An ordinary life is all I need. Being religiously special, no thanks.

There are various reasons why I'm happier after ditching religion some fifteen years ago. Feeling ordinary is one reason. I get a lot of satisfaction from no longer believing that I'm on a special path that leads back to God.

Of course, virtually every religion believes that same thing. 

So religious people are like the children in Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon. Everybody is above average. Or at least that's what those who embrace religion think.

Supposedly they've been singled out for special treatment by God, Jesus, a guru, good karma, whatever. So the pressure is on to live up to a belief that they're destined to enjoy a life, and/or an afterlife, in a fashion denied to ordinary people.

This leads to constant questioning by the Chosen Ones.

Am I falling short from what is expected of me by the divinity I believe in? Is there more I can do to live up to the moral standards, or commandments, of my faith? What worldly desires stand between me and the exalted spirituality I aspire to?

By contrast, us ordinary people are content with living an ordinary life in ordinary ways. 

We don't agonize about whether we're doing God's will because we don't believe in God. We don't worry about what will happen to us after we die because we don't believe in an afterlife. We don't worry about meeting a divine moral standard because we don't believe in divinity.

Sometimes I'm struck by an overwhelming sensation of gratitude for having found the freedom to simply be who I am, where I am, how I am.

I feel deeply happy to have been deconverted from religious fantasies. No longer do I consider that there is a gap between what I should become and the reality of my present state of being.

Sure, I still have goals. I still worry about this and that. (Such as whether Biden will defeat Trump this November.) My mood goes up and down. 

But all of this takes place against a backdrop of an ordinary life. I feel a stronger kinship with other people, because I no longer identify with a religion that taught its devotees to feel special, being on a path to God-realization denied to others. 

I understand the appeal of feeling special. All I'm suggesting is that feeling ordinary is a wiser way to live.

 

Comments

[Sonia]

From my experience (and this will mean very little to anyone else because it’s just my experience) love is a stronger force than reason. As much as I enjoy intellectual banter and cleverness, in the end the heart always wins. I think that says more about human beings than all of the great minds combined can truly fathom. What lies beneath every object of our love is a lesson. We are naturally attracted to the things in life that will somehow aid in bringing us self awareness. We learn through relationships. We learn through bad experiences and the mistakes that we make. We also, if we’re lucky, learn from the experience of others.

It’s really all one big lesson, right? I mean, meditation is a lesson. You might be able to still your mind to the point where you can hear an ant walking across the floor (I found that funny) but you’re still learning.

The Buddhist definition of enlightenment:

the action or state of attaining or having attained spiritual knowledge or insight, in particular (in Buddhism) that awareness which frees a person from the cycle of rebirth.

[Sonia]

So many people view this world as a karmic prison. I guess you can look at it that way if you want but I see it as a school. Some courses are difficult. But, IMO, it’s better to look at a bad situation as a learning experience than to take the stance that you’re a victim of karma.

[Osho Robbins]

@Solomon
Great comments.
I agree. The mind creates the vision.
If I have love for kirpal – the image of kirpal will manifest, not charan.
If I am a Christian – I will see jesus – not mohammad or kirpal.
The mind creates the visions – just as the mind creates the dreams we have.

Famous story of Ramakrishna and his visions of the holy mother.
Totapuri came and told you “you are screwed”
(slight paraphrasing by me for entertainment purposes)
Totapuri said “as long as there is a vision, you cannot enter oneness. You will
Remain in duality” Then he told him how to destroy the inner vision
how to kill the buddha (but in this case - the holy mother)
you have to kill the object of your devotion to enter oneness.
there is no space for both to enter
the path of devotion and love is just up to the gates of oneness.

[Osho Robbins]

@271 days left
Great comments.
“reaching Sach Khand does not end the ego, does not bring contentment, and is not the end of the path.”
First let’s address this point.
According to sar bachan and according to the sant mat teachings, Sach Khand is the highest region. There is no trace of material at that region. The lower regions are a mixture of spiritual and material.
Sach Khand, according to Sar Bachan, is a pure spiritual region, where sat purush resides. It is divided into alakh, agam and anami.

Alakh simply means that is cannot be described
Agam means there is no suffering there
Anami means “no name”

They say these are beyond the mind and pure regions.
So every devotee wants to get there. Who wouldn’t.

It was my ambition as a child to go to sat purush and have a nice chat over tea.
Until I discovered he didn’t drink tea. But not the end of the world – maybe coffee will do.
But then, I later discovered he doesn’t entertain guests, or have chats.
My first thoughts were “Why the heck not? Is he anti-social?”
Then I was told: “no – it’s worse – he has no form – he cannot be seen”
“What? An invisible God?”
Then the final nail in the coffin:
“He doesn’t even exist and nor do you. The meeting cannot be scheduled at all.

Firstly there is no meeting room – as there is no space there.

Secondly – we cannot schedule the meeting because there is no time
(not that he is too busy – literally there is no time – time doesn’t exist)

Thirdly HE doesn’t exist as he has no form – he is formless

Fourthly – you don’t exist either – you too are formless

So good luck with that meeting – it clearly aint gonna happen – ever.
Unless you take birth and enter duality then you can have all the meetings you want

I walked away disappointed

[Osho Robbins]

@271 days left

I went off on a tangent - let me get back to the topic

“reaching Sach Khand does not end the ego, does not bring contentment, and is not the end of the path.”

we have to accept that it USED to be the end of the path.
certainly all the older satsangis believed and still believe it IS the end of the path.
Sat purush says is also to Paul Twitchell in "The tiger's fang"
He says "Beyond ME there is nothing - this is the end of the journey"

so just imagine - you work hard, you meditate and get to Sach Khand
now you are told - this is not the end - you still have an ego - more work to do.

it's going to be a real downer. after all that hard work - more work. holy crap!

Sach khand is not the end - is going to be a real shock to those who have spent their entire life trying to get there

which brings me to the next point - the point about existence

what is existence? what do we mean by "exists" or "doesn't exist?"

deserves a comment of it's own - see you on the next comment

[271 Days Left]

@Sonia
Funny.
Yes, a different orientation. Most people are searching for delightful experiences and the most delightful ever are shakti/shabd experiences.

But if we become dissatisfied with temporary experiences that come and go we need a different orientation. In that case, instead of orienting toward the hope of some ultimate final all-encompassing experience, our orientation changes toward awakening to the truth of what is always already here. In that case, our business is with the still-point that never changes and we discard any experience that comes and goes ...so Sach Khand is out the window. It doesn’t mean it is not a possibility, it just means it is irrelevant to enlightenment.

"Still-point" doesn’t mean a point, it means the still silent place in which all experiences come and go, like the screen on which a movie plays.

[271 Days Left]

There is a Nasrudin story in which a barber asks his customer if he wants a “singe” with his haircut.
“What is a singe?”
“We singe the ends of your hair with heat so the life force doesn’t leak out and your hair grows back stronger.”
The man says, “Look I cut my beard all the time and it always grows back strong, I don’t think I need it.”
The barber says, “Ok, I guess that story is not for you.”

If you are interested in enlightenment the Sach Khand story may not be for you.

[anami]

Am I alone in supposing Shiv Brat Lal named Faqir Chand "Supreme Master of his time" to make him go away?

[Osho Robbins]

@271
Your comments are getting more interesting.
I might consider retiring now.
Easier just to read yours.
Any more nasrudin stories?
Osho was always telling them

You are right. We like to hear about Sach Khand etc.
Slowly we grow up and become mature
Now those stories are like kids stories and toy cars
Now we want a Ferrari
So now we seek a different brand of spiritual whisky.

But we are always seeking

Until one day we drop dead

Then we discover the truth
But we are not there to celebrate the discovery

[Osho Robbins]

@271 days left

“Because reaching Sach Khand does not undo the ego, it does not bring
permanent satisfaction... that does not mean it doesn’t exist.” – 271 days

that is correct – it doesn’t say anything about it’s existence.
You then say:
“So having experiences does nothing for realization. Why?
Because it doesn’t eliminate the sense of separate identity”

That is a very significant statement to make.
So then HOW does the sense of separateness get eliminated?
The answer has been here all the time.

Do you remember my “constant references to Brahm Gyani”?
Therein lies the answer.
What is gyan? Gyan means to know – to acquire knowledge of.
So let me start with something basic.
Is fire HOT? - yes – of course
So if someone says “bring me some ice cold fire”
You know it’s not possible because the nature of fire is heat.
There cannot be ice cold fire.
That is called gyan. You cannot be tricked – you know the nature of fire.

So now another example
What is the nature of mind?
If you focus for just a while, you will discover what the nature of the mind is
That it is never still. It moves, it is like a monkey.
It is against it’s nature to be still.
So only a fool will attempt the impossible.

Yes – it can APPEAR to be still – but that is delusion.
So now you know the mind cannot be stilled – you wont try anymore.

So there is something else – you can realise that you are NOT your mind.
So what changes is the IDENTIFICATION – not the mind itself.
You drop the notion that YOU are the mind. So the mind can carry on (as indeed it will)
And you can simply WATCH it – you don’t have to go with every thought.
This is the process of meditation when done correctly.

But if you don’t know this – you are trying to do the impossible. still the mind.
This is what gyan means – to discover the truth for yourself
Then you cannot be deluded anymore.

so now let's examine EXISTENCE.

my definition is: only that EXISTS which exists forever
the rest is maya - temporary existence - in the moment only

so everything we see is temporary - maya - unreal - momentary

including regions, visions, shabd, naam, eveything.
if you can point to it - it's maya
truth is eternal - beyond time and space
you cannot experience it because all experiences requires two
the experiencer and the thing to be experienced

so now - you will no longer seek an experience of it.
it is impossible
instead you will realize the meaning of eternal and the meaning of maya
you and I live here in maya - we cannot see god

[Osho Robbins]

@Sonia
"Love is a stronger force than reason"
"the heart always wins"

If you examine closely what love is, you will be surprised.

think about everyone you currently claim to love in some way.

maybe a strong friendship, maybe a life partner.

now tell me in simple terms:
if that person treats you badly - has no respect for you
and you don't feel good in their presence anymore.

will the love remain? what if they abuse you? are violent towards you?

how long will your love last?

is there really such a thing as unconditional love?

and if there are conditions, then is it even love?

all great love and friendship starts from some benefit.

even on the sant mat path - you get the idea that the guru loves you.
so you dont see him as a human - he has special capacity to love.

but now talk to the singh brothers and they will give you a different take on it
based on their experience. I can guarantee they dont follow GSD and consider him
their master anymore.
same with the babani incident. He openly told the world "the guru is not hungry for your wealth - as he has the wealth of naam" until it came to his own flat - and suddenly it's not even his flat anymore. he died a deprressed man because what he believed was just not true. where did his immense love go?
he was an exceptional disciple and a close associate of charan singh.

what about all the farmers who have lost their land because of dishonest practices to take their land at low prices?

surely if rssb wants to expand, they have enough money to pay market value to the local landowners? why take advantage of poor people?
until it happens to YOU - you can make up all kinds of nonsense.

so when the incident happened to me personally at haynes - I witnessed first hand the truth - even sevadars ignored me as the sevadars were assaulting me
even the head person in charge of Haynes Park was there and ignored it.

yet satsangis cannot see anything wrong because it hasn't happened to them
when it does - nobody will listen to them either
because every satsangi is selfishly following his own path and is not interested in truth.

but the truth is - they are all following selfishly - trying to get to sach khand.

the thing they seek cannot be found that way

[...]

Osho nobody ever thought Sach Khand was a place.

[Sonia]

@Osho
When you can love someone without expectations then that is true love. That’s why I say love goes beyond reason. You don’t love someone because they are anything in particular. You just love them basically for no reason.

[Sonia]

Look at the sky.
What do you see?
Different shapes and colors from different views.
But it’s still the sky.
Still serving the same purpose.

[Sonia]

How ridiculously easy is it to love “God” because he’s “perfect”. Our love for God is the epitome of Conditional love. Would you love a God that is imperfect?

True love / perfect love / complete love (call it what you want) just Is.

[Osho Robbins]

@sonia
I agree with the ideal of love you write about,
But practically If unconditional love is tested, will it remain?
If the person you love treats you badly, don’t you think the love will very quickly evaporate?

Look at those who professed great love for GSD, and when all the news came out those same people turn against him

So was it really unconditional?

[Sonia]

@sonia
I agree with the ideal of love you write about,
But practically If unconditional love is tested, will it remain?
If the person you love treats you badly, don’t you think the love will very quickly evaporate?

Look at those who professed great love for GSD, and when all the news came out those same people turn against him

So was it really unconditional?

Posted by: Osho Robbins | October 02, 2020 at 04:21 PM

That’s just it, the mind can’t love unconditionally. Would GSD’s follower still live him if he confessed to being guilty? The majority of them would not, but there are some who would.

Unconditional love is rare and it’s always tested... and it’s something that comes from within. We can’t truly love anyone or any being until we get outside of our mental constructs of right and wrong. That may sound very “wrong” but that’s why I say we have a lot to learn about love. We’ve got it all wrong.

[Osho Robbins]

@sonia
Well you’re going to love this.
The very first question is about right and wrong.
https://youtu.be/jc9OC_Ebcbg

Only thing is, his answer is wrong.

The question was
When one act is right for one and wrong for another, what really is right or wrong.

The answer is really simple.
“When you act in your own self interest and take advantage of another, that is wrong, even though you might feel it is right. Do what is best for everyone. Create a win-win solution. Go beyond just your own selfish needs. Consider the other also. Don’t do to another what you would not like done to yourself”

That would have been the answer

Then he can finish with

“ in the ultimate sense there is no right and wrong because we always think from our own perspective. A Muslim eats halal meat, a Christian another type, and RSSB followers don’t eat meat at all. Each one considers he is right.
A child can hit someone over the head with a hammer and kill them without knowing what he is doing. He was only playing. You cannot call it wrong because there was no intention behind it.
You are born innocent because there is no right and wrong.
Then you are taught right and wrong. Then the trap is set.
As soon as god said “don’t eat of THIS tree, the trap was set because now that is wrong
Interestingly the tree has a name
The tree of the knowledge of
Good and Evil
Meaning
That before Adam and Eve ate the fruit
They did not know right or wrong
They were innocent
You too are innocent if you go beyond the self created right / wrong
But that does not mean take advantage of others

That would have been the “right” answer
And satisfied the questioner

[Osho Robbins]

If the mind can’t love unconditionally
That is the only rational way to live.

You always decide using the mind.

If you don’t you are irrational and won’t be happy.
The mind is the instrument of logic and stops you acting in a silly way.

If you live according to your heart, and disregard the mind, you will make dangerous decisions.

We have a mind for a reason

The few who would still follow
Are following for their own reasons
Not out of unconditional love.

They are following because they don’t want to give up on their hope for spiritual emancipation and they think he has the key.
They don’t love him, they just want the key to the heavens.
If he gives them the key they will immediately leave.
He knows this too. Which is why he will not hand over the key.
The moment he hands it over, he is not needed.
This is what faqir is saying.
If gurus tell the truth, they won’t build up large sangats
They will set people free and the people will leave.
The guru I went to told me
“I don’t collect disciples. Just come, listen, and get the truth. Don’t remain. Realise the truth. There is only one. Then leave”
He doesn’t allow people to stay. He will send them away.
Once he finished with me, which took four days, I never met him again. I wanted to, to at least thank him.
But he said “I am just a sign post. You don’t need to thank the sign post, just use it to find your way. And go on your way. I am not your guru. I will not disable you”

[Osho Robbins]

Which is beautiful. Take what you need. Realise the truth. You don’t owe me anything. Not even a thank you.

That is unconditional love that a true guru can give if he is not needy.
Set people free and get them to leave and live from their own light, from their own truth.
Don’t keep them around.
The saying is
“If you meet the Buddha on the way, kill him”
The saying is because if you meet anyone, you are still in duality.
But a enlightened person will not have to kill the Buddha. He dropped him at the moment of enlightenment. After enlightenment the Buddha is not needed.

He himself also does not become a new Buddha. He is only a tool to take others to the same truth.
If you become attached to being the Buddha, that becomes your new trap.

That is why Jaimal told sawan
“Don’t build all this here. If you do, it will become your own trap. Today many are trapped. Gurus cone to set you free, not to create yet another trap.
Already there are too many traps. We don’t need another

[271 Days Left]

@Sonia,
From my viewpoint “love” is the wrong way to go. That sounds a bit strange after all, love seems to be our essential nature. So why would someone say it’s the wrong way to go?

Let’s say there are a bunch of “front sides of coins” all together. Because they are all “fronts,” naturally they love each other but they are all suspicious of “back sides of coins.”

They are told to love “backs” and they attempt to; but because they are different from “backs” they can never really love them. So what is the solution? Try harder to love “backs?”

No, they need to see the situation clearly. When they see that they are not “fronts” but actually the whole coin, then they no longer have to make efforts to love “backs.” They discover they ARE "backs"; in fact, they are the whole coin.

Just like you need to make no effort to love your arm, now all efforts to love “backs” have ended.

[Osho Robbins]

6 mins into the same video

https://youtu.be/jc9OC_Ebcbg

“It’s just an awareness, just a realisation.
You can’t be taught spirituality. It has to be experienced. It has to be awakened from within you. “
She then says “the only experience is the experience of the shabd”

He says life’s experience will take you towards that creative power.

As soon as you mention “shabd” the trap is set again. Now you will seek shabd.

When really you need to understand the nature of ONE. Once you understand ONE then you cannot remain.
From that understanding comes realisation which is beyond just understanding.
Understanding can be mistaken
Realisation cannot.
Understanding comes from outside, from another, it is varanatmik Naam.
It is heard but hasn’t become your own personal truth yet (what he calls experience)
Then it becomes your own realisation
Which is called dhunatmik Naam
That is what he is referring to when he says
“It has to come from within”

[Tim Rimmer]

Hey Osho – re beliefs and filters particularly in regard to RSSB/SMat. Thanks for the reminders and input. It’s interesting that quite a number of posters here continue to inform their comment through notions of things such as karma, reincarnation, perfect masters and separate souls. It appears such things are held sacrosanct/considered obvious and left unchallenged. The ‘banished’ soul story continues to get up my nose and just doesn’t make sense.
In traditional terms 777’s recent comment on Jeevas makes more sense – Jeevas being ‘soul’ + ego. My interpretation is that there is no separation in reality only belief in such.
Another useful perspective is that of ‘bound’ soul. I.e. that which is unbound becomes bound by belief and is in a contracted state so to speak. Here consciousness is a more useful term in my view. The whole thing is less about saving and more about realising.

Hi Sonia – I looked at that clip from Pink Martini the other day. Though not really my thing (prefer rock music) I thought it was ‘nice’ especially the end. And yes all this stuff about consciousness – there’s no end to it is there? …. :-)

[Osho Robbins]

@Tim Rimmer
Nice to hear from you , Tim.

GSD's comment (noted in an earlier post) that "We are already there - nowhere to go - nothing to do" is the KEY.

what does ALREADY mean?

it means the thing we are seeking to do - go and merge into the ocean of sat purush - is already DONE. it was ALWAYS the case and will be always the case.

what does this really mean.
it means the merging is not needed because there was no separation

in the ONE - there cannot be separation. So this life is akin to the dream state.
in a dream we experience all kinds of things - but the reality is we are simply asleep
on the bed - and nothing has happened. everything that happened in the dream
didnt really happen - that what I mean by unreal. even though it DID happen within
the dream.

all the characters in my dream are fictional characters created by me (unconscuously)
in reality there is only me (one) asleep on the bed.

so this world in the same.
the ONE has gone to bed (metaphorically speaking) and this world we see and all the characters are his dream. So our real form is the same ONE who is sleeping.
but even more accurate - we don't exist - we are dream characters.

so that means we are already the ONE
but more accurately - we don't exist and only the ONE is!

once you 'get' this - all striving ends. all desires end. all seeking ends.

you cannot unite with god because there is no YOU.
you don't need to meditate to figure this out.

and it's NOT a belief - even though you think it's a belief as you read this.
because for YOU it is just a belief.

after realization - it's no longer a belief.

[Brain Ji]

Everyone has their own objective in doing or not doing their meditation.

https://youtu.be/4OSGASmt_MI

So far nobody makes sense to me.

[Sonia]

@Osho
@271

I guess my point is, I think for most people (and I’m speaking from experience as well) we love the Master very conditionally. He has to be perfect by our standards. Let him offend you once and you throw out all the good things he’s done. If he makes mistakes then people discount all he has done to help the sangat and the community. They discount all of his hard work and dedication.

How selfish is that? How many people actually work that hard to better the lives of other people. And if we have a problem with him then we should do whatever we can to address that with him instead of discrediting him. To me, that is love.

Our idea of perfection is almost destructive. It can be very destructive in fact. Why should anyone have to live up to everyone’s idea of perfection? That’s craziness.

It’s like my brothers best friend. He was the “perfect” one. Sure he was a little mischievous when they were kids but they all were. But he grew up quickly and did everything by the books. He was the one everyone looked up to. He was the mentor. Even in his last years when no one knew about his depression other than his wife, he was always writing words of encouragement and doing things for others. He’s the last person anyone would think would commit suicide. I know a lot of people who if they commits suicide it would of course be tragic and heart breaking but you could look at their lives and say... yes, I can see why they were depressed.

But depression and suicide are more prevalent in perfectionists. I think disappointment is as well. If you get comfortable with failure you might be a lot happier. That was sort of sarcastic but there’s truth in it.

Okay, I digress, I know GSD isn’t depressed or suicidal. I just got sidetracked onto the whole idea of perfection and the negativity of perfectionism and the totally unexpected death of my brothers best friend (who was a big part of our family) threw me into a bit of a depression—not the clinical kind, just very sad.

Ummm... my mind is all over the place. But bottom line I think we make the mistake of having unrealistic expectations of the master and then we throw the baby out with the bath water.

[s*]

So many people view this world as a karmic prison. I guess you can look at it that way if you want but I see it as a school. Some courses are difficult. But, IMO, it’s better to look at a bad situation as a learning experience than to take the stance that you’re a victim of karma.

Posted by: Sonia | October 02, 2020 at 01:41 AM

Agreed with you Sonia..!

[Sonia]

@Tim Rimmer,

Ah, so true. I wonder if there’s consciousness on Mars. 🤔 (to take a break from the subject of RS/San Mat/spirituality for a moment) I follow Elon Musk with a mixture of awe and amusement. I agree with Bill Maher’s take on setting up camp on Mars. I think it’s absurd on so many levels. But still I’m impressed by the technology. I just think bright minds such as those at SpaceX could be put to better use. If we humans destroy our own planet then we deserve to go extinct. But scientific genius and common sense don’t always travel together.

[Sonia]

@*s
You are always so positive. 😊

@Brian Ji
Now I’m officially tired of this conversation.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Sonia
You wrote
"He has to be perfect by our standards. Let him offend you once and you throw out all the good things he’s done. If he makes mistakes then people discount all he has done to help the sangat and the community. They discount all of his hard work and dedication."

The opposite is also true. People make all kinds of justifications for wrong doing when it's someone we love.

Unconditional love is loving someone, accepting someone for who they are, we don't actually like.

If you like them, you will find some excuse to accept them. That's also not unconditional love.

The most difficult people to love unconditionally are those without any power at all. They get so much public scorn piled upon them for some real crime they really did commit. Or just the crime of being poor, handicapped or ugly. Of course we get no benefit helping them, and this is why loving them might be considered unconditional.

Someone must make up a fairy tale about heaven and salvation just to get us to treat the powerless, the filthy, the dispossessed, even the cruel, as well as the vulnerable and handicapped, as we would wish to be treated ourselves.

It's always conditional when we have something personally to gain. So, to love a guru unconditionally is impossible, so long as we perceive they have some blessing to convey upon us.

To bring forth unconditional love, they would have to be dethroned, publicly shamed for wrong doing, and yes, even so in our own eyes.

To love them still, after all that, you might call that unconditional. But to defend their criminal acts, that's still thinking of them as having a wealth we might personally gain for ourselves.

Once again, Brian Ji (this blog owner, not the poser) is closer to that.

[Spence Tepper]

Or maybe Brian Ji the poser is also close to that...

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Osho
You wrote
"I am not talking about this world.
I am talking about the same as what Nanak is talking about
"Aad Sach, Jugaad Sach, hai be Sach, nanak hosee bi Sach"
"Was true in the beginning and will be true through the ages, is true now and will be forever" - basically means - ALWAYS and permanent. i.e. beyond TIME and SPACE. "

Does such a place really exist?
It's not here. Must be someplace else.
And if you have gone there is it just imagination?

And if it's just imagination, then it doesn't really exist, right?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Osho
You wrote
"What this proves is that thoughts CANNOT be stopped and it's just as well
because if they DID stop, they will never restart."

"So save yourself the effort - you will never stop thoughts"

You don't need to stop thoughts to leave them behind.

Experience is perception, and thought, which is interpretation, usually follows.
Thoughts can also lead, by filtering and augmenting the perception of experience.

But these three are not the same: Experience, thought, and perception.

You can experience something new changing your focus. That experience can be beyond thought. For example, focusing on love and peace can elicit those experiences, if your mental focus is good.

What is mental focus but eliminating thoughts by focusing attention on one train of thought? It's how the mind already works.

Training the mind is taking this natural phenomenon further. Like taking a natural runner and training them to be a marathoner. Training is absolutely necessary to get to that level. A trained mind is the portal to heightened experience.

And meditation is a method that helps accomplish this.

Heightened consciousness.

As for stopping the mind, it is really a matter of leaving that process, in your awareness, for another, heightened, blissful experience that cannot be described in words because it is experienced, not thought.

And as for the brain in meditation, it is much calmer, more rhythmic.

We try to think about mystic experience afterwards, but memory is very limited as a recording device, and we don't remember most of it.

But occasionally people do remember some vague flash of what they have actually experienced much more often, but forget over and over again.

The mind is more filter and censor than perceiver.

[Osho Robbins]

@spence

"I am not talking about this world.
"Was true in the beginning and will be true through the ages, is true now and will be forever" - basically means - ALWAYS and permanent. i.e. beyond TIME and SPACE. "

Does such a place really exist?
It's not here. Must be someplace else.
And if you have gone there is it just imagination?
And if it's just imagination, then it doesn't really exist, right?
- spence

in the words of a politician - I refer you to the answer I gave earlier

you may have missed it since it was @271

so here it is:

so now let's examine EXISTENCE.

my definition is: only that EXISTS which exists forever
the rest is maya - temporary existence - in the moment only

so everything we see is temporary - maya - unreal - momentary

including regions, visions, shabd, naam, eveything.
if you can point to it - it's maya
truth is eternal - beyond time and space
you cannot experience it because all experiences requires two
the experiencer and the thing to be experienced

[Dungeness]

@ so everything we see is temporary - maya - unreal - momentary
@ including regions, visions, shabd, naam, eveything.
@ if you can point to it - it's maya
@ truth is eternal - beyond time and space

Hm, how do know what shabd is? How do know it's temporary?
By labeling it, by pointing , you're already imprisoned in dualism.

@ truth is eternal - beyond time and space
@ you cannot experience it because all experiences requires two

Again, how do you know you can't "experience" it? That filters the
meaning of "experience" through the mind' sieve. If you have an
intuitive flash of truth, does that invalidate it as a mere experience
akin to seeing a magician pull a rabbit out of hat?

When the mystic says shabd is truth, beyond time and space, and
there is a way of verifying it, how can you dismiss his claim? We
filter words through our sieve. Then we chatter on about truth and
experience and duality. Endlessly. Actually, the poseurs, caught in
the mind's vise, are the ones pulling fake rabbits out of their hat.

[Sonia]

@spence
I guess unconditional love doesn’t exist.
This is a little depressing. I’m going to watch T.V. now. ☹️

[Sonia]

I’m just thinking out loud here (which is pretty much how I always think) and I’m still committed to Sant Mat because it works for me and everyone needs an anchor (and I like Babaji).

But when you think about it, doesn’t God love us Conditionally? I mean here we are. We can’t go home until we’ve done certain things... we have to earn his love back by sitting in meditation to remove our karmas. Right? We’re not worthy until we put in hours, lifetimes of spiritual practice... he put us here (I can’t remember why) and we have to work our way back home. A parent isn’t even that tough. Just a thought... or more of a question.

[Osho Robbins]

@dungeness

"Hm, how do know what shabd is? How do know it's temporary?
By labeling it, by pointing , you're already imprisoned in dualism." - dungeness

Shabd isn't anything. It's a word. it's like god. you seek it.
you have just replaced god with another word

EVERYHTHING that you can label, conceptualize or point to is temporary.

Only that is permanent which you cannot label or conceptualize.
permanent means:
unchanging; wthout boundary or shape; outside time; outside space.
it's not in a place anywhere. it cannot be seen or experienced.

all experience is necessarily within duality / maya
because it requires two
1. the person having the experience
2. the thing that is experienced.

permanent - is only ONE.

you cannot see it or experience it because it is in a different dimension to you.
you are in the dimension of maya - space and time.
it is outside of time and outside of space.

experience of it is impossible
so everything that RSSB followers and sikhs are trying to do - is impossible.

the entire gurbani is full of references to this.

"Ik akhar jo gunmukh jaapiii"
ONE word which the gurmukh utters

all these are references to the ONE - not a word.

the gurbani does not advocate meditation.

it tells you to 'ponder' over NAAM
and NAAM means realization of ONENESS

hence is says - varanatmik is words - which only point to it

dhunatmik means realization - which cannot be given from outside
it grows within you - means awakening - sudden realization
the "Oh WOW - I GET it now" - that is called naam.

yes - says - naam created the world - but it means that the
realization of oneness will awaken you to the nature of the world

"Again, how do you know you can't "experience" it?" - dungeness

because experience requires TWO
and there is only ONE - experience is impossible

"If you have an
intuitive flash of truth, does that invalidate it as a mere experience"
- dungeness

no - and intuitive flash of truth means realization - means dhunatmik naam
that is what happens for you to realise it cannot be experienced.

"When the mystic says shabd is truth, beyond time and space, and
there is a way of verifying it, how can you dismiss his claim? "
- dungeness

now - THINK about what you have just written.
analyse it - so you don't just gloss over the details.

so you just wrote:
1. Shabd is truth
2. beyond time
3. beyond space

1. TRUTH means eternal - never changing. unseen. formless, shapeless.
2. beyond TIME - means eternal also - cannot be experienced.
only things within TIME can be experienced. from our viewpoint it doesnt even
exist - because everything here has the dimension of time.
3. beyond SPACE. - means the same. cannot be SEEN or experienced.

YES - there is a way of VERIFYING it - but not the way you verify
it cannot be SEEN, experienced or heard.

it can be verified - that is called enlightenment
and it is not what you think it is.

enlightenment is not a thing, or an achievement.

enlightenment is the realization of what IS
and who you really are (nothing) and
what God is (also nothing)
and stops all further seeking
because you have discovered the truth through GYAN

GYAN means - true knowledge - where you cut through the concepts and
ideas of the mind and go beyond.

You REALISE - but you cannot explain because the moment you try
it seems foolish

"jo desi - so to hai nahin
jo hai so kaha na jai
saina baina kya samjhai
gungi ka gur bhai"

translated :
"what can be SEEN - it is NOT
what it IS - cannot be SAID
what will a saint say and explain?
it is like the man who cannot speak eating gur ( a sweet)"

meaning he only makes a sound - but no words and you cannot understand

this is as clear as it can get - yet we miss again
we keep on missing - because of our filters.

it is clear : if it is SEEN - it is not it
if it can be HEARD - it is not it

what it is - cannot be said (Why not?)
because it's not in time and space
it also cannot be experienced

it can only be realized

[Osho Robbins]

"I guess unconditional love doesn’t exist.
This is a little depressing. I’m going to watch T.V. now." - Sonia

if you love someone - without any conditions
think about what that means

if they swear at you - you still love them
if they steal from you - you still love them
if they smash your house - you still love them
if they abuse you - you still love them
for people in a relationship - if they cheat on you - you still love them
if they hate you - you still love them
if they are convicted for murder - you still love them
if they hurt lots of people - you still love them
if they cause you pain - you still love them

firstly I don't think it's even possible to do the above.
the closest is a mother's love for her child

secondly - you would have to be insane to still love.
mentally ill.

so such a love - if it exists - would be a curse not an asset
not something to aspire towards

so watch TV and celebrate - dont get depressed
its good news not bad news

[Osho Robbins]

@sonia

more things to celebrate

unconditional love doesn't exist
God doesn't exist
inner regions don't exist
sat prursh doesn't exist
nor do this three sidekicks
anami, alakh, agam
Sach Khand doesn't exist

Shabd doesn't exist

maya doesn't exist

evil doesn't exist
good doesn't exist
you don't exist
i don't exist

this comment doesnt exist
this blog doesnt exist

foot note:
'exists' means 'permanent - forever existence'
if it exists in time and space - it's not permanent
it's temporary existence - just for the moment
that is called 'doesn't exist as real / forever'

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Sonia
You wrote
"I guess unconditional love doesn’t exist.
This is a little depressing. I’m going to watch T.V. now. ☹️"

If it doesn't exist why did I spend so much effort defining it?
I think it is very real. Because, imho, that love allows us to do all sorts of difficult things, to march into all sorts of unpleasant situations happy, helpful, honest, and kind. It may be that only real love exists, and then we place our conditions upon it.

But take away the layers and love is all that is left inside each of us, love without any conditions whatsoever. That's what meditation helps us to unmask within. We are only love, only bliss, only peace underneath. That is where brotherhood, sisterhood is found.

Carve away everthing that isn't love within yourself, then love pours through. Love was the fuel for our journeying, though we chose to drive to all sorts of strange and unpleasant places. But seated behind the wheel of love, our tank filled with love, surrounded by love, underneath all those other darker layers of thinking, parked in a strange land, though we didn't know it, we can gently turn the wheel and drive home.

[Osho Robbins]

when a marriage fails - the love has gone

so was it unconditional?

it was never unconditional.
it just appeared to be so - when things looked good
then things happen and the same people say
"I can't stand you!"

here is what its like when things go wrong

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

we are robots that crave love.
love in many forms.

[anami]

I would suggest that the impermanent remains in the ONE's memory, and the ONE has perfect recall. In that way existence does exist in the moment but non-exists in the non-moment. It's both, not one or the other. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Zero contains only zero, but ONE contains 1 and 0 and an infinitude of fractions.

[Osho Robbins]

Nancy was having coffee with Helen.
Nancy asked, “How do you know your husband loves you?”

“He takes out the garbage every morning.”
“That’s not love. That’s good housekeeping.”

“My husband gives me all the spending money I need.”
“That’s not love. That’s generosity.”

“My husband never looks at other women.”
“That’s not love. That’s poor vision.”

“John always opens the door for me.”
“That’s not love. That’s good manners.”

“John kisses me even when I’ve eaten garlic and I have curlers in my hair.”

“Now, that’s love.”

Everybody has their own idea of love. And only when you come to the state where all ideas about love have disappeared, where love is no more an idea but simply your being, then only will you know its freedom. Then love is God. Then love is the ultimate truth.

[Osho Robbins]

Adolf Hitler will have one idea of love, Gautam Buddha another; and they will be diametrically opposite, because they are at two extremes.

At the lowest, love is a kind of politics, power politics. Wherever love is contaminated by the idea of domination, it is politics. Whether you call it politics or not is not the question, it is political. And millions of people never know anything about love except this politics – the politics that exists between husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends. It is politics, the whole thing is political: you want to dominate the other, you enjoy domination.

And love is nothing but politics sugar-coated, a bitter pill sugar-coated. You talk about love but the deep desire is to exploit the other. And I am not saying that you are doing it deliberately or consciously – you are not that conscious yet. You cannot do it deliberately; it is an unconscious mechanism.

Hence so much possessiveness and so much jealousy become a part, an intrinsic part, of your love. That’s why love creates more misery than joy. Ninety-nine percent of it is bitter; there is only that one percent of sugar that you have coated on top of it. And sooner or later that sugar disappears.

When you are in the beginning of a love affair, those honeymoon days, you taste something sweet. Soon that sugar wears off, and the realities start appearing in stark nakedness and the whole thing becomes ugly.

from Osho
the real one - not me the copy

[Sonia]

Carve away everthing that isn't love within yourself, then love pours through. Love was the fuel for our journeying, though we chose to drive to all sorts of strange and unpleasant places. But seated behind the wheel of love, our tank filled with love, surrounded by love, underneath all those other darker layers of thinking, parked in a strange land, though we didn't know it, we can gently turn the wheel and drive home.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | October 04, 2020 at 03:09 AM

🙂

[Sonia]

It’s funny, ppl like Faqir Chand are not even content with Sach Khand and all it takes to make me happy is a bean bag bed (Chill Sack). I think most ppl are happy with less than ecstasy.

[One Initiated]

Yeah Osho, nothing exist yet we enjoy it.
Ice cream doesn't exist yet we enjoy it without worrying if it exists or not.

your body does not exist, food does not exist,
still you eat food daily multiple times to keep it alive.

Car and road doesn't exist yet I enjoy it driving every day,
driving a nice car is such a pleasant experience every single time.

meditation is joyous,
when you feel the non-existent shabd is pulling your non-existent consciousness
from the whole body to the eye center is so joyous.
roaming in non-existent realms and non-existent regions is joyous.

It's much better to remain joyous by experiencing them,
instead of sitting with a stone face, living miserably and yelling
"it doesn't exist and that's why I won't experience it"

[Osho Robbins]

It’s funny, ppl like Faqir Chand are not even content with Sach Khand - Sonia

Chand never said he is not satisfied with Sach khand
the question he wanted the answer to was:
why was swami ji and others condemning all the regions and religions and saying there is something beyond.

He was trying to find out the 'something beyond'

what he discovered was that the regions are still within duality

which is obvious.

anything you can experience is duality - no exceptions

[Osho Robbins]

"Yeah Osho, nothing exist yet we enjoy it.
Ice cream doesn't exist yet we enjoy it without worrying if it exists or not."
- one initiated

you have missed the meaning of "existence"
existence - in sant mat terms - means the same as 'sach' as nanak defines it
that which is changeless and forever.

this is temporary - within time a space
just like the dream state.

do you say that everything that happens in your dream
is 'real' and 'exists'?

in the dream you enjoy and experience ice cream and everything.
yet you don't say the dream was real.

here the dream is on-going.

someone I know is in hospital and has a 10% chance of survival.

ask him what's real

does he consider his house, his family, his bank account to be real now?

is he bothered about a parking fine he was previously worried about?

no - facing the prospect of death changes your perspective.

charan singh was asked if this world and this life is real.

his reply was: How can it be real? at any moment it can end and
it is guaranteed to end - how can it be real?

same definition. real means eternal undying.
temporary means unreal.

for someone who is 'one initiated'
your viewpoint is still that of a non-initiate.

maybe best to read some of the non-existent books that
master gurinder advises to burn.

[Dungeness]

"Again, how do you know you can't "experience" it?" - dungeness
"because experience requires TWO and there is only ONE - ... is impossible" -osho

I put experience in quotes for a reason, Osho. You could have
spared the long suffering flock a repetitive sermon on ONENESS.

"If you have an intuitive flash of truth, does that invalidate it as a
mere experience"- dungeness
"no - and intuitive flash of truth means realization..." -osho.

A word is a dangerous toy in your hands. Keep innocents and
mystics off the streets. They will be mowed down before they
ever get near the OK Corral. RIP.

Say a prayer for our mind's victims. Gunslingers, holster your
45's. Take off your damn hats! Only undertakers can be happy
at this funeral.

[Osho Robbins]

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

powerful dialogue the The Big Kahuna, one of my favourite movies.

the movie has a lot of powerful dialogue

about life, about authenticity

[Osho Robbins]

https://youtu.be/jc9OC_Ebcbg

8:20
Very pertinent question
Answer not convincing.

Satgur hath kunjee
Hor thon dar khulie nahin

Satguru has the key
Nobody else can open the door.

The reason is because the door is already open, and no meditation is needed
You only need to discover the truth and the satguru shows you this.

When the teachings are wrong, no satisfactory answers can be given

[Osho Robbins]

https://youtu.be/jc9OC_Ebcbg

Start of video
First question
He says there is no right / wrong.

It’s very relative. Depends on circumstances.

So it’s okay to steal, kill, etc if you feel it’s right for you.

So all you disciples who think he did something wrong better pay attention

The person answering says “thank you” instead of questioning such an answer.

I wonder if anyone even listens to his answer

[Osho Robbins]

“I put experience in quotes for a reason”
And
“A word is a dangerous toy in your hands.” - dungeness

So you put “experience” in quotes
And now it no longer means “experience”
It means something else that you make up - a different type of experience - in a way you haven’t even mentioned, and definitely not defined.
I define my words and your question only arises because you clearly haven’t read my definition.

I won’t give you the definition again.
But just answer the questions

What is REAL?
Is a temporary thing REAL?
One of the gurus you claim to follow, Charan Singh Says
“This world is not real”

“Hm, how do know what shabd is? How do know it's temporary?
By labeling it, by pointing , you're already imprisoned in dualism.” - dungeness

Well can you define shabd? Can you even clearly state what it is? Have you seen it? Heard it? Is it real?
Or is it just a word you heard?

Regardless of how you define it, or what you think it is, if it’s not the ONE, then it’s temporary.

If you understood my definitions you would not even ask the question.

Go back to the definitions.
and remember a definition is not a belief.

A definition defines the framework for the words I am using precisely because I use words for exact meanings just so we can avoid the circular arguments you make and get clarity.
Then if you choose not to accept what becomes obvious - it’s your choice.

The issue is exactly as stated on these videos

https://youtu.be/-nSMi0whFEA
https://youtu.be/JKOI_N-nvzM

You can’t hear
Let alone understand
And you will carry on
Imagining all kinds of fictional things in your mind - thinking that is mysticism.

That is not mysticism. It is delusion.

[s*]

Osho,
What is not delusion?

[anami]

Could someone please go within, talk to Nanak and clear this up for us?

[One Initiated]

Dear Osho,

That's an analogy given by the saints,
to compare this life with dreams,
in order to explain the temporal nature of this life just like that of a dream,
and in order to explain the importance of these handful years we've received.

In the dreams you'd never or rarely come across the notion that you are dreaming.

here we are discussing about that condition consciously,
evaluating that this life is not permanent and there is an end very near.
We don't do that in dreams.

There is a reason that dream state is called as sub-conscious
and this state is called as conscious.

You are taking it for granted that even if we don't do anything,
by the end of this life, just like dreams, we will wake up in Oneness.

Possibly if you keep this notion, and if that's not true,
you will be enforced to live on and on and on many more births unless you come to terms.

[Osho Robbins]

"You are taking it for granted that even if we don't do anything,
by the end of this life, just like dreams, we will wake up in Oneness." - one Initiated

Only from correct understanding will realization come. hence the need for a guru.
the guru removes your concepts and false notions so that only the truth remains.

he guru doesn't need to give you a new theory or belief.
once the false notions are removed - the truth comes by itself.

and then realization comes from dropping all the nonsense you have collected.

nonsense like
"I am a separate soul and need to merge in God in Sach Khand"
"I need to meditate to become pure"
"I am a sinner and stuck in karma"
"I need to get initiated by a guru"
"I need to meditate long and hard"
"I need the shabd to manifest"
"I need to become ONE"
"i need to realise the ONE"

You will NEVER wake up in ONENESS
you have just taken your Sach Khand and replaced it with ONENESS
a new label for the same place.

that is why realisation cannot happen that way.

Understand there is NO YOU - so you are NOT going to wake up in the oneness.

even if you are realized - still you will not wake up in the ONENESS,

You only make this statement because you don't understand ONENESS.

Oneness means there is no YOU!

so you can't wake up in the oneness or anywhere else.

[Osho Robbins]

In the dreams you'd never or rarely come across the notion that you are dreaming. - one initiated

so you have never heard of conscious dreaming?
or lucid dreaming.

it's when you have a dream and become aware that it is a dream and the dream still continues. You witness the dream and know it's a dream.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/sleepless-in-america/201404/is-conscious-dreaming-real

and for a more scientific approach:

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

[Dungeness]

@ So you put “experience” in quotes.And now it no longer means “experience”
@ It means something else that you make up - a different type of experience - in
@ a way you haven’t even mentioned, and definitely not defined.

You've nailed it! The mystic realization is ineffable and beyond words,
It eludes clever definitions and shallow sophistries such as "shabd is
only a word you heard". It's been discussed so many times. "Neti",
"NetI" (not this, not this) is the only clarification mystics are left with.

So the quotes were only a signal that the mystic realization beggars
the breadth of possibility the ordinary word experience offers. I think
you know this too but your agendas are quite different. A suggestion:
jettison crafty verbiage and follow a mystic practice (doesn't matter
which one) for a clearer understanding. All the best on your journey.

[Osho Robbins]

The "Shabd" is a "Special" way of living your life.
The "Life" I am "referring to" cant be "imagined" by "you"
Do you "get" what i mean?
"neti neti"

remember everything in quotes has a special meaning that I am not going to define
because it's "ineffable" and "indefinable"

You clearly have no understanding of the meaning of "neti neti" and because you refuse to use clear language you will never understand,

Good luck with your "neti neti" and your ineffable "shabd"

if you can't define terms clearly - it's pointless even trying to communicate.

you are completely unconscious in your use of words.

You are a lost cause. any further communication is pointless as you are too far gone for logic.

maybe a dialogue with your guru once the covid clears up might wake you up or shock you.

you're like the caller on this call

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn7tW2zkwxE

utterly confused

[~ The End ~]

Could someone please go within, talk to Nanak and clear this up for us?

Posted by: anami | October 05, 2020 at 07:15 AM

Thank you! 😂😂😂

[Dungeness]

@ it's when you have a dream and become aware that it is a dream and the
@ dream still continues. You witness the dream and know it's a dream.

It's worth noting that the lucid dreamer is arguably not aware
at all he's dreaming. He speaks the truth but doesn't know the
truth as Ishwar Puri explains. For instance he will go on speaking
to, or cajoling, or even threatening other people in the dream
even though they're not real. Falling off a cliff in a dream, he
still feels terror. If he really believed he was dreaming, he'd be
unconcerned or simply wake up.

We're kinda like lucid dreamers at this level too. We parrot lofty
concepts but don't have the faintest notion of what they mean
I suspect. (Hm, 'ONENESS' comes to mind). We don't lift ourself
out of our daytime stupor or awake to higher awareness either.

[Osho Robbins]

Where will you go to ask nanak?
You think nanak is still around, hanging around on the outskirts of Sach Khand?
nanak says there is only the ONE, there is no nanak.
and you want to go ask nanak?
Good luck on getting a reply
if you DO see nanak inside - it will be a creation of your own mind
and the mind will tell you the answer you want to hear

[Solomon]

Guru is the essence of awareness, the essence of awakening to Oneness itself.....

An interesting talk by Satpal Singh

https://youtu.be/x2hdOu76HBA

[OshoRobbins]

8 mins into the video

“The ONE is the doer not you. In fact you are not even here”

That’s should put all the arguments to rest
His talks are based on what gurbani says. I met him. I did his 2 day seminar in London

[OshoRobbins]

Original sin. Fault is

“You believe that YOU. ARE”
You believe that you exist

9:40 in the video

Then all the way to 13:00
Where he says

As long as you misidentify yourself
The realisation doesn’t happen

I agree with him

As long as there is a you
In any form

[anami]

Maybe the ONE is like a dollar. It can exist as a banknote. It can also exist as 292 different combinations of pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters and half dollars. The singular nature of a dollar bill does not exclude the multiple nature of a dollar in coins. They're just different forms of one concept. The ONE is like the concept and duality like the bills and coins.

To argue that the ONE can not be experienced is like saying a billionaire can't keep loose change in his pockets.

[One Initiated]

Osho,

when "you" agreed with him,
you are already at fault.

[Sonia]

Maybe the ONE is like a dollar. It can exist as a banknote. It can also exist as 292 different combinations of pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters and half dollars. The singular nature of a dollar bill does not exclude the multiple nature of a dollar in coins. They're just different forms of one concept. The ONE is like the concept and duality like the bills and coins.

To argue that the ONE can not be experienced is like saying a billionaire can't keep loose change in his pockets.

Posted by: anami | October 06, 2020 at 06:38 PM

Speaking of ones...

111,111,111 x 111,111,111 =
12,345,678,987,654,321

🤯🤯🤯

That’s like 12+ quadrillion. I did not get paid to write that.

[Dungeness]

@ To argue that the ONE can not be experienced is like saying a billionaire can't keep
@ loose change in his pockets.

Love your image. The bills and coins have fallen asleep in that warm cozy
pocket and are having a nightmare. They dream of being lost under the
sofa cushions, folded-spindled-mutilated in wallets, growing old and being
shredded or melted down. One day a familiar hand jostles them and they
awake. "Thank god", they sigh,, "I'm still in the pocket."

[Osho Robbins]

"To argue that the ONE can not be experienced is like ......."

the statement is made from ignorance of what ONE means.

ONE means ONE - not TWO.
experiencing something needs TWO
1. The person who experiences
2. The thing being experienced.

this is the reason that you are ALREADY there (not really 'there' or 'here')

because any process (like merging) happens only in duality

in ONENESS nothing happens - it cannot
there is only the ONE.
no time no space. so nothing ever happens.

anyone who doesn't understand will always then come out with another
statement that is made from duality because
duality is all we know here

so we cannot say anything about non-duality as it is outside of our experience
and will always remain outside of our experience.

but that does not mean that you cannot know.

one example

suppose there are no mirrors
or reflective surfaces.
so you cannot rely on a reflection.

now I ask you
"How do you know that you have a face? "

You KNOW you have a face, even without SEEING it.
you could say - I can put my hand up and FEEL my face
so I know I have a face even without seeing it.

so now I ask - HOW do you know that you have EYES?

Now you can't feel them - unless you poke yourself in the eye
so HOW do you know you have eyes?

you KNOW - but I want to know HOW you know.

You know you have a hand because you can SEE it.
How do you know what you have eyes?

the answer is obvious - eventually

[anami]

Sonia,
"111,111,111 x 111,111,111 =
12,345,678,987,654,321"
What a fun fact!

Dungeness,
Another way to compare ONE and duality is as SYSTEM and components.
I'm just playing around with analogies, and to me, Brian echoes similar in his new post about "right view" in Buddhism...
"It's not the particulars of the world that provide us with right view, but the world itself, as an ever-dynamic Whole. Right view is Wholesome -- that is, it's of the Whole. It's all inclusive. It leaves nothing out."

All,
Has anyone spoken with Nanak?

[Ul]

Osho Omg.

[Dungeness]

@ You know you have a hand because you can SEE it.
@ How do you know what you have eyes?
@ the answer is obvious - eventually.

Didn't you mean "when" or "that" rather than "what" in the
phrase "what you have eyes"....

Then are you suggesting it's a random mishap, an experience,
say a "poke in the eye", that eventually befalls you to, ahem,
"open your eyes" to reality? Or does it occur because you
enter ONENESS however briefly and understand the reality in
a way that can't be obscured by duality?

I would think it's more likely the latter. If you keep looking for
answers outside yourself, you may never grasp the linkage
between the eyes and seeing. Your attention won't pick up
on it. Instead you might speculate the poke damaged the
brain in some unknown way and now you can't see well at
all.

If you slip into ONENESS and intuitively grasp reality though
you know the connection immediately. It's the same if you
were to wake up one morning and ten people at the foot
of your bed told you "Hey you're dreaming. None of what
you're seeing is real, Sure, it may look that way but it ain't. "

Again you just know it's a lie. You don't even have to pinch
yourself. Why? Your intuitive self knows because it looks
inward instead of outward for confirmation. For a very brief
interval you merge in ONENESS and know for certain. A cast
of thousands won't be able to convince you otherwise.

[Osho Robbins]

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

for the faithful - hear it directly from the mouth of your guru
because you think I am giving out a different message

21:00
he says:
"Up there (in ONENESS) there will be nothing left to say (Guess why?)
over there (ONENESS)
there will be no YOU
there will be no ME
there will only be the ONE
nobody is separate from the ONE
in fact there is nobody except the ONE.

[One Initiated]

Yes Osho,

"Up there" means right now it's down here.
And that's about consciousness and the frequency.

He also says 99 times out of 100 to attend to your meditation,
however, you would pick the part sentence "you don't need to do anything", said in a different context, and misinterpret in your way to pacify your own mind.

Understanding can never bring realisation,
it helps invoking the passion in you to gain that experience.

reading many books and having perfect understanding of "how to ride a bicycle"
can never make you a good cyclist unless you practice and experience it first hand.

Every Saint, every brahm gyani also lives in duality, for us,
otherwise how would you know Them as saints.
their body is limited by duality.

It's a privilege to live in duality,
only then one can realise the oneness.

It's The One who wants to experience Himself.
He feels happy seeing Himself trying to attain Himself.

By attending to the meditation, we are helping Him to meet His own
part trapped in the physical forms.

After playing a character on a drama stage,
you meet with yourself and you experience your own reality.

Talking about Oneness is one thing and experiencing it is something else,
You don't need anyone else to experience yourself.

As Hazur Charan Singh Ji Maharaj used to say:
"talking about war is one thing and fighting it yourself is something else"

[Osho Robbins]

@dungeness

i wrote: ( NOW CORECTED)
"suppose there are no mirrors
or reflective surfaces.
so you cannot rely on a reflection.

now I ask you
"How do you know that you have a face? "

You KNOW you have a face, even without SEEING it.
you could say - I can put my hand up and FEEL my face
so I know I have a face even without seeing it.

so now I ask - HOW do you know that you have EYES?

Now you can't feel them - unless you poke yourself in the eye
so HOW do you know you have eyes?

you KNOW - but I want to know HOW you know.

You know you have a hand because you can SEE it.
How do you know that you have eyes?

the answer is obvious - eventually"

- The point of the question is to see if you can answer it.

how do you know you have eyes?
answers not allowed
1. I can see my eyes
2. I can feel my eyes

you have five senses - the other three won't help
smell . hearing, tasting - none of these help

so HOW do you conclude that you have eyes?

[anami]

Yes, if all is ONE, nothing can be separated from it. Is Maya separate? No. Is duality separate? No. Is separation separate? No.

ONE must be all-knowing and all-experiencing, even in some incomprehensible non-dual way, because something not known or not experienced would have to be separate, and nothing can be separate from ONE by definition. It's all one goo.

Are you conscious of your consciousness? Then why can't CONSCIOUSNESS be conscience of itself. Consciousness is consciousness, because it's conscious of its consciousness. The goo must be pure consciousness.

[anami]

Correction:
conscious of itself
(not conscience)

[OshoRobbins]

@anami
“ Yes, if all is ONE, nothing can be separated from it.“
This is the only part of your comment that makes sense.
Maya or illusion is NOT part of oneness.
Oneness doesn’t have parts.
One means one. Period.
No parts. No sections. No divisions.

If you say “X is part of oneness” it is not oneness. It means oneness is just a concept. Once oneness is understood, you cannot make such statements.

If it can be divided, if it has parts, if you can merge into it, it’s not oneness

[Dungeness]

@ If it can be divided, if it has parts, if you can merge into it, it’s not oneness

Language is all that's available within duality. You are reduced
to stories, metaphors, "drops merging into the ocean". The drop,
immersed in the ocean and indivisibly part of the ocean, may
dream it's only a drop. On awaking, it remembers it's the whole
ocean. You could say the drop "merges" back into the ocean.

That's a limitation of language, of trying to convey meaning
through the use of words. It's the best that can be done. You'
use the only tool set available within duality to describe a state
which transcends it.

Your effort falls short. Oneness is ineffable. But it can be merged
into, experienced, realized nevertheless. Choose any word.
None of them succeed in capturing its essence. But don't
posit it doesn't exist because language can't cage it.

[Osho Robbins]

"Language is all that's available within duality. You are reduced
to stories, metaphors, "drops merging into the ocean". The drop,
immersed in the ocean and indivisibly part of the ocean, may
dream it's only a drop. On awaking, it remembers it's the whole
ocean. You could say the drop "merges" back into the ocean."
- Dungeness
Yes - you are absolutely correct. Language is a limitation.
so - you have to use language very carefully and use it to convey something beyond duality. It can only be a hint - but certain ideas need to be conveyed accurately so that the language conveys something of the beyond.

for example if I say "merge" or "go to Sach khand" - both of those will lead the listener away from the truth.

If I say "cannot be described" or "beyond Time and Space" I need to explain what the importance and significance of using those terms is.

It has to be conveyed that what we understand here makes no sense there
and also that "here / there is also a limitation of language - as it you /me / god.

ONENESS cannot be experienced in the sense that we experience things here - that is what I mean when I say it "cannot be experienced"
experience in this sense needs TWO. and there aren't two in ONENESS.

but I say it can be REALIZED.
The instant issue here is the the listener thinks I just said "experienced" because he equates "realization" with "experience".

They are not the same - in fact they have no connection.

"realization" in the sense I am using it means to use the mind to go beyond the limitations of the mind.

The first step to understand is that all the duality ideas like "experience", "merge"
"go there", "meet" etc do not apply. They are inaccurate and have to he dropped.
They can only be used with those who are in the nursery class. Who have no understanding of oneness and duality and the difference.

once you understand that ONENESS is beyond anything you can explain in duality, slowly the truth begins to dawn.

It cannot be explained or understood except to understand that it is not this realm of reality.

This necessarily means that it can be argued against - because if all my arguments are based on this reality (which is the only one I am aware of) then "the beyond, God, ONENESS etc" is necessarily fiction. It cannot be proven or known. You can categorically argue that it does not exist because it does not:
anything that cannot be seen, experienced, felt, heard, etc can only be called non-existent.
Now please understand the next part.
How do we define existence?
something exists only if it is within the realm of time and space.
If I come to your house and bring my invisible friend, you will say I am crazy.
If he can't be seen, heard, felt, or sensed - he does not exist.

so if anyone claims to see, feel, hear, experience God - he is a liar.
anything beyond time and space cannot be seen or experienced.

Hence I say the atheist is the closest to the truth.

before anyone can make any headway - our terms and the way we use language have to be clearly defined - just so the language can be used to go beyond language.

That is why I asked the question. How do you know that you have eyes if there was no reflection and feeling your eyes is not allowed.

once you answer that question - you will get an insight into the meaning of realization and why it is not an experience.

[anami]

"Maya or illusion is NOT part of oneness.
Oneness doesn’t have parts."

Osho,
"Parts" is your word, not mine. Hands, face, eyes, hips, elbows--we call them parts, but where precisely are the divisions from the body as a whole?
When calf and ankle merge as one, it's a cankle.

[Osho Robbins]

"Your effort falls short. Oneness is ineffable. But it can be merged
into, experienced, realized nevertheless. Choose any word.
None of them succeed in capturing its essence. But don't
posit it doesn't exist because language can't cage it." - Dungeness

Your use of language has to be more accurate and specific.
"choose any word" doesn't work anymore once you want to understand clearly.
Now you use of language has to be very accurate and defined.

"experience" means to use the "gyan indri" - the five senses
"realization" means to see beyond the senses - to understand.

one example:
numbers.
if I write "'1" - it is a symbol.
what it represents is something that you only come to understand once "numbers" is not just a word"
you can repeat like a parrot "1x1=1; 2 x 2 = 4; 3 x 3 = 9; 4 x 4 = 16"
and still have no understanding of what you are saying.
only when you understand the meaning of "2, multiplication, and equals" will you begin to understand arithmetic.
You cannot give this understanding to a child. at some point the child begins to understand - but you cannot make it happen.
You just present the concepts and let the child figure it out.

yet - a number is not a real thing - you can't hold a 'number' in your hand.
You can't eat it - you can't sit on it. You can't give it to anyone as a christmas present.
it's a concept - that you can understand and then use.

it is similar (not the same - just similar) with the understanding of ONENESS.

the words only convey a little - the understanding may come if you think and ponder.

hence the scriptures say "ponder" or "pachata" which means "recognize"
repeating words parrot fashion or in your mind (Simran) was never the way.

in fact the gurbani specifically says it is NOT the way.
"Ram Ram sab koi kahen - kahen Ram na hoi"
"Saying God (words, repeating, simran) - everyone does this - but by words he is not realized"

I am not saying it doesn't exist.
I am saying is doesn't exist - as we define existence
Until you understand the definitions - you will keep on missing
I have clearly said that I have a different meaning for "real" and "existence"
which I have defined.
without starting there - definitely there will be confusion as I am using language to refer to something beyond time and space. language can only be a pointer.

[Dungeness]

@ "experience" means to use the "gyan indri" - the five senses
@ "realization" means to see beyond the senses - to understand.

Yes experience in the realm of duality requires sensory input in
normal usage. Thanks for reinforcing that but arguably a word,
any word, stubs its toe in this pursuit. In the common vernacular,
realization as a word gets murky too and is inextricably wound
up with thoughts and ideas that are associated with the senses.

Words fail. But even so, we use them loosely to approximate, to
hint at the real meaning of something elusive, ineffable, and
beyond the senses.

[Osho Robbins]

"In the common vernacular,
realization as a word gets murky too and is inextricably wound
up with thoughts and ideas that are associated with the senses." - Dungeness

all words are, since words are symbols.

Buddha coined the word Nirvana, just so no associations exist.

how do I know that oneness is real?
I cant see it, or feel it.

how do I know if I have eyes, if I cant see them or feel them?

because I don't need to see them to know they exist.
I have 100% proof I have eyes without seeing them.
what is that proof?

when you can answer that question, you will have the answer to realisation too.

[Dungeness]

@ I have 100% proof I have eyes without seeing them.
@ what is that proof?

No proof is needed when you know. All you can say is "Neti, Neti".

[Osho Robbins]

@dungeness
"No proof is needed when you know. All you can say is "Neti, Neti"."

close, but no cigar.

The question was this:
"How do I know I have eyes - if there are no reflective surfaces
so I cannot see my own eyes"

The answer is not "neti neti"
"Neti Neti" means - "not this and not this"
that is not even close to the answer.

here's the answer

The way that you know 100% that you have eyes is through understanding,

1. You have the capacity to see - called sight.
2. the fact that you can SEE - means you have eyes.

you don't need to SEE your eyes to know you have eyes.

once you understand that the capacity to see necessarily means you have eyes,
then you KNOW you have eyes without seeing them.

only correct understanding is needed.

in the same way realization happens only after correct understanding.

everything here changes. (T or F?)
of course it is true.

next question: WHY is it true?
it's true because EVERYTHING in space and time changes.
no exceptions.
so now create a definition:
1. That which changes and does not remain the same
we will call MAYA or unreal.
I am not saying it does not exist in this moment and that it is not experienced in this moment. That is how what I mean by "unreal"
Those who counter my argument rely on this without understanding my definition.

2. That which DOESN'T change - remains the same - is called REAL or SACH.
it is outside of Time.
we call it UNREAL because we cannot SEE it and we cannot EXPERIENCE it.
The understanding I am referring to is neither SEEING nor experiencing.
from that understanding comes realization

[Dungeness]

@ The answer is not "neti neti"
@ "Neti Neti" means - "not this and not this"
@ that is not even close to the answer.

The "answer"? Neither you nor I have anything close
to the answer I suspect. It's the height of hubris to
claim otherwise.

When you have perfect awareness the mystic says
the proof is definitive only then. Your "correct
understanding"will always leave doubt about what
you're seeing in maya. What and how and where it's
seen wlll elude you even when you tout a complete
"understanding".

The mystic knows the answers. The rest of us see thru
"a glass darkly." He can try to prattle to us in words but
knows our attention is too fractured and the words
themselves fall short. They can at best hint at a reality
behind the ever changing dream we're witnessing. So
they're very diplomatic and tell us only "neti. neti".

[Osho Robbins]

“ The "answer"? Neither you nor I have anything close” -dungeness

You are writing out of context.
I was referring to the question I asked
Which does have an answer because I just gave you the answer.

[Dungeness]

@ You are writing out of context.
@ I was referring to the question I asked
@ Which does have an answer because I just gave you the answer.

Don't blokes who only want to dole out answers give Hyde Park a go?

Seriously, isn't there room for hearing other opinions instead of posing
questions with scripted answers...

[Spence Tepper]

Osho "I don't need to see to know."

Well, it helps.

[Solomon]

A friend recently attended Babaji's Q&A session held in Asia.

Some interesting responses...( reminds me of Faqir Chand's discourses )

1. An initiate asked about the inner regions as explained in the books and during initiation.

Babaji replied not to dwell on them and to focus on listening to the sound current.

2. A young man asked if it was possible for Hazur Maharaj Ji to be in our midst as during his father's funeral he "saw / felt" Hazur's presence.

Babaji said all this is the doing of our mind that manifest these projections, emotions feelings base on our devotion.

3. To an elderly woman who was discussing about her meditation,
Babaji responded -

" we are already there - no journey to undertake -its about realization "

[Ordinary]

ordinary is better https://istauk.com/holy-masters/baba-gurinder-singh-ji/

[anami]

Ordinary,

Good bio on GSD. They also cover Ishwar Puri and Supreme Master Ching Hai. Donations accepted but only in the range of £10 to £10,000. "May your gift (donation) be reward with countless blessings from the Supreme Lord, our true origin."

£10,000, special yet humble! And wouldn't you know it, they have a support group and satsangs by an "enlightened speaker" named Mystic Sant Ji!

[Spence Tepper]

His Majesty Grand Master Holy Emperor of Souls Divine Chief and Keeper of the Shrine of the Sacred Victuals and Blessed Sacraments, Sri Kakamamie has pronounced the highest inscrutible Wisdom... "Be Kind.." from the window of his orange Maserati, roaring by the pagan crowd, and the highly educated, who follow the tradition of Sri's sect of licking the oil droppings from said car off the pavement, as both parshad and seva, burning thousands of Karmas, and assuring a place in that land of 10,000 virgins all battling each other fiercely over the Darshan of the Satsangi who licked the most oil.

[Ordinary]

@Spence

His Majesty Grand Master Holy Emperor of Souls Divine Chief and Keeper of the Shrine of the Sacred Victuals and Blessed Sacraments, Sri Kakamamie has pronounced the highest inscrutible Wisdom... "Be Kind.." from the window of his orange Maserati, roaring by the pagan crowd, and the highly educated, who follow the tradition of Sri's sect of licking the oil droppings from said car off the pavement, as both parshad and seva, burning thousands of Karmas, and assuring a place in that land of 10,000 virgins all battling each other fiercely over the Darshan of the Satsangi who licked the most oil.

Posted by: Spence Tepper | October 16, 2020 at 12:25 PM

LMAO 😂