« 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.

Masters do a very good job in hiding for
those who would instantly die because of the Light ( and Sound )

and
and the excell in revelations to the needy
sometimes daily and hourly serendipities included

Simran as a Checker not to underestimate !
How would a layman even start to approach?
or understand
All starts with compassion

Serious statement
If a certain aspect of the physical universe is hindering a disciple
HE will change quanta in an instant including the Big Bang

777

So long as the mind has impressions, it can only be one with itself. Burn away the impressions, and all that is left is the One.

Pure Sant Mat 1.0

What is absurd and fantastic is there.

@JIM
Charausi , when ever “i” choose to use the Prescription administered by Master to temporarily rest in the Glory of Bliss of Samadhi in Anami.

My favorite is :

"One need TWO to dance the tango"

It is a Delight

What has death to do with all this?

It's just beautiful, gorgeous. . . . Out or In Chaurasi

Women normally feel this more than men ( I guess )

@Osho,......
No one that is Nothing,...No thing,...can obviously have any opinion about any thing that exists.

Oneness discussions border on insanity.

I believe I offered a sane interpretation of the only sane way to even imagine that Oneness swallows up Duality, because I am here, accross the Pond from where you are, and we are both in Duality, posting.

But, I don’t know what’s in your Oneness mind, nor do you know what’s in mine, because we are NOT One,we are two, in Duality. And surely, the Voyeurs reading this are in Duality with us, but all in different physical locstions and material containers.

Trying to have any intellegent discussion about God, Regions, Heavens, Sant Mat, Masters, are impossible to understand , with out quoting some thing a real human said, or wrote, in the past, that were, or are still in Duality.

No Nothingless Nonesss Non entity from Oneness ever wrote, or said, any thing.

Humans wrote ALL Scriptures, that Zealots later referred to as Holy Writings.

The writings some times contained historical events, but were mostly written as Allegories, designed to teach lessons of Progression of souls in Duality, after have been created.

Eastern Scriptures are only parts of the massive Puzzle. The Puzzle can never reveal the completion of the Image with out also containing the Western Scriptures such as the Hebrew Old Testament and Christian New Testament.

Radhasoami, Anami Purush, Khristna, Siva, etc. etc. are not the only Names humans of the past have assigned to their Deities.

But, how could any past blood, flesh, and bone human operating in Duality correctly describe and unwrap any Non-Dual NoThing in Oneness that can not only, never been seen, nor can ever be seen, by any Creation in Duality?

They can’t, unless they are manifested in some other Planet, Universe, Multverse, or Galaxy.

Then, if any of those Entities interferred in Earth affairs, then they would not have to be Supernatural Entities, that are worshipped by Earth creatures on Duality, but these non earth Entities could just as well be thought of as Extra Terrestrials, ETs, or Aliens. But they are ALL still creations in Duality by some Ultimate Creator, that as far as any one that has ever been created , knows very little, if any thing about, including naming Him/Her/It God.

Nearly all religeons, except Buddhism and Metaphysics came from .ET.s.

JHWH and Jehovah are not the same being in the Old Testament.

Was Jehovah God, or an ET?

I firmly believe, and have been “ quietly” saying the same for at least, the last 25 years, that humans were manipulated and controlled by E.T.s posing as “gods.”

But does any Sant Mat Master, or any other Teacher, or any one here, know if there is, a True God Who created all of those imposter “gods”?

I have said for many years, that if there really was a historical man called Jesus, that was not an Allegory, then he was a Hybrid, i.e. half human, half Alien. If he was historical, and born of a Virgin, Mary, when she was impregnated by a “ Holy Ghost”, than Jesus was definitely a Hybrid.

Jehovah was NOT the father of Jesus, because the Bible states that Jesus was sent to nullify Jehovah, “ the Father of Lies.”

Jesus taught his Desciples to bypass the controlling Priesthoods by going directly to “ the Kingdom Within”. ( sound familiar? Swamiji never invented the technique of accessing the Kingdom within.)

Animal sacrifices were for the purpose of feeding the imposter “ gods”, i.e. the Aliens who ruled their created numan slaves, which of, some were pure human, while other were hybrids.

Jesus said his “ kingdom” is not of this world. Then if not here, where?

It was , according to the Nrw Testament, the Angel ( Messanger) Gabriel, who appeared to the Virgin Mary when she was about 14, and told her that “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” ( Luke 1:35) Artificial insemination, or abducted by an E.T. and inseminated the human way, then memory deleted.

The “Star of Bethlehem” that the Three Wise men followed , that hoovered over the barn that Jesus was born in, was no doubt a Space Ship, monitoring the birth of Jesus.

The Father of Jesus was “The Holy Spirit” , and Jesus was called the son of Joseph, of the royal lineage of King David, but he spoke of the “ Father Within” when he started preaching.

Could that loving father he spoke of have been Jehovah? I don’t think so, as Jehovah was the jealous god of the Hebrews who said not to put any other god before him,

Any way, for any Basketball players here, it is not a Slam Dunk , from Duality to Oneness. It requires more manipulation and play on words than our friend Osho has in his archives to convince any one who’s evelevator still goes to the top floor and is not a hypnotised Zombie.

Cheers,
Jim


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

Hi Dungeness:

You wrote eloquently:
"The Master places his inner form within the disciple at
the time of initiation....."

This is the answer. When we turn to Him, and through our practice grow beyond mind, there He is!
But to leave mind is for many, as it was for me, several decades of work. I knew He was there. But now I get to see Him, not as I knew him in the flesh, but as He presents Himself in His radiant form...it's the same being, but one is memory and construction, the other is direct perception!

There is the dian of the Master, our memory and imagined construction. And that helps a great deal. And THEN there is the actual radiant form. It was always there. Even before Initiation (since that is His connection, not our taking vows..) and that can happen at birth, before birth, even in a prior life.

He is there! So the only thing that would prevent our seeing Him at death is if WE aren't there.
If WE aren't at the eye center. If we go to the eye center, He is waiting for us asking with mock frustration ..."What took you so long??!"

Hi JB:

You wrote very beautifully:
"Some manner of separateness is exactly what allows for consciousness (and therefore, experience) to arise at all. Everyone clamors for "oneness", ostensibly not realizing that an actual oneness would involve the total obliteration of consciousness/experience. Non-separation is unconsciousness, non-experience, and nonexistence. This is why God, as an infinite yet conscious and experiencing being, is an abject impossibility. That which is indivisibly one with everything, would be entirely devoid of consciousness and experience. The author is convicted that humanity is immersed in the "illusion of separateness", but as indicated, separateness is required for the experience of anything. Referring to separateness as an "illusion" is, in my estimation, as profitable as saying that the world is an illusion, and equally as misguided and untrue."

This is a fine and clear argument. How can we see if I am One...Who is looking, and from what position? Your argument from a physical sense is perfect: To perceive there must be viewer and object, separately. Without that duality, nothing can be perceived, at least by the physical senses.

However, consider the thinking mind. That mind can think about object, and the qualities of that object without being a sensory observer at all. Such is the power of conceptual thinking. We can define, argue, conjecture and build conceptual models of reality all from any perspective we choose to think about it from.

In theoretical physics, any conjecture that mathematically matches the evidence is viable for consideration. Gravity was a theory that met all the measurements. Quantum Mechanics is understood to the extent it meets the measurable evidence, though these things cannot generally be measured directly.

And coming up with those models is a mental exercise, not a matter of perception (though evidence can be added by science, the model in the heads of the scientists is nothing more than a very disciplined exercise in mental imagery and construction). So, since that model is inside us, we can become "one" with it. There was no distance between quantum mechanics and Einstein. He was one with his creation.

In the realm of thought, yes, you can become one with your idea, Not two.

So, that is a metaphor for something even more abstract.

Well written Spence
and of course well done
I respect so much the Gurmukhis under us
you showed your example for us all

@Jim
Well documented as always
and I wondered
this renaming of Jehovah to Satan

where can we find it?

Not that it has any importance to a rssb satsangi
since initiation They don't even see us
except on our special request . . . ouch

777


Well written Spence
and of course well done
I respect so much the Gurmukhis under us
you showed your example for us all.

Ditto your sentiment, 777. Spence is a treasure.

P.S. Jim too. Loved his humor today.


@dungeness

Clearly we are not expecting the physical master to appear at death.

We are taking about the inner radiant form.

If the radiant form is planted in the disciple at the time of initiation, there would be no question of the guru coming at death as he is already there.

Doesn't explain why the current master says the master will not come at death and his explanation that there is only ONE.

You have now tried all explanations except the one that actually accepts what GSD said.

Either He is a liar, or I and many others are liars or the ONE is the truth.

Choose one.

The answer is simple.

Forget what I say.

Go ask GSD the question. Let him answer.

I have done it many times. I have heard the answer direct from him.

But unless you hear it direct you will doubt

Hi Jim,

Glad to see you back. Wish more people were interested in ETs.

Elon Musk answers "Where are the Aliens?" in Dubai at the World Gov Summit (2017) (2:30 mins)

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

Hi Osho,

Has anyone ever asked GSD about aliens visiting this planet?

Hi Osho.
I think Dungeness gave you the answer, though it may not be the one you like.

The Master is within each of His initiates (and many others) . So it isn't a matter of Him showing up upon our death. It's a matter of the student doing their part to meet their Master at the eye center in this life. So no, He doesn't come to us upon death. That is the literal truth. Because He is already inside us.

As Sawan Singh and Maharahi taught so clearly, what happens at our death is up to the Master. If we haven't reached Him within during life, then it depends upon where He thinks the best place to work off our Karma is. That could be returning here, or staying in one of the spiritual regions in meditation.

This is all Sant Mat 1.0.

But so long as we can't accept it, we fight for our own version.. Sant Mat x^n. All those are bad photocopies.

A photo copy of a contract has no authority, which the original, signed version has: Signed by all parties, including the lords of all the heavens, the Master and the initiate.

And if you run the contract through the copier, print it out using cheap copier stationary (not the official bond of heaven), then use white out on the parts you don't like, and a crayon to scrawl things you want, to make things look easier it has even less veracity, because then it's no longer even a decent copy of the original.

No one should look at that adulterated copy and think "this is Sant Mat." That's misleading.

And any initiate who has even begun to do their part of the contract wouldn't trade their legitimate contract for the fake. That's absurd. Because they are in the middle of the project working with management and all the resources.

Though it is true people do some foolish things. I have so I get it. Yes we can fall.

If you compromise with the vows, smoke pot, drink alcohol, you can still be a wonderful person. But you can't make any spiritual progress. There is a biochemical part of the work.

If you compromise your ethics, indulge in anger, greed, lust, attachment, or pride in your superior thinking, progress is zip. Zed. Zero.

But getting up again. No comparison.

@Spence

If that is the case then I must be hearing things that GSD has not said.

The 15 minute conversation I had with him in the presence of 3000 people must be fiction.

All the other people who heard him saying the same things must also all be deluded.

Or maybe GSD doesn't know the truth and his disciples know better.


Doesn't explain why the current master says the master will not come at death and his explanation that there is only ONE

Osho, in my opinion, GSD is impressing on the disciple
to look to the inner master whom most never see.
They may not expect the physical master to show
up. But they're still constructing some kind of mental
image of him. One's that external. Cobbled together
from impressions they've formed of who and what he
since they haven't seen the inner master.

The whole goal of the path is to see the inner master
while alive and not wait for death. Not rely on some
miraculous visage/rescue when the ship is circling
the drain. Then, RSSB's another religious fantasy.

Maybe, the Master appears visually anyway in some
of those cases. But, I see GSD's denial of coming at
death as a reminder you've gone religious instead of
striving to find the inner form. You've forgotten that
answers outside won't improve your vision inside. You
need experience within. You need to see him every
day there instead of through the mind's prism.

Have you watched the movie "LUCY" with Scarlett Johansson? It is a really good "take" on things especially the end. I like the comment about ETs and aliens posing as gods. Nirabu (?) and the Annukai(?) In the past, Prometheus was outcast for creating humans from clay and then giving them fire. Olympus was home to those naughty god folk. Hollywood is now their new home! Another home for the current true gods of our planet is the digital world, the snaring web, and so it goes on and on and on. Creation expanding into infinity and really not giving a dam about anything. For what it IS just IS and it is all too HUGE for any of us to ever be able to understand. We all know ants can't comprehend or perceive the entire picture of their expansive habitat. Impossible. Not even worth trying to! (Analagy). However of course humans are at a different level of awareness or consciousness and naturally curious about origins. You can persuade anyone into a belief system if you have the right convincing language. That does not mean the system is actually true. Anyhow, it is my belief once an item or object materialises it is immediately somewhat diminished in its perfection. I do not have the language or equations to explain explicitly what I actually mean however. We could be very low on a food chain in the greater scheme of things. For everything on Earth is cyclic and part of a food chain. On the greater scale planetary systems have their seasons too. Black holes (very hungry) dark matter, whatever, it stands to reason, must therefore be "seasonal" as well. Take the word "creation". Cr EAT ion. Eating its way into infinity. Food for thought?

Sparkles of dust
Fairy

Hey JB - hope you are still around.

You write ‘A reduced sense of self, but obviously occuring to an intact and distinct human being with an intact and distinct brain. It represents an anomolous psychological experience not an ontological shift or "peek behind the veil”.’

Anomolous yes in that it was ‘out of the ordinary’, but of course not dissimilar to that of many other folk. Ontologically speaking :-) the experience completely upended my worldview at the time. To perceive everything as connected and was affecting everything else was quite mind-blowing. In particular, a realisation that my thinking was integral to all this. The long and the short of it was that shortly thereafter I became committed to vegetarianism, environmental activism and yoga. Anything that helps to reduce one’s ecological/environmental footprint and its potential to cause suffering is a good thing, wouldn’t you say?

Your reply in regard to my comment on meditation/thinking ‘Thinking is only quieted temporarily.’
Agreed, yet quietened enough to gain insight into the nature of thought (like how thoughts just ‘appear’) and yet how intrinsic to this, is how a thinker of thought is generated strengthening the notion of an I, that identifies with the thoughts.
This is how my ‘I’ sees it. I remain of the view that the resulting belief in ‘separation’ (i.e. that this I is a separate entity) is the ultimate cause of the suffering we see/identify with.

Finally I’d still appreciate a response to my previous question in regard to your own experience of meditation and the degree in which this has contributed to your current stance.

@ Jim
Good to see you back here. I thought you may have been kidnapped by bandits on one of your travels or worse the snappers gotya (temporarily of course).
Your recent comment re the Old Testament is most interesting and a real can of worms imo. The whole business of past history on this planet seems increasingly open to re-interpretation. Fascinating, interesting and a bit disturbing.

@ Jen,.....
Skeptics are not even able to accept the concept of Living Masters, let alone Aliens, E.T.s or shape shifting hybrid Human/ET every day beings , living among us that we would never suspect.

How do you know I am not a hybrid Human/ET, or an AIHF? ( Alien in human Form)

My wife has always told me she has never llived on earth before this life, and she is an Alien who has forgotten where she came from. Her Blood type is the rare A Negative. ( RH Negative. ) .

But she has absolutely no interest in any of the subjects we discuss here. She isn’t even curious.

As for me,....My curiosity is on going, and I get up every day with my “ Eyes Wide Open”, as my email signifies, ....isydopen.

I have tried to share a little of some of what I have seen and experienced while in deep meditation, but why bother? Material skeptics who have not walked the Path In my shoes nor studied enough to show them selves approved, as worthy Servants will never know.

But who are the Masters, and who are their servants?

We, who have been initiated by various Masters who have been called GIHF by their desciples, very well could have actually been Aliens in Human Forms, mistaken for gods.

I have only shared a little of what I have experienced in deep meditation, and have been scorned by both believers and skeptics alike.

ALL those who have gone in, deep inside, and basked in the Bliss of Samadhi, are like Gorillas spending a day in Paris, or New York City, than returning to the Jungle trying to describe what they saw and experienced in those cities!

Who do the skeptics and unbelievers think those of us who contiune our daily Meditation Practice still after sitting in meditation for the last 10, 20, 30, and even 40 years, as some of us do, continue wasting the rest of our lives, if we don’t expect some thing Awesome, Magnificent, and MIND BLOWING to KEEP happening, yet different, and new unexpectedly?

In order to put a little more Icing on the Sach Khand Cake that Sant Mat Masters have described, perhaps a Rejuvenation of the dying, or already dead Sant Mat1,2,3,4 , a switch of the terminologies we have been fed might be changed to accept ETology 1,2,3,4.

I have been a UFO Buff longer than being interested, or invloved with any of the Religions and Sects I have spoke about.

I just have never discussed UFOlogy with those outside of other believers, as the RSSBers are birds of the same feathers flocking here.

Any one interested in UFOs at all, have already, no doubt, encountered the big names, making their living off speaking at UFO Work Shops, writing books, and hawking their stories.

With out naming names, here is a Link to a Youtube Video Interview of an unknown, rarely interviewed, an Abductee much different than the average Abductees we hear about, any one that has gotten a hook in to the God Father of Conspiracies, John Lear Jr., is surely worth spending an hour away from this Church to listen and digest!

The Abductee’s Name is Lou Baldin, who mesmorized the Members of the forum called ATS, i.e. Above Top Secret, for years, and is where I encounted John Lear, who is greatly respected among tne UFO Community.

https://youtu.be/VxQ5cAlH8oE

Enjoy,....while taki png deep breaths!

Cheers,
Jim

@JIM

beside my former question about Jehovah
another bible riddle . . .

I wrote it already one time but perhaps is was not placed
I forgot
It's about Eve

If the apple was a stake
the whole story makes perfect sense
then we witness the first murder changing everything , specially innocence
and the closure AND the Cherubines
AND our Path

Have a good time Jim

@777,.....I “ Could” go very deep in to the Bible and How it really is a Manual of human and ET intervention. But I won’t, as I stated prior, this Atheist materialist “ church” is not even able to accept the idea of souls being in Duality, let alone Aliens using humans as Cattle, i.e. Goyam.

The Jews are accussed of being the Chosen people of Jehovah, and I have already stated that my belief is that Jehovah was, is, an E.T., The Alien god of the ancient Hebrew people. But if that is so, than who are the Overseers of the Alien god, Jehovah, other than the existing Jews, that continue reincarnating back here to earth to use, herd, sacrifice and eat their “ Goyam”, i.e. Cattle?

If I have aroused any curiosity, a quick search of the pdf “ Protocols of the Elders” might unwrap the mystery, and answer a few questions as to what we are witnessing happening in the world presently . Its ongoing, and time less, in Jehovah’s Realm, but is being progressivily carried out by Jehovah’s Servants, applied to Goyam.

@Jen, ....and any one else that remembers my sharing when I encountered the Alien head, that had pulsating, flashing eyes. I tried to describe what the head appeared like, but really never did it justice. But the Alien sitting in tne chair in the Lou Baldin Interview is the closest to any drawing or photo I ever saw on the Internet, as the head was almost exactly what appeared to me, slightly to the left of my face, 6 inches away, then started pulsing silver white light from its eyes in to mine! Of course, I have imagined all sorts of possibilities of who, or what that Alien wanted of me, but so far, I have yet to get my answers, because I am still using tne 5 or 6 Name Radhasoami Mantra in my Meditation, which we have been taught that shields and protects us from evil entities. Also, remember, Charan appeared to me on my right side, so Initiates will understand that significance.

Cheers,
Jim

Hi Osho
You wrote
"If that is the case then I must be hearing things that GSD has not said."
Yes that's possible. Or that you have misunderstood what he said.

As Dungeness and I have pointed out, Master can comes inside you even before initiation, before you know you want to be initiated. That is all His pull.

So the notion that He comes to you at death is wrong. Because He is already with you. This is standard Sant Mat 1.0 teachings.

The fact that some report seeing the radiant form as their life comes to an end is not surprising. Many of those Satsangis had already seen His Radiant forum within, so they could recognize Him as their good friend who was waiting for them inside.

The fact that you have a different notion of the core teachings suggests you may be filtering them.

Not a problem, unless you get too attached to the wrong teachings, even teachings you agree are wrong. Why do that? What purpose does it serve to create duality when your are trying to approach oneness?

The true teachings, as they reflect inner experience and inner reality, do not change. The metaphors change, the packaging changes for each culture and tone. But the teachings are universal and eternal. Because the inner geography is eternal.

Journey within. This is the best verification.

As for being wrong or misunderstanding, join the club. Every serious initiate sees their own flawed thinking all the time. In fact, when you get to the third region, you realize the mind you have left behind temporarily is a hopelessly flawed instrument, only suited to the script of a flawed life that must continue to make flawed choices and judgments as part of getting through the destiny.

There really is no hope in reasoning it through. The only hope is to rise entirely above it.

Why crawl on the ground when you can fly?

Hi Jim,

Thanks so much for the link. I did subscribe to Veritas Radio many years ago and haven't watched for quite some time now. Started watching and really enjoying the video. I also think that I am being protected. There are the good and bad entities as per usual. I have some memories of telepathic communication but unfortunately we do have our memories mostly wiped after contact.

Cheers bro :)

Hi, From my perspective only and not necessarily the truth:
Tim Rimmer - good reads.
Spence Tepper - good reads
Osho - you started all of this!
Jim Sutherland - Veritas = Fairytas! What a load of bullshit! Could only listen to a portion. Dr Steven Greer and Dr Michael Salla have more credibility in their cash collection ventures. However, I do believe in Ets and alien life and past intervention. Could be still going on. Probably is at certain levels and degrees. Only real direct experiences can give any encounters credibility. The pilots who saw the UFOs in Ireland a week or so ago, add credibility to any facts and not to any fiction. It is my belief true things in their true state will never be, and are not, how anyone can ever imagine or think them to be. But from my private and personal experiences, SIMRAN does work. It is always the mantra that I revert back to in my subconscious state and when in fear of something. It ALWAYS wakes me up! So I sincerely thank Master Charan Singh for that.

Hi Fairy,

You say "Only real direct experiences can give any encounters credibility."

Exactly, which is why I don't go into the details of my own personal encounters. There is much more to life than what meets the eye. I also don't believe everything that other people experience and talk about even if I find it interesting. Why is it necessary to 'believe'?

You say "It is always the mantra that I revert back to in my subconscious state and when in fear of something." Try not to fear, we have to be spiritual warriors and find our own spiritual strength.

One very last thing, in hindsight (pun intended) GOOGLE( a relatively newly manifested god without an actual human form) "GOD" on Wikipedia. Expains it all better than any of us for it is the most powerful source of information on the planet is it not? It has form yet it is formless. It contains intelligence yet cannot exist on its own. It is forever expanding. But is it a separate entity? However in this case we can exist without it, but it can't exist without us. Or can it?

Hi Jen
Kind words. Thanks.
Fairy dust.

Hi Fairy,

Don't even get me started on Artificial Intelligence !!

We've been way off topic on this thread, but anyway its been nice talking to you.

Cheers

JEN
Only real direct experiences can give any encounters credibility.

Only real direct experiences can give any encounters credibility.

TOTALLY SO

So , each is on his own, but .....

I must say
I enjoyed very much the enjoyments of my brothers and sisters. - Woooow

777

Next question Osho to Gurinder
How is your meditation, Sir ?


@ Jim - a huge hello and I’m glad you are back.

Good news I’m a civilian now - took your advice

@Arjuna,....
Glad your out of the killing field! Now, you can catch up on guilt free meditation.
Cheers,
Jim

@Arjuna,.....Osho said that Gurinder Singh’s Mansion at the Dera has too many bedrooms to take care of.

Maybe Osho can put a good word in for you, next time he is at the Mic at Haynes, and get you a Job in Security, guarding Gurinder’s Dera Mansion.

No doubt, the Pay will not exist, so you’ll have to work for free, but 3 Bland Veggie meals a day and all the filtered water you can drink, with an occassional Cup O Tea should be sufficient, for a hardened Ex Military Soldier like you!

On that Job, you will be able to get all the real inside info on what’s going on in Sach Khand Dera, and post it all here to your friends.

Maybe You could even becomevGurinder’s private Body Guard, and fly in his Jetbwith him, and travel the world visiting all of the foreign Sanghats.

Cheers,
Jim

@Jim
No, no no; the job is for guarding the 69 bedroom one in Anami Desh

and he will get a wage. $1500 Sach Khand Dollars per month.

Its an easy job, because there are no thieves around.

but he has to create a joke a day, featuring '69' in some form



Hello, Osho Robbins, old friend, you crooked, cunning, godless, ignorant wretch of a simian heathen, you! :--)



Vinny, thank you for the laughs! Reading your comments on this thread was like having those dear old friends of mine, The Three Stooges, suddenly perform in front of me in the city square in broad daylight. Except they seemed to be picking on random passers-by, rather than one another.

I kept on waiting for Act 2, you know, the part where the equal and opposite reaction meets up with the original action … but what a damp squib, no Act 2 at all.

I know Osho Robbins has graciously brushed off your comments, in fact he will probably not have even felt it overly much, given his uniquely detached perspective on life : but you know, anyone else, anyone else at all other than this one very remarkable person, would have responded to your compliments by clearing up the mystery surrounding the male side of your parentage, and by writing essays on the promiscuousness of the other.

I call Poe, Vinny. Absolutely, I call Poe.

No way can all this have been written in earnest. Not even by a stark staring lunatic, not even if this lunatic were hopped through and through and floating up above the world so high, fueled by every drug known to man, not even then. Poe it is.


Brian, I wish you wouldn’t allow this sort of thing here.

Free speech is all good and fine: But can you imagine what the commenting here in this thread would have devolved to, if the person towards whom these psychotic comments were directed were someone other than the supremely calm and collected and detached Osho Robbins? Would you feel comfortable having that resultant cascade of filth sitting on your blog?

I’m sorry, I know, it’s not really my place to police this space: but I’m afraid my sense of empathy tends to go on overdrive when I see this sort of thing. Perhaps not necessarily very rational, given that I am not personally involved; on the other hand, perhaps it is too, given that the empathic instinct is inbuilt into us by random evolutionary forces, and cannot really be wished away.

@ Jim

Hello - great to read your post - it made me smile 😀

Trust you are well ?

I’m taking a few months out before I jump on on the oceans protecting huge cargo ships from pirates ha. Always fancied myself as a Peter Pan.

In the meantime must get my weight down to 16 stone and eat healthy and mediate and occasionally work out.

Seen too much Jim ! Need to see my creator ha

All the best

A.

Hi Appreciative Reader,

Great to hear from you

and I love your welcome comment.


Hello, Osho Robbins, old friend, you crooked, cunning, godless, ignorant wretch of a simian heathen, you! :--)

Thank you for your comments regarding the standard of language used by some on here. I guess I started it by creating Anami as a person who enjoys swearing, in my fictional account. But of course his swearing was not personal, just entertaining, and not directed to anyone.

Anyways, would love to hear your detailed comments on all this nonsense I created in my spare time.

The whole point of all this was to make it obvious that the account I made up was an impossibility because there cannot be anything happening in the state of ONENESS, which is actually the real meaning of Sach Khand.

But it looks like not only have we made God in our image, with human traits, but we have also made Sach Khand in the image of our world, with cars, houses, people (souls) and an Anami wandering around the place.

What should have become obvious to the intellligent reader is that in stark contrast to my fictional account, the truth can only be the opposite:

ONENESS, which means
No Time; No Space.
No separateness (i.e. no individuality; no souls; no Anami, No mansions, no Rolls Royces (damn, I really wanted a Silver Shadow))
And nothing changes; no movement; no thought; no mind; no anything.

If any of those things exist, it doesn't qualify as a Sach Khand.

Sach (true) means changeless which by definition means timeless.

The fictional account I made up was all happening within time. Hence events, conversations, and thinking is happening in this absurd fictional account.

I stated that this account is ABSURD because it is literally absurd and cannot possibly be true.

Why? because everything within MAYA has movement, events, things, individuality,
basically everything we associate with life as we know it.


It is ridiculous

SomeOne going around the world all his life, almost forever, . .
searching for himself, herself

777

Very clever of the Creator
the all time best hiding place
but only for the NON compassionate

continued from previous comment.......

And everything outside of MAYA has none of these - as it is simply oneness.
You cannot conceptualize oneness, because it is outside the domain of the mind.
The mind can only understand and conceptualize that which is within maya, within time and space. It is trying to think about "nothing" - all you can do is make the nothing into a "something" and think about that. "Nothing" is the absence of the thing you can think about. Hence in the hindu scriptures they call it "Neti Neti" meaning "not this and not that". Anything you can point to is not it. It is that which you cannot point to.

Oneness can only be referred to vaguely. that is why I called it the rantings of a mad man.
Osho (the real one, not me!) wrote over 1000 books and still was unable to point to it. Incidentally, one of the books was called "Diary of a madman"

When measured against that which you can see and experience (this world)
the oneness can only be called non-existent. After all you cannot prove the existence of something that is timeless and invisible.


However that is exactly what Nanak refers to in Japji
He says the "IT" (he calls it IK Onkar) is TIMELESS, CHANGELESS.
He is referring to the state outside of MAYA, which is the state of ONENESS.

Nanak and sikh scriptures call it the ONE, besides which there is no other.

Paltu says the same:
"Paltu Ikoi Ikk hai - dusar nahin koi"
Paltu there is only the ONENESS - there is none else except the ONE.

GSD quotes this often also.

What it means is: only the ONE is! period.

That explains why no master can come at death. That makes two.

Appreciative Reader in your comment you complain about "psychotic comments" and "cascade of filth sitting on your blog".

Oh Mr High and Mighty, sitting in your High Tower observing the riffraff below with your condescending attitude, nose in the air, clearing your throat with a dissatisfied harrumph.

Gotta laugh.

I know Brian likes intellectuals like yourself but he is also patient in allowing most comments through which makes me very grateful because if everyone was uppity like you, this would be a kinda boring blog.

@Osho,.....After looking at your Skit about Gurinder’s bedrooms in Anami, and seeing your generous use of the “ F - - K word,....You almost hypnotized me in to believing you.

I had a dream that you really were a Hypnotist, and you were at the Haynes Q & A session asking Gurinder loaded Advaita questions. You had the entire Arena of Satsangis mesmorized, waiting with baited breath for your next remark, they were ALL hypnotised by you, and were in Trance.

Then, all of a sudden, the heavy Mic slipped out of your hand and fell down on your bare toes exposed from the Flip Flops you were wearing.

In pain, you screamed,....” F - - K Me!!!

I’ll let the Readers use their imagination to wonder what the crowd stampeding and stepping on each other trying to get to you first were going to do to you!!

Aren’t you glad it was only a dream?

Cheers,
Jim

@Jim Sutherland

Hillarious and entertaining.

I guess they would all be running to me to ask how the fuck I got so enlightened, that I don't give a FUCK about swearing on the mic!

I am actually trained in NLP and hypnosis by the co-creator of it, Richard Bandler himself who incidentally uses the FUCK word in almost every sentence.

Some of the audience get offended, to which he says to them
"How the fuck are you going to help others through their issues when you have an issue with a word! It's just a word like any other word"

And I don't need to ask Him loaded Advaita questions because the new teachings are a hybrid of advaita and the traditional sant mat teachings.

Also - I don't wear flip flops and sevadars don't allow anyone to hold the mic - that would be giving away far too much control to the questioner.

I would be unlikely to say fuck me in that situation - in case anyone took it literally as they already take Sach Khand literally. Most likely I would say "Holy Shit"

On a lighter note.....

Let me ask you a serious question:

Do you really believe that Sat Purush / Anami etc is a actual person? I mean that he has some form of shape and a voice and DOES things?

Because if you do: then that means you believe there is TIME and SPACE in Sach khand - in which case it can't be Sach Khand because it will end one day - just as everything within time and space changes and ends.

If you don't: then the only alternative is ONENESS.


Test

@Osho,.....
I am, and will remain a Space & Time created soul progressing in Duality.

Charan said souls recognise each other in Sach Khand, so what ever realm he imagined his experience of Sach Khand was, must have been still some where in Duality.

His Duality and my Duality are in different realms of Oneness, if there is such a Realm of so called Oneness.

No, I do not believe Sat Purush or Anami Purush is a He/She or It, or such a realm even exists.

Those 3 Realms said to be above Sat Nam are only further Sub Planes of Sat Nam, which is what Charan Singh also said.

Those 3 Planes above Sat Nam are only Planes used by Gurus to One Up each other.

The Void I experience that I call Samadhi is either above Sat Nam, because it can’t be Sach Khand, because there is no Sound, or Visuals thete, nor any other soul there to recognise.

So when in Samadhi, I am either in Oneness, or I am in the Void Mahasun, but I don’t care where it is. For me, it is a safe place to temporarily hide from pain, thoughts, and To Do Lists.

I will have to wait until I die before I find out much more than I know presently,...which actually, is not much.

I am surrendered to what ever will be for me will be.

Cheers,
Jim

@ Jim - when I do my simran - as I was this morning whilst walking to get the morning papers in the dark - I sense an entity following me but when I turn around it is there and then goes. Rather huge fellow all in black - what do you think it is?

Arjuna, my guess is... your over-active imagination.

@ Brian - you don’t know me so a bit unfair you to make that unscientific remark - I’m ex military and without saying too much I see more than the average joe and have been in situations where I have had my mind as my trusting friend.

With all due respect it took you 35 years to leave the path - some procrastination my friend!

Arjuna, it sounded to me like you thought the "guy" following you was something supernatural. That's why I said you have an overactive imagination, because there is no such thing as the supernatural.

But if it was just a large regular man, then why did you mention it? Are you that afraid of men you don't know?

Guess you have some explaining to do, if you want to be taken seriously. Bullshit is called for what it is on this blog. I respect truth.

@Arguna,.....you asked what I thought the man in Black following you in the dark is?

Well, as long as it didn’t get out of a Helicopter, I don’t think it was one of the real men in Black!

If it happened to me, as you describe, I would think it was my Higher Soul Self, or my Guide, which really is my Inner Master who projected the Missionary now called “Jim” in to this body to further work on balancing Karma from all the past lives lived by that soul who is Jim, the Missionary for Jim’s Higher Soul Self.

Hope that makes sense. If so, apply it to your self. It was Black, and seemd to be following you, because you have not yet balanced enough Karma in this present life to be seen as White Light, as you will be able to see your Higher Soul Self at your Third Eye in Meditation, once you totally repent from the negative activies you have been involved in.

Even then, your Higher Soul Self will only appear as Light inside, not outside, especially in the dark.

If you have any concern or fear , if you see it following you again, just stay in Simran, and if it stays, you know it has your best interest in mind.

Cheers,
Jim

Dear Osho Robbins,

No, I'm sorry, I haven't actually watched this vid you've posted. I'm afraid it's not convenient to check out (non-onsite) AV presentations on my (work-issued) computer. While I can always check it out on some other machine, it's a bit of a hassle. (That's why the last time we'd had a somewhat protracted discussion on your Oneness, I'd given your uploaded AV presentations/ links a miss.)

I've listened to some vids of yours, that you'd linked to on this blog, at one time, a couple years or so back (out of curiosity, after having had that discussion on Oneness with you). Your vids are generally witty and nice -- although sorry, no comments about this particular presentation you've prepared.

I realize what you're trying to do here, and here's a general comment (that has nothing to do with your presentation per se):

I find this soft-atheism/hard-atheism dichotomy to be of great interest because it guides you about how to view this whole religion thing, as it applies to oneself as well as it applies to others (that is, specific others).

Myself, I'm happy with soft atheism. Show me the evidence, else your claims I'll politely but firmly keep aside. (And when claims of subjective evidence are made, sometimes I'll take the trouble to check them out through protracted application.) That's simple enough, far as I myself am concerned.

However, I realize that at times a "hard" approach may be called for. Someone who is hooked on to the fantastic claims of Religion-X may sometimes need to be clearly shown how those specific claims are wrong. At such times, a "hard" debunking of individual claims may be useful.

I suppose that is what you're trying here, with this video you've prepared?

@Arjuna
Fuck me, man, but if I'm not mistaken, its the big guy himself, Kal.
Did he have bloodshot eyes?
And disappear the moment you said
"Jot Nir....."

Sorry Arjuna, just kidding.
I ain't got no clue as to who the fuck it could be, especially that early in the morning.

Keep you bloody doors locked in future

Was it once only is happens regularly?

Dear Jen,

I'm kind of surprised that you found my comments "high and mighty" and "condescending". Are you, then, comfortable with online abuse?

I was wondering if we may not have crossed lines, that is, if we might not be speaking of different things here?

I was referring to the blatantly abusive (including racially abusive) comments that Vinny has posted here on this thread against Osho Robbins. Yes, they do appear crazy to me, literally so, and yes, I'd have liked Brian not to have put allowed that sort of thing here (although, of course, that's just me).

You seem a decent and good person, Jen. I'm surprised the concept of abuse doesn't directly repel you.

(You know what they say about freedom. Your freedom to move your fist around ends at the point of my nose. Freedom is not unlimited, it can never be unlimited, else it ceases to be freedom.)

If this does not directly repel you, then think of it as an application of the Golden Rule. Would you like it if, because some individual disagreed with your general views and ideas as expressed here, they started posting abusive comments against you personally? Abuses that extended to unrelated things like your personal life, and your family, and your race, and your gender, and you profession -- or whatever?

If you wouldn't be okay with that, then how can you possibly be okay with someone else being subjected to abuse? It is this abuse I was protesting, and I'm very surprised indeed that you found my comments "high and mighty" and "condescending"?!

Nothing personal about what I'd said. I'd have felt the same if this had been the other way round, with Osho Robbins making abusive posts about Vinny (except he never would, I know!) And I often do feel the same way when the crazies pile up their personal attacks against Brian (despite the fact that Brian himself is always polite and courteous to everyone here).

Yeah, I know, given that I'm not the owner of this site, nor a moderator here, you may object to my being a bit of a busybody in trying to impose my standards on others. That criticism might have been valid. My only defense to that is that latter (admitted valid) criticism would be that my sense of empathy -- like I said in my original comment -- happened to run away with me when I saw Vinny's repeated attacks on Osho Robbins, especially when contrasted with Osho Robbins's courteous replies to Vinny despite this repeated provocation.

@Jim

So the soul is perishable?

As everything in time and space is.

Is that your belief?

Can you give me a reference where charan says souls recognize each other?

Nice video @Oshorobbins ! Is there a YouTube link for it?

Brain I wrote above that it’s “goes” in that it vanishes- right before my eyes. I did not mean a man ! It looked like a large man - I ain’t no small man my self so why would I be afraid of strangers lol.

With regard to your opinion that there is nothing supernatural - that is “your “. Opinion and based on no fact and no before you start science hasn’t proved that either. They are struggling like mad to find particles that may not even exist . But let’s not talk about science - I am not a Nobel prize winning scientist and you certainly ain’t one.

@ Osho - hello - I’m so scared I shit my pants every time and I need a help! Please help I’m scared . Not !!!!

I’m a borderline psychopath - why the hell would I be afraid ! I don’t operate that way - I was curious that why I asked Jim that question and his response made sense to me .

It’s happened a few times

@osho....I am on a Trip and won’t be back home for a week, so don’t have Charan’s Reference in front of me. But it is in one of his 3 Vol. Set of Books that RSSB sells ,of his Q & As over the years. He definitely stated that souls recognise other souls in Sach Khand. No, I do not believe individual souls ever expire, once created. They just keep on keeping on, until they graduate from no longer needing to reincarnate back to earth. Every thing does not have to fit 100% in the Sant Mat Paradine. There ARE other paths, that each have portions of the Truth, but not ALL of the Truth, including Sant Mat.

https://youtu.be/q3Kd_EAogCo
Link to the video directly on YouTube

Hi Appreciative
My step mom, whom I was very close to, used to say

"your right to swing, ends where my nose begins.."

Small world...


:)

Appreciative Reader,

I obviously reacted to what you said about "psychotic comments" and "cascade of filth sitting on your blog". I also seem to have a problem with "posh" people, sorry if I hurt your feelings :(

Luckily I know myself well enough to not follow Face Book and other similar type forums because I am far too sensitive and also very reactive at times.

I seem to take sides with the vulnerable in this mad world we live in and yes, I know I will have to be more careful and stop reacting when I'm triggered !!

@ Jen - I try and do my best to view this world and life like a theatre show - it helps the immune system by not being reactionary and to some extent disease free.

Don’t always feel sorry for the vulnerable use your gut feeling before helping as many who are vulnerable but the hardest.

Take care

Hi Arjuna
Ghost of fallen colleague.. Nothing to mind.

@Arjuna
Company is influenced
Also on blogs
Just read the up-lifting ones
Go first to the signature

Like Spence, . . . I feel light around U
Must be "brave" or stupid guys approaching U
while U are in Love

777


@Jim
He definitely stated that souls recognise other souls in Sach Khand

Yes I have that on tape

They recognize if the have nothing better to do. :-)

777

See my piece about orgasmes

Arjuna, nice comment, thanks...

Spence: "Ghost of fallen colleague.. Nothing to mind"

Could be a fallen angel, rebelling against a fake God...


Could be a fallen angel, rebelling against a fake God...

Or a fallen angel, trying to tailgate his way back home.

Dear Jen,

No no, you did not in the least hurt my feelings! :--)

In any case, why would you not speak your views just because they might possibly offend me? Given that I myself say things that the faithful might find uncomfortable, that kind of expectation would be unacceptable double standards on my part. Not that my feelings bled even slightest bit, I assure you!

It's just, I was wholly confused about your POV, wholly unable to understand where you're coming from, that's all.

I appreciate your siding with the underdog. That bespeaks an admirable sense of empathy on your part.

Except: I don't see how, when A directs repeated posts against B that personally denigrate B just because A happens to disagree with B's views, and what is more when A, wholly without justification, casts aspersions on B's personality integrity, denigrates his ethnicity -- and even actually changes his genus and even his species! -- I don't see how you can possibly, in this series of interactions, end up seeing A as the underdog! Seriously, can you explain that to me?

I mean, if anyone is the underdog here, isn't it the one who is the target of these personal slights, the one who with dignity and grace refrains from returning insult for insult?

Sorry, not to beat this to death, Jen, but I simply don't get where you're coming from at all, in this case?

In any case -- while I remain curious about how you may have worked out that "A" is the underdog here, and not "B", and would appreciate your explaining -- there's no issues at all, it's all cool! :--)

Cheers!

Dear Spence,

Your step-mom sounds like a wise soul! :--)

It's true, unvarnished libertarianism, as well as untempered laissez faire policies, while they may be economical in terms of effort, rarely work out in practice (except occasionally, and purely by happenstance). This relates to governance, as well as economics. Adam Smith was kind of naive, I believe -- although of course, I haven't read all of his works, and he may well have qualified, himself, elsewhere, his observations about the invisible hand.

This very blog presents a lovely example of how unfettered "freedom" results in egregious externalities, with the respectful and the polite and the diffident invariably coming up short -- unfairly so -- against the intemperate and the discourteous and the inconsiderate.

And nor is this necessarily pleasant for the unfortunate victim in these cases. In fact, almost always just the opposite, even if they don't actually speak out. (Although Osho Robbins may be something of an exception in this respect. His Oneness experience seems to have given him a certain detachedness, a certain sloughing off of the everyday ego -- as I've seen in the course of past interactions -- that lets him brush off these things as wholly inconsequential, and without getting ruffled. Very admirable, that. It would be a shame if people ended up taking advantage of his gentleness and his good nature.)

@ 777

Thank you for your comments above which I have copied and posted below - so beauty

@Arjuna
Company is influenced
Also on blogs
Just read the up-lifting ones
Go first to the signature

Like Spence, . . . I feel light around U
Must be "brave" or stupid guys approaching U
while U are in Love

@ Dungeness- interesting - a fallen angel who can see my light 💡- without being big headed . Yet I am in darkness

@ Spencer - not to sure about what it is - but I don’t feel fear

#SK
No luggage allowed :-)

Hi Appreciative Reader,

You say: "Sorry, not to beat this to death, Jen, but I simply don't get where you're coming from at all, in this case?"

These are my thoughts about how and why I have been over-reactive recently. Its not you and I am sincerely sorry that my nasty side showed itself. I have tried to figure it out but all I can think is that its that nasty shadow self of mine (and we all have a dark shadow self). Some people would call it ego but for me I think its about feeling inadequate around people who have had a better education than I have. So, its a bit of jealousy as well because you know how to describe everything so much easier than I can. My whole life I have tried to understand myself and realise a lot of my childhood experiences have had a negative effect.

There is quite a lot of information about the Shadow (psychology): "In Jungian psychology, the "shadow", "Id", or "shadow aspect/archetype" may refer to (1) an unconscious aspect of the personality which the conscious ego does not identify in itself, or (2) the entirety of the unconscious, i.e., everything of which a person is not fully conscious. In short, the shadow is the "dark side"."

I'm not making excuses here and I am practising being more aware and more conscious about my thoughts, words and actions. So I have to smile at what you say because sometimes I don't know where I'm coming from! Gotta laugh and have a sense of humour also!

Hi Appreciative

You wrote
"This very blog presents a lovely example of how unfettered "freedom" results in egregious externalities, with the respectful and the polite and the diffident invariably coming up short -- unfairly so -- against the intemperate and the discourteous and the inconsiderate."

When you post a blog insulting the sacred beliefs of others as 'absurd' and claim their 'heaven' is false and further depict those beliefs in sarcastic terms that are not an accurate reflection I think you establish a level of unfettered insult hurling from the start. Then you are bound by the rough contents of your declaration to the very broad boundaries which you give to yourself.

If you dish out insult, why be surprised when it is then served up to you at the very table where you yourself chose to sit?

However if anyone is insulted by the response, I suggest they take a frank look at the original post.

You wrote
"It would be a shame if people ended up taking advantage of his gentleness and his good nature."

Gentleness and good nature, if they are genuine, take the form of respectful questions, and reflective listening, acknowledging the answers even when they dismantle your original complaint by pointing out inaccuracies. In short, the highest example of gentleness is respect, and learning. Sarcasm and ridicule are not part of that, but in fact invite the same.

When the chickens come home to the roost no one should be offended. They are simply returning to their source.

When you through a ball of mud into a pond you get ripples and muddy water. Nothing wrong with that.

If I step on your toes I can't honestly complain if you cry out.

If you want clarity, start with questions, and take extra effort to reflect and acknowledge the truth, whatever that is, in those reactions.

@Spence:
You wrote (in response to AR) :
When you post a blog insulting the sacred beliefs of others as 'absurd' and claim their 'heaven' is false and further depict those beliefs in sarcastic terms that are not an accurate reflection I think you establish a level of unfettered insult hurling from the start. Then you are bound by the rough contents of your declaration to the very broad boundaries which you give to yourself.

If you dish out insult, why be surprised when it is then served up to you at the very table where you yourself chose to sit?

my reply:
Holy Shit! are you serious?

Is the above offensive to you?

No?

Well, okay, try this one on of size:

I warn the Crooked Monkey Spence, not to make such idiotic comments. If this monkey Spence sides with an idiot, then he is also an idiotic monkey with half baked ideas about manners on blogs. Now that I have bashed your argument, you will become dumb as you have no intelligent reply. You have no idea what utter nonsense you are talking about. Was the idiotic Spence Tepper sleeping, when he wrote such idiotic comments? Such idiots are commonplace these days.

How's that Spence?

Better? Hit the nerve a little more?

That was the level of the comments that AR was referring to.

Now look at the so-called offensiveness of my article and the video.
Go through it and show me where I have been offensive to anyone?

Sure I used some four letter words, but not as an attack on anyone. I used them for entertainment only.

It's okay to question someone's beliefs. That is the whole point of Church of the Churchless. And the person who is offended, can reply back with the reasons for his beliefs, like for example Jim and Arjuna and even you did. There is no issue with that.

However calling a person a MONKEY or IDIOTIC or DUMB is baseless and is not in line with the nature and purpose of this blog.

Intelligent arguments are welcomed by everyone. pointless name-calling is not.

That was AR's point, and correct me if I am wrong, but you most likely agree with it.


Dear Jen,

No further comment from me about this. Only -- if you'll permit me! -- a hug, and my very best wishes to you!

Spence, I'll grant you one quibble. You rightly point out that a truly "gentle" soul would not sneer at another's deeply held faith, no matter how apparently outlandish that faith. He'd only probe respectfully, and know when not to push further. If he does, perhaps he isn't really "gentle". I grant you that, absolutely.

That said, you're so very spectacularly wrong about the larger point I'd made, and that you expressed you disagreement with, that perhaps you yourself realize this in retrospect? If you don't, I invite you to read back on both my comment and yours once, and see if you don't find yourself changing your mind?

It may be argued that it is never "gentle" to refer to Trump as a moron and a nut job, or to HRC as a calculating, manipulative, cynical hypocrite. Given that there are -- amazingly enough! -- people who actually respect and approve of these two individuals, it might indeed be "gentle" to be circumspect in one's criticism of these two.

But surely you see the difference between not being "gentle", in that sense, and in actually flinging personal insults at the "messenger" who does express their frank criticism of some public figure, or some idea, or some practice? The subject under discussion is a whole different category than the individuals participating in that discussion. On does not stoop to personally denigrating one's opponent in a debate or discussion: that is simply not done!

Like I said: It often happens that the victim of this kind of uncouth commenting tends to be too gentle, or else too courteous, or else simply too diffident, to return insult for insult. That is what lets people like Vinny here, or -- to take another concrete example -- the commenter who called himself "Jesse", to get away with this sort of thing. But if every time an insult were thrown in, if it were returned with interest, then one would end with a whole cascade of personal insults. That kind of an environment would hardly be conducive to any kind of reasonable and civil discussion, would it now? I doubt you (or I) would care to waste our time in that kind of a dump.

And the answer to this is not restraint in the face of others' obnoxiousness. The answer is to hold the original offender responsible, and to take them to task. The answer is to unequivocally discourage discourtesy aimed at the person of one's interlocutor.

Think about this one more time, if you would, Spence. Do you really disagree with me?

@Jim
You say that souls were created but they don’t perish. That means they had a beginning but not an end.
That is not possible.
What has a beginning MUST have an end.
That which has NO END also CANNOT have a beginning and we call it “Eternal”
Either something is part of MAYA (has a beginning and an end)
Or it is part of the ONENESS, in which case it is timeless and has no beginning and no end.
It cannot be both.
Our universe will end one day, and it also had a beginning.
Our body will end one day and it had a beginning.
God will not end and he had no beginning.
So god is called eternal.
The soul being of the same essence of god, must therefore also be eternal.

The attributes of an ETERNAL thing are:
No beginning, no end. Timeless. Doesn’t change. No movement.
No ‘thinking’; no mind; no good/bad notions etc (as these are mind related)

The attributes of a non-eternal thing are
Has a beginning
Has an end.
Changes.

This is the reason why the idea of a Sach Khand is absurd.
The only real Sach Khand has to have the attributes I listed above for ‘eternal’
The idea of ‘recognizing’ is impossible for many reasons:
There is no mind, there cannot be anyone to recognize. ‘Recognize’ only happens in duality not in oneness

@Osho,......God only , has tried to explain Eternity, Beginning and end , Alpha and Omega thru humans, to other other humans.

In the Bible, John said that the Word, did have a beginning. That Word is the Light. So, even that Light had a beginning, but Its Creator must have been Eternal in order to create The Word, that DID have a beginning,

John 1:1-10 New International Version (NIV)

The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.“

So, that invisible Formless, Soundless God, must be that Anami Purush described by Samt Mat Mystics, that is the Eternal Creator of the Word, which is Shabd, and Christ, which has been Gifted to every created soul in some past Eons of Space Time.

The only Way Anami Purush is able to explain His/Her/Its Spiritual/Material Merits is by using Shabd, Christ The Word as The Channel to humanity.

Souls had beginnings, but not the Spirit that gave abd gives created souls life, and sustenance of Duality,

YOU and I, and ALL created souls will remain in Duality for Eternity, some where in Charausi.

You can never permanently escape, even if you commit suicide. You will either be reincarnated or Transmigrated right back to earth to pick up right where you left off, but in a different material Container.

Sach Khand , most likely, is the Ultimate Kingdom Within, that Jesus advised his Desciples to seek, as Masters still do to their Desciples today.

Cheers,
Jim




,

@ Osho,,,,

“Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

So, WHO is the” Former”?

And Who are those formed Prophets today?

Jim

@Osho,
“ The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.“ (2nd Cor. 2:4 )

So, Who is the god of this age, Osho?

Who are blind and can’t see the Light, Osho?

WHO IS ,....” the image of Christ?

The Apostle Paul wrote these Verses in Corinthians, after he saw the Light and was knocked off his horse.

Jim

Hi Appreciative

No I don't disagree with you. I point out that if the nature of the response is in kind we should accept it. Vinny saying "these crooked Atheists..." and then going on to his point about the source of energy is mild and indirect. And the discussion of the perpetual energy of sub atomic particles is actually a solid point. It remains a mystery.

When Jesse makes personal criticisms as a joke, even when he is hurling his insult at me, the joke is so clever I can't help but laugh. So I'll take scathing criticism when it comes in such a brilliant form. And his points are valid.

When I called brain EMF signals "radio waves" (inadvertently) and Brian created a post specifically to call me "a liar", and on several occasions calls people he disagees with "dishonest" I don't mind.

Because the points he makes are valid, from his perspective, and worthy of consideration.

When Jen tells me to "stop preaching at me", I already know this is a weakness of mine (Jen has not been the first...maybe, if I go all the way back to college days, probably the 50th to ask me to stop preaching. Sadly the feedback has only had modest effect).

The only question for me is, is the comment truly insincere?

And I would have to say that these were all sincere comments, and worthy of posting, reflection and digestion, salty language and all.

My Master said that our harshest critics are our best friends.

By that definition we are all bosom buddies here.


Hi Osho

How can a created being become eternal?

How can an eternal being become flesh and blood?

It's easy to understand substantial misunderstanding about the inner regions until you go there.

Like trying to explain color to the blind.

The Master's encourage us to do the practice and see these things for ourselves.

Until then, it's just a matter of endless debate.

But let me suggest some practical examples to loosen up the encrusted thinking.

The creation is changing, but energy is eternal.

When energy changes its signature, carries impressions, it becomes more like matter. And the deeper you look into matter, the more you find energy, in one form or another.

We are mostly empty space, energy and the tiniest amount of what could be defined at matter... All patterned.

How can a being in time and space reach eternity?

That's incredibly elementary. Step outside time. Everthing beyond the tenth gate is outside time.

@ Osho - I love your seeking to understand attributes - I see you quote the Sikh holy book. Read it with an impartial heart to see what attributes you need yourself before you seek to understand the creators attributes 😀

@Arjuna
the wisest of us all

@Jim
Y'r right - how else a Saint could come back from SK ?

but I can so very well imagine the reluctance to reflect on other things than the nectar
amrisar /ambrosia
even earthly 'lovers' have that, I say un-scientificly

777

@Spencer
Like trying to explain color to the blind.

Like seeing temperatures but your partner refuses to use the special spectacles
laser or so

@Arjuna
I was born into rssb. I was reading spiritual link at the age of 10. I would take it to school and when others were playing, I was reading how to meet god.
At 18 when I went to university, I joined a spiritual movement and would meditate 3 hours a day. I later got initiated by thakar Singh and went to India to meet various gurus.
God was all I was interested in.
After thirty years of this journey I met a person who told me I had it all wrong.

That was the opening of the real journey, as he had already been on it and explained things to me I previously never understood. For the first time I realised I had wasted all my life because god did not live in some distant land.

Only then could I even decipher what GSD was really saying when he quoted paltu "there is only the ONE"

Up until then the filter of "I have to attain and DO" kept me deluded.

He showed me the actual scriptures and what they really meant, not the projected meaning that RSSB was putting onto them.

He showed me that it was nonsense to believe there is some external god with human like attributes.

Instead he showed me from the granth sahib what the attributes of god were.

And what the attributes of a human were.

The japji summarises the whole spiritual journey and was the first words uttered by Nanak after his first taste of enlightenment

He disappeared for three days and everyone thought he had drowned in the river.

When he came back he spoke the japji.

It wasn't designed to be repeated parrot fashion. It was written in order to understand the nature of god who has no attributes

@All
I leave SK to you all

I need TWO to dance the Tango

next dive in it once in a while

A Granth (paraphrasing)
"See Myriads of Warriors, Great and Mighty,, dancing on the breath of the Almighty"
You like that Arjuna ?

@Spence

It's easy to understand substantial misunderstanding about the inner regions until you go there

I presume from your statement that you have been to the inner regions.

Please tell me from your inner journey to the regions what you have understood.

Have you arrived at truth?

Or are you still deluded and searching?

I don't want theory like "when I get to the higher regions then....."

I am talking only about where you are now, not in the future.

Which region have you reached and have you met the lord of those regions?

Please explain.

@Jim
You shouldn't do that
First you take the Bible as a fairy tale and mock the persons therein

Next you try to convince us ; . . . . "BECAUSE the Bible SAIS SO"

compared a clear profound BUTT_69 repetition is more honest

77

@Osho
your : "" I. was born into rssb.""

Thakar is not RSSB at all


777

@Spence

You wrote:

No I don't disagree with you. I point out that if the nature of the response is in kind we should accept it. Vinny saying "these crooked Atheists..." and then going on to his point about the source of energy is mild and indirect. And the discussion of the perpetual energy of sub atomic particles is actually a solid point. It remains a mystery.

I refer you to my comment of Nov 26 above.
There was nothing either mild or indirect there. Please go back and reread. Either you mis-read or are just being dishonest.
Nobody can call the comments of Vinny either mild or indirect.
Obviously if they were this current discussion would not even be taking place, would it?

Hi Osho
Whatever can be said about a place that can't be explained?

If you believe me, what does that accomplish? Belief counts for nothing. But if you don't believe the practice of meditation and engage in it with full dedication, the cost is immeasurable.

And what is keeping you from full practice? Doubt? Disbelief? Your own notions about what God is supposed to be?

I'll tell you something you won't believe.

In that place every belief is absolutely wrong. They are all forgotten.

And every moment only joy.

So there is the cost : practice must replace conjecture.

Be wrong, Osho, let go and fall into truth.

I am wrong every morning and it's wonderful.

Practice completely in the dark with no expectations at all. Just be in the dark. It's very pleasant. The rocket ship within you is already prepped and the time clock is set. If you are in the elevator at the appointed time, everthing is taken care of for you. But you must do your part and be there.

If I tell you all this, then what is the point?

The end of the story is practice.

I didn't answer your question, sorry.

The highest region I have been taken to is one without a name.



Quote Spence:
“No I don't disagree with you.”


Heh, you express agreement (or at least, lack of disagreement) with me, only to better express, in your comment, your actual disagreement. Fair enough: that kind of faux agreement is an accepted gambit in “debates”, and I acknowledge and appreciate it for what it is.

I respect your disagreement, Spence, but I’m afraid I disagree strongly with the reasons you put forward for your disagreement.

Your comment is essentially a kedgeree of three distinct and separate arguments. Allow me to unravel those three strands, and to respond to them separately:


Quote Spence again:
“Vinny saying "these crooked Atheists..." and then going on to his point about the source of energy is mild and indirect.”


And that, Spence, is a blatant straw man.

Yes, Vinny has long been saying things like this, in a general way as part of his long-standing campaign against atheists: but no, that is not what I protested against, at all!

This long-standing refrain of Vinny’s is merely an eccentricity, nothing more, and in fact I personally find his whole eccentric style of commenting rather endearing in an odd kind of way. That is the spirit in which I’ve generally taken his comments, and that is the spirit in which I have engaged with him myself -- wholly cordially, generally speaking -- in the past.

No, what I objected to were these specific gems, these specific instances of direct personalizations, all quoted verbatim, and all of them buried within this thread itself:

  1. Vinny saying: “This crooked atheist osho robbins” , and “This crooked Non Christian atheist osho robbins” .

  2. Vinny’s charming description of Osho Robbins as “This cunning and crooked atheist osho robbins” and “this cunning and crooked man” .

  3. His further continuing in the same vein in another comment: “This cunning crooked man osho robbins” , and “this crooked osho robbins” , and “this crooked man osho robbins” , and, further, “the idiotic behavior of this man” and “he … starts jumping like monkey” .

  4. It goes on like this: “this idiotic man osho robbins, he started jumping like monkey” , and “This monkey osho robbins” , and “This half baked man osho robbins” , and yet again, “This monkey osho robbins … his breed” . Notice, especially, that particularly charming segue from a merely personal attack on to an all-out racist offensive against Osho Robbin’s “breed”.

  5. Vinny goes on and on his wondrous invectives to record, saying “Crooked osho robbins” , and “jumping like a monkey” , and -- oh yes, this one’s really good! -- “Mentally unstable crooked man osho robbins” .

  6. Ah, now we go from a combination of purely personal as well as racist attacks, on to a more general invectives based on (allegedly) religious grounds, when our sweet protagonist goes on to say: “this monkey osho robbins … is behaving like a typical Hindu/ Moslem /Sikh bastards do. Jump like monkeys after reading the leftovers knowledge of Christian Innovators. … He hasn’t done anything to prove he is different from the breed of Hindu/Moslem/Sikh bastards”.

    Nice, no?

  7. Wait, it isn’t ended yet, this lovely tirade. Our friend next Vinny goes on to say: “this idiotic monkey osho robbins” , and, further, “I warn this monkey”.


Yeah, I stopped looking at that point. More than enough examples already presented, and no doubt many more still left unvisited.

Is this -- this -- what you’re trying to defend, Spence? Is this the hill -- this stinking pile of garbage -- the one you wish to make your stand on, and go down defending?

Irrespective of anything else that has been said on either side as far as actual argument on actual issues, is this rancid heap of personalized and racially tinged invective, really something you wish to make common cause with, Spence?


Quote Spence further:
“When I called brain EMF signals "radio waves" (inadvertently) and Brian created a post specifically to call me "a liar", and on several occasions calls people he disagees with "dishonest" I don't mind.”


Yes, I suppose Brian could have been more politic and less outspoken, but you know what, I don’t mind either, not really, because he wasn’t really off the mark there.

Hell, right here in this comment of mine, I’ve clearly shown you, with evidence clearly presented, how you’ve been blatantly strawmanning away. That line of argument on your part was clearly disingenuous. And that (saying that you were“strawmanning”, and were “disingenuous”) is basically another way -- a more circuitous and circumspect and, well, polite way -- of saying just that, of saying you’re “lying”.

Why you cannot take issue with this in good conscience, Spence, is because it happens to be the truth. Because it happens to have been clearly backed up with incontrovertible evidence.

While it isn’t very respectful, nor particularly “gentle”, nevertheless it is okay to call GSD a “crook”, because that is a reasonable explanation of the evidence presented. But it is NOT okay to call Osho Robbins a crook, first, because this would be personalization, and second, because this is purely unfounded and wholly unsupported, and no more than invective.

You try to draw a false equivalence between Brian calling you a “liar”, and Vinny calling Osho Robbins a “crook”. Brian was clearly showing how you were literally “lying” -- now I don’t want to take sides in that argument, but his calling you a “liar” was simply an extension of his argument, and indeed had to do with your specific argument -- as such, no, it was NOT personalization, merely a reflection on your argument itself (albeit made in less than politic terms). The same can be said of my describing your argument as “a straw man”, or as my describing your argument in that specific instance as “disingenuous” -- and indeed the same could have been said had I simply (and discourteously) called you a “liar”, in as much as that specific argument of yours.

That is very different from what Vinny had said to Osho Robbins, because surely Vinny has no argument at all that might prove that Osho Robbins is a “crook”, or “mentally unstable”, or, for that matter, that he is a monkey!!! Nor is Osho Robbins’s personal honesty (or dishonesty), or the state of his mental health, or for that matter his genus and his species, at all relevant to this discussion, so that that was personalization plain and simple, and invective plain and simple.


Nope, Spence, you’re trying to draw a spurious equivalence between these very distinct, very different, and very dissimilar cases. There is no such equivalence at all, as I hope I’ve been able to show you here.

You’re merely seeking to muddy the issue by conflating Brian’s comments directed at you (as well as Jen’s perfectly innocent comments made to you about your “preaching)), with Vinny’s racially and religiously tinged personal invectives directed at Osho Robbins.




Quote Spence again, from within that same comment:
“When Jesse makes personal criticisms as a joke, even when he is hurling his insult at me, the joke is so clever I can't help but laugh. So I'll take scathing criticism when it comes in such a brilliant form.”


Ah, now we move to a whole different argument, a whole different line of thought. Here what you’re saying is, essentially, that the only thing that matters to you is the point being sought to be made, and not the language in which it is expressed. In other words, you’re saying that you’re okay with personal vilification, and seek to concentrate instead on the actual points being made.

Fair enough. If that is the standard of discourse you find acceptable, so be it.

But in that case, you cannot be selectively critical on those very grounds, can you? If you find it acceptable when Jesse tells Manjit that he will gladly go to Manjit’s funeral to laugh at his relatives, then I’m sure you find it perfectly acceptable when I tell Jesse -- deliberately, and only in order to make my point -- that I’ll go to Jesse’s funeral to commiserate with his relatives at their misfortune and their disgrace in having spawned a monstrosity like Jesse within their family, and also when I say that Jesse’s death will leave me entirely unmoved because I don’t care for him at all, not even the smallest slightest bit, so that I wouldn’t even bother to trumpet out a fart in celebration of his death. How witty of me, right?! How perfectly brilliant is my razor wit, with which I unerringly make my point, eh?

Like I’d said to you once, some weeks back, this blogsite of Brian’s is an anomaly, in that it is peopled with a bunch of uncommonly well-mannered and decent and generally courteous bunch of commenters. That’s all good and fine, but somehow people here seem unable, or unwilling, to shift gears, not even when the situation clearly cries out for it. Probably this has something to do with the common thread of this RSSB faith running across here, which makes people -- including those who’d followed this religion in the past but have now given up, but still carry the sensibilities fostered by that gentle faith -- loath to return insult for insult.

Therefore, you have the nauseating spectacle, here, of, for instance, this “Jesse” repeatedly insulting “One Initiated”, calling him all kinds of foul names, and One Initiated expressing, in return, his love for him, while clearly discomfited and hurt by this blatant abuse. I mention One Initiated, but I’ve seen this happen not just with him, in connection with Jesse I mean to say, but also, to differing degrees, with people like 777, and Dungeness, and even you, Spence, as well plenty of individual commenters who are not regulars here.

Well, I am differently constituted than that. As you’ve seen, I am, in general, scrupulously -- and instinctively -- courteous and considerate of others’ sensibilities. However, I’m no votary of the “turning the other cheek” line of thought. No sir! Someone tries fooling around with me, and I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt once, and twice, and even thrice, but after that I’ll pay them back in their own coin, and with interest to boot. After a point, and given enough provocation, I’m perfectly happy not just taking “an eye for an eye”, but with -- figuratively -- pulping-up-their-whole-fucking-face-for-them for an eye. I have no compunctions in being foul-mouthed, against people who are themselves given to unprovoked vile foul-mouthing.

And what is more, I reserve the right to do the same even when I may not be personally involved. I reserve the right to do the same simply because I’m pissed off when I see some hapless person attacked and heckled in this manner. If someone is free with their own fists -- figuratively speaking -- then they have no fucking business protesting when others land their (figurative) fists on their precious face.


And my point is this: Sure, I can understand that you personally might find this kind of invective acceptable. Frankly, knowing you as I do through your comments, Spence, and knowing you for a decent and fair and scrupulously courteous person, I doubt that very much, and suspect that you’re simply saying this to somehow make your point and somehow carry your argument: still, what the hell, if you say this yourself, I’ll grant you this, why not, I’ll grant that you personally do not find these personally-directed insults disconcerting.

But that also means that you have no grounds, at all, to object when others respond to this kind of invective with a scathing flow of invective of their own. Right?

If A makes their points in language clothed in personalizations and insults, and you say you don’t mind; then you cannot possibly object when B and C and D all respond to A with similarly insulting language, or when B and C and D subsequently start making their point to A in language that is even more foul and vile. Correct?

And should that happen -- and yes, there are lots and lots and lots of forums online where this kind of thing does happen regularly, where foul personalized name-calling is indeed the norm -- then it is easy to picture the commenting on this blogsite devolving to a whole cascade of foul vile name-calling and personalizations, as well as all kinds of racist and identity-based insults galore.

I personally would not care to spend time in that kind of a dump.

And, given that I cherish this blog of Brian’s, and enjoy spending time here -- even when I don’t necessarily always comment here myself -- therefore I’d like to prevent this place from degenerating to that state.

Call me an officious busybody if you will -- given that it is I who am saying all of this, and not Brian, whose blog this actually is, and whose place it is to actually take a stand on this -- but that is the reason why I find myself speaking up on issues of this nature, that do not directly and personally involve me. That and, like I said, an instinctive sense of empathy that cries out in protest when I see some hapless person -- people like One Initiated, and Osho Robbins, and Dungeness, and 777, and nameless others, and even you, Spence, and for that matter even Brian himself -- attacked by ill-bred, ill-mannered and foul-mouthed bullies, even when the victim has nothing to do with me personally.



Quote OshoRobbins :
You say that souls were created but they don’t perish. That means they had a beginning but not an end. ---- That is not possible. ---- What has a beginning MUST have an end. ---- That which has NO END also CANNOT have a beginning ...


Why not, Osho Robbins? I don’t see that what you’re saying necessarily holds.


It is perfectly possible to conceive of all four kind of ‘things’:


  1. Something that has existed from eternity, and will continue on eternally.
  2. Something that came into being at some specific time, will exist for some finite period, and will cease to be at some specific time.
  3. Something that has existed eternally, but will be nevertheless come to be snuffed out at some specific time.
  4. Something that came into being at some specific time, but will continue to exist eternally.


I mean, why on earth not? At least logically, and in theory, I see no difficulty picturing any of these four categories of things.

And if your objection is based on evidence, well, we don’t have evidence for any of this, except for #2 above, that is, for things that are finite at both ends of time. Your “One”, that is infinite at both ends of time, has no evidence supporting it either, does it?

In fact -- not that I myself take any of these fairy tales at all seriously, other than as myth, but still -- there are many religious/philosophical schools of thought that support Jim’s view. (Yeah, I know, that support amounts to nothing at all, given that they themselves are fairy tales. Still, nevertheless.)

It’s been years since I read that stuff, but I remember there are some schools within Sankhya that actually hold that souls were created, but will continue forever. (There are other schools within Sankhya that hold that souls are eternal, like you say.) Then you have the two main Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam, whose mainstream interpretation does hold that souls were created by God, but will continue to exist eternally. (I’m not very clear, TBH, about what the original Abrahamic faith, Judaism, has to say about this. Spence, if you’re reading this, would you be able to weigh in on this, about what Judaism has to say about “souls”, and when they were created, and whether they are eternal, and so forth?)

And take what physics says. Of course, my understanding is that cosmological theories are iffy at best at this grand scale, but cosmologists are more or less agreed that the universe originated in a Big Bang. But there is no unanimous consensus -- to my (limited) knowledge -- of all of this ending in some kind of Big Crunch. Apparently we may, for all we know, keep on expanding forever. So that would belong to #4 above, that is, to the category of things that does have a beginning but has (or might have) no end.


This brings me back to my original objection, made many months back, against your particular line of argument here. It is one thing to say that all of these things that, say, a Jim believes in, are lacking in objective evidence, and therefore to reject them. But to bring in your eternal One as some kind of argument against the theology of the Bible or of RSSB, that makes no sense at all, given that there is zero objective evidence for your eternal everlasting One.

Not that I’m doubting your personal experiences and realization of this One -- not for a minute, I fully respect your personal insights, Osho Robbins! -- but many here apparently have had equally convincing experiences about RSSB theology, people like Jim, and Spence, and 777, and One Initiated. It is one thing to be skeptical of their beliefs and even their alleged visions in the absence of evidence, but surely this attempt to show up the paucity in their worldview by juxtaposing it against your own eternal One, is a bit like trying to show the fallacy of belief in invisible unicorns by positing invisible dragons instead?



Quote 777 :
“@Jim ---- You shouldn't do that ---- First you take the Bible as a fairy tale and mock the persons therein ---- Next you try to convince us ; . . . . "BECAUSE the Bible SAIS SO"”


Agreed, 777.

This is a common failing of (some) people who’ve spent an inordinate amount of time and effort in reading these fairy tales. Having already invested so much of effort on them, they seem unable to shake off their reliance on these fairy tales, even when they clearly realize they are indeed fairy tales.

I remember, one time, these people had come up to my house, and invited me to one of their meetings. These were proselytizing types, and we got to discussing their worldview. They had some pretty weird ideas, something about some exact number of people (I don’t remember how many, exactly, perhaps a million or so, no more) making it when the Trumpets sound out -- and yes, the sounding of Trumpets is apparently close at hand -- and they tried their best to show me how theirs is the correct interpretation of the Good Book. And yes, the idea was to enlist me so that I could strive to be one of that one million or so souls who’d be saved. Exclusive one-time deal! Yep, nutty indeed!

So anyhow: They’d come all prepared to have me challenge their interpretation of the Bible, they’d come prepared to argue against alternative (and more mainstream) interpretations of the words of the Bible; but they were literally at a loss for words when I asked them what difference it did make even if they could prove that theirs was indeed the correct interpretation of the Bible; what did it matter, after all, what some ancient ignorant goatherds thought and wrote in some book? Who cares two pins what the Bible means to say? When I asked them that, they simply kept quiet, fidgeted a bit, finished their coffee and cookies, and politely took their leave.




Jim, you keep on trotting out these quotations from the Bible, but what do you imagine they prove?

John 1.1 says “Parum pa rum pa pum”; and Luke 2.2 says “Humpty lumpty dumpty doo”; and Mathew 3.3 says “Yada yada yaddayaddayadda yada”; don’t you see that the best you can show, with all of these quotes, is that the Bible is saying something-or-the-other about something? So bloody what, if that the Bible says that? What difference does that make to anything?

Sure, if the discussion happens to be about some scholarly academic question about what the Bible has to say about something -- which is a very valid question, but essentially of the same category as what Tolkien may have said about something, or JK Rowling, in their celebrated works -- then sure, all of what you say would matter. But when it comes to discussing reality, actual reality, then what do you imagine you’re out to prove, Jim?

Not that your quotes are themselves particularly authoritative, as Spence has often shown here with other alternative quotes and alternative interpretations from that same book of fairy tales, in other contexts: but even if one were to grant you that your personal interpretation is sound, even then, do you really not see that the contents of the Bible mean nothing, nothing at all, so far as the real world? It only contains, at best, mythology, and fiction, and some moving poetry, and some random bits of everyday folk wisdom, and that’s all.

And that goes for all other “sacred” literature; quoting them proves nothing about the world at large. Proofs about the world must be drawn from within the world. In the absence of such proof, what the Bible says about something is entirely inconsequential; and even if one is able to actually present that proof, even then the words in these books become redundant in any case.


@777, .....I never said the Bible was a “ Fairy Tale.”

I said it was written by Humans to some times be taken Historically, while ofher times, as Alligories to teach humans various lessons of life.

In your case considering your faciniation with Gurinder’s 69 Joke,...or thought,..........

Here is a possible Allegory in the Bible for you to take a lesson from”

Revelation 6:9 says,....” Revelation 6:9 King James Version (KJV)

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held”

Jim

@Appreciative Reader,....
As I previously said, I don’t waste my energy of Pseudo Trolls, especially long winded wordy Trolls like you, that have very little constructive to say, other than to ask unending meaningless questions from those think you can One Up, like me, Jessie, Jen, and a host of others who you first sucked up to, asking stupid questions, acting like a little Puppie Dog humping their legs and getting all excited that you pee on their pant legs, as you do to Manjit’s when he comes out of his hole on Full Moons. HaHa

Before I accept ANY critique from the likes of a Troll like you, I’d rather eat a can of worms, drink Nine Gallons of Buzzard Puke, and die with the drizzling shits.

Hope you aren’t offended!

But if you aren’t then please BE, cuz you need to learn your A B Cs before you enter in to a forum like this church thinking your able to critique just about ANY other one that has ever posted in the Churchless Church,

Your posts read like some thing written by Grade School Students practicing Penmanship.

Jim Sutherland, B.Min., M Min., Th.D.

Quote OshoRobbins :
That which has NO END also CANNOT have a beginning ...

Before Abraham, . . . I AM. !
or
Nothing happens, . . it's all illusion
of an energy that just IS )
so
Both. Are

How can the layman seeing all the code_lines in hex or binair
see the holodeckx

777

I like the x

Hi Appreciative:

Yes, I see the unkind words Vinny used. Vinny has made racist comments, but so have others looking at the Indian culture and presuming Satsangis are just an ignorant group of gullible and delusional people. There is plenty of racism all around.

But calling anyone a "liar" is also a false exaggeration. The fact that you would defend this, when there is no defense for it, demonstrates, Appreciative, that you and I will have to agree to disagree on this very point, as well as the point above.

A liar tells something they know to be untrue on purpose. I merely conflated EMF signals with Radio signals, without regard to the much more limited definition of radio signals (which are a subset of EMF signals, as I discovered reading the definitions of both). To then create a post detailing the difference without acknowledging my intention as innocent is going to an extreme, not an objective reflection.

Generally, when a whole group of people are being accused, that is a form of racism, ethnocentrism, gingoism, call it anything you like. Vinny has made such accusations, as has Brian and others.

My point is to ignore the hyperbole and the insults and extract the objective basis for the complaint or argument.

To do that we can't get caught up in the verbiage. I dismiss it entirely.

Because you can't have a fight if only one person is hurling knives. You have an attack that draws attention to your response. And a simple but direct fact-based response that has no boundary, that is not limited to one group or another, can turn that into a discussion. At least to a point of education. You are not speaking as the victim. You are speaking as the principle or the point of information.

So please consider that when you do not react to these things, and focus your prodigious intellect on the argument at hand and only that, providing factual information, or simple and clear reason, your words carry much more power to the very person you are trying to educate.


Just a suggestion....

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 saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. 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

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

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.