Zen's tiger and strawberry story is about dealing with death

The older I get -- I'm 69 -- the more I resonate with the Zen story of a man who had a bad day when he was chased by a tiger. Which turned into a much worse day when another tiger and a couple of mice showed up. 

A man was walking across a field when he saw a tiger. Fearing for his life, the man fled, but the tiger gave chase. The man reached the edge of a cliff, and just as he thought the tiger would get him, he spotted a vine growing over the edge of the cliff. Grabbing on to it, he swung himself over the edge to safety.

The tiger came to the edge and snarled at him from above. While precariously perched like this, the man saw another tiger growling at him from below. Trembling, he held on to the thin vine that was keeping him from being dinner for the tigers. What could be worse than this, he wondered.

Just then, two mice scampered out and began gnawing at the vine. As they chewed and the man pondered over his fate, he saw a juicy, red strawberry on a ledge next to him. Grasping the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other. Ah, how sweet it tasted!

Now, some Googling revealed to me that there are different views of what this story is intended to teach us. Live in the moment is a common interpretation. A contrary perspective is don't be distracted by pleasure. 

I'm much more in favor of live in the moment than don't be distracted by pleasure.

Whoever thought the man paid undue attention to the strawberry obviously hasn't spent much time clinging to a vine that's being chewed by mice while tigers await above and below.

You might be thinking, who has experienced this? To which I reply to that thought: Everyone. Without exception. 

Because my view of what the story is all about is that the tigers represent the fear of death, and the mice represent death itself. After all, virtually everybody does their best to run from death when the specter of it appears before us. We cling to whatever life-giving alternative is available.

But in the end, the mice of human mortality are going to nibble through the vine of living, 100% guaranteed. The only question is how long it will take them.

The strawberry represents... a strawberry. (I have strawberries on my oatmeal almost every morning, and I live in Oregon, which has some of the best-tasting strawberries in the world.)

Not only a strawberry, of course. The strawberry is everything in existence.

Or at least, that portion of everything that we humans can be aware of. So long as death hasn't completely nibbled through the vine of our life, we should taste every bite of existence with gusto.

What gives the strawberry an extra dose of sweetness is precisely the fact that our ability to taste it is limited. Nobody lives forever. In fact, nobody even lives very long, by cosmic standards. The universe is about 14 billion years old. We're lucky if we can live to 80, and very lucky to live to 100.

This being a Church of the Churchless blog, I'm going to conclude my interpretation of this Zen story with some jabs at religion. 

There's zero demonstrable evidence, nada, zilch, that anyone has ever cheated death. Those damn mice can't be stopped. Death is an unavoidable eater of life. Death can be postponed, but only for a while.

Given the inevitability of death, and the near-certainty that when we die, we're dead forever (being scientifically-minded, I realize that nothing is 100% certain, including what I just said), it makes sense to get as much sweetness from life as possible while we're still able to cling to its vine.

So here's a Big Problem with religion: every major religion, and most minor ones, claim that another life awaits after we die. Meaning, no mice! Death is a fiction. Thus tigers are optional, since fear of death is justified only if death exists.

This makes strawberries, and the rest of life, less sweet. 

In fact, religions are notorious for urging people to shun many of life's pleasures, such as sex, alcohol, recreational drugs, sensual indulgences, partying-on. They claim -- again, with zero evidence -- that a gigantic heavenly strawberry awaits those who obey whatever restrictions a particular religion enjoins.

Thus the way I see it, the Zen story only has meaning for those who reject religiosity.  

Comments

[vinny]

Living in the moment is not possible when there are so many rational fears of death, disease, and accidents. All these fears come from mind as thoughts, only a person who has experienced frozen mind can go beyond mind and enter trance/atomic energy. Question is who has experienced frozen/ stopped mind ??? My rational answer is every man /woman has experienced frozen mind at various times. e.g Man visiting cinema and during watching movie experiences frozen/stopped mind. These events of frozen mind happen during intense happiness or involvement in some hobby. Very few people in world have experienced frozen mind during sadness/ unhappy state. That is what Saint Sadhu Ram says, when a thief commits an act of stealing he does not know what he is doing because the happiness of stealing/ criminal act makes him forget his real essence. That indeed is happening to everyone in world, during acts of sensual pleasures we act like thieves of forgotten morality. After that sensual act is over we start weeping over death and problems of world like atheists do.

[vinny]

Myron Phelps notes on Sant mat validates my observation. The souls who became unstable in highest spiritual regions and wanted an adventure of physical experience were sent to the material worlds. These material worlds have death and pain as part of adventure. Dictionary definition of adventure is engaging in risky activity. Adventure is not adventure if death and pain are not part of it. Souls after gaining maturity that it's desire for material world is incompatible with its desire for freedom from death and pain would strive for higher spiritual regions by following some yogic path is perfectly rational and in accordance with the divine plan of evolution of souls living in material worlds.

[Spencer G Tepper]

Vinny wrote

"Living in the moment is not possible when there are so many rational fears of death, disease, and accidents."

Truth

The inevitably of death means we should in fact honor our limited time and place property value on our capacity for experience.

The man rightly understood the innate capacity to experience the sweetness of experience.

The pragmatist world claim, "that's just your imagination."

And as Vinny put so perfectly, we cannot enjoy that when the mind is beleaguered with worries.

The fact this man was able to do so slams to the condition of his mind.

[Spencer G Tepper]

The fact the man was able to enjoy the sweetness of that strawberry at such a precarious moment speaks to the condition of his mind to put aside worries altogether.

That is the condition of mind that allows us to see reality and enjoy experience.

And that can be achieved to such a degree as this story depicts only through meditation.

[Appreciative Reader]

That’s a lovely story! An absolute favorite of mine, this!

Actually, the way I see it, the story itself does not directly offer any morals as such. What it does is present, in beautifully stark terms, a snapshot that describes our life. It points out to us -- pokes us right in the eye with the stridency of the imagery and points out to us -- the essential nature of human life.

What we do with that knowledge, with that realization, that is left to us entirely.

And nor do I believe this story directly pushes for mindfulness, or of being in the moment. After all, mindfulness, as well as being in the moment, these may be seen as tools : what we do with these tools is left to us

We may do one of four things with our realization of the essential transience (and the underlying horror) of life :

We may choose to focus on the tigers and the snake, and surrender to hopelessness and cynicism.

Or we may choose to focus on the tigers and the snake, and strive for a fulfillment that lies beyond this life. That would be other-wordly spirituality and religion.

Or else we may choose to “be in the moment”, and focus our attention on the strawberry while we can. That would be hedonism, pure and simple.

Or else we may, with such patience and such courage as we can muster, choose to do what we can with this monstrous situation we find ourselves in. We may slowly try to cultivate these strawberries, so that we may at least have a ready supply of these. We may try to work together with others to reach out for other vines, so that our precarious support is made just a bit more safe. We may try to work to build fires, or fashion some kind of weapons out of rocks jutting out or from branches around us, so that we may be able to face the tigers on a somewhat more equal footing. And this last would be responsible materialism.

This marvelous story, it merely presents starkly to us what life is. But it leaves to us the choice of what to do with this life.

At least that’s how I myself look at this beautiful story.

[777]

What a delight that RSSB's outcome
without much difficulty
is to do the death trick while living
and that with so much sweetness , awesome-ness, glory-ness°
not even gurmukhy-ness, Joy, pleasure ( better than orgasm )
lots of music , no concert can compete, . . .
not faith : that isn't needed, LOVE Yes,
beautiful mystery, no ascese, . . just help by a Friend
with mighty humor Jim, . . OMG what a delight
and I'm not gay - strict pussy lover, that is
at the first view of me . . :-)

777

[777]

"" There's zero demonstrable evidence, nada, zilch, that anyone has ever cheated death. ""

So many RSSB likers do it all the time, . .

Brian don't join the fake news, . . . generates nasty karma
not your blog so much but if there are lies

777

[Brian Hines]

777, so give me the demonstrable evidence. Don't use that "fake news" crap. What I said is true. There's no demonstrable evidence of someone living after their physical death. If you have some, share it. That will be amazing worldwide news. If you don't have that evidence, then stop saying death is fake news. It isn't.

[777]

amazing worldwide news is exactly the reason happy RSSB satsangis
don't seek the scientist.

so we do it for the time being with the testimonies from Jesus
and guys like myself and my wife
and you can collect thousands at the exit of the Dera

Let in all this determine what existance is.
It has a little to do with molecules
Existance is at best here the chakra_vibrations directing or atoms through even higher
particles

Once you can realize this musical vibration you replace the center of your being
to that sweet music ; . . so it is easy

You defenitely don't fall in that error to consider the body as yourself
If you do , . . . I would panick :)

I will not preach but Brian end your deliberate misunderstanding of
non understanding

the ego forcing U to do

You did a nice blog_Job but now think about your Soul, which is that music
and take a happy-er standpoint
Better even ,
Try to sit 15 minutes with a STRAIGH vertebra
and see if there is silence in you
The answer is no - Many vibrations can not be suppressed
NOW FIND OUT WHICH ONE THE ANAHABAD SHABD IS
You can easily trigger it applying the 5 holy words on that sound to figure out

In a month you have it
Next do Simran as a bandage of Love in that tiny sound you found
The result is amazing and death of molecules have no further effect on your "existance"
Individual even

So like all mystics said : Death wher is that sting , they talk about
( in my case trying to avoid the up-coming pride :)

Nice you reacted to quickly

777

Hope your last yours will prove this
You don t need to become a good satsangi, . . who can
But you will definitely refind the Love , u intuitively had at the start
before the ego protested

[777]

Vinny
Your Calvinistic standpoint is
another than Sawan's, when he advised a horny satsangi
to increase his meditation

So , try to think of Love , Sound & Glory,
more time than phantasizing 24/7 about (in your mind) dirt

777

PS
I start to understand Why Gurinder using innocent words
triggered a better and humoristic standpoint about the lowest chakras
Let's drop the hypocrisy, nagging and judge,. . . . I think he ment Jim

[Spencer G Tepper]

Hi Brian

You wrote
"There's zero demonstrable evidence, nada, zilch, that anyone has ever cheated death."

That statement is a little misleading, or at least exaggeration. It's not fake news to make this claim, that's true. We all face death.

But there is a lot of evidence in anecdotal accounts for life after death, and before birth. And very hard scientific evidence that our subconscious has built in symbols for life, death, and the narrative for transcending death into life hard wired. These can be found in the many myths of death and rebirth found in many different western and eastern cultures.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_deity

The physiological evidence unfortunately can't be counted for much because it can always be explained away as near death. Even when someone is clinically dead for a time, and when they awake and they report what happened. Sceptics have explained that the patient had their dream / vision either just before their brain creased all activity, or just after it began to start up again. Sceptics also propose that, like with normal memory, the brain fills the story gaps with its own imagined pieces.

Some sceptics have claimed that near death reports of seeing God center around the deity one already knows.

But that has turned out to be false in many cases. The experience of divinity can be of a person we have never seen before. (When I was 16 I met Gurindar in a dream, having no knowledge of Sant Mat at the time, though it would be 25 years later that I would actually see Him, well after I had already been initiated by Maharaji) .

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/is-there-evidence-of-life-after-death_us_58ac5e10e4b029c1d1f88f02

And more here...

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/life-after-death/

Other accounts of children claiming to have had a life here before also represents a rich source of anecdotal evidence.

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/who-we-are/dr-ian-stevenson/

Most important is the wide and rich array of mystical, spiritual, and mythic experiences latent within each of us.

Those are the very internal experiences that give all allegories their power and meaning. They help us identify elements within us, to reintegrate all the elements within us.

And that includes the transcendent experience of death and life after death. The Subjective reality of that experience has so many centuries of reports that something is most certainly there, even if only a fantastic window into the human psyche. Death and life are real, and each person's psyche is hard wired for the experience of both, if we are open minded enough to explore them.

It is more important to understand the role of death and potential life in the allegory you cite, as well as life after death, as symbols reflected in each of us. than simply to overlay it with what appeals to your sentiments. That's a good second step, after leaving and understanding the authors original intention first.

[Jim Sutherland]

@777,.....You are the one who can’t seem to let go of my outing GSD’s “insinuated” sex jokes at the Dera Guest House Q & A Meeting when, with a room full of mixed females, males, married and unmarried, he embaressed a male Doctor discussing Nutrition, by asking him why he was thinking of buts, or his wife’s butt. When the embarrassed Satsangi Charan Initiate answered that he was almost 69 and no longer thought about his wife’s but, GSD, GIHF asked him if he knew what a 69 was. The Doctor answered that Masters shouldn’t talk about stuff like that. Now you can keep reminding me, baiting me, by tying my Name with every sex and porno post you kerp posting, on various threads, until either you die and collect your rewards, and I will no longer need to keep rehashing what went down, and is exhausted on the Thread in question, or,...I die before you, and go silent to collect my rewards,...or, GSD posts his Autographed Letter of Apology to me and all of the others whose Faith he shattered in a minute there. He could send his letter of Apology to Brian Hines, who of course, would be pleased to post it in an appropriate Location. Again, I am Game to keep the issue alive, as long as you, or any of the others who have scorned me, and turned GSD’s Porn thoughts on me, as you continue to do. I will remain in knowing what I, and the others there heard and experienced. An Anonomous Poster even posted that every thing I said happened, and many others there were very embarressed and disappointed about GSD’s sex jokes, I did miscalculate how many people were in the room, but I admitted it. The large Q & A Satsang I attended the day before carried over to my memory getting mixed up with the Western Guest House.
As for being judged by you, and GSD’s Devotees, not all judge me as I have been openly attacked in the Church for telling the truth that many ignore, reject, and brush off as “ Just a Joke.” I have many private emails from those I have tried to help, that have seen me differently.
Example: “I love you man you’re an amazing soul no doubt about that. I’m thankful for your existence in this world indefinitely! I appreciate your in depth responses to my questions. You’re awesome Jim God bless you in all the ways possible!”

Cheers,
Jim Sutherland

[Jen]

777, you constantly preach about Love and yet you judge others which reveals the falseness that you hide. None of us are perfect, not even the devout followers of the guru.

"For that which you hate is bound up inseparably with that which you love, like the face and the reverse of the same coin. If you would be honest with yourselves, then must you love what you hate and what hates you before you love what you love and what loves you."

The Book of Mirdad

[Appreciative Reader]

"For that which you hate is bound up inseparably with that which you love, like the face and the reverse of the same coin. If you would be honest with yourselves, then must you love what you hate and what hates you before you love what you love and what loves you."

Hello, Jen.

This has nothing to do with your comment addressed to 777, or the ongoing argument between Jim and him about the appropriateness or otherwise of occasional flippancy from "Masters", but just a general comment about this quote of yours from Mirdad.

You know, I never know what to make of poetic flourishes of this type. On the one hand, they're beautiful. Besides, being vague, they often admit of a great many meanings, so that we are often able to ascribe to them meanings that resonate with ourselves, so that they seem to speak to us intimately. On the other hand, if you look at them closely, they're often wholly nonsensical!

Take this quote : What exactly does it MEAN, after all? It tells us that if we're honest, then we are to love that which we hate and that which hates us, before (and presumably more than) that which we love and that which loves us. What utter claptrap, why on earth would anyone want to do that?

If you think about this, then the most that can be said is this : that if you're well advanced in your spiritual practice, then often you end up being wholly indifferent to the matters of the world, either because you realize their essential emptiness, or else because you have developed access to something internal that wholly eclipses the mundane things and relations of the world. Fine, that much makes sense.

But to stretch it one step further, to demand GREATER love from you for 'things that hate you and you yourself would normally hate' than for things that you'd love in the normal course, that doesn't seem to make any kind of sense at all, does it?!

Sorry, Jen : I don't mean to imply that just because you've quoted something from Mirdad that you must be an expert on that work, or that you're called on to defend what's written in that book! Just musing aloud about this pet peeve of mine (about apparently deep and poetic but actually empty* "words of wisdom" that one finds so often "spiritual literature").

* Of course, it could be that I find quotes like this "empty" simply because I myself don't understand them! If there's anyone here who thinks they understand what this quote really means,perhaps they could help me with an explanation?

[Jim Sutherland]

Brian writes,....”The older I get -- I'm 69 -- the more I resonate ”

Brian, would you dare to voice that to Gurinder in a Q & A Satsang if you attend one at the Dera or Petaluma? If so,......Beware! You might open a 777 Porn Cam!

[Appreciative Reader]

Jim, I find your revulsion for things sexual extremely curious.

That is, I realize this is not so much a revulsion for things sexual per se, but a revulsion at any manner of juxtaposition of the "spiritual" with the sexual, especially when that is done by someone who is supposed to be a "Master".

Tell me, do you think you'd be just as outraged if GSD had joked about food, or about gluttony? If he'd joked about someone's attraction to an exquisitely prepared purely-vegan dish (as opposed to his joking about someone's attraction to certain sexual positions or certain bodily parts)?

If no, then why not?

What is it about the sexual act (as opposed to someone's sensuous appreciation of food, or of some sport, or of music, or of art, or of literature) that seems to triggers you off ?

[Arjuna]

Guys and gals - why did the Master say that to the Doctor (69 and butts)?

Ever thought that Master thought that the doctor had sex on his mind and He could see that.

A truly advanced human and I ain’t talking spiritual can usually decipher another- imagine what another Being could do if they can see beyond this play. Have a think that’s all I ask.

And besides most people who I have thought very meek and spiritual turn out to have desires to shag and fuck and break the bed.

Just think 🤔

[Jim Sutherland]

@AP,.......you post questions like you are the Church of the Churchless Self appoined Resident Shrink in training. You think up questions that Anami Purush wouldn’t answer, even if there were answers to such questions from a Pseudo Poster like you that would rather hide and use Sniper tactics than to come out of your closet in the open, and risk being embarrassed and ridiculed as I have been.

But my Knee Jerk answer to your question is, there not not a “What If” at the 69 comment by the but Master, it WAS what it was!

Nutrition has always been a viable Platform for discussion, in ALL of the Sant Mat Lineages, so after haven promoted RSSB to Seekers for the last 30 years, and haven taken part in motivating possibly thousands of Seekers to apply for Initiation from Gurinder Singh, he made me feel like I had been Pimping for him the last 30 years.

Unwrap that as you choose.

Jim

[Jim Sutherland]

@AP.........Questions I would like to know about you,

1) Are you a Research Student enrolled in any College or University? If not, why are your questions to posters so inquisitive? Or, are you a Philosophy Journalist?
Or, are you a Troll?

2) Are you Female or Male?

3) What Age Group are you in?
A) 15-20
B) 20-30
C) 30-40
D) 40-50
E) 50 to 70
F) Senior

You have mentioned you Meditate yet never divulge much of any thing regarding your Method or practce. ...So, why the secrecy?

4) Have you ever had a Meditation Teacher in the past, or do you presently?

5) Do you have any interest what so ever to ever seek Initiation in to the Radhasoami Sect, by Gurinder, Ishwar, Rajinder, and if not, why are you here? What is your interest, other than to interrogate other Posters here?

6) What is your Religeous back ground, if any?

7) Do you have any Biases against Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Atheists, Hindus, or any Sect in particular?

8) If so, why?

9) Do you have a favorate Mentor here in this Church?

10) If so, if offered, would you consider becoming their Disciple, if Initiation was offered to you, under similare Vows most of us accepted,....and broke?

11) Had you been quewed to be next in line to ask the most important SINGLE Question you had ready to ask Gurinder , at the Q & A Session at the Dera as I was, after waiting with baited breath your turn to ask, and Gurinder was thinking about sex instead of nutrition, then left the stage leaving you speechless, would you still be keeping it a secret, or would you have had the honesty to post it here in Church either as a Promotion, ( for 777 ) ,or as a warning to at least, the females who post here? ( respecting them)

Of course, you don’t have to answer the questions, any more than you have to reveal your real Name.

But take as long as you like, if you decide to answer, and I will check back here from my busy schedule every couple of weeks or so. 😇

Thanks,
Jim Sutherland

[777]

""" Guys and gals - why did the Master say that to the Doctor (69 and butts)?

Ever thought that Master thought that the doctor had sex on his mind and He could see that. """

See it that God Almighty spoke these words, . . and yes HE might feed
the info you mention in Gurinders mind or not
I don't think the Dr had much to do with it
With Jim . . . . wow that s another ball game
But HE could also as well let "Gurinder make a "slip of the tongue"
with total other reasons like :

reactions and deep thoughts c q mind analysing in Cuurch of no Churches
and 999 other purposes

He surpasses all PR companies on myriads of planets together

CharanJi ( in His Beloved JI ) does not make mistakes

.... and believe me This Great Line of SatGurus they mix fun/pleasure/love
as if nothing than serendipities exists ( which is, in fact . . . the case)

777

[777]

AR I agree and it's false

"" Of course, it could be that I find quotes like this "empty" simply because I myself don't understand them! If there's anyone here who thinks they understand what this quote really means,perhaps they could help me with an explanation? ""

There are many fine phrases in Mirdad,
but this is false

Like many advaita people propose "We are One"

It means that we must love The One who supplies energy to Hitler , Djegiz and trump

We don't have to like a guy who destroys the world and our grand-children with it,
but we can like that these karma-implementers need to come around from time to time
Of course nobody has to like the giant ( > 1 meter ) gold plated 666 sign , actually exposed in high sky in NY NY
and pence and "evangelicans" close their eyes
while they see what happens in the USA

777

[vinny]

Big question is who is feeding the egos of gurus after disclosure by Baba Faqir Chand and David Lane about Chandian Effect plus disclosure by modern physics about unified field of consciousness. Only a half baked foolish man would go to these gurus, Why Christians are becoming victims of God in human form gurus is even more baffling, Christians taught the world everything, from modern physics to reverse psychology and they are becoming victims of reverse psychology.
Gurus say -We don't need money, then why you have put donation boxes there ??????
Gurus say- lead celibate life, why they have begotten children after marriage then??????

[777]

Ha Ha Vinny

The only solid thing we can do here :

When You or Jim and all others Arrive at the ultimate place_time
you give me a helping hand

... promising likewise, . . . . . I swear

777

PS
Radha SoamiJI

[Jim Sutherland]

@777.........What would YOU have done, had Gurinder tapped in to your Porno mind and exposed you publically, in front of the Guest House mixed Audience, what you have voluntarilly exposed about yourself here, in Church, before the Ladies who read here?

Would you have prostrated and kissed his feet, or blamed me, waiting in line behind you to ask my Spiritual natured question?

Or,.....would you have done what you are going here,...i.e. making excuses for sexual thoughts that “should” never be uttered in the Dera, especially by GIHF Himself.

Such comments, if in poluted mnds , should be resrved for Locker Rooms or Whore Houses.

Don’t kid yourself. Both Charan and Sawan are ashamed and embarressed by Gurinder's going Rogue in Sach Khand Earth.

If I am in error, I invite them to strike me dead.

😇
Jim Sutherland

[Spencer G Tepper]

Hi Jim
If is too much to say your accusations are in error, in so far as your own experience and judgment have formulated them for your life, your decisions.

But others such as myself have had a much different experience
We know Gurindar to be Good in human form (not merely God in human form, which very few could understand rightly) , living within the constraints as a human being, yet providing care, coaching, supervision and safety to his flock whatever they are. And every moment, a teaching moment.

But it is only a teaching moment of we can put aside our egos momentarily and learn.

[Jen]

Dear Appreciative Reader,

You do make me smile, you are very logical in your approach to life and I seem to be more of a dreamer, using my feelings for guidance.

The probable meaning of the quote about being bound to others by either love or hate is that each of us recognises in others something that resides within ourself.

Maybe understanding that love is the underlying quality of the universe and if we can become more like an observer of our own emotions and reactions we might eventually be able to love what we now hate.
I don't know about demanding GREATER love. I didn't recognise that in the quote. For some reason the words resonate with me probably because it speaks of a kind of 'pure' love, a positive energy that resides in the universe.

[777]

Jim

The advantage of Dhyan of a SatGuru is that many disciples get for free
easily and even without numbness or effort

they don't hear what the Saint says REALLY, they are absorbed in
what you did not come for, doing some gross sightseeing of this tiny planet
instead of Its maker

But don't worry; Charan C S Ji will help all of us and you just received a start

777

What a day
What a Path

[Jim Sutherland]

Hi Spence,

You would need to know me, and how I have lived my life since April 1977, before judging me with the others. But you don’t. Neither does Gurinder , other than what is filed , some where at the Dera that I submitted when requesting Initiation in 1989. I doubt that many Satsangis would have survived as long as I have, working as a Sales Engineer travelng the U.S. and while keeping the Vows,....and still being with my one and only Wife with our 57th Wedding Anniversery coming up in a month. Please explain why I must accept the porn scorn accusations I have received here, from but Master’s Desciples? There is no ego involved at all, from me, only honesty.

I ask you the same question I asked 777 and AP. What would you have done, had you been standing in lne where I was, next up?

Would you still be Pimping for Gurinder, or would you have gone silent keeping what you experienced a secret?

How do you know, or how can you be certain, that Master Charan didn’t personally keep me alive, in this body, long enough to arrange my one and only visit to the Dera, and put me in that particular Q & A meeting in the Guest House to witness Gurinder making porn jokes, and saying his desciples cause him to bang his head on the wall so hard, that he had to build him self a padded cell! Which he did, and was sitting in it.

You are the only Satsangi I have ever heard say he has daily contact with Charan Singh, other than the late Michael Martin. Will you ask him this evening or tomorrow if all is well at the Dera, and if he is still supporting Gurinder’s speech, and actions?

If he won’t answer you, than will you please ask him to visit me, and explain why he sent me there to hear what I did in that single moment of Eternity?

Thanks,
Jim Sutherland

[777]

JIM

Make a knot in your ear ( dutch expression)
about my >10 times declaring to be the
lowliest of the lowly
This is on all aspects imaginable

Shall I now add 10 times more for your mental convenience
Please concentrate on the Love of the sweet Sound
It makes the need to see wrong in others obsolete

This is Gurinder asking me to tell . . . yes it is !

( I'm the equivalent of the lost son, you know the story )

Now Gurinder says: "Like me" . . wow

777

[Jen]

777,

From your comments, you and Gurinder - from the words he has used recently - have definitely shown that the path of Sant Mat is degenerating rapidly. Kinda sad.

777 why the need to be vulgar? You say:
"not even gurmukhy-ness, Joy, pleasure ( better than orgasm )"
"and I'm not gay - strict pussy lover"

You also attack Brian:
"Brian don't join the fake news, . . . generates nasty karma
not your blog so much but if there are lies"

"I will not preach but Brian end your deliberate misunderstanding of non understanding the ego forcing U to do"

777, reading your comments it appears to me that you are the fake news and the big ego and Brian has amazing patience in putting up with your nonsense.

[777]

I speak most of the time about Love
In short sentences
and words of the world
Sant Mat Realistic, without archives, and lots of Meditation & constant Shabd
for everyone

Now readers can make their choice

777

[Account Deleted]

Hi Brian.

I am Saurabh Sawan and am Baba Gurinder Singh's initiate. Just got to know about your blog today. I don't have any intention to humiliate you or anything. Just wanted to chat with you. Please don't get angry on me . I understand your feelings and your beliefs. Everyone have their freedom of expression.

I have achieved great heights through meditation, which I cannot reveal to you.

Just was curious why you were not able to open your third eye. I want to ask you some questions-

1) Did you really get initiated by Maharaj Charan Singh?
2) Did you meditate properly-
a) Did you do Simran 24 hours everyday?
b) Did you follow the correct meditation technique?
c) How long did you meditate?
d) When did you stop meditating after initiation?
e) Were you recieving sounds from inside your head? Then from which ear right or left?

3) Were you consuming meat,fish,eggs, gelatine, intoxicants after initiation?

[Account Deleted]

Hello everyone.

I am a Rssb follower who came to know about this blog today. Anyone who wants to ask questions about Radha Saomi Satsang Beas or Baba Gurinder Singh can email me.

My email - [email protected]

[Account Deleted]

Question for 777- Are you a Rssb initiate? If yes then who initiated you?

[vinny]

These gurus have become policemen of morality, only way to test their reality is place them in one room and in other room place random objects like controlled experiment, double blind experiment. Then ask these gurus what objects were placed by the experimenter in the adjacent room. This experiment should be done in neutral place not in a city in third world country where people are lynched daily, even police dances to the tunes of gurus and politicians/ nexus between gurus and politicians. It would badly expose the god in human form gurus, after that their properties should be confiscated and they should be tried under penal law.
Then paid trolls should be sent to their cellar asking questions like
1) Did you really get initiated by Maharaj Charan Singh?
2) Did you meditate properly-
a) Did you do Simran 24 hours everyday?

[Jim Sutherland]

I would like to see how long GIHF would stand up under the same scrutiny Donald J. Trump, POTUS , has continued to endure, with out quitting his Job?

Or, his Wife, and family?

[777]

Dear Jen

Don't take words out of their context
to glue them on toilets

Is not OK

777

Vinny
Participating would reveal them as fake
Saints & all have only the info God gives them at specific times for God's purpose
not for scientists

777

Saurab, . . stay in, not out
be humble

777

[Account Deleted]

Dear 777,

What makes you think that I am not humble? I just asked you a question. Can you answer that-

Are you a Rssb initiate? If yes then who initiated you?

[777]

These gurus have become policemen of morality

Rssb Gurus only say
The way out is the crown chakra
Lower chakras are not sin, . . but time consuming
for those who seek the exit

Sin is to hurt another being

777

[Account Deleted]

Dear 777,

I am able to sense a very negative energy from you(similar to Lucifer). Your Kundalini yoga has made you a mentally retarded person. I wish that you realise your mistake.

[Account Deleted]

Important information for everyone over here-

Stay away from this user '777' This user can be very dangerous. I am sensing Satan's powers from this user.

[777]

Then, . . why so curious ?
Just sense it , mr short temper

777

[Account Deleted]

Dear 777,

How many people have you hurt till now?

[vinny]

Unless the properties of fake gurus are confiscated and they are tried under penal code, they would continue to be-fool innocent people with armies of paid trolls vouching for them. These paid trolls have already converted third world countries to lynch and rape countries. These paid trolls can live on sunlight by vedic science of sungazing instead of selling themselves to the god in human form gurus.

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Jim :

@AP,.......you post questions like you are the Church of the Churchless Self appoined Resident Shrink in training. …

What a fascinating thing to say, Jim! I mean, why “in training”?

Allow me to respond to incoherence with incoherence, and compliment you on your three-stooges-esque pirouetting on full moon nights in public in pink skirts, like a goose with turquoise feathers on the left, pink feathers on the right, and green underneath.

What was that? Why green on the underneath, you ask? That’s exactly like my asking you, “why ‘in training’”?

In other words, you don’t look too closely at the rantings of someone who claims they are Napoleon Bonaparte, finally dried off after their swim to safety from exile. You merely listen to them in fascination.

… a Pseudo Poster like you that would rather hide and use Sniper tactics than to come out of your closet in the open …

Only an imbecile -- if you will permit me to be so frank -- only an imbecile, wholly incapable of rational thought, would keep on repeatedly criticizing others for something so commonplace and so universally accepted as their choice to maintain online anonymity. Especially when the (general) reasons for this (online anonymity) have already been clearly spelt out to them.

I mean, it’s one thing to publically reveal your own identity when online. That’s your business, your choice. But to insist that others do it, just because you yourself have chosen to do this : that’s either feeble-mindedness, plain and simple, or else it is callous indifference to others’ choices, and/or a malicious incitement to others to endanger (or at least, to inconvenience) themselves.

I have already, long back, clearly addressed this curious inability of yours to comprehend why people sometimes/often choose to comment anonymously when online. Let me refer you back to that comment on mine : check out my comment addressed to you on June 30, 2017 at 09:09 AM on the page linked here : http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2017/05/gurinder-singh-the-one-is-the-goal-god-without-attributes/comments/page/4/#comments .

In fact, Jim, in order to make it easy for you to refer what I’d say there (and/or to make it difficult for you to pretend that you had not seen that comment of mine, as you may have done last time), I’ll copy the relevant portion right here in my subsequent comment, right below this comment I’m now typing.

… come out of your closet in the open, and risk being embarrassed and ridiculed as I have been …

Who is it who has “embarrassed and ridiculed” you? Are you referring to me?

If you’re referring to me here, then let me refresh your memory about our past interactions. Across a fairly long period, our interactions have always been wholly cordial. Then, in the thread I’ve already linked here, I found you unilaterally attacking Osho Robbins and even doxxing him out. I objected to that, on exactly the same principle basis which I’d object to a girl being hassled on the street, or a random person harassed on the street by toughs.

Subsequently, in another thread, I again found you picking on Osho Robbins, gratuitously commenting on their personal life and their marital difficulties, and callously pouring ridicule on their unfortunate life events. (Life events that they had revealed here in response to my questions, so that I felt partly responsible for this ridicule you were so reprehensibly sending their way.) Again, I took exception at this egregious incivility of yours, and spoke out against it.

That does not, by any stretch of imagination, make you a victim, as you’re trying to imply here. And nor does it make me a crusader or a vigilante or a self-appointed shrink. What I did, that’s what any decent person would do. Speaking out against egregious incivility and standing up to egregious bullying -- even when such incivility and such bullying do not directly involve one personally -- that is still a thing, even in these cynical and self-obsessed modern times.

(And no, this has nothing to do with you personally, Jim. You will recall, when a bigoted commenter repeatedly attacked you on this site, repeatedly labeling you a madman, it was I who spoke out against him, spoke out [partly] on your behalf, and put down his unbecoming insults. I didn’t see you objecting when I did that, eh?!)

`

Oh, and in case when you speak of yourself being “embarrassed and ridiculed as you have been” (by not choosing to stay anonymous), if when you say that you do not refer to me, but to others’ commenting against you online, well then in that case you do have my sympathy. But again : surely you see how foolish it is, in that case, to invite others to share your unfortunate fate?! Like I said, this represents either a feeble-minded inability to think rationally, or else it is a callous and/or malicious incitement to others to put themselves to inconvenience and/or danger.

… Nutrition has always been a viable Platform for discussion, in ALL of the Sant Mat Lineages …

Jim, you’re either disingenuously pretending not to understand my meaning, or else you have actually not been able to get the point of my simple comment addressed to you.

Let me clearly explain my meaning again :

It seems you were triggered off by GSD’s off-color jokes about tits and butts and sexual positions. My question to you was, do you think you would have been similarly triggered off if he’d made frivolous jokes about food, or about rap music, or about dance, or about MMA techniques, or about specific aspects of literature -- in short, anything at all other than sex)?

That is : I was inviting you to introspect whether your objection was hinged on the frivolity (of GSD’s making jokes, any jokes, instead of solemnly pronouncing profundities), or on the sexual references. If it’s the latter -- and I’m fairly sure it is, although I gave you the chance there in my comment to speak up for yourself and to correct me if that is not the case -- then I was inviting you to introspect about why that is. To introspect and to discuss -- if you wanted to, it goes without saying, not if you did not want to -- what it is about the sex act (as opposed to the act of eating, or the act of listening to music, et cetera) that seems to so set your fuse.

Given that it was you yourself who, of your own accord, and at great length, described your experiences at the Dera and also discussed your own reactions and thoughts and feelings, here on this public blogsite, given that do you find it so very incongruous that others might want to question you about what you’ve been publically saying here again and again and again?

… I had been Pimping for him the last 30 years. …

It is good that you finally recognize the absurdity of how you think and act.

… But no, I suspect you don’t really understand, even now, how very foolishly you’ve been acting.

You, Jim, started out as a preacher, right? Now per my lights, your garden variety preacher is someone who’s mugged up some half-understood irrational nonsense, and who, without having fully digested the garbage he’s ingested, sets out to infect others with his own irrationality. Absolutely, to use your own words, he is exactly the equivalent of a pimp!

This is very different from an accomplished teacher, who has truly mastered whatever his own field of expertise is, and who then seeks to help others by sharing this expertise. Your garden variety preacher, in contrast, is merely a semi-skilled craftsman -- if that -- who’s eager to straddle the pulpit : his main purpose is to be “the Man”, his main purpose is the ego boost he gets from influencing others (and of course, that could also be tied up with superstitions about “converting heathens” and “saving souls”).

When you switched to RSSB, you started preaching and proselytizing again, except the object of your proselytizing had changed. Obviously you are no expert, no virtuoso, no “Master” at RSSB spirituality -- you don’t claim that, do you? -- and yet here you are, yourself, admitting to “pimping” away on behalf of RSSB.

Do you understand what I am saying? Do you, even now, recognize your folly, Jim?

It is one thing to reach out to others who themselves seek your guidance. It is also okay, per my lights, to gently and unobtrusively seek to share expertise that might help others, after you’ve first gained full expertise. But to “preach” half-digested knowledge and skills, especially when such preaching is done aggressively and offensively (which is often how you went about this business, as I can myself attest), that is, in my view, the hallmark of a mountebank.

So yes, you were indeed “pimping” away all these years. (At least part of the time, if not always.) And when I say that, I mean no criticism at all towards RSSB, nor towards whatever Church you preached on behalf of in your younger days. This criticism of mine is directly squarely at the obnoxiousness that was clearly displayed by you here.

.

After you’ve digested this comment of mine, please don’t forget to read the subsequent two comments of mine : the next one, where I will copy the portion from my earlier comment addressed to you, addressing your totally weird and unthinking objections to anonymous posting ; and the one after that, where I will answer (some of) the questions you’ve directed at me.

[vinny]

Once these fake gurus and their paid trolls are tried under penal code,they will forget all sexual jokes and come to their senses.

[Appreciative Reader]

And here, Jim, as promised, is the portion of my comment addressed to you on June 30, 2017 at 09:09 AM, where I clearly address your queries and your doubts about online anonymity.

You may have seen this comment of mine and, having no rejoinder and lacking the courage to own up to your error, you may have ignored it then. Or else you may have actually missed this comment of mine. Either way, I hope this copied portion from that comment of mine will, once and for all, quell your doubts about online anonymity.

This following portion, in italics, is copied verbatim from this page : http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2017/05/gurinder-singh-the-one-is-the-goal-god-without-attributes/comments/page/4/#comments.

.

Responses to a couple more specific issues you brought out in your two comments addressed to me :

FIRST : ABOUT COMMENTING ANONYMOUSLY :

That is a personal choice, and hardly needs defending! I don’t know how aware you are, Jim, about norms of behavior when people interact in online forums -- you do say that you contribute regularly to the RSS forums, at any rate -- but often (not invariably, but often) people prefer to mask their personal identity and use, instead, a pseudonym and/or avatar. That is no nefarious oddity, rife with sinister implications, as you seem to imagine, Jim, but perfectly acceptable -- and universally accepted -- online practice.

You don’t simply have to take my word when I say this, Jim. Ask your friends who spend time online, or else go around yourself and visit different online forums, and see for yourself. In most forums, you’ll find that large numbers of posters (perhaps as many as 75% of the numbers there or more) would generally be posting anonymously, while some few (perhaps 25% or fewer) will publically announce their names etc.

The reasons for adopting such anonymity are many : First of all, a matter of general precaution, since everything we say here stays visible to all random visitors. Second of all, specific reasons specific to the topic of discussion. For instance, I myself prefer not to broadcast to all and sundry my religious beliefs or lack of them, not unless there is some express reason to do so. I prefer to keep my private thoughts private, and indeed would not have spoken half as freely about these things had I not been posting anonymously. And there is a third reason why anonymous posting is encouraged online : the fact is that anonymous posting facilitates impersonal communication, and allows people to concentrate on the ideas and issues being discussed, without getting distracted by personalities and personal situations.

Sure, there are potential negatives as well to commenting online. There are those who abuse this anonymity to, well, literally abuse other posters, and generally behave in obnoxious ways that they wouldn’t adopt in real life. Besides, this anonymity lets some posters go around making all manner of dishonest statements which they know they won’t he held to account for. Absolutely, you need to beware such abuse of anonymity.

It must be said here that such abuse is not restricted to overtly anonymous posters alone. There are those who, despite announcing their names, nevertheless indulge in abusive behavior. Besides, even if one does announce some name and announce some identity, who is to say that is who they really are? And finally, even if someone really posts in their own actual name, even then, how do you know they are telling the truth? When people talk about their inner experiences on here, for instance, how can one know that they’re not simply lying? Indeed, even if this little group of ours were to meet face to face IRL (in real life), and over tea and coffee and beer, we were to recount to one another our innermost experiences : how would we then know that all this is actually the truth? Ultimately, whether online or in real life, you need to use your judgment to decide, subjectively, whom you can trust and whom not. As you had yourself very aptly said here earlier, in this very thread : caveat emptor, every time!

I believe my anonymous comments here do NOT, in any way, show me as abusive or dishonest, not even remotely so. And nor do I believe I have taken undue advantage of my anonymity here in any way. Had I announced my name here, or even if I had been having this conversation in real time with you, face to face, even then I am very sure, that I would not have acted or spoken differently. But of course, if you yourself think otherwise, that is your privilege.

For now, I have to say, all this is moot, because like I said I don’t think I’ll be commenting any more on here, for the time being, so you won’t have the option of interacting with me even if you want to, not for some time at least. But no doubt we’ll meet again and no doubt both of us will comment again, in future, here at Brian’s site ; and, at such times, if and when our paths cross again, by all means make your own considered judgment about whether you wish to continue interacting with me further (because I have every intention of continuing to stay unapologetically anonymous).

Let me point out one final aspect about online etiquette to you, Jim : consensuality. Consensuality is everything. Not degree but consesuality. I may be as physically intimate as I like with my girlfriend as long as that intimacy is consensual, and you may be as intimate with your wife as long as that is consensual, but far less intimacy can be considered criminally punishable if it hasn’t been done consensually. I bring this up, because you yourself breached an important line here in your recent comment. Osho Robbins is, for reasons of his own, commenting here using a pseudonym. What you do in your recent comment here is, to go out of your way to announce to the world personal things about him that he has himself chosen not to divulge here in this forum. That, sir, is so not done! There is actually a word for this sort of behavior, and it is ‘Doxing’. Look it up, if you aren’t aware of the term and the concept. This sort of thing is considered very poor form, wholly reprehensible. Please try not to do this sort of thing again. (Brian’s moderation of comments on here tends to be pretty laissez faire, but there are forums where you can get banned, or at least suspended, for doxing.) Whatever Osho Robbins’s reasons for anonymity might be, it is for us to respect those reasons (just as it is incumbent on us to unquestioningly respect the wishes of a girl who refuses physical intimacy with us, no matter what her reasons, and irrespective of whether we like those reasons or agree with them). If Osho Robbins himself chooses, now or later on, to tell us more about himself, sure, that’s his call, he may well publish his entire book-length autobiography here if he wishes : but to egregiously publish information about him that he has himself not volunteered on this forum, without first seeking his permission -- that’s creepy, and so not done!

[vinny]

Firstly the complaint should be filed in American and British courts. If courts prosecute these fake gurus and order to seize their properties then governments in lynch and rape third world countries will wake up and do something against this nuisance of fake gurus , their sexual jokes and their paid trolls.

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Jim :

@AP.........Questions I would like to know about you …

Do you have any clue why I sometimes ask questions here? And also, do you have any clue why others do me the courtesy of answering those questions when I do ask them? I have already explained this to you, in an earlier comment, but still, to recap : Most of my questions are to do with understanding others’ perspectives on spirituality -- as well as, of course, the occasional wholly agenda-less small talk, as well as general questions like the one I asked you here -- and these questions of mine about things spiritual are (unless they happen to be small talk) perfectly sincere ; and others recognize this and are happy to take the trouble to share their personal perspectives with me.

Also, these questions of mine are often part of bona fide discussions, often fairly involved discussions, about mattersi spiritual. And that -- discussing matters spiritual, from our own individual perspectives -- is ultimately the reason why we (or at least, most of us) congregate here at Brian’s blogsite, isn’t that so?

These here questions of yours, on the other hand, are petty and aggressive at the same time, an empty parody clearly and wholly lacking in sincerity, that seek without rhyme or reason to unnecessarily probe into my private life.

I would normally have either ignored these clearly insincere questions of yours -- they're the very epitome of what is meant by the word “trolling” -- or else have dismissed them curtly with the contempt they deserve. Except for this one thing : in the past, in my early days at this here blogsite of Brian’s, when I had been wholly ignorant about RSSB meditation, I had asked you some questions about your RSSB experiences, and you had been kind enough to take the trouble then to answer my questions.

In recognition of that effort you had then taken in response to me, and to repay that debt back to you, I will now do you the courtesy of addressing the questions you throw at me here, your empty questions that I would normally have most decidedly not wasted any time with ; and so, yes, I will indeed take the time and effort to reply now, to each and every one of these “questions” that you ask me.

… 1) Are you a Research Student enrolled in any College or University? … Or, are you a Philosophy Journalist? …

I am tempted to dismiss this question of yours with the contempt it deserves, by curtly telling you that that is no concern of yours : but I will restrain myself, and simply say, instead, that I do not wish to share this personal information about myself with you.

… why are your questions to posters so inquisitive? …

This is a discussion forum, so why should that surprise you?

(Well no, actually this isn’t a discussion forum per se. This is Brian’s blog, that’s what this is, but he’s kind enough to permit us to discuss stuff here, so yes, thanks to Brian, this is indeed, in effect if not technically in fact, a discussion forum. And one discusses such things in a discussion forum as one wants to, and that others are willing to engage with. What is it about this elementary fact that you don’t understand here, Jim?)

As for why I ask these questions myself, that is, my own motivations : While there is no need whatsoever for me to defend to you what I say here, nevertheless, in the past comment to you that I have already linked to here, as well as in the comment just preceding on that page and addressed to Osho Robbins, I have clearly spelt out my reasons. If you are truly interested, I invite you to go back and read both those comments.

… are you a Troll? …

I would say no, absolutely not.

But then, I suppose you could say my answer would be biased in my favor. So you’d best ask this question not to me, but to others here : ask Brian himself, and/or ask the other regular commenters here, if they think I’m a troll.

I’m willing to wager they would speak out in my favor. But of course, if perchance they don’t, then I’m willing to see this as a learning experience, an opening up of a blind spot of mine own. Should that happen, I am willing to withdraw permanently from commenting here.

As for you, Jim : I can clearly demonstrate that you yourself are a narrow-minded bigot and bully. Seriously, if you challenge me to, I will quote you chapter and verse from your own past comments and clearly prove this to you.

And if a troll (an online troll, that is) can be defined as someone who posts primarily in order to get a rise out of others -- as opposed to seriously discussing issues -- then I’d say that many of your own comments (not all of them, but many of them, starting with this asinine series of patently insincere “questions” you pose for me here) do squarely qualify as trolling.

So : no, I’m not a troll. But these questions of yours are patently insincere, and asking them does, in my book, qualify as trolling. So it is you, Jim, who’s a troll. Not always, not in everything you say, but demonstrably so at times.

… 2) Are you Female or Male? …

This should be obvious to anyone who’s read my comments. But if you haven’t the wits to have figured that out, well then, allow me to point out that that does not really concern you one way or the other. In other words, no, I have no intention of sharing my personal details with you, thank you very much.

… 3) What Age Group are you in?
A) 15-20
B) 20-30
C) 30-40
D) 40-50
E) 50 to 70
F) Senior …

What are you, a stalker? No thanks, I’m not sharing these personal details with you.

… You have mentioned you Meditate yet never divulge much of any thing regarding your Method or practce. ...So, why the secrecy? …

I have already addressed this more than once. In fact, I have touched on this in the very portion from my past comment that I’ve copied here, in my comment just preceding this one. Just read those earlier comments of mine, or at least that portion I’ve copied here in the comment just preceding, if you truly wish to know the answer to this question.

… 4) Have you ever had a Meditation Teacher in the past, or do you presently? …

Short answer : Yes.

… 5) Do you have any interest what so ever to ever seek Initiation in to the Radhasoami Sect …

Again, short answer : Yes. I have clearly said as much here, more than once.

All its institutional shortcomings notwithstanding, I find RSSB meditation fascinating. My hands are full at this time with the meditation techniques I am already involved with (as well as mundane real-life commitments), otherwise I would definitely have liked to give RSSB meditation a shot. I have clearly said this here, more than once.

Who knows, one day I may still, despite my current engagements and preoccupations, give RSSB meditation a shot? It does appeal to me, this meditation technique, yes, all of RSSB’s peripheral blemishes notwithstanding.

… if not, why are you here? What is your interest, other than to interrogate other Posters here? …

Already addressed in this comment itself.

… 6) What is your Religeous back ground, if any? …

I have no intention of sharing that personal information with you.

… 7) Do you have any Biases against Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Atheists, Hindus, or any Sect in particular? …. …

No, I don’t, to the best of my knowledge.

… 8) If so, why? …

Well, I don’t harbor any “bias” either for or against any particular religion or sect -- at least to the best of my knowledge -- so that “why” will not apply.

… 9) Do you have a favorate Mentor here in this Church? …

“Mentor?” Seriously, “mentor”? What a quaint idea! No, of course not!

But absolutely, there are lots of people here from whom I’ve learnt a deal. Starting with Brian himself, and indeed from many, many, many of the other posters here. That, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt. And that’s why I keep returning here to Brian’s blogsite.

But no, no one whom I’d think of as “mentor”, absolutely not.

… 10) If so, if offered, would you consider becoming their Disciple, if Initiation was offered to you, under similare Vows most of us accepted,....and broke? …

What a weird question!

You’re asking me, would I consider becoming a “disciple” of any of the folks here at this blogsite? You’re actually asking me this question in all seriousness? I’d say that speaks more to your own mindset, reveals far more of how your own mind works, than perhaps you’d intended.

But short answer to your question : No.

… 11) Had you been quewed to be next in line to ask the most important SINGLE Question you had ready to ask Gurinder , at the Q & A Session at the Dera as I was, after waiting with baited breath your turn to ask, and Gurinder was thinking about sex instead of nutrition, then left the stage leaving you speechless, would you still be keeping it a secret, or would you have had the honesty to post it here in Church either as a Promotion, ( for 777 ) ,or as a warning to at least, the females who post here? ( respecting them) …

Ah, at long last, a real question! Mixed in within that deluge of bilge, finally a serious question!

And my considered answer is :

I really don’t know. It would depend.

It would all hinge on what overall impression I drew of the person who’d said this. (And sure, you’re fully entitled to drawing that impression yourself, about GSD. No argument with you on that count.)

Would I speak about it, either here at this site or elsewhere? That’s a whole different question, that ; but again, it would depend.

But : Would joking about sex per se be a deal breaker for me, as it seems to have been with you? The answer to that is : Absolutely not!

.

Happy now? I’ve now repaid my past debt to you (of you having taken, in the past, the trouble to respond to my questions here) by now taking a great deal of time and effort myself in order to engage with your empty and insincere questions.

In order to ensure that you do not, like last time, either actually miss my comments or else pretend not to have seen them, let me remind you that I have taken the time and effort to address three separate comments just now to you, in response to your calling me out in your own comments on this page : the first of these three comments posted here on June 25, 2018 at 06:07 AM, the second one posted here on June 25, 2018 at 06:15 AM, and this third comment that I’ve just now finished typing.

Feel free to respond if you wish.

But no longer will I feel obligated, after this, to waste my time with you if I find you’re asking insincere questions. No longer will I feel obligated to entertain you if I find that you’re trolling (as you’ve been clearly doing in asking me these absurd questions). But sure, if you wish to initiate (or to continue) any discussion of real substance -- and indeed, you are well capable of doing that, with your wide knowledge and experience -- then I will be happy to respond to you.

[Jim Sutherland]

@AP,.......Would you please summarize your above massive Word Games in to a short paragraph explaing how you “ really” process me a one of The Three Stooges?

😇
Thanks,
Jim

[vinny]

FBI investigation should be initiated against paid trolls of gurus posting on this blog and the properties of paid trolls can be confiscated for aiding and abetting organized gurudom mafia.

[Appreciative Reader]

@AP,.......Would you please summarize your above massive Word Games in to a short paragraph explaing how you “ really” process me a one of The Three Stooges?

😇
Thanks,
Jim

My three comments here are not word games. I have taken a great deal of time and effort to take your questions at face value and answer them -- far more time and effort than your questions themselves deserve.

It is your questions themselves that had been "word games". Not my answers to those questions.

Please don't try to wiggle out from this by pretending that you find my clear answers to be word games, or by pretending that you don't have time to read these posts, or by pretending that you haven't seen them.

As for my "three stooges" reference :

No, I don't think you're one of the The Three Stooges.

But I do think your description of me as a "shrink in training" was nonsensical. Instead of directly telling you that you were spouting nonsense in so describing me -- why "in training", after all, like I asked you? -- I chose to respond to your own incoherent nonsense, deliberately with some incoherent nonsense of my own. Those three short paragraphs there, that you quote from here, are nonsensical, and are meant to highlight your own absurd description of me in your comment.

[Appreciative Reader]

Before I sign out now, Jim, let me just say one last thing to you :

I absolutely don't have anything against you personally. I think you have very wide knowledge and experience about things spiritual.

Indeed -- as I've pointed out in my earlier comments -- I've gone out of my way to defend you here from a bigot who insisted on repeatedly labeling you a senile madman.

It's just that you tend to be so bloody biased and closed-minded at times. Also, there are times when you end up trying to bully others. (Not me personally, no, but you've definitely done that to others.) And finally, you have this tendency to presumably run into a rage and hit out at anyone who points out flaws in your thinking.

if you make a habit of hitting out at people, you mustn't be surprised when you occasionally get hit back.

And nor does your behavior any of the deep-seated internal changes that one would expect protracted meditation to bring about in a person. Where is that equanimity, that fair-mindedness, that empathy, that almost always accompany the spiritual endeavor?

Again : I have nothing against you personally. And I'd like nothing better than to put this behind us, and to shake hands with you as a friend, if you'll permit me to.

Bye for now.

[Account Deleted]

Dear 777,

I am not able to understand you. Can you please write more clearly?

[Appreciative Reader]

Heh, Saurabh, 777 was likening you (via that pun on the first four letters of your name) to Sauron from Tolkien's magnum opus. And likening your criticism of him (Lucifer, et cetera) to Mordor-speak.

You've both fired initial salvos. You've described 777 as Lucifer-esque, and 777 has in turn wittily insulted you without you realizing he's done that. I'd say he's clearly won the first round.

Now let me duck out of here before the messenger and interpreter ends up getting shot at in the cross-fire!

Cheers, and welcome here!

[Jim Sutherland]

@AP,......This “ Church” consists of mostly, either initiated Satsangis still following some Living Master, ( mostly Gurinder Singh Dhillon of RSSB ), or those who were initiated by him, Charan, or those who have now rejected the Sant Mat Path for various reasons , as Brian Hines originally formed his Churchless Church up on.

Of course, there will always be differences of opinions, about any thing posted here, by any body. It all depends on individual upbringing, and Nationslities.

Your wordy Megatomes of useless blather , I am sorry to say, .. (no insult meant, just bringing it to your attention ), surely not only goes right over the heads of the majority readers here, because most of them are Indians who write and speak Hindi, and English is hardly understood by them. And of course, there are others, taking fir example, 777, i.e. Pierre, the Francois Nom who rarely posts any thing clear enough that any Nationality could understand.

My blog posts clearly identify my thoughts on exactly where I stand, on Religeon or Philosophy, which any Layman, Philosopher or Theologeon can understand with out needing a Shrink to decipher for them after reading.

As for my “ Trigger” on sexual jokes, I belive I have very adaquately, and clearely stated my reasons on the Thread where the subject originally started, so, If you are really interested in knowing , then go there and carefully read the thread again.

As for Osho Robbins, I am wondering why he has disappeared from here? I hope he hasn’t gone off the deep end and either joined another Cult, or started his own! I know it was not me that scared him away, he must have just gotten bored. He is one of the most knowledgeable Ex Satsangis about Sant Mat Philosophy that I have ever read here, but in our past exchanges, it was mostly he, attacking me, using Potty language, which forced me to take up my Defensive stance,..i.e. Fight or Flight.” But in retrospect, I like Osho Robbins, and give him credit knowing he has surely “ paid his Dues” to the Sant Mat Path,...UNLIKE YOU, who any Initiate can quickly recognize has 90% questions ratio to your 10% answers.

As for your hiding your identity, I don’t buy your reasons at all regadless of how most others hide and just post any old thing they feel like, at the spur of the moment, like Knee Jerking. Pseudo Posters using Avatars do not need to be held accountable for any thing they post. They can throw rotton eggs, Troll, lie, cheat, use Propaganda, slander, use foul language, post links to Porn Cams, as 777 has, and get away with any thing. If it gets too Hot in the Kitchen ,they can just run and hide, or change their Avatar , never being caught or held accountable for the content they post.

So, I NEVER take much of any thing seriously, posted by Pseudo Posters who hide behind their Fake Avatars. How can any serious honest Poster, like me, hold a Phantom’s feet to the fire for any content posted that slanders or insults me, knowing or not knowing, they could be just about any one?

Rave on Cat Poop, some one will eventually bury you, in the sand box.

Cheers,
Jim

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Jim :

Rave on Cat Poop, some one will eventually bury you, in the sand box.

Heh, that was brilliant! Truly a well-thought-out and considered response to my three comments addressed to you!

What am I now expected to do? Screw up my face at you, thumb my nose at you, and tell you in a taunting and sing-song voice that your mommy picked you up in the trash can, and that you stink? And give you the finger as well, to add a slightly "adult" touch to this fascinating dialog we're having?

Consider all that done, then.

I extended my hand for you to shake. But it seems you'll only accept the finger.

So be it, Jim, so be it.

Salud!

[777]

Hi really Appreciated Reader

You said :
"" if you make a habit of hitting out at people, you mustn't be surprised when you occasionally get hit back. ""

Same for an old lady who had never the experience that sex can be very beautiful
which is confirmed by so many Saints
like
Bullah Shah
Mirabai
Hafiz
Rumi

The point is that we CANNOT detach
but we can attach more to higher delights like the sweet Sound

777

Mirdad : To judge we have to know how the wind blew on creation day !
Did you see that Saur ?

[777]

A R wrote
""" extended my hand for you to shake. But it seems you'll only accept the finger. - - So be it, Jim, so be it. ""

Hééé Appreciated
You don't have to be initated to be able to hear the Sound
I described higher up what any compassionated human, any VEG compassionated 7 chakra being can do

The Sat Guru Saint is present for those who are homesick
want to join the absolute, The Alvervading Purusha,

He provides also protection , seen and unseen and in meditation

The URGE to join, to be absorbed in the most pure Sound is a wonderful Grace
and will come when it comes , exactly on the right nano second

777

[Account Deleted]

Dear 777,

I did not want to humiliate you. SORRY IF YOU ARE. I was just pointing out that your kundalini yoga is not good.

But once again sorry.

[Account Deleted]

Dear all,

I am a rssb follower. Just came to know about this blog today. I just came here to know what this blog is all about. But it seems like people here don't like rssb. Thus I am departing from here.
I wish that all find peace and love.

Regards

Saurabh Sawan

[Spencer G Tepper]

Hi Saureb

You will find a broad range of views here. Church of the Chrchless, as Brian Hines established it, is a place for those who once held varying faiths but who find their beliefs have changed to something closer to Atheism, Agnosticism, or Stoicism. There is a range here. Brian was a devout Satsang for decades. You can find and read more about this on this site.

There are some here, myself included, who are devout Satsangis.

There are Atheists. And Christians. And others seeking...

It is never a good idea to tell a stranger they are in Satan's grip. Not a good way to introduce oneself.

Short of that you are certainly welcome to offer your views on the main post of the thread, which is the Zen Tiger story above.

Brian has also provided open threads where anyone can post their views on just about any subject. If you Google Open Thread 14 you will find the newest open thread.

Or find a topic among any of Brian's thousands of posts reviewing spiritual, scientific and philosophical texts and research.

[Jim Sutherland]

Quote AP: “I extended my hand for you to shake. But it seems you'll only accept the finger.”

Me: Neither Phantom hands nor fingers have any real effect on me.

🤓

Jim

[777]

Wow Jim
Not many here believe that
OMG
y'r perhaps the most vulnerable . . . and stubborn

77

[vinny]

The people who developed Shakespeare like English and didn't study Physics are biggest victims of gurudom mafia. I call it skewed development of mind. Beyond proficiency, English becomes useless.

[Jen]

777, you say:

Jen, Don't take words out of their context
to glue them on toilets Is not OK

777, you are disgusting - and weird. When I first used to read your comments many years ago and after deciphering them to the best of my ability, I used to think that you were some kind of evolved mystic who spoke in riddles. But now, unfortunately, you have shown your true colours that you are not spiritual at all, but simply egoistical and also vulgar.

Im so glad that someone else has called you out now and revealed your very negative energy, 'similar to Lucifer'. Thank you Saurabh Sawan.

[Jim Sutherland]

@Jen,.....Can you imagine Brian Hines, David Lane, Spencer Tepper, me, or any of the others who openly post, using our real Names , openly post the stuff 777 posts and says, while claiming to be a Charan Initiate? And still preaching Sant Mat and Pimping Gurinder Singh? I wonder how many new Seekers he wins to RSSB?

That’s what I mean about why I don’t take any thing seriously posted by any one posting as Snipers unwilling to post using their own names.

I may not agree with any of those using their own Names, but I will continue to respect their opinions, because , of all the reasons I posted to AP. Many trolls post under several diffierent Avatars, posting to each other, just to keep the Pot stirred.

In my 20 plus years of posting on different forums, I have always used my same email address and my true Name. I STAND by just about every thing I have ever openly posted that still remains on the Internet.

My REAL friends have never deserted me because of our beliefs, or changes of beliefs. Those who have, good riddence, as they were Fake friends to begin with, most of them using Pseudo Avatars.

Cheers,
Jim

[777]

So much to pray

[vinny]

Those who started posted using real names were flying in the seventh heaven, original pimps of gurudom mafia, now when they have realized the power of this mafia, they use phrases like strike me dead, strange change of heart.

[777]

Vinny
A good phrase is : ha ha ha - We are not amongst your lucky ones
I knew it
I will be born soon

777

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Jen :

The probable meaning of the quote about being bound to others by either love or hate is that each of us recognises in others something that resides within ourself.

Maybe understanding that love is the underlying quality of the universe and if we can become more like an observer of our own emotions and reactions we might eventually be able to love what we now hate.

Hi, Jen. Sorry, I'd gotten distracted with this absurd trolling on here, and missed your comment last time I'd logged in.

This much, what you say here, sounds plausible enough.

I don't know about demanding GREATER love. I didn't recognise that in the quote. For some reason the words resonate with me probably because it speaks of a kind of 'pure' love, a positive energy that resides in the universe.

Well, that quote does speak of loving what one hates BEFORE loving what one loves, so that's what I took it to mean.

But not to beat this to death!

Actually I've been meaning to re-read this book, haven't got round to doing it yet. I've got copies of both those books, Gibran's Prophet, and The Book of Mirdad. Both these I started reading, found them evocative and beautiful, then started getting impatient, then jumped pages, then finally left aside, meaning to get back to reading them.

Good you brought this up here. I'll be away for a trip shortly, and I think it may be an idea to take both these along with me, and see if I can't actually enjoy reading them this time. (As opposed to simply thinking of them as books one ought to enjoy, as books that one probably will enjoy, but not as books that one has actually read and enjoyed, if you know what I mean.)

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Jim :

Can you imagine Brian Hines, David Lane, Spencer Tepper, me, or any of the others who openly post, using our real Names , openly post the stuff 777 posts and says, while claiming to be a Charan Initiate? And still preaching Sant Mat and Pimping Gurinder Singh? I wonder how many new Seekers he wins to RSSB?

No need to imagine. Your "whore master" comments here are clearly documented. You actually have gone out and poured malicious ridicule on a man whose personal marital details you managed to get your grubby hands on. In my book, that's far more heinous than simply linking to porn (not that I support the latter either).

Not only that, you've posted homophobic and racist comments here as well.

So no, while I cannot imagine Brian or David Lane or Spencer stooping to your level, it's documented fact that you yourself do stoop to these levels.

That’s what I mean about why I don’t take any thing seriously posted by any one posting as Snipers unwilling to post using their own names.

I may not agree with any of those using their own Names, but I will continue to respect their opinions, because , of all the reasons I posted to AP. Many trolls post under several diffierent Avatars, posting to each other, just to keep the Pot stirred.

Why should anyone care what you take seriously and what you don't? Why should anyone give a rat's ass what you respect and what you don't?

There's two types of people. People who're essentially decent, and people who're not. The former will behave decently, no matter what, irrespective of whether they use their own names online or not. And the latter will behave like right assholes irrespective of whether they use their own names online or not.

Surely your own conduct is enough evidence of this?

As for "trolling" : You seem to use that word a lot, as a sort of pejorative against those you disagree with. Do you even know what that word means?

It means, in the context of online posting, someone who's abusive, someone who bullies others, as well as someone who comments merely to get a rise out of others as opposed to actually discussing some issue.

The first two, abusive posting and bullying, are things I've myself caught you doing more than once.

And as for trolling, we have evidence of your trolling right here, on this thread. You ask me a great many questions ; despite recognizing their insincerity, I do you the courtesy of engaging with them ; and then you simply drop the subject without so much as a "by your leave". What is this conduct if not copybook trolling?

You, Jim, are guilty of abusive posting, of bullying people online, of doxxing people, and of trolling. You do all of this despite not posting anonymously. In any discussion board that had stricter rules than the laissez faire arrangement here at this blogsite, you'd be sure to find yourself either suspended or perhaps even banned.

And you -- you of all people -- have the nerve to pontificate about trolling and online etiquette! The irony of it!

You may not have the wits to follow the abstract arguments I had presented earlier, but I hope these personal allusions at least you will be able to recognize and understand.

God alone knows why I'm wasting my time with you now. But I have to say, your talents are wasted doing whatever it is you do. You'd be a godsend to Messrs Dunning and Kruger, they'd no doubt win the regular Nobel (as opposed to the parody prize) if only they'd had you with them assisting their research. Unpack that as you will, Einstein!

For the last time, for anyone who finds themselves thinking about the ethics of anonymous posting online, I'll direct them to my comment posted here on June 25, 2018 at 06:15 AM. And quite apart from the issue of respecting others' choices, I'd also like to point out something very important : there are plenty of people who'd be put to a great deal of unnecessary inconvenience, as well as, in some cases, actual danger, if their religious views were widely known. I'm not saying this last dramatic possibility applies to me, it doesn't, but still, this issue remains. Only someone wholly lacking in imagination and in even basic intelligence, or else wholly lacking in empathy and even basic concern for others, can fail to recognize this.

[Tim]

AP agree with you. But you forget that Jim also weares 69 and buts all the time in the head and thus blaming gurinder for so. 69 buts are on Jims mind constanly.....licky licky dem sicky...

[Tim]

Jim no offense i am troll just wanted to show you difference between troll and Apretiative reader which i think is nice person and not a troll.

[777]

In all this hypocrite turmoil
specially from a country where truth is replaced by D, C & N worde plus
a lot of bizarre flutes on TV, . . .

very nice was One Initiated
question, "who has seen :" dare I repeat ? OMG
meaning :
"Who, on this forum, has overcome somewhat the sex chakra charm?"

He could have exempted from questioning
the prostate sick
or otherwise damaged guys and the women above 50 / 60

The equivalent of "butt" and "69"

I had already many times said : Not me !

So happy that all my other chakras feel fine too

777

And Jim : Forget the subject if it's arousing so much, . . U might be the only man but not the only preacher on earth said Pope Francis

[manjit]

Dear Brian - first of all, please accept my apologies for posting off-topic comments in this thread (and in 1 other thread I plan to, at the moment anyway), but I am addressing a discussion that occurred here - perhaps it should have occurred in one of the comments threads, but apologies for that.

Dear Appreciative Reader - How are you Sir, I hope you are keeping well?! :) Well, where to start - perhaps at the fact I have been alerted to this comments thread by private email from someone. As I get older and the more I read comments on Radhasoami related blogs & forums, the less & less I am inclined to share my understanding as it all seems increasingly irrelevant and absurd. But I do feel I have to comment here on your "discussion" with Jim! I hope you can read the following in the spirit intended.....

You wrote "That is, I realize this is not so much a revulsion for things sexual per se, but a revulsion at any manner of juxtaposition of the "spiritual" with the sexual, especially when that is done by someone who is supposed to be a "Master".

Tell me, do you think you'd be just as outraged if GSD had joked about food, or about gluttony? If he'd joked about someone's attraction to an exquisitely prepared purely-vegan dish (as opposed to his joking about someone's attraction to certain sexual positions or certain bodily parts)?

If no, then why not?"

There is a lot of further comments between you both, so keeping all those comments and what was said in mind.....

I really think you are somewhat at a gross disadvantage when it comes to the full context of Jim's recent messages here, especially in response to 777's transparent "baiting" of Jim over the months, even when Jim himself isn't even posting here.

First of all, it is clear you are not overly familiar with the Radhasoami theology & history, either superficially (as most RS followers know it), or on a deeper level (which almost no RS followers are aware of). Would you agree?

A very basic, fundamental element of the RS theology is how profoundly opposite are the forces of lust and shabd (which is the essence of this entire religion/path). Where there is kam (lust), there can be no naam (sound current) is an extremely well know aphorism within RS circles (I believe, if not mistaken, originally uttered by Guru Nanak).

Further, historically, there has never been even the remotest, slightest hint of public (satsangs, Q&A, books, tapes etc) sexuality, flirting, innuendo etc by any previous RS guru......not the slightest whiff of it, anywhere.

Gurinder's behaviour is the very anti-thesis of Radhasoami dogma & theology, and the behaviour of every single previous RS master (you understand I am not including RS gurus such as Thakar who actually put his penis into unsuspecting women's mouths during initiation, which is a different sort of stunted sexuality!).

Whether or not you agree that sexuality is juxtaposed with spirituality or not is kind of irrelevant......it is within the theology of the organisation that Jim has followed for 30 years (that is his choice!).

There are plenty of RSSB followers who have criticised Jim for not blindly accepting what he knew was the dissonant behaviour of the supposed "Perfect Living Master" who has transcended all mortal concerns and is the sole possible saviour of infinite souls in infinite regions. As somebody who is not familiar with RS doctrine, you should at least be made aware of the possibility that this is in fact simply mindless apologism, excusing the behaviour - any behaviour - of the guy they've put on an impossible pedestal. That there is, in fact, absolutely zero integrity and honesty in such a view.

Some may claim/believe that Gurinder was doing some sort of magic-man teaching trick on the people in that satsang, perhaps just Jim or the other guy, but again that is mindless apologism that doesn't appear to relate in any way to reality. Why? Whilst Jim was out there in India, perhaps before this whole episode - Jim, if you're reading this, what date was this satsang? - I wrote a quick post on the RSS forum about PRECISELY this thing. Please understand, I had no idea about Jim's experience at the time.....

"They would hear their own dogmatic version of RS Mat if Gugu went on staged, burped three times, farted twice, then proceeded to read from 50 Shades of Grey. He, and I, have no doubt 95% of the sangat wouldn't even notice, and think they'd heard a template RS snoresang of the highest degree.

He's the consummate slippery politician in that sense (strange why he isn't so savvy with his somewhat creepy sexual comments during Q&As....I recall it made me slightly uneasy when I was full on devotee.....reading just one post from the recent Q&As posted, seeing the same sort of comments popping up SEVERAL times, just seems kind of creepy to me personally.......kam v nam? Damn inappropriate if you ask me, but to each their own?), will say anything, even if it fundamentally contradicts the core tenets of their faith/politics, if it reflects well on himself and the RSSB religion. Personally, I used to appreciate his non-judgemental attitude to other "paths"."

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/radhasoamistudies/conversations/messages/259201

And, to balance this out, a post clarifying my comments:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/radhasoamistudies/conversations/messages/259452

Now, this isn't a case of psychological sexual issues, but rather the integrity of the RS doctrine & cosmology itself. On a personal level, I really couldn't care less and even think Gurinder's attitude is refreshing in the sense he is, basically like "Osho Robbins" (my friend) says, totally overturning the entire RS belief mindset, at least in English (in Punjabi, it's the same old, medieval theology that prevails....he knows his audience! to hell with integrity!! :). Again, to clarify, personally, I think there is NO juxtaposition between sexuality & spirituality, and think there is place for even Osho type wildness & liberation in "spiritual path"

I notice 777 mentioned Rumi - YES, beautiful, amazing, a genuine mystic of the highest order! But he didn't follow Radhasoami teachings, even if they do cherry pick a tiny fraction of his quotes to support their own crystalised & stagnant theology and doctrines. On the other hand, reading Rumi directly is almost like reading a very long, beautiful & ecstatically rendered criticism of organisations precisely like RSSB! Honestly, you can't make it up! I suggest everybody read a translation of his Mathavi, or at the very least all the quotes here. This is not RS/SB doctrine, but a clear criticism thereof:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/875661.Jalaluddin_Mevlana_Rumi?page=1

So that's the context of RS and sexuality, and just why Gurinder's comments are so utterly incongruous with every past teacher and teaching in that tradition.

But even further, is the context of 777's constant and repeated baiting of Jim's "obsession with sex" - a clear and transparent case of psychological transference, if ever there was one! - even, I noticed, whilst Jim hasn't posted here for weeks or months! You will notice that this particular "discussion" occurred when 777 AGAIN, completely out of any purpose or context, mentioned Jim's alleged obsession with sex again?

Let's look at Jim - a guy who's been posting for 2 decades on this & the RSS forum, has been involved in RS for 30 years, and had a personal blog directing "seekers" to RSSB for the real deal when it comes to spirtituality, and somebody who's claimed without any hesitation or deviation that Gurinder is the "Perfect Living Masrer" of the entire universe. After all that, I think he is entitled to his complete shock and disenchantment with the guru due to his own experiences, and that he is entitled to share that here or anywhere else as much as he likes. He is certainly entitled to respond to those who keep baiting him about it behind their anonymous user IDs.

On the other hand - I personally agree with your suggestion he and we all should be far more circumspect with our proselytising. That applies to every single poster here - and the blog owner himself......who apparently has re-released a book he does not believe in any more and is in fact critical of the views within it every other day on this blog. Jim, on the other hand, deleted all his blog entries praising Gurinder after his experience. I guess we all have different levels of integrity within ourselves. Personally, I find Jim's actions more honorable in this instance than Brian's, but to each their own. Neither of them, or indeed any other poster here, might have know what they were talking about back then (or, indeed, now :), but it's the integrity and sincerity with which you believe and follow what you're saying that is telling.

Finally, personally I find the real long-lasting value of this blog and the RSS forum is twofold. They are the ONLY 2 places, worldwide, where people can share critical opinions, experiences and theories about RS. That is an immensely valuable & precious space to have (for potential reasons that I suspect are too subtle to explain here) - and for that I bow to both Brian Hines & David Lane (and current RSS mod. James Bean) from my heart. They have done a tremendous "seva" (not to a specific guru or group, but to the universe itself, which is real "seva" imo). Secondly, it gives a space to those disaffected or disenchanted with RSS to meet and discuss with like minded individuals. Again, on a purely psychological level, that is a breath-takingly beautiful space to have.

And, again, there are only TWO places worldwide that can occur. Beautiful Thank you Brian Hines & David Lane for being the wild frontier men (or women) we needed!

As for the RS doctrine and dogma that gets mindlessly regurgitated around here, as somebody who does not appear to be overly familiar with RS doctrine, you should consider that not once have I ever read or heard anything, a single insight, experience, piece of knowledge or information by any RS apologist, here or at the RSS forum, that isn't either explicitly stated or subtly implied in bog-standard RS dogma. There is literally not a single idea or insight that I, for example, hadn't thought about myself at the age of say 15. That also includes every single satsang I've heard subsequently, and eloquent speakers like Ishwar Puri. It's the same old same old same old, impressing those who simply haven't thought about these things themselves (ie. lack experience, knowledge & understanding). I am fairly confident if I had the programming ability, I could program a computer to deliver a satsang of what would be considered staggering beauty and insight into the truth of the RS paradigm. It really isn't that complicated to "get".

None of that - imo - is of any value. It can be picked up and understood in any of the thousands & thousands of books, satsangs, RS chat groups, tapes etc from any of the hundreds of people claiming to be one true "Perfect Living RS Master" of the universe. They are merely "foils" for the two points I mentioned above I believe is the real value of this space.

In view of which - Jim - carry on buddy!

All the best Appreciative Reader :)

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Manjit : How are you Sir, I hope you are keeping well?! :) Well, where to start - perhaps at the fact I have been alerted to this comments thread by private email from someone. (…) But I do feel I have to comment here on your "discussion" with Jim! I hope you can read the following in the spirit intended.....

Dear Manjit,

Always a pleasure to hear from you (and also to read your comments here even when they’re not necessarily addressed to me personally). I’ve always found what you say to be hugely informative, with a whole wealth of both erudition and first-hand experience, always tempered with sound reasoning. Albeit I may not necessarily always agree with you -- as here -- but when two reasonable people disagree, and air their disagreement, I think they both come away the richer from that exercise.

I’m a bit surprised that you’ve taken so much trouble defending what’s clearly (at least as it appears to me) not worth all of this effort from you. Perhaps you’ve misunderstood the basic “issue”? My issue is not with Jim’s non-acceptance of GSD’s Guru-dom -- I personally couldn’t care less about either what Jim does with his personal life, or about whether GSD’s Gurudom thrives or disintegrates -- but with the man’s (I mean Jim’s) conduct. On many occasions I have found his obnoxiousness, his bigotry, his offensiveness, his personal nastiness (not directed at me personally, but still) objectionable, and there are times (as here) when I’ve spoken out against it, always taking care to clearly present evidence of what I’m saying. My questioning him about the sex issue (which he himself keeps bringing up here) was separate from the “issue” -- that latter snowballed later, basis the man’s response to me -- and as for that original question, I thank you, Manjit, for taking the trouble to discuss it. That issue is far better addressed by someone like you, as opposed to Jim who, so far as I can see, isn’t the best candidate if a reasonable discussion is what one is looking for, and nor, I would say, is he the best candidate from whom to expect a civil engagement in the face of disagreement.

Two wholly separate things, these two, the sex question, and the subsequent somewhat heated “discussion”. Your stepping in on to the discussion about sex I welcome. Your stepping in to defend Jim’s conduct, on the other hand, you may perhaps want to reconsider (in as much as I believe it may have been based on insufficient information).

And Manjit, pardon this ridiculously long time I’ve taken to log back in here to my favorite blog, and to read and respond to you! Been traveling -- still am, in fact, with a brief stopover back home at this time -- and I’m not a big fan of either multitasking or of phones, other than to the extent strictly necessary.

Quote: A very basic, fundamental element of the RS theology is how profoundly opposite are the forces of lust and shabd (which is the essence of this entire religion/path). Where there is kam (lust), there can be no naam (sound current) is an extremely well know aphorism within RS circles (I believe, if not mistaken, originally uttered by Guru Nanak).

You’re right, my understanding of RSSB philosophy isn’t particularly deep, merely things I’ve happened to have picked up here, as well as some stuff that I’ve then been inspired to go ahead and read. But still, generally speaking -- that is, looking at how this generally applies to spirituality in general -- this is my understanding about this business :

You have your …call it attention …you have attention flowing two ways, inwards and out. …And before I go on, please consider words like “supposedly” and “apparently” and “allegedly” stuck on to what I said at the appropriate places, because frankly I take all of this with a pinch of salt, even as I myself practice all of this. That is, I think it is very possible that all of this is nothing but hokum, pure and simple. On the other hand, I do at least admit of the possibility of their being true in some way, at least in part, and hence my practice.

…I was saying, you have your attention flowing two ways, inwards and out. What lust represents is this outward flow. But it isn’t the only thing that gets your attention to flow outwards, in (my understanding of) spiritual terminology it is merely as a shorthand representation of that larger outward impulse. And indeed, it (sexual lust) is itself the best example of this outward flow, because with many/most people, this is probably the single strongest outward impulse (given that most people at most times aren’t literally starved of food and water). What your “kam” would (broadly) refer to is this attraction to things of the world (as opposed to specifically sexual attraction itself). So that your perfectly “innocent” (that is, non-sexual) attraction to a pet animal, or to a child, or a (purely platonic) friend, or to some ideas or some ideology, or to food and drink and the good life, to anything at all, in fact simply your general ‘lust for life’, is (or can be) just as addictive as, just as much an impediment to the spiritual endeavor, and therefore in this sense exactly equivalent to, actual literal lust, sexual lust.

There are two qualifications to this blanket statement. Qualifcation 1 : It is a question of your approach to these things. Your attachment with some idea or person, given the context, may be ‘neutral’ or even, in this sense, ‘spiritually uplifiting’. But then that applies both ways, and this can be said of sex as well.

Qualification 2 : In some ways, the sex impulse does stand out, so that many traditions, not just RSSB, insist on celibacy, without necessarily insisting on a similar proscription from food, for example. On the other hand, as against this, there are traditions that directly make use of the sexual impulse specifically, directly in the process of the spiritual endeavor ; as well as traditions that, at certain times, brings up similar proscriptions on all kinds of things, including food (not just some kinds of food but also, at times and in specific instances, food in general).

So well, I’m afraid I don’t quite agree with the direct equivalence you draw with “kam” and (sexual) lust -- in this particular context, I mean -- irrespective of what might be the literal, etymological meaning of the word “kam”. Generally speaking, I mean.

Perhaps we agree thus far?

Of course, I realize that you were not “generally speaking”, in you comment there. You were speaking not of spirituality in general, but specifically of RSSB doctrine. And of course, if you insist, even now, and after carefully considering my specific objection (to the fixation on sex per se) on general terms (that is, in terms of spirituality in general), that RSSB proscribes exclusively and especially the sexual kind of lust -- unlike with spirituality in general, and wholly differently from how RSSB treats a general engagement with the outer world -- then sure, lacking your intimate knowledge of RSSB theology, I’ll defer to your considered view.

And yes, this discussion that we’re now having, you and I, that is exactly what I was looking for when I originally asked my question to Jim about his fixation with sex. Like I said, I realize I’d asked the wrong question of the wrong man. You can hardly expect an ass to hold up their end of a cogently argued and reasonable discussion, or an asshole to put up a courteously expressed disagreement. It was stupid of me to ask Jim that question -- I realize in retrospect -- and stupider still to imagine that he might be capable of addressing it.

Quote: Thakar who actually put his [bleep] into unsuspecting [bleep]'s [bleep] during initiation

WTF, Manjit?! Are you sure you have your facts right? Are you sure this isn’t hearsay? How do you know this, exactly, what you’re relating here? This sounds like sleazy slander to me, frankly.

But if true -- and of course, there’s no dearth of perverts who abuse their flock’s blind religious faith, starting from the cliche (unfortunately a cliche based on truth) of child-molesting pedophile Catholic priests and going on to all manner of sexually adventurous godmen -- then has the man, this Thakar of yours, been brought to book? Is he even alive now, this man? If true, this creep deserves to be thrown in prison, and worse.

But if not demonstrably true, perhaps this kind of salacious slander is best avoided?

Quote: There are plenty of RSSB followers who have criticised Jim for not blindly accepting what he knew was the dissonant behaviour of the supposed "Perfect Living Master" who has transcended all mortal concerns and is the sole possible saviour of infinite souls in infinite regions.

I understand. As you can imagine, I have no objections to Jim’s personal adherence to individual ideologies, neither when he rejects GSD, nor if he were perchance to become a card-holding Scientologist tomorrow. His personal beliefs are no business of mine. But yes, in as much as he chooses to air these here, I am interested in examining some elements of what might have led him to them (without, in any way, taking away from his right to hold on to any kind of nonsensical belief, or adherence to Gurus, or a turning away from specific Gurus, as might take his fancy).

And yes, this I do have to say : it does take courage to turn back on a lifetime’s belief system. Jim seems to have done that twice. First in rejecting his nonsensical Christian beliefs, that he for some curious reason that I cannot begin to fathom he had seemed to have been “called on” to “preach” from atop the ridiculous pulpits his Church no doubt extended to him, and that he wasted God alone knows how many years of his life on ; and next his absurd RSSB fixation. Without going into the reasonableness of the general merits or demerits of either specific decision, that courage to so dramatically change his deeply held views, that I do applaud.

Quote: this is in fact simply mindless apologism, excusing the behaviour - any behaviour - of the guy they've put on an impossible pedestal. That there is, in fact, absolutely zero integrity and honesty in such a view.

Sure. Those whose thinking is trapped in blind faith tend to do that. I agree, such mindless thinking is often bereft of any real sense.

Is it necessarily also lacking in integrity? That would depend on the specific view held and discussed by specific individuals. After all, it is possible to honestly hold on to some mistaken view. That would be an error in reasoning, not a lack in integrity per se.

But again, I do agree with you in general when that to refuse to change one’s view after it is clearly been shown to be wanting, that does generally bespeak a lack of integrity.

Quote: "Osho Robbins" (my friend)

And are you comfortable with the shocking behavior meted out to your friend by this obnoxious individual we’re now discussing?

I refer to his blatantly discourteous attacks against your friend in the original thread I’ve already referred to here, and his subsequent attempts at doxxing him. To speak nothing of, later on, ridiculing your friend’s unfortunate private life incidents, and repeatedly referring to him as a “whore master” simply because the man’s had to go through a rough divorce? Actually Jim’s so stupid and his insults so absurdly worded that it’s difficult to properly even take offence at what he says : they come out sounding far more hilarious than actually offensive. But the meanness of spirit and the total lack of empathy and basic decency, that lie behind those unintentionally buffoonish pronouncements, are too blatant to miss. And in this instance, it was I who’d asked your friend certain questions, and it was in response to me that your friend had discussed certain personal life incidents of his. So that I myself felt partly responsible when Jim chose, without provocation, to publicly ridicule him here basis this personal information about your friend that he’d happened to get his grubby paws on.

I find Jim’s conduct reprehensible simply on general principles. Given that “Osho Robbins” is your friend, I am surprised that you do not share my outrage. I’d have expected that you would, if anything, feel even more strongly about this than I myself do.

Quote: he is entitled to share that here or anywhere else as much as he likes. He is certainly entitled to respond to those who keep baiting him about it behind their anonymous user IDs.

First and foremost, let’s get one obvious fact out of the way. Of course Jim is entitled to share what he wishes, and of course he is fully entitled to respond to people. No one is attempting to take that away from him.

But what, I ask you, has the anonymity or otherwise of his interlocutors got to do with this?

You seem to fallen prey yourself to that man’s unending repetition of his mindless argument. Which goes to show how even a highly intelligent and reasonable person can, sometimes, be taken in by and made to buy into the spurious and flawed arguments someone who is in every way far inferior to him in both intellect and expression.

This is a recurring motif of Jim’s, his objection to anonymous posting.

Sure, anonymous posting has its drawbacks, and is sometimes abused. I’ve addressed this at length to him earlier (in that thread where I first came out in defense of your friend, and against this obnoxious individual we’re now discussing). Have you read that post of mine? I’ve reproduced (in copypasta form) part of this argument here in this thread as well. If you wish, we could go into it in detail. Although perhaps you’re already in agreement with me, seeing you yourself choose to post anonymously here?

There’s many reasons why people post anonymously. True, sometimes part of that reason is to facilitate abuse. But online abuse is not exclusive to anonymous posting, as Jim himself so beautifully exemplifies here to us through his own conduct. And only someone wholly lacking in intelligence (or else someone over-abundantly equipped with low cunning and disingenuousness) would make that argument, that he keeps making, linking sock-puppetry with anonymity per se.

The point is, this anonymity business is an out and out non sequitur. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue. Jim’s spurious argument goes something like this : my interlocutor is anonymous, ergo he’s a troll, ergo his arguments are false. That’s so magnificently convoluted, that argument, that it could only have come out of an intellect as magnificently twisted as Jim’s. It starts with a non sequitur, moves on its way with cringe-makingly flawed reasoning, to end up at a spectacular ad hominem argument/conclusion.

To be clear -- and as I had clearly mentioned right at the get go -- I'm not taking sides in this discussion between Jim and whoever he’s discussing whatever with. But in the context of this thread, for someone like Jim -- who is demonstrably and literally a troll (not always, obviously, but definitely so in some of his comments), who is demonstrably an online bully, who is demonstrably a racist and a homophobe, who demonstrably engages in abusive online posting, for someone like him to accuse others of trolling (via some absurdly convoluted and blatantly flawed ad hominem arguments), that’s an irony that I couldn’t pass up highlighting!

Quote: In view of which - Jim - carry on buddy!

Well, of course! I agree that Jim does have many things to say that are of interest to people here, including to me, and that are very relevant in a blog like this. And this blog of Brian’s, that I so love reading, is richer for the comments posted here by commenters, including Jim. Sure, I join my voice with yours in asking him to keep on participating here! (Not that he needs either my permission, or yours -- nor even our approval -- to do that!)

But he mustn’t expect his obnoxiousness and his trolling to go unremarked. One hates to soil one’s hands with this level of discussion, but it sometimes becomes necessary to put your own hands in dirt in order to clean up your environment. In many forums this cleaning-up exercise is carried on by moderators specifically appointed, or, in smaller outfits, by the blog owner themselves. But it is Brian’s choice to conduct his blog along more laissez faire lines, so that it is we ourselves who must clean up the filth we see around us (or else we must reconcile ourselves to living with this filth around us). Much as I hate doing this sort of thing and wasting my time by entering into “discussions” of this nature, I most certainly don’t regret doing this here in this thread, and nor will I stop from doing this in future, if this gentleman we’re now discussing does not choose to mend his ways.

Quote: All the best Appreciative Reader :)

And to you, Sir! :-) Like I said, always a pleasure, Manjit, hearing from you!

This unfortunate discussion of ours isn’t exactly scaling the peaks of philosophic thought -- in fact as close to the exact opposite as physically possible, which is appropriate enough I suppose, given the individual we happen to be discussing here! -- but absolutely, anything you might have to say to what I’ve pointed out here, I’ll be happy to engage with. Pardon me if that engagement happens to be a bit erratic, given that I’m traveling (and abhor the compulsive tap-tap-tapping away at one’s phone that others seem comfortable enough with), but I’ve bookmarked the thread, and I’ll be sure to look in here at this thread whenever I log in to this site.

[manjit]

Hi Appreciative Reader (henceforth AR!)...hope you are enjoying your travels, wherever and for whichever purpose they may be! :)

Thanks for your, as usual, thoughtful, considered, very civilly and eloquently written thoughts. Though, as you yourself hinted at, I'm not sure to what degree this old conversation is worth either of our times and considerations, ha!? I'll respond to some of your points & questions, hopefully very briefly:

1) Kam - it is not, imo, a question of "my" equation of "Kam" with the "sexual impulse" rather than a more "generalised lust for sensual pleasure", but rather the RS doctrine, and the sources it relies on, of THEIR clear, repeated & explicit association of "kam" with "sexual lust". I hope that clarifies for you? It is difficult to prove this without providing dozens of quotes (which I'm not going to bore myself by doing :), but anyone with a familiarity of all the RSSB official books will know them, and know them very well.....

Again, this is NOT my personal philosophy or way of looking at life. I prefer the far more sensual tantra of a Rumi, or the Kashmiri Shaivists (as written about beautifully by Daniel Odier, for instance).

Hence the apparent discrepancy with Gurinder's behaviour.....incongruous with that of ALL previous respected RS "Satgurus", including his own, Charan Singh. These are not mere claims, but self-evidential to anyone with some deep familiarity of RS and it's gurus.

Again, to highlight, I am NOT judging Gurinder's behaviour or attitude to sex (I actually find it refreshing :), but pointing out the dissonance with his mythical and theological position within a conceptual framework that he is supposed to represent and personify. I can understand the confusion of Jim, and others.....

2) You write: "Quote Manjit: Thakar who actually put his [bleep] into unsuspecting [bleep]'s [bleep] during initiation

WTF, Manjit?! Are you sure you have your facts right? Are you sure this isn’t hearsay? How do you know this, exactly, what you’re relating here? This sounds like sleazy slander to me, frankly."

Well, again, this is difficult to discuss with somebody not familiar with the well known & long "story" about Thakar Singh....I assume either familiarity on everyone's part, or the attempt to research it themself, before they question something here from semi-anonymous posters like me! :)

David Lane has written exhaustively on the subject, as well as posted hundreds of posts on the RSS forum to those associated with Thakar who attempted to defend him. Multiple claims from different, unconnected people, and a subsequent official statement released by Thakar's organisation, written in the face of an over-whelming body of evidence, more or less settles the matter. I recommend you search out that ridiculous and self-serving letter of self-defence, which if read in the context of RS dogma, is absurd and laughable. As an intelligent fellow, I'm sure you'll be able to read between the lines of delusion to see the admittance of some form of guilt....

3) You write: "Quote Manjit: "Osho Robbins" (my friend)

And are you comfortable with the shocking behavior meted out to your friend by this obnoxious individual we’re now discussing?"

Ahhh, I see! :) Oh my, I really don't know how to address that, but it's making me smile :)

I'm not sure, entirely, though I may have seen some of the comments, that Jim made to "Osho Robbins"....

Yes, I know Osho R personally, and he has played a very important, integral part in my own "awakening".

And, knowing Osho R to some little extent, I tend to suspect that he was utterly unconcerned and unaffected by ANY of Jim's comments towards him and his person (ego)! I don't mean that he forgives him, or puts up with them etc, but that he probably barely even noticed them, or even found them amusing!? I would be interested to see if he reacted any differently, genuinely......are you able to point out a post by "Osho R" that shows him being genuinely offended in any way *personally*, I am curious now?!

In that regard, I am like "Osho R".....actually, a few of the people I'm still in contact with (or was for a while) privately on forums like this & RSS, some of those I have got to know more closely than others, started off by abusing me personally, often extremely profanely (Jim is not a great fan of one of these infamous RSS people, no names mentioned! :)......I think when we come to spaces like these, SOME of us notice the importance & significance of the subject matter transcends our little "selves", and really couldn't care in the slightest about personal abuse....indeed expect it from certain quarters....;)

Look, I know because some people are not easily offended, that that excuses offensive behaviour. I think Jim knows I will "call him out" (and have done in the past :) for behaviour or attitudes I think are questionable (though others often agree with it vehemently!), but I don't think that is what this particular discussion is about. Also, I have a personal tendency to notice more the "love" that lies behind all the bluster, in all human beings.....so who cares if someone is abusive here or there! Aren't we all ass-holes more rather than less of the time? I certainly am without doubt, life's a bitch and it can wear you down!

You ask: "But what, I ask you, has the anonymity or otherwise of his interlocutors got to do with this?"

I think you misunderstand the context as I implied it......being a semi-anonymous poster myself, I fully understand the numerous reasons why people choose, or have to, remain anonymous. Of course I do! But, the full context of Jim recounting his story, after 20 years of posting pro-RSSB material, sharing his full name, life story etc.....to then be accosted with DOZENS of "one-liner" jokes, criticisms, mockery, repeated insinuations from numerous anonymous user-IDS with no context or history or even hello provided of their own.......often, as in 777's example, baiting him repeatedly when he had left the forum in disgust......I don't personally find Jim to be the "villain" in this story, so much? And, I can empathise with his criticisms of all those "numerous" anonymous hit & run posts. If you don't agree, that's fine, I just felt compelled to share my opinion! :)

At the end of the day, as Jim said his dad was fond of saying (and worthy of any Satguru), I think our collective situation can best be summed up by: What fools we mortals be.

I think this one's gone on long enough, ey AR? :) Quite right about not scaling the philosophical heights haha....

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments & questions, good to keep me on my toes.

Cheers & happy travels!

Manjit

[Jim Sutherland]

Hi All,......

I just would like to share a few of my personal reasons, to ckear the Air, why I don’t pay much attention, or waste much time responding to Anonomous posters using pseudo Avatars.

1) They usually take the liberty to become abusive, and use foul language, along with Ad hominum attacks, when I challenge their comments.

2) if they get too abusive, some times close to being slanderous, or committing liable against me, or my family, .......well let’s just say I have ZERO respect for Snipers, who shoot from Snake pits, and then slither away hissing venom , knowing their Victim will never find their snake basket to charm them out of with any Flute.

3) Comments by Pseudos Knee jerkers can never be taken back, because Words are Weapons, or Healing Balm. When used as weapons, once released from the Sniper’s nest, they can not be taken back. The wounds may heal, with time, if not fatal, but the scars will eternally remain. Same applies to the Words of Healing Balm. So, Posters not afraid to use their real names, rarely are Snipers.

4) when I choose to communicate with ANY poster, I choose my words wisely, depending on any thing I know about the Poster, such as....
a) Age group, because my patents taught me to respect my Elders, which I still try to do, if I find any older than me that are still slive, and not senile! :-). (777?)
b) Indians, and most Asian Nationalities respect their Elders far more than Westeners do, with American Youth presently having little, or no respect for their Elders, so, is why I like to at least like to know the Nationslity, and age group I am communicating with.
c) It is not unfair to at least, know a little back ground on the anonomous poster, in order to know, or choose to push, or not push the usual Hot Buttons that each group is known to possess, by knowledgeable posters, old enough to have encountered most groups, during my life.
d) the Poster might be either suffering, physically, and needing healing or encouragement, or,....they could be pot stirring Trolls with an axe to grind unrelated at all, to the Poster, but must looking for an Out House to take a dump in.
e) not only have I always provided my own Name on forums I chose to post on, but I provide my private email, inviting personsl contact, even inviting real posters to my Facebook site!
f) Snipers who shoot, knee jerk, then take cover and hide, obviously have stuff to hide, that might be, not only embarrassing, or even illegal.
g) knowing if posters are male or female , also makes a difference on how I might respond to comments
h) Snipers might not like my comments, or my tone of delivery, but I stand by what I post, and You will be hard pressed to dig up any dirt on me. I used to really worry about my Employers or Clients stumbling on to my being slandered by Snipers on the forums I have posted on the last 20 years, but since I retired in 2010, I no longer worry about any one seeing any thing I write, because I stand by every thing I post, and have no problem at all, of apologizing to any one I have incorrectly made derogatory comments about,.......once I KNOW who they are, and is not just a Robot Clone.

Regards,
Jim Sutherland

[Jen]

Jim, I very much appreciate your comments and thanks for revealing what Gurinder has said in satsang at the Dera. Maybe some satsangis have forgotten the basics that we oldies were taught, the five deadly sins: Lust, Anger, Attachment, Greed and Ego.

Okay, none of us are perfect but for the supposedly God in Human Form (Gurinder) to make remarks that I for one, find disgusting, and totally off-putting.

So thanks Jim, keep on keeping on :)

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Manjit : hope you are enjoying your travels, wherever and for whichever purpose they may be!

Protracted terminal-stage treatment of a loved one, that required my very close involvement, and necessitated protracted hospitalization as well as travel in order to be able to provide optimum treatment. Followed by, starting a couple days from now, some extended work-related travel that I’ve been putting off for far too long, and can put off no more. So not much scope for enjoyment there, neither in the recent past, nor in the immediate future.

On the other hand, this very thread started out with Brian’s post about that lovely Zen story (it’s actually from one of the original Suttas, and finds mention in Theravadin literature as well). We’re always hanging on that vine, always a hair-breadth away from pain and annihilation, irrespective of whether our arms ache from holding on to the vine or not, and irrespective of whether the tiger’s roars deafen us and dull our appreciation of the strawberry near us, or our appreciation of one another’s company. So perhaps it is short-sighted to fixate on external circumstance, no matter how unpalatable, as precursor for “enjoyment”?

Quote: the RS doctrine, and the sources it relies on, of THEIR clear, repeated & explicit association of "kam" with "sexual lust"

Right, I’ll take your word for it, then, that RSSB equates “kam” specifically with the sex instinct, and puts sexual indulgence on a whole different level than, say, gluttony, or greed for wealth and power.

This seems very counter-intuitive to me. Not just because of my understanding of how this works in general -- because after all, at the end of the day, there is no “general” at all, only specifics, and the “general” is no more than an aggregate of individual specifics, so that the “general” is as much a piece of fiction as is the “average” so beloved of statisticisans -- but also because, in the many posts and comments around RSSB here in this blog itself, I’ve never really seen sex (that is, abstinence from sex, or even temperance in sex) sex given the kind of importance that meditation is, or even one’s food habits are, in the RSSB context I mean. You follow what I’m saying? Still, if you insist that that is how it is, if you insist that RSSB places sexual abstinence/temperance at a level far higher than say, temperance in matters of gluttony/food, or greed for wealth and/or power, et cetera, well then I’ll take your word for it.

Even then, I still cannot see this fixation on a mere joke as anything other than the ridiculous over-reaction from a not particularly insightful source. But still, if as you say RSSB does specifically focus on sexual “purity” with especial emphasis, and very differently than how it might focus on, say, a wayward initiate tucking into a steak or knocking back a couple of beers, then sure, I agree that literal-minded sheeple, who are used to blindly and unquestioningly following instructions from above as opposed to applying their own mind, might end up getting confused when those instructions from above seem contradictory ; and, when that confusion becomes overwhelming, they may well end up leaving the fold in disgust.

I guess what I’m saying is that I suppose Jim did the right thing by freeing himself from the yoke of GSD. But there’s such a thing as doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, eh?

Quote: Multiple claims from different, unconnected people, and a subsequent official statement released by Thakar's organisation, written in the face of an over-whelming body of evidence, more or less settles the matter.

So, probably more than just plain gossip and rumor. Probably true. OK. Again, I’ll take your word for it. (I have no desire to “research” this creep’s proclivities, thanks much!)

In that case, I hope this sleazeball has got what’s coming to him. A stiff prison sentence, at the very least!

But thing is, I remember reading here itself, on this here blog of Brian’s, that apparently this man’s initiations would tend to be very dramatic, in that the initiates would feel, at first hand, some kind of spiritual current flowing up when he touched them right at the time of initiation. [ Not with his bleep in their bleep, but with his hand on their forehead :-) ]. I don’t remember who’d said this, this thing about the electric current flowing to their forehead at this touch, but I do remember reading this sort of thing more than once about this man Thakar.

So what, then, I wonder? Wholly misled and weirdly delusional devotees of a fraudster who’s a pervert in the bargain? Or a pure-as-driven-snow but successfully slandered godman? Or a combination of the two : that is, someone with certain unusual powers, but who nevertheless is a creep and a perv? Or what?

Quote: are you able to point out a post by "Osho R" that shows him being genuinely offended in any way *personally*, I am curious now?!

No, I cannot. In fact, I’m pretty sure he did not actually speak up then, at least not within the week or so following Jim’s dissing him out. (I may not necessarily have noticed if he did speak up after that, after a week or two from then.)

I’m fairly sure of this, of his not having spoken up in the days immediately following Jim’s unprovoked attack on him, because while I was myself both outraged and offended, on Osho Robbins’s behalf (and on general principles), at Jim’s callous ridiculing of this man’s personal misfortune, nevertheless I held my peace for a while, because I generally try to avoid personalities and personal comments. When I found that Osho Robbins -- who generally is well able to speak up for himself -- did not, in fact, stand up for himself in this instance, I attributed it to an unwillingness on his part to further lower himself to that man’s level. You know how it is : one sometimes withdraws when one is personally attacked, even as one fights on merrily when standing up for things impersonal, that is, for things not directly related to one. That is what I’d attributed his reticence to. It was Jim’s relentless asshattery, coupled with Osho Robbins’s silence in the face of personal insult, that egged me on to stand up for him then.

But you’re right, it could well be that Osho Robbins has actually gone beyond his ego (whatever that might mean!), and no longer cares if people insult him or disparage him. I notice that he no longer comments here, not since then. But sure, perhaps you’re right, after all you probably know your friend far better than I -- who've never even met him -- do.

However, even granting you that, this does not excuse Jim’s conduct in any way, does it now?

Quote: who cares if someone is abusive here or there! Aren't we all ass-holes more rather than less of the time?

I do. I care. I haven’t transcended my ego myself, I assure you, and nor am I even sure that there is such a thing as transcending one’s ego ; and while I’m an ordinary enough person in every which way, nevertheless I do possess that minimal human empathy that makes me care when someone’s personal life is callously belittled and publically ridiculed for no good reason. I generally don’t speak up like this, after all no one likes a fuss. But sometimes one is compelled by one’s disgust at egregious asshattery to overcome that intrinsic and deep-seated reluctance, and to speak up.

True, we are all asshats in some way or form. I no less than anyone else. I agree with you fully. But that doesn’t mean it is right to give a free pass to callous insensitive asshats to do what they want, unopposed.

I can see you’re channeling here that hoary old “let him cast the first stone who’s without sin” thing from the good book, but I’ve always found that particular feel-good sentiment, like most cliches, a bit wanting on closer inspection. We think Jesus’s insight was wise precisely because the “crime” in question was so innocuous, by our standards, and also because the sentence the defendant was faced with was, in contrast with her transgression, so very barbaric and so very extreme. Had Harvey Weinstein been up there before Jesus instead of that adulteress, and if the punishment that he were threatened with by the crowd was simply to apologize to his victims and perhaps put in a few months’ community service (as opposed to being stoned to death), and if in that situation Jesus had let loose that “let only those criticize this fat ugly man in the shiny suit up here before us, only those who’re wholly blameless themselves in terms of having propositioned and harrassed unwilling ladies” gem of his, followed by that other pious-sounding gem that would go something like “Go then, Harvey, go merrily scot-free, and rape no more”, then I’ll wager we’d not have found his words particularly moving, nor at all insightful, eh?

Jim’s a serial online bully. Clearly and demonstrably so. (Perhaps he’s that IRL as well, or not, I wouldn’t know : but there’s no doubt that an online bully and online troll is exactly what he is.) I’m not slandering the man when I say this, I’m perfectly able to quote chapter and verse from this here blog itself to back that up in full. And we’re not proposing to stone him for it, only to call him out on it. The most that one wants and expects is that he recognize the vileness of his past conduct, and that he desist from it in future, that’s all. Perhaps, at the very most, an apology from him to one he’s injured. That’s all! Given that, I see no reason to give the man a free pass. Far from “sinning no more”, that -- giving him a free pass repeatedly -- would only embolden him to continue with his reprehensive online posting habits and his online abuse.

Quote: What fools we mortals be.

Jim’s dad was right on the ball on that one! Not just fools, but puffed up self-important and self-indulgent fools! Or at least, in this case, fool, singular! *Insert rueful-smile emoji!*

[Don’t worry, Jim, in case you’re reading this, that last bit there, your old dad’s words I mean, I’m applying them not to you but to me! :-) ]

.

WTF, Manjit! I hate officiousness of this kind, I absolutely abhor this whole taking-offense-on-another’s-behalf routine! I absolutely hate this ridiculous personal squabble I somehow -- God knows how! -- find myself in the midst of!
On the other hand, wouldn’t you stand up for someone you saw getting roughed up on the street? Wouldn’t you stand up for a kid you saw being bullied by a bigger kid? Wouldn’t you want to stop egregious bullying and abuse at some place you like to frequent, even when the subject of this abuse was someone other than you?

Tell you what! Osho Robbins is your friend, after all, right? Since you’ve taken all of this trouble already over this, would you take the further trouble of intimating him about this thread? After that he can do what he pleases about this or not. After all, he’s eloquent enough, probably more so than I am, and he's able enough to speak for himself if he so chooses.

Off I go to earn my keep in a couple days time, off on a protracted work-related trip, and after today, after having responded to that comment Jim’s posted there, I’ll stop involving myself with this, irrespective of whether Osho Robbins does anything about this. Bygones be bygones, as far as I am concerned, after this. Unless friend Jim takes again, in future, to his favorite sport of online bullying and online abuse. Fair?

[Appreciative Reader]

.

Quote Jim :

I just would like to share a few of my personal reasons, to ckear the Air

Oh no, you don’t. You aren’t trying to “clear the air” at all there, are you? You’re just trying one last time to defend the indefensible. And never fear, I’m not letting you weasel your way out of this as easily as that!

Quote: 1) They usually take the liberty to become abusive, and use foul language, along with Ad hominum attacks, when I challenge their comments.

My dear fellow, do you realize you’re simply describing, here, your own behavior, your own online posting habits?

It is you yourself who “take the liberty to become abusive, and use aggressive language, along with ad hominem attackes, when (others) challenge (your) comments”. That’s you, down to a T. Challenge me, I dare you, Jim, and I’ll quote chapter and verse to back up everything I say here!

That you do this yourself, and that you do this despite not posting anonymously, do you see how that squashes your argument right there? For smoother texture to this resultant goop, via additional squashing of your argument, I point to anonymous posters here like Dungeness, and tucson, and our Manjit, who are always civil, always courteous, never personally offensive, never personally abusive, never personally combative. Which is more than one can say about you.

As for your repeated use of terms like “trolling” and “ad hominem attacks”, in this case specifically your claim that anonymous posters tend to use ad homs on you : “You keep using that term (ad hom), but I don’t think it means what you think it means!” :-) [To paraphrase that wise old Sanskrit text, that has been translated into ancient Aramaic, and then into Arabic, and now, finally, found its way, translated into English, into GoT -- if you’ll permit me my bad joke, strictly within these parentheses!]

It is you yourself who’ve been using ad hom arguments against others, right here on this thread.

Do you appreciate the irony of someone like you accusing others of attacking you with ad hom arguments?

Quote: 2) if they get too abusive, some times close to being slanderous, or committing liable against me, or my family, .......well let’s just say I have ZERO respect for Snipers,

Ah, nice! Given this sweet sensitivity of yours, I wonder then that you are able to countenance abusive behavior from yourself, often “coming close to being slanderous”?! And given that you seem to give your respect only to those who do not slander others’ family life and personal situation, then I suppose, if you aren’t a total hypocrite, that you have ZERO respect for yourself as well?

Quote: 3) Comments by Pseudos Knee jerkers can never be taken back, because Words are Weapons, or Healing Balm. When used as weapons, once released from the Sniper’s nest, they can not be taken back. The wounds may heal, with time, if not fatal, but the scars will eternally remain. Same applies to the Words of Healing Balm. So, Posters not afraid to use their real names, rarely are Snipers.

With this deep wise knowledge that you seem to have about the power of words, how is it that you are able to so freely and so callously pour abuse and personal ridicule on others?

“Posters not afraid to use their real names, rarely are Snipers.”, eh? What about you, Jim, what about your online abuse, your own online bullying and trolling, your “sniping” and taking pot shots at others, all documented right here in black and white, in this here blog?

Are you saying that Jim isn’t your real name after all? Or are you saying you’re the exception (that “rarity”) that proves this crazy rule that you’re describing here? Or what, exactly, are you saying?

Quote: 4) when I choose to communicate with ANY poster, I choose my words wisely,

Oh my! I’m not sure if I’ll burst a vein in vexation at this, or burst my gut laughing out aloud at this! My Namaste to you, Wise One! Your wise words are Most Entertaining!

If what we’ve been treated to on this blog are examples of your wisdom, then I shudder to think what you might produce when you’re in one of your not-wise phases!

Quote: f) Snipers who shoot, knee jerk, then take cover and hide, obviously have stuff to hide, that might be, not only embarrassing, or even illegal.

Can you break up that piece of jaw-dropping logic? How do you arrive from the premise of anonymity to your conclusion of harboring of illegal secrets?

You are aware of the concepts of logic, or reason, or rationality, are you not? Your simply saying things does not make them so! You may have been used to spouting nonsense from the pulpit back when you were a preacher, and maybe had in front of you a captive audience of hapless folks who hadn’t the wits to call you out on your your abject nonsense then, but you mustn’t expect to fart out random words here and imagine that they’ll sail by unchallenged.

You’re simply talking nonsense here, Jim, and your words make no sense at all. Just read that paragraph you’ve written there, aloud to yourself, and see if you can understand what a load of crap you’ve written there.

Quote: You will be hard pressed to dig up any dirt on me

Nothing could be easier!

If by “digging up dirt” you mean instances of illegality et cetera, well then, you may be right. (Or not, I neither know nor care.)

But if by “digging up dirt” you mean direct references to your having abused and slandered and bullied others online, then it would be very easy indeed to produce copious instances of your having done just that, right here on this blog.

Quote: not just a Robot Clone

Gods above, man, that argument of yours there is either jaw-droppingly stupid, or else it is brilliantly, amazingly, awesomely disingenuous!

By “robot clone” I suppose you’re referring to sock puppets, right? How many times will you trot out that spurious argument of yours?

You aren’t anonymous, are you? Well, what stops you, despite having announced your name here, from putting up ten sock puppets yourself, right here on this blog, and giving them not honestly anonymous handles but actual fictive names like “John”, or “Alberto”, or “Krishna”, or whatever (take your pick of nationalities and sex and age and online personas), perhaps even providing them with fictive back stories and professions and separate personalities, and then getting these sock puppets of yours to say things here that you want them to say? Who is to say that some of the posters right here who seem to be using their own names aren’t, in fact, simply your sock puppets, eh?

I’m not actually accusing you of this, understand. But do you not see how silly it is for you to rail against anonymity per se, against anonymous posters specifically, by claiming that these could be sock puppets?

For that matter, when it comes to honesty, again, what has anonymity to do with honesty? You have claimed to have a great many spiritual experiences here. How do I know you’re not lying through your teeth? I don’t! Your using your own name does not make it any likelier that you’re truthful about these things!

As against you, there are anonymous posters like Manjit, and Osho Robbins, and One Initiated, and 777, who also talk about their experiences. Is it necessary that the fact they’re anonymous necessarily means that they’re lying, and the fact that you’re not anonymous necessarily means that you’re being truthful? Obviously not! So what if you’ve publically announced your name : despite that, who is to say that every word you’ve said here about your inner experiences isn’t just a pack of lies, a mere facade maintained by you over all these years, a fiction made up by you out of whole cloth, nothing but made up nonsense that you keep posting in order to bloat up your importance in front of unsuspecting readers?

Again, Jim, I’m not actually accusing you of lying, understand. But do you not see how every argument of yours against anonymity is riddled through and through with flaws? Do you not see the spuriousness, the sheer absurdity, of each and every argument you’re putting forward here?

[manjit]

Hi Appreciative Reader!

So sorry to hear of you and your loved one's "troubles"....it was inconsiderate of me to mention your "travel" in such a way when I noticed your "tone" when you mentioned it wasn't exactly joyous....guess I was just hoping it was. Anyway, sorry to hear that & my good wishes & thoughts to you & your loved ones....:)

In regards the rest of your post, I think we could perhaps let it lie....it's history now!

I will just remark on your comment about about my mentioning of Thakar's abuses. You wrote: "But thing is, I remember reading here itself, on this here blog of Brian’s, that apparently this man’s initiations would tend to be very dramatic, in that the initiates would feel, at first hand, some kind of spiritual current flowing up when he touched them right at the time of initiation."

Exactly right! I know of several people who mentioned Thakar's (PS, he passed away quite a while ago now!) initiation was more dramatic than many others they've been initiated by, including Charan for example. However, you seem to be suggesting there is an inherent contradiction between this fact and the evidence of his abuses? I would retort that I have been saying this online for decades, and that the "power" to "generate" mind-blowing experiences during initiation or shaktipat etc is not evidence of either the validity or authenticity of a particular "path" or "guru". There is copious avenues of "evidence" to suggest this, but I have quite exhaustively covered many of my own personal opinions on the matter. I will only say; Muktananda, Adi Da, Sai Baba and indeed Thakar etc (all of them have multiple accusations, overwhelmingly suggestive of abuses). Have you had a chance to watch the documentary link I've posted (there must be better versions, I noticed that one was cropped by CNN) "Holy Hell"? It is the story of an extremely dubious individual, but whose initiations had a far "higher success rate" in "generating" inner light & sound experiences than most current RS gurus. I highly recommend it, it's fascinating!

Re. Osho - I will surely contact him soon, and give this blog a slight mention :)

Anyway, take care of yourself, I hope you remain as stress-free and at peace as is possible during what must be a very difficult time.....Peace!

Manjit

[Appreciative Reader]

Dear Manjit,

Thanks for you kind words! You’re right, it was rough, this episode. But time, even a short period of distraction, is wonderfully effective in dulling out and eventually healing most things. Not that that’s necessarily a good thing -- I interpret Jiddu K (to the extent I understand him at all!), and indeed this Zen parable in Brian’s OP to this thread, to mean that one is to guard specifically against this kind of “dulling” -- but I suppose it does help one cope, which I suppose is the whole point to the whole framework of absurd routines we build all around us.

As for “retort” -- *big smiley face!* if you’ll permit me just a wee bit of reading between the lines! *bigger smiley face* -- purely textual communication is so sadly lacking in its ability to convey nuance! (Or of course, it could be the lack is limited only to my personal powers of expression!) But either way, Manjit, my friend, nothing at all in my whole comment to you was intended, even remotely, as a retort.

I was only responding to your wondering about my trips with some literal (and for me rather unaccustomed) ‘sharing’, followed by a bit of (entirely self-directed) reflection, thinking aloud, about that Zen parable as it applied to what we were speaking of. Absolutely no reproach directed even implicitly at your friendly greeting and kind wishes, as expressed in that earlier comment of yours. My apologies if what I wrote turned out unintentionally sounding that way!

.

As for what you have to say about Thakar, and more generally your contention that “mind-blowing experiences” have nothing to do with the validity or authenticity of one’s ‘spiritual endeavor’, that’s very interesting!

That ties in nicely with this discussion I was having the other day. We wondering -- the one I was having the discussion with, and I -- how it is that some people who profess to have deep dramatic experiences nevertheless do not show any signs of ‘refinement’ of character. At which point we got to wondering if this assumption isn’t wholly random and lacking in any basis on actual fact, this implicit assumption we tend to have that any “spiritual” experience necessarily must be something uplifting and refining.

We simply left it at that wondering stage, without fleshing out that thought any further. Would you care to add your thoughts to this? You indicate you’ve already spoken of this elsewhere at length : would you be able to link to those comments of yours? Or else, if not (I suppose it can be a bother to dig out some old comment made long back, even when it is you yourself who’ve written that comment), perhaps you could simply generally speak out afresh about this?

This subject is probably fascinating to all of us who’re generally drawn to things “spiritual”, but especially so for me, because while two of the three traditions I follow encourage one to seek out these experiences (if only as pointers and milestones, as opposed to achievements in themselves), the third in contrast recommends treating these (should these arise) no differently than an itch, for example.

Forget Thakar, that creep personally does not deserve our attention at all, except perhaps as cautionary tale about the charlatans who so liberally populate the “spiritual” space. But I’d like you to speak some more in general about this, if you would like to engage further with this, that is. Does the fact that some “guru” is a closet perv necessarily mean that they’re a charlatan as well? Do spiritual experiences, or even spiritual “powers”, have anything to do with spiritual progress ; and does either of these two necessarily have anything to do with character and morality as generally understood? (That is, would one be right in expecting that an enlightened person, or someone who's spiritually elevated -- always assuming the enlightenment and spiritual elevation aren't myths! -- would generally act in ways that an ordinary decent person would consider to be generally decent and ethical?) Your answer seems to be an emphatic "no", at least to the first part of the question. Is that correct, and would you like to add to that? What about the second part of the question?

.

(Not to lead you on without meaning to, Manjit, so full disclosure : I don’t necessarily buy into all of this “spirituality” business at all. I’m very interested in the subject, as you know, and am open to their possibility, and indeed personally devote a good portion of my time to practices around them, that is, to meditation aimed specifically at uncovering deeper, “spiritual” layers of existence. On the other hand, not having experienced them at first hand, I cannot help being skeptical about them, and am open, as well, to the possibility that “spirituality” is no more than empty myth, empty of any actual meaning or underlying reality.

That said, I am, like I said just now, very interested in this subject, and would love to hear your thoughts on this.)

[manjit]

Hey Appreciative Reader....thanks for your response! I hope you do find that "healing"..... my good wishes go out to you....

I would like to share my opinions about your questions seeing as you have the curiosity to ask, but I shall try and make it brief & I don't expect to comment (or frequently read, as I do now) here until closer Christmas time.....

Firstly, you write: "As for “retort”......nothing at all in my whole comment to you was intended, even remotely, as a retort.".

No, it was ME who made the "retort" ("I would retort that I have been saying this online for decades"), and, further, I'm not even sure what the word means myself......quite frankly, I don't understand 75% of what I write 50% of the time myself (maths quiz intended :)...... so I just googled it!......I myself didn't mean it in a negative way either, but it was ME who said it! :)

Secondly, the reason I felt compelled to respond was this question: "That ties in nicely with this discussion I was having the other day. We wondering -- "

I know I've mentioned this before, but have you considered buying or loaning from a library Jack Kornfield's "After the Ecstasy comes the Laundry" (and his other books, which also address the same questions) ? It is a truly superb book, and addresses many of your questions far better & specifically than I ever could, certainly in this format. Please try getting hold of a copy, I think you would find it far more fascinating, informative, enlightening & engrossing than many "conversations" here!

Also, Ken Wilbur addresses your question more "complexly" using conceptual models of his own making. I haven't read any of his stuff since "Spectrum of Consciousness" 25 odd years ago or whatever, but if you want conceptual models and answers to questions like yours, the differing dimensions or layers of "enlightenment", and how somebody can have experienced lots of visions, ecstasies, blisses etc, but isn't integrated with moral, ethical, compassion advancement, that this can cause controversies and abuses etc.

Whilst I don't know his model too well, or think any conceptual model can explain the infinitely complex nature of reality & consciousness, I generally agree with the usefulness of his model......it is clear there have been charismatic, visionary people throughout history, but who weren't conceptually or emotionally "evolved" or "intelligent", or other combinations of these, for eg. Really emotionally and psychologically integrated, but no "mystical experience" or emphasis at all on such (we see this in people who serve humanity, or are just good, decent human beings in their day to day lives) etc.

Myself, I think religions and people who have no personal "experience" of "mystical states of consciousness" hear about and then reify and deify CONCEPTS, with their intellectual mind, something that has universally been declared to be beyond mind and concepts; how can you possibly expect to grasp it by thinking?! It is not some "solid state" with "objective indicators" like "saintliness", "perfection", "omniscience" etc etc. The spectrum of individual expressions, REFLECTIONS of the "Absolute" in the individual body-mind organism - like a moon reflected in a million drops of rain - are completely unique and individual in their form, dependant on their individual structure, movement, composition (or, as Buddhists would say, "aggregates")......yet the moon is one, and not a single drop of rain "contained" or "was" the moon itself........this is metaphor, it should not be taken literally but as a hint to the intellectual inscrutability of reality & consciousness!

If I may, as it may also address your question why some people may be giving off amazing "shaktipat" (which, incidentally, is not really considered "enlightenment" in most traditions anyway) but can act like complete "assholes" in private.....first of all, it pays to remember we're all human, regardless of what "experience" you've had, and we all have a body-mind that needs to eat, shit & piss.....but also as I wrote in May on the RSS forum, "enlightenment".....:

"This "enlightenment" you speak of..........doesn't even exist as a real "state" in my understanding. I simply do not assign such labels to reality, to experience, to myself, or others, unless being rather reductionist/simplistic. They are absurd conceptualities in my opinion. Basically, I really couldn't give a flying monkey about "enlightenment", myself...........

......... because again, "enlightenment" is just a vacuous word in my opinion, an attempt by the ego to claim that which is not personal, really (unless being reductionist and discussing the experience from an individual perspective, ie. in duality)."

Finally, you wrote, rather wonderfully: " I don’t necessarily buy into all of this “spirituality” business at all. I’m very interested in the subject, as you know, and am open to their possibility, and indeed personally devote a good portion of my time to practices around them, that is, to meditation aimed specifically at uncovering deeper, “spiritual” layers of existence. On the other hand, not having experienced them at first hand, I cannot help being skeptical about them, and am open, as well, to the possibility that “spirituality” is no more than empty myth, empty of any actual meaning or underlying reality."

Indeed.....and it should be no other way.....it is the HONEST, SINCERE & DECENT approach to life....with open mind and open heart. No results are promised, perhaps there are none.....but the sheer fact you have opened your mind and your heart to the possibility.....have heard what at least arouses curiosity in you from the words of mystics or "enlightened" people or whomever. and you at least noticed the possibility of the "ring of truth" to them, but you are not sold hook line & sinker. That is healthy, that is real.....and that is all ANY of us can bring to the "path".

Anyway AR, I wish all the best to you on your journey wherever it may lead, and I hope you have peace & healing times ahead.....

Manjit

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Manjit : No, it was ME who made the "retort" … I myself didn't mean it in a negative way either, but it was ME who said it! :)

Ah. So it was not so much my “powers of expression” that were wanting, as my powers of comprehension. That is, not so much my powers of simple comprehension of the literal meaning of your words, that much was clear enough : it seems it is my ability to read between the lines that came up short this time -- or, to be more accurate, that wholly unnecessarily went into overdrive. (I didn’t think you meant what you said negatively, but imagined that you’d interpreted my comment that way, and responded with some unintended/unconscious reflection/mirroring … yeah, that sounds way too convoluted, I know!)

In other words, it seems I was being overly finicky, overly careful, overly conscientious, about the effect my words!

Anyway, moving on …

Quote : Jack Kornfield's "After the Ecstasy comes the Laundry" … Ken Wilbur … "Spectrum of Consciousness"

Thanks for those two book recommendations. Since you recommend them so very strongly, I’ve put both in my reading list, and in fact have already placed an order via Amazon for Jack Kornfield’s ‘After the Ecstasy’. I look forward to going through it.

Quote : religions and people who have no personal "experience" of "mystical states of consciousness" hear about and then reify and deify CONCEPTS

That’s a lovely insight!

That is, this broad theme is common enough, but this especial insight that you insert there (which I realize is no more than speculation, no more than just opinion, but still) kind of offers an explanation that -- irrespective of whether it is actually ‘true’ -- does seem to offer a fully consistent and logically satisfactory explanation about this whole business.

You’re basically saying -- or at least, this is what I infer from what you’re saying -- that the one doing the experiencing and the one doing the conceptualizing are two separate people (or else, even if the same person, then the same person operating in two wholly separate ‘phases’, like someone attempting to recount a mostly forgotten dream). The actual spiritual experience -- as I understand you to be saying -- is itself a wholly subjective and non-cognitive experience. Others, who’ve heard of this at second hand or third hand (or even the same person who’s recollecting his past experience, again for all practical purposes at second hand, as it were) tend to then put this whole thing on a pedestal, and seek to build concepts around it. And invariably and necessarily these concepts end up coming up short, as they must!

An analogy comes to mind : Had it been the case that only a very small fraction, say 0.01% of the world population, were able to dream, while the remained 99.99% either did not sleep at all, or else slept without dreaming (or at least, with zero recollection of their dreams, ever) -- had that been the case, then I suppose the exact same kind of song and dance would have grown around the whole process of dreaming, eh? Do you agree with my analogy, that it clearly illustrates the particular explanation that you offer here?

Another analogy that comes to mind is : epileptic seizures! In fact, I’ve seen mystical states sometimes directly linked to epilepsy (by skeptics and non-believers). Now to be clear, I’m not joining my voice with these scoffers’, I personally do not know enough about this to either agree with them or to disagree with them, but merely offer this as another analogy, like that hypothetical dream-state analogy earlier, to describe my understanding of your theory about mystical states.

Lovely! That does explain things very well. (Although of course, just because this explanation seems both elegantly simple as well as, as far as I can make out, without logical inconsistency, that does not necessarily mean it is actually true!)

Of course, this explanation does also throw up the very real possibility that the spiritual experience, that enlightenment (whether partial of the whole deal) is a wholly pedestrian phenomenon. You know, much like dreams (or for that matter epileptic seizures). No doubt it may offer very interesting and very valuable insights about ourselves, our mind, our subconscious, all of that, but still, in the larger scale of things, it is wholly subjective and entirely inconsequential (except incidentally -- just like dreams, and deep sleep in general, may incidentally confer certain health benefits on people who do not generally get to sleep deeply, that sort of thing).

That is, your explanation, while perfectly satisfactory and very elegant in its simplicity, does suffer from two distinct shortcomings : (a) it is simply a theory, simply a hypothesis, without us knowing whether it is actually true, that is, whether the model you offer actually does describe reality ; and (b) it throws up the distinct possibility that “spirituality” is a wholly pedestrian experience, with no more than simply incidental benefits, if that. (Of course, this last, my “(b)”, isn’t necessarily a “shortcoming”, simply a “feature”, simply a value-free implication of your model, but still.)

Would you agree with this assessment of mine? With the “(a)” and the “(b)” that would, as it appears to me, attach to your explanation?

Quote : I really couldn't give a flying monkey about "enlightenment", myself

I don’t want to keep on banging that same old off-key beat on my tin drum all over again, but, to touch one more time on that question that troubles me, and that I’d tried to explore earlier on, in an earlier thread here, with you (and in far greater detail with your friend Osho Robbins) :

If you, who seem to have sampled something of this enlightenment thingie at first hand, couldn’t “give a flying monkey” about it, then why should anyone else? That is, is this no more than a fool’s errand? In other words, what is the final take-away from this whole exercise? Without any concrete take-away as such, without any real rhyme or reason, why would any sane rational person want to spend any time at all and any effort at all in this quest for enlightenment? For what reason, why?

Quote : I don't expect to comment (or frequently read, as I do now) here until closer Christmas time

You started your comment with this qualification, Manjit, and I fully respect your choice to keep away from commenting here for now. As seems to happen with me so very often, I realize I’ve ended up putting in a good many questions within this comment of mine (without actually meaning to, I assure you, when I started typing this out this comment), but please, do not in any way or form feel at all obliged to get into the whole process of responding. It’s no big deal, really.

If you yourself find that you would enjoy getting into all of this at this time, then of course I’ll enjoy, very much, reading your response to what I have to say here. Else it is perfectly fine to simply let these thoughts, both yours and mine, to simply let them be, for the time being.

That's one advantage of this form of communication : it is always possible, if one takes care to preserve one’s bookmarks, to return to a conversation that one had started out on a week back, or a month back, or even a year back. (Always provided that Brian doesn’t tire of keeping on supporting this platform for us!)

[Luka Kurjački]

I agree with your opinion, which you've written while also reffering to the opposite opinion, so thank you very much.