« Religious believers ignore reality, while making up fantasies | Main | Shivinder Singh sues his brother and RSSB insider »

September 03, 2018

Comments

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

I honestly don’t think that Gurinder and one of his closest friends (I won’t name) in RSSB actually believe in God. Gurinder says that “we’re already in Sach Khand”. And if that’s true then there is no place to go. With that logic, seems the reverse would be true as well—if we’re already in Sach Khand (Heaven) then we’re already in Hell too.

@Brian
Thank you for publishing Osho’s comment. It was very insightful. I hadn’t read through all the comments so probably would have missed that remarkable comment if you hadn’t featured it.

Sarah writes,....”I honestly don’t think that Gurinder and one of his closest friends (I won’t name) in RSSB actually believe in God. Gurinder says that “we’re already in Sach Khand”. And if that’s true then there is no place to go. With that logic, seems the reverse would be true as well—if we’re already in Sach Khand (Heaven) then we’re already in Hell too.”

Me: I now also agree, if what Osho Robbins says Gurinder said is true, then Gurinder is definitely a hard core Atheist. I.e., He does not believe in any higher god than he already is. Ishwar Puri is also preaching the exact same thing, but with more enticement for seekers to ask HIM to initiate those interested in to Astral flying, flower smelling, and ficticious imaginations of just about any thing the mind imagines. Ishwar explains clearly the Sant Mat 1 that Sawan taught, but expands on his own belief that we ALL are in Sach Khand right now, and just don’t know it. So, we don‘t have to go any there. We are already “ Totality of Consciousness.”

I’ll go on Record of saying, they are BOTH, FOS. Both absolute Sant Mat Heretics.

Why?

Because there ARE Inner Regions, as Sawan Singh taught, and I have been thru all of them. Not bragging, just corraborating Sawan Singh.

Jesus Christ was a Living Master of his time, according to Sawan Singh and Charan Singh, among other Sant Masters. Jesus DID have Authority to forgive sins, ( burn karmas ) because he told the Prostitute “your sins are forgiven, ...go and sin no more.” Jesus also healed the sick and raised Lazarous from the dead, who had been dead for 3 days and was already stinking with decay.

I will also now go on Record to say, IF I was not already initiated by Master Charan Singh, then I either would no longer seek initiation from any “ so called” Radhasoami Master, because none of them apeal to me any longer, but if I was a Non Christian who had never given my life to Christ as understood after reading the Bible, and still was looking for a Sant Mat Living Master, then I would not look or search in RSSB, SOS, or even Soami Bagh, because of their Idol Worship. I would most likely investigate closely Dayal Bagh, and if I didn’t find what I was looking for there, then I would go to Self Realization Fellowship and ask for Initiation there, and start meditation using Yogananda’s Light & Sould Technique and possibly Kriyas exercises.

Sant Mat One which initially attracted me has now become formalized as just another Religeon, and has lost its Thunder. History anout it is now so controversal and argued about regarding how many, Who, or if there are any Living Masters, that Sant Mat has surely become just another Cult.

Sad, but Gurinder Singh Dhillon will be known in Sant Mat History as the Guru that “Pulled open the curtain, and exposed Toto. ‘ ( David Lane’s Coined saying.)

Cheers, for some,...Tears for ofhers.
Jim Sutherland

@Jim
Cheers, Jim! I concur 100%!

I received a letter from Gurinder this year that would be happy to photocopy and share. I know he doesn’t read most letters but they informed me that he had gone through my letter, so one particular thing in it impressed me even more—he encouraged me to astral travel.

I will say this though, I don’t think GSD is a typical atheist. I mean, he certainly doesn’t seem to believe in a Higher Power but he does believe in the power of the mind and the ability to have increased psychic awareness. Maybe I’m wrong in assuming that most atheists don’t believe in psychic phenomena... I guess there must be different schools of thought in Athiesm. I dunno... Humans are very eclectic in their belief systems. That’s why we have so many sects! LOL

Quite honestly, I was agnostic for years. Now I believe in a Higher Power but I just can’t define it... since I can’t find anyone that can explain it, I’ve created a belief system around principles from the Tao, Forgiveness of sins—principles from the Course in Miracles (which, yes, is a totally bizarre book but has some good ideas).

What’s disgusting about Gurinder is that he’s a fraud. He isn’t honest with the masses about what he believes. He hints at it with the Westerners but doesn’t come right out and say it. And he allows the Indian crowds to believe that he is GIHF. He is in the guru business... unfortunately for him, his stock is dropping. Literally. He’ll wind up penniless before too long.


I’ll go on Record of saying, they are BOTH, FOS. Both absolute Sant Mat Heretics.

Why?

Because there ARE Inner Regions, as Sawan Singh taught, and I have been thru all of them. Not bragging, just corraborating Sawan Singh.

Jim,

I think they're only emphasizing the illusory nature of creation. What's
outside "soul" is transient, subject to change, and ultimately unreal.
Only the soul is beyond time/space and is unchanging.

Even experiencing the inner regions isn't an absolute requirement to
the journey. GIHF may take an initiate home immediately to avoid
entrapment on the inner planes. For some, the journey may be a
non-stop flight.

Osho wrote:

"So it turns out I am actually a hard atheist – a far cry from the Theist I once was, many years ago. Not sure where this leads – but at least it was entertaining to write about."

Hard Atheist, or Anit-Theist (same thing I guess) not only believes in their experience but denies the experience of others.

That was the problem with Osho's "teacher".

Even the simplest meditation practice, which any Atheist or Anti-Theist can engage in, demonstrates that there is a way to calm down, to find peace of mind and be "in a different space" where we see things differently: to see more of what is actually happening, or more of what did happen.

So yes, even within the realm of personal psychology, there is a higher state (calmer, more balanced, more objective place to view ourselves and the world) where we are more aware; and there is the place we find ourselves in much of the time, unaware of ourselves, certainly less aware, reacting to others' statements, filled with pride and defensiveness; focused on the some element in the moment that stimulates our attention and intention, rather than on the balanced whole, as an observer.

Great athletes train themselves to do both. To act with extreme control, while being extremely observant, calm and "centered".

When we make mistakes and regret them we often think "I wish I had stopped to think for a moment first."

When we view an emotional event afterwards, with some objectivity and calm, we often see things that we didn't. We understand things we didn't. And that is often because we also realize that after the fact there is nothing we can do. That actually allows us to stop and view what happened as an observer.

From a psychological perspective, we are in a different place, a higher place, a dispassionate and more objective place.

So, yes, you can go there.

And no, we aren't there already most of the time.

What is correct about Osho's statement is the tacit implication that whatever there is, is within us. We already have it. But the journey is also within. We aren't in our own center. We are reacting to senses, and hurt feelings, and anger, or lust. These things take center stage and take us from that objective center. These things drive us to act, when action is often unnecessary, or else drive us to act in one way when a completely different action would be better, and in a moment's calm we realize it.

In that objective center we experience balance, "centeredness", because our consciousness isn't centered in some obsession, in some immediate desire (to take, or to hurt, or to do any number of actions out of emotion). And in that center we are more aware of more elements. We can see a broader horizon, because we aren't scope targeting one specific point of stimulus and action.

This is the psychological reality of each of us.

And we are works in progress. We won't be in the same place years from now.

We'll be more mature, or less mature.

We'll be where our interests take us. That may not be where we really want to go.

The fact that we can awaken awareness of the whole picture within ourselves, and the whole landscape and context around us, by calm meditation, is a great start and truly a great end in itself.

That meditation practice has us focus on something that isn't our own issues or immediate triggers is a very good thing. Part of the path to a transcendent experience.

There is great spirituality in meditation as well. And a greater consciousness to experience.

But to my Atheist friends, even if that greater consciousness is your own conscience, your own objective voice, when emotions aren't clouding judgement and thinking and reaction, even then, that inner voice, that higher voice, which is you, is worth contacting more often, listening to, understanding. That gives you greater control over your own self. "Will overcoming" as Nietche wrote. Overcoming what? Those drives, habits, compulsions and obsessions within you that in retrospect, were in control when you did something regretable.

And contacting that inner voice, that center, which has nothing to do with your immediate circumstances. It's wholly it's own place, that is rest, happiness, bliss. The experience deepens as you return there and learn to sit quietly there.

Giving yourself greater control, giving your own Will greater control requires getting in touch with it, living in Its will, becoming intimate with that.

So, yes, there is a journey. It's not a long one. At least to start. But even if it is just one step, it's a great step.

So long as there is a subconscious, there is a journey before us. And an inner happiness, peace and understanding that is entirely free of these external circumstances.

It is a great counselor, a great friend. You are your greatest friend. This is the place to meet and get to know You.


Dear Osho Robbins,


The whole point of my comment in that other thread -- the portion of it that I addressed to you, and that you’re replying to here -- was that I was very surprised when you said very clearly, towards the end of that thread, in a comment addressed to Tucson, that you are not an atheist.


Given the discussion on that thread, and given your views, expressed there, on soft atheism -- which views I agree with cent per cent, by the way, as must have been clear from my own comments on that thread -- I was surprised that you then said, at the end of all of that discussion, that you aren’t an atheist at all, that is, not even a soft atheist.

That’s what my question was based on, your saying that you’re not a (soft) atheist. That’s what I wanted to examine a bit more closely.

.

And you seem to be withdrawing here, now, from that earlier stance of yours. You’re saying here, clearly enough, that you’re actually an atheist after all.

That’s cool! If that is the case, then your stance is clear enough, and agrees perfectly with our earlier discussion, some months back.

.

I enjoyed your comment, by the way. Especially that portion of what you said resonated with me, where you imply that some kinds of God-ideas one can be wholly hard-atheistic about, even as one remains soft-atheistic towards other God ideas. I agree fully with that sentiment.


Perhaps I could just add one more thought here (not that this last has anything at all to do with either what I asked you, nor what you replied to me) : It seems to me that soft-atheism or hard-atheism, that is, this soft-ness or this hard-ness, refers to the route, the reasoning, that we use to arrive at the conclusion of atheism. Irrespective of what the route is, our atheism can be as determined (or as tentative) as we wish. There is no reason to imagine that soft-atheism is in any way more tentative than hard-atheism, one can be just as robust and just as pronounced as the other … or not, as the case may be.

Sara writes,.....”What’s disgusting about Gurinder is that he’s a fraud. He isn’t honest with the masses about what he believes. He hints at it with the Westerners but doesn’t come right out and say it. And he allows the Indian crowds to believe that he is GIHF. He is in the guru business..”

Me: Yes, that is exactly what a Charlatan does. There are many doing the same thing, i.e. telling whom ever they happen to be speaking with, at the time, BSing the crap out of innocent, naive Newbies who are really open, trusting, and just starting out on the Path, and they gravitate to these Charletons who try to suck them dry of their money, Worship, free labor, and free advertising, because of their hypnotized loving, fooled, followers. The more I hear, the more pissed off I get. David Lane has done the same thing for the last 30 years I have read of him, with out ever meeting him in person ,as I have never met Gurinder or Ishwar. Lane first pimped the Sant Mat Philosophy, then criticized Gurinder and his Master Charan, then claims to love Charan .....when with Charan Initiates, while discarding Spirituality and embracing Neural Brain Materialism, and now entertains Gurinder Devotees by telling them that he is impressed with Gurinder’s new Advaita Atheism. Manjit posted Lane’s comments in RSS saying he has not changed at all, regsrding his skepticism of Sant Mat Philosophy, yet he and his Wife are the “ In The Know” Sant Mat American Professor Gurus..

Ishwar Puri has Sant Mat 2, Gurinder has Sant Mat 3, Lane has Sant Mat 4, ( Neural Exploration ), and Osho Robbins has Fucking Sant Mat Fucking ONENESS NONENESS Fuck them all!!!

What a friggen ZOO!

As for Who, or What is your Higher Power?

I have come to the conclusion that my Higher Power is my Causal Body, that has the memories of every single past life My Soul has lived, in all ages, planets, and species, since my spirit was sent out to play and explore from where ever The Eternal Spirit resides, of where HE/SHE/IT is NOT sharing with any other spirit, including our soul’s Creator.

The highest our Higher Soul Self will ever return to, is Sach Khand, or Heaven, where all Saints graduate to, in the Eons of Time, which is actually the Domain of Kal, i.e. Time/ Space.

But, in spite of us being trapped in Kal’s Matrix, it is Eternal, always changing, and not all bad. It has manny Rewards, as well as punishments.

My drop is not eternally merging to stay in any Big Kahuna’s Ocean. My drop is increasing in Wisdom, Knowledge, and Love, every new incarnstion.

Jim is here as a Missionary to balance Karma for Jim’s Higher Soul Self, his, my, Higher Power. Its going real good, so far, in this incarnation.

The Eternal Spirit, operates through the Eternal Chain of Command, from the Pinnacle of the Pyrimid, to the Base, and is the Untimate Founder of the Eternal Ponzi Scheme!

All souls have Jobs, while in the Physical, Astral, or Causal bodies, and when ever Gurinder’s desciples see his radiant form, inside, that only verifies Gurinder’s Astral bidy is hanging out with that Desciples Astral body, during meditation, or lucid dreaming. No big deal, and does not indicate Gurinder is GIHF, nor is Charan, because his Astral body appeared to my Astral body inside during meditation.

There are Spirits operating all sround us, at all time. Some help us, some hinder us. They each have different Jobs and different Bosses, Google the free Book in pdf and read it, and you will understand perfectly how spirits operate.

The SPIRTS BOOK by Allan Kardec.

Best Regards,
Jim Sutherland

Dungeness writes,....” think they're only emphasizing the illusory nature of creation. What's
outside "soul" is transient, subject to change, and ultimately unreal.
Only the soul is beyond time/space and is unchanging.”

Me: I disagree, and think this is where most of the confusion occurrs.

Why?

Because soul and spirit are different identities, soul is always changing, and impermenent, YET, also Ultimately Eternal, while spirit is the VITAL LIFE FORCE that anomates, and gives life to ALL Creation.

Rosicrucian Philosophy define this combined “ God”, if you will, as NOUS. I am not home presently, and won’t be for several weeks, as I am on the Rhyne River in Germany headed to Prague, the Check Republic. But if you ate sincerely interested, I will be haply to dig out my AMORC Mongraphs and post the exact dections whete NOUS IS DESCRIBED.

I have limited WiFi, hit and miss, depending whete on the River we happen to be.

Regards,
Jim Sutherland

"my Higher Power is my Causal Body, that has the memories of every single past life My Soul has lived, in all ages, planets, and species"

Jim, let me guess, you lived in ancient Egypt and also Atlantis and in neither place were you a pauper, slave or peasant?

On a dark Punjab highway, cool wind in my hair ...
I went up to the Dera, and realised the Guru wasn't there !

GSD will pull a fast one on the faithful, I better put the pink champagne on ice.


I am on the same page as Osho. Great comment. The thing I would change, and I think Osho would agree if I express it this way, is that the pals Alakh (formless), Agam (unknowable), and Anami (nameless) do exist but not as separate entities located somewhere other than where we are now. They are the present condition of all of us. Reality has no form (Alakh), cannot be known as an objective thing (Agam) and cannot be described or named (Anami).

One can't be known because there would have to be another One to know it and then there wouldn't be just One anymore. There would be Two.

@Tucson - Nice comment. I agree.
Alakh, Agam, and Anami are metaphors.
All mystical experiences are in duality as the experiencer is always present.

@Appreciative Reader
When I first said "I am not an athiest" I was just explaining athiesm, and I have never thought of myself as being in that category.

However, having clarified the meaning of athiesm, and if I apply it to a personal God - then I am an athiest. I would much prefer to be a soft athiest, given the choice, however if I am honest then I have to admit I claim to know there is no personal God.

However if the labels are applied to the ONENESS as equal to God, then I guess I become a theist.

So basically we are back where I started - I ain't got a fucking clue.
Cool.

I'm starting to agree with your oneness idea now, Osho. It's more like saying, at least to me, totality.
Nothing to do with attainment or perception. Simply the whole thing regardless of its parts equals one. Remove a part. It's one. Add a part. One.

Jesse
You wrote
"Simply the whole thing regardless of its parts equals one. Remove a part. It's one. Add a part. One."

Wow. Beatiful. Elegant.

As I see it, this "you are already there idea," may not be exactly as some people think. If you are wearing a monkey suit and are convinced you are a monkey, you need not undertake any practices to become a human. You are already a human. But you do have to stop believing you are a monkey.

Similarly, you are already consciousness. You need do nothing to become consciousness, just stop believing you are a separate form.

Naturally almost everyone that hears this message then goes and believes that they, as a monkey, need do nothing and are realized just as they are in monkey consciousness. Not exactly true.


.

@287daysleft
You are right. it's not about belief, because belief is the problem. Belief keeps you blind.

You cannot believe in the oneness - it's not a belief system

Osho,

It's a matter of removing the filters and beliefs are part of that.


If I believe I am a person rather than pure being then generally along with that are attachments to my survival and well being and a sense of grasping for what sustains me.

This attachment to temporary things results in suffering since they are temporary. So letting go will always be the essential spiritual process.

In sant mat they say it's easier to let go if you attach to something better, so they attempt to attach to the life current shakti, hoping that that better pleasure will help you release from sense pleasures.

Always the main thing was release from the sense of separation, separate identity and recognition/experience of one's true identity which is not a person, not a human, not anything describable.


.

So a real teacher may encourage letting go and detachment rather than any attempt to accumulate experiences of any type including higher dimensions because who is it that could own such experiences? A separate identity only.


The goal in Sant Mat has not changed but the focus on letting go rather than acquiring experiences of higher realms was always the real end point.

Those first hearing the teachings are always more interested in realms of ecstasy though. Letting go and losing everything was never going to be a popular message. That's why religions and teachings that emphasize heavenly realms will always be the most popular.

Babaji is now willing to be unpopular with westerners. Go to any satsang in usa or europe. It's all Indians. The westerners have cleared out. I think Babaji considers them too high maintenance and not really suited to sant mat, a path like any other, a metaphor or way of understanding letting go, not literally true.

.

.

Quote Osho Robbins : @Appreciative Reader --- When I first said "I am not an athiest" I was just explaining athiesm, and I have never thought of myself as being in that category.--- However, having clarified the meaning of athiesm, and if I apply it to a personal God - then I am an athiest. I would much prefer to be a soft athiest, given the choice, however if I am honest then I have to admit I claim to know there is no personal God.


That makes sense.

Just like the last time we discussed your Oneness, I am struck by your remarkable honesty, and your remarkable ability to clearly and unhesitatingly recognize your own untenable beliefs and arguments and, having recognized them, to go beyond them -- which is rare enough anywhere IRL, and practically unheard of on the Internet!

We all carry unexamined beliefs that are irrational and that we’re not even aware of, and I wish that I would be able to be as intellectually honest as you when it comes to my own unexamined beliefs.


Quote : However if the labels are applied to the ONENESS as equal to God, then I guess I become a theist.--- So basically we are back where I started - I ain't got a fucking clue.--- Cool.


And that, Osho Robbins, is the crux of what I’d actually asked of you, in my comment to you in that other thread : why exactly would you think of equating this ONENESS with God at all? That was, and is, my only question to you.

Now I appreciate that you’re saying, very clearly, that you “aint got a fucking clue”. And I also fully appreciate, from our discussion some months back, that you recognize the essential subjectivity of this ONENESS experience/realization.

But still, in saying “if the labels are applied to the ONENESS as equal to God, then I guess I become an atheist”, you’re recognizing at least the possibility of equating ONENESS with God, aren’t you? That is the part that I’m requesting you to explore further, if you would.

You understand what I’m saying, don’t you? Say I’m taking a walk in the hills, and come across a lovely view of vast vistas, that I find very moving ; or else (to use your “fucking” expression literally) I experience exceptionally moving session of, well, fucking ; or a long run that brings me to the “zone” and leaves me feeling fulfilled more than just physically ; well then, while I might equate these experiences to “meditation” or “God” purely metaphorically, nevertheless I’d never actually say that if these experiences of mine were God, then I’d be a theist. That is, there is clearly more to your ONENESS than simply an unusually intense experience, which -- while you don’t insist on it, nor even actually suggest it -- might, conceivably, end up equating with God for you.

I hope I’ve been able to clearly express my meaning, my question, the actual nuance of what it is I am asking, this time?

I’d like it very much if you would take the trouble to unpack that in your words. To repeat : How, exactly, might this ONENESS actually equate with God?

I’d love to be able to understand your POV about this better.


PS : Incidentally, I myself am of the view that subjective experience can indeed lead one to God. That is, I am skeptical about the existence of God, and I am skeptical of the validity of spiritual experience ; but I do think it likely that if at all anything can provide understanding and evidence of God, that would be one’s first-hand personal experience.

Therefore, I think it might, perhaps, be important -- to me -- to better understand your views about ONENESS vis-à-vis God-ness, if you’d take the trouble to think over and speak about this.


PPS : If I’m making a mountain of a molehill, and espying nuances where there are none, then my apologies. If your ONENESS is no more to you than simply the equivalent of an exceptionally absorbing run, or exceptionally fulfilling sex, or an exceptional instance of ‘getting in the zone’ when working out or being moved by some view or by the starry sky or whatever, then my apologies for this very involved comment of mine! In that case, your just telling me, “Sorry, you’re on your own trip, and seeing possibilities within my ONENESS that I don’t see myself” will be enough. That will mean that my original question was meaningless (or at least, pointless) after all.

@AR
I am not sure exactly what you are asking.
ONENESS is not an experience. You could call it a deep understanding, that goes beyond just an intellectual understanding.
So someone could read my words or listen to me, and he will get a certain understanding or a concept of the meaning of oneness.
That is an intellectual understanding. He can agree or disagree with my statement.
Alternatively, he can just listen, without agreeing or disagreeing. Simply accepting the possibility. In that state, something may or may not happen, while listening.
Listening with the mind (agreeing or disagreeing) could be called “egoic listening” which is listening with an attitude of “but I already know…”
The other listening has a very different quality. A bit like admiring a beautiful sunset. In that moment, you are lost. For a while, the mind is gone. Just the beauty remains.
In that moment, something happens. You get a glimpse of something beyond the sunset.
It is not an experience. It is not the sunset. It is not the words.
If you just grasp the words, then it remains intellectual and you say “Is that it? – just a few words?”
Just like someone can see the same sunset and say, “What’s so special about that?”
If you get lost in the sunset, you disappear.
There is a zen story of a zen master, creating a life-like painting, that is so realistic, and he walks into it, and is never seen again.
Not sure if I answered your question, as I am not even sure what the question is – but at least I danced around it.

@AR

"Quote : However if the labels are applied to the ONENESS as equal to God, then I guess I become a theist.--- So basically we are back where I started - I ain't got a fucking clue"

Guru Nanak applied the label of God to oneness.

If I do the same - then yes, I am a theist, or more accurately a Gnostic.
A theist believes in a God - a Gnostic knows God. (or claims to know)

I just don't like the God word because of the notions attached to it.

Like "all powerful and all knowing" which a duality concepts.

You could equally say that god is " all powerless and totally unknowing"

because everything you say will be a lie. He is zero, nothing, or just the ONE, without another.

Again, all labels, and we get lost in the language, so god gets lost in translation.

words get translated by the mind, so all the mind gets is more words and concepts and misses the sunset.

If you happen to "get" the sunset, then you can't ask anything about it and it would be pointless.

In a moment of being lost in the sunset, you might realise that there is no "you".

This "disappearance of the ego" comes with the realization that there never was a "you" - so then what's all the fuss about?

"Who" wants to get enlightened and why?

"Who" seeks the benefits of enlightenment?

"Who" wants to get to Sach Khand?

"Who" is asking the master for "grace" and what will he do with it, if he is given it?

"who" is meditating and what he is hoping to attain and why?

Once "you" are gone - so is the path and the destination, and all explanations.

@287daysleft

"So a real teacher may encourage letting go and detachment rather than any attempt to accumulate experiences of any type including higher dimensions because who is it that could own such experiences? A separate identity only."

The seeker wants to attain. That is all he knows.

He knows he is a separate soul and wants to merge into the big oversoul which he calls god.

He wants to disappear, because he thinks it's a "good" thing to disappear.

But deep down, he doesn't want to disappear at all - he wants to become the oversoul - the god.

He is greedy.

and God cannot become a decoration for your ego.

another attainment, another medal, another showpiece.

another "Hey - look at me - I have now achieved the final and biggest thing - God himself"

The goal in Sant Mat has not changed but the focus on letting go rather than acquiring experiences of higher realms was always the real end point.

Those first hearing the teachings are always more interested in realms of ecstasy though. Letting go and losing everything was never going to be a popular message. That's why religions and teachings that emphasize heavenly realms will always be the most popular."

Osho writes,...”The goal in Sant Mat has not changed but the focus on letting go rather than acquiring experiences of higher realms was always the real end point.

Those first hearing the teachings are always more interested in realms of ecstasy though. Letting go and losing everything was never going to be a popular message. That's why religions and teachings that emphasize heavenly realms will always be the most popular."

Me: Yes, I agree with your prognosis. I never once, in my present life ever desired to become God. I had already totally surrendered my “ self’ to my Higher Power, as I understood it, even before my Christian Born Again experience when I gave my life the Christ,...( as I understood at that time, in April 1977.). After that, I felt “ Eternally Secure”, and have never lost that “feeling’, but I was hooked by the Bait of Light & Sound after reading Julian Johnson’s Book, The Path of the Masters. I took the Bait, was Initiated in to Sant Mat April 1988, and was lit up with light and connected to Sound at Initiation by Thakar Singh, BUT, never got any thing else, the following two years until initited by Charan Singh’s Proxy inititation, that kept me on the Path exploring the Astral, and Causal Planes.

Truthfully, I never desired to disapear in to the Big Ocean and commit suicide by loosing me to become God. So, thoretically, I guess You could say, I never desired to become a true Sant Mat Satsangi, and still, have no desire to merge in to the Big Ocean of Oneness, which for me, would be Nothingness.

But I have entered Samadhi, or Nitvana, many many times, during deep meditation, where I believe is Sach Khand described by the Masters,...at least some of them. The others are confused.

So,....I now confess that I am an Eclectic Nothinarian. Maybe I will start a new Religeon, and call it,....The NOTHINARIAN ASSEMBLY of Orphaned Spirits.

Cheers,
Jim Sutherland

@jim
Just to clarify. Wasn’t clear in my posting.
The comment belongs to 287daysleft.
I copied his comment in order to reply but didn’t comment

@Osho,... OK. Sorry. I agree with 287 then. I gotta agree with some body. How will I recruit new Converts to my Nothinarian Assembly of Orphaned Spirits?

AmenAumOmRadasoamiOmManuPadiOm.
Jim Sutherland
Chief Heretic

Quote Osho Robbins : Alternatively, he can just listen, without agreeing or disagreeing. Simply accepting the possibility. In that state, something may or may not happen, while listening.


I guess that's where I am at, with you. Although to be honest, nothing has "happened", not even remotely. :-)


Quote : The other listening has a very different quality. A bit like admiring a beautiful sunset. In that moment, you are lost. For a while, the mind is gone. Just the beauty remains.
In that moment, something happens. (...) If you get lost in the sunset, you disappear.


That's beautiful. Like last time, I appreciate the beauty, or at least the potential that your words allow one to appreciate (or at least, to imagine).


Quote : Not sure if I answered your question, as I am not even sure what the question is – but at least I danced around it.


Well, no actually. Not that it's a big deal really, but since you ask, no. My question is straightforward enough : I was wondering why you would even consider equating this experience with the God-word, no matter how reluctantly. This is not to question you, not to doubt you, but to see if you might be able to put in words what it is about this realization that might conceivably deserve such an extravagant labeling as the God-word (no matter how reluctantly you might consider this label).

My abosrption in a workout, or a run, or in sex, or in an exceptional book, I would categorically NOT equate with God-hood in any shape or form. That you at least admit of the possibility of such categorization, made me wonder if you might be able to explain why you do this, in your words.

No big deal, if the question appears off to you. But if it now makes sense, I'd be glad of whatever you can put down -- or dance! :-) -- around this.


Quote : Guru Nanak applied the label of God to oneness.


And would you say your personal realization of ONENESS corresponds with Nanak's? Why would you say that? (I'm afraid I'm very ignorant about the Granth Sahib. I own a slim volume of Japji Sahab, translated, which I'm afraid I've only read half through. That's about the extent of my knowledge of the Sikh scriptures.)


Quote : This "disappearance of the ego" comes with the realization that there never was a "you" - so then what's all the fuss about?


And that -- to circle back to our previous discussion, or what I remember of it -- takes us to "Nothingness", as in the absence of our ego, our self-identification (as best I can conceptually picture it). How does one arrive from this Nothingness to the Somethingness (perhaps even the Everythingness) that one could, perhaps, equate with God (no matter how reluctantly)?


Quote ; Once "you" are gone - so is the path and the destination, and all explanations.


I get that, kind of, conceptually as it were. But what is it about this going away of oneself and of all explanations that can possibly be equated with God, and therefore with theism (no matter how unorthodox, and no matter how reluctantly applied)?


.


I wonder if I've been able to clarify my question now? It's a simple enough question. And if I haven't, then no big deal. But if you do get it, then I'd appreciate your answer.

@AR
Yes I understand your question now.

Once “You” are gone
You are in good company.

You are with the big zero.

God is nothing. Absence of all things.

The oneness is equated to God by religions and ppl who follow
Enlightened gurus.

I can also equate it to god, however I don’t because I don’t like the label.

But yes, I can say it is god

@jim
I don’t mind if you agree with me.

I just didn’t want to take credit for something I didn’t write.

I mean there might be karmic repercussions etc and I might get kicked out of the oneness

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.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...