RSSB book shows why there's no such thing as a "perfect" master

Thanks to the Great God Amazon, who answers my prayers by delivering to my doorstep pretty much whatever I desire, I'm the possessor of two books published in 2016 by Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB):

"A Wake Up Call: Beyond Concepts and Illusions" by Sabina Oberoi and Beverly Chapman, and a similar book by Sabina Oberoi, "Concepts and Illusions: A Perspective."

Since I no longer believe in the RSSB teachings, after being a devotee of this Indian spiritual organization for 35 years, I figured that I wouldn't agree with much in these books. Still, since I'm interested in the general subject of concepts and illusions, I also anticipated that the books would be food for thought.

I was right about that, having finished reading "A Wake Up Call" this morning. Here's some impressions of the book, focusing on what Oberoi and Chapman say about the notion of a perfect master -- which is a central concept in the RSSB philosophy.

Oops! I just used the word "concept," and the book argues that we're supposed to go beyond concepts. 

But here's the thing: there are a great many concepts in the book's 152 pages. It isn't possible to write or speak without using concepts. And it also isn't possible to be a member of a spiritual organization such as RSSB without embracing concepts such as "God," "guru," "meditation," "perfect master," "enlightenment," and such.

If Oberoi and Chapman had really wanted to go beyond concepts, they wouldn't have written a word. However, then they couldn't have urged RSSB initiates to go beyond concepts. 

I do agree, though, that the authors make some good points about how RSSB initiates have a lot of crazy ideas about karma, meditation, seva (volunteer service), satsang (spiritual meetings), the guru, and other subjects.

If they had simply argued that all a disciple should do is meditate assiduously and experience what happens with an open mind, then I think the content of their book would have matched up with the title.

Yet this isn't what is in the book. There are several key concepts that Oberoi and Chapman accept without giving any reasons for why they are true, or why it is necessary to accept them on faith. 

Chief among these is the core concept of a "perfect master." The photo above is of Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the current RSSB guru, who is viewed by most RSSB devotees as just that -- a perfect master.

But here's what Oberoi and Chapman say at the beginning of their About the Master chapter:

It has been said that if all the seas were ink and all the land were paper and all the trees in the world were pens, you still couldn't write a description of the master. To understand who the master is and what he does for us is beyond the ability of words to describe.

Whether we call him a friend, a teacher, a saint or God himself -- these are all concepts. We can discuss them, we can heap long lists of adjectives on them, we can even argue heatedly about them -- but the fact remains they're only concepts. If we want to understand the master and his role in our lives we will have to go to a higher level of consciousness.

OK. I'm doubtful this higher level of consciousness exists.

Yet if the chapter had ended at this point, I couldn't argue much with it. Meaning, let's leave aside any and all concepts of who Gurinder Singh Dhillon is in his role of RSSB guru, and simply meditate to understand the wordless nature of the guru.

However, there's a lot more words in the About the Master chapter. And some of those words speak about a key concept, that of a "perfect master." For example...

(1) "When we assume we know how a perfect living master should dress, how he should speak, move, gesticulate and behave, we should pause and reflect for a moment -- what on earth are we doing?"

(2) "What if the master behaves differently from our expectations? Do we then get shaken? Do we find ourselves doubting whether he's a perfect master after all because he doesn't conform to our idea of the perfect master?"

(3) "Let us approach the challenge of being disciples of a perfect master with open minds -- as clean slates -- and allow the master to reveal himself to us, to show his real self, one facet at at time."

(4) "The delusion that we know what a perfect master should be like could derive from the word 'perfect'. The Indian term 'puran sant satguru' is generally translated into English as 'perfect master'. The literal meaning of 'puran' is complete, nothing lacking. He is a 'complete' master because his realization is complete instead of partial."

Well, who says? And who knows that Gurinder Singh Dhillon is perfect, or complete? Aren't "perfect" and "complete" concepts that, earlier in the chapter, Oberoi and Chapman said can't help us understand who the master is? 

Yet they presume that Gurinder Singh Dhillon is a perfect master, as evidenced by the numerous times they use this concept without expressing any doubts about it. 

Look: you can't have it both ways.

If the nature of the RSSB guru is beyond concepts, then the authors of "A Wake Up Call" should have simply said something like, Only meditation can lead us to a true understanding of the guru, and this can never be expressed in words, being ineffable.

But they didn't do that. They repeatedly talked about the concept of a "perfect master" as if this was an unarguable reality, which belied the key goal of their book -- to go beyond concepts and illusions.

Since I consider that the notion of a perfect master is both a concept and an illusion, I was disappointed in the book for several reasons.

First, it didn't live up to its title, since it presumed certain concepts to be true. Second, even if someone is a RSSB devotee, the book confuses the issue of a "perfect master," since it argues both that the guru is beyond concepts, while presuming that the RSSB guru is deserving of the concept, perfect master.

So as I said in the title of this post, there's no way a guru can be a perfect master. Either such doesn't exist (my view), or there is no way to tell that someone is a perfect master other than experiencing an ineffable understanding in meditation (the RSSB view).

Either way, the words "perfect master" are meaningless.

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian
The more I meditate, the more I realize that a true teacher minimizes their role.

If meditation is our goal, if we meet them inside, why talk about it?

When the Master's tell us to meditate, why say more?

If the goal is Shabd, why replace worship of Spirit with cult of personality?

No one ever knew this term "Perfect Living Master" until Sant Mat, and every religion on earth.

And while claiming to avoid religion, such terminology is religion.

Telling us to keep our minds open, but then insulting us for trying to make up our own minds is religion.

I see more and more contradictory messages in the very core teachings of Sant Mat.

Messages encouraging blind faith, while claiming to be a path of scientific inquiry.

However, this idea that we are too flawed to understand truth flies in the face of the fact that being able to decide right and wrong for ourselves is the responsibility of every human being. If spirit is truth our ability to see right from wrong improves with spiritual practice.

Yes we can and must judge the Master just as we must judge everyone we rely upon, and mostly ourselves.

But if we learn not to judge right from wrong, then that religion offers nothing but a comfortable excuse for smugness. It is corruption.

If the authors follow their own crazy logic they would not judge the Sangat or the Master.

But in giving the Master complete freedom from any ethical responsibility, and chiding the Sangat for making an ethical judgement based on their own direct observations, we have religion. And religion at its most corrupting work.

[Spence Tepper]

One more point.

If you believe we should withhold judgment of the master because our judgment is in development, then we should withhold judgment of his critics too. For the same reason.

If you believe we should withhold judgment of the Master, you would never claim he is perfect.

I say live the teachings of Truth at their core or keep silent.

If you acknowledge Truth as superior to our human limitations no one would claim anything "Complete", "perfect" or "final" because they themselves are in development.

And no true Saint would do so because they are the perfect model for how we should live our lives.

Otherwise, they are no teacher, and certainly not a perfect one.

[Sarah]

Hi Spence,

I totally agree with everything you wrote. One interesting point—RSSB worked hard to be registered as an actual Religion not too long ago in Australia just so that they would be qualified to buy the property they wanted. They had to submit documents explaining why they are a religion. I have the link to the article and documents they submitted if you’re interested. So, from now on they can never say that they’re not a religion. What hypocrisy.

[seeker]

Hello Sarah,

Please do share the links here. I want to have a look. This is so shocking.

You know, I was watching some hilarious videos of some Baba from south India, he was talking non-sense about science and stuff, to my surprise people were actually listening and thinking what he is saying is right. Imagine what blind faith can do to disciples.

Check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tem9GOWFIoo

[Sarah]

In fact, here’s one link to an article about it. I have the pdf of documents they submitted but it’s very long and wouldn’t send through my email. Need to use a google docs link. Will try to post that later. It’s kind of a big deal...

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/have-a-little-faith-melbourne-vegetarian-spiritualists-religion-recognised-20170609-gwoam7.html

[Sarah]

PROOF THAT RSSB IS A “RELIGION”.

If they declare that they’re a “religion” on legal documents then THEY ARE a religion.

They said it, not me:

https://www.yarraranges.vic.gov.au/Lists/Current-consultation/Planning-application-YR-2014341-275-Edward-Road-Chirnside-Park

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/east/rssb-australia-plans-centre-for-up-to-2000-worshippers-in-chirnside-park/news-story/cb753ddbb95dcdb789f5bd721a4e296b

[seeker]

Thanks Sarah

[Appreciative Reader]

@Sarah :

Wow! (The article you've referenced in your comment posted October 04, 2018 at 03:06 AM.)

Like you said, they said it, not you. You can't have it both ways. You can't go declare yourself a religion, and then claim that you are somehow different from the other infantile fairy tales the world is full of, like Xtianity and Islam and Hinduism, et cetera.

Thanks for posting this.

[Mr. Curious]

@seeker:

Thanks for sharing the Nitwit-ananda video! Hilarious. He should take his "nonsense baba" show on the road...as a comedy. :-)

Tellingly, in the comments, the baba's supporters defend his "genius" much like the satsangis here defend Gurindar and others.

Oh, the folly of blind faith

btw, If you find any other funny baba vids, please share them here!

[Tim Rimmer]

Hi Sarah

In regard to the articles on RSSB in Australia. I recall Brian added a post concerning the toing and froing around the issue of a new centre and the organisation had to successfully argue/clarify its religious or not status in order to get the proposal approved. Is the project underway?

In regard to recent books, I notice there is a new publication called ‘From self to Shabd’ - the associated blurb mentions ‘our illusion of a separate self’ - somewhat non-dual eh? Sounds like an upgrade/modernisation approach to the teachings? Anybody read it?

[Arjuna]

@ Brian - what do you think will happen you at death?

Just popped in my mind- do you switch off in nothingness?

I’m really curious - enthrall me with your answer?

[Spence Tepper]

This culture that values blind faith and dismisses judgment of any kind, permanently, I mean, thibk about it.

It's a slave making schema, it's weaponizing the teacher.

[Osho Robbins]

@Arjuna

what do you think will happen to you at death? and why?

People who follow RSSB think they know.

but they don't.

they just believe

[Juan]

Some years ago ( maybe 6 or 7)a group of villagers, from a small village in Rajasthan, numbering 30-40 (nearly all the young males of the village) loaded in a Truck came to Beas. They were headed by a family of 6-8 brothers whose very elderly father ( over 80 yrs.) was an ardent follower of RSSB.

The purpose was to meet Babaji to resolve a land issue, which their father who was illiterate had donated to the RSSB and it was duly registered with the Registration Authorities in the of RSSB. The documents were in possession of Dera.
It is a normal practise that all the Deeds in original are sent to the Dera

The complaint of the Brothers was that, a group of RSSB local sevadars, one of whom was in-charge of a satsang center who were, though, very helpful, friendly to their father and in constant touch with him, managed in a fraudulent way,( Behla Fusla Kar) his signatures on the Donation Document and even took him to the Registrar Office where he signed confirming the donation of the land. The land legally became the property of RSSB.

All this happening was not in the knowledge of the family members of the Donor. Normally the property is inherited by the male children. The family was not well off. The land was their hope of future and their major asset. It had a substantial monetary value for them.

After some time, the brothers came to know, their old father denied that he had donated, he was under the impression that he was giving the permission to RSSB to use the land for weekly satsangs.

The brothers furious, would not give up under any circumstances. As the matter could not be solved locally, so they travelled to Beas.

Babaji, after having a meeting with the Brothers accepted and ordered the land be given back to them, and even warned the local incharge that he (Babaji) should not get such complaints in future.

In spite of all this, the practise of land donation to RSSB by many illiterate villagers continues on.

[Juan]

Babaji lost his temper while answering a Question in Malaga.

The satsang hall was full with sangat from whole Europe, maybe 7000 to 8000. I guess sangat from U.K. was more than from Spain.

The questioner was a Male and the answers by Babaji were in a very hard and harsh tone, his face expressions were clearly with anger, never heard or seen before by sangat and pointing out with fingers to the questioner.
I’ll try to put down the way I remember.

Q- Babaji, overnight why two families were expulsed from Dera, without a solid reason? ( Maybe he said 25, I did’nt get it very well)

Babaji- You should ask this question in Beas. Did you ask the families why they were forced to leave, you should have asked them first, well, I’ll tell you the reason. Their children, at school, were found to be involved in sexual harassment.

Q- But, Babaji, okay the children were guilty, but why the parents should be punished? Why?

Babaji- You say, its not the fault of the parents, of course the parents are guilty they must teach the children. The children learn from their parents.

Q-Shouldn’t the teachers be blamed for this?

Babaji- Why the teachers should be blamed for their wrongdoings. The children are only 4 hours with them, whereas they are 20 hours with their parents.

Q- No, no...Babaji, it’s not that way, the parents are sevadars and they are in the seva the whole day, they are far less time with their children than their teachers. The teachers should be responsible.

Babaji- Listen, Beas is not a democracy, it is my organization, and I know how to deal with the matters. It is none of your business. If you have any issue of Beas, don’t bring it here, you can take that issue in Beas or write a letter.

Q- Babaji, Yes.. I have written letters to Mithu relating to other issues and have been writing to you as well since the last 5 years but I haven’t got any response from your side. Why?

Babaji- You should not take names. So you have been writing letters only since the last 5 years?

Q- I had to, to get the reply.

Babaji- I’ll write back to you only if I feel it is proper.

Q- I’ll write again and let’s see.

The Q&A session continued on with a strange feeling.

[Arjuna]

@ Osho - I don’t claim to know and I certainly know you guys don’t have the foggiest of ideas!

It’s a thought experiment (question). Come on your intellectual is that advanced it knows everything! Enthrall me with your acumen?????

@ Brian - I await your response? 😀

[Arjuna]

@ Spencer - chin up solider - eyes front. Stay strong buddy. Let’s both of us let this play and stop punishing our selves. Night!

[Jen]

Arjuna asks "Brian - what do you think will happen you at death?"

Found this from Brian's blog dated January 04, 2009
...................

Julian Barnes deals with death...irreligiously

The prospect (what a comforting word, so much better than "certainty") of dying can scare me to death.

So I just had to read Julian Barnes' book, "Nothing to Be Frightened Of". Because it's theme is death, and I want to believe that the title is true.

http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/01/julian-barnes-deals-with-deathirreligiously.html

[777]

Nothing shocking for a 50yr satsangis with good luck (karma)

HE is the same as You & Me
Only has meditated longer/deeper/more efficiently
He kept his back straight
OR did that in another life
and now even might think He got the 'non_thoughts' state for free

Indeed the word complete is better because
applying the Fibbonacci algorithm, as the whole universe does
nothing can touch the , what is said 'Purusha' State.
In Gurinder's case it's a 9 with many 9s after the comma.
We are at 0,1 or around that

And Why, guys & girls is that
It is to maintain a piece of ignorance/amnesia garanteeing our
flabbergasting hyper goose bumps impressed/experienced
while approaching the Purusha_Center as much as possible
which in itself is The Excelling way of HAVING PLEASURE
for which this universe ( and many others) is created.

If we were 'alone'. what we are ( à la Solispism ) is / was
It was already a "perfect" way to exist, to do existence

But there are so many universes, totally different

This creation and our existence are WHAT HE/SHE IS ( Purusha is and the call it Prakiti ).
A nano- mini particle of all that HE is
Just read Adi Granth as an Science-Fiction book
Read "Ringworld" of Niven to pump up your cells a little
before You meditate
Read Spiritual Letters

Imaging the mind could understand all that, . . . .
It would be destroyed
Only the center can ! !
Please forget the concept "time"
it's a construct, one of myriads contracts to have fun
I hear HIM singing
"All I wanted is to have some fun". >>>LOVE<<<

The NON THOUGHT with SHABD does IT ( 99% )

Gurinder is just better in all this than we are
and it brings a high score of Miracles (serendipities) around Him
For EARTH standards this is PERFECT

Let's use what those Masters gave us

Many say : " Oh I wish so much to have lived when Jesus
or the Buddha was there"

YOU ARE

Stop the Mind
It's your enemy (the way U use it) , . . not for earthly stuff/pleasure & pain) , . . . not for HIS PLAN
for His Plan the Mind is Great
but it makes false concepts , all the time

777

PS
You are ( if you want and karma allows ) exactly like HIM
a
GIHF. , big time
Read my lips

[777]

"". People who follow RSSB think they know.
but they don't.

they just believe. ""

You are right

Only those who hear the Shabd Dhun on a level
that makes sure that THAT orgasm is what you really are
They know that physical cells are a joke with some serious Love in them

777

[777]

A.R wrote
PROOF THAT RSSB IS A “RELIGION”.
and the Australian courts

It all depends on the Australian Webster & the semantics of Religion
down under

As it probably means "re-connect with God"
RSSB is

But so many in RSSB Jeevas are already sturdy connected
with the constant Sound Vibration, . . . .
which make the "RE-" obsolete
and RSSB then is not a religion

But reasoning that Purusha can never 101 % be integrated
( because then , . . there would no Charan's : "It ever grows" anymore )
Then RSSB is a religion
paying no tax
Somebody tell an Aussie Judge?

777

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Osho Robbins (addressing Arjuna) :

what do you think will happen to you at death? and why?

Hello, Osho Robbins.

This is a lovely question, actually. We faff a lot here, saying this and that and the other, but by directly asking this brutal question, directly, and demanding a clear answer, you actually bring us to the crux of the matter, to the core of what we think.

I think it would be ...instructive, if we, we who comment here, took turns to answer this question as best we can. I'd love to know what different people would answer to this question. I'd love to know what you yourself might say, most of all, Osho Robbins, and Manjit as well.

I'll go first : Here's what I'd say :

I've no clue, honestly, and I guess I'll find out. But my best guess, at this time, is that I'll simply switch off, finito.

[OshoRobbins]

What do I think will happen at my death?

The question is absurd. This body will die and get cremated or whatever.

And what about ME? Where will I go?

The simple answer is "nowhere"

There is no place to go.

And there is no "me" to go there

This "me" is an illusion

The notion that an "I" exists is an illusion

There is no "I" so it cannot die as it was never born

WHO is going to die?

[OshoRobbins]

The simpler answer is

I don't know and don't care

Only those are concerned who believe the "l" is real

[Arjuna]

@ Osho - I loved your response. That’s a good way of thinking about.

I too don’t believe in regions any more but I do struggle to get my head around some events where things don’t make sense here on earth.

And on a lighter note - why worry about what happens after death there are more things to worry about here.
As Shakespeare once wrote - hell is empty all the demons are here lol.

Have a good day

[s*]

Hi Juan,
Not so easy for lots people??
I think so..
Maybe Babaji is done with all the critics?
He seams a'' bit autarian'' here as I have never heared this way.

How did people go along with this?
It was no fun I think...

[s*]

Is it not a bit contradictionary that there is a PLM or Godman..,
when there are also new books where there is mentioned that the guru is not there at dead,
that there are no regions etc?

Why is there still initiation?

Babaji is not really clear in what are exactely the changes on the santmat path as I see it.

I also feel sorry for everything happening..(judging etc)
But it is also healthy and nessesary imho

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Osho Robbins : " (..) there is no "me" to go there ---- This "me" is an illusion ---- The notion that an "I" exists is an illusion ---- There is no "I" so it cannot die as it was never born (...) I don't know and don't care ---- Only those are concerned who believe the "l" is rea l"

Dear Osho Robbins,

Beautiful response. Thank you!

This recalls to me that earlier conversation of ours. It is one thing to understand the chimerical nature of our self intellectually -- as many do, including me -- and a whole different matter to experientially (and permanently?) have this knowledge implanted within one, which is what you appear to have done.

And, when you think about it, this does provide one answer to that question I'd asked you then, long back : What use this Oneness realization of yours? If this no-self idea (sorry, not idea, experience) is firmly embedded, then I suppose there will be zero fear of death.

Speaking for myself, I don't think I'm scared of dying. But still, when the time comes, I may be able to put up a brave front -- or not! -- but will the smallest tinge of fear, of apprehension, not touch me at all? Somehow I doubt it. If you can be assured of never having to fear death, then that is one big fat 'use' of your Oneness realization right there!

My best wishes to you, my friend.

.

PS : I don't suppose there is any purpose of extending this by asking others now, is there, now that you have already revealed the punch line? There can be exactly three answers to this question, now : Either someone spouts some doctrine (or else some idiosyncratic personal fantasy) ; or else they basically give my answer, which is, they believe they'll disappear into nothingness ; or else they'll attempt that lovely answer you gave out (although probably not with quite your elan ). Nothing more to say, really, is there, after your particular answer?

[777]

-

You are Satsangis

Give it a shot

777

-

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, 777.

By all means, give it a shot. More the merrier.

I'd only imagined that Osho Robbins's answer would be the final word, the thread-stopper -- or at least, the final word on this particular discussion, not the thread itself, since the thread is about Brian's review of those RSSB books -- and that is all I meant to convey.

Please, if you wish to share here your own idea of what will happen to you after death, please go ahead. I'm all ears.

[JB]

Osho: "The notion that an "I" exists is an illusion"

The term "I" refers to one's mind, precisely the subjective center of the mind (consciousness). You could lose your arms and legs and yet "I" would be intact. "I" is nothing other than shorthand for "this experiential process occurring here".

Every individual is an enclosed experiential process. That experience occurs, is private, and is localized in time and space is not an illusion. This is what "I" refers to.

There is an "I", as explained, and it will die and be obliterated. The "I" is a function of the brain and it had beginning and will have an ending.

[Arjuna]

@ AP . No one really answers my question lol. The introduction of the “I” was a cop out or avoiding the question- upon reflection.

Usually demons enter through the third eye to prise the soul current out of every sinew of flesh - as the attention “I” has been encased in flesh for so long. It’s painful I have been told. Good thing is / hope we all have a protector to keep them away from us! Oh “have you proof if that?” I hear you ask. “My “I” will cease to exist after death - so I don’t worry”. You tell yourself. Hope you are right- boys and girls 😀

On that note have a good weekend

[Osho Robbins]

@arjuna
The “I” will not cease to exist at death, any more than it ceases to exist by trying to kill it.
You cannot eliminate the “I” by trying.
Because it is the “I” or “me” that is trying.

A bit like trying to lift yourself up by pulling at your shoelaces.

Can’t be done because you are doing the pulling
And you are the one being pulled.

The “I” is the “You” that you think you are.

You can’t go beyond it.
And why do you WANT to go beyond it?

The wanting comes from the “I”

The “I” does everything

The “I” wants, seeks, tries, begs the guru for grace.

all that stops the moment you realise the “I” is an illusion.

@AP
The reason I say there are no benefits is because who will get the benefits?
Me? I? The unreal self. The illusory self gets the apparent benefit.
So the benefits can only be illusory

[Osho Robbins]

@arjuna
“What do you think will happen to YOU after death”
Was the question I answered with the focus on YOU (the “I”)

So the “I” was not a cop-out, but perhaps you had a different question in mind.
Maybe your emphasis was not on the “YOU”

[Spence Tepper]

Hi JB
You wrote
"There is an "I", as explained, and it will die and be obliterated. The "I" is a function of the brain and it had beginning and will have an ending. "

As the religion of Atheism, based in Stoicism, such conjecture as you have asserted with firm and blind faith has its nobility. To act for the good of humanity with no possibility for benefit of an afterlife is noble and selfless.

But the beauty of having no visible proof either way reduces your assertion to conjecture, and your firm belief in it to religion.

Meditation is superior, IMHO, because it is based in practice and results. It makes no claims for an afterlife, except to assert that whatever is to be found can be found while alive by going within through the practice.

These are all that matter. The practice awakens a broadening of cognitive functioning and bliss. The practice develops brain functioning in a way not found in any other approach.

The result is that we find peace within, see beauty in everyone, understand them and ourselves better, accept our limited place, with a deeper understand of eternal things, and we are happy to help wherever we can.

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Osho Robbins :
@AP --- The reason I say there are no benefits is because who will get the benefits? --- Me? I? The unreal self. The illusory self gets the apparent benefit. --- So the benefits can only be illusory

But, Osho Robbins : It isn't as if you are wholly without a self of sense, isn't it? You wouldn't be able to function at all without some kind of an I-ness. You might, conceivably, be able to simply eat and drink if food and drink were placed before you, simply from instinct, but you would hardly be able to hold your end of this conversation, for instance, without some kind of a sense of self, would you now?

It seems that this residual sense of self of yours -- if I may call it that -- is free of the fear of death that your earlier, pre-Realization self must have harbored. (Correct me, please, if I am wrong, and if I am simply, and incorrectly, putting words in your mouth.)

Should that be the case, then wouldn't this be a concrete advantage, and concrete "use"? Use to whom? To the residual sense of self that you harbor at present?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Osho
You wrote
"A bit like trying to lift yourself up by pulling at your shoelaces.

" Can’t be done because you are doing the pulling
"And you are the one being pulled.

" The “I” is the “You” that you think you are.

"You can’t go beyond it.
" And why do you WANT to go beyond it?

"The wanting comes from the “I”

" The “I” does everything

"The “I” wants, seeks, tries, begs the guru for grace.

" all that stops the moment you realise the “I” is an illusion.""

There is a lot I agree with until you experience differently.

In meditation you see fairly soon that it's not all fun and games. The "I" must struggle with something else, our own past, our own impressions.

Working that excersize daily we get better at just quieting down.

Then we discover that just by nature we are being pulled up. When we can lessen the weight of distracting thoughts not only do we feel beautifully calm, and here the sound, see flashes of light, but we feel an upward pull. It's as if we release thresher and are just a bubble rising up.

At first there is still too much weigh on the mind to go up, but we sense it in stages and continue our daily practice.

In time that weight is dissolved, our Master presents himself, and we are pulled within.

All these are unique discoveries that are as real as learning to walk, run, ride a bike. We are working with different elements of the physical brain. And in time mastering them, largely by becoming aware, adjusting and growing our power to focus our own thinking and enter a state of calm wakefulness.

We turn the key, but we are not the door. Certainly not the "I". That dissolves, and that was always the sphinx who destroyed our presence there within. With her gone, so are we. Yet we become more. We are transformed into something else aware of many more things than this little "I" here. One identity died and a greater identity emerged.

Here we must put on that old identity. But the other waits for tomorrow's meditation.

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Arjuna : @ AP --- Usually demons enter through the third eye to prise the soul current out of every sinew of flesh - as the attention “I” has been encased in flesh for so long. It’s painful I have been told.

I'm not being in the least judgmental, and more power to you if believing this makes sense to you, but I just wanted to point out one thing.

In Kundalini Yoga, it's said that when someone passes, their "spirit" leaves their "mortal coil" via one of the apertures. For 'lesser', and ordinary, folks, it is usually through the lower apertures, the lower chakras. And for the accomplished Yogi (as well as the disciple of a protector Guru), the spirit leaves the body via the higher chakras. And the Ajna Chakra, that you refer to, is the second-highest chakra, lower only than the Sahasrar, so that it is unlikely that any "demons" would be encountered at that elevated level/chakra.

I'm not going into the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of either Kundalini theory or your personal beliefs, merely pointing out that your view seems just a bit idiosyncratic, that is, it does not seem to agree with Kundalini Yoga ideas.

Of course, your view may be mainstream as far as RSSB theology is concerned. I'd be interested to know, just as a matter of general interest, if that is the case.

[Dungeness]

Every individual is an enclosed experiential process. That experience occurs, is private, and is localized in time and space is not an illusion. This is what "I" refers to.

The mystic asserts the real "I" is consciousness itself which is beyond time and space. Only notionally, having contracted its awareness, does it become an enclosed experiential process. The "drop in the ocean" has duped itself to believe it's only a drop and not the ocean itself.

There is an "I", as explained, and it will die and be obliterated. The "I" is a function of the brain and it had beginning and will have an ending.

No, the real "I" doens't die. However, the notional "I" (the physical body and its sensory and mental coverings) will.

[JB]

The question of whther or not the term "I" represents something illusory, is dependent upon one's definition of the term "I".

As I understand it, when one uses the term "I", they are referring to their subjectivity. "I" is a symbol for "that which experiences or receives experience." Is anyone claiming that subjectivity is an illusion? To claim that there is subjectivity but no subject is a different matter, but still misses the point. What would a subject be other than subjectivity itself?

I see the "no self" concept as yet another denial of death. On the contrary, I locate subjectivity within the brain, as a function of the brain and will evaporate upon the death of the brain. As opposed to thinking that there is something that "will not cease to exist at death", absolutely everything will cease to exist at death.

[777]

Hi Dungeness
There is an "I", as explained, and it will die and be obliterated. The "I" is a function of the brain and it had beginning and will have an ending.

I still believe it takes two to dance the tango

I guess
The remembrance can be remembered (even revived) at all times

777
Also believe there is much not worth to be remembered

[777]

@Spence
In meditation you see fairly soon that it's not all fun and games. The "I" must struggle with something else, our own past, our own impressions.

You mean contemplation and is correct

Meditation is to enter in the non_thinking _orgasm ( by HIS Love )

[Dungeness]

As opposed to thinking that there is something that "will not cease to exist at death", absolutely everything will cease to exist at death.

That's the thing... "thinking" will never catapult us beyond
its limitations. The mystic doesn't deny death; he merely
affirms consciousness, the real self, will outlast the brain.
The self contracts its awareness to a specific patterning
using its mind/brain. That's the genesis of subjectivity.
That's what dies with the brain.

It's futile for the mystic to make claims though. The
awareness must be expanded with a discipline of
love and devotion. Only a person who has run
aground with the doubts, fear, and the endless
uncertainty of "thinking" will want to pursue it.

[JB]

Dungeness: "No, the real "I" doens't die. However, the notional "I" (the physical body and its sensory and mental coverings) will."

If the "real I" can not only exist in the absense of the "physical body", but exists in its truest state in the absence of the body, then what is the function of the physical body? Not only is there absolutely no evidence for what you claim but even hypothetically it is a non-sequitur.

[Arjuna]

@ AP- hello you don’t get me and no I don’t practice kindaluni!!!!

If you have a master who has surpassed the lower chakras - yes you are safe!

However the vast majority of human kind will be meeting the darker sides of the other side!

Please stop going on about my beliefs as you know nothing about me and what I practice. Saying that in a nice way!

Just practice and see for yourself.

Beliefs and intellectual doesn’t save anyone In end!

All the best - let’s not carry on with this as it will lead no where. I’m not here to prove a point or show off!

[Spence Tepper]

Is there spiritual life after physical death?
Believer in Spirit: yes.
Believer in no spirit : no.

[Spence Tepper]

And thy non believer says "I don't know enough either way."

[JB]

Why create a false dichotomy to assuage survival anxiety? We know that the physical exists, while the "spiritual" is hypothetical at best. A hypothetical can never supersede an actuality.

Tell me, if the "spiritual" doesn't need the physical, then what is the purpose of the physical?

Is it because the eternal "spirit" needs to learn, even though it has supposedly existed eternally? Is it for the fun of duping itself for the blissful surprise of finding out that it is "God"?

Sorry, spiritual schemas of existence simply do not add up.

[Spence Tepper]

Survival anxiety?
Is that a Freudian term?

[Spence Tepper]

"We know"
That's the first mistake

[Spence Tepper]

"Tell me, if the "spiritual" doesn't need the physical, then what is the purpose of the physical?"

Layers, like an onion.

Physical is mostly empty space. Fields of energy held in place by a few particles. Spirit is the Finer field that gives life. The fabric under the fabric.

It's all physical...

[Spence Tepper]

This is why science can't create life from base chemicals alone. It requires life.

[JB]

If there is "spiritual life" after physical death, then the spiritual is not dependent upon physicality. Thus, what is the point of "this layer" existing, if it is not needed for life?

"Layers of an onion" doesn't answer the question.

There is no plausible, coherent spiritual schema of existence that attempts to take into account the meaning/purpose for the universe, human life, suffering, etc.

Spiritual explanations of life invariably devolve into contradiction, non sequiturs, and abject nonsense.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi JB
You wrote
"There is no plausible, coherent spiritual schema of existence that attempts to take into account the meaning/purpose for the universe, human life, suffering, etc.

Spiritual explanations of life invariably devolve into contradiction, non sequiturs, and abject nonsense."

Tell me how you really feel! ;)

JB, do any explanations for the physical world replace the fact of the world's existence?

Can you give me the moral basis for the moon or turquoise stone?

I think your argument has devolved into non sequitur.

There is no need to explain why. It is. Life is. And we do not understand all of it, just as science admits it doesn't understand even half of the matter that occupies space.

You would claim what science doesn't?

As I pointed out earlier, no one can detect the gravity between the sun and the earth or the earth and the moon. It's a theory that explains what we can see and measure, the Earth 's path around the sun, and our attachment to this earth.

Newton said it best "Hypothesis Non Fingo".

It is. Explanations aside.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi JB
You wrote
". Thus, what is the point of "this layer" existing, if it is not needed for life?"

When a snake sheds its skin, do you ask 'what was it for if it doesn't need it now?"'

Fall is upon us and the leaves are turning yellows, oranges, reds and browns now. Do you now ask, 'what was the purpose of green of the leaves still function without it?'

And when they fall do you ask 'what was the point of the leaves at all of the tree lives without it!'

There are answers to each of these, but no explanation serves as proof of the event. Witness the event. That is the proof.

[Dungeness]

If the "real I" can not only exist in the absense of the "physical body", but exists in its truest state in the absence of the body, then what is the function of the physical body? Not only is there absolutely no evidence for what you claim but even hypothetically it is a non-sequitur

I've heard various explanations -stories really- about
the purpose of the physical universe. To experience
duality - a roller coaster of pleasure and pain to
heighten the sensation. Or even something more
sublime like feeling appreciation, love, and bliss.

Any serious explanation at this level would fall way
short though. Who'd buy a few moments of pleasure
for lifetimes of pain? You'd have to ask the creator
himself or do a dive deep into primordial memories
buried in the subconscious.

You're right there's no evidence either. A commenter
quipped no 'moon rock' from the inner regions can
be brought back for a show 'n tell.

Meditating has proven major health benefits though.
If it facilitates insights into the mind, its limitations, or
enables an intuitive direct perception of inner reality
as well. what's the harm. Why discount what you
haven't experienced. Or broadcast the personal flaws
of Gurus (or their dilettante followers) as blanket proof
of the falsity of their claims. Sorry, a bit of a rant.

It's all an experiential journey. No explanation will
ever satisfy anyone until he can say "I came, I saw,
I understand".

[JB]

Spence: "There is no need to explain why. It is. Life is. And we do not understand all of it, just as science admits it doesn't understand even half of the matter that occupies space."

Believers contend that science has failed to present us with a meaningul/purposeful existence but seemingly fail to recognize that a mechanistic explantion of existence neither involves nor requires meaning/purpose.

It is spiritual theories that propose that meaning/purpose suffuses existence, so the onus is on them to present it. Of course, they are throughly unable to articulate that supposed meaning/purpose. They then fall back on the convenient appeal to ineffability.

Spence: "There is no need to explain why. It is. Life is. "

No need to explain why, or no why? If you are contending that there is no "why" for existence, then I agree with you. I have been contending that existence is devoid of meaning/purpose, the very "why" you are talking about. It seems we agree on that.

[777]

Osho
said
what do you think will happen to you at death? """

Normally it takes 3 days often ugly

When you dive in the Sound_Stream
it's a millionth nano second

The three days seem often a century

The nano TOOOOOO, . . . but in LOVE

777

Normally you don't need a Master for that
But these days , WOW. : that's a collateral bliss
Sine qua non

[777]

The WHY is for LOVE production
Nothing else

777

[Spence Tepper]

Hi JB
You wrote
"Believers contend that science has failed to present us with a meaningul/purposeful existence but seemingly fail to recognize that a mechanistic explantion of existence neither involves nor requires meaning/purpose."

I don't think I've met such believers. Are there any here?

You wrote
" No need to explain why, or no why? If you are contending that there is no "why" for existence, then I agree with you. I have been contending that existence is devoid of meaning/purpose, the very "why" you are talking about. It seems we agree on that."

Hm. There are reasons for everything. Science demonstrates that every effect had a cause. Even when time is distorted and we measure it laterally or backwards. Time works in layers too. The nice closed system at one level sits on a layer that can be moving in a completely different direction and pace, wedded to a different sort of matter.

But in spirituality, it all happened as a whole, in a single instant. The chocolate cake of this reality was baked as one whole, all the layers and actions. We only experience it moment by moment as if it were actually occurring in sequential time.

Newton and Liebnitz did an elegant job describing this physical reality, and in particular time, as the summation of discreet static events occurring in a nice even pace along a single dimension. In order for that math to work, all the individual slices must be discreet however many there are.

The mystic gets to witness that this is in fact true within a limited sphere. Time doesn't actually exist. One thing doesn't morph into something else. Many discreet static events are perceived as progression and motion, much like a motion picture. Our attention is so used to this that we have no awareness of the fact that time, and our own brains, black out several times every second.

This "attachment" that saints teach about, these "addictions" therapists write about do not actually exist. We have no actual attachments. Or more precisely, we are detached and then reconnected many many times every second, and the next set of discreet and static conditions are projected before our attention.

Once you become aware of that and begin to see those beats of time, the flickering of the projector's own light, you are attending to the layer below this one, and we go where our focused attention then takes us.

It's how several different regions can occupy the same space.

So, since spirit is simply another part of this physical reality the mystic is more occupied with experience than explanation or justification on grounds of morality and ethics.

The only ethic is to understand and master our inner access.

[Dungeness]

It is spiritual theories that propose that meaning/purpose suffuses existence, so the onus is on them to present it. Of course, they are throughly unable to articulate that supposed meaning/purpose. They then fall back on the convenient appeal to ineffability.

Um, no, mysticism isn't about proselytism. There're no
recruitment billboards or scholarly articles to validate
its claims.

It's not an appeal to intellect but only the mystic's
personal testimony of what's experienced within.
That's not ineffable at all. Mystics of course have
to resort to metaphor or fables to hint at what's
beyond time and space. But they also insist on
experiential validation, not blind faith.

If not drawn to those accounts or its discipline,
you'll search for what does. The true mystic will
encourage just that.

[777]

It's scientifficly so easy to prove that it's all for LOVE

[JB]

Spence: "Hm. There are reasons for everything. Science demonstrates that every effect had a cause."

Yes, of course there are mechanistic causes but no meaning.

If you agree that life is purposeless, what exactly are you arguing against?

Spence: "So, since spirit is simply another part of this physical reality the mystic is more occupied with experience than explanation or justification on grounds of morality and ethics."

Fair enough. But grandiose claims regarding existence require coherent explanations. If you can't provide those explanations, then why put forth the claims? Just wondering.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi JB:

Here is another way to try to explain it.
Imagine a drive in theater that shows one hundred movies at the same time, all from the same projector. Everyone drives their car to the same lot, and puts on a headset. They select the movie. The headset flickers at the same rate, but in different synchronicity. Some see one move, some see the second, and so forth. The films are juxtaposed at an incredible rate. The headsets also turn on and off but at a much, much slower rate. We are all looking at the same screen, they are all occupying the same single drive in movie lot. It appears to be simultaneous. But on a micro-micro level it isn't. It only works because our attention is not, actually, continuous. If our attention were continuous we would see pieces of 100 different movies all at the same time. That's why the darkness is crucial. Getting comfortable with the darkness in meditation within is where it all starts. Staying there, at the eye center in the darkness is crucial.

The moment your brain doesn't black out, even once, you are flooded with a flash of light. Time seems to stop for a moment. It's perceptual, but important. When you see those flashes and they start to slow down, with a more continuous flood of light, you are making progress. The door is opening. Your brain focused within doesn't need blinders, doesn't need to turn attention on or off. Doesn't need to black out. You can train it to stop doing that.

Nothing supernatural about it. It's about how the brain works, and why the brain works this way.

But, like Phillip K. Dick wrote about with a little metaphor, when you change your perception, the world you are in really does change.

This creation works at a frequency. And that is why there are several more right here in it now, each at its own frequency. The human mind is the doorway.

Certainly, this is my experience.

[JB]

Great details of the "how" but nothing about the "why".

Once again, if you agree that life is purposeless, what are you arguing against?

[777]

@JB
Sometimes we must sleep and cannot answer immediately

The Why is very simple and understandable by the question
I asked almost 10 times here to Brian
but he never answered

Imagine that you are The Almighty Creator, All knowing , All Potent
and having it ALL already :

What do you want for your birthday or any other day ?

Just think a little

777

[777]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPySn3slfXI

03:50

This blows away 'science'

77

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Arjuna : "@ AP- hello you don’t get me and no I don’t practice kindaluni!!!!"

I never suggested you did, Arjuna, as you can see from my comment. I know you don't practice Kundalini Yoga. I was only pointing out how your particular belief differs from those of Kundalini Yoga (while being peculiarly related to them), and asking you if your belief is part of RSSB theology (or if it is a personal idiosyncratic interpretation/belief).

"Please stop going on about my beliefs as you know nothing about me and what I practice. Saying that in a nice way!"

Hm. I was only responding to your comment. I went back and re-read my comment to see if there was anything objectionable there, but no : it seems polite and respectful of your views. Given that, I don't understand your objection. If you do not wish me to engage with your views, then why present them to me at all?

"All the best - let’s not carry on with this as it will lead no where. I’m not here to prove a point or show off!"

Arjuna, you're getting unnecessarily defensive. I never said, or even implied, that you're showboating. I assure you I don't think that you're "showing off"! I have no clue how or why you seem to be reading into my comments things I never put there myself .

But irrespective, since you expressly ask me to, I will refrain from engaging with your comments further. No problem.

My good wishes to you too, Arjuna.

[Appreciative Reader]

Dear Osho Robbins,

I wonder if you've seen my comment, posted on October 07, 2018 at 06:58 AM? I suppose it may have got lost in the flood of comments that followed soon after.

I'm interested in exploring further with you -- if you'll indulge me -- this idea of the "residual self" that occurred to me, and that I brought up there.

It seems to me that notwithstanding your loss of I-ness at the point of your Realization -- which personal experience of yours I take fully at face value, as you'd described it last time -- you still do have some residual self of self, some residual self of "I". You would be hard pressed to live otherwise, and hard pressed to have (for instance) these conversations here. This "residual I", I wanted to solicit your views on it.

For instance, would it be right to say that it does not have even a shadow of the fear of death that most regular 'selves', most regular people, would have?

That apart, is there anything else you wish to discuss, in connection with this "residual self" idea of mine?

[Appreciative Reader]

Sorry, I meant 'some residual sense of self, some residual sense of I', in my comment just preceding, and not "some residual self of self, some residual self of self".

[JB]

Dungeness: "mysticism isn't about proselytism."

Defense of grandiose claims is not proselytism.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi JB:

You wrote:
"Once again, if you agree that life is purposeless, what are you arguing against?"

Hm. When you say "Purposeless" do you mean the purpose of some divine creator?
Yes I would agree there is no "purpose" from the religious perspective.
However, if you understand the mechanics of this creation, then we most certainly have a role in it just as does every single wave of light.

Everything has a cause and a destination, and serves a purpose in terms of being part of what causes other stuff to happen, and which was itself caused by other stuff.

In that sense everything has purpose.

If you mean some grand design, my experience of God is that there is no distinction between thought and creation. They occur simultaneously. Or, they occured at one time, as I had mentioned.

As far a personal purpose, each of us are a big part of that. We seek purpose, we create our script, or we let others create it for us, and we also find a script within ourselves. But even that script, like the Creator, becomes, emerges, creates itself like a flower, as we pay ever-focused and calm attention to it. As we grow, so does that purpose within. Then we draw strength from that purpose we discover within.

Yes, I would say there is more purpose here than we could possibly understand. It's just not entirely pre-scripted. It's emerging.

It's fine for folks to try to boil that down into an anthropomorphic single divine will. Nothing wrong with that, though the truth is a bit more complex. That divine entity called "life" is in each of us, creating purpose with us, partnering with us, and we discover it in the depths of our heart. It cannot exist without our own sentiment and participation. We cannot exist without it's Love and Life.

Maybe the first purpose is to befriend that part of ourselves deeply within us.

There isn't a single particle of space or time that is NOT without such purpose.

[JB]

Spence: "Yes I would agree there is no "purpose" from the religious perspective."

Ok.

Spence: "That divine entity called "life" is in each of us, creating purpose with us, partnering with us, and we discover it in the depths of our heart. It cannot exist without our own sentiment and participation. We cannot exist without it's Love and Life."

Yeah...that's a religious perspective. That's religion.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi JB:

When you think of the immense force the Sun exerts on the planets, and all without a single detectable wave or particle connecting these, it's a mind blower.

All of science can tell you the hundreds of millions of foot-pounds of force exerted to pull the earth into its arc.

But there is no string. Not detectable connection. Nothing.

Yet something must connect us to the sun. Something must be pulling us.

It's a mind blower if you understand exactly what we don't know that MUST be there.

What has NEVER been seen or detected, that clearly, must be there.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi JB:

You quoted me, then commented:

"Spence: "That divine entity called "life" is in each of us, creating purpose with us, partnering with us, and we discover it in the depths of our heart. It cannot exist without our own sentiment and participation. We cannot exist without it's Love and Life."

You commented:
"Yeah...that's a religious perspective. That's religion."

I don't think so. The force of life is what brings living things to life. No religion there at all.
Look how people live their lives. They create purpose all the time. But if you understand that we are all biological entities that are created by biochemistry, and the forces of time, space, culture, family and self-investigation, then you cannot disconnect that purpose from what brought us to life.

We did not birth ourselves, JB.

So, no, this is not religion.

Religion is saying there is a divine creator with a fixed purpose, a fixed will separate from this creation, superior to it, pure and different from this creation, whose will you may discover in some book, or in the teachings of your local priest.

You may have a different definition. But I would suggest that before offering it, consider it carefully to be sure it is consistent with your earlier comments.

[Arjuna]

@ AP - hello and forgive me. I was rude. Please feel free to ask anything and I will respond.

[Arjuna]

@ 777. Hello and hope you are well?

May I ask why death takes 3 days?

[JB]

When you invoke "divinity", you are firmly in the realm of religion. This is especially true when you say that this "entity" loves us.

Pure religion.

[Jen]

@ JB

You sound very much like an atheist. I often wonder what it feels like to be an atheist. I don't believe in religions but I do live with hope that there is a creator even though with our limited minds we cannot even understand the immensity of this creator being.

How does an atheist who does not believe in anything other than this physical creation create any kind of meaning in their life? I know I would find life very mundane and uninteresting if I did not believe in some kind of spirituality, that I have a soul which will survive death and therefore living a good moral lifestyle gives me a reason for living.

The buddhist and taoist way is about experiencing emptiness and nothingness which can be appealing but only because there is also the belief that there is that something else that survives death, call it spirit or soul, and that gives a sense of purpose in life.

I know I'm rambling but just wanting to know how atheists deal with life simply with their cleverness and intellectual knowledge.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi JB

You wrote:

When you invoke "divinity", you are firmly in the realm of religion. This is especially true when you say that this "entity" loves us.

Pure religion."

Hm. Again, what do you define as religion? Please give me your full definition. I chose to define the "life" that lives in us, and in our subconscious, as divine.

But I'm not sure many theologians would agree with that definition.

Divine could just be "Fact". I would raise FACT to the level of Divinity. Even the facts you and I don't yet know. The ones waiting to be discovered.

And I would define the meaning and understanding that anyone gains in quiet contemplation as divine, because they have set a higher standard for objectivity and sought that higher understanding: and understanding that is greater than their current understanding. They have demonstrated their willingness to submit their limited thinking to development, education, change.

In fact I would define "Divine" whatever your best and highest understanding of FACT is, and just one step above that...what you don't yet know.

Everyone has something they should hold as "truth" and defend and protect her, open to learn new things, but firm in the commitment to truth, as it unfolds for them. I'd call that both Divine and Sacred. Because once you are really committed to Truth, that means you are committed to changing your opinion.

You have many people here who claim to love fact and objective truth, but in the face of it go silent, because it isn't what they wanted to believe. So, that's not a real committment to Truth.

The person who has no real connection to truth, or who defines it as something unattainable and distant, that's a dangerous person. Because they have nothing higher than themselves worth sacrificing their own time, effort, even life for.

So, whatever you hold as more important than yourself, I'd call that divine, and sacred. It's a start, anyway.

So that's why you need to define your use of the term. I think it may be a bit different from mine.

[JB]

Words only properly function as signifiers when they are based upon agreed-upon connotations. That goes for the term "divine".

The term "divine" is associated with God, gods, or deities...which, forgive me if I'm wrong, sounds like it pertains to religion.

Unless of course you are using the term as a superlative, meaning delightful or superb. That doesn't seem exactly right since you used divine in reference to an entity or force that partners with us and loves us.

I really have to explain how this is religious statement?

Jen: "How does atheist who does not believe in anything other than this physical creation create any kind of meaning in their life?"

Why is the belief in something other than this life needed for meaning? What if life went on forever? Would that automatically make it meaningful? On the contrary, I would hold that a never ending life is the apotheosis of meaninglessness.

Jen: "....that I have a soul which will survive death and therefore living a good moral lifestyle gives me a reason for living."

Are you saying that you are living a good moral lifestyle because of what your soul might encounter after death?

[Jen]

Hi JB,

"Jen: "....that I have a soul which will survive death and therefore living a good moral lifestyle gives me a reason for living."

JB: "Are you saying that you are living a good moral lifestyle because of what your soul might encounter after death?"

Yes. Just in case there is such a thing as karma and reincarnation. Wow, quite a confronting realisation.

I just looked up "Do atheists have a moral compass?". Apparently this is a common question put to atheists. People apparently do wonder that if you don't believe in a God there's nothing to prevent you from committing crimes.

So I'm learning here and the lesson is that I am living this perfect little lifestyle because of hoping for a better life next time round.

But then, could this also be a comforting idea that atheists hold that there is nothing to fear after death because there is no afterlife so they can just be happy in this life.

[777]

@ 777. Hello and hope you are well?
May I ask why death takes 3 days?
Posted by: Arjuna | October 08, 2018 at 02:25 PM
_______________
It's not 3 days , I would say

It depends on the Jeeva's progress
What I told and is on page 110 of the Bardo Todhol
Tibethan Book of The Dead

Then it's a peace of cake
The background of that is of course that such a one
is already in The Sound and contains the power of
the Words and just is what S/He experienced in meditation
when thinking stopped
But also when meditations were not satisfactory during life
at the time of death the advantages are colossal
Hence Saints promote sound_meditation so much

It can be much longer than three days
The monks recite the book during 3 days is the standard there
if family can pay ( a little like christians with their oil )

For instance
( i m the right person to ask haha)
We got our 43 rooms house here easily on cheap terms , because it was haunted ( people said and it was true)

and yes ... there was a monk ( very big like 2 meters )
and he was here since the years 1500 ( not joking )
I sea often dead people since my birth
and I saw Him too
He was once in charge of the garden and SO attached
that he dwelled in etheric sphere ( also a time_space_environment,
created by his own mind ( and many others )
and he liked frighten people out of the premises
includeD the owners)
I made peace with Him and told during the years , he was in error
and somewhat helped him to go higher was however easier than tell
Brian that a God exists

There were also 5 German officers killed by the maquis
in this house
they had respect for the Monk - they were really nasty , so arrogant
So, this was in 1980 and they were killed in 1944
That' s much more than 3 days

People go where their heart is, . . already is

Is very simple and the so called time, for us objective
but for those guys subjective

While everything is a giant illusion , there is a lot that actually
happens

These stories , -which I swear on God Almighty they are true-,
might bring another month to be banned
Strange forum here:
First they put me on the Gaddi, being a Mystic. :-)
So, . . . I declared that I liked women very much even more than usual
Next day Jim & co call me a pervert
Then I'm banned. , OMG
tomorrow I Steven Colbert !

Nice you asked Arjuna , I think it gives you ideas and
explanations about your life experiences and old comrades
Like I was able to help the Monk
there is much more to rssb and sometimes other religions (wow) than people know
and you might help many !

777

ps
Another story. is 2 years ago
The Annex-Mayor of this city died from cancer

I didn't know
until I was in the Drugstore
and he was suddenly at my side and asked me to say Hello
to one of the women helping the clients
so I did
She had Goose Bumps and also her cheek red-dined

Turned out later that they had had a lovely affair
But he was dead 10 days already
This also do I swear on God
like I also know that the midterms define the fate of this planet
and 666, Fifth Street is real
Strange idea to have to be born again in here , I m a little bit reluctant

So yes, while writing now I' m considering after yr question
that these 3 days are way to short generally spoken
and that the etheric realm ( a sphere around and ON the earth -
another frequency of existence )
is very occupied

Etheric has nothing to do with Astral
it's just the earth but on another radio- wave_length
also "astral"_travelling happens there

Astral is really a total other dimension time_space_environment
It contains billions , billions of physical universes
each universe having it's own so called multiverses
It's simple and complicated at the same time
Wheels within Wheels say the Pundits and the Buddists

The only stability in all these worlds are the Saints
Oh
This will make me banned for sure ( preaching )

777

( English not corrected

[JB]

Jen: "Just in case there is such a thing as karma and reincarnation."

You are hedging your bets just in case? This is Pascal's Wager.

Jen: "I am living this perfect little lifestyle because of hoping for a better life next time round."

So your ethical behavior is ultimately motivated by self-interest, no? As I've remarked previously, religion is simply naked self-interest. This is fine, of course, provided that you realize it as such.

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Arjuna : @ AP - hello and forgive me. I was rude. Please feel free to ask anything and I will respond.

Dear Arjuna,

No issues! I wasn't at all offended! Only surprised at your comment, and confused about what might have triggered it. That's all! Forget it, please.

As for my question, what I'd asked you last time was this : does your belief about the soul exiting at death via the Ajna Chakra, and there being beset by demons unless protected, form a part of RSSB theology?

I am actually and sincerely interested in the question. On the other hand, the question flowed casually as response to your own comment. It isn't as if it is a big deal at all.

If you are able and willing to answer that, then I'll be interested in listening to you. And if for whatever reason you're not comfortable engaging with that question, that's perfectly fine too. Absolutely no issues.

Cheers!

[777]

@JB
So your ethical behavior is ultimately motivated by self-interest, no? As I've remarked previously, religion is simply naked self-interest. This is fine, of course, provided that you realize it as such.

Yes . . . such is evolution

Eventually we will feel the colossal enormous Sweetness of the Creator
and lay the connection that it grew high by our compassion and
tiny grains of or own love ( empathies )

Compare please this actual little piece of known universe
and please believe that its total energy is a half a molecule, compared
with the Giant Love that will be yours

Believe that ""completed"". meditation ((does not exist!!))
almost will kill your body from happiness and joy while alive.
It's HUGE

777

[Jen]

JB, its okay, although there is no need for me to comment back, I decided to reply.

I was simply testing you to see who and what you are because you are new to this blog, and fyi I am not religious, probably if I have to give myself a label it would be agnostic.

What you have done is confirmed my understanding of how cold and analytical atheists can be. No probs. I will continue to enjoy my path of strong ethics and self-interest.

[s*]

Hi all,
One can also say''I do not know anything..just wondering.
What one can ''feel'' is a lot.
If one feels the pain and joy etc.. from others.., one cannot harm anybody.
On the contrary even..
Reason enough to think that there is much more then only the physical.

Love is most important and it has many faces..
Sometimes one cannot see it behind things and happenings.

[s*]

The brain is a sort of receiver..
It's not just meat.
We can receive so much more then what we can produce with ''thinking''
Where do our thoughts come from??
Not just out of ''me''..