« Blog commenters have different styles of making their point | Main | Bloomberg story shows Gurinder Singh Dhillon's shady business dealings »

August 14, 2018

Comments

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

Marina Version 3.0

Hallel-fucking-ujah!!!
Praise be the truth!
Some friend emailed me this link, which made my day. Well, moment.

Kill the Buddha Kill the Master! (Eh, metaphorically speaking in case there is some crazy goon gonna take this literally)
I love it. Strip away the bullshit. Strip away the dressing, the character.
Dreaming, that's all it's being. Hearing with sheep ears.

I seen something that I couldn't see 7 years ago.
7 fucking years ago. It rocked my world, life, me as I knew them.
The Ghost Story, by Sadhu Om.

" One evening a young boy went for a stroll with his
father. When dusk had almost set in, he beheld a tree-trunk
from which the branches and leaves had been cut off. He
was terrified and screamed, “Oh Father! There, see, a ghost!”
Though his father knew the truth that it was just the stem
of a tree, he assured the boy,” Oh, that ghost! It cannot do
you any harm. I am here and will see to it, Come on”; so
saying, he led the boy away. On hearing the encouraging
words of his father, the boy took them to mean, ‘My father
is stronger than the ghost and that is why he says that it can
do me no harm’. This conclusion of the boy is similar to the
understanding of the pandits about the meaning of the Yoga
and Vedanta sastras !.
Next evening, while going, for a stroll with his teacher
along the same path, the boy exclaimed, “Sir, look ! There’s
the ghost; we saw it yesterday also ,” The teacher pitied him
for his ignorance and said, “That is not a ghost”, But the boy
persisted, “No sir, my father also saw it yesterday; he even
assured me that he would see to it that it could do me no
harm; but sir, you say it is not a ghost at all’” Would the
teacher yield so easily? He said, “Go near it and see for
yourself; I will shine the flashlight on it. If it turns out to
be a ghost, I too will see to it !”
The sastras are like the words of the father in the
story. The father also knew well that it was not a ghost.
Similarly, the great Sages who gave these sastras also knew
well the absolute truth (paramarthika satya) that nothing
such as the ego, body, or world has ever come into existence
at all. The father, knowing that his son was quite unfit to
The Enquiry, ‘Who Am I?’ and The Four Yogas
82 The Path of Sri Ramana – Part One
make a closer examination on account of his much
frightened state at that time, talked to him as if he were also
accepting the existence of the false ghost imagined by his
son. Even while talking like that, he was not telling a lie.
To allay quickly the fear of his son, he said, ‘The ghost
cannot do you any harm: That was indeed the truth!
However, what the teacher told him the next day was the
absolute truth (paramarthika satya). Although the, teacher’s
statement that it was not a ghost seems to contradict the
father’s statement, does it not in fact lend more support to
the objective of the father’s statement that the ghost could
do the boy no harm, by making him see for himself that it
was after all only the stem of a tree? By thus fulfilling the
father’s objective does not the statement of the teacher
breathe new life into that of the father”? Instead of
understanding thus, if the boy were to conclude,’ Either my
teacher has condemned my father, Of my father has told me
an outright lie’, it would be utterly wrong on his part.
Similarly, Sri Bhagavan has neither condemned the sastras,
nor shown them to be false; nor have the sastras stated
untruths. If any reader were to come to this mistaken
conclusion about Sri Bhagavan, ‘he would be just as much
wrong as would have been the boy in our story."

I couldn't unhear this. I asked Baba ji at an evening session 7 years ago
after telling this story...'so are you lying to us?'
Him:No, sister, people say they want the truth, but they don't.
Me: I DO. GIVE IT TO ME!!
Him: What do you say to a 5 yr old who wants to grow up?
If you tell people (refereeing to the auditorium we were in) that there was a light outside of this room, they'll get mad at you, won't believe you. But if you agree with them, let them relax then they may be willing to take a Look!

Nobody came to me afterwards but one man, saying thank you, that has helped me.
All the rest, heard just 'a cute irish eejit with a master having fun with her'.
Totally missed the point!!
No wonder it's called the open secret. There to be seen, if we open our eyes.
Simple and as difficult as that. Need to clear the beliefs and bullshit to see.
Again, hallel-fucking-ujah!

Among much else, Gurinder Singh reportedly said the astounding "There is nothing. What will you get by coming to satsang? Nothing."

I guess a lot of credit can be given to those who criticize satsangis for seeking words of wisdom at some guru's feet. But I've noticed that those same critics tend to fully accept whatever anyone posts on the net about what Gurinder said as 100% accurate verbatim, and not in any need of verification, even from just one other anonymous internet source. We demand that gurus be scientific, so why can't we lead the way and follow the science of good journalism? If just one alleged satsangi is offering one particular amazing Gurinder quote, and no one else has come forward to say they heard these same words out of Gurinder's mouth, quite possibly the alleged amazing quote isn't genuine.

@lllllvvvvvv

" If just one alleged satsangi is offering one particular amazing Gurinder quote, and no one else has come forward to say they heard these same words out of Gurinder's mouth, quite possibly the alleged amazing quote isn't genuine. "


Well that 'nothing verse' was said at the national Haynes park satsang on the sunday (last day) so there were about 30,000+ people present who heard it.

I can see why you would doubt it - but there are plenty of recorded satsangs now on youtube - and some of the new teachings will be filtering through.


There is only Punjabi satsangs on youtube right?
That is a pitty!!
I would like very much English satsangs from Babaji himself..
I am sure more people want that.

@ osho - perhaps the master meant there is nothing FOR YOU! Who knows.

My own gut feeling is you are trying to have a stand off with him and that your own ego is your Master. I could think of a million things to do rather than go to Haynes if I was In doubt. And I didn’t go!

Also who is playing who here your scenario?

Say if he is the really the Main Thing - then my friend everyone of us including me are truly fucked. I am getting a very bad feeling feeling about this now. Take the comments as you would say my belief!

Tread very carefully with these beings - not all of them are false - they owe you no explaination and don’t be too proud of ones intellect - least he show who has real intellect - usually at out unfortunate expense!

Love all

"We demand that gurus be scientific, so why can't we lead the way and follow the science of good journalism?"

Gurinder bans recording devices and there are almost no non-believers there to corroborate with. Ask Gurinder to start publishing all his talks since he records them all.

Satsangis read all the RS books over the years which are full of unverified and unverifiable examples of "saints" and others which often contradict each other, and nobody calls them out on their repetitive claims of "so and so saint did this and said that."

The entire subject of gurus vs reality is tedious.

Also, journalism isn't a science.

Marina,
Each person has to arrive at their awakening at the right time. If we preach against the path the followers will become rebellious. Its not easy waking up, left with nothingness, unknowingness, some exers still seem to have a religious streak. How amazing it is that Gurinder is revealing the truth in the things he says but then people think he is just joking because they desperately want to believe in someone, some thing.

Arjuna wrote:

@ osho - perhaps the master meant there is nothing FOR YOU! Who knows.

my reply:
the "nothing conversation" was on the Sunday of the national satsang, not in the conversation with me.
And - of course there is nothing for me - that also is true. but doesn't need saying.

Arjuna:
My own gut feeling is you are trying to have a stand off with him and that your own ego is your Master. I could think of a million things to do rather than go to Haynes if I was In doubt. And I didn’t go!

my reply:
No stand off. No testing. Nothing like that. Just a straightforward open conversation.
By both of us. No battle of the egos.

I could also think of a few things (maybe not a million) that I might do instead of going to Haynes, but I enjoy it from time to time. Also I wasn't in any doubt. I didn't go there to clear up any doubt.

I just voiced my truth - the rest is up to him.

Arjuna:
Also who is playing who here your scenario?
Say if he is the really the Main Thing - then my friend everyone of us including me are truly fucked. I am getting a very bad feeling feeling about this now. Take the comments as you would say my belief!

My reply:
Nobody is playing anyone.
Why is anyone fucked? You think a master will get revenge if you just have a conversation with him? Which version of sant mat have you been reading?

I just had a straight forward conversation and he gave a straight forward response. Why would you have a "bad feeling" and fear about anything?

I certainly have no fear. I spoke to him like a friend. I explained my journey and invited his comments. If he chooses not to engage with me - he is perfectly in his rights to say "I have no comments" and its the end of the dialogue.

The dialogue he had with me gave him an opportunity to explain in detail about the ONENESS. And about the idea that if there is ONENESS there cannot be individuality as the two cannot co-exist.

"if there is ONENESS there cannot be individuality as the two cannot co-exist."

Well then we know oneness doesn't exist because we can readily observe individuality, which is sweet because I like being me and not melting into oblivion.

I am a Dualist Challeger to Oneess Advaitists. Inagree with Jessie that Oneness is nothing but imagination of Raman Advaitists that hid in a cave wasting their individual lives with out ever contributing any thing to Civilization or honoring the Human Body Temple Christ Graced them with.

Here are my Arguments against Totality of Consciousness and ansoute ONENESS.

“250 million Sperm Cells are ejaculated during Sex by each male “god.” EACH Sperm cell “ ( potential gods ) was merged in each male god, but not even a single one of those little gods will EVER merge back to male god again. Same applies to individual CREATED spirits. We were ALL ejaculated by the ONE GOD, a few Marked Elect to create and procreate, while most to become Reprobates. But we ALL remain in Duality for eternity, never to return as a Sperm. But we all have opportunity to progress to highest reagins to sail, skim, float, paddle, enjoy the SURFACE of the Ocean with out becoming the Ocean. Lucifer was the highest, most magnificent Angelic Light Being ever created by GOD, THE ONE. He became convinced He could be as powerful as his Creator GOD, by becoming HIM, but his pride was his downfall, and GOD expelled him from Heaven, ( Anami) and Lucifer became Satan the Deceiver, i.e. Kal.”

Amen!
Jim Sutherland

No ONENESS for Fish, Birds or Humans!

“Is any single fish in the Ocean the Ocean? Is the Ocean every fish? No, the fish are individual fish, many different species, IN the Ocean, but not the Ocean. The Ocean is IN each fish, as each fish is in the Ocean, but as merged as they are, they remain individuals. Are Birds in the Air THE AIR? Is the AIR in the bird’s a big Bird? No, they are individuals merged together, as we individual spirits are Co-Creators with GOD, Anami, Christ. All Masters are Co-Creators, with Radhasoami, Anami. H2O is Water. It is liquid, until frozen, then becomes ice, until it evaporates and becomes gas. Water contains 2 Atoms of Oxygen, and one Atom of Hydrogen. When are the Atoms Water, when they are Liquid, Solid, or Gas? When are spirits God, .....when they are in Physical, Astral, Causal, or Sach Khand?
😇
Jim Sutherland

The Apostle Paul’s Oneness Conjectures.

Here is how the Apostle Paul dealt with being a “member” of the body of Christ, but mot Christ the ONE.
1 Corinthians 12:12-27 King James Version (KJV)

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”

Amen!
Jim Sutherland

For your information, I argued with Oneness Pentecostal Sects tor years, that are called “Jesus Only” Pentecostal Christians who teach that God is Jesus only. They are the Christian Neo-Advaita people who interpreted Scripture,.....as Gurinder and Ishwar Puri are misinterpreting Sant Mat Teachings.
Oneness Pentecostalism rejects all concepts of a subordination, duality, trinity, pantheon, co-equality, co-eternity, or other versions of the Godhead that assert plural gods, plural beings, divine "persons", individuals, or multiple centers of consciousness within that Godhead. It equally denies all concepts of Jesus as anything other than fully God and fully man, together with all teachings that assert that he was merely a "good man," or only a sinless man, high priest or prophet, rather than God himself. Oneness doctrine declares that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, but that this happened only when he was born from Mary on Earth. It rejects the view that any person can "obtain" the status of God whether by works or by grace, maintaining that Jesus Christ did not "obtain" his status, but rather that he is the one, eternal God himself manifested in the flesh according to the Oneness Pentecostal interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:16, as is rendered in the King James Version.[citation

Cheers!
Jim Sutherland

To the mistaken ONENESS ..........

I rest my Case. IF I wake up some Eon Alone, unable to see any other Form , nor hear any Sound, even MY SELF, nor am able to identify with any other uncreated nothingness in the Multiverse,...I will admit I am GOD, and ejaculate spirits in to a BIG BANG!
The Advaita God must practice Tantra Spiritual Sex! He never ejaculates. He reabsorbs his spirit Sperms and eventually dies of Prostate Cancer, as Sawan and Kirpal did.

😇😍🙏🏻
Jim Sutherland

Atheists could likewise say, well nonexistence always is and always was. Except they then have a big problem:
We exist.

So now they are left with the difficult job of explaining how existence came out of nonexistence and since they cannot do it and the idea is so irrational it defies even Santa Claus logic, I've found from there the conversation tends to descend into insults as is always the case when someone holds tightly to an irrational belief.

What doesn't exist has no properties and cannot give rise to anything.

As said by Amir Khusro about His Master Nizamuddin Aulia:
(Amir Khusro: the 21st disciple who stood there and 20 left
when they saw their Master at the brothel.)

"Chap tilak sab cheene re mose naina milayike..."

meaning:
The Master took away all my impressions, just by making the eye contact.
Left me with nothing and filled with Love.
And now has coloured me same as Himself.

When there is nothing left, the only thing left there is Love.
Love is nothing, nothing is Love.


Well then we know oneness doesn't exist because we can readily observe individuality, which is sweet because I like being me and not melting into oblivion.

Awareness gives rise to oneness. It's not some molecular meld
of matter or oblivion of "me". When the mystic attains "totality of consciousness", he remains incarnate, an individual among many
just as he was before. There's no vanishing act like James Earl
Jones in the "Field of Dreams" corn field.

It's only awareness that expands. There's no implosion in a puff
of smoke. A drop in the ocean realizes it's already in the ocean.
There's no journey. It just knows it's more than the single drop it
thought it was for so long.


Well then we know oneness doesn't exist because we can readily observe individuality, which is sweet because I like being me and not melting into oblivion.

Awareness gives rise to oneness. It's not some molecular meld
of matter or oblivion of "me". When the mystic attains "totality of consciousness", he remains incarnate, an individual among many
just as he was before. There's no vanishing act like James Earl
Jones in the "Field of Dreams" corn field.

It's only awareness that expands. There's no implosion in a puff
of smoke. A drop in the ocean realizes it's already in the ocean.
There's no journey. It just knows it's more than the single drop it
thought it was for so long.

287daysleft, your logic leaves a lot to be desired. Something has always existed. We know that existence exists, so it makes sense to simply say, "Existence has always existed."

But religious believers add in something extra, God. So they claim that first God existed (which really is the same as saying that something has always existed), then they hypothesize that God brought the rest of existence into existence.

This is why atheism makes MUCH more sense than religion. It is simpler, and doesn't rely on unprovable assumptions.

@ Osho - brother those were my thoughts only, I’m a dualist. Question how does Oneness work when you have two or three masters alive at the same time? Kabir, Guru Nanak and Ravidass - correct me if I got the dates of these three being alive wrong! But you get my drift!

@ Jim - hello. Hope you are well? I got a bit lost and am trying to seek knowledge and clarification - is Onesness an attribute of Kal? Is anyone who preaches Oneness a demiurge or such? And therefore he will not lead us home?

Dungeness, that makes no sense. What oneness are you talking about? Awareness is awareness. Being more aware doesn't make distinct object cease to exist, as you mentioned, so what or where is the oneness?


Oneness has nothing to do with there being a number of masters at the same time. I am not sure what you understand by the word ONENESS.

You appear to think oneness means there is only one master on the earth at a time.

ONENESS is the absolute realization that there is nothing except the ONE. Nothing else has ever existed and nothing else will ever exist except the ONE.

Of course you can argue that right now I exist and you exist, which are two and then there are others also, so there are MANY. which makes a nonsense of ONENESS.

But that statement comes from a mis-understanding of the meaning of ONENESS.

There is the appearance of Many, because within time/space there is many. but everything within time and space is changing, and everything that changes is only for the moment. Here today and gone tomorrow. Indian scriptures call it MAYA. Maya means that which you see and hear but it's unreal because its not here forever. It is for a short while only.

"Jo Desi, so to hai nahin" That which you can see - that is not IT (ONENESS)

"Jo hai so kaha no jai" That which it is (ONENESS) cannot be said

Why can't it be said? Because ONENESS cannot be pointed to. It's not a time/space construct, it's not an object. All you can say is it's nothing.

So the athiest is correct. There is nothing. That nothing is the same as saying ONENESS.

The notion that "I" will continue to exist is a delusion. The "I" does not exist even now.

Just as the body is an illusion, so is the "I" an illusion.

Yeah, I know it's not very nice of me to call you an illusion.

But if it's any consolation, "I", the one calling you an illusion, am also an illusion.

So I am in the same boat as you. We are both in a sinking boat.

This body which I call "MY" body is going to die (go into non-existence) and so is every other body.

But the OWNER (the ME or the "I") is also going to die, not live forever.

In religious language we call this ME the EGO or the ATMA, the so-called REAL ME that exists beyond the body. This is what all religions and also sant mat says goes to Sach Khand if you meditate and if you don't then it re-incarnates in another body.

So here are the sant mat teachings in a nutshell.


Your individual ATMA is in your body. The ATMA is a drop of the ocean known as PARAM-ATMA (God). So you are a particle of the ocean of god.

when your body dies, your ATMA will re-incarnate into another body because you still have desires and those desires will take you into another body so you can continue to fulfill your desires.

The purpose of the sant mat path is that you must go beyond your desires and seek only God, but since you cannot see God, you do it through that which you can see - the Guru or God-man.

You attach yourself to Him. Hence the importance of the guru in sant mat. Hence so many shabds about the love of the master.

If you manage to love the master beyond all else, then you will go where the master goes. Since he goes to Sach Khand, you will also go there. So then in meditation, you will go there NOW while still in your body. You will leave your body and your ATMA will travel through the astral region where it will meet with the radiant form of the guru and he will take you step by step through each of the regions and finally deliver you to the supreme being Sat Purush in Sach Khand.

But of course Sat Purush doesn't live alone. Sach khand is made up of ALAKH, AGAM and ANAMI desh. So it's sub-divided into three regions and the three lords all live together. The highest (there always has to be a highest) is called ANAMI and he it the final supreme being. Once you get to him, you will merge and disappear totally.

That's the sant mat and radha soami teachings as clearly written in Sar Bachan and other books like Radha Swami Teachings.

The same books which Baba told me to burn when I quoted from them.

Why did he ask me to burn them? (meaning they are not the truth, but a romanticized version)

And why does he say, "If you meet the Buddha (Guru) on the way, Kill him!"

because the ONENESS path (if you can call it a path, which I can't) states that since there is only ONENESS then the master is also part of the illusion. The master is not god in human form. Instead, the master is a FINGER pointing to the MOON (ONENESS) and its important not to grab hold of the finger, but rather see where is it pointing and realize it (ONENESS).

So the master has a different role. He is just pointing you towards ONENESS, not acting like a role model and not to be worshiped or even looked up to. In zen, masters go to great extremes to downplay the master and make sure you don't worship the master.

Baba is doing the same. He says, "My body is just like yours. It will also die. Don't attach yourself to the body, instead focus on the ONENESS and realize the oneness"

Now a few things about the ONENESS.

"Paltu ikoi ikk hai - dussar nahin koi" - Paltu there is only the ONE - there is none else.

He is not saying there is not another God. He is saying there is only the ONE.

All else is maya or illusion.

Maya or illusion is that which appears to he real (you could say it's real for now - in the moment)

But it will not remain forever. That which will remain forever (and is NOW also) is what I call the ONENESS and can also be called NOTHING. They are one and the same thing. (not a thing)

in hindu scriptures they say NETI NETI meaning not THIS and not THAT. Anything you can see - that is not IT.

IT means the ONE. You cannot see it, point to it, or say anything about it. No attributes.

It's not LOVE! or BLISS or anything else. Those are attributes and it has none.

All teachings about it are false. All concepts you create are wrong.

It makes no sense to even ask, "What is it"

ONENESS is not a teaching or a path. It is the end of all seeking. The athiest is the closest as he no longer seeks.

The religious person rarely gets it as he is constantly seeking, and asking if he has reached.

There is nowhere to reach.

And who is going to reach? The fictional "I" cannot reach.

reaching and arriving are concepts and not part of oneness. oneness just is. no reaching or arriving. no medals, no rewards, no pat on the back for finally getting it.

It sounds like nonsense - because it is.

like trying to describe "nothing"
everything I say about getting to 'nothing' will be nonsense
because 'nothing' is not a destination

confused? you will be if you read it all again.

@arjuna

the above comment was directed to you in answer to your question about many masters at the same time.

ONENESS is not a theory to understand - but a realization that it is all there is.

individuality is like a wave in the ocean.

The ocean is like the ONENESS.


The wave is not real in the sense that it comes and goes. It does not remain.

The ocean remains.

The wave is like the individual, like the "I"

It is real only in the sense that you can see it for a short while.

After that the wave is gone and will never be seen again.

Another wave will arise - but not the same one.

So I am saying there are no wayes.
Of course you can see them, but I am saying there are no waves in the sense that waves come an go and are not real. they are momentary.

just like us.

A disciple takes a burning candle to the master and says
"Where did the flame come from?"

The zen master blows it out
"Where did it go?" he asks

"wherever it went to - that's where it came from"

What is the sound of one hand clapping? - zen Koan


Yeah, that didn't clarify oneness in the slightest, Osho.

Just a lot of talk about many things, and then saying in some super abstract way that many isn't actually many, because things that aren't permanent don't really exist. Not buying it.

"ONENESS is not a theory to understand - but a realization that it is all there is"

How do we know that. Everything we hear about whether its religion, spirituality, atheism, if we agree with something without proof then its all about belief. Even believing in nothingness, emptiness its still a belief system. We don't know if there is only this life. We don't know if there is life after death. We don't know if we have a spirit or a soul. We can have a realisation which we agree with and which makes sense to us and then think we know the answer to everything but this is also just a belief.


that makes no sense. What oneness are you talking about? Awareness is awareness. Being more aware doesn't make distinct object cease to exist,
as you mentioned,

Mystic awareness grasps inner transcendent reality. That reality
is oneness, a single "soul" that individuates in different forms.
It's the same soul in all them so the multiplicity of forms is like
a puppet show. When it's over, the puppeteer folds up his
props and goes home.

Earlier, someone wrote:

"if there is ONENESS there cannot be individuality as the
two cannot co-exist."

You responded:

"Well then we know oneness doesn't exist because we can readily
observe individuality, which is sweet because I like being me
and not melting into oblivion"

Actually, you don't melt into oblivion. Your awareness extends to
multiple levels. The puppeteer sees and manipulates the whole
drama. The puppets love, fight, and enact their dramatic roles
and don't see their inner manipulator. They don't see their true
self, the puppeteer behind the curtain. If the puppeteer chooses
though, he can raise a puppet's awareness of the truth. The puppet
will know he's playing a role and realize this duality isn't real.
He'll know he is the puppeteer himself playing multiple roles.


that makes no sense. What oneness are you talking about? Awareness is awareness. Being more aware doesn't make distinct object cease to exist,
as you mentioned,

Mystic awareness grasps inner transcendent reality. That reality
is oneness, a single "soul" that individuates in different forms.
It's the same soul in all them so the multiplicity of forms is like
a puppet show. When it's over, the puppeteer folds up his
props and goes home.

Earlier, someone wrote:

"if there is ONENESS there cannot be individuality as the
two cannot co-exist."

You responded:

"Well then we know oneness doesn't exist because we can readily
observe individuality, which is sweet because I like being me
and not melting into oblivion"

Actually, you don't melt into oblivion. Your awareness extends to
multiple levels. The puppeteer sees and manipulates the whole
drama. The puppets love, fight, and enact their dramatic roles
and don't see their inner manipulator. They don't see their true
self, the puppeteer behind the curtain. If the puppeteer chooses
though, he can raise a puppet's awareness of the truth. The puppet
will know he's playing a role and realize this duality isn't real.
He'll know he is the puppeteer himself playing multiple roles.

@Jen

Its not about belief because belief is a barrier to discovery.

Atheism for instance is not another belief. atheism asserts that "I don't know"

Atheism doesn't state "there is no God". It asserts that there is not enough evidence to believe in a God.


Osho:

I think you are confusing agnosticism with atheism. Agnosticism is "I don't know."

Atheism is, "I do know and there is no God."

Atheism: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

We ALL must be able to admit there must be some Higher Power than our selves?

Alcoholic’s Anonymous chooses to call this unseen God, which they don’t believe exists, their “ Higher Power.”

The Higher Power, substituted for God, has been an excellent Recovery Program used by many Addiction Victims.

We are all addicted to some thing or other, that suppresses our abilities to choose what’s best for our persuit of happiness.

I advise those who are unable to believe there is a God Who loves you, or cares about your personal existence, to consider surrendering to a Higher Power that ‘ Some”, but not all, choose to call God.

Higher Power in the 12 Steps
God or higher power is mentioned in 6 of the 12 steps. These terms are used interchangeably. The idea of a higher power is the key element of the program, as seen in the following steps:

* Step 2 – We came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
* Step 3- We made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
* Step 5- We admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
* Step 6-_We were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character._
* Step 7- We humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
* Step 11 – We sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.“

Cheers,
Jim Sutherland

Blogger Brian:

I am not talking about religious believers and didn't mention them. I only know most, if not all of them are off kilter.

It sounds like you just said, religious believers are off kilter so atheism makes more sense. Ok, I'll give you that, true enough.

But I'm just talking about simple logic. How did nonexistence give rise to existence? That is not logical.

Cosmologists say, first there was a subatomic quark which then... blah blah blah ...and gave rise to a big bang and then our Unviverse.

Wait, what? You can't start with first there is xyz. Where did that subatomic quark come from?

If you are going to posit we go into nonexistence tell how we got out of nonexistence. Saying have faith won't do. You can't get out of nonexistence because it doesn't exist. So are you saying, something existed, gave rise to everyone that exists now, but eventually we will all go into nonexistence and from then on it will be a case of nonexistence is just the permanent non-condition of the non-Universe?

Are you saying you don't know? If so, then you are an agnostic not an atheist. An atheist says, I know that there is no "always existing being".
An agnostic says, "I don't know".

If nonexistence is to soon be the permanent condition of ourselves and the Universe, perhaps we should attempt to experience it ahead of time to get used to it.

Ramana tried going into nonexistence. He went as deep into it as he possibly could. But then something arose that said "I-I". Perhaps "I" is the closest word we have for the existence that always is.

Osho,

To say the One has no properties is incorrect. The One is nothing. But it is a perfect nothing. For example if you combine all of the anti-matter with all the matter, you have nothing.


But it is a whole nothing that contains everything and is therefore perfect. Absolute Perfection. Absolute Wholeness. Absolute Humor. In fact I would say God, (Nothing) is most correctly described as absolute humor.

Infinite humor just always was, a divine laughter that has no opposite, just lesser grades of itself.

"individuates " "you" your" "the puppeteer" "puppets"

All these things are exactly NOT oneness. Try again please.

I want to say that the ocean analogy is dumb too because the ocean isn't one. The ocean is trillions of individual water molecules which are themselves made up of smaller subatomic particles or whatever.

Being constructed of one kind of substance isn't oneness.

@287daysleft

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god.

The atheist says there is not enuf proof to warrant a belief in god.
So there is nothing the atheist has to prove.
https://youtu.be/yICsS8CX4wQ

@287daysleft

“Nothing” cannot have a brand. It cannot be perfect.
Because then there must be an imperfect nothing.
So two types of nothing.

Well then it’s not nothing, it is now a something
And it is also not a ONE as there are two types now.

@jesse
It’s an analagy.
No analagy is perfect.
An analagy is used to show something similar. You can pick every analagy apart if you dig deep enough. Doesn’t make the analagy invalid.

Osho,

I guess I wouldn't rely on a youtube channel to define atheism. I guess in a broad sense someone can take it to mean anything they want. In the english I grew up with agnostics were the ones without beliefs and atheists were the ones who definitely knew there is no God.

Perhaps the definitions are changing, english is a changing language.

The way I was brought up: Atheism is the blind, unfounded belief that God does not exist, and atheists don’t like to face the fact that they are blind believers, so they try to circumvent that by saying, atheism is lack of belief in God.

Osho,
How can you have an imperfect nothing? If it's nothing it is perfect. Where would an imperfection be found?

Maybe it depends on the viewpoint. Apparently Suzanne Segal (Collision With the Infinite) experienced a Void at her center and was afraid of it. Others seem to describe that same Void and find it totally satisfying.

Osho it's not only a problem with the analogy. It's the problem of everything in existence that we know of being made of components and smaller parts and of the fact that we exist individually. If I can exist as an individual, then a whole single oneness can't exist. My separateness has already divided oneness.

As far as any human is concerned or can comprehend, oneness is a meaningless concept.

@287daysleft
Came across this in a google search

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.

It is a common misconception that the atheist is claiming that there is no god, in fact he is not making that claim.

He does not believe there is a god.

Not the same as saying he believes that god does not exist.

That would require him to prove it.

As far as I know the atheist has never said there is no god.

Of course some atheists go further and say that it is unlikely that god exists, but that is not part of atheism

@287daysleft
Atheism: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

You quoted this.

Disbelief in the existence of god means he does not believe.

However he does not say there is no god. That would require him to give proof.

Interesting, thanks for explaining that Osho Robbins.

If I say I have a disbelief you are a king, it generally means that I believe you are not a king.

If I have no belief one way or another whether you are a king, I would not say I have a disbelief you are a king.

So, since apparently the word atheism can be defined in a lot of different ways, and ways I am not used to. And since no one knows how to define God...

I would like to ask both you and Blogger Brian and anyone else on this board that feels like commenting what your atheism means to you in terms of afterlife. Do you think you go into nonexistence? Do you just have no opinion? Do you hold a similar view as Buddhists who describe Nirvana as a state:

"Nibbana of the Buddhists is neither a mere nothingness nor a state of annihilation, but what it is no words can adequately express."
http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell10.htm

"Most schools of Buddhism explain Nirvana as a state of bliss or peace, and this state may be experienced in life, or it may be entered into at death."
http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistglossary/g/nirvanadef.htm

"Nirvana is the greatest bliss..."
(Middle Length Discourses, p. 613)

@ Jim - I agree with you ! There is a higher power.

I laugh when I read some of the people on here demanding answers or intellectual justification of this higher “ show me proof”. Jumping up and down like children.

I guess they will be shown proof when it’s too late for them. Particularly when their own body and mind testify against them.

But I’m sticking with your words and extracting myself from all this play to find peace. And I will be leavinv the forces too, all the very best Jim.

@Arjuna,...I’d say and wish you ....” Good Luck,”.......but I know luck has nothing to do with what happens to us. We have created what is happening to us now, and are still creating what will happen to us in the future. The most important thing we can do for our own individual future happiness and welfare is, as soon as our inner Conscious makes us aware of our guilt for doing some habit, like Alcohol, drugs, etc. we know is keeping us bound to the lower levels of life, then the very leadt we should to to start improving our situation is to STOP doing what we know is harming us. The Bible calls that “ Repentence.” Even if we don’t turn in to instant Saints, and start trying to change the world, while not even changing our own empty roll of toilet tissue, our Path to recovery and Journey back to our Home will begin.

I sense you have a tender heart and are surely one of those Marked by The Higher Power to return Home in spite of your Camouflaged Uniform and harsh image you try to hide behind.

I think you have said you are age 36. That seems to be around the age we Males start recognising we need some Higher Power to guide us, because we have found our powers haven’t worked, and we always end up digging our selves further down the rat hole.

I was 35 when I first seriously turned my life over to the Higher Power I thought to be Christ, at that time, and my life changed so rapidly, I no longer had to make any decisions on my own. As each new door opened, all I had to do was walk thru it, and if it didn’t open, I no longer tried to crash it open or break it down. I just waited for the next door to open.

I never even was initiated in to Sant Mat until age 45 when I quit eating meat! So, I have had a lot more karma to burn off than you have rignt now. I did quit Alcohol and tobacco at age 35 tho, so I was delivered partially at age 35, and am still being delivered of other habits to this day, but its much easier to just Let Go, and Let God!

At my age, its now easy to look back today, to see every time I was struggling, and disappointed becsuse Zi couldn’t crash a door down, or get some job or position I really wanted, or thousands of other things. Better things always later turned up for me that were surely chosen FOR me, and not BY me! But we never find out until later, while Monday Morning Quarter backing.

Also, Charan, Gurinder, Jesus, and many others started on their Paths in their mid 30s, so your very Best is AHEAD of you, and not behind you!

If and when you leave the Military, you will need you find the right Position to support yourself and continue your Career Path. When that time comes, pray, meditate, and choose wisely before jumping in to the first thing that comes before you. Some times, the Best comes last! .

So, choose wisely. And if you choose and find you made a mistake, than don’t stay there and decay, move on until you find some thing that makes you happy and you are able to do with out feeling guilty about, or adding karma to your soul. Work as a Missionary to make your Higher Soul Self proud, and to decrease your karmic debits.

Best to You,
Jim Sutherland

@287daysleft


If I say I have a disbelief you are a king, it generally means that I believe you are not a king.

If I have no belief one way or another whether you are a king, I would not say I have a disbelief you are a king.

not true.

example:

when a person is accused of a crime and is before the court.
the verdicts are either GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.

There is no verdict called INNOCENT.

here's why:

GUILTY verdict means: There is enough evidence to determine the accused is guilty.

NOT GUILTY means: There is NOT enough evidence to determine the accused is guilty.

He may still have committed the crime. But there is not enough evidence to determine this.

It does not mean he is INNOCENT, he may or may not be.


The athiest position is this:

I don think there is enough evidence to warrant a belief in god.

hence he says I have a disbelief in a god. Lack of belief.

He does not say, "therefore there is no god", rather he says "there might be" but there is no reason or evidence to support the belief that there is a god.

hence the athiest has no burden of proof. A negative cannot be proven anyway.

the burden of proof falls on the person who makes a claim. The atheist makes no claim.

The atheist simply states he does not believe in a god.

He is not saying there is no god. That would be making a claim.
This is the 'soft' athiest position.

Intrigued;
Can it be that he is stating the most simplistic truth without any need and connection to any one religion or worship in a human being? Can it be that science not sprituality can be fully realised unless experienced? Is cause and effect based on what we are accustomed to understanding but upon dying either this continues or a notion of being breaks away into oneness?

As for riches do people pay anything as in money to belong to this path or is it just ones time given. If it’s ones time given does it really matter if there is a benefit to that person?

The feed is interesting but I’m just asking a question without wanting to be a critique to others here.

Meant to say science or spirituality and not NOT

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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

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

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

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

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

Welcome


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