« Three comments show absurdity of "karmic blaming" | Main | Nirvana: the moment reactivity stops »

November 17, 2018

Comments

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

Following on from my previous comment
Religious Delusion is when you give your inner experience credence.
Here’s a quote:

There is an amusing story from the 1980s of two patients meeting for the first time on a psychiatric ward who, after telling each other their story immediately fell into an altercation with one patient accusing the other of being an imposter: “how can you be Jesus Christ?” he said, I am Christ.2

Sant mat version:
How can your vision be true, when I just saw the radiant form of my master? Did you check yours with simran, to see if it remains? No? Ha! I knew it, your vision is from kal.
This blog is full of believers who all say “My guru is the real one, my path is true”

when people are delusional, they believe things that are not true
but they appear to be true to them.

2 min video showing this:
https://youtu.be/AuFXyuH1voM

When you feel the some inner experience proves or confirms you are right, that is delusional

Hi Osho
You wrote
"You are confusing and intermixing two distinct processes.
1. Using the IMAGINATION to get insight.
2. Doing mantra meditation or shabd meditation to try to still the mind and get a vision of the inner regions"

The two processes are actually related. Both require prolonged focused attention on an object of interest.

Experienced meditators, artists, athletes and scientists all have similar experiences of calming, peace and joy as their process of focus gradually eliminates other thoughts and takes them into the subject of their focus and a deeper experience of that object of focus.

I learned this when conducting my thesis experiments with autogenic training fourty years ago, and comparing it to other methods of deep relaxation including meditating. Some of these methods involve guided imagery, and some involve focusing on a part of the body.

Similar results accrued across methods. And this has been replicated since then in many published studies over the last four decades.

What you focus on takes the conscious mind deeper into the object of focus. Athletes use imaginary objects to help gain very fine motor control over their body. Levels of control impossible without using an imaginary point of focus. Repetition also assists and is usually a part of many techniques. The Harvard Meditation has been tested for decades with similar results.

Focusing on the remembered image of the Master is the same mental process as fourty on any image or subject. The brain forms such images as a result of focus because the brain is a symbol making machine. This is how we process thoughts and how memory works.

Take some time and Google meditation research, guided imagery and performance and you will find much information that can help you understand the similar brain processes involved.


This blog is full of believers who all say “My guru is the real one, my path is true”

Hi Osho,

I don't think fanatics jump on the soapbox as
much as we might imagine. At least not the
ones who hang out in a classy place like this
blog.

"My guru is the real one"
I've never heard that here at least not so overtly.
But, if they're harboring that falsehood, then In
my opinion, they're only exposing their own hubris.
Ishwar Puri anwers "what's the right path?" (or the
real guru) with "the one that says answers are found
inside you, not somewhere outside".

My path is true
What's "true"? If you become more mindful,
calmer, emotionally balanced, with reduced
BP, etc., then a path will generate its own
"truth". Who cares if no one can establish its
truth objectively.

Osho
Making claims about the internal experiences of people you don't know is unscientific. There is no such hard proof of what your argument claims.

And every discovery that came through inner revelation such as Einstein 's stands firmly as proof.

Yes peoole have illusions. But they also have insight.

Hi Osho
I think I understand the difference of understanding.

You wrote
"The disciple is having a subjective self-created experience, and giving it an objective meaning.
The objective meaning is “my experience proves that my path is true”
If an RSSB initiate goes to a kirpal satsang, others will ask him why he is going there, the assumption being that RSSB is the true path, not kirpal’s.
So again, what exactly does your inner experience confirm for you?
And connection to what?
If you accept it’s created by your own mind, then you also accept it doesn’t objectively prove your path is true.
You are saying that every religion is true for that person because they feel it is so from their experience.
This IS delusion."

Yes that's what I'm saying but no that isn't delusional. It's why it's subjective. It is true for me, but not for anyone else. And it doesn't require proof at all. Faith doesn't need objective proof of any kind. Nor does it require casting judgment on anyone else's beliefs.

I don't know many true believers, even among my Pentscostal friends, who think their experiences stand as proof of fact for others, only personal witness to support their own faith.

That's a very natural and actually healthy process.

It becomes a problem when people ignorantly try to make that subjective evidence the same as objective evidence and do as your argument debt trying to find which is the right God.

Subjectively everyone can experience God in their own way.

God is the hero with a thousand faces, whichever we can see that keeps us going, seeking to better ourselves.

Your argument is an argument for dualism. Which God is right?

My argument is an argument for Oneness. The God you find in you is the right one for you

Hi Osho
Take a look at this panel of scholars discussing astounding near death experiences.

These are happening all the time.

https://youtu.be/4RGizqsLumo

This evidence is not strong enough to prove supernatural goings on because they cannot be replicated under controlled conditions.

But they are too sincere and compelling to dismiss, and too astounding to be explained credibly with known science.

They are unknown.

Spence, science has good explanations for near-death experiences. I guess you're not familiar with the work of Susan Blackmore and other researchers in this area. I'm pleased to enlighten you, having recently ordered her upcoming new book on this subject. I'll share the book description. Blackmore chose to be skeptical about her initial feeling that her own out of body experience had a spiritual meaning.

https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Myself-Out-body-Experiences/dp/1472137361/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/3910239/near-death-experience-sceptic-whose-spirit-left-her-body-for-a-life-changing-two-hour-adventure-reveals-why-out-of-body-trips-really-happen-and-whos-more-likely-to-have-one/
--------------------
Essential reading for anyone seeking to understand their own mind and to find a spiritual path that is compatible with science

As an impressionable young student, Susan Blackmore had an intense, dramatic and life-changing experience, seeming to leave her body and travel the world. With no rational explanation for her out-of-body experience (OBE) she turned to astral projection and the paranormal, but soon despaired of finding answers. Decades later, a Swiss neurosurgeon accidentally discovered the spot in the brain that can induce OBEs and everything changed; this crucial spot is part of the brain's self-system and when disturbed so is our experience of self. Blackmore leaped back into OBE research and at last began to unravel what had happened to her. Seeing Myself describes her long quest for answers through spirituality, religion, drugs, meditation, philosophy and neuroscience.

Anyone can have an OBE, indeed 15 per cent of us have. Even more have experienced sleep paralysis, lucid dreaming and the creepy sense of an invisible presence. At last, with the advent of brain stimulation, fMRI scanning and virtual reality, all these phenomena are beginning to make sense. Long relegated to the very fringes of research, the new science of out-of-body experiences is now contributing to our understanding of consciousness and our very selves.

Here's another thought about out of body experiences, which bear resemblance to near death experiences. In the book by Anam Thubten I've been writing about, he tells a story that shows the importance of testing supposedly supernatural experiences against our shared earthly reality. If this isn't done, fantasies can be mistaken for truth. No one has ever presented demonstrable evidence of supernatural powers after a near death or out of body experience. It's only a product of their own mind. Here's the story:
-----------------------
One time a husband told his wife that she could not have any relationships after he died. "If you do, I am going to manifest as a powerful demon and make your life hell." So when the domineering husband died the wife took his words seriously for months and years.

Finally she kind of forgot and started having relationships with other people. Whenever she got home from a date, however, the demon popped up on her ceiling. He looked very fierce. Flames were coming out of his mouth. He yelled, "You went out. You had a date."

The demon was real. It knew the exact clothes her date was wearing. It knew their exact height and so forth. She was terrified and consulted a Buddhist master.

The master told her to carry a handful of rice. He told her that the next time the demon appeared to ask it just one question: "Ask it to tell you how many grains of rice are in your hand." So the next time the demon popped up she grabbed a handful of rice and yelled, "If you are so omniscient, tell me right now how many grains of rice are in my hand?"

Instantly the demon disappeared and never came back. Of course, you know that the demon was actually her creation. It was in her mind. The story demonstrates that everything is the elaboration of our own mind.

Hi Brian
I don't think you watched the video link. These are professors at UVA, and they are careful about any claims. But the evidence is compelling. Each incident has external, objective and independent verification. It is far more than a mere anecdotal narrative.

I am familiar with Susan Blakmore.
But these are two different subjects. Because in reach of the UVA reports that are independent sources of corroboration for the subjects witness.

Please watch the video in its entirety and let's discuss possible alternatives.

While it isn't experimental evidence, it is warrants a deeper look.

I look forward to your thoughts afterwards.

Spence, I'm not going to waste 1:40 of my time watching a video about near-death experiences. I did Google the University of Virginia Division of Perceptual Studies. I learned that they aren't funded by the state of Virginia, but rather appear to be privately funded by believers in the paranormal. I also took a look at their publications and didn't see anything that interested me very much.

Also, Ian Stevenson founded this Division. He claimed to have found evidence of past lives/reincarnation, but this methods have been appropriately criticized. So the same criticisms apply to those who have continued on with his work after his death. See:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/11/11/ian-stevensons-documentation-of-the-afterlife/

Lesson is, don't believe everything you see on You Tube. And don't believe the mumbo-jumbo that Spence Tepper shares in his comments without doing your own research. Spence likes to share only one side of a story, not the complete picture, because he wants to believe so badly in fantasies about life after death and other supernatural phenomena.

Also, while Ian Stevenson has his fans, he also has many thoughtful critics. I find the critics more persuasive. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson#Criticism

Brian
You haven't actually reviewed even ten minutes of this video, nor addressed the evidence presented.

Character assassination is an ad hominum argument so those readers whom you would like to convince are left without your critique of the corroborated evidence presented.

But they can take a look for themselves.

And when you are ready you can watch a few minutes and address the data presented directly. And we can then dialogue about it intelligently.

Spence, I didn't make an ad hominem attack. I made a reasonable statement: you believe in the supernatural, so your bias is to present information in your comments that supports your belief. This is called "motivated reasoning." Your reasoning is biased by your belief system.

On the other hand, I don't believe in the supernatural any longer. I believe in truth, science, and facts. My book shelf used to be filled with books about past lives, reincarnation, and such. I've been there and done that. I came to realize that anecdotal evidence isn't real evidence. If there was solid evidence for past lives or out of body experiences, science would have come to accept it.

Science hasn't. You choose to believe a small minority of researchers, apparently funded by those who believe like you do, while I choose to believe in the consensus of most scientists. Look: it is possible to find support on the Internet for any sort of belief.

I accept the science of global warming. But global warming skeptics can point to "research" funded by the fossil fuel industry or others with a vested interest in keeping carbon pollution going. Likewise, believers in the supernatural can do the same thing: point to a few studies by people with a vested interest in the supernatural.

You're free to promote your beliefs. I'm free to question them. I don't question your sincerity. I just question whether what you say in your comments is true. You need to understand the difference and not get defensive when the accuracy of what you say in a comment is questioned. This blog is about finding what is real, not promoting religious mumbo-jumbo.

Spence, do this for me, and other readers of these comments;

Since you've watched the lengthy video, explain how the researchers believe it is possible for a child, or anyone else, to have memories of past lives. What is the mechanism that allows this to happen? What theory do they have that permits a memory of a prior incarnation to be possible?

If they can't show this, then all they have is anecdotal evidence that means next to nothing. Do they believe the soul exists? If so what evidence is there for this? How is information maintained after the death of a body, and then inserted into the consciousness of another body? How does this occur? Details, please.

If you can present a convincing case for why past lives are remembered, describing how this supposedly occurs without reference to religious dogma, I'll be more open to looking at the research being conducted by the investigators.

@Spence
you wrote

The two processes are actually related. Both require prolonged focused attention on an object of interest; referring to these two:

1. Using the IMAGINATION to get insight.
2. Doing mantra meditation or shabd meditation to try to still the mind and get a vision of the inner regions"

It doesn't matter if they are related. They are different processes.
In fact, they specifically tell you is RSSB NOT TO IMAGINE, so how can they be the same?

In RSSB they tell you to do simran and dhyan - but not to imagine the guru.

so to go into great detail about how they involve the same mental processes etc is pointless.

RSSB give specific instructions and they include "Don't visualize or imagine"


@Dungeness

Every follower of a path believes it is the true path, otherwise he won't be following it.

read "Heaven on Earth"

Someone came across the claims of Kirpal and challenged them, saying if he is telling the truth, then we need to know - otherwise we need to stop him making those claims.

It IS about which is the right path and the true guru.

Hi Brian
I would suggest that motivated reasoning is most evident when it justifies ignoring the open review and critique of data.

I have never claimed to believe in the supernatural and in fact the opposite.I claim that everything is natural, but science hasn't fully investigate all of it.

Therefore possibilities that have not been directly measured exist.

I don't think God, if there is A God, is separate from this world. Whatever God is they must part and parcel of every grain of sand, not far off at all. If they exist I believe this is fire they will be found.

And therfore compatible with scientific investigation.

If any report of out of body or past lives has no independent verification, it can't be confirmed.

But if such independent verification does exist, you have evidence of something that we have not fully discovered which connects the three points of information : the anecdotal witness, the verification, and the independence of that verification.

If a young girl has a near death experience and her heart stops, and while this is happening her older sister dies in an auto crash at exactly that time in a distant location, and then moments after awakening the younger sister tells the doctor that her older sister came to her and asked her to apologize for the crash to mom and dad, you have the basis for all three points of information.

When you have a dozen such incidents you have evidence of something else going on.

The young girl's dream could still be just a dream, but the likelihood of gaining the knowledge of her older sister's simultaneous death cannot be explained. It supports the idea that there is an extra sensory, or finer sensory connection. The dream may have been her brain's creation, but informed by a connection we know little about.

When you have a dozen such examples, and you can demonstrate the independence and isolation of all three information sources... The girl, the doctor she told, and her sister's death, then you have information worthy of consideration.

The video contains many such examples.

This is why you should take a look. That 's what scientists do.

Why is it so difficult to live in the present with the mind constantly trying to figure things out about life and death and everything else? Why do our minds fixate on beliefs, even if its a belief in Just This, No-Thing, or even Atheism - which is also a belief imo. Why always either right or wrong, always duality. I think this is why we are here to experience duality but how many manage to find enlightenment, very few.

Reading Zen quotes sometimes helps ...

The Truth needs no words. Reality needs no reason to be. Love needs no thought.

You are the Universe perceiving itself.

You are the bliss of consciousness, being.

No longer divide yourself from that which you already are.

Abide peacefully in, I AM.

Sounds very beautiful and enlightening but then there's the mind, never satisfied, always questioning, will never give up fighting, me,me,me (ego) ... *sigh

Nerdy joke... "Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?"

Hi Brian
I took a look at both links you provided and it really is a mixed bag. Some of the criticism isn't very sound ('it's the Indian culture.. Every child thinks like that... A child's mind...' etc. The balance of evidence Stevenson gathered weights in his favor.

In some cases there was not independence in information sources (children were friends with family members of the decreased they claimed be reincarnated from), and Ian Stevenson in many of these openly acknowledged, often from his own investigation, that those were not reliable cases. But there were cases that did have reliable and confirmed independent sources, 23 by one investigator's count. Out of 3,000 cases that may look like weak results. But to a scientist's eye, this is incredible.

Stevenson had a method to scrupulously investigate all possible false results and rational explanations but did not always execute this with equal vigor over the many thousands of cases he investigated. Scientific American reviewed his work and while acknowledging this variability found overall it had credibility.

Other critics made weak generalizations that were not actually case specific, offering explanation of confabulation and fantasy. An easy arrow but without evidence.

I Think his supporters, including Scientific American, make a stronger case than his detractors, and even they acknowledge that if Stevenson was not absolutely scrupulous in thoroughly investigating every case, the ones he did show had independent verification were compelling and could not be disproven.

"In an article published on Scientific American's website in 2013, favorably reviewing Stevenson's work, Jesse Bering, a professor of science communication, wrote, "Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that 'the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.' "

It doesn't take a lot of proven cases to reach this level of statistical reliability.

Hard lab research typically requires at least 1% beyond sheer chance to claim statistical significance.

Stevenson with 23/3,000 had 0.8%.

For field work this is actually compelling. And Scientific American's recognition is warranted.

Hi Osho
You wrote
"In RSSB they tell you to do simran and dhyan - but not to imagine the guru."

Dhyan is bringing forth the image of your Master when you see them.

All memory is a reconstruction.

Maharaji also said that if you can't pull forth that image, to think instead the Master is there in the dark....that's your" image ".


If they can't show this, then all they have is anecdotal evidence that means next to nothing. Do they believe the soul exists? If so what evidence is there...

Of course, a persistent consciousness that survives
death of the body is the logical explanation.
What credible, alternative theories are there?

Science has none. I retract that. Investigating a
credible case of reincarnation, the Russian Acad.
of Sciences theorized that a deceased's brain cells
might waft through upper atmosphere winds for
decades to finally drift down softly into another's
consciousness. Elegant, no?

To demand "evidence" as a show of scientific rigor
is disingenuous too. It's a variant of "gimme some
material evidence of a non-material universe".
It's akin to a demand to pony up a "moon rock"
from someone's journey beyond time and space.

Evidence for reincarnation is not missing however.
When there are hundreds of credible anecdotes
the case is no longer "next to nothing". It's then a
viable, compelling area of research if nothing else.

You can't credibly sweep all the reports under the
rug, or cite flawed methodology as reasons to doubt
the investigative merit. Nor can you credibly discount
all as cases of confabulism or cryptomnesia.

It's a valid subject for research, not mere religious
fantasy and desperation.

Just to put things in perspective, if a drug research verifies that one single death in a sample of 1,000 patients can be directly attributed to their drug, the drug is pulled from the market.

Stevenson's work, by independent evaluation, showed that 8 out of 1,000 claims could be verified as the only possible answer, having eliminated every other potential cause.

This is why his results were described as statistically overwhelming.

Yes, something is going on.

We don't know enough to explain what it is.

But we know something outside current knowledge has taken place.

Hi Brian
You wrote
" I learned that they aren't funded by the state of Virginia, but rather appear to be privately funded by believers in the paranormal."

Your comment is inaccurate. Actually all grant funds come through the University. They are a division of the department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences within the University of Virginia department of medicine.

Like all faculty at the University, most of the staff are paid by the university, but the research program chairs are grant and donor funded. Just like research programs in the departments of medicine, engineering and bio technology in any major University.

They have been conducting research for over 50 years and are one of the worlds most respected university research divisions in paranormal studies. Their first major donor was the inventor of Xerox photocopying, Chester Carlson.

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/who-we-are/history-of-dops/

Chester Carlson was an early American practitioner of Zen, and funded the Rochester Zen center.

"In 1968, Fortune magazine ranked Carlson among the wealthiest people in America. He sent them a brief letter: "Your estimate of my net worth is too high by $150 million. I belong in the 0 to $50 million bracket." This was because Carlson had spent years quietly giving most of his fortune away. He told his wife his remaining ambition was "to die a poor man."

Carlson devoted his wealth to philanthropic purposes. He donated over $150 million to charitable causes and was an active supporter of the NAACP. Carlson's wife Dorris got him interested in Hinduism, particularly the ancient texts known as the Vedanta, as well as in Zen Buddhism. They hosted Buddhist meetings, with meditation, at their home. After reading Philip Kapleau's book The Three Pillars of Zen, Dorris invited Kapleau to join their meditation group; in June 1966, they provided the funding that allowed Kapleau to start the Rochester Zen Center. Dorris paid for 1,400 acres (5.7 km2) of land that became Dai Bosatsu Zendo Kongo-ji, a Zen monastery in the Catskill Mountains of New York led by Eido Tai Shimano.

Carlson had purchased a New York City carriage house for use by Shimano; he died four days after it was dedicated. Carlson is still commemorated in special services by Shimano; his dharma name, Daitokuin Zenshin Carlson Koji, is mentioned."

" In his essay "Half a Career with the Paranormal," researcher Ian Stevenson describes Carlson's philanthropic style. According to Stevenson, Carlson's wife, Dorris, had some skill at extrasensory perception, and convinced Carlson to help support Stevenson's research. Carlson not only made annual donations to the University of Virginia to fund Stevenson's work, but in 1964 he made a particularly large donation that helped fund one of the first endowed chairs at the University. Stevenson was the first incumbent of this chair.

"Although Carlson insisted on anonymous donations, wrote Stevenson, he was unusual in that he closely followed the details of the research, maintaining contact with Stevenson."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Carlson


@Spence
Let’s start with the definition of “Delusion”

A delusion is a belief that is clearly false and that indicates an abnormality in the affected person's content of thought. The key feature of a delusion is the degree to which the person is convinced that the belief is true. A person with a delusion will hold firmly to the belief regardless of evidence to the contrary.
A person with a delusion is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real.

Now compare this to what you are stating:

Yes that's what I'm saying but no that isn't delusional. It's why it's subjective. It is true for me, but not for anyone else. And it doesn't require proof at all. Faith doesn't need objective proof of any kind.

If it is true for you, and you alone (i.e. not for anyone else), and it doesn’t require any proof (meaning that you don’t care if it’s actually true for anyone else) then that fits perfectly into the category of a delusion.
A delusional person holds onto his belief regardless of whether its true. All he cars about is that it’s true for him.
777 is a clear example of a delusional person. The things he writes make no sense to anyone except himself.
I have met delusional people in real life. Apart from their delusion, they appear normal.
A person who is not delusional CARES ABOUT whether his belief is true or not.
A delusional person doesn’t care; he only cares about the fact that he feels it is true for him or her.

One thing you will notice about religious people is that they will hang out with other people of the same beliefs, in order to confirm that their belief is true.

If you isolate those beliefs and put them before people who don't hold those beliefs, they will seem absurd and the person will be called delusional.

Take the "virgin birth" of christianity.

Anyone knows that a virgin cannot give birth. It is impossible. To claim the "holy Spirit" did it is delusional.

There are people going around thinking they are jesus come back to life.

They have no proof except their own feeling

example of a delusional person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Cv5hZfOmk

3 mins into the video listen to the interview.
she is convinced it is the truth.
the evidence is her feelings

spence: this fits your definition of what is perfectly normal

Spence, this man who is trying to baptise others with the holy water, believes in what he is doing, but anyone would call him delusional because it's not objectively the truth. It is the truth to him alone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MONwfJdXW6Y

check him out.
he even tells lies - like asking the officer to let go and agreeing to come up the ladder, then going into the water as soon as the officer lets go.

it appears he really believes what he says
does it make it true?
or do you think he is delusional?


Quote Osho Robbins:

“Just as a matter of interest, what is the latest view of cosmologists as to the end of the universe?”


Osho Robbins, I’m no cosmologist, nor even a physicist. Like Spence and like Brian, and like you too I guess, I only know about this what I’ve picked up from popular sources. So you mustn’t expect any authoritative answers from me! And you’d be well advised to take what you hear from me with a pinch of salt!

With that understood, my answer to your question is this: Like I’d said initially to you, and like Brian also says here later on, the universe is likely to go on expanding at an accelerated rate. That is my understanding of the current consensus amongst cosmologists as to the end of the universe.

You’ve supplied some links earlier, and so have I, and so have Spence and Brian -- each of us trying to support our own conclusions -- but these links have limited use. Because none of us are cosmologists ourselves, and because each of us has “studied” such a small and superficial portion of the vast literature available on this, therefore providing “sources” for our ideas does little more than show that there are different views that physicists are working with.

And nor are those views, of the cosmologists themselves I mean, even when there is consensus, anything other than tentative, at this stage.

But this we can be sure of, Osho Robbins: We simply cannot say with certainty, as you have done, that whatever has a beginning MUST have an end. Because our universe itself is something that -- probably -- does not have an end.



“My view (not as a cosmologist, but just as me) is that if something is changing it will one day be destroyed or change form.”


Here’s where I think you’re mistaken, Osho Robbins.

You seem to take this as your PREMISE, as your starting point, as something you seem to assume more or less at random. I’d say that something like this can only, correctly, be accepted if it is the logical CONCLUSION of whatever study you’re putting in, whether formally or merely informally. You can’t simply just assume this to be the case, a priori as it were!

And once you realize this, then, the moment you make this claim, the burden for proving this conclusion falls on you. It is you, then, who must cogently argue your case, not merely allude to it by analogy as you’ve been doing here. You need to comprehensively prove, using evidence, that that is indeed the case.

And I’d say that science already seems to actually refute that conclusion of yours, right? By positing an endlessly expanding universe?


If the universe did end in a Big Crunch, that would be an end, in the same way that the Big Bang itself is a beginning. Because apparently that is what the four-dimensional math seems to indicate, that both time and space collapse at singularities.

But anything else -- for instance, this endless expansion hypothesis -- wouldn't be an “end” to the universe.

As for “change”? Sure, the universe “changes form”. But surely that is a non sequitur? It does this at all times, every moment. It’s changing right now, even as we speak, even as I type these words down.

Brian, in his comments here in this thread, metaphorically refers to the “Big Freeze” some kind of a death, but I don’t really agree with him when he says that. Why is that akin to death, and why is the present form of the universe akin to life, as far as the whole universe? Just because the latter supports life forms like us, and the formerly wouldn’t? Surely that’s an absurdly narrow and anthropomorphic view of the universe?

I agree, endless expansion means that after a point the universe cannot possibly support any kind of life -- or at least, life as we know it -- but I don’t see why you would see that as the universe “changing form”, right, at least not any more than it always does, at every moment? Not unless you choose to view and define our universe in narrow parochial terms, as a-universe-that-supports-life-as-we-know-it?


In any scenario other than a Big Crunch, that is, a terminal singularity, the universe can be thought of continuing on forever.


Hi Osho
You wrote

"A delusional person holds onto his belief regardless of whether its true. All he cars about is that it’s true for him."

Osho, please consider what you have written. Who else does it need to be true for?
Everyone?
I submit that accepting subjective reality as real for that person is a standard that applies to everyone.

Hi Appreciative!

Osho actually asked what is most current among cosmologist, not what the majority view is.

The majority is undergoing substantial criticism and change. The view from the top current cosmologists isn't entropy or heat death.

The inflationary review which had been the mainstream view, has been publicly and visibly rebuked by one of its principle authors, Paul Steinhardt. He now advocates a cyclical view, and several newer theories of his colleagues are cyclical.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/#45c1aaa1b45e


I wrote
"A delusional person holds onto his belief regardless of whether its true. All he cares about is that it’s true for him."
Spence replied:
Osho, please consider what you have written. Who else does it need to be true for?
Everyone?
I submit that accepting subjective reality as real for that person is a standard that applies to everyone.

My reply:
Spence, I agree that most of us take out belief to be the truth.
Let me show you this 2 min video again

https://youtu.be/AuFXyuH1voM
notice what is happening here.
The chef believes he has a great menu and wants to franchise his pizzas. However the objective reality is that he can’t make one good pizza. However, he doesn’t listen to reason – that is why he is delusional. Instead he says “I won that one”. What exactly has he won? This is delusional.
Delusional means that you all you care about is your opinion and don’t care where the evidence leads. That is what you are saying when you say “accepting subjective reality as real”
If you watch “The atheist experience” on youtube, you will see matt saying one thing: “I care about whether what I believe is actually true.” And he asks his callers if they care if their belief is true. Many say they don’t, that faith is enough for them. Then he points out that you can actually believe anything based on faith, and that faith is not a reliable pathway to truth.
The question is: if there is overwhelming evidence that what you believe is not true, would you still believe it?

Hi Osho
You asked
"The question is: if there is overwhelming evidence that what you believe is not true, would you still believe it?"

What any person believes is their subjective reality. Our mind and biases filter our thinking.

But to what extent is that informed by objective reality?

To what degree does that person understand their own desires and acknowlwdge what they don't want to see? How objective can they become?

What you believe is objective is still your subjective belief.

Delusion and illusion most certainly exists within some human minds. And nowhere is it strongest in evidence than when one person thinks someone else is mistaken when neither actually has the data to prove anything.

And within others there is discernment and insight.

But all of these are their subjective experience.

Hi Brian
You asked
"Spence, do this for me, and other readers of these comments;

Since you've watched the lengthy video, explain how the researchers believe it is possible for a child, or anyone else, to have memories of past lives. What is the mechanism that allows this to happen?"

As John Cleese eloquently stated, it is not so important to create an explanation for how our why, but first to confirm that it does, to the statistical level of scientific evidence, which this research confirms.

https://youtu.be/4RGizqsLumo

Statistically significant research demonstrating connections in the eeg patterns of pairs of subjects separated by distance and isolated.

"Analysis of previously collected EEG data showed a significant time-synchronized correlation between the electrocortical activity of “sender” and “receiver” pairs. Because the data were collected under conditions where participants were isolated by shielding and distance, this outcome is suggestive of a “nonlocal” mind-to-mind interaction."

https://f1000research.com/articles/6-676/v1

@spence

you wrote


What any person believes is their subjective reality. Our mind and biases filter our thinking.

But to what extent is that informed by objective reality?

To what degree does that person understand their own desires and acknowlwdge what they don't want to see? How objective can they become?

What you believe is objective is still your subjective belief.

Delusion and illusion most certainly exists within some human minds. And nowhere is it strongest in evidence than when one person thinks someone else is mistaken when neither actually has the data to prove anything.

I refer you once again to the 2 min video where gordon ramsay is calling the chef deluded. the chefs argument is the same as yours, which is "many people say the same about you, gordon"

however, the objective reality is on the side of gordon, as he already has many successful restaurants and is a world renowned authority in the field.

https://youtu.be/AuFXyuH1voM

so the evidence does matter, otherwise you can be as deluded as the guy claiming he is christ and trying to baptise others.

Do you honestly claim that he is not deluded?
here he is again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MONwfJdXW6Y


@spence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JLznF7QUAI

this man broke into a pizza hut and claims to be jesus. he was asked his last name, while on the call to 911, and he says "christ"

is his subjective experience just as valid as the 911 operator?
because that is the statement you are making

@spence

according to your argument this man on the dr phil show, who claims he is jesus, is not deluded. clearly objective reality is not on his side yet he still insists he is jesus

sorry forgot to post the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-d3qncxgP0

Quote Spence:
"Hi Appreciative! ---- Osho actually asked what is most current among cosmologist, not what the majority view is."


Wouldn't that be a distinction without a difference? If it is precision in expression we're insisting on, surely the phrasing should then read "the most current consensus view of cosmologists" -- so that we'll know to treat iconoclastic views of individual cosmologists with skepticism (while obviously not discounting such views entirely either)?


"The majority is undergoing substantial criticism and change. The view from the top current cosmologists isn't entropy or heat death.

The inflationary review which had been the mainstream view, has been publicly and visibly rebuked by one of its principle authors, Paul Steinhardt. He now advocates a cyclical view, and several newer theories of his colleagues are cyclical.

">https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/#45c1aaa1b45e"


Indeed. Thanks for that link, Spence!

It seems the inflation theory is no longer unquestioningly accepted. I did not know that. (Which is no surprise, given my scant fund of knowledge on these things!)

To be honest, I only quickly browsed this article, and did not really understand all of it. I understood Steinhardt to be criticizing his own inflation hypothesis, and he seems to prefer a contraction phase preceding this inflation.

I'm not really sure, basis this article, what this portends for the end of the universe. Would that necessarily lead to the yo-yo model you seem to be in favor of? After all, this "inflation" is only a small part -- in terms of time -- of the whole model.

This is all very interesting, and I'll check this out a bit more when I have time. Meantime, if you happen to have access to links that discuss this in more depth, I'll be grateful if you could share them.

Hi Osho
You wrote
"according to your argument this man on the dr phil show, who claims he is jesus, is not deluded."

Not in his own eyes.
Just as you or I are not deluded in our own.
That's why it's subjective, not objective.
For all three of us.
Our subjective views have different levels of objectivity. We do our best to seek independent verification, and to keep learning, stay open to new ideas that may not make sense to us because we don't fully understand.

As I wrote above
"What any person believes is their subjective reality. Our mind and biases filter our thinking.

But to what extent is that informed by objective reality?

To what degree does that person understand their own desires and acknowlwdge what they don't want to see? How objective can they become?

What you believe is objective is still your subjective belief.

Delusion and illusion most certainly exists within some human minds. And nowhere is it strongest in evidence than when one person thinks someone else is mistaken when neither actually has the data to prove anything.

And within others there is discernment and insight.

But all of these are their subjective experience."

Hi Appreciative!
You asked for some links about oscillation....

Steinhardt and others believe in a cyclical or oscillating universe. And there are different versions of this..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

The major problem with the current theory of heat death, that the universe as it expands will run out of energy, or that as it continues to accelerate mass will convert to heat and ultimately there will be a lukewarm universe with no matter, are a retread of an old idea based on Lord Kevin's discovery of the laws of thermodynamics, that all energy ultimately converts to heat and dissipates. Applied to the universe this once was called entropy. Everything would run out of steam.

There are assumptions with applying this to the universe that make it a bit like patchwork. First, this would only happen if the universe behaved like a noble gas dissipating equally in all directions. But our universe is remarkably flat. That alone challenges even the big bang (explosions, like heat dissipation, move in all directions) but a flat universe works using a model of space time based on relativity theory.

" The exact shape is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, but experimental data from various independent sources (WMAP, BOOMERanG, and Planck for example) confirm that the observable universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

Secondly, the observation of the creation of stars, which was one of the most powerful sources of evidence for dark matter, has demonstrated that not all matter burns into light. Some of it becomes new matter. And some of it becomes dark matter. Rather than dissipation, gravitational forces can cause the accretion of matter, not its dissipation


https://phys.org/news/2018-12-discovery-complicates-efforts-universe-expansion.amp

The discovery that solar systems are accelerating in their travel further from the center of the universe is a newer discovery that supports a new version of entropy.

Before acceleration was discovered, theories of both entropy and oscillation were around and had varying degrees of support.

But the idea that all matter would convert to energy and then dissipate as heat renewed and refreshed the entropy theory. Combined with the invention of dark energy, which acts like a vacuum to absorb energy, and you have an explanation for the acceleration of the universe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

The discovery of acceleration was based mostly, but not entirely, on observations of the red shift observed in type la supernovae. And there has been some notable controversy on that crucial finding.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/universe-expanding-accelerating-rate-–-or-it#

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/10/27/new-supernova-results-is-the-universe-not-accelerating/

https://earthsky.org/space/measuring-universe-expansion-reveals-mystery

Shift in visible spectrum happens when the observer and the light source are changing the velocity of their movement apart.

But a new discovery this week complicates the picture. Turns out that the light generated by Ia supernovae takes place not only as it burns matter, but as part of the process of absorbing matter from other objects.

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-discovery-complicates-efforts-universe-expansion.amp


The cyclical theories at that time centered in the idea that the systems were actually decelerating, not accelerating from the center, and that like a rubber band, they would slow to a halt and then spring back to the center for another big crunch that would result in a huge fission of matter and another big bang.

But acceleration disproved that.


Now it turns out the universe was decelerating before it was accelerating. Dark energy is the reason for the change, because as matter turns to energy, this is being converted to dark energy and absorbed by dark matter: the change from deceleration to acceleration was reached when the critical mass of dark matter increased to a tipping point. Now, it is hypothesized that the acceleration is the pull of dark matter.

And this has renewed cyclical theories, because a big crunch may not need a contraction of the universe back to the center at all, and the current theories of oscillation indicate a number of different ways this can happen.

What is making oscillation interesting again is that it doesn't need all the patchwork hypotheses added in that have been crucial to both inflation and heat death theories.


Several hundred years ago Dutch nobleman and astronomer Tycho Brahe made tables of astronomical observations that were five times more accurate than any others, including Copernicus. He used this to disprove Aristotle's theory about the movement of the planets. And offered instead his own theory.

His student, Johannes Kepler, realized that his boss' theory of planetary movement did not match precisely the data, and through his efforts developed the first two laws of planetary movement that we still use today. Kepler was the first to prove the planets move in elliptical orbits (though Pythagoras was the first to claim it, but without hard evidence).


Galileo reached out to Kepler for support, and Kepler provided it, adding accuracy to the math behind Galileo 's telescopic observations.

In turn Isaac Newton would build on Kepler's work in developing the physics of Gravity and mass.

Each of the had ideas, often tainted by religious beliefs applied to the physical world, that have proven false, while adding solid objective facts that have held up as truth through the centuries.


@spence

I wrote
"according to your argument this man on the dr phil show, who claims he is jesus, is not deluded."

you wrote:
Not in his own eyes.
Just as you or I are not deluded in our own.
That's why it's subjective, not objective.

my reply:
even an insane or psychotic person does not admit it,
but that does not change the facts.

So the man who claims he is jesus is okay? or does he need to pay attention to the fact thsat he might be deluded?

Hi Osho

You asked two questions.

"So the man who claims he is jesus is okay? or does he need to pay attention to the fact thsat he might be deluded?"

Okay?
If an individual becomes a burden to those around them, then regardless of what they call themselves, or what you call them, real communication is needed.

But these people who are in these sad situations have their own story. Something real has happened and this is their symbolic way of coping with it.

And when you understand the truth behind their chosen names and symbols, their invented philosophy, you open the door to communication.

But if you insist your symbols are the truth and others are false, and you don't have any idea of their history or their struggle, how does that help anyone?

Be glad you don't, Osho. Be happy not to know. Honor the beautiful protection of ignorance and let bygones be bygones.

Because knowing carries an almost infinite burden or responsibility.


It occurs to me, Osho, that animals sometimes know things some humans have forgotten.

Have you ever watched a very big dog meeting a very tiny dog for the first time?

The big dog, large, powerful, happy, has no threat at all. Their tail wags when they see a new dog.

The tiny dog starts barking almost defensively. Almost proudly.

If the tiny dog is too aggressive for the sniffing ritual, the big dog does something very interesting.

They place themselves at a small distance in front of the tiny dog and get as small and as low as they can. They place their paws out in front of them and lay down on the ground, pressing their stomach into the ground so they can get as close to eye level with the little dog.

It's as if they are saying, "look, I'm tiny just like you!"

This is their pleasure. This is all they want to be in this moment.

In most cases the little dog will stretch its front paws put a little also, and now they playing a game. The little dog may continue its roll as the "alpha" dog, all bark and thunder.

Usually the big dog will roll onto its back showing its belly, its most vulnerable and weakest side.

They are friends now. And this is playtime.

Just something to consider.


In most cases the little dog will stretch its front paws put a little also, and now they playing a game. The little dog may continue its roll as the "alpha" dog, all bark and thunder.


I flashed back to a large dog hunkering down, head on
paws, in front of my 5 lb Pomeranian. "Pommy" would
turn away with an "Oh, you kid" look but the large dog
kept trying. Finally, "Pommy" turned desperately back
to me with a "I'm tired of this game. Beam me up, Boss"
look. Whaddyado...

Hi Dungeness
They know something we forget.
When you meet someone completely different, and appearing small and noisy....
Submit.
Humble yourself before them.
Remove their need to be higher than they are, greater than they are.
Shrink to their level (because you are much larger and carry an infinite wealth)
Invite them to be alpha dog.

Whoever built that into big dogs has all my love.

And whomever made little dogs so opinionated also has all my love.

https://thenextweb.com/science/2018/12/06/how-the-human-eye-could-destroy-quantum-mechanics/

I lot to say and suppose but I keep it shut. !
It explains a lot

https://thenextweb.com/science/2018/12/06/how-the-human-eye-could-destroy-quantum-mechanics/


Whoever built that into big dogs has all my love.
And whomever made little dogs so opinionated also has all my love.

Wow, Spence. That's beautiful in so many ways.

@Spence
Have you even considered what side of this argument you are taking?
You are arguing that “delusion” is a perfectly acceptable way to live your life, just because it appears to be true to you. This is the same as endorsing delusional thinking as long as it doesn’t harm others.
But once you accept a belief, you can no longer determine what is harmful to others, because in your belief, it is beneficial to them. One simple example is when jehovah’s witnesses are against blood transfusion, so they will happily see their child die than allow a blood transfusion. Is this acceptable? According to your definition it is, because they have a perfectly good reason for their belief and it’s okay for their child to die. To them, it’s not harming the child, but acting in accord with the commandments of the lord.
Where do you draw the line?
I showed you a series of videos of seriously deluded people, many of them so dysfunctional that they would be classed as criminal, such as the person who is trespassing and baptising an old lady against her will, and the guy that beats up his girlfriend and puts her in a boiling hot water tub, causing burns. Each of those people think they are acting correctly because of their belief. You are endorsing this. That is your whole argument.
Sant thakar was doing similar things, like beating up women, and forcing children to sit there for hours on end, with their ears plugged. That is child abuse.

Time that a little app will be invented
that exactly displays to how fine tuned (left or right)
a devotee to the super Anahab Shabed is

might give some unexpected
results
like a satsangi, I know, who was a prostitute
who heard and still hears
the gorgeous sounds

Such a device might bring some devotion
@persons who are so much further than we all are

777

@Spence
If you want GSD to stand trial for financial fraud, you are clearly not a fan of his. A true disciple will stand by him, no matter what.
Jim Sutherland heard him ask “Do you know what 69 means?” and his faith was shattered.
According to sant mat teachings, having inner visions and meeting the radiant form requires intense devotion and only happens with the grace of the master.
How can you have intense love and devotion for him, when you clearly consider him a fraud? So your inner visions must also be delusional, or the teachings are wrong.
Here’s what Johnson says in path of the masters page 224

“A perfect character, as a man, is the foundation of spiritual mastership. If a man does not have that, you better leave him alone. Never mind if you are convinced against your will, Let facts direct your conclusions.”
And Johnsons final test;
“If you see the master in his radiant form, you have nothing more to worry about. “

It is delusional to hate the master and have amazing inner visions of him. It is not even congruent. Why would you have visions of someone you consider a fraud? The first criteria is that you must have love for the master before you can possibly have inner visions.

@Osho,,,,,,
Hi Osho,......Please order this Book and read it, then, write your Review on Amazon where thousands of Sant Maters and Seekers interested in These discussions can see why the Author, who was initiated by Charan Singh in 1970 is delusional. The Book is pricey, but I bought the Kindle Version for $10.00 U.S.

https://www.amazon.com/Search-Lost-Lives-Sanskaras-Evolution/dp/1944037837?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-ipad-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1944037837

One of his friends who has known him personally, for years, first told me about the book, as he had read it before it came out for sale any where. He told me that he had been initiated with the Author in 1970, and he believed his friend’s story.

His story is that, he documents at least 100 past lives, he accessed during meditation, including 17 lived in Lower Species. The Filters of forgettfulness were completely removed from his memory, as it has been for others such as Allen Chronshaw, who remembers living in Atlantis and claims to have lived as the Brother of Jesus, i.e. James.

Now these testimonies are phenomenal, as compared to mine, and the very little I have shared here, only to be attacked by Trolls like AP and called me a lying Charleton Fraud, with out even one single so called “ friend” on this list standing up for me, and calling AP out.

I have not deviated from my Testimony much in the last 20 years, other than my recent experiences shared here. And when I posted that after visiting the Dera, that my RSSB beliefs was shattered, that is true, but only in the present happenings in RSSB, not the Path of the Masters or Charan Singh,

So, instead of picking on Spencer Tepper and trying to convince him, that he is delusional, as you have tried to also convince me, all I ask is, please put your effort in to an Arena where it will be read, by thousands , and invest $10.00 U.S. and order the Book, Read it, then write your Review on Amazon and also post it back here, so all of the Skeptics in Brian Hine’s Church can decide if we Believer/experiences are delusional, or if we just might have tapped in to some Restricted Spiritual Realms that have yet to be unlocked for Skeptics and Reprobates. It will take you only anout 5-6 hours to read the 400 page Book.

Please take the challenge, buy the Book, ( And Brian, also) and write your Reviews on Amazon.

Cheers,
Jim Sutherland

@ Jim Sutherland
Don’t my statement personally – it’s not an attack.
I am just staing it is not in line with sant mat teachings that a skeptic would have inner experiences. Sant mat says that you need intense love for the master.
If you don’t have faith in Gurinder, then you question the decision made by Charan Singh in appointing him – so your faith in Charanis questionable for that reason.
My personal take on it is different. I don’t doubt you or Spence for a moment. My opinion is that anyone can have those experiences as they are not related to the devotional side of sant mat.
Plenty of people astrally project, and they have no devotion to any guru.
I don’t doubt the person who wrote that book either, but how can you prove those past life recalls are the truth, or made up?
Certainly people have inner experiences – and to them it validates their path, however it’s all mind created.
The whole point of the “absurdity of Sach Khand” article and video was not to criticise anyone. It was to show that it is actually absurd because ONENESS cannot have movement, change or individuality within it, so the very notion of a being or a place or cars, houses etc is childish. Only by seeing the absurdity can a person drop the belief.
If there is movement, things, beings, individuals, etc in Sach khand – then it doesn’t qualify as a Sach Khand because everything within time and space ends – so by definition, this Sach khand will end – so it’s not eternal.

@Spence
You asked

Let me ask you what you believe in this matter.
How do you reconcile proven fraud on such a large scale?

I personally have no issue with it at all. I don’t condemn the man. I don’t believe he is a fraud, because I am not judging him with an impossible yardstick.
I don’t expect any man, even a master, to be perfect. Perfection is a myth.
He is a man and I am impressed by the fact that he makes a point of saying “I am not coming at your death because there is only the one”
The fraud allegations I really don’t care about. He set something up, like any person would do to make money, but things went wrong as they sometimes do. If those things had not gone wrong, none oof this would be news anyway.
If you drop the idea of expecting him to be perfect and god in human form – which he doesn’t even claim anymore – then everything changes. He is a human being, and humans make errors of judgement.
It’s only an issue if you first put him on the perfection pedestal

@Osho, ...it appears like you aren’t up to the Challenge,....of buying the Book and writing your Review that he is deluded. You must be a verified purchaser of the Book before Amazon will accept your review. Why don’t you and Brian take on the Project together, and be a Tag Team of explaining to those who always read the Reviews on Amazon first, before buying the Book I knew about the Book a year before I finally decided to buy it. I identify with so much of what the Author wrote, that it is quite amazing. Even if your “ Oneness” conjecture has a grain of reality, what difference does it make to any of us, considering none of us will leave Duality completely and stay as The ONE for bilions and billions of years from now, in some Galaxy that can not even be measured in Space Time?
Jim

@Jim
I dont have the time or inclination to spend that much time.

you wrote:
Even if your “ Oneness” conjecture has a grain of reality, what difference does it make to any of us, considering none of us will leave Duality completely and stay as The ONE for bilions and billions of years from now, in some Galaxy that can not even be measured in Space Time?

Jim, you mis-understand what it means to realise the ONE. It is not an experience. It is a realization of what can be the only truth. Everything that you can experience (Light, sound, radiant form, regions) necessarily has to be within maya.
1. If you agree with the above statement, then you are admitting that the experience you have is part of maya hence not real because everything within time and space is maya.
2. If you don’t agree – then you don’t understand the idea of maya.

There is only ONENESS that is beyond maya, as it is the only thing/no-thing that doesn’t change.

"""My opinion is that anyone can have those experiences as they are not related to the devotional side of sant mat. """

---

But not the name "MAHARAJI" IMPRINTED on a newspaper
on a French journal ,
blowed on my lap by NO WIND, and
100% DECIDING MY FUTURE
and defining my choice between 2 countries
France or Holland

with
an expression in Pluralis Majestatis
also imprinted
"We Chose Vivaldi" . . . .
after I had said ONE SECOND before
"I chose for Holland"

AND FOR WHICH EVENEMENT YOU NEED
LET BORN
2 HORSES
ONE TO BE NAMED 'MAHARAJI'
THE OTHER TO BE NAMED VIVALDI
and take care they are on time,

google 777+vivaldi
for more extensive explanations

777

This is all OBJECTIVE - MATERIAL
which is NOT SUBJECTIVE AT ALL

---
Even Jesus did no preserving miracles
Nothing exists


Like here in the house
I say
"I love Him"
in one second a advertising -tail-plain flies over our house
with a banner
"I LOVE U TOO"


---
Like another time
my wife shocked by Charan on taperecorder around vivisectie

She sais (40 years ago ) : I can't believe He said this this
This is shaking

Instantly
A big explosion like sound in the 8x20 meter room
we were sitting outside in the garden

A big 3 kilo frame with Charan Photo
had fallen from 3 M x 80cm the chimney
without a natural cause
ALL little items of porcelain , normally standing BEFORE THE PORTRAIT
were still in place
THE FRAME MUST HAVE BEING GOING AIRBORN 35 cm before descending
His photo had left the frame, floated 7 meter to the garden door
next 5 meter to, . .
floated to her knees and went down

My wife has never been so happy

but no,
more happy when Charan appeared to her
during 90 minutes and explained this Path to her, > 50 years ago
speaking dutch
she could count his every hair, see Parker ballpoint, Rayban

and he convinced her
(but this last is subjective indeed)

Another objective however, I forgot
but I told here if Brian didn't delete it
was about the TV going on tilt
dissplaying
"You are just a messenger, . . nothing more !"

(I made a photo of that screen -)

777

@777,....I hope you are staying safe if you are in France, at this time of turmoil.
Please stay away from the streets and the Protests, if you are living any where near.
Jim

Hi Osho
You wrote
"The fraud allegations I really don’t care about. He set something up, like any person would do to make money, but things went wrong as they sometimes do. If those things had not gone wrong, none oof this would be news anyway."

Osho, an honest person sets up businesses in an honest way.
There aren't secret illegal loans siphoning funds, never repaid, violating the guidelines you set up for your company with its investors.

That whole system of fraud was designed. No that's not simply business development or investing.

Index fund investing is honest investing.

This was a scheme designed to siphon money illegally. Basically robbery.

Do you can a bank robber or a thief an upstanding business person?

You statement is not ethical.


Hi Osho
You wrote
"Jim, you mis-understand what it means to realise the ONE. It is not an experience. It is a realization of what can be the only truth."

If it's just a conceptual idea of the mind, isn't that still Maya?

@All

To realize the One is TO BE HIM.
NOTHING LESS

First You love Him, next He loves you back . . . or
First He loves you , next You love Him back

or both

No other way to know Him
than love Him wherever he is
Next He helps us to stop the nasty and corrupt thinking

and JIM

that is so nice a thought you had 4 me
We here are in the South at the. Mediterenean Sea
around Saint Tropez ( where Brigitte lives )
It could not be better

Though, I did send an email to Macron's daughter Epiphania
to give them all 5% salary increase ( by law) and which would bring
money in the economy , increase tax-income and stop what happens
but karma will decide
He will speech in an hour
Again Jim, . . Thanks and I was always your Friend
but don't touch my lover to much
. . . and yes I really guess he saved you're life with more 'C'.

777

btw
These things I told are just one percent
We all have them and looking for them is life & faith saving

@Arjuna
I love U man
Glad y'r back
You are so refreshing

@Brian
Did U ever Love Him?
You must have . . . . to let your daughter alone and go with no money
You might have had many little miracles and forgot

777
Have you also reviewed the evidence of theft?

Yes

Although I know that all kind of nasty karma can be possible
my stand actually is
TOTAL financial non professionalism of the Brothers
and the others involved and of course greed, taking risks . . . .
but no ill will

I have my own experience how easy it is to
lose millions by "stupidness" (karma)
I see not much difference between a M and a B
once the train rolls

Look wat governments "manufacture"everywhere . haha. or so sad
See your 23 trillion soon be 30 ( 3 times your income )

I feel sincerely sorry for them

The Father didn't know what a snake he gave to inherit

Of course I asked if Gurinder knew in advance what would happen
I think "NO" -
I think the brain of a SantSatGuru is ready for all that makes a point

Please be sure Gurinder is genuine

I remember so wel around 1972/4 on Delhi airport
these 2 Nimmi's children at I think 1 & 2 yr playing between
the legs of our Master and after 20 minutes of that, . .

HE knotted at us (we were deliberately at discreet distance) to the luggage
and exactly on our Samsonites
and exactly on the right moment
with 300. people around

An hour before in Amritsar waiting room
we had a long talk on How He could possible
give Darshan at Bandahras
and hear now : Was nog easy for HIM ar all

777


Hi 777
Thank you.
I've lost money also. And given a lot away.
But it was my decision.
I never accepted loans with the idea I was never going to repay them.
And if I was late, I acknowledged it and made a plan to make it up.

To see a designed scheme with Baba Ji's wife as the principle in a dozen shell companies all with the same tiny storefront address receiving loans from her husband's cousins whom her husband had placed into varies corporations, and when those loans were late, accepting new loans to cover the payments on the old, repeatedly, over dozens of such transactions totaling $400M U. S...

This is way, way easy beyond accidental.

This scheme of setting up these shell companies to receive loans from relatives placed in high corporate positions using investors' money was an engineered plan.

And that is only reinforced by Baba Ji's stonewall silence for years on the matter.

My Master doesn't want me to say "oh well, so what. I've got bliss, who cares about the harm done to others, or to the patients at the closed charitable hospital."

We are so far beyond any reasonable line here that was crossed years ago, hundreds of miles now into fraud territory.

If we lose our ability to know right from wrong, or let people off the hook who engineered several dozen corporate robberies, we are no different from sheep. We deserve and will receive slaughter.

" Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men."
Matthew 5;13

Quote Jim:
"only to be attacked by Trolls like AP"


Do you know what a troll is, Jim? You seem to imagine that anyone commenting anonymously, especially if they disagree with you, is a troll. You are wrong.

A troll is someone like you who, unprovoked, comments abusively online. A troll is someone who, instead of arguing cogently, seeks to personalize issues. A troll is somoene who insults others, and basically comments only in order to get a rise out of others. In short, you.

You, Jim, are clear evidence that trollishness -- in the online sense -- has nothing to do with anonymity.


A word of advice, Jim. Try to act online as you would in real life. To refer to someone, at random, as a troll, as you have done here, is exactly the opposite of courteous. Stop doing this.

Evidently you've been brought up to this kind of conduct, and no doubt this is how you conduct your personal life. Feel free to do this in your personal life, but not here. For instance, no doubt when you disagree with your wife, you call her a whore. And no doubt when you disagree with your son or daughter, you call them a bastard.

I'd advise you not to do that even at home, lest your wife or your son (or daughter) lose their patience with you and punch the daylights out of you someday.

But irrespective of what you do at home, don't do this kind of thing here. Flinging unprovoked insults at others speaks to your own breeding and character.

Next time you dare try this kind of thing, I'll take to referring to you as "Jim the Asshole" or "Jim the Charlatan" or "Jim the Stupid Lying Motherfucker", or, .... you get the picture, right? In large bold letters, too.




Quote Jim further:
"called me a lying Charleton Fraud, with out even one single so called “ friend” on this list standing up for me, and calling AP out."


That's because what I said to you is completely justified.

Did you actually follow my argument, basis which I said what I did? I laid out my reasons very clearly, more than once.

As ever, you are incapable of addressing the issue, incapable of addressing the argument. Even when the argument happens to be about you.


"I have not deviated from my Testimony much in the last 20 years"


And you think that somehow makes what you say true? You think that gives us a reason to believe you?

There was a man called Goebbels, I don't know if you've heard of him? He was the propaganda minster in Hitler's government. He'd famously said, "Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth", or words to that effect. And actually gone on to translate this philosophy into state policy.

It seems you subscribe to this man's policies. Repeating a lie for 20 years does not magically make it true.

If you wish to defend what I'd said, the way to do that -- at least, the civilized and rational way to do that is to address the arguments I'd presented. Not to throw slurs and insults at others, or claim that you've been saying something for donkey's years.



Spence and Osho Robbins, I found your discussion on subjectivity and delusions fascinating. Thinking about this, here's my 2 cents:


I don't think subjectivity, in general, refers to this kind of thing, these visions et cetera, at least not generally.

In general "subjective" applies to things like whether one likes the taste or something, or some piece of music. You subjectively say that Sant Mat philosophy and theology appeals to you. And you may arrive at intersubjective agreement about this sort of thing with others.

But your inner experiences? It seems to me that if you see the refulgent form of your Guru within you, or if you see inner constellations and what-have-you, then there are two and exactly two possibilities: either these are true, really true, these manifestations, that you're somehow capturing within yourself; or else they're delusions.

Either way there's two ways to approach this kind of experience. Either you loudly proclaim this personal truth to the world, and seek to impose it on others. Or you gently and humbly accept it as your own personal experience.

Spence, absolutely, you do the latter, and clearly accept the subjectivity of your experiences. As such, no one can possibly find fault with you. But still, but nevertheless, that does not change the fact that your visions are necessarily either delusions, or actually the real thing.

Osho Robbins, I hope you will not mind if I point out again what I'd said to you originally. All of your thoughts and views and ideas about the One also are purely subjective -- a point of view that you'd agreed with last time we'd spoken of this. But, importantly, I'd say that your experiential perceptions about the One also are either delusions, or else they're the real thing.

No, it isn't quite "nothing". You do speak of the world as Maya, illusory, when compared to the "reality" of the One. You speak of "the way out" of all of this, this illusory world. That is -- in as much this is not just opinion, but actually perceived and experienced -- either delusions, or actually true.




I've not myself been blest either with your RSSB visions, Spence, or with your Oneness experience, Osho Robbins, and so won't presume to express any opinion on whether either can be "real". But at least, I hope we can agree that both of these are necessarily either delusions, or actual reality? (Unless of course they're wholly spurious, mere opinion -- I'm sure that's not the case with either of you.)

You have a small dragon on one hand, and on the other hand you have a larger dragon that eats up the smaller dragon. Is either real? That's a fascinating question. But qualitatively -- that is to say, from the perspective I've tried to express here -- I'd say they're different sides of the same subjective coin.


Hi Appreciative:

You wrote:
"But your inner experiences? It seems to me that if you see the refulgent form of your Guru within you, or if you see inner constellations and what-have-you, then there are two and exactly two possibilities: either these are true, really true, these manifestations, that you're somehow capturing within yourself; or else they're delusions."

Actually, there is a third possibility more in line with how the brain works.
And that is that this is a visual representation constructed by the brain, just like the world you see around you, only informed from a different source.

The brain actually patches together your view of the world. It has a language of symbols it uses to to this quickly.

For example, when you hear a startling noise, you might see an inner flash of a pattern at the same time. The brain is trying to piece together the loud interruption and pulls what it has, including visual and auditory items from its inventory.

You don't always see what is around you, just what your brain can put together from what it is receiving.

What this means is that what you see is symbolic. Could also be symbols patched together from memory pieces.

How accurate is it?

That's the question. It can be anything from imagination to delusion, to accurate symbolic representation. It can't be "reality" directly unless you go beyond the brain. That's a whole area of conversation for which no one here is prepared to discuss.

But we can discuss how the brain puts images together. And there is an issue of accuracy behind that.

Dreams are a perfect example. They are not delusions. They are constructions representing real issues and impressions. Nothing in the dream is real. But it was constructed from real things. They are a "fictional documentary" of real things you witnessed that made an impression upon you at some point.

And one could say that even delusions have some basis in reality.

Generally speaking, when the brain is degraded by drugs or lowered attention, reduced consciousness or extreme stress, it doesn't create its most accurate images.

But on the other hand, when the brain's attentiveness is heightened, and stress is reduced, it's accuracy is even greater. And not just for external stimuli. Deep meditators have an unusual level of control over bodily functions that once were thought to be beyond conscious control. They become very sensitive to internal stimuli.

So when you look at the evidence of meditation, specifically deep meditators, the evidence points out that their brains process information much more accurately. That lends credence to the notion that whatever internal visions are brought up are more accurate symbols created by whatever the underlying impressions are. That is why they can be examined in detail.

I had posted the work of the UVA department of Perceptual Studies the other day. They gather near death and past life anecdotal accounts and try find hard corroborating data. They do! And that data is statistically significant. A very small number of people actually witness internally something that is verified as real.

So when a young girl says she spoke to her sister in a vision, and her sister had just died, and no one could have known this, and the sister gives information that proves accurate, we have evidence something has happened. It might still be a very accurate dream, but some connection has informed that dream. There is a level of accuracy to it. And this have been proven scientifically, at least following the scientific methods of statistical probability and confirmed independent data sources.


@Appreciative Reader,.....if you don’t want to not remain a pseudo posting Troll, .....than I invite you to address me personally as a real person, not hiding behind your Mask.

Test me.

Feel free to contact me any time @ isydopenayahoo.com , but don’t to neglect using your real Name.

Jim

Sorry, type.

Jim Sutherland @ ........ [email protected]

@Appreciative Reader

you wrote
Osho Robbins, I hope you will not mind if I point out again what I'd said to you originally. All of your thoughts and views and ideas about the One also are purely subjective -- a point of view that you'd agreed with last time we'd spoken of this. But, importantly, I'd say that your experiential perceptions about the One also are either delusions, or else they're the real thing.

me:
When Vivekananda went to Ramakrishna, he asked, "What is the proof there is a God?"
A perfectly logical question to ask.
However, Ramakrishna did not respond with logic.
Instead he acted like a madman, no less.

He jumped up and stood right before Vivekananda and shouted "I AM"
Now what was Ramakrishna to do with that answer?
There was no argument, no debate, no logic.

A similar thing happened to me.

A friend of mine told me to go meet a certain man.
"I don't know if he has found God, but he is a good man" he said

Now what the fuck was I meant to make of that?
up until that point, I was a follower of sant mat.
The only gurus I knew were sant mat gurus.
I had meditated and had experiences, but the goal was always far away.

So I went to see this man.
A simple man. And he told me stories and stories and stories.
And I just listened.
Little did I know what was happening.

He didnt talk like anyone else I had never met.
He just talked and he had no scriptures and he was not giving me an teachings.

Rather he was slowly but surely taking away my certainty.

He would say things like

You can't ever meet God - because a meeting needs two and there is only one.

God can't be experienced because that needs two.

God can only be realized.

when 'I asked how to realise he just laughed

The fish is in the water and is asking where to find water because it's thirsty

Of course it cannot find the water because it is already immersed.

It just has to realise.

You can NEVER meet god

because you are not separate in the first place.

You dont need a ladder to meet god
you dont need a car

because there is zero distance between you.

I just listened and he just talked.

8 weeks later, I asked,
This is all very well, I am already there, god is all there is etc.

but please tell me what I need to do next

Do?

he laughed and laughed


you can't DO anything!
because there is no you!

something was happening to me
and i could not explain it.

Realization came much later, but that was the first glimpse

after that, it was impossible to try to attain god.

as god was not a thing to be attained
or a place to be reahed

that was the beginning of wisdom

Hi Osho!
I really liked what you wrote about your own experience with a teacher, and your sense that this was right, that this was oneness. Your realization that there was nothing else to be done.

However, for some of us the path is a different one, a journey, and our progress in learning more about ourselves, in expanding our experience is all a part of that journey to enlightenment.

I don't think there is a conflict in these approaches, though they are different.

Do you?


Is it my way or the highway?
('My way' being some teacher's way)

Or your way is the sure way?
('Your way' being what each person has come to believe for themselves)

??

Quote Spence:

Actually, there is a third possibility more in line with how the brain works.
And that is that this is a visual representation constructed by the brain, just like the world you see around you, only informed from a different source.

The brain actually patches together your view of the world. It has a language of symbols it uses to to this quickly.

For example, when you hear a startling noise, you might see an inner flash of a pattern at the same time. The brain is trying to piece together the loud interruption and pulls what it has, including visual and auditory items from its inventory.

You don't always see what is around you, just what your brain can put together from what it is receiving.


Agreed. In other words, the brain keeps creating a "map" of the world for us, with which we try to comprehend the world, so that we "see" the world at a remove, filtered by our brain's "software". Absolutely, agreed.

Although no, I don't quite see how this ties in with "spiritual" visions. (More on this basis your further comments, below ...)


What this means is that what you see is symbolic. Could also be symbols patched together from memory pieces.


Hold on, hold on, Spence.

All of what you said earlier here -- the brain interpreting the world for us, building maps for us, all that -- granted and agreed with, but this bit about the "symbolism"?

"Symbols" are something we use to communicate. What we're speaking of here is perception, not communication. As such I don't see how this bit about "symbols" is relevant here.


How accurate is it?

That's the question. It can be anything from imagination to delusion, to accurate symbolic representation. It can't be "reality" directly unless you go beyond the brain. That's a whole area of conversation for which no one here is prepared to discuss.


I think that's a very valid subject for discussion. I for one am all for it.

I"d imagine Brian would be interested too, if the discussion were rational and scientific, and not based on dogma. But of course, I can't and don't speak for him.


Dreams are a perfect example. They are not delusions.


True, dreams aren't delusions. But if when awake one saw dreams, literally, then wouldn't that qualify as delusions? Wouldn't that then be the exact definition of what a delusion is?

(Or at least, to be accurate: Something like dreams, if seen while awake, would qualify as hallucination. In as much one took that hallucination to be real, then that would be delusion.

Agreed?


So when a young girl says she spoke to her sister in a vision, and her sister had just died, and no one could have known this, and the sister gives information that proves accurate, we have evidence something has happened. It might still be a very accurate dream, but some connection has informed that dream. There is a level of accuracy to it.


If something like this were "proved", that is, established with incontrovertible evidence, surely no one could rationally contest this? That would indeed speak to the accuracy of visions, and indeed their validity.

But has such really been established? Ever? Somehow I doubt that, very much.


And this have been proven scientifically, at least following the scientific methods of statistical probability and confirmed independent data sources.


Has it? Seems doubtful to me!




None of this is to deride or devalue meditation or spiritual experiences. If nothing else, they're great for both physical and mental health.

Might they be anything more than wonderful workouts for the mind? I don't think we have evidence proving that -- and therefore no reason to accept anything like this -- but if there were, I'd be very happy indeed to know that!

Basis what I've just now said, especially about "dreaming when awake", wouldn't you say that spiritual visions are either delusions (or at least, hallucinations), or else there are the real thing? What in-between compromise can there be? Not everything in this world is black and white, but surely this is indeed black and white? Either hallucination, or not hallucination (and therefore a manifestation of something real)?

For instance, seeing dead people and having them say things to one -- if established with evidence -- would indicate this is "real".

Quote Jim the Troll :

@Appreciative Reader,.....if you don’t want to not remain a pseudo posting Troll, .....than I invite you to address me personally as a real person, not hiding behind your Mask.


I see you've found a way to call me a troll again. I guess this passes for "clever" with you, eh?

You stupid weirdo, are you wholly incapable of actually addressing arguments? Did you understand what I said to you about what a troll is? Is rational thought wholly beyond you?


Jim the Pervert Stalker further writes:

"Test me.

Feel free to contact me any time @ isydopenayahoo.com , but don’t to neglect using your real Name."


You're actually mentally disturbed, you sick crazy psycho. This is the third or fourth time you're desperately asking me for my personal details. You sick crazy psycho stalker, you need to be locked up in a padded cell.

Test you? To what end, you crazy psycho?

Dear Osho Robbins,

As ever, your description of your experiential "awakening" is inspirational.

About Vivekananda, my understanding -- from accounts read long back that I may perhaps have got mixed up over time, so take this with a pinch of salt -- is that what finally "converted" the uber-rational Vivekananda to accepting Ramakrishna is when Ramakrishna placed his hand at Vivekananda's Ajna Chakra, and immediately granted him absorption or Samadhi. Or so the story goes, far as I can remember.

It wasn't argument that convinced Vivekananda. And anyone who lets Vivekananda's arguments convince them is probably not themselves arguing clearly enough, since none of this is backed by evidence.

Yes, subjective experience -- there can be no arguing with that. That is why I find these stories, as well as your account, so very inspirational.

That still leaves us with this question: Surely what Vivekananda experienced, and what RSSB devotees do, and what you did as well -- while inspirational -- surely they're either hallucination, or else not hallucination, that is, real? Either the one or the other?

@Appreciative Reader

About Vivekananda, my understanding -- from accounts read long back that I may perhaps have got mixed up over time, so take this with a pinch of salt -- is that what finally "converted" the uber-rational Vivekananda to accepting Ramakrishna is when Ramakrishna placed his hand at Vivekananda's Ajna Chakra, and immediately granted him absorption or Samadhi. Or so the story goes, far as I can remember.


HA – that sounds like an RSSB version – as usual they romanticise the journey to fit in with their idea of the guru doing the magical touch on the forehead. I heard the same thing about Astavakra when he enlightened Janak. But those accounts are not in any official story – jus the RSSB version, because they have to explain how it’s possible for janak to get enlightened in a moment when disciples spend decades and get nowhere. So they say the guru did the magical touch. So then the disciples want their guru to do the same.

It wasn't argument that convinced Vivekananda. And anyone who lets Vivekananda's arguments convince them is probably not themselves arguing clearly enough, since none of this is backed by evidence.
Yes, subjective experience -- there can be no arguing with that. That is why I find these stories, as well as your account, so very inspirational.

All we have is language - so words are used. However – the “happening” or whatever you want to call it – has nothing to do with the arguments. The arguments are merely to convince you to let go of the baggage – the concepts you hold so dear – the notion that “my path is right” and “I know what I am talking about”
I had all those when I went to the man I mentioned earlier. After being in his company for a few weeks, I was no longer sure.
A few weeks after that – I became certain that I was deluded all those years. Only then did realization dawn on me.
Realization does not come from accepting a new philosophy – but from dropping all the concepts you have collected.
I did not replace them with new ones.
“nothingness” or “oneness” is not a new concept to replace the previous ones.
So when we talk about things like “the oneness is the nothingness” etc and other ideas, those are just ideas, and actually it’s all nonsense to talk about is because the concepts themselves are beyond the scope of the mind.
The mind cannot deal with anything outside of time and space.
When I say “outside of time and space” I am once again adding a layer of concepts to the truth.
So what actually happens is this:
Or to make it personal to me – let me speak from my own experience of it.
What happened what the certainty I had created over the previous two decades dropped, as it became obvious that those where just beliefs.
So what I had then was nothing and it’s not comfortable. I was in a state of non-belief.
Then from that state, realization happened of it’s own accord. In my case it was triggered by a painful divorce that led me to being suicidal.
So what become clear was that I did not attain anything and I did not do anything to achieve it. All that happened what I dropped the beliefs and the thing that happened was not another belief, as it was not based on any new concepts I picked up.
The process of being with the man I mentioned was that of dropping the concepts. Beyond that the happening of “enlightenment” was not something that can be managed or created. It happens by itself. I never did it and neither did anyone else. I also cannot do it to or for anyone else – because there is nothing to do.
It’s like the word “Kudha” Kudha means God in hindi.
Kuda also means “that which comes by itself” meaning you cannot bring it.
The God that you can bring by your own efforts cannot be any good, because you must be greater than your god if you have the ability to manifest him by your efforts.

That still leaves us with this question: Surely what Vivekananda experienced, and what RSSB devotees do, and what you did as well -- while inspirational -- surely they're either hallucination, or else not hallucination, that is, real? Either the one or the other?


Any experience can be real or a hallucination. Agreed.
But how do you classify a realization?
You suddenly realize something that now becomes obvious to you. And I don’t mean a belief – because a belief is never realized – it is given to you and you accept it.
A Realization is a different process.
Suppose you go around saying “2 + 2 = 4”
And I ask you (pardon the language – but I can feel a few improper words coming)
And I ask you…. What the fuck are you talking about?
Do you even know what 2+ 2 means? Do you know what 2 is?
And because you just learned it by repetition, you cannot explain.
I then explain to you what “two” actually means, then I get you to add another two to the “two” you now understand and I ask you how many you have now.
You say “AH – Four”
SO now you understand for the first time that 2+2 really is 4
Not because you were told – but you know now.
Realization is similar to that – it’s obvious and it’s not a belief.
Of course an outside will say it’s another belief
Because the outsider only has beliefs and cannot understand anything beyond a belief.


Quote Osho Robbins:

“HA – that sounds like an RSSB version – as usual they romanticise the journey to fit in with their idea of the guru doing the magical touch on the forehead. I heard the same thing about Astavakra when he enlightened Janak. But those accounts are not in any official story – jus the RSSB version”


No no, this is as “official” as it gets. Not “an RSSB version” at all.

Like I said, I’d read this many years back, and was speaking from memory, so I was unsure about the finer details of that story. So I picked the book up from my library, dusted it off (quite literally -- not having been touched in ages, it had actually got somewhat dusty and cobwebby, despite the supposedly dust-proof glass covering on my bookshelves), and looked it up again.

This book I refer to is ‘The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna’, written by Mahendranath Gupta (or “M”), a direct disciple of Shri Ramakishna, and translated into English by Swami Nikhilananda. It is published by Sri Ramakrishna Math, Madras, India.


From page 57 of Volume 1 of this two-volume set:


“During his second visit, about a month later, suddenly, at the touch of the Master, Narendra felt overwhelmed and saw the walls of the room and everything around him whirling and vanishing. ‘What are you doing to me?’ he cried in terror. ‘I have my father and mother at home.’ He saw his own ego and the whole universe almost swallowed in a nameless void. With a laugh the Master easily restored him. Narendra thought he might have been hypnotized … [and] resolved to be henceforth on his guard before this strange man.

But during his third visit Narendra fared no better. This time, at the Master’s touch, he lost consciousness entirely. While he was still in that state, Sri Ramakrishna questioned him concerning his spiritual antecedents and whereabouts ...

A few more meetings completely removed from Narendra’s mind the last traces of the notion that Sri Ramakrishna might be a monomaniac or wily hypnotist.”


The above, italicized, I’ve quoted verbatim from there. ("Narendra" in the account above, is Swami Vivekananda's lay name, the name he went by before he became a monk.)

So basically, during his second and third visits to Sri Ramakrishna, Vivekananda seems to have been treated to the whole Shaktipat deal -- spiritual experiences facilitated by the Grace of the Master -- and it was this direct experience that eventually led to Vivekanda’s acceptance of Ramakrishna and his teachings.

(And I’d got this detail all wrong in my original recollection to you. I’d thought this happened at the first visit itself. Apparently it happened more than once, and in the second and third visits. Nor does this account say where Ramakrishna touched him, on his Ajna Chakra, or Sahasrar, or simply on his shoulder -- that may perhaps have been detailed further in the book, but I didn't look any further, because that detail is only incidental to the point I was trying to make.)

Now whether or not all this is “true” or not, is a different discussion. But there seems no doubt that this is how the story goes, what the official version reads.


And that was my point: Basis this story, neither Ramakrishna’s arguments nor his general histrionics could move Vivekanada. (Rightly so, given that there was no evidence for any of this.) What did move him was unassailable, incontrovertible evidence in the form of personal and subjective experience.

And experiences of this nature, as well as the sort that RSSB meditation confers -- always provided they’re not wholly spurious accounts -- are either real (in as much as they relate either to objective outer reality, or if not that, then at least to subjective subconscious states of mind that our psychological or psychiatric science hasn’t quite caught up to yet), or else they are hallucinations plain and simple.

In as much as one accepts these experiences as “truth”, to that extent one is either channeling reality in esoteric ways, or else one is mistaking hallucination for reality (and to that extent one is simply deluded, that is, this whole thing is no more than delusion). Either the one, or the other.




“A few weeks after that – I became certain that I was deluded all those years. Only then did realization dawn on me.
Realization does not come from accepting a new philosophy – but from dropping all the concepts you have collected.
I did not replace them with new ones..
(…)
Do you even know what 2+ 2 means? Do you know what 2 is?
And because you just learned it by repetition, you cannot explain.
I then explain to you what “two” actually means, then I get you to add another two to the “two” you now understand and I ask you how many you have now.
You say “AH – Four”
SO now you understand for the first time that 2+2 really is 4
Not because you were told – but you know now.
Realization is similar to that – it’s obvious and it’s not a belief. ...”


Osho Robbins, thanks again for that very moving account of your Realization (only part of which I’ve quoted above, so as not to take up too much of Brian’s server space), as well as that clear elucidation of the nature of your realization.

I think I understand what you’re saying now. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what you’re saying is that unlike Vivekananda’s experiences that I quoted above, and unlike RSSB (or for that matter Tantric) spiritual experiences, what you went through is not so much an “experience” per se -- although obviously you did experience it -- as simply a change in perspective. It was not so much perception, as perspective. Am I right in seeing it this way?

I appreciate what you’re saying, but I think I see now what has been troubling me all through about your narrative.

In as much as you arrive at this Oneness that you speak of from a theistic belief system -- an RSSB-centric belief system, in your case -- then sure, there’s a sloughing off, a dropping away of beliefs and concepts, et cetera. As you rightly say.

But what about the atheist and the rationalist? When you aren’t carrying any theistic baggage in the first place, and believe only what science has uncovered for us, and what is more realize the limits of what science has uncovered for us thus far: in such a situation, there isn’t any “fat” to slough off at all, is there?

Seen from such a perspective, a wholly rationalist perspective that is not in the least mired in blind faith or random belief systems, doesn’t your Oneness seem to be an “adding in”, an extra concept?

Nothingness is one thing. And per science, even nothingness is not a given, not necessarily. But this oneness, this “way out” of this “illusion” (presumably into something that is not illusion) -- that sounds very different than simple annihilation of consciousness on physical death.

Seen from this kind of a perspective that is free of unwarranted beliefs, your Oneness does appear somewhat fantastic. You see this, don’t you? Not that I’m deriding or dismissing this perspective -- but I’m saying, it seems to me that your perspective on Oneness seems to be either delusion or else it points to something real.

And that’s what I’d said (more concisely, and without all of this nuance and detail) in my original comment.

And I understand what you’ve said now. RSSB experiences, as well as Vivekananda’s experiences, they comprise an additional level. They’re either hallucination, or not. And if they’re hallucination, then you either recognize them as such, or not. In as much as they’re hallucination, and in as much as you accept this hallucination as real, to that extent one is deluded.

But in your case, there’s no “hallucination”. I get that. Nevertheless, the either-or dichotomy stays. What you experienced and perceived and understood in terms of Oneness, either that is true (that is, there is indeed some Oneness beyond our mundane reality), or else it is not true and there is nothing beyond our mundane reality (in which case your perception would be delusion).

Agreed? Or am I still missing something here?


@Appreciative Reader
is not so much an “experience” per se - as simply a change in perspective. It was not so much perception, as perspective. Am I right in seeing it this way?
I appreciate what you’re saying, but I think I see now what has been troubling me all through about your narrative.

You are correct. However, once that perspective changes – everything changes with it.
The idea of a God vanishes. There are a series of realizations and they build on each other. The final result is the ONENESS and it’s not a belief. It is absolute knowing. Just as you know 2+2 = 4.
It doesn’t matter what view I came from, because these are all definitions – God or no-god. It doesn’t matter about the words you use anymore. Realization is beyond all this.
There is simply the ONE. You can call it God, John, or Nothing. Doesn’t matter about labels.
That change of perspective then triggers experiences – but those are individual to each person and don’t mean anything specific.
For example, for me, I went back to my flat and wondered what the heck this life was all about. I looked at my hand and it was no longer my hand. It was just a hand.
There was no longer a ME. The body was still here as was the mind – just the possession stopped. The notion that there was a belonging – a MINE, ownership.
It wasn’t conceptual – it was a profound change of perspective.
The danger with descriptions is that you interpret them differently from what I am really saying – so you create more concepts
There is only one way to know what I am talking about – and that is to have the same thing yourself – until then, you will have questions and no answer will ever satisfy. It cannot.

But what about the atheist and the rationalist? When you aren’t carrying any theistic baggage in the first place, and believe only what science has uncovered for us, and what is more realize the limits of what science has uncovered for us thus far: in such a situation, there isn’t any “fat” to slough off at all, is there?
Seen from such a perspective, a wholly rationalist perspective that is not in the least mired in blind faith or random belief systems, doesn’t your Oneness seem to be an “adding in”, an extra concept?

I can see how it would appear that woy – but it is not.
Even if you believe science – there is still something to drop and that is the certainty. There is no adding on – because oneness is not a concept – just as “4” is not a concept.
One way to understand this is that imagine all you have learnt is
2+2 = 4
3 + 3 = 6
4 + 4 = 8
3 * 3 = 9

Imagine you learn all this by repetition. You accumulate a lot of knowledge – yet you have no understanding of arithmetic.
Now you go to someone and understand the meaning of ADD and MULTIPY
It’s a huge breakthrough – for the first time you understand, instead of repeating.
The process is similar to this
You could call it gyan – true understanding.
This becomes the foundation of the realization.

Nothingness is one thing. And per science, even nothingness is not a given, not necessarily. But this oneness, this “way out” of this “illusion” (presumably into something that is not illusion) -- that sounds very different than simple annihilation of consciousness on physical death.

Nothingness or Oneness are labels. It’s just a word. I could also say Nirvana, or God or Dog. The word is irrelevant.
What is relevant is:
It is not anything – it’s not an entity – it cannot be pointed to. Whatever I say about it will be a lie. Even to say it exists is a lie, because what is existence?
If I could take away all your beliefs in one go. Especially all your beliefs about who you are and also all the scientific ideas. So then you have nothing – just emptiness.
That is the foundation – the starting point for realization to dawn.
The concepts and beliefs you have are barriers because they mistakenly give you certainty.
Also “Way out of the illusion” is not correct. There are two states – this one – where everything appears real – and the state of oneness where you recognize what is real.

You are sleeping and dreaming. In the dream state lots of things happen, but none of them are real – even though they seem real. Now you suddenly wake up and realise it was all maya – illusion – a dream state. But you only realise once you wake up.
No amount of convincing you while you are sleeping and dreaming is going to help you. Because everything in the dream state is in the dream state and t’s all unreal.
When you wake up – you don’t need any explanation – it’s all self–explanatory.

Seen from this kind of a perspective is free of unwarranted beliefs, your Oneness does appear somewhat fantastic. You see this, don’t you? Not that I’m deriding or dismissing this perspective -- but I’m saying, it seems to me that your perspective on Oneness seems to be either delusion or else it points to something real.

Of those two choices – I have to choose the first because I cannot choose the second.
It is not REAL in the sense you use that word. It can’t be SEEN, HEARD, or IDENTIFIIED.
It is real in a different sense. It is the only REAL there it. By that definition – this is all unreal. This is “here today – gone tomorrow” as are YOU and ME.
But IT remains – beyond time and space – and I AM IT.
Not this “I” – this “I” is unreal.
When I talk about it – I am adding layers of concepts.
It cannot be spoken of. Only a fool will attempt to.
Not because it’s amazing – but because it is not real in our sense of the word.
Now I better stop as I am digging a bigger and bigger hole.

But in your case, there’s no “hallucination”. I get that. Nevertheless, the either-or dichotomy stays. What you experienced and perceived and understood in terms of Oneness, either that is true (that is, there is indeed some Oneness beyond our mundane reality), or else it is not true and there is nothing beyond our mundane reality (in which case your perception would be delusion).
Agreed? Or am I still missing something here?

There is no ONENESS – it is not a noun. If it was a THING – then you can ask
It is really there or not?
But it’s a not a thing.
It is something obvious.
When Paltu says “Paltu there is only the ONE – there is none else”
He is saying there is No Osho Robbins, No Spence Tepper, No Jim Sutherland, No 777, No Appreciative Reader.
All you see is called Maya – and what I call the ONE is the only non-maya.
Maya is considered REAL by our definition and non-maya would be considered UNREAL by the same definition.
It literally doesn’t exist because of what existence means to us.
If I came to your house and knocked on your door. You open the door and I come inside and I introduce you to my Invisible friend, who I call the ONENESS
You can’t see him, hear him or feel him. You can’t smell or taste him either.
You are going to say I am deluded, because the reality is – there is nobody there.
So the only logical conclusion you can come to is that I am deluded.
If you come to another conclusion – then you are lying because it means you have created a belief, You can believe – or you can deny and denial is more honest because it’s not real for you.

@AR
you wrote
But in your case, there’s no “hallucination”. I get that. Nevertheless, the either-or dichotomy stays. What you experienced and perceived and understood in terms of Oneness, either that is true (that is, there is indeed some Oneness beyond our mundane reality), or else it is not true and there is nothing beyond our mundane reality (in which case your perception would be delusion).

reply:

there is no "vision" of a radiant form or of spiritual regions etc
hence that cannot be an hallucination - as there is nothing to hallucinate

The second part is like this:

if you understand for the first time that 2+2 =4
how can you be deluded? it is an understanding of the process of addition.

All enlightened people put a huge emphasis on understanding and dropping belief

because those are the essential first steps.

you created the illusion using the mind and you have to let go firstly using the mind

the truth is beyond the mind - but the letting go of beliefs happens using the mind.

@Appreciate Reader

I remember you said you didnt have capability to play videos

but if you can - watch this one by osho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nSMi0whFEA

Why a buddha will be mis-understood.

in short he says that a Buddha HAS TO be mis-understood, otherwise he is not a buddha.

Why does he make this statement? RSSB doesn't make it.
In fact RSSB even has speakers who explain.

Yet Osho is saying a Buddha MUST be mis-understood

The reason is this:

RSSB has "teachings" to give out - that can be written and stated clearly

There is nothing to mis-understand.

whereas Osho has no such teaching or message.
There is no information to give out.

Instead the words are used to take you beyond words

Just like when you ask a question - the answer is not easily understood
because what I am talking about is not something concrete and simple.

it's not a message like "meditate 2.5 hours, attend satsang"

When I used to be a speaker for RSSB - I didnt really give out RSSB teachings - I alluded to something else beyond the teachings - the thing they were really seeking - the answer

like this one on youtube - this is the actual satsang I gave - I recorded it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G7jTT8Nak8


Quote Osho Robbins:

“ … the only logical conclusion you can come to is that I am deluded.
If you come to another conclusion – then you are lying because it means you have created a belief, You can believe – or you can deny and denial is more honest because it’s not real for you … ”


That’s refreshingly honest and candid! It is very difficult indeed to come across such self-effacing and frank and detached and wholly un-egotistical discussion about one’s personal ideas, where you so dispassionately consider if the truth value of your ideas is wanting or not.


Just to be clarify, in case my position on this wasn’t fully clear -- no, I am not saying for a minute that you are actually deluded. (Naturally, I do consider that possibility, but only as one possible scenario.)

I’ve said this before, but let me repeat, just so there is no misunderstanding on this: I am saying that there are two possibilities: either you perception of Oneness actually points towards an aspect of reality that is not generally obvious; or else you are deluded into thinking that it does. Which of these two is actually the case? I, personally, do not know.

I have no way of knowing, sitting here, removed from your first-hand experience. How can I come closer to knowing this? That answer is two-fold. First, I can examine your perception and the conclusions you draw from that perception, and see if it is internally consistent: if it isn’t, then I can reject it out of hand. That is what I’ve been doing, in discussing this with you, and no, I find no obvious internal inconsistencies in what you say. But the actual clinching “proof” for me -- albeit a subjective proof -- would be forthcoming when (or if) I myself am able to access this experience and/or perception of yours at first hand. Absent such first-hand perception, I can never hold a truly meaningful position about your ideas (unless, that is, a cursorily examination showed your ideas to be spurious -- which has not been the case in this instance).


And your own comments seem to indicate that you are in agreement with my way of looking at this. And you yourself seem to believe that “delusion” would be the fair answer, for others to arrive at. Except that that isn’t what I’m saying at all, as I’m trying to clarify now. No, I do not accept your claims, since there is no evidence for it, not even subjective, not in so far as I am concerned; but nor do I reject is as delusion. I am literally agnostic about your claim. And what is more, I am fascinated by the possibility that it may, just perhaps, turn out to be true.


“ … if you understand for the first time that 2+2 =4
how can you be deluded? it is an understanding of the process of addition … ”


You’ve said this more than once, Osho Robbins, and absolutely, I fully appreciate your meaning.

This analogy, absolutely, it perfectly conveys your meaning. But here’s the thing: as argument, I’m afraid it falls flat. Because you’re clearly begging the question here. You are starting with the implicit assumption that your perception is akin to the perception that 2 + 2 = 4, that is, you are starting with the premise that your perception is “true”; as such, your “argument” is wholly circular.

Which is why I’d said, in my original comment, that when actually arguing out your perceptions, you’ll need to do more than merely alluding to them using analogies. If the idea is to logically (as well as evidentially) defend your ideas, then you’ll need to actually present logically sound arguments, as well as evidentially sound demonstration. Neither is forthcoming here, I’m afraid.

But of course, if you don’t intend this as argument per se, but only as a clear explication of your perception, then absolutely, this analogy of 2 + 2 = 4 does a great job of clearly conveying your position.

You see the difference, right? I’m not disagreeing with you, and find your allusion perfectly clear and actually very inspiring (from an aspirational perspective) -- but I’m also saying that it doesn’t work as argument, neither on a logical scale, nor on an evidentiary basis.


“ … I remember you said you didnt have capability to play videos ---- but if you can - watch this one by osho ---- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nSMi0whFEA ---- Why a buddha will be mis-understood. …

When I used to be a speaker for RSSB - I didnt really give out RSSB teachings - I alluded to something else beyond the teachings - the thing they were really seeking - the answer ---- like this one on youtube - this is the actual satsang I gave - I recorded it ----https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G7jTT8Nak8”


Not so much that I don’t have the “capability” to play them, but that I’m not supposed to, not from “external” sources, not on this (work-issued) machine of mine. Playing them, for me, would mean having to access another machine from which to do it, someone else’s personal computer that isn’t work-issued, and that is something of a hassle.

But absolutely, Osho Robbins, since you ask me to, sure I will. I’ve watched quite a few of Osho Rajneesh’s talks (in fact I have a few CDs/DVDs of his lying around in my library), and I’m sure I’ll enjoy listening to this too.

And thanks for linking to your “Satsang”! I’ve never ever watched any RSSB Satsangs, although these have been referenced often enough here in Brian’s blog. I’m sure I’ll enjoy hearing you deliver this one!

Although it isn’t immediately convenient: but I’ll make it a point to watch both these videos soon, this coming week perhaps.




Let me have another shot at explaining why I think your position -- while it may well be “true” -- isn't quite as “reasonable” as you seem to think it is.

Let’s start from your 2 + 2 = 4 analogy. Actually what you’re saying isn’t 2 + 2 = 4 at all, what you’re saying is more like 2 + 2 = 5. Theists -- whether wearing the RSSB colors, or any other -- tend to equate 2 and 2 to something like 1 million! Coming from a theistic position of 2 + 2 = 1,000,000, your own position of 2 + 2 = 5 may sound sedate and sane and down-to-earth; nevertheless, coming from a rationalistic and (soft) atheistic position of 2 + 2 = 4, your personal formulation of 2 + 2 = 5 tends to come across as fantastic.

What would be 2 + 2 = 4 in this analogy of mine? Well, it would be exactly what is generally and commonly known, per science. Apparently the universe was manifested in a big bang, and we will probably end up in an ever-expanding freeze-death; or else -- nod to Spence’s very convincing arguments earlier on! -- we'll end up in yo-yoing between “creation” and “dissolution”; or else the universe has simply existed forever, and will continue to.

That was at a cosmological scale. At a human scale, we humans are -- that is, our sense of self -- is probably no more than simply a by-product, so to say, of consciousness, and consciousness itself is a consequent of ultimately blind forces of evolution. And this sense of self, this “we”, will probably be snuffed out for good at the time of the physical death of our body.

And underlying the understanding of these things, is the realization of the essential uncertainty of this. We think these things are probable, basis our current knowledge base, but it could be that we are mistaken. At this time, we have no way of knowing this for sure.

That is what would be 2 + 2 = 4. Anything more, including the “lack of uncertainty” that you speak of, as well as the “understanding” of the underlying Oneness, that would be a 2 + 2 = 5. Like I said, compared to the 2 + 2 = 1 million of theism, what you say sounds cool and sane; but compared to the 2 + 2 = 4 of rationalism, what you say tends to sound somewhat outlandish.




To put this differently: You’ve said, in an earlier thread, that you find (soft) atheism reasonable. Well, I’d say that technically your position isn’t quite atheism per se: it’s more like some kind of deism. That’s what Advaitic Oneness boils down to at the end of the day: it’s a variation of Deism. When seen against the backdrop of theism, deism tends to look minimalist and “cool”; but when seen against the backdrop of (soft) atheism, deism definitely comes across as gaudy and somewhat fantastic. Not to be dismissed out of hand -- at least not so far as I am concerned (I remain very interested by the possibility of maybe, perhaps, being able to access this perception myself one day!) -- but not to be accepted blindly either.

In terms of "argument", especially when pitted against theistic worldviews like RSSB, I'm afraid this continues to look to me like using the presence of an invisible unicorn to refute beliefs in invisible dragons (to hark back to my original analogy). I hope I've been able to explain why I cannot, in all honesty, shrug off this ... this doubt, this reservation, of mine, so far as your own arguments?


either your perception of Oneness actually points towards an aspect of reality that is not generally obvious; or else you are deluded into thinking that it does. Which of these two is actually the case? I, personally, do not know.


Let me address this point.
The ONENESS deals with something outside of what we generally call real.
The definitions we normally have will not operate in the ONENESS domain.
Hence the reason why there are no black and white straight forward answers.

Some questions can be answered – yet the most profound ones cannot.
Someone once asked Osho “I want to come over the grab you by the beard and ask you What is truth Osho? What is truth”
And Osho answered – “The most important question cannot be answered. Only the insignificant questions can be answered”
I asked Spence to explain about the Inner and Outer Masters notion he created.
I asked Spence if he still considers himself a RSSB follower in view of the fact that he wants to put GSD behind bars, and also if he loves or hates GSD
These are questions that can be answered.


When you ask about ONENESS – the questions cannot be answered. I would love to answer clearly – but I simply cannot. I can only waffle around the subject. I say waffle because I agree it’s nonsense.
In zen it is said “All teachings are lies. The only true teaching is the one that gets you there”
The best you can hope for in words, is a concept of the truth.
But the whole process of getting you there is to destroy all your concepts and leave you without knowledge, without concepts, without certainty.
You cannot go to a master with certainty, and if you do, he will destroy the certainty.
It’s nothing personal – but certainty is a barrier to truth

All discovery happens from a state of unknowing.

The person who knows cannot discover because he already knows.
His knowledge becomes his prejudice. It creates the illusion of knowing, when in fact all he has is a belief.
Because the belief is strong – he mistakes it for knowledge.
A person with a strong belief is so convinced – that he feels he KNOWS.
However, there is only ONE knowing and that is the one that comes when all your beliefs drop. That is what a master does to you. He gives you no teachings, no methods, no beliefs.


He brings you to a vacuum, an emptiness, a state of not-knowing, and the realisation that you cannot possibly know. Now you have nowhere to go. More questions are not going to help.

You cannot know swimming by studying it. The only way is to jump into the water, then see what happens. Just thinking about swimming is safe – easy to do from a distance.
From a safe distance, everyone is a swimmer. Everyone knows the theory.

Truth is the same. Everyone knows so much, yet in reality they know nothing, because real knowing is not intellect.
What is the meaning of “knowing”
If I ask you – do you know what a cucumber tastes like?
If you have never tasted one, then the answer is no.
Tasting a cucumber is a subjective experience and nothing objective is going to help.
Knowing about “X” is objective – but knowing “X” itself is subjective.
The taste, the experience is subjective. But learning the characteristics about “X” is objective.

@Appreciative Reader

That is what I’ve been doing, in discussing this with you, and no, I find no obvious internal inconsistencies in what you say. But the actual clinching “proof” for me -- albeit a subjective proof -- would be forthcoming when (or if) I myself am able to access this experience and/or perception of yours at first hand. Absent such first-hand perception, I can never hold a truly meaningful position about your ideas

You are correct. Ideas and concepts can only give you the illusion of knowing. But the only way to know is to go through the experience and find out subjectively

Once you go through it - something weird happens that I can't explain.
There is a certainly that comes not from a belief and not from an experience.

It cannot be doubted because the instrument that doubts (the mind) has been left behind
It's a knowing that is beyond the mind - a different type of knowing

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...