« The spirituality of my sickness | Main | John Burroughs' appealing scientific pantheism »

June 29, 2010

Comments

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

I guess this is why taking a Guru isn't such a big deal for Hindus.Nor is it auspicious to have met the RSSB one.At least its been treated rather casually by any Indians I've spoken to concerning my initiation and history with RSSB

Sach Khand is NOT a sort of heaven, but God as state of consciousness. It is a concept much more similar to Nirvana for Buddhists.
When the souls realizes Sach Khand there is not any more soul, God and Sach Khand, there is just One.
This is Sant Mat.

Furthermore, yes, of course, every religion and spiritual path has a something, very deeply, in common.

What are the spiritual "links" to Jewism? I never bought the idea that Moses was a Perfect Master like Jesus was; just a Prophet, social reformer and rebel leader. Besides, Jews practiced animal sacrifice back then and the Toral permits them to eat animals.

Andrea is that interpretation correct?

I understood that there were considered to be very distinct planes of existence, that were mind indepdent, i understoof the belief was that your soul is drawn up outside of your body and through these different planes of existence.

However, you make Sach Kand sound like a deep-seated physcholigical state.

Tara,

Was Charan Singh born into a Sikh family? I can see a Sikh connection from that point of view.

George,

It would be interesting to understand how a soul realizes Sach Khand. Once this 'realization' occurs, then the soul, as well as God, is no more.

Andrea, I agree with George. In Sant Mat, "Sach Khand" is described as an actual place (albeit beyond our usual conceptions of time/space). It isn't merely a state of consciousness.

Here's how Sawan Singh, a.k.a. the Great Master, speaks of Sat Desh and the sub-region of Sach Khand in his Philosophy of the Masters:
-----------------
"The highest of the three grand divisions is Sat Desh. It is the only perfectly pure region. It is the realm of absolutely pure spirit and is the region of Truth, of Ultimate Reality. It knows neither death, nor dissolution, nor change, nor any imperfection. It is the great center around which all other worlds revolve. It is the grand capital of all creation, the abode of the Supreme Creator -- Lord of all.

...The Grand Division of Sat Desh is divided into four distinct regions, but the difference between these subdivisions is very slight. The returning spirit comes first to Sach Khand, the fifth spiritual region. The True Home of the Soul. The Father's House, from which long ago we descended to seek experiences in the lower worlds. It is the Home to which the Great Masters take their disciples and it is where the Master's responsibility ends."
------------------
So this description of Sach Khand as an actual spiritual region is much different from the Buddhist notion of nirvana, which doesn't involve ideas of the "Lord' or of "regions."

I'm waiting for the Tom Tom update

andrea is not at all correct. what andrea says here may be andrea;s interpretation, but it is not what sant mat and the radha soami mat (rssb) teaches.

and sant mat most certainly does represent sach khand as being a kind of heaven. in sant mat cosmology, sach khand is purported to be the abode of a divine being referred to as the 'sat purusha'.

in snt mat doctine, sach khand is not merely a "state of consciousness". nor is sach khand "similar to nirvana". nirvana means to become 'extinquished' or cease to exist, as in the example of a candle flame becoming extinguished. so sach khand is not "similar to nirvana". sant mat says that sach khand is the imperishable realm of spirit, beyond the mind and the causal plane. sach khand is depicted as a purely spiritual realm and the abode of the param-sants (supreme saints) and paramahansas and the sat purusha (the eternal divine person, or god)

also, sant mat does not say that "souls realize sach khand". nor does it say that "there is not any more soul". it also does not say that there is "not any more God".

andrea says: "there is just One. This is Sant Mat". -- no, that is not sant mat. so you must not have read and understood the sant mat doctrine as it is presented in the extensive RS literature. sant mat does not say that the soul ceases to exist upon reaching sach khand. it does not say that at all.

all andrea has presented here is andrea's own personal interpreation and opinion, but it is not anything like what sant mat teaches. because i have read virtually all the RS books, and what andrea says, is far from what the RS literature and the RS masters describe.

Either interpretation if followed will amount to the same thing...nothing.

i don't quite agree. there is no "either interpretation". there was only ONE "interpretation" here, and that was andrea's interpretation.

the supposed other interpretation, is not an interpretation at all. it is simply what is presented by the rssb within the sant mat literature.

however, that is not necessarily my belief. i simply related what the rssb literature says.

as for what it will amount to if it is followed... well that is a personal value judgement that can only be determined by each person who follows it. each case is different. we can only know what that is in our own case, not for other people.



Quote..

"..not a single copy of the Guru Granth Sahib is available or permitted in the Dera!"

When I used to go the London Satsangs in the 80s, and early 90s it was permissable to order, and indeed to buy the Guru Granth. I bought four volumes of it edited by Dr Gopal Singh if I recall correctly. It cost £45, and unlike the RS books was probably not subsidised. However, it was an Indian publication, and would obviously sell cheap (by our standards) in a country like the UK.

IF Sach Khand is beyond time, space and duality, how exactly can be a "place" to "stay"?
perhaps it can be that no words can express what actually is Sach Khand and how can be staying in that place, so Saints have to use metaphors...

p.s. i'm not a Beas satsanghi, my Sant Mat Guru is Sirio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirio_Carrapa
I'm not following Charan Singh or other Beas Masters so of course, i have great respect for everybody but i can't and won't criticize or comment any teaching of people who i never meet.
But Sant Mat is not just "Beas".
The first Master of my Master was Sant Kirpal Singh and He was a disciple of Sawan Singh (Beas lineage) and his writings and teachings are in line with my first comment.

andrea writes:

"IF Sach Khand is beyond time, space and duality, how exactly can be a "place" to stay?"

-- well how do you know that it is "beyond time, space and duality"?? sach khand is really only an idea. how do you know that it even exists, much less what it is like?

"perhaps it can be that no words can express what actually is Sach Khand and how can be staying in that place, so Saints have to use metaphors"

-- that's just a convienent but lame excuse. you are assuming that sach khand exists. sach khand is likely just a myth. its the same as the supposed 'heaven' of christians and moslems etc. its a religious idea, a hopeful belief of some future reward and salvation that is used to manipulate people. there is no evidence of sach khand, just as there is no evidence of any heaven.

"i'm not a Beas satsanghi, my Sant Mat Guru is Sirio"

-- i don't care who your guru is. the ideas you have presented are not what traditional sant mat teaches. the sant mat that exists today basically originated with shiv dayal singh in the 1800s. and so your (and apparently your guru's) interpretation is a bit different than what shiv dayal singh preached.

"I'm not following Charan Singh or other Beas Masters"

-- so what? i don't follow them either. but i do know the teaching.

"i can't and won't criticize or comment any teaching of people who i never meet."

-- you don't have to have met them. their teachings are all recorded in detail in their books.

"Sant Mat is not just "Beas"."

-- thats more or less incorrect. there are other 'versions' of sant mat (like yours)... but as i pointed out above, shiv dayal singh originated and formalized what is now known as "sant mat", which was later carried by jaimal singh, and then propagated and elaborated upon even more so by sawan singh, as well as by the original Agra branch. there is no other "sant mat" extant. your different interpretation(s) is based upon an unauthorized off-shoot of what originally started from shiv dayal singh. your ideas may seem reasonable to you (and ro your guru), but those ideas are not at all what the traditional sant mat of its originator, shiv dayal singh, teaches.

"The first Master of my Master was Sant Kirpal Singh and He was a disciple of Sawan Singh (Beas lineage) and his writings and teachings are in line with my first comment."

-- no, kirpal singh was not. kirpal was a disciple of sawan singh, but, kirpal went off on his own independently and stated his own unauthorized branch. the lineage was not passed to kirpal. and although kirpal retained alot of formal elements of the teaching, he also departed from that in some ways. and so did kirpal's successors darshan & rajinder, and thakur (another unauthorized off-shoot).

you and your guru can think and believe whatever you like, but aspects of your interpretation is definitely not what the formal sant mat of shiv dayal singh teaches. so don't pretend that it is. your notions are just your own altered interpretations. and that goes for your guru as well.


Sorry but God is not owned by Beas ;-)
and so Sant Mat.

No one needs authorization to "be" Sant Mat.

More, the disciples are the only that can authorize somebody to be called (by them!) Perfect Master, and this is just a consequence of the spiritual experiences and realizations that they have with Him.

Because of this, I can't say if somebody I never meet is really a Master, I must be in contact with him, meditate with him, and see what happens with him. THEN I can say that for me, he is a Master.

Being part of some "official" lineage, for me, doesn't matter.

I can say that my Master is really a Perfect Satguru because it's a consequence of my life's experience and relationship (exterior and inner) with Him.

Despite your opinion, many people can say something about inner planes for their personal experience.

Andrea,

You stated,

"I can say that my Master is really a Perfect Satguru because it's a consequence of my life's experience and relationship (exterior and inner) with Him."

---I could agree, that through personal experiences and relationships, one can create, in their mind, a Perfect Satguru.


" Despite your opinion, many people can say something about inner planes for their personal experience."

--This is true too. Anyone can say whatever they choose, regarding their personal experiences of inner or outer planes. This happens all the time. A verbal communication is a verbal communication.

andrea: "Sorry but God is not owned by Beas"

-- i never said that it was. so i think you have an attitude problem.

andrea: "No one needs authorization to "be" Sant Mat."

-- i never said that either. i said that Kirpal split off on his own, independent from the guru succession... and Thakur did that as well. those are historical facts, whether you like it or not. so sounds like you are in denial.

"the disciples are the only that can authorize somebody to be called (by them!) Perfect Master"

-- i couldn''t care less. i don't believe in perfect masters or guru-cult authoritarianism. however, fyi, disciples don't "authorize" anything. they are presented with doctrine and dogma, and they tend to accept it blindly.

"and this is just a consequence of the spiritual experiences and realizations that they have with Him."

-- "spiritual experiences and realizations" are all entirely subjective. so "spiritual experiences and realizations" don't validate or prove anything.

"Because of this, I can't say if somebody I never meet is really a Master, I must be in contact with him, meditate with him, and see what happens with him."

-- thats not the point. you can think or do whatever you like. but that doesn't make anyone "a Master". i don't believe in masters. masters are nothing more than a myth, imo. its a fantasy of seekers.

"I can say that for me, he is a Master."

-- thats just your idea, your opinion, your belief. but it doesn't reflect reality, and i prefer reality over fantasy.

"Being part of some "official" lineage, for me, doesn't matter."

-- the lineage was secondary. its was the interpretation (of the teachings) that was the primary issue.

"I can say that my Master is really a Perfect Satguru because it's a consequence of my life's experience"

-- i really don't give a damn what you think about your so-called master, or your "life's experience". imo, there is no such thing as a Perfect Satguru". it is an absurd myth. there are only ordinary human beings.

"Despite your opinion, many people can say something about inner planes for their personal experience."

-- you can SAY whatever you want, but your "inner planes" and "personal experience" is entirely subjective and relative. there is no demonstrable evidence for any of it. it may be meaningful to you, but thats all. and it remains to be seen whether or not it has any real value... in the real world.

seekers and believers and guru followers like you, are mostly all the same. you seem to have difficulty in differentiating between what is myth and fantasy, and what is reality. and you tend to get very defensive (and in denial) about the subjective nature of your myths and fantasies.


"i don't believe in perfect masters or guru-cult authoritarianism"

i respect your belief, of course.

"disciples don't "authorize" anything. they are presented with doctrine and dogma, and they tend to accept it blindly."

no, the opposite: "never believe to my words, just go inside and see by yourself what is the Truth"
THIS is the teaching of a perfect Master.
And it is a quote from Kirpal Singh.
IF a master goes in the opposite direction of this statement and say to believe in him blindly, yes this is a religion. Not spirituality.
But spirituality it is all about personal and direct experience.
And spiritual experience is NOT relative, it is the only thing that it's not relative!
You can say many thing, books can tell us many things, but if i see the radiant form of the Master inside me, if the Sound Current pulls me out of the body and in different planes of existence... that is MY reality, nothing relative and not filtered by outer and exterior factors.
Myth and fantasy? I can tell you what is myth and fantasy: believing in something or somebody without proof. And also NOT believing in something or somebody without proof is just a belief. Atheism is a belief, atheism is a religion.
The opposite word for believing is not un-believing, is knowing.
And excuse me, how i can know the Supreme Reality (call it God or Nirvana or Heaven or wathever)? Of course with my direct experience.

tAo said: "i don't believe in perfect masters or guru-cult authoritarianism"

andrea said: "i respect your belief, of course."

-- but i said that i do not believe. that means i have no "belief". so then, why do you now reply to me saying "your belief"? it appears that you do not understand and grasp what i had said. you say to me: "i respect your belief"... but yet, i have no belief for you to respect. you can respect my thoughts and my opinions, or my sentiments, but not my "belief", since i don't have any such belief in this instance. this is a very simple matter, but you seem to have misunderstood it. you are trying to ascribe or foist a "belief" upon me, that i do not have.

tAo said: "disciples don't "authorize" anything. they are presented with doctrine and dogma, and they tend to accept it blindly."

andrea said: "never believe to my words, just go inside and see by yourself what is the Truth"

-- this is nonsense. it is meaningless. it doesn't prove anything. frankly, its evasive bullshit. you say: "just go inside and see by yourself" - thats a non-answer.

andrea said: "THIS is the teaching of a perfect Master."

-- i don't care who or what you call it. "a perfect Master", is your illusion, not mine. so saying that means nothing to me. it doesn't amount to anything. its just empty words. there are no perfect masters (imo).

andrea said: "And it is a quote from Kirpal Singh."

-- as if that is supposed to mean something, or make it significant or credible?? i don't care who said it. kirpal singh is nobody to me, and his words are nothing to me.

andrea said: "IF a master goes in the opposite direction of this statement and say to believe in him blindly, yes this is a religion. Not spirituality."

-- look, i don't think you get it... i don't give a shit about a so-called "master", or what they say or don't say. but apparently you do. i don't care whether its masters or religion or spirituality or mysticism. its all rubbish to me. so don't try to convince me or sell me on any of it. i don't care what you believe. no offense, but thats your problem, not mine. i am not a believer.

andrea said: "But spirituality it is all about personal and direct experience."

-- well thats your opinion. "spirituality" is a big hype imo. and experience is just experience. personal experience doesn't validate anything. its just another experience.

andrea said: "And spiritual experience is NOT relative, it is the only thing that it's not relative!"

-- thats absolute backwards nonsense. experience is entirely relative... without a doubt. so i think its pretty clear now that you don't know what you are talking about, and you are a bit out of touch with reality. you think that mere inner subjective experience is somehow more than that... but it just isn't.

andrea said: "can say many thing, books can tell us many things, but if i see the radiant form of the Master inside me, if the Sound Current pulls me out of the body and in different planes of existence... that is MY reality, nothing relative and not filtered by outer and exterior factors."

-- yes, that is YOUR perception... but no, thats not "reality". its merely subjective phenomena. and also, most of that sort of thing is imaginary.

andrea said: "I can tell you what is myth and fantasy: believing in something or somebody without proof."

-- yes, and that is exactly what you appear to be doing -- "believing in something or somebody without proof". you have no proof for your beliefs. none whatsoever. so you are the one who is living in myth and fantasy.

andrea said: "And also NOT believing in something or somebody without proof is just a belief."

-- wrong. totally wrong. fyi, 'NOT BELIEVING' is NOT "a belief". period. so i am beginning to think that you are obviously a rather mixed-up individual.

andrea said: "Atheism is a belief, atheism is a religion."

-- you just proved my point. you just proved that you have no idea what you are talking about. i will leave your absurd and illogical nonsense to Brian to try to straighten you out. imo, you are quite obviously an igorant fool. you last comment just proved that you are an ignorant and mixed-up fool. try to educate yourself a little better.

andrea said: "The opposite word for believing is not un-believing, is knowing."

-- no, you are wrong again. the opposite of having belief, is NO belief. and the opposite of knowing (or knowledge) is ignorance. so i have to conclude that, either you are just ignorant and uneducated, or else you are mentally confused, illogical, and irrational. and... rather close-minded.

andrea said: "And excuse me, how i can know the Supreme Reality (call it God or Nirvana or Heaven or wathever)?"

-- what "Supreme Reality" etc etc ?? those are merely words. where is this 'supreme reality'?? - in your mind, in your dreams, in your imagination. you are lost in a spiritual la-la-land (dreamland) of meaningless mystical mumbo-jumbo. i hope you wake up to reality before you waste too much of your life in this kind of nonsense.


God is within every one of us
And since he is in every one of us
we have to search for him within
the search has to come from within

this "within" is merely an idea, a concept. it is false, an illusion of mind.

a supposed 'internal' (inner), and a supposed 'external' (outer), are both duality.

in truth, there is neither a "within" nor a "without".


Andrea, what is true for you sometimes is only true for you. When you have a dream, that dream is true for you, not for anyone else. This is the difference between objective and subjective reality: some things are true for everyone; some things are only true for a particular person.

If I don't see a red light, I can't get off by telling the policeman, "That wasn't part of my reality." I'm expected to be able to see red lights if I have a driver's license. Likewise, if you see God, you can't expect other people to treat this like seeing a red light. Your seeing is subjective, because you can't show what you saw to anyone else, like a dream.

I agree with tAo that not believing in something isn't a belief. It is an absence of belief. No one goes around saying, "I am a believer in the non-existence of unicorns." They simply say, "I don't believe unicorns exist." It'd be crazy to say that recognizing the absence of an elephant in my kitchen means that I'm a believer in the non-existence of elephants in my home.

I simply don't think about elephants in my home, because none exist. Likewise, I go through my day not thinking about God, because there is no evidence that God exists. The only reason I think about the possibility of God at all is because so many other people do, and I'd like to help them understand why their belief is so misguided -- and harmful both to them and society at large.

If you actually SEE unicorns, touch them and ride them, then you actually know that unicorns exists.
No matter that the rest of the world believe it not or it is sure that they are unreal.
OR
you can just _believe_ you are crazy and give more value to the point of view of other people instead of your's.

If i have to give value to some point of view of the reality, i choose to give more value to mine.

So yes, MY experience, for ME, has more value to the experience of somebody else.

I think that God exists because MY perception is this... why i should give more value to the perception of somebody else? He is better than me? Why?

I think this discussion is going nowhere... and far from the beginning.

Why is so a problem for you if there is people who is happy in Sant Mat, or in Chtistianity, or in Comunism or whatever... let them live their life in the way they prefer. I'm happy and satisfied with my lifestile, my Master changed my life in ways you simply can't comprehend, i've seen so many proof and also not believing in his spiritual condition, He is a living example of a totally honest, wise, humble, generous, and perfect human being... just this is enough for me to make me choose to be every moment in contact with him and learn as much as possible from him.

I don't understand whis going-against...
People likes so much being anti-this, anti-that... but often they are just anti-something and they have nothing by themselves.

just because YOU think you see unicorns, think that you touch them, and think that you ride them, does not mean that unicorns exist. to be unable to discern the difference between fantasy, and reality, that is psychosis. so someone who cannot discern the difference between reality and delusion, is psychotic.

also, people who say "no matter that the rest of the world believe it not", they are indeed "crazy".

people who choose to give more "value" to their own fantasies and imaginations, instead of to the consensus reality, are delusional. that is psychosis.

people who say that their own supposed "experience" has more value than the experience of countless others, and yet they have no evidence to support their claims... they are irrational.

people who say that "God exists" merely because they claim that this is their "perception", are also irrational. because when asked, they cannot say or explain how they actually "perceived" God.

no one's so-called "perception" is any better than anyone elses.

people who say "this discussion is going nowhere", simply because other people don't accept or agree with their fantasies and delusions, are intellectually immature, unreasonable and irrational.

also, there is no problem if there are people who feel happy in sant mat or in christianity. no one is criticising how people prefer or choose to live their life. however, i seriously doubt that anyone is really happy in communism. only the ignorant, naive and idealistic outsiders think that.

however, people who say they have "seen so many proof" are in denial. they have seen no such proof. because when asked, they cannot produce this supposed "proof".

also, no one in this world is a "totally honest, wise, humble, generous, and perfect human being". none. nada. zero. period. to think and believe this is utter foolishness and stupidity. but it is a typical mentality prevealent in religious cults.

no one here is "anti-this, anti-that" or "anti-something". but those who typically make all the irrational and unreasonable and unsubstantiated claims, they tend to be the ones who "have nothing by themselves".

yeah, ok, yeah.

Blankety blank: "There is little value in an open debate [...] dissecting and negating the comments of one because it contradicts the beliefs of another, such as tAo is so want to do."

-- well then, what exactly are these "beliefs of another"? what "beliefs" are you referring to?

Blankety blank: "folks, your beliefs are different from Andreas, but without supporting evidence, are simply just beliefs."

-- our "beliefs are different from Andrea's"?? then what are these "beliefs" that you are referring to, that are different from Andrea's beliefs?

Blankety blank: "At least Andrea has subjective experiences to help her with her belief, whereas tAo, Brian et al, have each delusional other."

-- huh? you're not making any sense here (re: "tAo, Brian et al, have each delusional other"). again, delusion results from an inablility to differentiate the imaginary from the real. so therefore, 'inner' or subjective experiences must be considered to be imaginary if they cannot be substantiated or shown to reflect an actual reality. since mystical experiences are entirely subjective, they tend to be imaginary.

also... what, if any, substantive and demonstrable evidence do andrea's subjective experiences provide? somone else may have other different experiences that negate or oppose andrea's thoughts and experiences. so therefore, merely having personal 'inner' subjective experiences is not considered evidence or proof.


so exactly what proof you give us that God doesn't exists, that Perfect Masters doesn't exists, that a man as i described before (quoting: "totally honest, wise, humble, generous, and perfect human being") doesn't exists? I see this person one day over two, perhaps i know him better than you.
I have my proof, if you want my proofs, take a plane, come in italy, and follow me to meet this Person.
You can't say that north pole doesn't exists if you don't want to take a plane!
If you want my proofs of existence of inner planes, just come to meditate with my Master, he will show you. Simple!
Something is not marked as "unreal" just because you can't proof that. You can say "perhaps is not real", probably, i think... but only stupid people (sorry) say "i know everything".
I am always open to know something new.

Inner experience is not a goal nor indicative of some progress. It's a phenomenon that happens, sometimes, in different ways on different people.
For someone happens often, for someone it's rare, it depends of the needings of everyone and the way he is made.
Discussing about experiences is not so recommended (generally) because they can be misinterpretated, they can cause jealousy or sense of inferiority or superiority. And only somebody that really is competent in that matter can understand well the meaning of experiences.
I know many and many people whose life is changed a lot in the Path (i repeat, i'm not on Beas lineage of SM so i cant talk about them), with meditation and the other components of the Path.
My life, my mind, sure they changed a lot, in better. I can say that Sant Mat saved my life and the life of many other people. Of course, for somebody else another path will do the same. We are different beings and often we need different spiritual paths.
Being too much absolute in thinking that a path is always wrong, for everybody and with every Master, and that because doesn't fit for us it has to be wrong for everybody is just absurd, it's ignorance.
It's a pure egocentric belief.
And i can say another thing: I don't need to give "proofs" to no one, just as no one can give "proofs" to me that i'm wrong... everyone has his life, and life is a better teacher than outer opinions.

Andrea,

"Discussing about experiences is not so recommended (generally) because they can be misinterpretated, they can cause jealousy or sense of inferiority or superiority. And only somebody that really is competent in that matter can understand well the meaning of experiences."

--Yes, I have heard this statement many times. And, is the reason for non-disclosure. I would ask, who do you know that is competent is such matters? What would be an example of the meaning of a particular experience? It would be nice to take one specific spiritual meditation experience and have the competent person to explain, in detail, the exact meaning. Just have a friendly delightful discussion. Has something like this ever happened?
Thanks for a reply. Roger

Tara,

Yes, this could possibly resolve this meditation experience issue. Maybe, then maybe not. Roger

Blankety, I'll answer your questions also:

(1) No, this blog isn't a forum to explore the possibility that God may exist. It's a "churchless" blog, dedicated to spiritual independence. There is no evidence of God, so there's little if no purpose to discussing this lack of evidence. My purpose in starting this blog six years ago was to support people who want to break free of traditional religions, which generally demand a belief in God.

(2) No, that's absolutely wrong. Scientists recognize the value of subjective experiences just like everybody does. Scientists feel emotions, enjoy music, thrill to a beautiful sunset, and such. All of these experiences have "value" to scientists. In the practice of the scientific method, though, purported truths about reality have to be supported by demonstrable evidence, not just subjective experience.

(3) Yes, without evidence of God, it is highly likely that God does not exist in any sort of objective form. If people want to call "God" absolute subjectivity, that's up to them. But this is essentially a meaningless statement.

(4) No, that's a very simplistic description of subjective experiences. Modern neuroscience is more involved than that. Still, much about the nature of consciousness still remains to be understood.

(5) No, statements of belief have value. Everybody has beliefs. But if someone expresses a belief that is purported to be an objective fact -- such as that God exists, or a Master has supernatural powers -- then this belief deserves to be questioned skeptically.

(6) Who cares?

Blankety, it's a nice day here in Oregon -- too nice to spend my time trying to understand your argumentative arguments. Try saying what you're trying to say in a simple clear fashion. Then maybe I'd feel like responding in the same fashion.

I'm going to do some yard work, getting close to nature and grounding myself (literally). For me, today, that's truer than engaging in abstract philosophizing of the sort you seem to enjoy.

I read your blogs, I even recommend others to read them too. Hide behind your yard work Brian, its what you do.

BJ, I'll use a veggie hot dog break to defend yard work. And feeling free to engage in some comment discussions, and not others. In case you haven't noticed, here's some news for you: my blog isn't my job. And neither you, nor Blankety, nor any other visitors here are my bosses.

Neither am I, or anyone else, your boss. It's like any other voluntary interpersonal interactions in life. When I enjoy talking with someone, I talk with them. When I don't, I don't.

I trust my intuitions. Over the years I've become pretty adept at sensing when someone wants to discuss a subject, and when someone merely wants to argue about a subject. Aslo, I'm not into intellectual hair-splitting. I don't believe that living life fully and happily requires a philosophy doctorate.

I've educated enough and intelligent enough to play the "gotcha" argument game, where people like to see how many logical angels they can make dance on the hand of an intellectual pin, but that doesn't interest me much any more.

Anyway, thanks for the advice. I'm going back to my yard work. That's what I do. I'm doing a terrific job raking up pine needles. Believe me, one swipe of a rake tells me more about what life is about than endless philosophizing. Try it; you might like it.

Andrea said: "so exactly what proof you give us that God doesn't exists, that Perfect Masters doesn't exists, that a man as i described before [...] doesn't exists?"

-- the burden of proof is entirely upon the one making the claims (and clearly, that would be you)... not upon those who doubt the claims.

"I see this person one day over two, perhaps i know him better than you."

-- so what.

"I have my proof"

-- then by all means, present your proof.

"if you want my proofs, take a plane, come in italy, and follow me to meet this Person."

-- thats not my responsiblity to go to all that trouble. (and i am am sure that you have no proof, because there is no proof) furthermore, its totally YOUR responsibility to present your proof. if you cannot do that, then don't make claims that you cannot substantiate and prove. its as simple as that. no one id denying you yoru beliefs. just don't come here making claims that your beliefs (and about your guru) are true, when you cannot substantiate or prove them. this is very elementary. if you wish to make claims, then prove them. otherwise, just be content with your own personal beliefs. no one here cares what you believe. thats your business. just don't go around claiming that your beliefs are true, when you cannot prove them to be true.

"If you want my proofs of existence of inner planes, just come to meditate with my Master, he will show you."

-- i don't need to do that. i have already done meditation for about 45 years, and sant mat for over 30 years. your guru is no better than me or anyone else, and no one, i repeat NO ONE, can prove anything about sant mat to another person. so going to see your so-called guru can not and will not accomplish anything. moreover, imo, you are nothing more than a naive and gullible guru-cult follower. and i have no interest whatsoever in people like your guru. been there and done that ages ago. so no, your guru can not show me anything. you need to grow up and realize that other people do not need to believe in your childish illusions.

"Something is not marked as "unreal" just because you can't proof that."

-- wrong. the burden of proof is upon you to show that it is real. if you can not do that, then don't make such claims.

"but only stupid people (sorry) say "i know everything"."

-- your implication is wrong. i have never ever said that "i know everything". you are misquoting and misrespresenting me. that's dishonest.

"I am always open to know something new."

-- then why don't you admit that the mysticism of sant mat (or your guru) can not be proven? and that it is merely your belief system?

"Inner experience is not a goal nor indicative of some progress."

-- then why does sant mat put so much emphasis on it?? and also, in your own opinion (not parroted dogma), what exactly is the goal?

"only somebody that really is competent in that matter [interpreting inner experiences] can understand well the meaning of experiences."

-- this remark reeks of subordination to guru-cult authoritarianism. its pathetic. the only one who is really "competent", is the one who actually had the experience. no one else can truly understand what someone experiences.

"I know many and many people whose life is changed a lot in the Path"

-- well thats nice, but so what? so they changed in various ways? that still doesn't validate or prove sant mat. people change for all sorts of reasons that are not related to anything spiritual.

"I can say that Sant Mat saved my life and the life of many other people."

-- well maybe it did, but maybe it didn't.

"We are different beings and often we need different spiritual paths."

-- .....or no spiritual paths.

"Being too much absolute in thinking that a path is always wrong, for everybody and with every Master, and that because doesn't fit for us it has to be wrong for everybody is just absurd, it's ignorance."

-- no one here at this blog has ever said (or implied) anything like that. Brian has not said that, i have never said that, and others haven't said anyting like that either. so your assumption here is completely wrong.

"It's a pure egocentric belief."

-- NO... its rigid authoriatarian dogma and fundamentalism (either religious, spiritual, or mystical) that is egocentric.

"And i can say another thing: I don't need to give "proofs" to no one, just as no one can give "proofs" to me that i'm wrong."

-- if you make claims ( like YOU have done here), then the burden of proof is upon YOU.

"everyone has his life, and life is a better teacher than outer opinions.'

-- well if thats true, then why do you expect others to see and believe things your way? why don't you just be content with your own beliefs? why make claims (about sant mat and your guru) that you cannot prove?

tAo, nicely said. Truth is so simple. I have no idea why people like Andrea can't see it.

If someone wants to make a claim that something is true not only for them, but for others (objective truth), then he or she needs to provide evidence for that claim. If someone only wants to make a claim of subjective personal truth, then no evidence is necessary.

I really like Oregon strawberries. I ate some today. They're the best strawberries in the world. That's my personal belief. I don't care whether anyone else shares it. So my own experience is all I need to make those statements.

wow, too many comments to reand and answer :-)

1)Roger: yes, sometimes happens to discuss about meanings of inner experiences. During initiation every disciple tells his experience with both meditations: light and sound. At least this happens in my Master's sangat, and in Ajaib Singh's and Kirpal Singh's too.
For the rest, we are encouraged to thalk to our Master about our experiences, and sometimes happens that he decides to make public some of them for some special reason. I think that somebody who meditated for decades many and many hours per day is able to understand what process happens during meditation. Just like a doctor with 10 years of experience can understand things better than a student of medicine.

2)Tara: it's very simple. If in Beas they claim that sant mat is the only good way and others go to hell... you are just right. But Beas style of teaching Sant Mat is not the only one, nor the "official" one, there are many branches in India and in the rest of the world. There are at least 3 radhasoami official branches, and at least (i'm just thinking right now) 10 different living Masters of Sant Mat now in the world. They have their sangat and disciples and no one can say they are "fake" just because they are not Beas.
Sawan Singh left 4 or 5 successors. Soami Ji Maharaj the same. And they of course left their successors and sometimes more than one.
If Beas branch nowadays say that they are the only one, the better, the only right path, they are simply wrong and this is not the real Sant Mat way of thinking. In Adi Granth they are quoted a lot of Masters, not just of the sikh lineage but also muslims. Kabir is not in the Nanak lineage. My Master reads from Rumi just as from Kabir or Arjan or His Master. So this is just a Beas problem.

3)to tAo, i have nothing to say. Nothing at his level, he is too much beyond me, im too much stupid!

I dont really know if its correct or not to philosopshize about life or just get on with it. My personality tends to the former and as socarates put it, the unexamined life is not worth living. Perhaps as in most things, a balance is what is needed.

But what i dont really understand are these folk who seem to be anti-intellectual, i.e. against use of the minds intellect, conceptual and/or reasoning ability.

I mean the only thing a blog site is concerned with is concepts and the intellectual exchange thereof, thats it.

Put simply, if one is not interested in the intellect or in contemplating our existence, why would would anyone either start or join blog in the first place. To do so would be fundamentally hypocrytical.

Blankety blank, you made some good comments earlier, but they now seem to have been deleted. Did you delete them, if so why?

Hi BJ
I think only the blog owner can delete comments. I found Blankety blank to be a bit provocative with his way of writing, but spot on with his comments.

BJ, personal attacks unrelated to a post subject aren't allowed by this blog's comment guidelines. They were deleted, and will continue to be deleted. In this case the attacks were on me, but that doesn't matter. If someone resorts to "ad hominem" insults without addressing a substantive subject, that's out of bounds.

TIp: nobody is going to convince anybody that God exists and their spiritual beliefs are true by calling me an idiot fool. Their problem isn't me or this blog. Their problem is a lack of evidence for what they believe.

I realize that it's satisfying to attack the messenger of religious skepticism rather than the message, but all this does is show how weak are the arguments of those who espouse their faith at any cost.

And remember, Church of the Churchless haters, no one is forcing you to read this blog. If you're not enjoying your visits here, you might consider taking up a more pleasant activity rather than attacking the blogger because you're pissed off.

Andrea writes: "If in Beas they claim that sant mat is the only good way and others go to hell."

-- Beas (RSSB) does not specifically claim that, at this present time. Beas is now more careful to be more politically correct. however, Shiv Dayal Singh did claim that in his book Sar Bachan.

"Beas style of teaching Sant Mat is not the only one, nor the "official" one"

-- Beas does not claim to be the only "style of teaching", and no one here (on this blog) has said that it was the only "official" teaching or branch. so you have some assumptions that are mistaken.

"There are at least 3 radhasoami official branches, and at least 10 different living Masters of Sant Mat now in the world."

-- but how do you know that all these are really "Masters"??

"They have their sangat and disciples and no one can say they are "fake" just because they are not Beas."

-- but nobody here has said "they are fake just because they are not Beas". nobody said that Beas is the one and only true branch of sant mat. so why are you so defensive?? so like i said, i really think you hold some rather mistaken assumptions.

"Sawan Singh left 4 or 5 successors. Soami Ji Maharaj the same."

-- that is incorrect. you obviously do not know the history. sawan singh left only ONE successor: jagat singh. and jagat singh was to be an interim master (successor) until he passed and charan singh was able to be the master. and soami ji (shiv dayal singh) did not appoint jaimal singh (sawan singh's master) as successor. jaimal singh left Agra and went to Beas on his own, and started his own branch. he was not soamiji's successor. and kirpal (and thus darshan and rajinder too) was not sawan singh's succesor either. so your statement that "Sawan Singh left 4 or 5 successors" and "Soami Ji Maharaj the same", is wrong and inaccurate.

"And they of course left their successors and sometimes more than one."

-- incorrrect - see above.

"If Beas branch nowadays say that they are the only one, the better, the only right path"

-- Beas does not say that. so where do you get that idea?

"this is not the real Sant Mat way of thinking."

-- but what all do you know about "the real Sant Mat way of thinking"?? are you some expert authority on sant mat? if not, then don't make such presumptions.

"In Adi Granth they are quoted a lot of Masters, not just of the sikh lineage but also muslims."

-- so what? that is in the adi granth. that is sikhism, not sant mat.

"Kabir is not in the Nanak lineage. My Master reads from Rumi just as from Kabir or Arjan or His Master. So this is just a Beas problem."

-- there is no "Beas problem". this is only in your mind.

"tAo, i have nothing to say. Nothing at his level, he is too much beyond me"

-- this is nothing more than avoidance, an evasive cop-out... its because you are unable to defend your position, and because you can't show evidence for your beleifs and claims. why don't don't you just be honest and admit it? i would respect that alot more than your unfounded beliefs and claims, and your evasiveness when confronted with skepticism and reality.

spiritual progress all depends upon your ability to be very honest and open-minded, and very truthful and real... and not hide your head in the sand of fantasies, myths and illusions. that seems to be something that you have not learned yet. but you CAN change that and grow... if you will simply seek and surrender to truth, no matter what it is or turns out to be. if you think that you (or someone else like your guru) has all the answers, then you are already wrong, and so you will not progress.

so skepticism is really your best friend, and it alone will lead you toward truth.


TAo:
"and it alone will lead you toward truth."
What exactly do you mean by that? You're talking here (as I see it) as if "truth" is an absolute. Truth can never be more than a "relative" surely? Or are you talking about truth relative to RSSB?

no, i am not "talking" as if truth is any such absolute. i merely said "toward truth". there are all sorts of truths. and yes, some truths are relative. but i was talking about the value of being skeptical. so your interpretation of the nature of my comment is mistaken.

also, no, i was not talking about truth relative to the RSSB at all. i was talking about the value of skepticism as a means towards greater truth, and accepting truth in whatever form it turns out to be. in other words, be open to truh in whatever way it comes, and not be rigid and dogmatic.

i simply made two points. here is what i said:

(1) "you CAN change that and grow... if you will simply seek and surrender to truth, no matter what it is or turns out to be."

(2) "so skepticism is really your best friend, and it alone will lead you toward truth."

those are pretty clear statements (to me anyway), so i don't see how you could construe my meaning as being "as if truth is an absolute". i did not say or imply that at all. because otherwise, why would i have then emphasized the value of skepticism? so i think you must not have read carefully, and jumped to mistaken conclusions.

which, in an ironic way, proves my point.


tao, you wrote this:


"Sant Mat is not just "Beas"."

-- thats more or less incorrect. there are other 'versions' of sant mat (like yours)... but as i pointed out above, shiv dayal singh originated and formalized what is now known as "sant mat", which was later carried by jaimal singh, and then propagated and elaborated upon even more so by sawan singh, as well as by the original Agra branch. there is no other "sant mat" extant. your different interpretation(s) is based upon an unauthorized off-shoot of what originally started from shiv dayal singh. your ideas may seem reasonable to you (and ro your guru), but those ideas are not at all what the traditional sant mat of its originator, shiv dayal singh, teaches.

"The first Master of my Master was Sant Kirpal Singh and He was a disciple of Sawan Singh (Beas lineage) and his writings and teachings are in line with my first comment."

-- no, kirpal singh was not. kirpal was a disciple of sawan singh, but, kirpal went off on his own independently and stated his own unauthorized branch. the lineage was not passed to kirpal. and although kirpal retained alot of formal elements of the teaching, he also departed from that in some ways. and so did kirpal's successors darshan & rajinder, and thakur (another unauthorized off-shoot).

you and your guru can think and believe whatever you like, but aspects of your interpretation is definitely not what the formal sant mat of shiv dayal singh teaches. so don't pretend that it is. your notions are just your own altered interpretations. and that goes for your guru as well.


and now you say that "Beas does not claim to be the only "style of teaching", and no one here (on this blog) has said that it was the only "official" teaching or branch. so you have some assumptions that are mistaken."


so at least find YOUR truth in your thoughts ;-)

andrea, i know what i wrote (so there is no need to copy it)... and all of what i wrote is correct and factual. if you disagree or doubt that, then please .

so then, what is your point here andrea?

you say - "so at least find YOUR truth in your thoughts" - but this is not clear what you mean. i don't need to "find" anything. so what are you trying to say here? i had presented some simple historical facts to you. but your response now seems vague and confused.

just try saying what you want to say in a simple direct way. you are welcome to share your opinions and personal beliefs, but just don't say that they prove something, when they don't.


Everybody can read and see what i'm saying.

Can I ask you just a question?
There is only one thing that i can't understand about you.
You decided to take initiation by a Master.
Why? Exacly why? If that Master never gave to you some proof of his words and teaching...
Then you remained in his sangat doing his practices for 30 years! That's incredible!
But why you did this? You needed 30 years to realize that this Master, this teachings and this practice are not working for you?
And now you go on making this sort of crusade against that?
For me, this is just absurd.

This article completely overlooks the most important action in the Science of the Soul path and that is the meditational devotion. It is a Science. The Science of the Soul. Through daily practice of meditation on is able to quiet the mind and allow the soul to travel and experience exactly the same sounds as all those who practice the discipline. The goal is to become nothing, lose the ego in order to merge once again with the eternal Creative energy. What happened to this fellows info on the main thrust? Meditation? What too hard! That is the major difference between Sat Mat and Hinduism...

Bernie,

I liked,

"It is a Science. The Science of the Soul. Through daily practice of meditation on is able to quiet the mind and allow the soul to travel and experience exactly the same sounds as all those who practice the discipline. The goal is to become nothing, lose the ego in order to merge once again with the eternal Creative energy."

--From the 'scientific' studies, where does the Soul travel to? Where did it travel from? Can the Soul travel even when the mind is 'not' still? What kind of sounds are being created from praticing the Science? I would agree, that Science could possibly answer some or all of these questions. Thanks Roger

andrea,

no, it was not very clear as to what point you were making. thats why i asked you to clarify. yet again you have chosen to evade the issue, and instread, you ask me questions. why don't you just say what it is that YOU believe, but leave out the unprovable claims.

you asked: "You decided to take initiation by a Master. Why? Exacly why?"

-- i have addressed and answered this many times before on this blog. so if you were more familar with the comments pertaining to sant mat and RS on this blog, you would know the answer to that. i explained that i took initiation for one purpose only: to learn the shabd meditation practice. i did not take intitation to get a guru (what you call a "master"). i did not take initiation because i needed a guru, or to have a guru. i took initiation for the purpose of exploring the meditation practice. thats all.

"If that Master never gave to you some proof of his words and teaching."

-- the "Master" does not give anyone any such "proof", ever. the master only gives the intiation and the teaching (satsang). there is no "proof" to give. there is only the meditation, which is practiced by the initiate or "satsangi". the results (experiences) of the meditation are internal and subjective. the master does not give any sort of "proof". no one can do that. meditation experiences (results) only occur within the initiate/meditator. the master has no power to to effect any sort of "proof". that is a myth.

as far as my having any experiences in meditation: i have had many such orofound experiences. but experiences in meditation are entirely subjective. so they are not "proof" of anything, they are only just experiences. and my experiences in meditation have nothing to do with any master or guru.

"Then you remained in his sangat doing his practices for 30 years!"

-- no, i did not "remain in his sangat" at all. i was actually never involved in the RS sangat. i had lived in India for years (both before and after RS), but i ceased any sort of connection to RS whatsoever (including doing shabd yoga meditation) after about 12 years. but these matters are related entirely to my own life, and they don't apply to you or to anyone else. and you would not understand it anyway. i am only telling you this so as to correct your mistaken assumption.

"But why you did this? You needed 30 years to realize that this Master, this teachings and this practice are not working for you?"

-- no, and i already answered this above. No, i did not "need" "30 years", and no "Master" had anything to do with it, and no, the meditation practice was not a problem for me. you really have no idea about where i am at in my spiritual life.

"And now you go on making this sort of crusade against that? For me, this is just absurd."

-- wrong again andrea. i am not making any such "crusade against" anything. just like you, i am simply sharing my opinions on a blog. and i also happen to well acquainted with sant mat. there is nothing "absurd" about anything i have said. its more like you are the one who is "absurd" for being so full of mistaken presumptions about me, and for claiming to have proof when you have none.

"i took initiation for one purpose only: to learn the shabd meditation practice. i did not take intitation to get a guru (what you call a "master"). i did not take initiation because i needed a guru, or to have a guru. i took initiation for the purpose of exploring the meditation practice. thats all."

Ok so you took only a little slice of Sant Mat. Just the one you like(d). It's obvious that the result isn't good, it din'nt worked and it was unsatisfiyng!
Sant Mat is not just a meditation practice but a lifestyle that contains (among other things) also meditation. But Masters of Sant Mat say to meditate, AND to have a certain relationship with the Master, other satsangis, having a vegetarian diet, relating in a strictly defined way with work, love relationship, diet...
You can't take only some part of it and then criticize the whole thing.
Masters clearly say that practice will not work if the other parts of the Path are not taken in consideration. Masters cleraly say that they give PROOF of the existence of God, of Beyond, of Soul travels. If you want i can quote Soami Ji Maharaj, he always says these things. So you "accepted" to be initiated in SM meditation just in half way, and the result is just a half-result.
You never believed in the words of the Master whom you asked to be teached a form of meditation.
Your way of relating to him was just wrong: during initiation you agreed to do a certain lifestile and accepted him as a Master (initiation is also this!) but then you just did some meditation and left all the rest.
Of course it didn't worked!
Every scientific experiment works ONLY if all the conditions are satisfied.
Now you can't say that a whole SM lifestile don't work... you never tried.


To Tara

If I am correct I think you said you were living at the dera. The question is why without giving too much away? And I assume you must be using a fake name to protect yourself.

Hey, Andrea, you're talking fundamentalist ridiculousness. I tried Sant Mat for thirty-five years. Followed every vow just about perfectly. Did a lot of seva (volunteer work) for the guru. Meditated like crazy. Kept to the vegetarian diet, no alcohol, no drugs -- all that. Spent quite a bit of time with the guru. Went to India a couple of times to soak up the Dera atmosphere.

Didn't work for me either, at least not in the way that was promised. And I'm not at all alone. As I rose in the Sant Mat hierarchy, I learned that other long-time satsangis were just as spiritually/mystically unchanged as I was, just as humanly imperfect (not that there is anything wrong with this), and that included the "perfect guru."

I did the scientific experiment. I know many others who have done the experiment also, having satisfied all the conditions. So you're talking nonsense when you say that Sant Mat is a science. Sorry, it isn't. It's a religion, like any other.

As a non-fundamentalist, moderate Satsangi who believes it's possible for my Guru to be both imperfect and God-realized at the same time, I have no problem with my faith being labeled a "religion" and understand why others object to it being called a "Science". The only difference from most religions being the absence of professional priests(although some of the designated speakers and reps come pretty close sometimes!)As far as doing Seva(volunteer work) goes, to refer to it as "exploitation" is just plain ridiculous; Volunteerism is a an altruistic act that for some has a self-serving benefit to the doer.


There are remarkable simularities between the teachings of Sant Mat and Hinduism. From descriptions of the so called inner regions to the mechanism of control of the followers.
Interesting, current master asks his disciples to read this blog, so they can make their own mind up.
The numbers of discontented satsangis is at an all time high, I have managed to discoveer some interesting data from Spain sangat, if anyone is interested?

Tara, your post of July 08, 2010 at 11:00 PM was well said and totally spot on. nice comment.

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

Andrea, its now become a waste of time discussing this with you. its become clear that you aren't interested in any reasonable discussion. and you aren't interested in other people's thoughts and conclusions.

you are more or less here to be yet another annoying troll pushing sant mat religious fundamentalism. i have tried to be polite and candid with you, even in spite of your repeated mistaken presumptions and deliberate belittling distortions about me and my sant mat experience.

i will respond to a few of your most recents comments, but beyond that, i don't think you belong here. go back to your guru and your sant mat religion. you are not open-minded.

you said (in quotes):

"Ok so you took only a little slice of Sant Mat. Just the one you like(d). It's obvious that the result isn't good, it din'nt worked and it was unsatisfiyng!"

-- wrong again. i said no such thing. you've got it all wrong. i didn't just take a little slice. i have much more extensive experience in sant mat than you ever will. only my motivation was different than most other satsangis. and i never anything about results. and i checked it out far more than most have. you don't know shit about me. so stop assuming that you do. quit judging people you know nothing about. you are acting very much like a troll. we have seen you type before. its obvious.

"Sant Mat is not just a meditation practice but a lifestyle that contains (among other things) also meditation."

-- wrong. sant mat is primarily a path of meditation and a theology which also incorporates a few other adjuncts like vegetarianism and morality etc. the main thrust of sant mat is shabd meditation. the focus of sant mat is primarily meditation, not "lifestyle". so you have it backwards. and i am not going to debate with you further because you have no interest in discussing the pros and cons of sant mat. you are here only with the intention of to harassing people who are not blind fundamentalist believers, like you are.

"But Masters of Sant Mat say to meditate, AND to have a certain relationship with the Master"

-- no, thats not what the four vows say. i am not (was not) required to have any such "relationship with the Master". the master is there to initiate and to give guidance if needed. period. the rest is optional. no devotion or belief is required, nor any satsang, nor any darshan, nor any seva. meditation is the main focus and the only necessity (along with vegetarianism). the rest is all cult related and not required. so your understanding of sant mat is incorrect and erroneous.

"You can't take only some part of it and then criticize the whole thing."

-- i didn't "take only part of it". just like Brian, i did all that was required. i followed the four vows and practiced meditation. i also went to the RS Dera at Beas several times for many months at a time and i received the teaching directly from the master Charan Singh. i also had several lengthy private personal discussions with him about the path. and i kne many of his associates, long time Sawan disciples. i also knew and spent time with Kirpal Singh and his son and successor Darshan Singh, and also with Faqir Chand. and i was also close friends with the very spiritually learned Dr. Sharma, who was one of Faqir Chand's two appointed successors. so i happen to have a great deal of knowledge and considerable experience in sant mat and the RS mat.

-- also, you impudently and rudely ridicule and belittle those, like Brian and myself, who have far greater experience in sant mat than you do, and whom you know virtually nothing about. and that is generally how trolls behave.

"Masters clearly say that practice will not work if the other parts of the Path are not taken in consideration."

-- who says that i did not do that? you say? you don't know anything about my sadhana in sant mat. you are just an ignorant follower of of some wannabee guru.

"Masters cleraly say that they give PROOF of the existence of God, of Beyond, of Soul travels."

-- and what "PROOF" is that?? lets see it. lets hear it. what proof?? words are not proof. claims are not proof. subjectivew experiences are not proof. there is no proof anywhere in mysticism (or religion). none whatsoever. it is all predicated upon belief. so claiming that there is "proof", without being able to produce that proof, is blatant rubbish and its downright lame.

"So you "accepted" to be initiated in SM meditation just in half way, and the result is just a half-result."

-- i did no such thing. i practiced sant mat to the fullest. but thats not the issue here. you are just using that to distract from the real issue. the real issue is that you have no proof, no matter what you (or your guru) try to claim. your claim is bogus. you have presented no proof. no one has any proof. thats just the way it is. thats the nature of mysticism. so stop being stupid and making claims that you cannot prove. just go and be content with yoiur beliefs, and recogize that thats all they are... mere beliefs.

"You never believed in the words of the Master whom you asked to be teached a form of meditation."

-- thats absolute rubbish. you don't know anything about my RS guru (master), or about his words to me, or about me. you are about as presumptious and stupid as they come.

"Your way of relating to him was just wrong"

-- you don't know how i 'related' to him. you know nothing about that. you are nothing more than a very judgemental (but ignorant) fool. so you are the one who is "just wrong".

"during initiation you agreed to do a certain lifestile and accepted him as a Master"

-- i did no such thing. during initiation i agreed to follow the four vows and to meditate daily. and thats exactly what i did. period. thats all. so you apparently don't know anything about RS initiation or practice.

"but then you just did some meditation and left all the rest."

-- no i did not "leave all the rest". i had been a vegetarian for almost 15 years prior to initiation, and i had practiced meditation for over 15 years before my RS intitiation, and i was married at the time, and i meditated daily. i also spent time with the master staying at the RSSB Dera several times over a period of years. i had also lived in India as a real yogi-sadhu for some years, and i did that long before RS initiation. so again Andrea, you are full of rather presumtious but ignorant nonsense. you don't know zip about me, or about my spiritual sadhana.

"Of course it didn't worked!"

-- who says it didn't work for me?? i didn't say that. i never said anything like that. so now you are misrepresenting me and fabricating falsehoods about me.

"Every scientific experiment works ONLY if all the conditions are satisfied."

-- wrong. sant mat is not scientific. its not science. its mysticism. period.

"you can't say that a whole SM lifestile don't work... you never tried."

-- who says i didn't try?? i never said that. i never said any such thing. i think you are very confused. i think you are mixing me up with someone else. i did not say anything of the sort. i have had many profound experiences in meditation. but again, thats not the issue.

the issue here is that YOU do not have any "proof" to back up your claims. that is the issue, not me and my meditation experiences. you are just trying to evade the issue by turning it on me. but my experience in sant mat is not the issue. the issue is all about YOUR claims of having "proof". period. thats what this is all about. its not about me and my sant mat sadhana.

this all only goes to show that you are trying to distract from the fact that YOU have no proof of anything. there is no proof to be had sant mat is mysticism, and belief in mysticism. there is no proof of God, or perfect masters, or sach khand, or any of it. none whatsoever. its all a matter of belief and faith. and THAT... is religion. no matter what you say or how you try to deny it, sant mat is a type of religion. end of story.

Andrea, go stick with your own beliefs and your master. we are not interested in your dogmatic sant mat religious fundamentalism here. we are interested in open-minded discussion, not narrow-minded doctrine and dogma, or your trollish type of behavior. get real andrea. be real. cut out all the presumptious bullshit. be a bit more respectful to people and don't assume things about people that you don't know as fact. and do't claim "proof" when you have none.



Bugger,

Please present the Spain sangat data you have discovered.

Also, do you have an authoritative source which states the current master "asks his disciples to read this blog"? I believe the current master encourages seekers to read widely about Sant mat, both pro and con, to satisfy their intellects prior to initiation which might include this blog. I would be very surprised if he encouraged his initiated disciples to read this blog.


Bugger Brian,

The current master would never commit such a mistake to encourage his disciples to read this blog,of course he does not prohibit his disciples to read the approved and authorised material on internet.

Fyi the number of new initiates is also extremely high.I would also be interested in the Spain sangat data.Thanks.

Tara:
Re your comment about the ladies sweeping and then a surprise glimpse of the guru making their seva well worth their while, how can one be critical? Perhaps and probably their faith is the one and only focus in their lives giving them a raison d'etre. Who would want to destroy this love within people who possess nothing else. I am cynical, yes, but am not a cynic and just because I, and many others, realise the falsity of RSSB, does not give reason to denigrade the innocence of these seva doers. Joy is a rare commodity in our western world regardless of the deception involved.
However, Tara, I enjoy your comments.

Above comment posted by Elizabeth W

i don't agree. reality is always superior to fantasy, no matter how you cut it. ignorance, even if it is blissful ignorance, is not better than uncomfortable truth, even if the truth is uncomfortable.

in other words, being a slave (such as a sweeper) to the illusion of a supposed sat-guru, even if it is done willingly, is unfortunate. it is far better to live in reality, than it is to live in a lie, not matter how blissful the lie is. the exploitation of poor class women who are sweeping dust for some wealthy feudalistic lord, and desperately hoping to catch a mere fleeting glimpse of him, is pathetic and sad. it is not innocence, it is ignorance. it is misplaced love. i wish for them to be liberated from their blind-faith fantasies. i would have them be free of their illusion, even if it meant the loss of their happiness. because their happiness is not based on reality. it is based upon a lie and a deception. the deception is that their 'lord' is more holy and superior. that is not true. these poor humble sweepers are vastly more worthy than the pompous fraudulent holy-man (or pseudo spiritual-master) who pretentiously rides by in his expensive rolls royce. they don't need him, they need a real life free of spiritual serfdom. their devotion is based upon an illusion. these sweepers are queens, and their haughty turbaned supposed master is but a worm in hell. but he will pay the price for his fakery and pretense... of that i am certain. his mask is going to be removed along with all the others who deceive the gullible and innocent.

the impending apocalypse will spare no one. so each must chose between surrendering to reality or believing in a lie. all the liars and the false lords (so-called masters) are all going to be burned like dead dry grass in a hot furnace. and the lovers of truth and humble sweepers will float on a cool sweet lake of bliss. i am certain of this. soon you will see. very soon. just remember: ignorance is no excuse, and reality is not hidden. surrender to truth, and you will pass through the fire unburned. the arrogant will perish and be cleased from the earth. soon you will see. the choice is yours.

and you don't have to believe me. everyone will find this out anyway. i am absolutely sure of it. dawn is soon approaching. the sun is already rising. the apocalyse is underway, whether you like it or not.


Impending doom by tAo who is one of these guys who stands on street corners with a poster that reads "Repent Ye Now, for the End is nigh!!"
tAo, dont stop posting on here, you are just so funny !!

I agree very much with what tAo said above about the happiness of devotees to a false guru and the irony of their reversed status. Well said. For example, parched desert travelers may be happy thinking the poisonous water they have discovered in their delirium is delicious, but eventually they will get sick. It is the guru who should bow to the servants. Actually, they all are playing roles and should all bow to one another!!

I forgot to mention that I enjoyed Tara's insights as well. I think she understands the mechanisms of guru psychology very well. RSSB has got it down pat, but maybe as tAo said the day is coming when it will be seen the emperor has no clothes.

tucson... thanks for understadning my point.

patience... just be patient. you too will get what is coming to you, and what you deserve. its so evident in your comment as to how you chose to interpret mine. just wait and see whether or not you will still be laughing. fools like you have a rather rude awakening headed your way.


Look,

Sant Mat,is a purification of Hinduism!!!

Basically, Hinduism was starting to get impure,
and the Lords plus Satgurus message was being changed, all sorts of things were being added into the faith; for example; Idol Worship, Animal Sacrifice, the Casting System etc.. So a group of Vedic or Bhakti Saints, formed the Sant Mat path, designed to be a pure and original form of Hinduism.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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

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

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

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

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

Welcome


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