughts about meditation.

And, do you know why they discourage people ?
Because there are no ' inner ' experiences to share !

[Familiar Face]

Many Splits makes some good points as well.

Rakesh Bhasin said this-- "Similarly one should not share one's spiritual experiences otherwise progress stops."--

I want to know why should progress stop? If I say I had a nice meditation and had visions of beautiful regions why should the master punish me? It's like a father spanking the child because the child told his friends the candy tasted good which his father gave him as a reward.

So the child is good in his father's eyes one minute and gets a reward and the next minute he suddenly is bad because he told about the reward? This really is childish kindergarten stuff and as tAo said, cult mind control.

Rakesh, do you know from personal experience that progress stops when you tell people about your inner progress? Please tell us about that. Oops. You can't. Master doesn't permit discussing such things.

What's so bad about telling people about spiritual truth if that is what they have experienced in their meditations? I would think spiritual experience would be a good thing to tell people about. It would give people faith in the lord and the RSSB path. No?

RSSB gives the excuse that sharing inner experience builds the ego, but if the experience is true wouldn't it create a broader perspective in the experiencer that would inhibit egotism and therefore not harm the experiencer for sharing it? If spiritual experiences make an egotist out of you then what good are they?

The more I write about this the more ridiculous it sounds. Why does the master get to tell anyone what to do or not to do? Where is his humility? The master's apparent modesty is only a cover up for actually putting a guilt trip on you and controlling you to keep you in the fold. He really is a contol freak...you must never ever eat an egg or have a glass of wine? Never, ever? C'mon man. The universe has got to be more flexible than that. You know, go with the flow and all that.

I once new a satsangi who had kept track of all his meditation hours. Due to a busy schedule in medical school he was behind enough hours in his meditation to add up to about a week of time. When he arrived at the dera he did not come out of his room until he had made up all those hours. Some would say this shows great dedication and devotion. Others would say it was compulsive.

I think there is a danger of this path actually creating mental illness in some people rather than helping them.

The only reason people can't talk about the great truths they have experienced is that they haven't experienced any and the master (RSSB organization) doesn't want the word to get out. Bad for the business of maintaining the cash flow in a large quasi religio-cult organization.

I am sorry if I sound mean. Maybe I am. I don't want to be, but if someone comes on a blog and makes certain dgmatic claims he must expect to be challenged. This is not a satsang and not everyone here is brainwashed.

[Many Splits]

Very well said Familiar Face - " " RSSB gives the excuse that sharing inner experience builds the ego, but if the experience is true wouldn't it create a broader perspective in the experiencer that would inhibit egotism and therefore not harm the experiencer for sharing it ? If spiritual experiences make an egotist out of you then what good are they ? " "

Rakesh, in your last comment you addressed tAo and said -
" " These were simple and straight explanations. I do not know whether you ever heard it it or not... " "

As another blogger, it seems like tAo knows a hell of a lot more about RS / Sant Mat / Meditation / Mysticism than you ever will. Instead of preaching, just try and understand someone else's viewpoint for a change !

Rakesh, this is interesting -

Last weekend, a friend had come over to my place. I showed her a few posts from the Church of the Churchless blog and the comments that followed.

Quoting her, this is was she said -

'' The other people seem normal, but what's with these RS people ? ''
'' Is RS some sort of fanatic cult ? ''

She has never heard of RS / RSSB / Sant Mat.

[tAo]

well done. i'd say that familiar face and many splits have pretty much articulated and elaborated upon all of the points i raised and even more. and yes, the more on thinks about this, the more ridiculous and transparent it becomes. as i and others have pointed out, this taboo agaist telling about meditation exeriences is really just a rumor that had developed and spread like a Meme. if you don't know what a meme is, then do some simple research and you will gain much clarity and greater understanding about this unspoken RS taboo.

nevertheless, i will add a few additional brief remarks to rakesh's second comment that he addressed to me.

rakesh said:

"All I have written is wrong and all you have commented is write."

-- don't play smart with me rakesh, i am way ahead of you. i based my comments on the facts, yours weren't. i am sorry if that is not to your liking, but my loyalty is to relating the simple truth and the facts about this issue, not harboring and defending rumors and taboos like you are doing.

"Keep hand on your heart and ask yourself how seriously you have persued santmat (RSSB). You have read books only."

-- you don't know that. in fact you are wrong.... or rather, you are only partially right.

i have indeed read the books, but i also engaged in meditation for many decades. and i would dare say quite a bit longer and far more seriously than you ever have.

you apparently have no knowledge about me, about my spiritual path, or about my considerable affiliation with the radha soami mat and practice of shabd yoga. you simply don't know who you are talking about.

right off the bat, you have made a total fool of yourself by saying such ignorant nonsense as: "how seriously you have persued santmat (RSSB). You have read books only."

where did you get this ignrant idea rakesh? you certainly did not get it from me, that's for sure.

so why would you say things like that, especially if you don't know anything about my relationship to sant mat and RS??

even when i had clearly indicated that charan singh had never told me not to share my meditation experiences, in any of my personal conversations with him, nor did i ever hear him say that in any of his satsangs and talks at Dera. so where did you get this notion that i have "read books only"??

this only goes to show just how faulty and shallow your information and knowledge about me really is. you should not make such incorrect assertions about other people, when you do not know the facts about the person of whom you are soeaking or writing. that's just basic common sense rakesh.

"Charan Singh very often used to say in his satsang if a patient vomits out the medicine just after consuming it. How can he be well?"

-- what makes you think that that applies to me?? i did not throw out sant mat "just after consuming it". far from it.

"Similarly one should not share one's spiritual experiences otherwise progress stops."

-- you don't know that for a fact. that is not necessarily true. i do not agree with that at all. and i don't care who told you that to you. its not true. progress does not stop, no matter what one says or shares. speaking about one's experiences never diminished anything. this is a false taboo. it is a meme.

"as a boy grows, the father gives him some money to start the bussiness. If the boy shows progress in bussiness the father gives him his all wealth. If boy sqanders the initial money, the father also withdraws his hand and gives him no more money for bussiness."

-- that may be true as far as worldly life goes, but it does not apply to me. i never "sqaundered" anything spiritual. it was my unfailing commitment to truth that illuminated my path, and it took me far beyond the confines of your dogmatic narrow-mindedness.

"These were simple and straight explanations. I do not know whether you ever heard it it or not."

-- i have heard a great many things, but they matter not to me... for i have chosen to find and to go my own way, by my own determination and commitment to truth, and not by following any other man.

"To million of followers, satsang is the only way to explain subtle things."

-- i don't care what may be the "only way" for "millions of followers". its not my way. my path is my own, and i would not have it any other way. i don't need any explanation about "subtle things". the divine illuminates and provides me with whatever i need directly. i do not require any one else's explanations or outside sources.

"Well heavens are not going to fall if you or I do not follow something."

-- huh?? what?? like i really care?

"it is a FACT that one should not share one's inner experiences which an initiate is told."

-- no that is not "told". that is a rumor. it is a false and unfounded taboo. it is meme, a mind virus, that people (RS satsangis) buy into which inhibits them unnecessarily, and it also prevents satsangis from finding out and learning that many other satsangis are not having any experiences or progress in their meditation. it keeps everything secretive and covered up. that is not good for anyone's spiritual life or meditation. the truth is light. if you deny and hide the truth, then you deny the light.

jesus was reported to have said that a man (or woman) should not cover and hide his light underneath a basket, but that he should put it high up upon a pedestal for all to see by. and he was right.

[George]

To Rakesh's credit, i doubt very much anyone on here knows more about RS and its practical application than he does, they might know more about other disciplines, but not RS imo. He also is unfailingly polite when presenting his viewpoint and u dont think he is out to antagonise anyone.

I agree with this post that if RS claims itself as a science or an alternative knowledge of rteality, then the fundamental aspect of any science is that its evidence is laid bare for public scrutiny and argument. There is none of that on display here, so RS csnnot be a science until such evidence and experiences can be and are discussed in public.

However, if its a religion that is a different matter, since that is personal belief. Perhaps the most off-putting aspect of religion are those nimrod followers out to convert the public to their personal beliefs. If its not the happy clappy trying to save your soul, its the hari hari accosting you at the airport of the jehovas witnesses you have to chase off your doorstep.

Religion is surely a private matter, its not science, its about belief. If they call it a science then it needs to be public, but if its belief then they;re entitled to their own private beliefs.

[tAo]

George writes: "To Rakesh's credit, i doubt very much anyone on here knows more about RS and its practical application than he does, they might know more about other disciplines, but not RS imo."

-- i would have ask what evidence do you have to support that opinion George?

furthermore, please explain how is it that someone such as yourself, someone who has relatively little knowledge of sant mat other than from reading a book or two, who has never received RS initiation, who has no experience in the practice of RS shabd yoga meditation, and who has never been to the RS spiritual colony in India nor spoken with either the past or the present RS master, and who has probably never attended any RS satsangs (at least to my knowledgem so correct me if i am wrong)... and yet you would make a bold statement that you quote: "doubt very much anyone on here knows more about RS and its practical application than he [Rakesh] does" ???

i'm just curious as to what makes you think that you would be able to know or to determine that??

just what makes you assume (and doubt) that other people here - in fact several of whom who have had considerably more affiliation and experience in the Radha Soami Mat (myself included) than Rakesh - know LESS "about RS and its practical application" than Rakesh does?? how do you figure that?

i'm curious, from where exactly do you derive that notion and conclusion?

what evidence or facts do you have to substantiate that idea?

...or is it just because you think (quite mistakenly) that some devoted believer and follower like Rakesh is somehow being criticised unfairly?

Rakesh has been wrong in his assertions and suppositions on quite a few occasions. and are you in any position to judge the knowledge, accuracy, and veracity of his statements, or the lack thereof?? with all due respect George, i really dont think so.

we have been through this sort of thing on other occasions. most of what you say is pretty rational and logical. but somehow once in awhile you get completely turned around when it comes to the issue of knowledge and practical experience in sant mat and RS mysticism.

you seem to think that people who have less experience and rather skewed and warped and mistaken interpretationsm and lots of dogma, and very little basis in facts... to somehow "know more about RS and its practical application" than the rest of us.

and this opionion is all coming from a guy (namely yourself) who has not been initiated, and who has never studied, practiced or applied the teachings of RS, and who has never met or been advised and instructed by the RS guru. yet you claim to know who knows more about RS and its practical application.

i mean, thats pretty ridiculous if you thibnk about it.

so that is why i ask you, on what basis do you make this conclusion about Rakesh relative to others here??

how would you somone like you know who is more knowledgeable and experienced in RS?? or are you simply trying to put down those who really do know more and do have more experience?? and if so, then why??

[Many Splits]

Hi George, I agree with the comment tAo made above.

Quoting you -
'' '' To Rakesh's credit, I doubt very much anyone here knows more about RS and its practical application than he does, they might know more about other disciplines, but not RS imo... " "

tAo, Brian, Tucson, Jen, Familiar Face and the rest have a better understanding of RS and Sant Mat, and after reading more than a few hundred comments, I can say that with certainty. And I'm not saying this only because they present critique ! Since Rakesh is mostly giving mini-RS satsangs here and does not deviate from that, he probably leaves the impression that he is consistent about his views. But that is very different from the correct understanding of RS and its practical application. Consistency is not the same as correctness.

But yes, Rakesh appears to be the only Satsangi on this blog who doesn't do that ' hit and run ' thing ! ( tAo had coined this rather witty phrase that implies that most Sasangis will leave a comment and then disappear... )

In my opinion, to Rakesh's credit, he comes back to see what the others have to say ! Have a great weekend everyone !

[Many Splits]

Dear '' well who needs to spell it all out so damn painstakingly ''

Is this what the RS path teaches you ?
Damn, its a good thing I left !

( Brian, please leave that comment for everyone to see what a perfect RS fanatic sounds like ! )

[Many Splits]

Hey '' huckabilly boom shaker ''
That is quite a funny name you've given yourself !

( In response to your first message... )
I like being a materialist - I enjoy the first class cabin of a plane as much as your Babaji does ! The only difference is, I don't preach detachment.

( In response to your second message... )
I've sought the very existence of my own inner reality - That is precisely why I chose to step away from RS ! The only difference is that your concept of inner reality is different from mine.

I've been polite, do not post another abusive or rude comment here. There are many people out there - RS and non believers : both, who are embarrassed at the manner in which Satsangis defend their faith.

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear Sirs,

I have read all the above comments. I thank you all for reading me. I have nothing to say to those who disagree with me, for all of them have the same reason to disagree.

To all those who agree, have their own experiences/ feelings/ tendencies. I humbly submit that I am no better than any other initiate. My only intent here is to put forth my point of view rather than critisizing any personality. In this process if some one is hurt, it is unintentional.

with regards,

[George]

tAo,

"i would have ask what evidence do you have to support that opinion George?"

none whatsoever, it is my own opinion having listened to what he's had to say. I also believe he is slightly older than you and been at it for longer. I also believe he did not get initiated to try it, he has imbibed it. My beliefs might be wrong, but there is something in what he says, which leads me to believe otherwise.

You are no doubt extremely knowledgable about many things, and i do not believe Rakesh or you are the last word on anything, i am simply saying if you want to try and understand an opposing viewpoint, you could do much worse than Rakesh, who is always polite and rarely preachy. he will put forward his opinion, but does not proselytize his beliefs or force them onto others. That shows an enlightened man at the very least.

lol, i see Ashy has returned, what a contribution.

[George]

Many Splits,
No problem, you are welcome to your opinion.

Huckabilly,
No it is not a science and it will never be a science until it lays its teachings and experiences open for all to scrutinise, which is the fundemental hallmark of any science.

It is neither a claim to any form of knowledge other than a subjective reality, because its experiences are taboo.

Nothing on this earth is a science until it is objectively verifable. Until then its a subjective belief system.

[Blogger Brian]

Many Splits, we already have many examples of how this South African devotee of Radha Soami Satsang Beas is able to leave profane, insulting, meaningless comments. We don't need any more. You can read a whole bunch of them in my "I Hate Church of the Churchless!" blog, which I set up for ranters like him:

http://hatechurchless.blogspot.com/

[Many Splits]

George, Brian - that was quite an introduction by Ashy, well, at least for me ! Glad that those comments have been deleted !

Rakesh...
How long have you been on this path ? I'm just curious. Also, if you were initiated by Charan, I can see where you're coming from. Most of my family was initiated by Charan, and they have fond memories of him. The ' new-age ' RSSB does not seem to disturb them much. More than their meditation, I think it is their love for their Master ( Charan ) that keeps them going... :)

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear Many Splits,

I was initiated in October 1981 by Maharaj Charan Singh Ji.

I hope it fulfills your curiousity.

with love,

[dj]

I know of a few mentally unbalanced devotees of Sant Mat-it's a sad fact that every religion, spiritual faith and quasi-cult like organisation has its share of followers with psychiatric disorders. To depend only on mystical instruction , lifestyle modification(vegetarianism,teatottling,etc)and meditation(I always laugh when I read that it can cause mental illness!)is not enough to remendy some disturbed minds. Meditation and Medication should go hand and hand for those so afflicted. This also applies to many "undiagnosed" mentally ill(some who frequent this site) who deranged their minds and damaged their brains by ingesting hallucinogenic drugs in the past(Of course they'll never admit to it)

[Many Splits]

Thank you Rakesh !

Many of my family members got initiated at that time. I have lovely memories of Huzur and the Dera during the late eighties. I'm sure you will like this link - www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ki-cgvLcjQ

Unfortunately, much has changed now with regard to the teachings as well as the organization.

Respects.

[Blogger Brian]

David, I don't understand your comment. You said, "Nevertheless, your admissions to having almost zero experiences within meditation (or almost zeros) leads me to disagree with the entire premise of this website."

I never said that I had "zero experiences" while I meditated. Obviously I had 100% experiences while I was experiencing meditation. I just haven't had the sorts of experiences that you asked about: out of body, precognition, etc.

The basic premise of this website is on the banner: "Preaching the gospel of spiritual independence." You have your experiences; I have my experiences; a Buddhist, Taoist, Christian, Hindu, or whatever has their own experiences.

There isn't any demonstrable evidence that any meditative experiences point to a reality beyond the physical. Clearly every person who meditates is alive in a physical body with a physical brain. So what happens in meditation, as what happens when people talk about meditation, is coming through physicality.

Thus the fact that you've had a different experience in meditation than me actually shows why the premise of this blog is correct. People are different. We experience reality differently. No one has a right to claim that their subjective experience is "true" while someone else's is "false."

True and false don't apply to subjective experience. A dream is a true experience to the person dreaming. A mystical vision is a true experience to the visionary.

But if you claim that your mystical experience is a reflection of some objective reality, then you need to back up your claim with evidence. This is what separates science from religion: evidence. You seem to be making a religious claim that what you've experienced in meditation is more true than what I have. I'd be interested in how you can prove that.

I've probably had lots of meditative experiences that you haven't. I've written about some of them on this blog. I've experienced what it feels like to enter a state of near-nothingness, which brought about a primal fear (or understanding) of non-existence. I've experienced a marvelous feeling of "there's nothing to know, no problems to solve, no one to become."

I quoted Dan Barker in a recent post. He's a jazz musician who ridicules the idea that only people who have experienced playing jazz expertly are capable of having a meaningful life. Likewise, it's ridiculous for anyone to claim that only the experiences they have had are true or meaningful, while the experiences other people have somehow are shallower and false.

Hopefully, you aren't claiming that. If so, then you agree with the purpose of this blog and we're on the same wavelength.

[tAo]

George,

i still stand by my previous comments to you. you are incorrect in your comparison of Rakesh and myself. i was in fact initiated before Rakesh, so i have in fact "been at it longer" than Rakesh. and also, i believ that i am somewhat older that he is age-wise as well.

like i said, i do not know where you came up with this mistaken presumption that Rakesh has more experience in RS than i do, and that he has "been at it longer" tahn i, and that he is older that i am... but it is definitely incorrect.

the reson why i wonder is that i have made my own history with RS quite clear numerous times on this site, and even since you have been reading and posting here. and i even covered this issue and my RS history in considerable detail several times back in the summer of 2009. you read all my comments because you resppnded to them. and you truied to doubt me at that time as well. i don't know why that is. you seem to ignore these basic facts. and once again in my last comment i again told you that i had initiation and more experience and knowledge than Rakesh, which predates Rakesh's invlovement with RS. also i am not interested in this 'splitting of hairs' or competition with Rakesh as to who was initiated before etc (and i am sure rakesh does't feel that way either), but your bull-headed insistence on falsely claiming that Rakesh has "been at it [RS] longer" than i and that Rakesh is older than i, has forced me to correct you.

this is what i don;t understand about you. you seem so rational and logical in every other area, but when it comes to something like this, you repeatedly insist on turning things around backwards and making erroneous judgements about me and the facts of my life. frankly, it rather odd. it seems that you somehow wish to put me down, and you try to twist, or rather ignore, the facts and adhere to your own distorted views... even after you have been clearly informed otherwise. its seems as though you want to deny or that you don't want to acknowledge the actual facts in a situation that involves me. i find that strange.

i don't do that to you. when you say something that is sensible or clearly based in fact, or perhaps something about your own life, i don't argue with it or deny it. on the contrary, i respond in agreement with you.

so then why do you continue to refute and deny and dispute the simple fact that i do have more experience in RS, and that i was initiated before, and am a bit older than Rakesh? these are simple basic facts.

i am not trying to toot my horn in any of this. but i am not going to stand by and let you create a false and erroneous and incorrect picture of me, which is what you are doing.

if we can't simply

why do you wish to dispute something that you are in no position to judge? Rakesh is not debating this. he is simly honest about it, and so am i. so then why are you continuing to deny the simple fact that i am older and i do have a bit more and loger experience in the RS Mat than Rakesh does??

this simple fact does not bother Rakesh, so why does it bother you George??

what purpose are you serving by disputing and denying this simple truth?

also, as i had briefly indicated, there was/is no offense toward you intended on my art, so i hope you did not think there was. i am simply trying to correct something that you are mistaken about.

and that is because what you are doing here is trying to say that myself, as well as Brian and Tucson and a few others here are somehow less knowledgeable and much less experienced in the path and practice of Sant Mat than Rakesh is... and that, is definitely not true.

Here is what you said in your most recent comment:

[i had asked you what evidence do you have to support that opinion]

you replied:
"none whatsoever, it is my own opinion having listened to what he's [rakesh] had to say."

-- what has Rakesh said that indicates that he has had prior and more experience and knowledgge than the rest of us, myself included?? Rakesh has made several incorrect statemets about RS teachings and masters. so how does that indicate that he has more experience and knowledge than those of us who were inititated before him, and who have practiced RS longer??

you said:
"I also believe he is slightly older than you and been at it for longer."

-- and where do you derive that belief from?? what makes you think that? i do not know Rakeshs age or birthday, but i suspect that he is younger than Brian and Tucson and myself. I now am up in my 60s. Rakesh can easily settle this by telling us his correct age. but then what does that really matter anyway? ... whether i am older than Rakesh, or whether he is older than i am by a hair or two. its pretty ridiculous actually. who cares one way or the other? age doesn't prove much unless it is a big difference in age like 20 or 30 years difference. otherwise age is irrelevant when it comes to knowledge and experience in RS.

and most impportantly, why is a person like yourself, who is NOT an initiate, who has relatively little knowledge of RS (compared to others), and who has zero practical experience in RS meditation... why are you making such judgements about other people who DO in fact have vastly more knowledge and experience in RS than you do?? that is what i find strange. i understand that you may have simlpy made an error in assuming that Rakesh is older and more experienced, but why do you adhere to that even after your mistaken assumption has been corrected??

you said:
"I also believe he did not get initiated to try it, he has imbibed it."

-- well we ALL got initiated to try it, as well as to imbibe it. and we (and i am speaking for most initiates) certainly did "imbibe it". so what makes you assume that we did not imbibe it?? is 20 or 30 or 40 years somehow not sufficient to imbibe it?? i mean come on george... how do you know who has imbibed and who hasn't?? you have never even been initiated, so what do you know? i mean seriously, this is bullshit george and you know it. you don't think that people who have spent decades doing RS meditation and going to India to imbibe the wisdom of sant mat from the guru have not "imbibed" sufficiently? that's ridiculous. or perhaps is it really just because Rakesh is an Indian, is that it ?? well your assessment is pretty darn lame if that is the case.

you said:
"My beliefs might be wrong, but there is something in what he says, which leads me to believe otherwise."

-- this is not about your own beliefs george. this is about your incorrect assertion that Rakesh has more and longer experience in RS than the rest of us. that is literally and factually NOT true. Rakesh does not have more knowledge and experience than others here. you also say "there is something in what he says, which leads me to believe otherwise". then what exactly is that george?? what has Rakesh said that shows that he was initiatied before myself and the rest of us, and what has he said that indicates that he has "been at it longer" and is older and more knowlegeable??

because the facty is that actually Rakesh has said various things (both recently as well as in the past year) that are either incorrect or are mispresentations of the RS teachings. and this was not just my conclusion alone, but were noticed and mentioned by others as well.

you said:
"i do not believe Rakesh or you are the last word on anything"

-- well i never said or claimed that i was the last word on anything. so that is entirely your own spin on this, not mine.

you said:
"i am simply saying if you want to try and understand an opposing viewpoint, you could do much worse than Rakesh, who is always polite and rarely preachy."

-- well i agree that Rakesh is polite... but, i do not agree about him not being "preachy". Rakesh has no doubt posted his share of preachy comments. i also am not in agreement with your phrase "to try and understand an opposing viewpoint". i don't see his viewpoint as being opposing to mine. its more a matter of there being no evidence to support the claims and and beliefs and theology of RS... which Rakesh blindly subscibes to without any question.

you said:
"he will put forward his opinion, but does not proselytize his beliefs"

-- that is incorrect, imo. he does proseltize his beliefs, although perhaps not as much or as adamantly and dogmatically as some other RS satsangis do.

you said:
"That shows an enlightened man at the very least."

-- i don't agree with that at all. of course it depends on what you mean by "enlighteded". "enlightened" is a very charged term which sometimes carries a lot of baggage with it. but even if you mean it in the ordinary way (iow not god-realization), i would say that being a blind-faith believer as Rakesh is hardly very "enlightened". to me, the ususal meamning of the term enlightened tends to mean open-minded, aware, and insightful. so i would not say that he is "enlightened". i would simpply say that Rakesh is devoted to his chosen spiritual path and guru. and that is certainly his choice.

anyway, i do hope that we can see eye to eye on this matter of the facts on who was initiated longer and who has more knowledge and experience.

like i said, i don't quite get why you insist on denying basic historical facts, and expecially when it relates to me. there is obviously some bias and denial there that is illogical and unreasonable. but i do hope that that your misunderstanding and error will be now resolved.

sorry for having to elaborate so long and so much. i had tried to briefly explain and clarify this in my previous comment, but somehow you were not willing to accept the simple facts (especially about myself) as i had presented them.

lastly, just so there is no mistake or confusion i will repeat the basic and relevant facts, which are easily corroborated:

1) Rakesh has not been initiated longer than or prior to Brian, Tucson, and others... nor myself.

2) thus, Rakesh also does not possess more practical experience and "application", or any greater knowledge about RS that any one of us do.

3) it is also highly unlikely that Rakesh is older in age than either Brian, Tucson, or myself. and this can be easily determined if Rakesh will kindly state his age. (not that i really care about this anyway)

I also feel that Rakesh, to his credit, is clearly humble enough that he does not feel that he has any more experience or knowledge or seniority in the RS mat than any of the rest of us here.

[tAo]

dj,

you said:

"This also applies to many "undiagnosed" mentally ill(some who frequent this site) who deranged their minds and damaged their brains by ingesting hallucinogenic drugs in the past(Of course they'll never admit to it)"

-- unless you are merely joking, i'd have to say that you are mistaken. there are many very intelligent and mentally stable and highly creative and professional people who have taken psychedelic drugs like lsd and mescaline and psilocybin and dmt. one small examle would be the guy who invented and developed the DNA test, which is now used in the medical sciences and well as in law enforcement. that guy was and is a confirmed acid-head.

so its flat wrong to say that all people who take psychedelic drugs are mentally deranged or that they have damaged their brains. thats absolute utter bullshit.

so i hope you were just joking. if not, then you are terribly narrow-minded and not very enlightened and certainly not knowledgable about this subject.

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear Many Splits,

I have loved to read your words. Who is bothered about organization? Techings never change. It is one to one relationship between Master and the disciple, which is not physical but spiritual. It is to be experienced only. It is a life stuggle to maintain a relation, mundane or spiritual, but it takes a fraction of a second to snap it.

One has no choice in the matter whatsoever. Circumstances shape accordingly.

we are all in the quagmire of our own karmas.

wishing you all the best in life; enjoy it.

with love,

[dj]

Tao,
I wasn't just joking as you very well know so just cut the bullshit on your part. I never said "all people who take psychedelic drugs"- I wrote that "many "undiagnosed" mentally ill(some who frequent this site) who deranged their minds and damaged their brains by ingesting hallucinogenic drugs in the past" Timothy Leary is a prime example of a man who became mentally ill thru repeated ingestion of these horrible drugs you mentioned.

[dj]

Long-Term Effects of LSD: Causes

Two of the long-term effects of LSD are types of hallucinations, known as HPPD (hallucinogen persisting perception disorder) and psychosis. HPPD produces repeated flashbacks to previous events, while psychosis disorders often trigger behavioral changes or violent mood swings. While these are the symptoms associated with long-term LSD use, the exact causes of these symptoms are not known.
Long-Term Effects of LSD: Psychosis

LSD affects your ability to think and reason, and can bring about psychosis, an inability to think rationally and the inability to communicate with other people. Sometimes, users of LSD have psychological problems that severely affect their behavior, leading to unpredictable mood swings, paranoia and violent behavior. These effects can set in with just a single use of LSD, and can last for years, even if the person they are affecting has no prior history of psychological problems or disorders.
Long-Term Effects of LSD: Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder

HPPD, which produces flashbacks in some LSD users, is a re-occurring disorder that can cause repeated, long-term flashback episodes in people who have used LSD. Characteristics of HPPD can include hallucinations, but more common effects of HPPD are visual disturbances such as seeing colored lights, halos or moving trails on objects. HPPD can occur after a single use of LSD, and can persist for years after use has ceased. There is currently no known cause for HPPD.
Long-Term Effects of LSD: Treatments

The symptoms of HPPD are often misdiagnosed and mistaken for other psychological or neurological disorders, like strokes. For this reason, many people may receive incorrect diagnoses, and it can take several visits to multiple doctors before the real cause of the symptoms is discovered. There is no treatment regimen that has been established for treating HPPD, however, antidepressant drugs are often prescribed because they may help to ease the symptoms. Additionally, psychotherapy can help ease the suffering of someone who is suffering from HPPD, and can help them overcome the fear that many sufferers express.

[Many Splits]

Dear Rakesh,

I think you have a great deal of love for your Master, and love is a beautiful thing. Let me try and give you my views on your comment above -

Quoting you -
'' Who is bothered about the organization ? ''
I am. You have to see the state of affairs in the Dera with regard to the basic facilities they are providing to the visiting Sangat. ( Could you please read the observations I made on ' road-seva ' in Brian's post titled - Why every religion and spiritual path is wrong. ) Also, please tell me the reason behind the closure of the annual eye-camp for the poor ?

Quoting you -
" Techings never change... "
They do. Are you aware that one of the Shabads by Tulsi Sahib - ' Dil Ka Hujra Saaf Kar - Janaa Ke Aane Ke Liye ' has been prohibited for use in Satsang ! I remember hearing an entire Satsang based on that Shabad from Huzur.

Quoting you -
'' It is a one to one relationship between the Master and the disciple, which is not physical but spiritual. It is to be experienced only. ''
Fine. But then, if not all, at least a few people should be having ' experiences ' on a ' spiritual ' level in their meditation... ( ?? )

Quoting you -
'' It is a life stuggle to maintain a relation, mundane or spiritual, but it takes a fraction of a second to snap it. ''
Well said. I consider myself pretty loyal and I have solid relationships in the real world. However, I did not ' snap-out ' of the RS path. Having been brought up on the RS belief system, it was not easy to let go of it.

Quoting you -
" One has no choice in the matter whatsoever... "
" Circumstances shape accordingly... ''
No. I made a concious choice to step out of it and I haven't been happier since. You are subscribing to ' Karma ' and ' Master's Will ' in this statement so you're talking from a rigid RS perspective.

Quoting you -
'' We are all in the quagmire of our own karmas. ''
Maybe. But I'm still waiting for proof !

Quoting you -
" Wishing you all the best in life, enjoy it. "
Thanks Rakesh, I should actually be saying Rakesh-ji. Wish you the same. I find enjoyment in life through embracing the world, learning more, developing as a person and doing what I can for the people around me.

[Catherine]

Rakhesh, I do not think that you know how long it takes to break off a relationship with a guru- not seconds, but more like decades. Even if the decision is made relatively quickly, the mindset has to actively be worked on.

Sant Mat meditation involves almost non-stop repetition and then visualisation during two and a half hours of the day. The lifestyle and thinking become deeply entrenched and it takes time and effort to overturn it all. One has to, amongst a host of other things, start perceiving non-satsangis with respect.

Rakhesh would not have the experience that tAo has if his reference point has only ever been sant mat Beas-style. Politeness and pleasantry are probably high on the evolutionary ladder, but not as high as an overview imo.

[tAo]

dj,

you said:
"I wasn't just joking as you very well know so just cut the bullshit on your part."

-- there was no bullshit on my part. it was not clear whether you were joking, and i don't read people's minds. so your insulting remark was not called for. if i had known the answer, i would not have asked you.

"I wrote that "many "undiagnosed" mentally ill(some who frequent this site) who deranged their minds and damaged their brains by ingesting hallucinogenic drugs in the past"

-- alright, but i don't necessarily agree with that. so it would help if you would indicate who exactly is it that you are referring to?

"Timothy Leary is a prime example of a man who became mentally ill thru repeated ingestion of these horrible drugs you mentioned."

-- i don't agree with that either. did you actually know Dr Leary personally? if not, then you have no right to make this judgement.

however, i did in fact know him, and i know and am quite certain that he was far from being "mentally ill".

Dr Leary was a brilliant and enlightened man who had a very sharp mind, a great sense of humor, and a wonderful personality. so i don't think you really know what the hell you are talking about dj.

you also clearly don't know that the other thing you posted about long-term effects and use of lsd is totally incorrect, and must have come from an ignroant source that has no experience with lsd.

there are many far more accurate books, texts and research papers and studies on lsd by very reputable psychologists, physicians, scientists and academic researchers that entirely disprove the naive nonsense and outdated garbage that you posted.

and that stuff about flash-backs and psychosis was particularly ill-informed, unfounded and erroneous.

this article must have come from way back in the 1960s when lsd was still rather poorly understood and there was alot of misunderstanding and false assumptions and illegitimate rumors.

and if you believe this stuff that you posted, its unlikely you have much practical experience with lsd, if any experience at all.

like i said, millions of people have taken lsd numerous times and they have not incurred any of the mental or neorological problems that you have presented here.

you apparently know very little about lsd. it is unfortunate that people like you are so far off base abnd misguided, and go about saying things that you don't properly understand.

[Many Splits]

Dear Catherine, that was a very good comment indeed !
Thanks for sharing your thoughts !

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear Many Splits,

I consider myself like the wheels of a vehicle whose choice of movement of speed and direction is in the hands of a driver who controls it through brake and accelerator pedals.

Being a geologist by profession, I believe in the revolution and rotation of the earth which is controlled by a primordial source of energy to drive it.

(imo)SO IS THE LIFE.

Master Charan Singh is no more physically but for me he is there through this creation. He was a word made flesh. WORD-the perenneial source of energy.

Kindly do not regard me more than dust on the feet of my master.

with love,

[Many Splits]

Dear Rakesh-ji,

Like I said earlier, I understand how you feel. My family feels the same way. Maybe, if I was from your generation and was initiated by Huzur, then I would be feeling the same way...

I can resonate with your sense of surrender to your Master, and I feel the love that you have in your heart for him. In my opinion, you belong to the last RS generation who will have that kind of love for the Master - and surely, he is deserving.

I have my reservations about the present Master and what RSSB has become today. I come from the new generation of initiates, but having sampled a bit of the old-school Sant Mat, I just cannot comprehend the shift. I chose to leave the path when I realized there was no love left in it. But what will remain with me forever are the beautiful things I learnt from Sant Mat, and my love for Huzur.

I believe, love has to be the hallmark of anything that claims to be pure, spiritual or divine. The closest I've come to any kind of mystical experience is when I listen to John Coltrane's - A Love Supreme.

Just the way I try to understand your viewpoint, please try and see where I'm coming from.

I wish you happiness and fulfillment on your journey !

[George]

tAo,

'imo' means 'in my opinion', i am merely giving my opinion.

I’ve acknowledged its entirely subjective, so that should have been enough, but it seems you feel it is worth trying to answer 'who knows more'. Do you think this could be objectively resolved by you telling us of your own vast knowledge or experience?

Rather than trying to disrespect you, as you appear to have interpreted it, i did not want Rakesh to be bullied off the ball by simply providing a differnt viewpoint, of a discipline he has imbibed and stuck with, quite clearly because he sees it differently. I actually agreed with you in my own mind, nevertheless I value Rakesh’s alternative viewpoint. This of course requires one to entertain the notion that we are not always right.

A blog is surely about the exchange of ideas, and more precisely, the exchange of different ones. Points should fall or not, depending on their own merits, not on who is making them or their self-proclaimed credentials.

Actually I consider it a blessing not to have been involved in the spiritual community, who with all their gurus and masters, cos most seem to have been conditioned on all this parochial hierarcical thingking and a need for respect.

Perhaps I’m simply too irreverent, but what absolute rubbish. Einstein as a clerk in his early 20s put forward five theories, which made the esteemed professors of his time look postively backward, and they were in all relativity.

If ppl want respect due to age or supposed experiences, go start a cult or buy a dog, but in the interests of creating an environment of challenging open-thinking, the points raised on a blog should stand or fall on their own merit.

[dj]

Tao,

You wrote:"there was no bullshit on my part. it was not clear whether you were joking, and i don't read people's minds. so your insulting remark was not called for. if i had known the answer, i would not have asked you."
-Perhaps you weren't joking but there was nothing in my post to to lead you to believe I was;mental illness is a serious subject and I made NO attempt at humor or satire ;and you get insulted because I think you're BSing me? You're pretty thin-skinned for a person who's so harshly critical of others you disagree with.
You wrote
"i(sic) don't agree with that either. did you actually know Dr Leary personally? if not, then you have no right to make this judgement."
I have every right to make that judgement about Leary based on his long history of public behavior: watch this interview on YouTube for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN2Dw94VIkE
You wrote:
"you also clearly don't know that the other thing you posted about long-term effects and use of lsd is totally incorrect, and must have come from an ignroant source that has no experience with lsd."
- Wrong again. That information about the potential harmful effects of LSD that many suffer from is directly quoted from a highly regarded drug rehabilatation center that treats patients afflicted with drug induced mental illness
You wrote:
"like i said, millions of people have taken lsd numerous times and they have not incurred any of the mental or neorological problems that you have presented here."
Oh really? Your ignorant, blanket statement not backed by any research is meaningless.
You wrote:
"you apparently know very little about lsd. it is unfortunate that people like you are so far off base abnd misguided, and go about saying things that you don't properly understand."
-And I think it unfortunate that intelligent people like you cannot admit that at least some people have suffered permanent adverse mental problems from taking these powerful mind-altering drugs. Its sad that you are in complete denial about LSD's well documented long term side-effects.

[tAo]

George, you said:

"'imo' means 'in my opinion'"

-- yes, i know what it means.

"i am merely giving my opinion."

-- i am aware of that as well.

"I’ve acknowledged its entirely subjective, so that should have been enough, but it seems you feel it is worth trying to answer 'who knows more'."

-- you were the one who raised the issue george. you were the one who stated and claimed that rakesh was initiated before me ("been at it longer"), had greater knowledge, more experience, and was older than me. i did not make those assertions, you did. i have merely tried to correct that mistaken assumption, in view of the actual facts.

"Do you think this could be objectively resolved by you telling us of your own vast knowledge or experience?"

-- that was neither what i was saying nor trying to say. i did not say that i had "vast knowldge". i simply said that you were incorrect in your thinking and stating that rakesh had more experience, greater knowledge, and that he was older. you were the one who initially stated that rakesh was the one who had greater knowledge and experience and that he had "been at it longer" than myself and the rest of us here. that was your opinion and your assertion. however, that premise (your opinion and assertion) is in fact incorrect, and that is how i responded.

"Rather than trying to disrespect you, as you appear to have interpreted it"

-- no, i did not say that you had disrespected me. i simply tried to correct you in light of the facts.

"i did not want Rakesh to be bullied off the ball by simply providing a differnt viewpoint"

-- no one had or has "bullied" rakesh. you made the claim that rakesh's knowledge and experience and age was superior. i disgreed and have tried to correct that mistaken assumption. the facts speak for themselves george. Brian and tucson and i were initiated years before rakesh. that is a fact. that means we have more experience. and that includes more knowledge. and i also indicated that i believe that, contrary to your opinion and statement, i am older than rakesh as well. these are the facts george. it has nothing to do with any bullying on my part, or any disrespect on your part. it is simply a matter of what is the truth, what are the facts of the matter.

"of a discipline he has imbibed and stuck with, quite clearly because he sees it differently."

-- thats fine, i have no pproblem that rakesh has stuck with his chosen path, or what he choses to believe. thats not the issue here. you are trying to make it the issue though. but it isn't. moreover, if rakesh makes dogmatic statements about RS (which he has), then other people have a right and may have a reason to disagree with those views. that is not bullying anyone, and so i resent your implication. i have a right to my opinions and to critique rakesh's dogma and preaching of sant mat, just as much as rakesh has a right to his opinions. so bullying has nothing to do with it. its bogus.

"I actually agreed with you in my own mind, nevertheless I value Rakesh’s alternative viewpoint."

-- alright, thats fine. its fine if you value rakesh's viewpoint. i have no problem with that whatsoever. you have a right to your opinion. the problem arose when you claimed or asserted your opinion that rakesh had prior and more experience and knowledge and age than i and the rest of us. so i attempted to correct that, in regrds to the actual facts. but you seemed to no want to accept the facts. its not a matter of subjective. in the case you presented, its a matter of who was initiated before, and thus who has had more practical experience, and also who is older (you claimed that rakesh is older). thats all this is ablout. its not about anything subjective, which obviously cannot be measured. so george, the fact of the matter is that Brian and Tucson and myself (and maybe a few others here) all were initiated years before rakesh was. and rakesh has clearly stated that he was initiated in 1981. so did you miss that? so why do you insist on arguing with the facts? its simply the facts that we are talking about george, not anything "subjective". this debate would be unnecessary if you would simply acknowledge the facts, and thus realize that your premise was incorrect. i and i don't hold it against you as long as you simply accept the truth of this matter. and the truth is that rakesh has not "been at it longer" than myself or Brian or a few others who visit here. so you were mistaken. its not a big deal as long as you recogniize that. this is not a battle of wits or superiority or ego. its simply a matter of what the facts are.

"This of course requires one to entertain the notion that we are not always right."

-- yes, thats my point. in this case you were not correct. you seem (or you admit) to be simply trying to defend rakesh, but no one is attacking or bullying rakesh. aparently, in order to defend rakesh, you triued to say that rakesh had more knowledge and experience than the rest of us. and all i said back to you was that you are incorrect, that in fact rakesh does NOT have prior or more experience and knowledge than myself and the rest of us. that is the crux of this matter.

"A blog is surely about the exchange of ideas, and more precisely, the exchange of different ones."

-- yes i agree, and that (the exchange of ideas, and the exchange of different ideas) is fine with me. but in this case you asserted a claim, an opionion about something that was in fact incorrect, so i attempted to resolve that mistake. its nothing persoanal at all.

"Points should fall or not, depending on their own merits, not on who is making them or their self-proclaimed credentials."

-- no, this had nothing to do with "who is making them or their self-proclaimed credentials". that is a spin that you are now putting on this. this was entirely and only about the simple facts of who has had more experience & knowledge in RS. that was your assertion and premise, and that is what i was responding to. there was absolutley no "self-proclaimed credentials" involved. that was not and is not the issue. you are spinning and shifting the focus onto something different. the issue was entirely centered around YOUR claim that rakesh possessed superior knowledge and greater expereince in the ath and practice of RS, compaared to the rest of us. that is basicaly what you said. so with all due respect george, go back and read your comment. that is the issue here, not "merits" or "self-pproclaimed credentials". the facts are the issue.

"I consider it a blessing not to have been involved in the spiritual community, who with all their gurus and masters, cos most seem to have been conditioned on all this parochial hierarcical thingking and a need for respect."

-- not sure what you mean about that. there is good sides and bad sides to everything. one can't really judge something like this sufficiently, unless one has been through it, or has had some direct experience.

"Perhaps I’m simply too irreverent, but what absolute rubbish."

-- i understand how you feel, but i think that to say that its absolute rubbish is not quite accurate. there are a few good aspects, but there is also some not so good things mixed in as well... and this is true on all levels. so most people find it very difficult to separate or even discriminate the good from the bad - the mysticism from the cult. but that is usually the case.

"If ppl want respect due to age or supposed experiences, go start a cult"

-- hold on there george. i did not in any way whatsoever ask for or demand "respect due to age or supposed experiences". YOU were the one who raised this issue reltive to rakesh. so don't try to pin this on me or on anyone else. it was entirely your own assertion that rakesh (supposedly) had greater experience and age than the rest of us. so take responsibility for that yourself. dont try to spin ity an pin that on others.

"but in the interests of creating an environment of challenging open-thinking, the points raised on a blog should stand or fall on their own merit."

-- yes indeed, and that was and is my point. and the actual "merit", in this particular case, depends on the facts, not on opinions or beliefs or personalities.

[tAo]

dj,

You wrote:"there was no bullshit on my part. it was not clear whether you were joking, and i don't read people's minds. so your insulting remark was not called for. if i had known the answer, i would not have asked you."

you wrote:
"Perhaps you weren't joking but there was nothing in my post to to lead you to believe I was"

-- huh? i think you are slightly confused here dj. initially i had indicated that i was not quite sure whether YOU were joking or not. however, i said nothing about myself joking or not joking. my question was about whether or not YOU were joking.

you wrote:
"mental illness is a serious subject and I made NO attempt at humor or satire"

-- that may be true, but that was not clear to me in your initial comment.

you wrote:
"and you get insulted because I think you're BSing me?"

-- wrong. i wasn't insulted, nor was i "BSing" you.

you wrote:
"You're pretty thin-skinned for a person who's so harshly critical of others you disagree with."

-- wrong again. i was simply seeking clarification and i expressed disagreement with your rather ignorant views on lsd. so clearly, you are the one who is "thin-skinned". unlike you, i know all about lsd... and i am also familiar with psychology and mental illness having studied it in university. and i don't find your views on lsd relative to mental illness to be accurate at all.

you wrote:
"I have every right to make that judgement about Leary based on his long history of public behavior"

-- listen dj, you know nothing about Leary based upon a mere video. i knew the man personally. i spent time with him. i had converstions with him. i knew his friends and associates and his wife. i knew people who knew him even better than i did. and nowhere was thewre any indication that Dr Leary was "mentally ill" as you claim. so i am quite sure that my first-hand personal experience and personal association with the man is far superior to some mere video. i think you have a very limited perspective and no actual experience. and your opinion is a t odds with a great many other people, not just myself.

you wrote:
"That information about the potential harmful effects of LSD that many suffer from is directly quoted from a highly regarded drug rehabilatation center that treats patients afflicted with drug induced mental illness"

-- so what? just because some drug rehabilitation facility has those views does not make them valid. did the person who wrote that have any expereince with lsd? i seriously doubt it. its always the people who have never once taken lsd, who are the ones who say all the nonsense and make unfounded conclusions. you need to go read the authoritative books written by doctors, psychiatrists, and scientists who have in fact taken lsd. those are the authoities, not some lame drug rehabilitaion center. and many of these rehabilitation centers are religiously oriented and biased as well. you are not getting accurate information from them. and if you have never taken lsd yourself, then you are definitely in the dark about it.

i said: "millions of people have taken lsd numerous times and they have not incurred any of the mental or neorological problems that you have presented here."

you replied:
"Your ignorant, blanket statement not backed by any research is meaningless."

-- wrong. what i said is a fact. millions of people have tasken lsd and they did not end up mentally ill. and lsd is also backed by volumes of research. i can see now that you are just plain blind and ignorant. first off, you should go read the book written by dr albert hoffman (the dicoverer of lsd). there are also some other very authoritative books on lsd as well. if uyou have read them, then you simply don't what you are talking about.

you wrote:
"I think it unfortunate that intelligent people like you cannot admit that at least some people have suffered permanent adverse mental problems from taking these powerful mind-altering drugs."

-- i did not say that "some" people haven't. but the number of those people is extremely small compared to the millions of people who have taken lsd and who have had no adverse reactions. and it is well known that almost all of those few people already had pre-existing tendencies and conditions and underlying mental illnesses to begin with. that is a known fact.

you wrote:
"Its sad that you are in complete denial about LSD's well documented long term side-effects."

-- that is definitely incorrect. i have a great deal of knowledge about lsd, and there is no such long-term side effects. as i mentioned, any adverse effects were confined to a very small number of people who had unerlying mental problems to begin with. there is no other documented "long term side effects". that is all bullshit and propaganda that is manufactured by doctors and law enforcement and religious fundamentalists and especially the government who wish to suppress lsd and to deceive and scare people away from taking lsd. and that is a well known fact as well. you are just a sucker for that lame propaganda and mind control.

go read some truly authoriative books, and stop listening to the lies and false propaganda.

[tAo]

Brian,

A correction to my comment:

Posted by: tAo | February 21, 2010 at 02:12 PM

In the beginning, it should read:

dj,

I (tAo) wrote:
"there was no bullshit on my part. it was not clear whether you were joking, and i don't read people's minds. so your insulting remark was not called for. if i had known the answer, i would not have asked you."

you (dj) wrote:
"Perhaps you weren't joking but there was nothing in my post to to lead you to believe I was"

-- huh? i think you are slightly confused here dj. initially i had indicated that i was not quite sure whether YOU were joking or not. however, i said nothing about myself joking or not joking. my question was about whether or not YOU were joking.

[George]

tAo,

no, sorry, but that is a disortion of the sequence of events. You are welcome to read over the exchange again. I like your comments, so am not going to carry on with this other than to say ppl are allowed to have an opinion, and that it can differ from your own, thats the bottomline.

i also disagree and imo dj is surely correct on the affects of long-term usage of psycotropic drugs, i don't really care if ppl use them, but hell Ram Das' noodle was fried crispier than a KFC drumstick by the end of it, and Leary's mind was wasted too - if he was one of the greatest minds on the planet, then we really are up shitcreek - maybe on planet Acid.

[George]

i mean come on, lets use a bit of common sense here, you want to pop pills or drink heavily, your brain is going to deteriate, thats as simple as it is.

nothing against it, ppl must live their own lives as they see fit, but when you see poor old ram das going into a stupor for about 5 mins during a public lecture, thats when you go ... oooooooooohhhhmmmmmmigodheisfucked.

[dj]

Tao
You wrote:"there was no bullshit on my part. it was not clear whether you were joking, and i don't read people's minds. so your insulting remark was not called for. if i had known the answer, i would not have asked you."

you wrote:
"Perhaps you weren't joking but there was nothing in my post to to lead you to believe I was"

--" huh? i think you are slightly confused here dj. initially i had indicated that i was not quite sure whether YOU were joking or not. however, i said nothing about myself joking or not joking. my question was about whether or not YOU were joking".
---The only confusion is on your part-Joking and BSing can mean one and the same.You thought I was joking and I thought you were jokingly Bullshiting me-get it?Got it?Good!
"and you get insulted because I think you're BSing me?"

-- "wrong. i wasn't insulted, nor was i "BSing" you".
---Then why the hell did you call my language "insulting. I realize now you weren't BSing me although I was so surprised I thought you were.

you wrote:
"You're pretty thin-skinned for a person who's so harshly critical of others you disagree with."

-- "wrong again. i was simply seeking clarification and i expressed disagreement with your rather ignorant views on lsd. so clearly, you are the one who is "thin-skinned". unlike you, i know all about lsd... and i am also familiar with psychology and mental illness having studied it in university. and i don't find your views on lsd relative to mental illness to be accurate at all."
---You call me "thin-skinned" yet site no examples;weak arguing.You also fail to mention exactly what about mental illness you studied in college-you might have read one article in an encyclopedia for all I know.

you wrote:
"I have every right to make that judgement about Leary based on his long history of public behavior"

-- "listen dj, you know nothing about Leary based upon a mere video. i knew the man personally. i spent time with him. i had converstions with him. i knew his friends and associates and his wife. i knew people who knew him even better than i did. and nowhere was thewre any indication that Dr Leary was "mentally ill" as you claim. so i am quite sure that my first-hand personal experience and personal association with the man is far superior to some mere video. i think you have a very limited perspective and no actual experience. and your opinion is a t odds with a great many other people, not just myself".

---The video of Leary I posted the link to is just ONE very glaring example of how Tim's personality was warped by all the LSD he took.He clearly had some form of Personality Disorder caused by hundreds of acid trips. Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely NO shame in having mental illness. Also I don't know if Leary's intelligence was affected;I never claimed he didn't still have a brillant mind.

you wrote:
"I think it unfortunate that intelligent people like you cannot admit that at least some people have suffered permanent adverse mental problems from taking these powerful mind-altering drugs."

-- "i did not say that "some" people haven't. but the number of those people is extremely small compared to the millions of people who have taken lsd and who have had no adverse reactions. and it is well known that almost all of those few people already had pre-existing tendencies and conditions and underlying mental illnesses to begin with. that is a known fact."

---I Never claimed you wrote "some" people havn't, that was my expression. Even Leary admited in the video that 1 in a 1000 users develope mental problems.

Anyhow I'm not going to finish this because it's dinner time and I'm hungry, so have the last word if you wish

[tAo]

george,

fyi, dr richard alpert aka ram dass, was disabled do to having a stroke, not from lsd. his current state is a result of the stroke. dr alpert was very sharp and coherent and fine fellow until his unfortunate stroke. and he also did a great deal to help people through charitable seva. so you are absolutely incorrect. and this issue was not about alpert, it was about leary. and contrary to dj's ignorant nonsense, dr leary had a very sharp mind right up until his death from cancer. these are simply the historical facts george, not some unfounded sarcasm and ridicule and nonsense like you and dj are presenting.

as far as our previous "exchange" goes, what i saiud still stands. just go back and read what you said. and the bottom-line is not a matter of mere opinion, it is a matter of the facts of who was initiated before and thus who has had more practical experience. you were the one who initmated that that rakesh was initiated prior to the rest of us, and was older. that is in fact incorrect, and so your "opinion" has nothing to do with it.

i find it strange that you are in such denial and are so unwilling to admit when you have clearly made a slight mistake. its pretty rigid and narrow-minded and not very scientific of you. your stubborn refusal to accept the facts it does not support harmonious communication.

[tAo]

dj, you are not hearing or understanding what i have said. your mind is too closed, and you are not knowedgable in the matter. so i am not going to bother arguing with you any more. i have presented you with enough information and insight. you are not open or intertested in the real truth. you have simply bought into the negative propaganda and disinfo. so there is no point in me discussing this with you any further. so you might as well go on your merry (but ignorant) way. peace.

[George]

tAo,

sorry to hear about such medical conditions, but i know of ppl who;ve had strokes and normally one side of their face is slow or paralysed, ram das' speech was fine, he just seemed slow, and actually if you look at that interview with Leary, you can see he;s not the sharpest either.

Now they might have been very nice ppl, but anyone that does engage in substance abuse is going to see the affects as they age.

On the question of opinion and fact, there are very few facts around and certainly i dont consider your opinion to be fact either. Now it may well be fact that you were initiated at an early age, but that still does not influence my opinion that Rakesh has a better understanding and feel for RS than you do.

[George]

i'm actually not quite sure what you are arguing, you've gotta be absolutely barking mad if you discount the effects of drugs on the human mind - the whole point is to induce a chemical reaction on the brain - and with prolonged use of these aritificial substances there are bound to be affects on the brain.

This is why every alcholol and drug abuser, that makes it to a reasonably old age, has a mind that is virtually ruined. Now i dont know how widespread their absuse was, but certainly Leary looks totally out of it, and he;s meant to be a university professor? all i can say is, only in california, and good on him, but lets not confuse a good time boy with seriously brilliant minds.

Now if you believe Acid, a psychotropic drug of all things, is going to be the exception to this rule - i would say you;ve lost any semblance of common sense - forget about books. How does that saying go, as you sow so shall you reap.

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear George,

I am feeling embarrassed. Kindly allow tAo to win the argument.

with kindest regards,

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear George,

I hope you will like it!

A little boy wanted to meet God. He knew that it was a long trip to where God lived, so he packed his suitcase with a bag of potato chips and a six-pack of fruit juice and started on his journey.
When he had gone about three blocks, he met an old women. She was sitting in the park, just staring at some pigeons. The boy sat down next to her and opened his suitcase. He was about to take a drink from his fruit juice when he noticed that the old lady looked hungry, so he offered her some chips. She gratefully accepted it and smiled.
Her smile was so pretty that the boy wanted to see it again, so he offered her a fruit juice. Again, she smiled at him. The boy was delighted! They sat there all afternoon eating and smiling, but they never said a word.
As twilight approached, the boy realized how tired he was and got up to leave; but before he had gone more than a few steps, he turned around, ran back to the old woman, and gave her a hug. she gave him her biggest smile ever.
When the boy opened the door to his own house a short time later, his mother was surprised by the look of joy on his face. She asked him, "What did you do today that made you so happy?" He replied, "I had lunch with God." Before his mother could respond, he added, "You know what? She's got the most beautiful smile I have ever seen!"
Meanwhile, the old woman, also radiant with joy, returned to her home. Her son was stunned with the look of peace on her face and asked, "Mother, what did you do today that made you so happy?" She replied, "I ate corn chips in the park with God." Before her son could respond, she added, "You know, he,s much younger than I expected."
Author unknown

with regards,

[George]

A very nice parable, thank you Rakesh.

But does RS also believe there is a higher God, different from our inner potential?

[Todd Chambers]

" but they have not claimed any such thing. if you or anyone can produce any book or lecture where they have made such a claim, i will be willing to consider it. but i have not seen it. i have read all the books and i don't remember ever reading them making that claim."

well.....this is from Maharaj Sawan Singh from SPIRITUAL GEMS: "One day Baba Ji presented me to Guru Nanak Sahib, Kabir Sahib, Tulsi Sahib and Soami Ji, and said: "He is your child.""--Letter 17

[tAo]

George, you said:

"On the question of opinion and fact, there are very few facts around and certainly i dont consider your opinion to be fact either."

-- it is not my opinion that is the issue here. it is simply the FACT that both Brian, Tucson and myself were all initated years before Rakesh.

"Now it may well be fact that you were initiated at an early age"

-- i did not say that i was initiated "at an early age". i was not that young at the time, but it was prior to Rakesh's initiation.

"but that still does not influence my opinion that Rakesh has a better understanding and feel for RS than you do."

-- granted, thats your opinion, but it does not make it true or correct. it is incorrect. there is no doubt in my mind that Brian, Tucson, and not the least of all myself... we each and all have a much "better" and deeper and more comprehensive knowledge and experience with all aspects of Sant Mat and Radha Soami than Rakesh does. but that is not to say that Rakesh does not have a good understanding and practice. i would think that he does.

i think that you mistakenly assume that Rakesh "has a better understanding and feel for RS" than the rest of us merely because he remains a loyal believer and follower, and because he is not a critic... and also perhaps because he is from India. but none of those are valid reasons. the truth is that i had studied sant mat very deeply and comprehensively since the mid 1970s and i do have a very great insight and understanding of it, and i know that Brian has too. and Tucson also has a very excellent knowledge and "feel" for sant mat as well.

and regardless of what you may choose to think (especially in light of the fact that you clearly do not have any practical knowledge or even much familarity with sant mat), it remains that Rakesh has not exhibited any superior understanding and/or knowledge of santmat & radhasoami in his comments on this blog. simply because he has remained a loyal believer and follower and practitoner, that alone does not equal superior understanding.

you obviously have your own rigid opinion, but that is all it is. you have a relatively poor understanding of sant mat, and no practical experience at all, and so you are clearly no one to judge who does have a "better understanding". and quite obviously to the rest of us, you are rather stubborn individual when it comes to accepting and admitting that you may have made a error in your judgement and opinion, even in spite of the facts.

so there is really no point in trying to reason with you about this any more. your mind is closed and shut. you are not interested in clarity. and this is a very petty issue and argument anyway.

at this point i also tend to think that you really just want to knock down Brian, Tucson and myself a notch or two, and so your attempting to place Rakesh above us, serves that purpose. but in fact, its obviously bogus.

but this doesn't matter to me, because i have no ego invested in this, nor do i care what your one single and rather ignorant opinion about this matter is. i know what i know, and i know myself, and i know Brian and Tucson, and so it doesn't matter to me what your lame opinion is. you have your opinion, but thats really all it amounts to. it isn't the truth. you are't interested in what the truth is in this case. you just want to prop-up Rakesh by putting down Brian and Tucson and i.

and the funny thing about this is, that Rakesh is so honest and humble, that he freely admits that his knowledge and experience is not better or greater. and thats to his credit. but you still stubbornly remain in denial. so i think you have a real hard time when it comes to admitting when you are wrong (especially if it involves myself in any way), and thats nothing but your ego and false pride and stubborness. and i am quite sure you are loathe to hear this, but thats the way it appears.

and last but not least, Rakesh has even said that you are embarrasing him by your unreasonable insistence.

[tAo]

george, as far the subject of psychedelic drugs goes, i simply have no interest in debating the issue with you. you are far too narrow-minded, inexperienced, and uneducated on the subject. your recent comments and knee-jerk negative bias reflects that.

[tAo]

"well.....this is from Maharaj Sawan Singh from SPIRITUAL GEMS: "One day Baba Ji presented me to Guru Nanak Sahib, Kabir Sahib, Tulsi Sahib and Soami Ji, and said: "He is your child.""--Letter 17"
Posted by: Todd Chambers | February 22, 2010 at 05:27 PM

-- Huh?? what does that have to do with it??

and btw, Guru Nanak Sahib, Kabir Sahib, Tulsi Sahib and also possibly Soami Ji were all quite dead at the time, so how could Sawan Singh have been "presented" to them?? this is nonsense. and it doesn't prove anything, much less the issue in question. are you even aware of what the issue was? appparently not. so again, if anyone can show proof where a RS master has actually claimed to be gihf, then lets see it. the quote above certainly doesn't.

[Many Splits]

Rakesh-ji,

The parable above implies that through the experience of ' loving and living in the present moment ' the old woman and the little boy found ' God ' in each other.

I wonder then -

01. Did the old woman get up the next morning for her meditation ?
02. Did the little boy's mother give him an egg for breakfast ?

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear George,

If you read the book, Sant Mat Prakash Part 1, published by RSSB. You will get the real insight. It has described all inner paths. I do not know if it has english version. This book has compilation of a few satsangs delivered by Master Sawan Singh Ji, Guru of Master Charan Singh.

with regrds,

[Todd Chambers]

All I'm trying to "prove," tAo, is that whoever wrote the following was wrong: "you see this is also where i disagree with you slightly. you say that this is "their claim". but they have not claimed any such thing. if you or anyone can produce any book or lecture where they have made such a claim, i will be willing to consider it. but i have not seen it. i have read all the books and i don't remember ever reading them making that claim. they talk all around it, but they don't actually claim to have experienced it. that is the thing that tricks most people (like yourself) into ASSUMING (and then believing) that these so-called masters have experienced what is described in the literature. but the truth of the matter is that they never actually admit that."

[Many Splits]

Dear George,

I grew up with RS - Sant Mat and I have many family members who are from Rakesh-ji's generation. They have an unimaginable amount of love for their Master - Charan Singh, and their love is the foundation of their faith.

As I see it, Rakesh-ji does not find the need to question his beliefs, he is happy and content with what this path has given him, whatever that is.

But the understanding and application of Sant Mat is another thing altogether. RS calls itself a ' science ' and yet, there is no proof of anything that is written in the books. Even the Master does not give direct answers on the subject. The standard reply is ' you will find the answers in your meditation ' but no one seems to have found them. Descriptive definitions of regions is a good read, but the promise of consciously traveling through them is a tall claim.

In my opinion : tAo, Brian, Tucson and the rest chose to go beyond the physical realm of the Master and his Satsangs. They sought to seek what they had read and learnt - through the practice of meditation. They have honestly collaborated their experiences on this blog, and clearly, their experiences do not point in the direction of what the RS books say... ( !! )

I am not saying that Rakesh-ji does not meditate or that he has not traversed the inner paths mentioned in Sant Mat Prakash - Part 1.

But then, he hasn't shared any experiences either.

Respects.

[Allthetime]

This is really simple.

Have you ever taken psychedelics? (mushrooms, LSD, etc.)

When someone asks:

what was it like? what happened?

There is NO WAY to give a full answer, or one that can do justice to the EXPERIENCE. If you know what I'm talking about I am sure you will agree.

Experience is ultimately personal and internal and talking about it will always be an approximation, a reductive transformation of its reality so that it can be transmitted to another through the meager means we have available (linguistics).

Any seriously spiritual person (Guru, if you will) who has an extraordinary experience would probably understand that trying to do justice to what they discovered WITHIN THEIR OWN SELF EXPERIENCE (not some objective realm where personality is completely null) is not possible and they will only be cheapening and presenting a shell to others and ultimately misleading them... leading them away from having their own AUTHENTIC spiritual experiences having been clouded by the ultimately hollow assertions of someone they respect enough to take everything they say as important.

I'd love to hear some responses.

[Blogger Brian]

Allthetime, I disagree. I've taken LSD, mescaline, and other psychoactive substances. I don't feel that saying that in any way cheapens my experience or misleads anyone. I can, and have, described what happened when I took psychedelics. Why would this prevent anyone from having their own psychedelic experience?

Does eating a strawberry and saying "Yum!" prevent someone from eating a strawberry? If I wrote a poem about how good Oregon strawberries are (and they're wonderful), would this stop someone from eating an authentic Oregon berry?

This argument that mystics can't say anything about their supposedly elevated experiences seems ridiculous to me. Everyone knows that a personal experience is, obviously, personal. Listening to a talk by someone who has climbed Mt. Everest doesn't lead the audience to believe that they've conquered the world's highest mountain, so there's no need to train to become a mountaineer.

The opposite would be much more the case: learning what an experience was like, albeit imperfectly and incompletely, would make someone want to have that experience themselves (if it was a pleasant or desirable one). So why don't mystics speak about their spiritual experiences?

The most likely answer: they aren't having genuine mystical experiences.

[tAo]

Todd,

well the thing is Todd, your quote did not prove that, not at all. (and btw, i was the one who wrote what referred to)

all that your quote indicated was some cryptic reference to Sawan saying that he had somehow been "presented" to Guru Nanak Sahib, Kabir Sahib, Tulsi Sahib and Soami Ji... but those fellows were all dead. so how does that "prove" any claim to having experienced the mystical realms spoken of in the teachings of sant mat??

like i said, they (the masters) talk all around it, but they don't actually ever claim to have experienced it.

your reference is not a claim. and i have no idea what it means without seeing the greater context and what it refers to.

so all i am sayong is that the quotation you posted earlier does not actaully make any direct admission or claim where the so-called master has experienced what is described in the literature.

merely saying...

"One day Baba Ji presented me to Guru Nanak Sahib, Kabir Sahib, Tulsi Sahib and Soami Ji, and said: "He is your child."

... well that does not show or give evidence of any actual claim by Sawan as having experienced the higher regions that are mentioned in the sant mat literature.

and so this was exactly why i said:

"they talk all around it, but they don't actually claim to have experienced it."

-and-

"the truth of the matter is that they never actually admit that."

so that is exacrly why i say that unfortunately your Sawan quotation from Spiritual Gems does not indicate any actual clear and direct admission or claim to having had experienced the higher regions that are described in the sant mat teachings and literature.

you are going to have to do better than that if you wish to show where an RS master has made a direct and obvious claim.

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear tAo,

With due apologies I write that your above comment to Todd clearly demonstrates your hollowness in inner spiritual experiences.

with kindest regards,

[George]

tAo

"the truth is that i had studied sant mat very deeply and comprehensively since the mid 1970s and i do have a very great insight and understanding of it"

lol, lets just say this is extreme confidence talking, not sure i could or would ever say this about myself even if i happened to believe it to be true.

on the issue of acid, the human body functions so that any substance abuse of it, will over time eventually lead to disease or imbalance. Now i dont care if you can pull a talking rabbit out of your butt extolling that Acid causes no long term damage, that is just abasolutely foolish thinking. i like a few drinks myself, but i;m not going to kid myself as to the possible consequences thereofm nor do i need the books or document evidence to know what is common sense. Many smokers were in denial of the long term damages which were only recognised recently.

Do you actually think Acid is in fact an exception to any substance abuse rule? This is not water or muesli we're talking of.

Many Splits,

You are quite correct that RS is not a science, but that i don't need anyone else's advice on on here, tho i would always enjoy a well made argument to the contrary from anyone.

The reason i respect Rakesh is the reason you do tAo, which is that through their words, we find some tantalising wisdom in their thoughts. Rakesh is extraordinartily polite and humble, but also intelligent and actually as a scientist by training, has a broader backgtound than you may recognise.

I believe Rakesh does not share the experiences precisely because he has imbibed the RS teaching correctly. It clearly has brought him many benefits and results, since he has not stepped off the path. in short his experiences seem very different to the others on here, and as such, i enjoy listening to him tho my own conditioning probably makes me agree with the others.

[George]

for what it is worth, and from my limited experience in such matters, i will say tAo appears to be correct that there is no direct reference or claim by each satguru acknowledging that they have in fact personally traverssed these spiritual planes, but perhaps something else will come to light.

My main problem with RS is the paradox in its claims to being a science, while the very evidence it claims are supposed to be kept secret. That is not a scientist. A religion maybe, fine, but dont then claim science or knowledge of reality unless the evidence is laid bare for public inspection and scrutiny, which is the hallmark of any science.

[Many Splits]

Well said Brian and tAo...

Rakesh-ji, with due apologies, your comment above comes across as a cliched RS response, with a pinch of spiritual egoism. I will wait for you to expound on your spiritual completeness.

George, in my opinion, there was nothing polite in Rakesh-ji's previous comment to tAo. It was actually extremely judgmental.

In one of the comments above, he had written -
" Kindly do not regard me more than dust on the feet of my master. "

Quite a swing from that one !

[George]

Sure thing Many Splits, you are welcome to your opinion.

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear Many Splits,

If there is an ego reflected in my comment, I withdraw my comment. But truth can not be denied.

In fact, my presence in physical body is nothing but a manifestation of my ego.

My lips will always remain closed to express -you are looking for.

I repeat, kindly do not regard me more than dust on the feet of my master.

with love,

[dj]

.............Logomachy!.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

[Many Splits]

Dear Rakesh-ji,

If you choose not to talk about your spiritual experiences, it may be a good idea not to judge someone else's. It's like saying - " I cannot tell you how sweet my candy is, but yours is definitely sour... "

Your spiritual path works for you and that's great ! However, it irks me when Satsangis make you feel that you're missing out on something BIG - and that's exactly why the title of this post is so appealing : Why be shy about sharing mystical experiences ?

I know you are much older to me, I apologise if I've come across rude in any of my comments to you. ( I guess, since text has no tone, sometimes things appear harsher than intended. )

Respects.

M II S

[Blogger Brian]

Rakesh, when you tell someone that they are "hollow" with regard to spiritual experiences, you'd better to able to demonstrate some "solidity."

Where is it? Show us what you've got.

If you have some demonstrable evidence that "guru is God" is true while "Jesus is Lord" is not, or that other teachings of your favorite spiritual belief system are true while other teachings are not, please supply them.

Absent that evidence, which I doubt you can supply, I think you should be more humble and simply say "I believe..." and leave it at that, acknowledging that belief isn't truth and faith isn't reality.

[Todd]

tAo,

of course the quotes from SPIRITUAL GEMS prove that Maharaj Sawan Singh was claiming inner experiences. Since, as you pointed out, those guys were dead, they would HAVE to be inner experiences!

[Roger]

I need to file a claim for an inner experience. I'm concerned that I need to do this while I am still living.

[one of those 'fanatical' truth searchers]

My memory has served me well (also my habit of turning little corners of pages in books when I read something interesting) and I have found this example of “sharing mystical experiences”. Things must have been different when RSSB Master Sawan Singh was alive. This is an extract from “Call of the Great Master” by Daryai Lal Kapur, (chapter 5, page 98). The book is the result of the author’s long association with Maharaj Sawan Singh (1858-1948), lovingly called ‘The Great Master’ by his disciples.
.....................
“This is only a matter of belief. Can it be proved?” declared the barrister.

“Yes, by the oral and written testimony of those who acquired the eye to see what is happening in the astral planes above,” the Great Master replied.

“Has any disciple here got that eye, so that he could tell us any of his experiences?” asked the barrister.

“There are a number of such people here,” the Great Master said, “but they would not like to be brought into the limelight.”

“There is no question of their gaining fame. It would just satisfy my curiosity about the subject” the barrister persisted.

“They would simply relate their experiences and tell what they have seen. How would that satisfy you that they are telling the truth?” asked the Great Master.

“I would be satisfied by their testimony,” the barrister replied.

“Then why not believe my testimony?” the Great Master asked, smiling.

At this everybody laughed.

“All right,” the Great Master continued, “Daryai Lal will take you to a lady who has recently had some such experiences.”

The others present, especially the American missionaries, also expressed a desire to meet the lady; at which the Great Master asked me to go and call Bibi Rakhi there for a few minutes.

Bibi Rakhi then described her experiences, which I translated into English for the benefit of those who did not fully understand her language. After her narrative they were thoroughly convinced.
.....................
Jen

[tAo]

Fot the sake of saving space in the comment menu, I will address each of the recent comments starting with the most recent one first:

Todd,

you're simply wrong. i don't know what your problem is, but your logic on this is completely faulty. this problem seems to come up here quite often, and usually Brian nails them when they do.

you say: "of course the quotes from SPIRITUAL GEMS prove that Maharaj Sawan Singh was claiming inner experiences."

well i am sorry to inform you Todd, but it does not "prove" that at all. do you not understand what proof is?? simply because sawan singh said that he was somehow "presented" to some dead guys, means virtually nothing. he did not actually say that he had experiences of inner regions. and who knows what he was really talking about.

its a far stretch to interpret a vague statement such as that, as actually claiming to traverse the supposed inner regions. this may be your interpretation, but he doen't actually say that. so it is not any such proof, nor is it a direct claim.

a direct admission or claim would be something like him saying: "I, Sawan Singh, have crossed through and beyond all the inner subtle regions and I have entered into the supreme and imperishable purely spiritual region of sach khand". and he does not say that, not even remotely.

so you cannot say "of course the quotes from SPIRITUAL GEMS prove that Maharaj Sawan Singh was claiming inner experiences." your quote does not prove that, nor does sawan claim that. just because sawan said that he was somehow supposedly "presented" to some fellows that were already long dead, is not any direct claim of experiencing the subtle & spiritual regions described in the teachings. in fact, it sounds pretty vague and rather hokey imo.

so i donlt think you understand what the point of all this is, or what is being asked for here. some vague and uncertain reference to meeting some dead people does not in any way constitute a direct confession or claim to his having actually experienced and traversed the supposed inner subtle & spiritual regions.

and so that is what i said that the RS masters never actually make the outright claim... they always beat around the bush, and talk all around it, and whenever cornered, they always evade the issue and defer to their masters. they never simply say and admit that they themselves have experienced the inner regions that they teach about. so people and seekers just blindly assume that they have, when in fact they never actually come right out and admit that they have. that indicates that they have not experienced, and also that they do not want to lie about it by saying they have experienced. so they just 'beat around the bush' but never actually admit or make any claim to it. so that's being deceptive in a passive sort of way.

and regardless of all that, the point here is that your quote simply does NOT show any substantial proof or any direct claim to his being adept at entering into the inner subtle and spiritual regions that the teachings describe.

you can continue to assert your interpretation and say "of course", but the fact is that there is no actual clear and direct claim evident in the quote that you suppplied. he is not actually saying anything outright.

sawan merely saying: "One day Baba Ji presented me to Guru Nanak Sahib, Kabir Sahib, Tulsi Sahib and Soami Ji"... well that does not constitute any direct claim of his traveling through the inner regions. and who knows what he meant. its anyone's guess, but it isn't proof of a direct claim.

Lastly, you said: "Since, as you pointed out, those guys were dead, they would HAVE to be inner experiences!"

-- no Todd, it does not show that "they would have to be inner experiences". it does not say what he meant by that. perhaps there is a great context, or perhpas not. but the quote you havve supplied does not show any straightforward claim to so-called "inner experiences". and more specifically, we are not talking about just any sort of inner experiences, but rather the very specific experiences that are described at length in the teachings and literature of sant mat and the RSSB mat.

and your quote does not satisfy or provide proof of such a claim.

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

Rakesh,

you said: "With due apologies I write that your above comment to Todd clearly demonstrates your hollowness in inner spiritual experiences."

-- rakesh, you know nothing about my "inner spiritual experiences" and my comment to Todd was soley confined to the quote he ;posted and indicates nothing about my own "inner spiritual exeriences". unfortunately you have hereby shown your ignorance, and your hypocrisy, and most importantly your obvious inablity to understand the import and logic of what was written. you feign politeness, yet you reveal your presumptious judgementalism. you say my inner experiences are "hollow", yet you have no knowledge about me or my experiences. you obviously don't understand the issue here, and so you resort to lame personal insult.

and this reveals the level of mentality of spiritual cult believers like yourself.

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

George,

I had said previously: "the truth is that i had studied sant mat very deeply and comprehensively since the mid 1970s and i do have a very great insight and understanding of it"

you responded: "lets just say this is extreme confidence talking, not sure i could or would ever say this about myself even if i happened to believe it to be true."

-- thats alright with me george, for to each his own. and yes, i am confident. but i was trying to toot my own horn. i was merely being honest about my own life in regards to how extensively i have studied and learned and practiced sant mat. just like you have said a few things about your own study of science. there was no attempt ot intent on my part to be egotistical. i was simply relating that in resect to the greater issue of comparing knowledge and experience in sant mat. thats all.

also, i'd like to say that i do appreciate your reason and logic in terms of your agreeing with me that Todd's quote simply does not provide the proof or rather the claim that we are looking for. i think yours and my perspective is actually alot closer and more alike than it appears in our clashes. i actually agree with most of what you say, generally. its just a couple of things (personal opinions mainly) that we seem to clash on. but for the most part, we are in agreement. so pleas know that i don't harbour any personal animosity towards you. i think if we give each other the benefit of the doubt and avoid personal ridicule, then we can resolve any of the minor differences that we may have had in the past. like i said, you and i really have alot more in agreement than not. so thanks again for supporting my point and reasoning in regards to Todd's quote.

on the issue of acid:

you said: "the human body functions so that any substance abuse of it, will over time eventually lead to disease or imbalance."

-- i absolutely agree. i apply that throughtout my own personal life. i personally don't smoke, i don't do any kind of drugs, and i rarely drink - usually only a glass or two of beer or wine at a dinner or a party. in fact, i am very much into physical fitness and health - working out, weight training, swimming, hiking, diet & nutrition, a bit of yoga and martial arts & general physical activity. i have never ever abused drugs, even back when i used to indulge. there is big huge differece between simply occasionally getting high, and hard-core drug abuse.

i will also say that a few acid trips does not cause any such "long term damage". many higly successful people, academic people, doctors, scientists, professionals, and wealthy people, have taken acid back in the day. its a fact. and yet they have had no "long term damage", or even any short term damage. acid, in and of itself, is not detrimental. it is only a problem for people who have a predisposition for neurosis, paranoia, schizophrenia, and other mental problems. the case studies overwhelminmgly all reveal this.

"i like a few drinks myself, but i'm not going to kid myself as to the possible consequences thereof'

-- drinking is not a problem imo, unless its frequent and excessive. and actually a little wine is known to be beneficial - as it contains reservatrol. but if you are drinking whole bottles of jack daniels or bombay gin or rum or vodka, than that could definitely pose a health problem.

"Do you actually think Acid is in fact an exception to any substance abuse rule?"

-- no, i don't think anything is an exception. even too much water can kill you. thats a fact. acid is like anyting else, if you do it in a peaceful and safe setting, and you don't do it very often, and you have good mental and emotional stability... then it is ususally inspiring and uplifting. if you abuse it, then yes there are certainly hazards. like i said, i don't do any kind of drugs at all (except codeine or morphine - and only in the case of severe physical pain) i am not into anhy drugs at all, and that includes marijuana. although i do occsionally drink a little green tea, but very infrequently. i am too much into physical fitness to mess around with drugs. i enjoy working out doing weightlifing and body-building and over-all sobriety and physical activity. my drug-doing days are long gone.... like 40 years ago. i also have a very excellent mental health record. so thats about all i can tell you. you must come to your own conclusions. but don't just listen to the mainstream negative propaganda, because alot of that is bullshit.

"This is not water or muesli we're talking of."

-- yeah, i know. here's a funny little story george: a long time ago i was in northern India in a town called Dharmsala. actually i was in a little Tibetan restaurant in the nearby Tibetan settlement of McCleod Ganj. its where the Dalai Lama lives too. anyway, my girl-friend and i ordered two large bowls of vegetable soup. now i just happened to have with me a little plastic film canister (this was long before digital cameras), and it had been packed very tightly with psyilocybin cubensis mushrooms. i mean it was densely packed - a slod mass of magic mushrooms, probably a couple of ounces were crammed into that timey film can. a friend of mine back in the States had sent the mushrooms to me. so when i went to India, i stuffed the entire big bag into that little film can. so you get the picture. so when out vegetable soup arrived, we decided to dump half of the canister of mushrooms into our soups. and man, that made some very nice vegetable-mushroom soup! anyway, finally we finished our dinner (still did not feel any effects), so we forgot about it and went back to the cottage where we were stayimg.

then, it happened, all at once... like Alice, we dropped down the rabbit hole and entered Wonderland!!! its was freaking out of this world! and it lasted an eternity... till dawn. so remember to watch out for the mushroom soup :o)

and Terenc McKenna used to tell me his theory that, since mushrooms are the only organism that can withstand the utter freezing cold and vacuum of outer space, then mushroom spores could easily have been carried to this planet in dust from another planet like Mars, or even possibly from another solar system of a nearby star. like space travelers, they could have been drifing for millions of years in the vacuum of interstellar space, and then finaally be attracted by gravity and float down to the earth, to then be consumed by Amazonian or Mazatec indian shamans and crazy hippies!!!

and george, have you ever tried magic-mushroom liqueur? they make it down in Jamaica with Carribean rum. you ought to try it sometime. its an old pirate thing.

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

Rakesh wrote:

"If there is an ego reflected in my comment, I withdraw my comment. But truth can not be denied."

-- then where is the "truth" rakesh?? you have presented no such truth... only your narrow-minded opinion. you say "truth cannot be denied", but what trtuh are you referring to? it is clearly your inflated EGO for you to say that my inner experiences are 'hollow", but yet yours are "truth". and you gave no substance to that remark. so your words have little if any value and they do not reflect the humility that you pretend to have here.

you also wrote: In fact, my presence in physical body is nothing but a manifestation of my ego."

-- no, your body is a result of your mother giving birth, not your ego. your ego is something (not an entity but actually a process) that developed over time as you began to identify more and more with your child's body, and eventually your adult body and thoughts and feelings. your ego did not cause your body to be born. birth is the result of the union of the human sperm with the human egg. it has nothing to do with the sense of egoity.

you wrote: "I repeat, kindly do not regard me more than dust on the feet of my master."

-- i think you are a hypocrite. if you are so very humble and merely 'dust at that feet of your master', then why do you turn around and disrespect other satsangis and deny their spiritual experiences by calling them "hollow"?? that doesn't jive.

so clearly, your humility is only a pretense. if you were really honest, then you would cease all your constant effort to appear as being humble. just be real. nobody gives a shit about your fake image of humility and fake politness. its one's honesty and straight-forwardness that matters.

[tAo]

Jen,

none of that contains any direct admission or claim. and its alll second-hand info anyway. no one actually makes any solid claim. the issue is talked all around but not diectely, like i said.

here are your pertinent quotes:

you said: "I have found this example of “sharing mystical experiences”."

-- there were no such mystical experiences shared in what you have posted.

Daryai Lal Kapur wrote the following:

“This is only a matter of belief. Can it be proved?” declared the barrister. “Yes, by the oral and written testimony of those who acquired the eye to see what is happening in the astral planes above,” the Great Master replied."

-- then where is that "written testimony" Jen?? its not here.

“There are a number of such people here,” the Great Master said, “but they would not like to be brought into the limelight.”

-- another typical standard evasive response.

“They would simply relate their experiences and tell what they have seen. How would that satisfy you that they are telling the truth?” asked the Great Master."

-- its not about the truth, as its all subjective anyway... its only about giving a mere direct admission or claim. but no one in this makes any direct admissions or claims. again, this does not satisfy the demand for a direct claim.

"“I would be satisfied by their testimony,” the barrister replied,” the barrister replied. “Then why not believe my testimony?” the Great Master asked, smiling."

-- again, there is noting here to satisfy the demand for a direct claim.

“All right,” the Great Master continued, “Daryai Lal will take you to a lady who has recently had some such experiences.”

-- again, this also does not satisfy the demand for a direct claim.

"...the Great Master asked me to go and call Bibi Rakhi there for a few minutes. Bibi Rakhi then described her experiences, which I translated into English for the benefit of those who did not fully understand her language. After her narrative they were thoroughly convinced."

-- again Jen, this does not satisfy the demand for a direct claim. saying that Bibi Rakhi decribed exeriences, is not the same as Bibi Rakhi's actual testimony. and Bibi Rakhi was also not an RS master. so what shge did say does not satify the requirment either. the point is that none of the RS masters have ever directly claimed to have had the experiences that are described in the RS literature. that is what is needed, not some second-hand bullshit.

well Jen... good try, but unfortunately no cigar.

[tAo]

this is thevery crux of the entire RS premise.

the fact that the RS masters never actually and specifically admit or claim or confess to having had the very experiences that they teach about, thatis is itself the UNRAVELING of the entire false facade and edifice and premise of the RS teachings and path and supposed sant/gurudom.

nowhere have they simply admitted that they themselves have had these experiences, and what they actually experienced, if anything at all.

their silence gives the illusion away. the fact of their secretiveness in terms of their refusal to simply admit and describe their own personal inner experiences, is the unraveling of their pretense and the fraud that is RS.

most all other mystics in other traditions have admitted and described their mystical experiences in great detail, so why haven't the RS masters?

well the answer is obvious. they had no such experiences. otherwise they would have told us about it.

[Jen]

tAo,

I think of myself as an 'open-minded' skeptic now and know that my proof has to be direct experience. Still, I think it interesting that RS seemed to be so different then and the Master more accessible in the days of Sawan Singh, but even then private audiences were probably only for the upper echelon of society, such as barristers and American missionaries?!

[George]

tAo,

yes i do apologise, i thought at some stage you might find it amusing but i guess it does come accross as personal ridicule, i can't help myself at times tho cos you do seem quite serious when you get going, so i think its my naughty side that saw a talking rabbit appearing out of your butt...

on acid, i would agree with you that i cannot see the odd trip doing much long term damage, but as you will also know there are drugs that affect some ppl differently and fatally, but i acknowledge that is rare and everything carries some risk. however, i do believe you will find that many folk with some sort of addictive personality (typically very nice sensitive ppl), will show signs of their vice at some point, tho i guess at 70 who gives a continental. Also, i figure if you on your deathbed and/or facing pain, you want to pop as many of those beauties as you can get your hands on. it will be like an eternity spent in heaven.

on a more serious matter, i cannot say in good faith that i was supporting you against Todd, rather i think your original general observation on the satgurus claims, or lack thereof, was an interesting and probing one, which questions assumptions and first princuples, and it remains to be seen whether it is fact correct, but so far it would seem quite possible to be so tho this appears to be what Todd is disputing. I know nothing on the RS literature so will butt out (and take my rabbit with me).

[George]

i would actually be very interested in hearing some of your psychotropic experiences, i;ve always been utterly fascinated with what the mind can produce, but just worried that i;m one of those succeptible to going skitzoid and start talking to my imaginary pet hamster for the rest of my days.

actually that pore theory for life on earth, or the idea of microbes surviving the extremes of space, seems a quite plausible explanation, but i guess the question still remains where did this initial microbial life begin - this surely is also one of the great questions that has still confounded science, i.e. the move from inorganic matter to organic matter.

[Todd Chambers]

tAo, i never said anything about claims regarding Sach Khand or highest regions or whatever. i'm also not claiming that the Beas Gurus had any inner experiences.

i only saw what Brian Hines included from your quote. maybe you were trying to say something different, but what Brian quoted from you seemed to be saying that the Beas Gurus never themselves claimed to have any inner experience.

My quote from SPIRITUAL GEMS clearly and finally contradicts the claim that these Gurus never claimed to have these experiences. The paragraph i took this quote from specifically refers to this as "things which one sees within."

If you continue to insist that Sawan Singh was not describing an inner experience that he claimed to have, then you are just plain wrong, as the quote proves.

You can tell me all day long that MOBY DICK never mentions whales or clam chowder, but i can prove you wrong in exactly the same way.