A guru should know if he is God

Sometimes visitors to this blog ask me, via a comment or email, if I'm bitter about the thirty-five years I spent as a devotee of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) spiritual teachings.

Meaning, I guess, do I feel letdown, deceived, or maliciously manipulated by the guru who initiated me in 1971 (Charan Singh) and/or his successor, Gurinder Singh, who became the head of RSSB after Charan Singh died in 1990?

The truthful answer basically is no. My feelings about my "divorce" from Radha Soami Satsang Beas are pretty much the same as my feelings about the ending of my marriage with my first wife.

We had mostly good times. No regrets there.

And the bad times? Well, this is what happens when an important intimate relationship goes sour. At first it's tough to adjust, but eventually there's a realization that you're better off after the splitting-up. As the saying goes, "It's darkest before the dawn."

I'm happier now than I was as an active member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas. I feel more contented with my life. I'm no longer focused on a far-off goal of god-realization, so I enjoy the here and now more intensely and passionately.

There is, though, a bit of bitterness that lingers in my psyche. Once in a while I think about something guru-related that irritates me. It bothers me when it comes to mind -- and I feel justified in this botheration (yes, it's a word).

Because it sure seems that a guru should know whether he is God. This isn't something that would pass unnoticed, like barely elevated blood pressure or a mild asymptomatic illness.

Back in 2006 I asked, "Who is the guru?"

A biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman, said that four words could describe Jesus: a liar, a lunatic, the Lord, or a legend. Since legend only can apply to someone who is dead, I eliminated this as an option for the RSSB gurus while they are alive.

I also chose to discount the possibility of "liar," favoring another L-word.

So I muse over my recollections of Charan Singh and Gurinder Singh, trying to decide whether they’re best described as liars, lunatics, or the Lord.

None of the three appellations seem to fit, lunatic least of all. Each of them clearly was/is of sound mind (Charan Singh died in 1990). They could be liars, but their essential good-heartedness and decency argues against this. On the other hand, their evident imperfections prevent me from grabbing onto the “Lord” hypothesis.

Is there another L-word that better fills the bill? One springs to mind: loyalist. Perhaps when a successor is appointed to fill the shoes of a highly-regarded guru, loyalty both to his predecessor and to the surrounding organization prevents the newcomer from crying out, “Hey, I’m not God! I’m just a man filling the role of a guru.”

Five years later, my attitude has changed. The RSSB guru is considered to be God in human form by his disciples. This is serious stuff.

Many devoted initiates, both Indians and those of other nationalities, center their lives around a belief that their guru possesses a divine power to guide them both now and after death -- until the soul returns to God, who is found to be one and the same as the guru.

If the guru really, truly, actually knows that he is God, able to do all kinds of miraculous supernatural things, then he should be upfront about this. However, this isn't what the RSSB gurus do. They play the "I'm nobody special" game, which their initiates strangely consider to be a sign of divinity.

Well, maybe "I'm nobody special" is the truth. The guru knows that he isn't God, yet chooses to allow his devotees to believe that he is.

In my previous post I excused this as the act of a loyalist. Now, I see it much more as the act of a liar. If a CEO knows that a product his company sells is dangerously defective, yet allows customers to believe that it is fine (in the case of a RSSB guru, perfect), this would be seriously negligent behavior.

Ditto with a guru who realizes that he isn't the divine being his devotees believe him to be, yet persists in selling his enlightenment/god-realization product.

So, yes, I do feel somewhat bitter when I think about this: either Charan Singh and Gurinder Singh actually are God in human form, or they are liars. I find the former possibility extremely unlikely.

Which leaves me with the latter.

Like I said, this is serious stuff. Businesses knowingly sell crap to people all the time. "Buyer beware" should be in the back of every customer's mind. I accept this. But there's a big difference between stretching the truth when selling a car and when selling salvation.

If a RSSB guru isn't the god-realized being his disciples consider him to be, he should come clean and set the record straight. Not in veiled self-deprecating comments that could cause devotees to say "Oh, how humble is the guru; how marvelously he veils his divinity."

But rather in a straightforward statement: "I am not God. I know no more about what, if anything, lies beyond the physical than you do. I am a fellow seeker, not anybody special."

Either the guru is God, or he isn't. He knows which is true. Failing to be honest with his initiates about what he knows -- that's inexcusable.

Comments

[Marina]

Brian interesting new thread. Thank you.

You shared some of your thoughts/feelings on how you see RS and it seems that you have different moments when you remember the good memories and experiences and then you ask what it all means and you feel the opposite. I like your honesty.

Regarding your take on whether BJ or Charan are GIHF, I for one did believe that, for a long time. Oh yeah, it suited me at the time to hand over my ity bity life to someone who seemed to have a lot of the answers and could ‘save’ me from the eternal hell fires. And it worked while I needed it.

When I got on my feet so to speak, from feeling I was in the gutter and worthless and began to have a good look around, I started to view things differently. It seemed like I had a different vantage point. As I said before, I always rebelled against ‘silly’ rules and had a weak stomach for people telling me how I should behave around a person who was ‘God’ basically. My idea was, why should I pretend and act in a way that doesn’t feel natural to me, as in sit quietly and don’t talk out of place and be pushed into line to allow for this ‘God’ person to do his own thing. ‘Don’t annoy him and keep out of his way was the general message. You are only dirt on his feet.’

Even when I happened to get an interview, I was told how to ‘address’ him and what not to say. Well in my rebellious mind, I cried to myself ‘I’ll say what I like’, though I did keep my thoughts private so it looked like I was playing along with the rules, until I got to the interview.

Why should I behave differently to someone who is supposedly God and accepts me for who I am, warts and all. Is that not ‘playing games?’ If for instance, I was to meet one of my children or a best friend whom I hadn’t seen for a long time, would I try to ‘behave’ in a certain way? No, I would act from how I felt and not be someone who I wasn’t, so that aspect of RS really gets up my nose - when I allow it. After all, isn’t ‘God’ supposed to love and accept you (no punishment) just the way you are? After all, he supposedly created me (us all) so surely knows the workings of all things.

I am beginning to see though, that people are people and we all coming from different places so I suppose I am getting a bit more understanding from the ‘other’ side of things not just my own personal point. I do however see why they may do this as, ‘we’ can all have the tendency to smother him and think by touching or being in contact with him in this way, we shall ‘get grace’. Ha I use to be there myself. lol

I think BJ anyway, I wasn’t around during Charan’s days, tries all the time to ‘put’ us straight and is constantly saying he is no different than any of us. I see him trying to break our deluded perceptions/beliefs all the time by saying things like ‘I could be a big fraud up here’or 'I am no different than anyone else'. I take it that we are all part of ‘God’ or the ‘One’. The message I hear from him is that there is no difference in any of us, we are all made from the same stuff! Some may be more or less aware of that. And that too is ok. If we think back to our earlier days, we all had our weird notions, whether we admit it or not.

We all have the same basic feelings when you get down to it – ok we have different experiences or stories but it seems to boil down to the fact that we are no different than anybody else. Maybe some of us are more aware or in touch with this (or not) but still the same essence.

I find it interesting when Brian says :

”So, yes, I do feel somewhat bitter when I think about this: either Charan Singh and Gurinder Singh actually are God in human form, or they are liars. I find the former possibility extremely unlikely.
Which leaves me with the latter"

It seems to me that either point can equally true for Brian at different times from his thoughts at that moment. Why do we think it can be either one way or the other and then grab onto that and make it a belief? (hey we all can do it) It is like we try to reason out things in our mind and come up with a solid conclusion thereby cutting ourselves off from flowing along and become stagnant in our non movement with life, as we have now grasped onto the ‘answer’. Can these things be known from the minds perspective?

Maybe BJ feels he is God and see’s we are all God too but just haven’t realised it for ourselves. After all, how can we be any different? We can be at different places but still....

Brian says:

” There is, though, a bit of bitterness that lingers in my psyche. Once in a while I think about something guru-related that irritates me. It bothers me when it comes to mind -- and I feel justified in this botheration

And
” If the guru really, truly, actually knows that he is God, able to do all kinds of miraculous supernatural things, then he should be upfront about this.

If BJ could or do these things it would be a different story or part of the same. You would have ‘disciples’ who would ‘throw’ themselves at his feet and you would have ‘disciples’ who would say, it is not about these miraculous things, he is just a con using these things as spectacles to get money, power etc. There seems no angle from which BJ can win from our minds. It is like he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

I don’t think it is about someone proving to us what or who he is anyway. Even for argument sake, let us say he did prove it in some way that ‘suited’ us all, what then? What good would it be for us? We have to realise for ourselves, our own enquiry. Again, nobody can eat and digest the food for us and we cannot expect to get any nourishment from them from this act. Ok, we can get pointers, directions, but the journey is one we have to take ourselves (even if it is to realise there never was a journey)

It is funny to me because we sometimes don’t take responsibility for our agenda’s that we put on the situation. In my own case, yes RS was going to save me from hell, yes it now makes me special, etc and all the other childish notions I had.

If I blame RS/BJ for leading me astray, I am fooling myself. I believed what I was telling myself and even if you say but ‘the books say it, I heard it at satsang.......’ I still bought the package because it suited me. Nobody forced me to believe anything.

It amazes me too as some people say ‘Marina you have a light grip on RS, fair play to you’ and then it comes across ‘Marina, you are a hypocrite you are not following the rules’.

Ah BJ, I do feel for you – I am damned if I do (practise RS to the ninth degree) and I am damned if I don’t ( take it lightly). Oh the paradox! :))

Saying that, I do feel for us all!

Marina :)

[Seeker2011]

All we could ask of a half-decent human being, let alone one of 'guru' status, is that they tell us the Truth as they 'see' &/or understand it.
It doesn't matter how hard that Truth is to swallow or how hard it might be for us to then understand & live with, it is the responsibility of any half-decent human being - let alone one of 'guru' status - to state that Truth irrespective and, in doing so, let us decide whether or not to act upon it.
Half-truths, half-baked philosophies, personally untested &/or unrealised notions should be stated as such. And, this is the rub vis-a-vis RSSB gurus; of Babaji-G in particular.
Why? Because we, us human beings, harbour a hope that any half-decent person, let alone one of 'guru' status, will have the bottle to make their position - that is their level of understanding &/or so-called realisation - absolutely clear. And, isn't this especially the case when we are likely to invest so much of our lives in following the teachings of such a person? Then, doesn't speaking the Truth of it all become a hugely moral responsibility?
For at least the first 8/9 years of Babaji-G's reign it was patently obvious that he didn't have a clue. Hence, his motivation was primarily one of 'bums-on-seats'. This, and this alone, became the quantity rather than quality marker of his measurable outer-success as the 'new' model guru. And, now he is left with that legacy.
He simply never stated the Truth of his position - his understanding - from the outset & was clearly prepared to play the 'guru' game, so allowing us - the masses & muggins of the Sangat - to fill-in-the-gaps. In other words, by virtue of not stating his position, he allowed us to create the 'ideal'!
True, he has now garnered more inner understanding, but he is left with that legacy; a legacy founded upon a loada half truths. And, so how can he ever be trusted again? When it mattered, he actually never had the bottle. That is the be-all-and-end-all of it; that is the crux of it all! He is a man of very little real courage.
And one thing is for sure, stated here with some grateful understanding garnered in spite of RSSB gurus;
Babaji-G - whatever his new take on old teachings - is definitely NOT cut from the same cloth as Ramana nor has he even half the bottle of a Fakir Chand!

[L. C.]

I remember sitting in a home satsang of the RS mid-west representative and he
Quoted charan singh as saying to him “one day you’ll hate me”, he was puzzled by
That he said. I try to refrain from hating them and have tried to move on
And not hold a deep resentment that isn’t good for me. But, I can
Say that cult of evil ruined 25 years of my life. Charan singh and
The other frauds liers has given me decades of unhappiness and misery.
Spiritual terrorist is what they are. Think of the great terrorist sawan
Telling everybody they have a 100 thousand scorpions’ stings
Waiting for them at the time of death. Or the misery and agony
Or the poor families that believe one of their loved ones has gone to
Lowest form of existence imaginable, never to gain the human form
Again because they committed suicide. And guilt complex those Frauds daily lay on their follows. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. It’s hideous what they do. All to gain wealth and grow the dera.
(btw, the mid-west rep no longer practiced RS in the later part of his life).

lou

[Blogger Brian]

Marina, in some ways I resonate with your position that each of us is responsible for our beliefs. However, I think this only holds true in certain areas.

You wrote, "Why do we think it can be either one way or the other and then grab onto that and make it a belief?"

Well, the answer is that in many cases it truly CAN only be either one way or the other. There's no in-between. The Earth either is round (nearly so, at least), or it isn't. The Earth either orbits the sun, or it doesn't.

I believe the Earth is round and that it orbits the sun because the weight of evidence supports these facts. And I trust the scientists who have investigated these questions and told me what the truth is.

The way I see it, either Gurinder Singh knows that he has the godly powers attributed to him by his devotees, or he knows that he doesn't. I don't see how it is possible that a guru wouldn't know whether he can guide souls back to God, appear to them at the time of death, or know the secrets of higher spiritual regions.

So in this case I don't think it's true that RSSB initiates are solely or even mainly responsible for believing that the guru is god. The guru encourages this belief by not explicitly telling the truth about what he knows, or doesn't know.

Again, for the guru they aren't two equally valid beliefs, two uncertainties that nobody can be sure about: whether he has divine supernatural powers, or not. There is a definite truth here, and the guru knows what it is. For him not to explicitly reveal this: that's untruthful and manipulative.

[Betty]

Think about it. This whole thread, if we are quite honest here, the assumption is that he is most certainly NOT Divine in Human Garb and he should admit it.

But, hey, what if he were the Divine in Human Garb? Would we believe him if he said so? No. I wouldn't. What proof(s) would I demand? I can think of NONE that I would not end up dismissing, calling a cheap trick, or getting some lab-coat from a Skeptic's Society to explain away. Why? Because I don't want him to be the Real Deal, that's why. Why don't I want him to be the Real Deal? Cause I've "moved on". It would be really inconvenient.

[Marina]

Brian wrote:

"So in this case I don't think it's true that RSSB initiates are solely or even mainly responsible for believing that the guru is god. The guru encourages this belief by not explicitly telling the truth about what he knows, or doesn't know.

I will agree to disagree Brian.
The way I see it is that even if I give you the point that "the guru encourages this belief" WHO is more than willing to believe that encouragement and WHY?

Even if he did come out and tell us that yes he has supernatural powers, what good will that do?

Some of us will cry - give us proof!!!
other may cry - oh let me hang on to you even more!

And who knows.....

Marina :)

[Blogger Brian]

Marina, sure -- if the guru said he had supernatural powers, naturally ( (and others) would want proof of this. Likewise, if someone claimed he could guarantee investors a 20% return in the stock market every year, without fail, I'd also want proof of that.

You seem quite forgiving of duplicitous behavior. If the above-mentioned supposed investment expert went around making false claims that he could make lots of money for people with no risk, don't you think this would be wrong?

Just as it would be wrong if a used car salesman said "This vehicle is in perfect condition," whereas actually he knew that the engine had serious problems?

I don't think it is proper to always put the blame for holding a belief on the believer. This would mean that scam artists, cheats, frauds, and such would get a free ride from society and be above the law.

When someone agrees to enter into a transaction with someone else, whether it involves money or not, we have a right to expect a fairly high degree of transparency and honesty. The guru agrees to initiate a person in exchange for a commitment of 2.5 hours of meditation a day and holding to other vows.

In exchange, the RSSB teachings clearly say that the guru will remain with the initiate in his radiant form all through life, and also guide the disciple at the time of death. This is a pretty damn strong and important commitment. If it isn't true, if the guru can't do the things that are promised, this is a fraudulent transaction and the blame falls on the guru.

Again, our legal systems frown on false advertising and blatantly false performance claims. Sure, some stretching of the truth is allowed in marketing, but not wholesale lies. If a guru actually has no divine supernatural powers, that's a huge lie -- given the promises of the RSSB teachings.

[cc]

We're conditioned to believe this or that, be it a guru or a pope or the cards or whatever. When someone successfully seizes the opportunity to exploit this condition, he's held more acountable than the suckers he's exploited, but that he IS more accountable is just another belief.

[Blogger Brian]

cc, by your reasoning, wouldn't everything be a belief? Meaning, there are no facts, no consensual human agreement about how the world is? And isn't what you said in your comment just another belief?

The world is a lot more regular, ordered, and predictable than you seem to be assuming. Some things only exist in our own minds as beliefs; other things are quite stable and can be observed/ experienced by people other than us.

If a guru claims that he is objectively capable of doing things that actually he can't, I say that he should be held accountable for this. If I take my car to someone and he says, "Sure, I know how to fix it," and he turns out to be incompetent, I'm justified in holding him accountable -- because he told me something that wasn't true.

[Marina]

Brian, when you say

"I don't think it is proper to always put the blame for holding a belief on the believer. This would mean that scam artists, cheats, frauds, and such would get a free ride from society and be above the law.

I think we could change the word blame to responsibility as 'blame' has a negitive connotation and can mislead. We could use the word - responsibility.

I still stand that it is up to the individual person to take responsibility for whatever they believe (have believed) and look at as to why, the belief(s)arose.

For instance what payoff? Is it one possibility that we feel or have felt so desperate to 'know' or 'experience' something we feel is missing in us etc,that we are blinded by that very desire and are willing to 'believe' anything as long as it seems to have the potential to fullfill that desire?

I don't see it as being taken for a ride. We do our homework, that is what I say.

For me, I will speak for myself. If I have any blame or anger at someone and leave it at that and seemingly move on with life, there is a subtle feeling of something left unfinished, that's what I do know.

The other side of some questions that you brought up;
Do we know if guru is NOT with us all our lives in his radiant form? Do we really know for sure?
Do we know if he won't guide us through death? Is he not the very same essence as all of us? Could it be possible that ANY form can meet us or express itself to us at the time of death in whatever form we trust?

For me, I don't know the answers to these questions either way. But I will remain open.....

Marina :)

[Yes]

The fraud isn't just theoretical.

The fraud is on an astronical finacial scale in 'real' terms primarily affecting the most vulnerable. The Ghif has amassed an enourmous fortune (as did his predicessors) perpetuating falsehoods.

I'm talking about the impoverished masses who labor in the agricultural and contruciton projects of dera and westerners and others who also labor and donate and assign inheritances.....now to a billionaire Napoleonic clown named Gurinder.

Check the founding publication 'Origin and Growth' which Gurinder had removed from circulation which states that all donations become the personal property of the Guru to do with as he pleases and other principles of looting in the name of spiritualism....

It really bothers me when so called spiritually focused indviduals are willing to gloss over what is obvious in order to elevate 'spritual ego' or 'feel good affilitaions'.

[George]

the whole notion of GIHF is an utter absurdity - he might be a very nice and even a very wise man, but there is no-one on this earth that is perfect. No-one has all the answers and no-one is all-powerful. Its complete nonsense.

[dr]

Brain puts his faith in science even though science is impotent when it comes to giving meaning to the character of human experience. All science can do is explain how things work. It is incapable of giving meaning to any answers in terms of a "why" to anything.

And even if science can explain the half that is the "how", there is no reason to think that there is some future explanation that will reveal the intricacies of life and existence. Does knowledge of the law and existence of gravity render existence any more or less meaningful? Of course not. But there are shades of grey. Brian doesn't believe there are shades of grey. His position is naive because based on the idea "there is either a God or there isn't". Because he fails to recognise that making a paradox like that blinds him to consider the limitations of his senses.

There is no such thing as a pure atheist just as there is no such thing as christianity in America without denominational difference. When people say they lack belief in God or they lack belief in something, it just means they DON'T believe in it. Period. But people like Brian claim that answers lie in black and white man-made investigative endeavours called "science" and that there is no God. Don't be mistaken here - Brian thinks with his limited brain tissue that there is no God and his arrogance informs him that he needs to broadcast this tripe to the world through his little internet blog. Don't fall for it. It is not as simple and black and white as he, in his big ego ship, wants people to believe.

The trouble is, he claims to know things that nobody knows. Just like theists claim to know that their God exists, he claims to know that there is no God whatsoever. But he does not know this anymore than he really knows the truth or falsehood of the people's belief in their own God.

His testimony is spurious and incomplete.

As to this man that claims to be "god in human form" that is impossible because it donotes inequality of mutual existence.

[George]

Science is not arrogant, it simply makes a claim supported by evidence.

If anything is arrogant, its those that make claims that science is arrogant without providing a shred of evidence for there own beliefs. They simply shout down others having the temerity to question those views without evidence.

You do not have to have a single iota of faith in science, it is all personally verifiable. You can toss an apple in the air and it will fall to the ground with a particular value of gravitational acceleration each and every time. You do not have to have faith in this, you can go outside and do the experiment yourself. Everyone all over the world can do the experiment and measure the results.

Now instead, the scientists are branded as arrogant because someone claims to be god in human form without a single shred of evidence therefore.

[Blogger Brian]

dr, obviously you don't read my posts very carefully.

I talk all the time about shades of gray. I've never said that I'm 100% sure that God doesn't exist. What I say is that there is no evidence for God, as there is for other objectively real things.

Maybe God is an idea that gives meaning to your life. That's great. I enjoy a highly meaningful life. I hope you do too. I love ballroom dancing, Tai Chi, walks in nature, riding my scooter, spending quality time with my wife and dog -- all kinds of things that are subjectively meaningful to me.

I can't demonstrate my subjectivity to anyone else. But, obviously, it is the reality in which i live and breathe. Part of that subjectivity involves dealing with facts about the outside world. There's where I rely on science and what can loosely be called the scientific method.

If my computer stops working as it should, I don't throw my hands up and say "I must believe! I must pray!" I figure out what's wrong and solve the problem. That's the sort of knowledge which we deal with in much of everyday life.

The other sort of knowledge is first person and experiential. As you'd know if you read more widely on the blog, or with more understanding, I highly value this kind of knowledge also. It's what gives meaning to our lives.

I have no problems with people like you believing in your own personal view of God. But if you claim that God is an objective reality, you need to have some proof. Which, I assume, you don't. So you have your subjective view of reality, and I have mine, and everybody else has theirs.

What's the problem with that? Why are you upset with me expressing my own views on this blog, just as you're able to do in your comments?

[George]

Always the same, equating science to religions that require faith - whereas in fact, science is the antithesis of faith. Science requires evidence-based reason not faith, faith is anathema to science.

Scientists cannot be equated to gurus or priest, since scientists and their teaching do not require devotion or worship. A key hallmark of science, which is necessary for its very progress, is the reliance on questioning, critiquing or trying to tear down a particular scientific theory. It is why science requires full public disclosure of theories and evidence so that others can see exactly what is claimed and try refuting it, if they cannot, it become science.

Science is a search for truth based on evidence. The truth it is concerned with is not absolute. Scientific theories change depending on the available evidence and/or if someone thinks of a better model to fit the evidence.

When ppl say they have faith in the scientific method, this is not faith in a religious sense that can never be tested and must simply be accepted. Each and every scientific claim can be tested by anyone anywhere. This is a time consuming process though so we accept that someone else has done the experiements and its been tested by others. We know science works, the laws of science keep 500-ton 747 hunks of metal in the air with unerring regularity. All accomplished through the accumulation of scientific knowledge.

There is alot more to the human experience than the scientific method - but if you want to make claims aboot reality why call the ppl who actually give evidence for their limited claims 'arrogant'?

[George]

There is also a difference between having thought things through with your mind with the sort of clarity that scientific reasoning demands (supposedly 'black-and-white' thinking), as compared to the sort of blurred unthinking no-mind that mysticism and religion require (or 'shades-of-grey thinking).

If on the other hand mystical thinking is so clear, why can they not provide a single clear-cut claim to any principle of reality? Even if science is limited as compared to mysticism, how come the mystics have never revealed even the most simple of scientific laws, not even one. Mysticism is afterall a far older tradition, yet in 4000 years they've not come close to the accuracy of science in the relatively simple task of explaining how the universe works?

[Blogger Brian]

George, good point. Another commenter recently asked how a guru could prove that he had supernatural powers. Well, one way would be to reveal a hitherto unknown law of nature that could be confirmed by scientists, either now or in the future.

Like, the guru could say whether the Higgs particle exists, and if so, at what energy level it can be found by a particle accelerator. Since "perfect" gurus supposedly know everything, being privy to all of the secrets of creation, this should be simple for a divine being to do.

But such hasn't happened. Hmmmmm. We can only wonder why.

[cc]

"If I take my car to someone and he says, "Sure, I know how to fix it," and he turns out to be incompetent, I'm justified in holding him accountable -- because he told me something that wasn't true."

False analogy. A mechanic claims he can do the job whereas a guru claims he can enable you to do the job. Thus, when the job isn't done and you blame the guru, he can blame you for not doing as you were told. It's a good racket.

[Dogribb]

If my appendix ruptures I think a little belief in science is in order.Why's start at age 2 and should generally be left at that stage of development

[TonyM]

TEMPLATE FOR GURUS WHO WISH TO ADMIT THEY ARE NOT GIHF

Dear Satsangis and Seekers,

Since the inception of [add Sangat name here] there has been a belief held by many of you that the guru of the [add Sangat name] is God In Human Form (GIHF).

This belief is based on the satsangs of the gurus and the books of [add Sangat name].

You will also have heard or read about the gurus of this sangat refuse to explicitly admit that they are GIHF, or you may have heard or read statements of the gurus that might suggest they are not GIHF.

You may have interpreted these statements as being statements of humility, and therefore concluded that the guru in question must be GIHF.

I am here to make an irrevocable admission that will be painful for many of you to hear.

I am not GIHF. I do not know everything. I have enough trouble remembering my own schedule, let alone the workings of the Universe/s.

OPTIONAL PARAGRAPH: I have been unable, despite my best efforts, to 'go within' during meditation.

OPTIONAL PARAGRAPH: Although I have the ability to 'go within' during meditation, I am not sure whether the act of 'going within' is merely inducing a waking dream like state, or something more. The ability to 'go within' has not improved my understanding of existence.

OPTIONAL PARAGRAPH: Out of duty and love for my [name your guru], I will continue to act as the head of [name of sangat].

OPTIONAL PARAGRAPH: As I am not GIHF, I hereby resign as guru of [add sangat name].

I realise that some of you will wish to interpret this statement as a sign of my humility, and therefore conclude that I am GIHF. Unfortunately, you will be mistaken.

Should those of you who are disaffected wish to continue to believe in a guru who is GIHF, I attach a list of other satsangs whose gurus have not made an admission such as mine (but who, I believe, are nevertheless in the same predicament as I am).

Warmest Regards,

[name]

[Blogger Brian]

TonyM, nice job. I'm sure your form letter will get a lot of use. (Ha-ha)

[Seeker2011]

It is simply amazing how Babaji-G has through the years of his reign created so much confusion. You see it writ here in these very blogs!

Of course, he's often said that he does this purposefully in order to ... what! But the truth is he's pretty much been learning-on-the-job, trying to stay one-step ahead of the sangat and, by God, has it shown!

No wonder he avoids any documentary evidence of his 'talks', Q&A sesssions etc. He leaves everything to second-hand accounts which can be neatly denied, if & when necessary, should he come up with some new 'concept'.

It is a great ploy & he's worked it like a good-old pro, mostly by using the 'silent' technique ... letting the sangat muggins read-into whatever it is that he does/doesn't say with whatever they want or need to hear. Yep, still learning-on-the-job ... now can't think of any Uk teacher getting away with that, let alone a self-respecting 'guru' with a flock of a coupla million.

It's interesting though - after a fashion - comparing his style to what is known of Ramana. With the latter, well He - much like Nisagadatta - left little room for confusion or misunderstanding in his explication of the Truth; that is the Truth as he has realised, known, experienced & continued to live it.

In fact, could go so far as to say that for the likes of Ramana and Nisargadatta knowing the Truth meant that they were totally incapable of doing anything else but - as best to their ability - simply expressing that Truth as clearly as humanly possible; that is not only through their words but also in the way that they lived that Truth in their daily lives.

Maybe that is as good a sign as any, of someone who knows the Truth of it all. They become totally incapable of doing anything less than expressing that Truth as clearly & honestly & simply as possible ... through their words, their actions, their every deed.

Hmmmm, yeh, they wouldn't create confusion. They would be brave, noble, direct, clear, fearless. Yep.

[Marina]

There seems to be one inherent question that keeps popping up time and time again.
Is BJ God in Human Form?

Let’s forget about the books for a moment, even though it does come across that BJ and the previous RS masters are GIHF – well for me anyway. For me it is merely a belief if I agree.

But, I could also take or add to that belief that we all are GIHF – how could it be any different? We all seem the same underneath the outer appearance and although we do have different experiences of life and are at different places, basically it comes down to the same set of feelings and emotions.

I find myself asking that question, if BJ is GIHF and the honest answer I can come up with is, I Don’t Know!
What would it take for me to know? I don’t know that either? If he told me personally that he was one with the Lord, would I still know? I have to say no, I wouldn’t, it would still be a belief.
If ‘He’ done some ‘miraculous’ appearing and disappearing, would that be proof? I still say no.

I think I are asking the wrong question.

The question I see as more appropriate and more helpful is not WHO IS HE, but WHO AM I?

How can I know someone else if I don’t know myself? Oh yeah, I sure have beliefs and idea’s and even feelings, which always seem to be fluctuating, but are these who I really am? How can I call someone good or bad, a saviour or a fraud if I don’t know my real self, and when I say that, I mean the ‘Self/Being’ that is not subject to change, not this small self that is focused on me to the exclusion of every other ‘me’ out there? I am beginning to realise that the mind can never know everything. (Even though mine likes to tell me it does)

I see it that I can decide if I am ‘getting’ anything from RS. If not, I can move on. If I am not sure, well I will wait and see, that is all.

The same with this blog: I see myself ‘getting’ something of use to me so I am still here. Even if it is to show me that not everyone or anyone for a matter of fact feels the same way I do, it doesn’t matter. If I get annoyed at some comment, I can choose to make that person responsible, blaming them for being rude, or I can see that whatever they have said, I believe it myself or I wouldn’t be annoyed – impossible.

Oh true, I may have no choice in the feeling of annoyance coming up, but I can choose at that stage to put the ‘blame’ responsibility out ‘there’ or own it for myself, thereby taking control of my life and being 100% responsible. No one any longer has any power to control me or better still, it can leave me not wanting to control or be responsible for anyone out there either. Ah, great freedom – acceptance.

As someone asked Ramana if he could give it to them and Ramana’s reply went something like ‘No. Even if I could give it, you couldn’t take it.’ That being the case, it does ease the ‘addiction’ of holding on to a master or spiritual teaching in the hope that it can be transmitted. Words can be useful pointers but each and all of us gets to go through the journey for ourselves. Not rejecting anything that comes up because it is not ‘spiritual’. Whatever comes up is just that experience, before we label it as good or bad, spiritual or worldly. Again we can have our concepts of what ‘it’ should look like.

One thing I am looking at though is the kundalini thing which RS seems to be based on. When I got into RS I never wanted the lights or sounds thing and I wasn’t really interested in Sach Khand. At first I wanted to get to Sach Khand but very soon realising it wasn’t happening :), (I wanted to escape life at that point) it came to me that I just wanted to be ‘happy’, to find myself. I remember telling BJ at the mike one year. I mean, come on, what good it is getting to Sach Khand and being miserable there. So my thing was always, when I look back, to be ‘happy’ or now I would call it peaceful, content, accepting, all is ok, kinda thing.

I had been into Tony Quinn who looking back was basically into kundalini energy and had some frightening experiences – which went from being ecstatically happy to pure fear.
I am reminded of a dream, which I don’t normally give much meaning to, but this one felt different. It happened many years back during the Tony Quinn days.

I was in bed sleeping and I thought I was dreaming. I could find a beautiful heat in my stomach and it began moving upwards. When it got to my throat area I felt paralyzed and when I tried to scream to get my husband’s attention, I couldn’t speak. I felt enormous fear – not being able to move or talk. Immense fear. Something came to me to ‘think’ my husband’s name and then all went away.

I was in a funny state – it felt I was not awake and yet I wasn’t asleep. Next thing, it started happening again, at first the lovely heat feeling of energy moving upwards but before it got anywhere near my throat I felt fear, thinking if the same thing was going to happen. It did. This time thinking my husband’s name didn’t work and the fear was building. It came to me to ‘think’ God, which I did and it again, disappeared.

It happened a third time and this time; a split second after the ‘nice’ feeling came the fear, full blown. Thinking my husband’s name didn’t work, thinking God didn’t work and I was really ‘losing’ it inside as I couldn’t move or speak. Again ‘something’ came to me and said ‘think of yourself’ and I did and whew, it never returned.

Now later on after all these years of thinking I could ‘get’ it from somewhere out there, and believe me I tried, it is like – you have to do it for yourself (just like in my dream). Yes, you can get pointers, directions, guidance etc, but bottom line as Ramana says ‘no one can give it to you’.

I see it now as these ‘experinces’ are all just that, experiences. As even with experiences, there seems to be ‘someone’ watching the experience. So how can the 'experiences' be it?

So this does leave my mind a bit confused as to – do I do my meditation or not? But I know the answer will come to me and in the meantime, I don’t make it into a problem. ....It just is where I happen to be, no more no less, until I’m not.

Marina :)

[dr]

Whys are crude attempts to derive meaning from existence. Even so that doesn't render the quest for meaning redundant. Everybody is searching for meaning to their existence all the time in the quest for pleasures, for example. Pleasurable things bring happiness which fulfils the purpose of existence (for most people). Some rise above bodily pleasure to mental pleasure in terms of philosophy, science etc.

Said nothing against science, just that its application is limited. It has to be, it is man made.

[George]

yes i personally think science is limited, but no-one knows to what extent, who knows what science will eventually discover and anyone who has tried to predict a limit as to what science can explain has historically been proven wrong.

In fact, science is a very big reason why so much of the modern world, and the western world in particular, has opted for a more secular culture.

Darwinian evolution was a massive part of dispelling religious belief cos it provides overwhelming evidence for how complex systems such as humans, and other lifeforms, can come into existence from the simplest of organisms.

Science may be limited, but there is no method of insight into reality or way of understanding that is not limited. Science appears to be the least limited precisely because of the requirement for verifiable evidence and peer review.

[Marina]

dr wrote:

"Pleasurable things bring happiness which fulfils the purpose of existence"

I don't see it as these 'things' bringing happiness and thereby fulfilling the purpose of existence. I see it as when the desire for pleasurable things are gotton, recieved, the minds desire has stopped in that moment and we fool ourselves into thinking the 'pleasurable thing' is what caused the happiness. When in fact, it is the lack of desire in that moment that has actually caused the happiness thus allowing things and excistence just to be as it is.

[Boo]

Brian you wrote above

"Another commenter recently asked how a guru could prove that he had supernatural powers. Well, one way would be to reveal a hitherto unknown law of nature that could be confirmed by scientists, either now or in the future."

I would say, "it was a lucky guess", or that the guru had a found a savant-consultant from this world.

Have you ever had the unhappy experience of trying to communicate with a mean drunk? My 3rd date with just the nicest guy in the world rendered it impossible for there to be a 4th. We went to an outside concert and I brought a bottle of wine. He quickly drank it all and became unbearably mean. There was not a thing that I said that he did not twist to mean something negative. I said "it was a wonderful concert". He said "you are just playing nice, it was a bad concert", I said I thought the night air was wonderful, he said "you're wrong, that is stupid, it is too humid". There was no way to interject positivity. I called a taxi and left. This is what patriotic satsangi's often feel like when chatting with "ex" people. Ex people do not necessarily sound thoughtful, and intelligent but sour and TOO eager to find out bad things. It is like the movie "Bad Santa". This mean drunk syndrome is lamentable because some of the information on your Blog can ONLY be found on your Blog. This makes your Blog very important. At least in my opinion it is very important.

Boo

[Dogribb]

Should have asked me out Boo...wine makes me easily entertained and entertaining.Just shows the mind itself gives everything the meaning that it has.It can entertain any possibility.Dunno what you mean about the EX's but I guess a believer has to think something about us lost ones...lol

[Marina]

I do have to agree with a lot of what Boo says.

Saying that, I have learned a lot about myself and learned to let others be.

Marina

[Nietzsche]

Brian wrote:
Well, the answer is that in many cases it truly CAN only be either one way or the other. There's no in-between. The Earth either is round (nearly so, at least), or it isn't. The Earth either orbits the sun, or it doesn't.

I would like to relativate this a little bit. To us it is meaningfull to talk in terms of geometric shapes. So to us the earth is round but wat it really is no one knows. But this does not add anything to the points, it just caught my eye and it is interesting to realise that we do not know so much about our universe but more about our perception of our univers and I hold a distinction between these two.

[Seeker2011]

Create confusion – principles of divide-and-rule &/or organised-chaos – and even the most bizarre & weirdest systems flourish under even the craziest, inept, flawed of characters. Take our friend Gadaffi! Another one with delusions of a God-given right to rule-the-roost.

Nisagadatta makes one very valid point in this context.

He tells us NEVER to place any one &/or any thing between our self & the Lord; the Truth. To do so, he says, is a very dangerous practice & you are likely to end up, just like all of us here, spending our valuable time discussing the merits of the one-we-have-placed-in-the-middle … and so completely missing the target.

One lesson my dad taught me when very young. After years in India in the army & well familiar with the colonialist & class-ridden attitudes of us Brits at home & abroad, he gave me one piece of advice vis-à-vis how a civilised, educated &/or hoping to become more enlightened Brit might best handle-the-hierarchy & relate to each & every individual they happen across in this life. Quite simply he told me always to remember that even the monarch, let alone the RSSB guru, still craps in precisely the same way as everyone else!

So rock-on Babaji-G … better to be a drunk who appreciates the neti neti of it all, than a sober blinkered satsangi still pining for the One-that-got-away!

Radha Soami

[Marina]

Nietzsche wrote:

" But this does not add anything to the points, it just caught my eye and it is interesting to realise that we do not know so much about our universe but more about our perception of our universe and I hold a distinction between these two.

I see it as adding to the above points Nietzsche. It seems right to say it is more about our "own" perception than maybe the actual truth.

Marina

[Blogger Brian]

Boo, I agree with you that on this blog sometimes criticism of someone's religious beliefs edges over into personal criticism of them, which isn't desirable or appropriate.

We're all trying to do the best we can to make our way through life. I understand the joy and satisfaction people get from believing, because I experienced that positivity myself for many years.

However, I think you're stretching things a bit when you imply that a "mean drunk" attitude pervades this blog. The way I see it, it's akin to what happens when a global warming denier leaves a comment on Climate Progress, a leading climate science site.

If you go against the grain of what a web site or blog is all about, it's to be expected that you'll get some negative reactions. The same would happen, I suspect, if an atheist started posting comments on a Christian site, saying that Jesus is a fraud.

We all have our own viewpoints. That's great. And inevitable. Like you said, the problem comes when we attack the person rather than how they see things. And even then (as I say frequently), if someone is simply talking about how they subjectively see the world, I've got no problem with that.

I don't like country music very much, but I'm fine with other people listening to it. However, if someone said "Country music is the best music in the world; you need to embrace it," I'd argue with that attitude.

[Mike Williams]

This is for Tao :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQ6NKiby-o&feature=related

[Marina]

Brian you wrote:

"However, if someone said "Country music is the best music in the world; you need to embrace it," I'd argue with that attitude.

Boo doesn't seem to be arguing that 'believers' are the best in the world. Nobody (well almost nobody) is coming across saying their belief is the best in the world.

She seems to be saying that 'non believers' are arguing that they are the best and anyone who doesn’t agree with their ‘non beliefs’ are treated in a mean spirited way.

As she says, 'believers' do seem to be 'attacked' for their own beliefs V other ‘non believers on the blog. Not totally, but a great element seems to persist in general.

What then is the difference in what this element is doing compared to the groups they have grievances with or whom they say are holding onto unhealthy beliefs?

That is why I put ‘believers’ & ‘non believers’ in quotation marks.

It is coming across that even the non believers have their own ‘religion’ of certain beliefs and are in the end no different than any other group they claim to be different from.

If this is the case, this blog has a particular point of view which doesn’t seem open to any ‘outside’ belief.

Marina

[Mike Williams]

Yogananda takes an ostrich ride
in Pasadena California

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5GgN5XbFFI&NR=1

[Blogger Brian]

Marina, remember The Thinking Atheist post that I put up a few days ago? He was asked if atheism is a religion. Reply: "Sure. And not smoking is a habit."

Not believing in god or gurus isn't a belief. It is the lack of a belief. If I don't believe that the moon is made of cheese, I'm not a Moon Isn't Made of Cheese believer.

So atheism or agnosticism isn't a belief system. Unless you want to claim that not smoking means that I'm addicted to a lack of nicotine.

[osho robbins]

When Charan Singh found out he was the next master – what happened?

(1) He was shocked – therefore he is not all-knowing
(2) He said he was not what people thought he was – so he was not god-realised or travelling to Sach Khand
(3) He tried to run away – and not be the next master – so he’s obviously not up to the job
(4) He spent many agonizing weeks (or was it months) before he made the decision to take on the role
(5) When he did take the role – he made it 100% clear that he is no master – and is simply playing the role of the head of RSSB.
(6) He also made it totally clear that he makes no claim to any spiritual progress.
(7) He published his diary entries – originals – so there will be no dispute or argument over this. He made it totally clear that he was just an ordinary person – with no special powers.
(8) Whenever anyone asked about his person experiences – he would not comment on them

His saving quality is that he made it clear that he has no special powers – and therefore was not making any claim to be GIHF.

Now someone could argue that he took on the role of master – with all the implications that come with the role. However – he made it clear he’s just giving out theory. He was the one who started the idea of disciples doing live satsangs in the UK. At first the disciples said that they had no progress – and he said – you’re just explaining what the scriptures are saying.

That is all RSSB satsang is now – a ‘speaker’ talking about what the scriptures are supposedly saying.

Anyway – charan singh makes no claims to be GIHF – although disciples took him to be that way.

Another example was when charan singh was with colonel saunders in the UK in a restaurant. The colonel went to the bathroom and the food arrived while charan singh was waiting. Charan singh asked him what the pieces were in the rice. They were egg – but the fact that charan singh did not know – means he is not all–knowing.

[Dogribb]

This is still news to me.Charan was touted as GIHF and this info was never known by me.Was it only published in Punjabi ?

[Vas]

The idea an atheist does not beleive must be questioned. If the idea is based on the sense that the so called individual thinker will make up his/her "own" mind. If this individual does not exist, then the conclusions formed are a beleif and not based on fact. Science is our most vluable tool, however the scientist is still limited by the same thinker/thought division. So science is limited by the scientist,as he also beleives in himself as an individual entity seperate from thought itself.

[osho robbins]

dogribb,

its made clear in a book called Treasure beyond measure. One of the last books published before charan singh left the physical body. In the foreward of the book he states that he has edited and checked the book personally - and it is factually correct. His personal diary entries are printed so it leaves no doubt about the truth of what is written in the book.

[Marina]

Ah well Brian, the fact that you said your God Golobet thinks ‘you’re the man’........
Your newest thread says:

”I’m an atheist who is beloved by God”

”God loves this sort of faith, this sort of surrender. That's why God loves me and other unbelievers so much. We're happy to flow with whatever.

You even have conversations with your God - ”I said, "Thanks, God, nice to hear from you again." Not aloud of course. Inside my head, where Galobet/God and I have so many wonderful conversations.

So you do believe in God. And you believe you are an unbeliever. You seem to be digging with both feet. ;)

Marina

[Blogger Brian]

Marina, I'm a believer in what my brain conjures up. As we all are. We have no choice. That's our reality: whatever our brain presents to us. Our conscious awareness is like the tip of an unconscious iceberg, so says neuroscience.

So naturally I worship my brain as my god. That's where ideas about god come from -- the human brain. What evidence is there of an external, objectively real god?

My goal in the post you refer to was to point out, in a humorous way, that I can have a divine revelation that is as unchallengeable as any revelation described in a holy book or by a holy person.

Yes, I do talk to god. The difference between me and a religious believer is, I'm almost completely certain that I'm talking to myself.

But since I'm a scientific guy, I realize that 100% certainty is an impossibility; I could be proven wrong, just as any seeming fact about reality could be proven wrong.

[Vas]

You people are not serious at all. Its all become a game, a bit of fun.

[Marina]

Ok Brian, I get your point.

I agree that your thread did come across as humourous as I laughed from one end of it to the other - not at you Brian, with you.

I am looking into what, as you say, the brain conjours up. Yes, we may not have a choice of what pops up, but we can enquire into it and see if it's true, so I do see that we have a choice.

Marina

[osho robbins]

Brian,
thats basically what the books 'conversations with God' (volumes 1,2,3) are all about.
The author starts of describing his frustration with God and then writes God a pretty damning letter. To his surprise his hand starts writing back - saying - do you want answers - or are you just venting.

Both, replies the author. And the question and answer sessions begins.

Later on - in the second volume the author makes it clear - that is he simply talking to himself - his higher self - if you want to call it that - not an external God as such.

The idea of an external God is a fallacy - and can be shown to be so logically.

(1) God is that which is eternal - timeless and spaceless. (because anything in time and space cannot be eternal)

(2) If God had a FORM (i.e. an external objective reality) - he would be in time and space - and therefore subject to birth and death (change)

(3) Eternal means - No time and No space. hence no objective reality - as we measure it. (i.e. God is not an OBJECT or anything that can be measured. The closest you can say is - he is a NO-THING (absence of a thing, shape or form)

(4) hence you could say - God is NOTHING. God CANNOT be a THING - as by nature - all THINGS are within time and space and therefore subject to change - born, grow, decay, die. Anything within time and space is therefore not GOD.

This is where the scientific method fails - because science deals only with objective reality - within Time and space. God is not an objective reality.

So as far as science is concerned - there is no God - which ironically is exactly what I am saying anyway. God is NO-THING.

Now you can get stuck in words and concepts. However - the simplicity of this is what makes it hard for the mind to grasp.

Mind wants answers - and this is not an answer.

It takes you to a point where the question disappears.

See - this is where it all gets mystical. And the logical scientific mind (George) starts saying it's all fake and all lies.

Well - maybe - and maybe not. It all depends on your viewpoint.

You can say that LOVE has no objective reality - but would you say love does not exist?

Thoughts - the mind - has no objective reality - but would you say thoughts don't exist?

I am not talking about BELIEVING anything. I am saying that GOD is that which is beyond time and space - and therefore beyond the scope of science. So science has no response to God because God is not an objective reality - so is therefore beyond the scope of science to examine.

That doesn't make any argument about God valid or invalid.

God is a can of words - as far as science is concerned. And who wants to open a can of worms?

Fuck - it's too late - I've already opened it - and now it won't close!

[osho robbins]

Marina wrote:
I am looking into what, as you say, the brain conjures up. Yes, we may not have a choice of what pops up, but we can enquire into it and see if it's true, so I do see that we have a choice.
My response:
You can enquire – but who will respond? YOU! And who will decide what is true or untrue? – Once again YOU will decide.
How do you ever know what is true / false / right / wrong?
Is there an objective reality to it? And are you necessarily in harmony with that objective reality?
For example – I might believe that the sun goes around the earth – it seems real to me – so I may choose to believe it. So someone says to me – that the earth goes around the sun and I will call them a liar. My version of reality is that the sun goes around the earth and the earth is the centre of the universe.
That is what appears to be true to me. So I can live my life based on that. So when I enquire – I will respond by saying – YES – it is true!
We create our own versions of reality. We decided a long time ago what is true and what is untrue. For example I decided a long time ago that charan singh was God and that he knew everything. That was my conditioning – and I did not know it was just a belief – I really thought it was objective reality. I based my life on that being the truth. When I was 10 years old I knew the only thing I wanted was to get to Sach khand and meet this Sat Purush dude and have tea with him and talk about the secrets of the universe.

So when I decide something is true – it is just based on my beliefs. I am simply doing a database lookup operation – based on the earlier entries in my database. This I call intelligent thinking.

It never occurs to me that my earlier entries could be erroneous. My whole life is based on the entries in my database (my mind).

I cannot think outside those database entries – as they now become my reality. They become pre-suppositions. Something major had to happen to me before I considered the possibility that maybe – just maybe – my database entries were not correct. I let go of those beliefs before other possibilities could open up for me.

It is the same for everyone. Until we let go of the old beliefs – (those beliefs are the box I spoke of in an earlier comment) – we cannot break free from the box.

[George]

I say open the can of worms, go for it, break new ground - but dont expect me or anyone else to believe you have done so without the evidence for it.

You want blind faith, unquestioning devotion, love, obedience and respect - that is what an unthinking dog or disciple is for - loyalty. If your ego is huge and want such respect, preach non-ego and become a guru and fool ppl that are suckers. But I will not accept with blind faith there are other realms, unless there is at least some verifiable evidence.

There are two realms to existence i) what is independent of our mind (reality) and ii) what is dependent of our mind (what we individually perceive of reality).

The individual mind is very powerful, it makes errors and creates delusions, it latches onto ideas and forms strong beliefs that are often completely untrue - imagination and speculation are great gifts but also sources of great confusion when seperated from our other aspect of mind, intellectual reason.

There is a way to break through the 'maya' of ii) to really see i) for what it is, but its not by going within after being psycholigically programmed by a guru, its with critically evaluation objectively verifiable evidence (i.e. science).

How can you arrive at a description or understanding of i) by going inside your own mind when this is the source of the all the delusion ii) in the first place?

[Vas]

Why does it depend on a particular viewpoint? Is it a fact or not? What is the relationship between thought and time? If thought and time are the same thing ,then the concept of God beyond it is still an idea.An idea born from thought, that is limited. I am not being smart. I just want it to be clear so we can move forward.

[Marina]

Very good points Osho, I liked.....

One thing though - all this talk of the 'higher self' or 'higher mind' stuff.

Mind is mind and self is self.

Sure, you can have different aspects of the mind for instance; the functional part where it is handy to know which mouth to put the food in so to speak. Also you have the analytical (judging, criticising, analysing, opinionated, believing) mind which would like to know everything and how everything works. What it cannot understand, it can have a tendency to reject.

This thinking mind as Osho pointed out, cannot help with love, god, awareness, consciousness. All it can do is create thoughts and beliefs about it.

To apply the mind in those areas is like trying to breath under water – it only works until you run out of breath. Or like disagreeing with Marina on this blog. It too, only can work as long as Marina believes it!

By the way Vas, I enjoyed your posts. I too had the opinion that ‘these ‘ people were not serious until I came to my senses and realised – it takes all sorts, the serious and the fun. Hang around for a while, there can be a lot of interesting discussions also. ;)

Marina

[Nietzsche]

Marina wrote:
I see it as adding to the above points Nietzsche. It seems right to say it is more about our "own" perception than maybe the actual truth.

The actual truth is very much imbedded in our culture. About the force of gravitation one can ask whether it is a discovery or an invention. Before someone came up with the idea of force fields did they exist? In fact force fields are invisible things that have no thinglike existence at all. They are concepts to explain for the falling of an object short distances from the earth. So what is the truth? The earth orbiting the sun in a forcefield? Or are angels keeping the planets in their orbits or like Nietzsche said can only will act on will so it must be will that holds the planets in their orbits.
But I should not say all this as it confuses some :( Just ignore me :)

BTW great youtube video's Mike! I've read a lot on Amandamayi that was definitely the real thing yet she did not mind if someone mistakenly adored the wrong woman standing next to her. That did not matter she explained. The worship should be real that is all that matters. Makes me think...But what a personality...

[Mike Williams]

Hi Vas, Marina and Osho

Vas, below is my website. Notice U. G. Krishnamurti
is linked. You posted on Jiddo Krishnamurti on
another thread on this club. He was my friend
for many years. The vast majority of my posts
prior to your arrival were on jnani. Brian posts
alot on Zen and others here on the Tao.

http://radhasoamis.freeyellow.com/index.html

Most here have ended their search. But, there are
people in Radhasoami and other groups that come on.
We discuss their views.

This club basically exists to help people out
of cults, or for people to reflect on their
beliefs.

When seekers are not here we bounce back to Zen
and jnani. Thousands of posts were on these
subjects and we covered it in depth.

Hi Marina,
I agree with your posts, but remember only one
person was causing this and I explained why.(grin)

HI Osho, Charan also edited Spiritual Letters
and said so in the book. It turned out the Jaimal
letters were not even written by Jaimal.

After my book came out debunking those letters,
Beas new books actually give the names of the
people that wrote the letters.

The books that came out during Charan's time
were the most remarkable propaganda books I
have ever seen in any religion.

Charan used omission (the key word in fraud)
to write his books. What he allowed to happen
the the history of Beas can only be called
a scam. Charan went down as a charlatan for
his part in the deceit.

[Blogger Brian]

George, excellent comment above. Very clear and concise. You nicely summarize how I view reality also (which explains why I liked your comment so much.)

I especially liked your finale:

"How can you arrive at a description or understanding of i) by going inside your own mind when this is the source of the all the delusion ii) in the first place?"

Yes, I've been on a neuroscience reading kick recently. It's been learned that our conscious awareness is just a small part of what the brain does, mostly beneath the surface.

That stuff isn't accessible to us. It's like programs run by the operating system which we don't have the authority to look at or change.

I agree that there is a mind-independent reality. However, we need to keep in mind that our knowledge of this reality still is a product of the human mind. We have no choice in this, as we're humans.

It seems almost certain that alien beings with different sensory and cognitive capabilities would view the laws of nature differently than we do. By how much, who knows? They'd be studying the same reality, but with different tools.

[George]

There appear to be limits to everything, including science.

Limits to our perception, whether it be through our senses or instruments.

Limits to our brains with their finite processing capabilities.

Limits to our thinking with personal conditioning and conceptual thought.

Limits to reasoning and logic, which Godel and Russell worked out.

Perhaps none of this is surprising if the universe (reality) itself is limited. Both on a grand scale with the universe continually expanding yet being finite at any point in time, but also on the smallest scale in which space-time itself might be limited to discrete quantum levels rather than continuous. Perhaps reality itself is differentiated, rather than undifferentiated, just as thoughts are made from ideas and language from words.

Who knows what the nature of reality is or what limits exist. Perhaps like the universe, our limits are just a function of time, constantly being pushed back. The telecope extended our sensory limits, the computer our processing limits, science with empiricism and peer review extended the limits of individual bias. Limits today and gone tomorrow. Perhaps there is no absolute reality and no absolute limit either.

[George]

Brian,

I think the question is what the nature of reality itself? Metaphysics, in the true sense of the word.

Is it absolute or is it relative? Is it constant or is it changing?

The perception of reality might be different depending on the observer, viewpoint or the model/lens through which reality is viewed. However, the deeper question is whether that being perceived, i.e. reality, is absolute or relative, fundamentally constant or changing.

In his latest book, Hawkings came up with the concept of Model Dependant Realism, which I think hints at the scientific viewpoint and might explain how an alien civilisation, with its own conditioning, might model reality. But it might be that the very laws of nature that we are trying to model might have also changed over time.

[osho robbins]

George wrote:I say open the can of worms, go for it, break new ground - but dont expect me or anyone else to believe you have done so without the evidence for it.You want blind faith, unquestioning devotion, love, obedience and respect - that is what an unthinking dog or disciple is for - loyalty. If your ego is huge and want such respect, preach non-ego and become a guru and fool ppl that are suckers. But I will not accept with blind faith there are other realms, unless there is at least some verifiable evidence. My response:You have me confused with someone else. Firstly – I don’t want anyone to believe me. I am saying that beliefs keep you blind. Drop all beliefs – positive and negative. Beliefs are the barrier to realizing the truth. I am not preaching any belief system. But you seem to think that I am – that is simply your own belief.How did you conclude that I want blind faith? Unquestioning devotion, love, obedience and respect? Not sure where you’re getting your ideas from – but they’re not from me!I am not out to fool anyone – that is your own concept that you created. If you have your source – please name it – because you appear to be so scientific. How can you make such statements if you cannot show your source? It might be your source is your own mind because you have already made lots of conclusions about me – that have no basis is reality. And if you can do this with me – you probably do it with others too. So much for your scientific mind.When did I say there are ‘other realms’? I have never claimed to know about or experience any ‘other realms’.

[Nietzsche]

Good post Tara. Someone said for a mouse trap to work there has to be some cheese in it. It is difficult to believe RSSB could hold so much people without some genuine spirituality in it. Or main concern is that Gurinder breaks the line but sooner or later that must show. This website is probable a sign of the times.
I would be glad if there was some genuine spirituality in RSSB, I have gone 180 degrees lately more than once I hope there is something in between somewhere. When I see what Amandanmayi did I recognize stuff from close personal experience. I mean I have seen lesser stuff closer home. Trance, healing by real darshan, not eating any food...

[Marina]

Hi Osho and others.....

Osho you wrote:”You can enquire – but who will respond? YOU! And who will decide what is true or untrue? – Once again YOU will decide.

When I say I question my beliefs, it is not to come with NEW answers, it is to break DOWN the answers that the mind already has. The question is to lead me back until there IS no answer, there just is.....

George, when you say”I say open the can of worms, go for it, break new ground - but don’t expect me or anyone else to believe you have done so without the evidence for it.

I think that is a good point. We may or may not believe the person but either way it will do us no good. We need to get our own experience. Yes some people, anybody can tell us how it worked for them but we sometimes can have a tendency to ‘copy’ what worked for others thinking (believing) that it will work for us. Oh, many a time I have been caught in that trap! I am beginning to realise for myself that any meditation I do is not to achieve anything or get anything but for me it is being aware of the mind chattering away, 90 to the dozen and not trying to stop it or change it but notice it and the one noticing it.

I don’t see it as you wrote: ”it’s with critically evaluation objectively verifiable evidence (i.e. science).

This for me would feel like fighting when you say ‘critically evaluation’ sounds like a harsh judgement which is what keeps the mind going backwards and forwards with more food for thought so to speak – well at least mine does. And as for getting answers for ourselves from science, that doesn’t work in my inner world. Again for me, I must do my own discovery and not have science say it is this way and believe it to the nth degree.

Tara, interesting post.

I sometimes feel it must have been hard for someone who has been in any religion/spiritual path etc from a child. Thinking back to my own catholic days, I thought out of it I’d never get. I feel any good the teachings of Jesus where, they were ‘destroyed’ by add on’s, wrong interpretations, how the system and myself used it as a form of control with the threat of hell if one didn’t ‘behave’, (which I didn’t, so doomed I was ) etc and for a long time I was annoyed at that particular religion. A lot of what may have been truths or pointers seem to have being lost or buried deep.

No matter how good the teaching is, no child should be ‘brainwashed’ into having some teaching or teacher forced on them no matter how subtle, even if it was coming from the love of the parents trying to do the right thing. Misguided love I would NOW call it. Each person has the right to ‘find’ out for themselves and not be moulded by anyone else. But I think we all do our best with what we have and our culture seems to be set up that way.

Mike a wee question for you, why do you say all Gurus are false and then keep posting guru stuff on the blog? Really interested ;))

Vas, I feel I am enquiring and then dumping a lot of my ‘layers’ on this blog. So please, nobody take me seriously!! ;)

Have a lovely day to all. It is evening here and we had a wonderfully pissy day. Rain, rain and more rain all day long. I do have a preference for the sun which the ‘scientists’ say should be out tomorrow!

Marina :)

[osho robbins]

Marina wrote:
When I say I question my beliefs, it is not to come with NEW answers, it is to break DOWN the answers that the mind already has. The question is to lead me back until there IS no answer, there just is.....
Marina, that is great. When you breakdown the answers the mind already has – what happens? You create a vacuum – and confusion. It’s a great place to be. Then a new belief can arise to take it’s place. We normally go from one belief to another.

However, if we don’t do this – we begin to see what is – just as it is. No beliefs – no conclusions – no viewpoint.

That is what zen leads to – and it’s the purpose of the zen master to create the environment for this to happen. Not to make it happen – because nobody can make it happen – but to create the environment.

That is what happened to me in the year 2000. I had left sant mat as a belief system. I had nothing to replace it with because I didn’t understand enlightenment – so I was not seeking it. I had nothing to replace it with.

At that time I met my spiritual master. My discipleship consisted of a five day intensive with him. On the morning of the fifth day he threw me out of the session – and that was the last I ever saw of him. I wanted to go back to thank him – but he said “What for?”

The four days I spent with my master I consider to be the four greatest days of my life. I don’t revere him, respect him or worship him. What happened was because he was authentic and I was authentic.

In those four days he shattered all the concepts I had always held about the spiritual journey. He said he collected no followers because his purpose is to be a catalyst in their awakening and send them on their way. He has no disciples in the traditional sense.

That was what he did to me and I owe him nothing. The moment you get attached to the personality of the master – you are already doomed in your spiritual journey. Why? Because his purpose is to take away all supports – not give you new ones.

As Osho would say “My purpose is to chop off your head – and then another head will grow and that will be God’s head”

[George]

But hell Osho what are you charging 90 bucks for? osmosis. you must be trying to convey something or is everyone just listening to bob dylans 'the answer my friend must be blowin in the wind...'

alot of the comments in that particular post were not directed as you, but the general 'guru' concept of this post, which is that fundamentally you have to worship these undoubtedly flawed men as gods, since at that point of total devotion comes the surrender and programming of your mind - much like all the great and terrible ideologies that have afflicted mankind.

All based on faith, like religion, the promise of something totally unreal and unrealistic but appealing nevertheless.

[Mike Williams]

Good posts Osho, George, Marina and Tara.

I used to watch Soupy Sales when I
was a kid on TV. Whenever Soupy would
say something intelligent, a big white
furry arm would come out and throw a
lemon marang pie in Soupy's face.

Since I love pie, would you people
please stop hogging it all ?

Marina says :
"Mike a wee question for you, why do you say all Gurus are false and then keep posting guru stuff on the blog? Really interested ;))"

Because Marina, the Golden Age of Gurus
can never be repeated. We don't believe in them, but it is sure facinating to watch old footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNnRQ7wg7Ho&feature=related

[osho robbins]

George,
Yes – they will be listening to Bob Dylan for 90 bucks.
The answer my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.

But since they’re paying 90 bucks and it is going to last like 15 hours
I will be playing the WHOLE song – just to make sure they get their moneys worth.

Here’s a link to kate melua singing the song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7-Tb_FsWRw&feature=related

and here’s the lyrics
How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
Yes, 'n' how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they're forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

How many years can a mountain exist
Before it's washed to the sea?
Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

[Marina]

Osho thanks for your very interesting post and your experiences.

I agree with what you say:
”When you breakdown the answers the mind already has – what happens? You create a vacuum – and confusion. It’s a great place to be. Then a new belief can arise to take its place. We normally go from one belief to another.
However, if we don’t do this – we begin to see what is – just as it is. No beliefs – no conclusions – no viewpoint.

But surely we do still have a viewpoint and beliefs but we don’t take them seriously? Beliefs may arise but can one not see though that?

What I am looking at though is now that I love ‘me’ not in a narcissistic way (after years of I hate me), but more of an acceptance just how I am and acceptance of what I feel (and of others too, though I still may disagree) :) and not ‘try’ to push anything away that arises, but just notice it – there is a sense that this I love me is no more real than the I hate me.

Oh yeah, it feels much better but it is still a trap of the mind, so to speak. Now I am aware of that and sometimes it is fun to play with this new character I love me, but there is a part of me that inquires as to who this me is – when I catch it.

Osho when you say:” At that time I met my spiritual master. My discipleship consisted of a five day intensive with him. On the morning of the fifth day he threw me out of the session – and that was the last I ever saw of him. I wanted to go back to thank him – but he said “What for?”

What difference is this person being a catalyst than anyone else? I ask this question because when I saw your ‘Victimitis’ video, it seemed like a catalyst to cross the final barrier so to speak with my father. I had a long time ago ‘forgiven’ him and after watching your video as I say, it was the final touch I needed. Ah no forgiveness, nothing to forgive – it felt so right not just a concept but from the heart.

So again, can everything not be a catalyst? Surely to ‘condemn’ any person or groups is a lack of clear understanding as we are all at different places and all is part of the one anyway.

Osho you wrote:” The moment you get attached to the personality of the master – you are already doomed in your spiritual journey. Why? Because his purpose is to take away all supports – not give you new ones.

I can see that, but I do it no more with BJ than I do with the people on this blog. I do like ALL the different personalities (expressions) of people on the blog.

I see the same here on the blog and in all areas of my life. All catalysts! It may take the form of someone saying something that triggers me (‘good and bad’) and instead of my old old pattern of blaming them I see it is my own belief and question that. Usually it ends up being ‘a ghost’ more delusion and then comes the belly laugh.

Did you pay your master for the 5 intensive days and how much? What was their name?

Marina

[Marina]

Mike, so you are saying that during the 'golden age' it was alright for gurus but not now? Is that what you are saying? Even about Ramana?

Marina

[Vas]

[Note: Vas, I've published every comment that you've submitted. I hardly ever reject or even edit a comment, unless it is spam or way outside of this blog's comment guidelines. Are you sure your comment was accepted by Typepad? The most recent one from you that I got started with "Marina the answers are in the seeing." Is that the one you're referring to? -- Blogger Brian]

Why did you reject the last post?

[Mike Williams]

Hi Marina,
I consider enlightenment a waste of time.

Gurus are a waste of time.

Religion is a waste of time.

Ramana spoke of a Force no one can
understand, except those it has
happened too. It is even beyond the
logic of a keen jnani, or Zen master.

Only children will know its existance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwbKZa6YPW8

[Vas]

[Note: Hey, Vas, I already noted that I didn't reject any of your comments. Get your facts straight before you make assumptions. This is a good lesson for you: your beliefs aren't the same as what is true. -- Blogger Brian]

Mike. Replied to your comment in detail, it seems to have been rejected. No point to continue. Looked at the whole site,found more of the same. All moving away from the facts. Why?

[Vas]

OK Brian.

[Mike Williams]

Vas,

When post button is not lit up
delete letter S in your name and
retype it. This will lite up
post button at bottom. Otherwise post
won't enter.

Be careful a second page doesn't open
up requesting you fill in letters
that are scrambled. If this page
opens, you must enter the letters
and hit post again.

Sometimes people miss the second page,
thinking they have posted. This second
page sometimes opens to prevent computers
from making electronic entries of spam.

[Vas]

Thanks Mike for the post help. Brian take a good look at what I have said. What beliefs do you claim I hold? Seems you dont like the facts, or you have taken offence at my suggestion that your site has some nonsence on it. Its not personal, just the truth. I take your word on the post issue, no harm.

[Marina]

Mike the last video you posted on Aurobindo and Mother Mira they seem to be saying when one gets so far it is difficult to Be in this world. A bit like what Bernadette Roberts I have heard, said.

What comes to mind when you say 'I consider enlightenment' a waste of time (yeah, like the question 'who's getting enlightened')
It reminds me of the Buddha. The Buddha supposedly had his followers before he reached wherever he reached. When he sat under the tree fed up with his austerities, he broke his fast of no food and milk, and worst of all, it was a woman who gave him the food. His followers all left him.

During this time, he dealt with his mind and all the untruths from the horrifying to the wonderful other and he seen through it all, the mind got more and more subtle.
But Buddha had found the middle path. No austerities, no rejections.

Nowadays Buddha has a lot of 'followers' but like anything else, the followers adapt his teachings from their own bent of mind.

Even Ramana has his followers. Teachers, Gurus, Sages, Seers, may not be able to 'give' anything to us, but they can be catalysts like Osho said.

Which reminds me; I went to Tiru this February past and visited Sadhu Om's ashram. The man in charge there, I think his name was Shankara, but anyway I got Sadhu Om's second and third book on Ramana and ended up talking to Shankara. During the conversation I asked Shankara was he 'enlightened' whatever and he looked all humble and shook his head from side to side and said something like 'oh seen as you asked, I have to tell you, yes.' Not in those exact words. All was going well until I asked him what was this whole thing of the 'holy hill?' I told him, well I can see how one would revere a Guru or Sage but a hill? Now whether I have lack of understanding for the 'holy Arunachala' or not, Shankara got upset with me and said that ordinarily 'things' should not be worshiped but Arunachala was an exception.

When I told him I didn't agree that it applied to everything else bar Arunachala he was not too pleased! And I was only asking - nicely. So I went no further with any more questions. His answer or lack, told me more than I needed to know.

When did you leave RS Mike, or if I may be so bold, what made you?

Marina

[osho robbins]

Marina,
You asked :- But surely we do still have a viewpoint and beliefs but we don’t take them seriously? Beliefs may arise but can one not see though that?
My response:
Is it a subtle point but a very important one. It is easy to mistake an intellectual grasp of this with the thing itself.

You ask that – surely we do still have a viewpoint and beliefs. My answer is NO. We have NO VIEWPOINT and NO BELIEFS. Why? Because there has to be a ME for a viewpoint to arise. Only a ME can take ownership of a viewpoint or a belief. If there is no ME – who will take the ownership? (even for a short while before letting it go). And without ownership – it is not a viewpoint or a belief. It is just a thought.

So THOUGHTS will arise – but they are not YOURS – they are simply thoughts. You can still pick up a thought and play with it – but it is not yours – there is no possession. Just as your life is not yours – there is no possession. Just as salvation cannot be yours – because there is nobody who needs to be saved.

As long as a person identifies with himself as a separate body and a separate soul – the need for salvation arises. As long as you BELIEVE you are a separate soul – you will seek enlightenment or salvation or sach khand etc.

The moment the truth dawns – that there is no separate self – nothing more is required. Truth simply is. Now I am not saying a BELIEF that there is no separate self. That is just the other side of the same trap.

A belief is something that you have taken on – believed – it is not a realization. A realization is not of the mind – it is beyond. It frees you from the mind and concepts.

MARINA wrote:
now that I love ‘me’… more of an acceptance just how I am…. and not ‘try’ to push anything away that arises, but just notice it – there is a sense that this I love me is no more real than the I hate me.
Oh yeah, it feels much better but it is still a trap of the mind, so to speak. Now I am aware of that and sometimes it is fun to play with this new character I love me, but there is a part of me that inquires as to who this me is – when I catch it.
My response
There is no love – there is no hate. Acceptance is all there is. In acceptance there is nothing to embrace and nothing to push away. Love and hate both require a viewpoint and an opinion of like/dislike. They require the mind and a judgment in order to exist.

The love is no more real than the hate – they are both your creations. They are both traps of the mind as you say. There is no you – so all inquiry into WHO this is will lead you to realize it is NOBODY – it is something you created.

EVERYONE is a catalyst when you are open. Even the master cannot be a catalyst when you are closed. ‘Closed’ means that you have no real trust – you are suspicious of everyone )including yourself). Being open to truth requires the development of a deep trust. Not a belief because belief is blind. Whereas trust is a development – something that opens up within you – and you blossom like a flower. This is what the spiritual journey is all about.

You say that you are no more attached to BJ as you are to the people on this blog.

Why would you be attached to BJ or anyone else? You can of course enjoy them all – they are all expressions of life. When I say attached to – I mean in the sense of getting attached to the personality. When you have a master – you will on the one hand completely love the master and hate him. Then you will realize you are creating the whole drama. Ultimately the purpose of the master is to take you beyond all personalities and separateness.

I paid 400 pounds (UK) for the 5 day intensive. But you want to know the irony of it? He said spirituality is free – but we never value what is free.

So on the day he threw me out – he said to everyone – “And give him his money back – I don’t want his money.” Then he left, adding “When I get back – he better be gone. Otherwise I am leaving and not coming back. And you better all figure out what the fuck is going on here!”

[Nietzsche]

He Marina think we are gathered here on the believe that Gurinder might not be what he says. Some go further in rejecting every guru. Others hold some question marks. I came somehow back on track by realizing that the upanishad writings and all the rest don't suddenly turn into nonsense when one follower is not real. It does however raise the question how you can know if someone is real. Doing the 20 to 30 years meditation experiment seems to be not the way.
I knew a person that was regularly out of her body and she could heal by holding her hands much more than many popular healers can. However she was a bad personality to live with. Was she enlightened? Don't think so but she knew a lot more than I did. When I told her I wanted to be enlightened she frowned. Are you crazy? How will you ever live a normal life when you are enlightened, you will pick up everyones pains and know all peoples shit. You better know what you are wishing for! Strange point but it got noted :)

[Mike Williams]

Hi Marina,

There is a problem many people on this
club have faced.

At some point in all our journies, the
people here have realized they have no
self.

This brings all search to a grinding halt.

For there to be a search, there must be a
seeker. But, when the seeker is seen as
a delusion, there can no longer be a search.

As you said, there is no one that becomes
enlightened. A person simply realizes
there never was anyone that could become
enlightened.

The people on this club simply live life
in the Tao.

I left Radhasoami about 15 years ago
and everything else.

I am here like all the other people on
this club, to tell people not to follow
in my footsteps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3Ki9rBuVXQ&feature=related

[osho robbins]

tara, nice post.
That is the whole point. The sant mat way of life creates struggle - because it is a path of the path of 'doing'.
Gurinder has an idea about enlightenment and being the guru he has this power that he revels in - the power to be able to say anything on stage - and the majority just accept what he says.
Yes - he believes he is enlightened - but he has not reconciled this 'all-knowing' and 'all-powerful' with the enlightened state.

I have had many 'chats' with him on the mic over the years. Usually they turned into discussions which his followers then call an argument.

Anyway - on one of them - he tells me that I am not enlightened. He asked me "are you all knowing? do you know everything?"

I said: I know nothing. Even that which I knew before is gone.

He asked: "Are you all powerful? Able to do anything?"

I replied: I have no power at all. Even the power I had is gone.

Because enlightenment is not about being all-knowing or all-powerful. Those are sant mat concepts.

Then one time he said - If you are enlightened - you will no longer be in the body.

Strange argument - I thought at the time. Especially if you yourself claim to be enlightened. I replied that I am in the body - because after enlightenment - life becomes a game - and I can play with 'enligthening others' - or some other entertanining game.

His response: they will all enlighten themselves. Which has some truth to it - but is not what sant mat teaches. Sant mat specifically teaches that the master is needed for the world to get god-realized.

The strange thing was - nobody in the audience seem bothered by his response. Which means either they don't hear what he says - or they don't really care or understand.

It was the same when he said me - about 6 years ago - that there is no sach khand, no sat pururh and no regions. I said that the sant mat books state....
He interruped me and said - burn the books.

That was pretty radical at the time - yet nobody in the audience seemed to understand the implications of what the was saying. They just listened as if they have heard it all before.

I think he has got his disciples to the point where they no longer think - and they think it is a spiritual state to not think - perhaps they equate that to surrender.

[Nietzsche]

Yes I've been in those publics and hearth someone ask if it was possible for a satsangi to go to hell and G replied 'off course that is possible, if you live a bad life'. Than I thought he is just playing a game. He doesn't mean it but he wants to scare the guy into meditating. So i sat quiet and looked right in front of me as if nothing happened, as if I was a participant in an inside joke.

I also once heard him say that by preparing meat for customers a satsangi broke the vows. That stroke me more because i prepare meat for my two cats every day. Does that make me brake the vows? I tried everything to find vegetable foot for cats but they refused to eat. Now I remember he implied to not take home animals somewhere else because of this problem. That made me worry even more. Should I let go of my cats? Take a stone drown them in the water? To make my point. These stupid answers can drive you mad if you take them literally but in the case of the cats I could not take it anything but literally. It is still frying my little brains now and than :)

[Roger]

osho and tara,

Yes, very good and honest posts.
I liked,

"burn the books" or burn the message, found within.

--Does the 2.5 hours of meditation still have a special requirement? And, is the "enlightenment" considered an event, from years of meditation? What does Gurinder say, regarding the daily meditation requirement? Thanks Roger

[Roger]

Nietzsche,

Yes, another honest post.

I liked,

"These stupid answers can drive you mad if you take them literally......."

--You hit it on the nail, the answers and requirements, could literally drive a sincere devotee mad.

[Marina]

Osho, Mike, Nietzsche, Tara and everyone.....

I throughly enjoyed all your posts in different ways.

I have tried to 'reply' over the last two days and couldn't come up with anything.....I am gone blank! In a good way :)) (Thank God I hear some of you cry!)

I just nearly can't 'believe' that I have nothing to say. I keep looking and looking and my head is empty full of nothing :))

Marina ;)

[Mike Williams]

"I keep looking and looking and my head is empty full of nothing."
quote Marina

Maybe you no longer have an I.

The Zen would love your phrase,
"full of nothing".

[osho robbins]

Marina,
a zen master might say - why are you carrying the weight of 'having nothing to say' - or he might say - 'interesting'.

Roger - Gurinder still emphasises the meditation - how else is he going to keep people in a state of struggle?

enlightenment is a state of non-effort non-striving and no-struggle. Sant mat however teaches effort, doing, and struggle - by giving the disciple a goal to reach and standards to live up to.

me? I have no standards and I am not striving to get anywhere - because there is nowhere to get and nobody to get 'there'.

Nietzsche - good points.
I know someone who HAS gone mental due to taking RSSB too literally. He used to run a newsagents shop. Then he stopped selling cigarettes because of the karmic implications. Then he stopped selling crisps because they are not vegetarian (apparently). Then he stopped selling some chocolate bars because they contain animal products.

Finally he shut the shop down and has done nothing for 12 years. He will not even rent the shop out because whoever takes it on will sell those things and he doesn't even want that - he believes he is still responsible by accepting the rent.

How far can you go with this? It is endless and now he has become disfunctional because he chose to take the teachings literally. He reads so many books - he is a walking encyclopedia of rssb teachings - he quotes actual page numbers when he talks.

He is now at the point where he can no longer live a normal life. I am not saying that RSSB teachings are to blame - but if taken literally - this is what the result can be.

Of course every person is responsible for his own actions - and this person is in this state because he chose to go to an extreme. When he went a bit mental (he was even sectioned) nobody from RSSB offered any help despite being asked.

I find that RSSB has become an organisation that has no compassion. The individuals who do 'seva' really don't care about serving or helping anyone. They are simply following instructions.

Many years ago I was going to satsang at Haynes - official event with Gurinder - and I walked the 'wrong' side of a rope.

The sevadar asked me to go back about 10 metres and walk back again on the other side. It was like you treat a child.

I just laughed and said he must surely be kidding. He replied that he was serious. I asked him how it would help anyone if I did that. He asked me what my 'centre' was.

I was going to have a laugh by saying ' the eye centre' but thought he would not understand. So I said that I have no centre.

It just shows how the sevadars follow the rules to the book. And in every organisation - the organisation is just a reflection of the leader of that organisation.

[Marina]

Ah Mike, I need not have 'worried' my mind is filling up again. But that is ok!

Osho, you have just made me laugh about the 'centre' thing. Now in my old days (if I had been clever enough to think as quickly as you) I would have reacted or rebelled and 'played' games with the sevedar.
Now? I am not so sure. Actually who knows?
One thing for sure, them sort of 'rules' thoroughly get up my nose! But I feel there is a balance between conforming and rebelling.

This weather I seem to be eating lots of humble pie! Oh yes, it has become a major part of my diet.

My very dear friend rang me I think yesterday, and told me one of her breast implants had ruptured (silicon) and she needed a lift to the hospital today to get it removed and get more in. I talked to her and told her that I would like to see her accepting herself the way she is than basically trying to keep 'fixing' something to 'make' herself better by putting foreign stuff into her body. Another friend was there at the time and asked me 'Marina, do you still smoke?' Yes was my reply and I knew what was coming next! I was asked 'well, what's the difference?' A good question! I shut me mouth! But yes, humble pie.

All the comments referring to RS from Tara, Nietzsche, and Osho I resonate with. I too can remember trying to take things to the nth degree. The person who introduced me to the path years ago, wouldn't get her mother some meat she needed to make dinner even though the mother was after an operation and couldn't drive. The mother was willing to pay for the meat, but daughter still said no.

For me, that's what gives RS a 'bad' name.(ok, apart from other things)I wouldn't have been able to do what she done. My thing would have been - I want to be liked over going to be punished. Where she had (assumption) the thing - I'd don't care what people thing, I'm doing the right thing and I am not going to be punished.

I am not making judgements here; I am looking at what has gone on.

It is interesting too, as today I went to the doctors for the first time in years as I think I might have staf to get penicillin to 'cure' it. On meeting the doctor I told him, 'long time no see, and I hope the next time is longer!' He looked at me as if I wasn't wise, but I meant it. I HATE tablets, long story but I do. Ok, they may have their place, but for me, a last resort. Well anyway, when I got the tablets I discovered they were capsules, probably gelatine. Did I change them? No. Does it bother me? No. Hair splitting I choose to call it.

This just reminded me of Nietzsche's story on cats and Tara's experience with BJ. I too use to think BJ knew every thought I had and felt embarrassed and uncomfortable in his presence because I couldn't control them. Still can't but don't try to now. Mostly I am amused at them.

I have come to a place now that I don't believe he can 'read my thoughts' though I do think we all pick up feelings or energies from each other - like we all know when someone is angry even if they are not saying anything (unless we are too involved with ourselves). So now I no longer am afraid or care whether BJ can or cannot read thoughts as even if he can, I am not hiding anything. It is like being on this blog. I have thought in the past, what if someone from RS has a peek and knows who I am? Then I think, very quickly, I am not saying anything that I wouldn’t have a problem saying anywhere to anybody, even at Dera. So I said, down mind, down. It is ok. I don’t need protecting.

Which reminds me, I have been looking into this thing of seeking and non seeking.

All I can go from is my experience and although I seem to have 'arrived' at a place where I have always wanted to be - accepting, happy, compassionate, flowing(words fail me) it is like something inside is saying 'this is not 'it', there is still 'further'. It is like finally, I have got what I seemed for years to strive after. Yes I don’t want to ‘strive’ any more but........there is still more.

So I am left with this seeking / non seeking paradox. I do think that to seek in terms of grasping, wanting, striving is not a form I am interested in now, I think too that non seeking can be a denial of that 'feeling' that says 'this isn't the end'. I am asking myself, how do I respond (rather than the word seek) to what is this experience or what this arising ‘thing’ is? For me it is just being aware not too hold onto any 'state' or 'place' too tightly or to any idea or even spiritual path.

My mind is nearly empty again :))and even though I have a headache, sickish stomach and diarrhoea (I know, too much info) which I blame, yes blame, the tablets for, it doesn't seem to be affecting this content inner feeling although the body feels a wreck :))

Marina

[Marina]

Just thinking folks after talking about RS and I have mentioned it before, trying to put it in my own words, but I feel this chapter may be of interest to some maybe not. I resonated with it that much, it has being what Osho calls "a catalyst” for me, I am going to type out the short chapter entitled:

The Guru Syndrome
or
It Ain't Me, Babe!

So often people fall into the trap of waiting for someone else to do it. You sit back and watch. Someone is talking about this thing called truth, is communicating and demonstration something about reality. Well, let's see what happens to him. Critically you look. Hopeful, but ready to tear him down if you can find any weakness, evil, or flaw. If he makes it through your severe testing and, for now, you accept what he offers, then you applaud him, sing his praises, and use him as your argument and protection.

What about you? So anxious to tear down or believe. What does that have to do with you, or your own understanding and transformation? Nothing. it is only more you the way you already are. If you tear him down you have simply recognized or projected qualities of yours onto him that you find unacceptable. So you have gained nothing, except you have added to your sense of "self correctness" as an individual. You have also neglected to challenge or even notice the assumption that these detected qualities or flaws are even true, or that the form you recognized meant what you inferred it to mean.

It is probable in fact, that regardless of the status of the so called individual in question, you are completely off-base, incorrect in your judgement of him.

If he "passes" your requirements, to go on to fulfil your fantasy of what one of those should look like, you still have gained nothing in truth. You have only added to your "ornaments" of identification, what you will accept as representative of you as a "special" individual. Once again, this has nothing to do with you, or your real growth.

You must not allow someone else to be responsible for the experience of the nature of being or its representation,. It is, and will always remain, your responsibility. Your relationship to such a one is cherishable, but only if you recognize it as your relationship with yourself and with Being itself.(Peter Ralston)

[Betty]

Thank you Tara for sharing some of the things that motivated you to reconsider the validity of it all. Disciples that are not Indian rarely have opportunity to view the sangat and guru from your vantage point, and most Indian people do not have the proximity you had/have to become aware of certain things.

So, again, thank you.

Betty

[Mungos]

For TAO or Brian
I said i am off the line and left the mail for maybe more personal contact. Dear Tao i really admire your sayings here and would you be so kind to send me your contact to my mail so i could ask and say a word in private talk.I hope Brian if Tao does not see this if you can send him my contact. Dear Tao i would really like to learn some more things from you!
[email protected]

[Dogribb]

Osho....here are some other folks taking thing literally.It would seem this is a form of paradigm thinking universal to religious memes

Crisps,chocolate,fags and some busty English girly mags is what I went straight after once becoming Churchless...lol

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/trouble-in-amish-paradise/

[Mike Williams]

"Crisps,chocolate,fags and some busty English girly mags is what I went straight for after once becoming Churchless...lol"
infamous Dogribb quote

You know, I was understanding that post
pretty good, till I saw the word "fags".
Are you from England by any chance ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWVaG5j6il0&feature=related

[Boo]

Dogribb, thanks for posting link to the
documentary on the Amish; it is
an awakening to see the similarities
between disaffected RSSBers and the
disaffected Amish family featured in the documentary.I am sure the similarities are even greater for RSSBers that live in India
and are part of the RSSB/Indian culture.

[osho robbins]

sant mat followers believe that sant mat is a science. It is portrayed as the 'science of the soul'.

Why? because all they have to do is MEDITATE as instructed by the master. This is called 'doing the experiment'. Then they will get the RESULTS (go inside and meet the radiant form)

They REALLY believe it is a science - because they REALLY BELIEVE that it will happen and that is happens to others.

Add to this the SECRECY - and you have the perfect setup.

A whole cart load of 'speakers' complete the magic show. The followers sitting in satsang are under the illusion that the speakers are speaking from EXPERIENCE.

If they KNEW that they were just talking from hearsay - they would not even go to satsangs each week. Who wants to listen to another struggling disciple telling you which way to go?

Imagine I am giving big lectures on how to become a millionaire in 12 months.

THen one day - someone asks me - "are you a millionaire? how long did it take you?"

and I say - no no I am not a millionaire - I am on state benefits - but I KNOW how to do it - because I have read a LOT of books and I have met lots of millionaires.

everyone will just laugh at me and leave.

How is RSSB satsang any different? The whole idea of listening to someone who has not got there - lecturing to you is just a joke.

[Marina]

Not everyone knows everything or so it seems.

Yes, I am in a mood of - if you can't find 'it', laugh at it.....

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xjbwg5_pizza-joke-falls-flat-with-the-dalai-lama_news

Marina ;)

[BeThere]

Osho you wrote:

"The followers sitting in satsang are under the illusion that the speakers are speaking from EXPERIENCE.

If they KNEW that they were just talking from hearsay - they would not even go to satsangs each week."

Osho, from my experience this really isn't true at all in the USA. Everybody pretty much understands that the speakers are just presenting the teachings from their POV and probably have no experience of "going within." Largely people also don't care if they have or have not "gone inside" The teachings are much more than that for them.
Remember too RSB is a bhakti path...a path of love and devotion and the Satsangs can augment that devotion, for some. Not all, of course.

People take inspiration and sometimes very much appreciate being with the Sangat.

[George]

"The whole idea of listening to someone who has not got there - lecturing to you is just a joke."

My point exactly. How do you know who has got there or not and where is there?

[Mike Williams]

Good post osho,
I think the satsangis would be even
more surprised to find out their
masters have no inner experience
at all.

[BeThere]

Tara --- thank you for all of that.

I can only relay my own experiences with sangat/satsangs. My experience has largely been with 3 USA small-town sangats, maybe 20-40 attending. They remain pretty liberal. One lovely lady adored the Beatles and sang her way through her satsang..."My Sweet Lord" and "Let it Be" she stopped now and then to comment---"whisper words of wisdom" was, for her, the sound current....etc. Quite creative. I can't remember anyone giving satsang on the inner journey, nor on oneness. more so they are quite devotional -- love for the Master.... with a smattering about meditation. There is room for everybody.

Unlike the Asian sangat that still has strong family support, for some solitary Western satsangi, satsang, is a way to connect-- it provides a little bit of community. More so in the Charan days for sure though.

Might add, many (if not most) of the older Western satsangis have stopped coming to satsang. I feel it is because the warmth is not there. It use to be....the love that people felt for Charan Singh was overflowing, and very touching.

[Peter Holleran]

Seeing all these posts gives me strength to post my writings which may give another point of view to all this Sant Mat/Radhasoami business. The first is my Sant Mat story, a very radical one: http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/articles/article/2291157/105807.htm

The next is an article I wrote: Sant Mat: A Comparative Analysis:

http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/santmat1.html -Peter

[Mike Williams]

Hi Peter,
I was also initiated by Kirpal and all
three of his claimant successors.

You are right, Kirpal was a liar. I
also believe he was the embodiment of
the negative power. I believe insanity
also runs in this lineage of Darshan
and now Rajinder.

There are extremely evil forces swirling
around this group. You must be careful
you were not possessed.

It is my belief this negative power
is in this group, that caused me to
write this book.

http://radhasoamis.freeyellow.com/index.html

[Robert Searle]

Mike Williams,

Kirpal Singh was not a liar. He was probably very sincere, but a bit "deluded" to some extent.

[Roger]

Mike and Peter,

Did either of you know a person named, Nina Gitana?