« Mother's Day blog post points to fuzzy nature of "self" | Main | Equanimity is like a 360 degree openness »

May 10, 2021

Comments

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

A realisation or an awakening is not at experience – so cannot fit into the categories you state.

NOT CORRECT

You deny the sinusoide which is Life ( always )

One can very well fit in your ONE description, next be TWO & ONE at the same moment, eventually : "Eli Eli Sabakhtani", . . . all according the The MauJ

777

Almost All, Krishnamurty included assume that God is Static
S/HE IS DYNAMIC malgré The (nice try) Purusha Concept
The WAVE can be hyper long , almost eternal à la Fibunacci_Reversed
The Golden Rule
THE SOUL
SHABD
777


Quote Osho Robbins:

"This conversation would be difficult enough in person – and in writing – much more so.
Some of the points that we are both attempting to make are easily mis-understood."


.
.......I appreciate that, Osho Robbins. And absolutely, thanks for taking the effort to cut through what you see are these misunderstandings in order to reach out to me.


-------


"In enlightenment the experiencer suddenly disappears. There is no more duality. No more “ME” to evaluate the experience. Non-duality is not an experience. It cannot be explained within time and it never happened within time because it is a jump out of the timeline.

A realisation or an awakening is not at experience – so cannot fit into the categories you state."


.
.......See, that's just the thing. At one level this is fascinating to me, and I am most eager to understand, and if at all possible to replicate this ...perception, I guess you'd call it.

On the other hand, and leaving apart the fascinating nature of this perception itself, here's the thing: Just read those sentences of yours quoted just above. They represent a means of arriving at knowledge, and, specifically, a means of arriving at knowledge of Oneness.

There are three ways of looking at this. The first is deliberate misrepresentation, and the second is delusion. I'm going to ignore those two possibilities, because in those cases there's nothing really to talk about. I'm going to assume, for now, that your Oneness understanding was bona fide. Which means, going by the above, that there is indeed some faculty within us that lets us arrive at that kind of knowledge. Do you see the enormity in this declaration? That's in itself a fantastic, huge claim.

See, we'd discussed the means of arriving at knowledge earlier. To recap, they were, a, vanilla perception; and, b, reasoning and mental constructs; and, c, cultural constructs.

Now do you see what I'm getting at? You're saying there is a fourth mode of arriving at knowledge, that is separate from the above three, that lets you arrive at an infallible perception of Oneness. What you have there is, clearly, a kind of direct mystical perception, our old friend the DMP (as you'd christened the fella yourself). Sure, that nature of this mystical perception is different than the divine son et lumiere claimed by the RSSB times (as well as Tantrics), but DMP is exactly what it is, though of a different, unitary type. Do you see that? It's clear day, this much. I hope you do see this, now that I'm spelling this out like this?

This is not regular intuition, a la Newton. Because that kind of intuition is fallible. Besides all that kind of intuition is, is a coming together of the first three modes of arriving at knowledge, which you're claiming your own Realization isn't.

Therefore, what you're claiming here is a DMP, no less. Are we agreed on that much?


-------


"I am not attempting to show you through logic. I don’t have a belief that I need to prove.
The awakening is not a belief and cannot be explained through logic or words.
If it could – I could directly transfer it to you through logic.
You would simply have to follow my logic and you would get there too.
It would be provable then through logic."


.
.......Osho Robbins, I have already addressed this! Very clearly, I think. In that series of three posts that you said made your head hurt. You could just go back and read what I said there. Or ... hell, rather than send you back to that earlier post, let me just repeat what I'd said.

First, you do have a belief. The belief of Oneness. Right or wrong, that is a belief. Regardless of how you arrived at that belief, you do have that belief, that there's this Oneness thing. Regardless of whether you need to prove it to me or not, you do have that belief, that there's this Oneness thing.

Second, I've already discussed proof with you. You simply cannot, ever, "prove" things outside of logic and math. You just can't. Whether through regular intuition, or through delusion, or through DMP, you've arrived at this "realization" of Oneness. Just like Newton had arrived at this idea of gravity.

Now it isn't a question of proving any of this. It is a question of what formulations follow from that intuition. And there are two stages here, that are necessary before you yourself can, if you're a rational person, trust your own intuition. The first stage is detailed formulation. So all of what you've said here, everything that you've posted here in this exchange with me, clearly follows from your realization of Oneness. As such it is your de facto formulation of Oneness. Therefore, rationally speaking, you cannot step away from having to go back and examine every objection I've raised to every bit of your formulation, and tackle each and every one of them. Unless you are able to satisfactorily address every one of my objections, you must necessarily either go back and keep refining your formulations until they do pass muster, or else admit that your formulation is wanting, and that, therefore, your intuition itself is clearly erroneous. That's the only rational thing to do. That's what Newton, whom you yourself brought into the discussion, would have done. And that necessarily will require you to go back and squarely address every objection I've raised in this thread, to the things you've said here.

And even if you're able to do that, and even if you do pass the stage of formulation, there's still the stage of evidence. Without that, while your perfect forumuation --- should you manage that perfect formulation --- will compel us to take your intuition seriously, we'll still not quite accept it. Thing is, any hypothesis that affects the real world not a jot, and leaves no evidence, simply doesn't exist at all, for all practical purposes. You keep agreeing with this, and you sometimes say this yourself, and yet you keep returning to repeating again and again, "There is just the One". Well, it is simply not rational to do that.

Understand. There's two parts to this exercise of ours. You've had this Realization of Oneness, this intuition. First is, you're trying to get me to replicate that intuition. Fair enough. But that in itself isn't enough. Even if we both get the same intuition, that simply does not mean that that intuition, that that perception, is true. To establish the truth value of your (or our) intuition, we need to first do the formulation thing, and then the evidence thing. Otherwise at best it is a fun speculation, no more.


-------


"The TIME/SPACE thing I explained does make sense - but for some reason - not to you,

it is pretty obvious that the dimension of TIME is necessary for movement (change) to happen. That is not really subject to debate. hence the speed = distance/time formula.

also no time does not mean make time = 0, which would mean infinite speed. no time means time would be infinite.
if something moves VERY VERY SLOWLY - it takes say 1000 years to move an inch - that is MORE TIME than a car speeding at 60 miles per hour.

The TIME means "HOW LONG IT TAKES"
so in a no movement state - it takes an infinite number of years to move
even 1 mm.

All this was not to prove anything - but just to be open to the possibility that perhaps time / space is not as solid/known/definite as we believe it is."


.
.......I have already clearly, very clearly, shown you that the time-space thing you talk about is simply NOT CORRECT. Here, let me do that again.

See, math isn't magic. Just we can state our observations in English, similarly we can state our observations more precisely by using math. Think of math as language. Just like simply being able to say words in English in perfect grammar does not make it true, in the same way, merely expressing something mathematically does not magically make it forever inviolate.

Whether you express it mathematically or in English, the thing is, when you're invoking a place outside of time and space, you're merely assuming a hypothetical, and you're invoking something we simply know nothing about. True, movement and change as we know it will probably not exist in that state. Equally, though, changelessness and permanence as we conceive it in this universe will probably not obtain either, in that state. These formulas involving time and space and distance and speed and acceleration and inertia and mass and whatnot, they're meaningless: because those formulas have meaning in this world because we have observed them to have meaning; and in a universe where different conditions obtain, entirely different physical laws may well operate. To claim that that state is changeless is as absurd to claim that that state is in a state of constant flux. We simply cannot go around tagging these wholly random qualities to that state that we're concocting out of whole cloth.


.......As for me being open to the possibility that time and space are not as solid as we believe it is, well, duh, that's done, already. In assuming a hypothetical beyond time and place, I'm hypothetically already assuming that, for the sake of experience. In that hypothetical I'm myself saying that there's no time and space, because that's what we've assumed. Of course I'm open to that, in that hypothetical. I'm saying, myself, that movement and change as we know it will probably not obtain there. But you're wrong in your claim of changeless, because changeless as we conceive of it here will also probably not obtain there. You can't just go concocting these things out of whole cloth like this.


-------


"An atheist misses it because he believes his logic is supreme. It's not.
It (logic) only serves him when trying to show a belief has no basis.

It is useless in the arena of a subjective world.

it's useful to prove to a christian that his belief is unfounded because logical fallacies lead to his belief.

You cannot use that here - because I don't have a belief in the first place.
non-duality is not a belief - if you think it is - then you don't understand what it is - and logic won't help"


.
.......Bloody hell. Osho Robbins, you're simply talking nonsense here. Firstly, your simply repeating five hundred and seven times that "Oneness is not a belief" does not make it not a belief. A belief is exactly what it is. Whether that belief is correct or not, that is a separate question. But that it is a belief, is self-evidently true.

And secondly, there's nothing, nowhere, that is out of reach of rationality. To claim that is to not understand what rationality even is. Even if we literally lived in a world of magic, as in the kind of magic Gandalf commands, or the kind that Dumbledore teaches, even in such a world there is no reason why rationality and empiricism will not apply, exactly as much as it does in this world. Subjectivity is NOT outside of the purview of rationality. Nothing at all is outside the purview of rationality, nothing at all. Not God, not the devil, not gremlins, not pixies, nothing at all.

And besides, do you see the spectacular special pleading, the spectacular double standards, that you employ here? You are willing to debunk the cherished beliefs of the Christian, and the RSSB-ite, and the Muslim, and the what-have-you; but somehow, your own pet beliefs and ideas are exempt from all of this, somehow your own cherished beliefs are not beliefs but facts. I mean, don't you see how entirely nonsensical is your approach?

That we're having this conversation means I'm not laughing your Realization out as nonsensical, I am indeed taking it seriously. But no Realization is outside of the bounds of rational understanding, not even something that is literally magical.

Don't keep repeating "I don't have a belief". You do, Osho Robbins. Your belief of Oneness is a belief, just that. (Which is not to say it is wrong. In my earlier example, my belief that you've killed your boss is a belief. I arrived at that belief basis what I myself saw and heard. Whether your belief of Oneness is right or wrong, is a separate matter, and I've already discussed how we can show which it is.)



@Appreciative Reader
https://youtu.be/iXyLbU1GGqU
Check out at 15 mins in
Posted by: Osho Robbins | June 07, 2021 at 04:54 PM


---------------------------------


Looks like an interesting talk!


(I've read a bit of UGK, but haven't actually seen him speak, like in a vid. Man seems to affect the appearance his more famous namesake, with the hair and all, doesn't he?)


Bit rushed now, and I've only just gone through less than a minute of it for the present. But I've bookmarked this, and have every intention of returning to it as soon as I'm able. Thanks much for the reference, Osho Robbins.


Hi Appreciative
I hope you don't mind. Something you wrote caught my attention.

"And secondly, there's nothing, nowhere, that is out of reach of rationality. To claim that is to not understand what rationality even is. Even if we literally lived in a world of magic, as in the kind of magic Gandalf commands, or the kind that Dumbledore teaches, even in such a world there is no reason why rationality and empiricism will not apply, exactly as much as it does in this world. "

That's a little bit circular. You see, if all the premeses are outside someone's experience, rational thought based on those premeses will lead to a non-sensical conclusion, from the perspective of the person who has no connection to those premeses, and can't agree or confirm them.

From that perspective, logic breaks down. Of course logic is still the same, but the premeses are so foreign they can't be agreed upon, and there the machinery of rational thinking grinds to a halt. You can say "logic doesn't work there" but it's just the breakdown in agreed premeses. In that situation all the logic in the world won't bridge the gap in common experience.

Having the broader exposure to those experiences that form the basis of Osho's claims can reinstate logic and rational thinking upon premeses that are now agreeable, because we have personal evidence of them. Of course you always have the plethora of anecdotal reports, but without a basis of personal experiences they are difficult to tease out.

A second point you make about DMP. That is never fallible. Just as the sun rising every day. It happens. What happened happened. But our interpretation of it, and our communication of it can be flawed as it is filtered through our limited thinking.

Here is another way to put it, in biochemical terms.

The experience of the mystic may be a biochemical experience in another part of the brain.

You know the brain keeps track of time, right? But that is actually quite malleable. We can perceive outside that time keeper. From the individual perspective, time ceases to exist, during that experience. Everything and everyone appears static, frozen. But that may simply be the brain delivering one of its snap shots as a still photo, in full HD, for our inspection, rather than as a moving picture, as the brain normally functions. And as long as we are viewing it from that particular brain center, our moment is endless. Time is no more.

So the mystic, or anyone else for that matter, can speak to their experience. It happened. But the interpretation of that experience for anyone else can be fraught with difficulties.



“Hi Appreciative
I hope you don't mind. Something you wrote caught my attention.”


.
.......Hey, Spence. Not at all! On the contrary, I thank you for taking the trouble to go through my thoughts as presented here, and point out any flaws or shortcomings you see there.

I’m not really debating some position, not defending some “side”. All I’m trying to do is arrive at the truth. And nor do I have some monopoly on rationality, and am as prone as anyone else to errors and flawed thinking. I’m sincerely grateful to you, and to anyone else, who might show up any blind spots and flaws in how I’m going about this.


.
-------


“That's a little bit circular. You see, if all the premeses are outside someone's experience, rational thought based on those premeses will lead to a non-sensical conclusion, from the perspective of the person who has no connection to those premeses, and can't agree or confirm them.
From that perspective, logic breaks down. Of course logic is still the same, but the premeses are so foreign they can't be agreed upon, and there the machinery of rational thinking grinds to a halt. You can say "logic doesn't work there" but it's just the breakdown in agreed premeses. In that situation all the logic in the world won't bridge the gap in common experience.

Having the broader exposure to those experiences that form the basis of Osho's claims can reinstate logic and rational thinking upon premeses that are now agreeable, because we have personal evidence of them. Of course you always have the plethora of anecdotal reports, but without a basis of personal experiences they are difficult to tease out.”


.
…….I agree, seeing that particular comment of mine stand-alone might imply what you’ve read into what I’ve said. But you’ve read my past comments here, and that wasn’t quite what I was wanting to convey.

By “rationality” I wasn’t referring to the closed logical systems that the ancient Greeks were so celebrated for, and which so many philosophers down the ages have tried to replicate and refine. (And your criticism, while entirely sound, would apply, I think to those kinds of closed systems.) I was referring specifically to the scientific method here, as the distillation of the rational process as it applies to the real world, as I’ve elaborated in my comments upthread (but not repeated in full detail in the comment you’ve quoted from).

Osho Robbins, as well as manjit, seem to think that this Oneness phenomenon is somehow outside the purview of rationality and of the scientific method. And I disagree with that thinking in the strongest possible terms.

To begin with, in their particular case, they bring to bear their own rational processes in criticism of other religious and spiritual systems and ideas, such as Christianity, and most conspicuously GSD and RSSB, while claiming their own perceptions and ideas and worldview, that encompasses this Oneness, is somehow beyond reach of those same standards that they are happy to apply to others. And that kind of special pleading and double standards is conspicuously flawed, and entirely repugnant to me.

That apart, and like I said in this comment, I can conceive of no form of reality that rationalism and empiricism, and specifically the scientific method, would not adequately address. Even in the world where Hogwarts is placed in, or Tolkien’s Middle Earth, or for that matter a world in which Osho Robbins’s Oneness obtains, there is no reason whatsoever to imagine rationality, and specifically the scientific method, will not apply, with as much rigor as it does in our own everyday world.

But of course, and as I’ve said earlier in this thread and elsewhere as well, that might necessitate a slight laxity in the standards of objectivity required of evidence, and allow in subjective evidence as well. Which I myself do, as I’ve said in the past, and said upthread as well.

But that is not to say that this subjectivity is impervious to rationality; to the contrary, such subjectivity would need to answer to rigors of the scientific method, as applied to this arena, and hold up to rational enquiry. This laxity does not amount to a free pass; and it most certainly does not amount to a selective free pass that lets through our pet ideas and beliefs while holding to account everyone else’s beliefs.

That is the context in which I’d said what I did. I hope we’re agreed? If not, do please present your further comments and criticism on what I’ve said just now.


.
-------


“A second point you make about DMP. That is never fallible. Just as the sun rising every day. It happens. What happened happened. But our interpretation of it, and our communication of it can be flawed as it is filtered through our limited thinking.
Here is another way to put it, in biochemical terms.
The experience of the mystic may be a biochemical experience in another part of the brain.
You know the brain keeps track of time, right? But that is actually quite malleable. We can perceive outside that time keeper. From the individual perspective, time ceases to exist, during that experience. Everything and everyone appears static, frozen. But that may simply be the brain delivering one of its snap shots as a still photo, in full HD, for our inspection, rather than as a moving picture, as the brain normally functions. And as long as we are viewing it from that particular brain center, our moment is endless. Time is no more.
So the mystic, or anyone else for that matter, can speak to their experience. It happened. But the interpretation of that experience for anyone else can be fraught with difficulties.”


.
…….We were talking of, and I was commenting on, not so much of experiences and perceptions per se, as the knowledge that follows on that perception. You know, those four modes of arriving at knowledge, all of that.

Sure, DMP per se, for that matter even vanilla P per se, is never fallible. One perceives what one perceives. But, like you say, the interpretation we draw from that perception, and the knowledge we end up derive from that perception, that is entirely fallible. And therefore necessarily subject to, first, the test of formulation; and, next, the test of evidence (albeit with the nature of evidence probably somewhat eased, to allow in the subjective).

No perception, whether mystical or otherwise, is either right or wrong. You’re right in saying that. It is what it is. In my earlier example, I’ve heard Osho Robbins say he hates his boss and will kill him, I’ve seen him extract his gun and load it, and I’ve subsequently seen him fire the gun while pointing at his enemy. Those are perceptions, and neither right nor wrong. But where I conclude from the above that Osho Robbins has shot and killed his boss, is an interpretation of my perception, it is knowledge derived from perception, and as such is entirely fallible, and therefore it is necessary to hold it to rigorous standards of formulation and internal consistency, as well as evidence. (Ditto my spotting what I think is water in the desert. That is perception, and is what it is. But my conclusion that therefore there is water there, that is, as you say, interpretation, and as I'd said, knowledge derived from perception, and that latter is entirely fallible, and therefore necessitates the whole formulation-and-evidence thing.)

And in fact is towards this end that I’ve been trying, with Osho Robbins, first through structural questioning some months ago, and now via this process of his. to tease out the two separately, his experience itself, whatever it was, and the worldview that he has fallen on consequent to that.

With that clarification, we’re agreed now, I hope, Spence? If not, if there’s anything you’d still like to correct or add, do please go ahead.


A nephew that loves to tease his uncle send a "bathroom saying":

Life is complicate, but it even gets more complicated, when you start to thing you understand it.


Life is there to be lived, not to be understood, explained or whatever by a minority, a small minority, of people with IQ's far above the majority.

If we have to believe Christ, he never spoke to the religious scholars but to the simple people, whom he later called thieves.

And .. if I would belong to that minority , probably I would not write this .. hahaha
Nothing wrong with Champagne but not all can afford it, nor can it be drunk all the time ... water can.


Osho Robbins, just watched UGK's video. Food for thought, certainly, and I've further bookmarked the page in order to later watch all of the other video suggestions that were thrown up at the end involving other talks by UGK, as well as some by the original K. Thanks for that reference, absolutely.

However, I was less than ...well, less than blown away by UGK's ideas. Man seemed so very full of himself, sitting there smarmily pronouncing his self-described wisdom about any and every thing under the sun. For one thing, his ideas about science, as he discusses them towards the end of this video, seem entirely uninformed. For another, that psychologist questioning him seemed to handling him with kid gloves, and the whole thing reminded me of GSD's fawning acolytes asking GSD questions and hanging on uncritically to every soundbite of would-be wisdom leaving his hallowed lips.

In his place I'd have squarely asked UGK, in prescribed Mikaire-speak, how the effing eff he himself became world expert on enlightenment. How the eff he knows what he knows, and why the eff we must take what he says as gospel truth. Why he presumes to know exactly what every other person's alleged enlightenment experience amounts to, and why the eff he, UGK, gets to wear that funny hairdo and those weird clothes and do his wise-Zarathustra routine and write books that others will presumably spend money to buy, and give lectures that others will presumably spend money to hear.

This sort of thing seems great for people who're already mired in superstitions like Jesus-cultists and GSD-cultists and Mohammed-cultists and so forth, for them to break through of those belief systems. But for someone who has no superstitions to begin with, the value of these ideas seem doubtful.

Like you, UGK says he had some experience that he is not able to speak of. At least that's all he says here, in this particular video. And if I were the one there interviewing him, I'd try to clearly tease out his experience as well as try to understand how his worldview followed from his alleged experience; but I'd also demand that he answer, and I'd ask with f-bombs in order to match his own would-be irreverent style with some irreverence of my own, why the eff he thinks his own experience, whatever it was, amounts to shit, and why the knowledge he believes he ended up with as a result amounts to shit. You know? These mystic types, who so smarmily point out others' superstitions, seem so blithely unaware of the mote that is in their own eye.


-------


Incidentally, I just read my last comment addressed to you. Pardon me, my impatience with your repeated and unthinking insistence that your Oneness is not a belief led me to speak somewhat brusquely in that last comment of mine, which I had no right to do.

But I wish you'd read my comment, as well as the comment I've addressed to Spence above. This squarely addresses why your ideas about Oneness are beliefs. Maybe right belief, maybe wrong belief, but belief is what they are.

To repeat: I may not have the third eye, and I may not be given to DMPs, but vanilla Ps are accesiible to us all. I see what I think is water up ahead on the tarred road. That perception is what it is. But basis my perception I conclude there is water there on the road. That latter is a belief, that latter is knowledge derived from my perception, that latter is my interpretation of my perception. As such, it is entirely fallible. The same goes for the sun going around the earth, and my having seen you kill your boss, and your claims of Oneness. To that extent, it makes no sense at all for you to keep repeating time and time and again that "Oneness is not a belief". Because belief is exactly what it is. Right or wrong, that's exactly what it most assuredly is, a belief.

And nor will somehow having me replicate your own intuition -- which, if we could do it, would be great, incidentally -- change this. Because it is rational to be skeptical of one's own intuitions, and I don't think I'd give a free pass even to intuitions that were made available directly to me. And nor does it seem reasonable for you to do that, with your own perception of Oneness.


@ AR

Believes, provable or not, are tools like placebos and as such do not only have effect on the mind and body of the believers but on the whole of society as well.

History is one ongoing story of humans believing this or that.

Sometimes benevolent sometimes not.

Those searching their whole life for lost treasures, gold, precious stones etc have to believe that they exist and can be found in order to find out for themselves the very truth of what they earlier accepted as possible.

Inner experiences are the same. Those who sit in monasteries as recluse do so.

Some will be successful and others not ...

Personally I was never attracted emotionally and/or intellectually to UGK and for that reason I never spend much time in understanding what he had to say but that doesn't mean the man had nothing to say. The same holds for Osho and many a neo advaita protagonist but again that doesn't say that there is something wrong with them or what they have to say.

Love in whatever form it comes does attract and it needs no understanding .. it is there or it is just not there.

The faces of children that believe in Santa Claus and those in churches and temples, praying for the welfare of themselves, the world etc, is also different from those who don't. The same who loves certain music, music that brings tears of joy in their eyes, music that others hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyK4Bvj07JY


"Personally I was never attracted emotionally and/or intellectually to UGK and for that reason I never spend much time in understanding what he had to say but that doesn't mean the man had nothing to say. The same holds for Osho and many a neo advaita protagonist but again that doesn't say that there is something wrong with them or what they have to say."


.
.......Oh, agreed, um, unquestionably. Not only do I not think they have nothing of importance to say, I actually do think it very likely they have something of great importance to convey.

You misunderstand me. When I said I'd ask UGK what the eff makes him world expert on enlightenment, or why the eff his experiences would amount to shit, I didn't mean that rhetorically, to imply that he knows nothing or that his experience was meaningless. Not at all. I meant that completely literally.

Just watch that video for yourself. That psychologist guy fawningly asks him, in effect, Oh, Oh, Great UGK, everyone says your are enlightened, but you yourself say you are not, so what is the enlightenment deal? And UGK, with a shit-eating smile on his face, says, What makes you think enlightenment is even real? That whole routine.

So, I was saying, if I were in that psychologist guy's place, I'd ask UGK, quite literally, what the fuck makes you think you know shit about enlightenment? What the fuck makes you think you know what others' enlightenment amounts to? Why the fuck should I pay any attention to your fucking experience? Why the fuck do you yourself think it was important? Why the fuck do you think you know anything at all, and why the fuck would I waste my time and money on someone like you?

Literal questions. Just stop fawning, and just ask him what the fuck he means.

Then he'll say what he does mean. Instead of coyly fluttering his eyelids at you and saying "Enlightenment isn't real", and "I am not enlightened", he'll then be forced to clearly spell out what exactly he means by enlightenment, what his experience exactly was, why he thinks it was important, and what makes him think he knows definitively about all of this.

It could be, as a result, he reveals himself to be a deluded fool or a charlatan. Good riddance, in that case. But I do think there is substance to the man. And I think it is likely he will then come out and clearly say what he means, instead of his endless nudge-nudge-wink-wink routine.

That was where I was coming from, there.


@ A.R.

I have seen different of his videos and if I remember well I have visited one of his discourses.

It is said that most teachings are not to be taught, caught. That is imo correct as far as the practice is concerned.

One can and it has been done, discuss the theory of Za Zen but understanding using practice as its vehicle needs no explanation.

What UGK does, has to say and with him all the others, is of no importance what soever ... what matters is why do people go there, behave there as they do etc.

What matters in eating the apple pie offered by this or that cook, is whether you are interested in eating it. Who cares why he goes to the market, whether he is qualified or not. We are nor responsible for what others do with and in their lives. We are responsible how we spent the days we have and the things we give our attention too.

All things in live , the roles we have to play, are made much more easy if we love them .. nothing excluded

When youndg my dad told me to add something to the composition of an icecream. I made the mistake asking him "why". Not amused he said ..."LOOK!!" I answered that i could not see a thing ... In an more severe tone he said ... that is what you get son when you don't look. Two years later I knew what it was all about..

The practice and the results thereof can not be replaced by analysis.

Over time I came to conclude that no one in this field has anything to say, they do not say a thing and they cannot as I said before these schools are just an invitation.

One can say that enlightenment exists, one can say it doesn't it makes no difference as it can not be said what it is if it is. Nobody can change that.

In Zen they have developed these beautiful tools to bring that home .. the koans.
In the end za zen is nothing but sitting, meaningless, purposeless sitting, no effort no goal ... just sit there. Sitting there , that receptive, that just being there makes certain things occur that otherwise would not

And .. A.R.
If there is something to lear from them than ...

If you watch for example this or that person seen as a teacher, speak in public, especially when answering questions and even more when there are emotional and intellectual bloodsuckers and parasites around that try to go under their skin ... do not listen to them, just look at them, see what they communicate non verbal.

Imagine you sitting there an ask yourself how you would manage ... it will teach you things you could never have imagined.

Personally I came to understand it when I saw GSD's uncle many a time and his secretary, a man of great erudition and character, sitting next to him and the difference in their non verbal behaviour ... hahahaha

Just watch that video for yourself. That psychologist guy fawningly asks him, in effect, Oh, Oh, Great UGK, everyone says your are enlightened, but you yourself say you are not, so what is the enlightenment deal? And UGK, with a shit-eating smile on his face, says, What makes you think enlightenment is even real? That whole routine.

So, I was saying, if I were in that psychologist guy's place, I'd ask UGK, quite literally, what the fuck makes you think you know shit about enlightenment? What the fuck makes you think you know what others' enlightenment amounts to? Why the fuck should I pay any attention to your fucking experience? Why the fuck do you yourself think it was important? Why the fuck do you think you know anything at all, and why the fuck would I waste my time and money on someone like you?


"What matters in eating the apple pie offered by this or that cook, is whether you are interested in eating it. Who cares why he goes to the market, whether he is qualified or not. We are nor responsible for what others do with and in their lives. "


..
......I'm afraid that approach seems flawed to me. After all, these people aren't offering apple pies. If UGK were saying, Come sit down with me, and you'll immediately taste what I have to offer: If he were saying that, I'd buy a plane ticket tomorrow --- well not tomorrow, but after this pandemic blows over --- and go sit with him. And eat his apple pie, and judge for myself what is what.

But that isn't what is on offer. Here what we're talking about is months, often years, of practice, with some traditions. And in the case of people like UGK, they actually say enlightenment isn't a thing at all. Well then, the question does arise, if it isn't a thing, then what the fuck legitimacy do you have, you with the flowing white hair and guru-like dress and guru-like mien?


Incidentally, I do get the point about actual practice. I'm not doing my analysis in a vacuum. Thing is, I've long been a steadfast meditator myself, for all my skepticism. I do pay my dues. More than my fair share. Have no doubt on that count.

Except I refuse to buy into the bullshit that this area of spirituality seems to abound in. Someone should call them out, the UGKs of this world who are forever fluttering their eyelashes at seekers and bilking them of their little all. Put up or shut up, they should be told. Stop hinting. Clearly say what you have to say, clearly teach what you have to teach. If you can't do that, then get lost. Earn your own living by working at a real trade, because we won't buy your fucking books or go to your fucking lectures, unless you give us something tangible that we know and see is useful. If you don't do that, then we're not buying your bullshit any more.

People should do that to the likes of GSD. People should do that to that to the likes of the Pope, strutting around in his ridiculous dress in that obscene palace of his built on the blood and tears of generations on generations of peasants. But equally, they should do that to the likes of anti-gurus like UGK and, gasp, dare I say it, old man Jiddu as well. Just cut out the bullshit, and get to the real value. If at all value there is. Because there is no reason why this should be outside the reach of evaluation.


.
.....Let's try some argumentum ad absurdum, okay? I mean, I vouchsafe to spend time with you plebs, but I am the Divine Power incarnate myself, did you know that? You cannot ever measure the greatness of My Divinity with a thimble, because my all-encompassing greatness is greater than apple pies. So just .... just send me a thousand dollars every month, okay? What, you don't have that kind of money to spare? Okay, a hundred then, as a special favor to you. Bow low to me, and give me your money, give me your attention, give me your adoration.

I mean, why not? I can wear funny hairdos and funny clothes too, and speak in long-winded self-contradictory nonsense as well as the next man.

You don't go to a doctor who doesn't actually deliver. You don't pay a grocer who doesn't actually give you what you went there for. Nor a fitness instructor, or a music teacher. Why should spiritual teachers not have to deliver, why should they not have to sing for their supper, same as everybody else? (If at all spirituality is a thing, which is by no means a settled question?)


@ A.R.

Yes, you had mentioned that before that you meditate.

>>Except I refuse to buy into the bullshit that this area of spirituality seems to abound in. >Someone should call them out, the UGKs of this world who are forever fluttering their eyelashes at seekers and bilking them of their little all.> Put up or shut up, they should be told. Stop hinting. Clearly say what you have to say, clearly teach what you have to teach. If you can't do that, then get lost. Earn your own living by working at a real trade, because we won't buy your fucking books or go to your fucking lectures, unless you give us something tangible that we know and see is useful. If you don't do that, then we're not buying your bullshit any more.>I mean, why not? I can wear funny hairdos and funny clothes too, and speak in long-winded self-contradictory nonsense as well as the next man.>You don't go to a doctor who doesn't actually deliver. You don't pay a grocer who doesn't actually give you what you went there for. Nor a fitness instructor, or a music teacher. Why should spiritual teachers not have to deliver, why should they not have to sing for their supper, same as everybody else? (If at all spirituality is a thing, which is by no means a settled question?)

In the end ... the first things to find out are ...BEFORE anything else.:
Are you a real and honest seeker?
WHAT are you seeking?
WHY do you want to find it?
For WHAT reason? etc etc.

The seeking starts and ends in the house where the keys were lost. The rest is a waste of time.

I wull see that video ... but I guess I saw it.

Sorry A.R for reasons beyond my power the reaction removed all my detailed answers... and I am not going to type them again.

Are you a real and honest seeker?
WHAT are you seeking?
WHY do you want to find it?
For WHAT reason? etc etc.


.......Great questions.

I've asked myself those questions, often. And I do have answers.

As might be expected, the answers span many levels.

At the most stripped-down level, though, it is because one wants to find out as much of reality as one can, while one the brief fragile flame of lucidity still burns on. At the most basic level, that I guess.

And honest seeking, yes, absolutely. Because I'm quite sure I have no agenda. People often do, often unbeknownst to themselves. I'm fairly sure I don't. (On the other hand, people who do have deep-grained vested agendas that aren't quite deliberate, wouldn't really know, would they? So I guess that last bit is kind of circular. And the really honest answer would be, I think not, as far as I am aware, but I'm not quite sure.)

@ A.R.

Have seen the video and realised I mixed up the two Khrisnamurtis. This was the first video on UG.

I will have to see it a couple of times to see if I can grasp what he is hinting at ... but first coffee.

The questions were not asked to have you answer them, they were and are just a means to withdraw your attention from the street, from the light, from people walking that street like the Krishnamurtis.

You did answer the questions by writing that you want to know what reality is ...as it is YOUR question not anybodies else's ... you have first to understand what YOUR concept of reality is, why you state that you don't know it, while you know the content of the concept etc.

Before I get up to make coffee:
I had deep rooted intellectual and emotional allergies, that when triggered, would created averse reactions, as allergies do. I will not repeat here again what I wrote but I got over them by a friend asking me again and again the same rhetoric question... yes you are right but why does it upset you that others act the way they do. Over time i realized that it is not in my power to act upon the things outside, but I do have over myself .,..in terms of choice.

If there is a cord, by lifting it up, will cause me to enter in a tug-of-war, I need not to do so and once in my hand I can lay it down.

@ You don't go to a doctor who doesn't actually deliver. You don't pay a grocer who doesn't actually give you
@ what you went there for. Nor a fitness instructor, or a music teacher. Why should spiritual teachers not
@ have to deliver, why should they not have to sing for their supper, same as everybody else? (If at all
@ spirituality is a thing, which is by no means a settled question?)

A.R., I agree a foul mouthed, 400 quid soliciting mystic should. But the
authentic mystic in my opinion won't. He is refreshingly brief when asked
to describe transcendence: "Neti, neti" [Not this, not this]. He adds, "It's
unquestionably a path that often demands years, even a lifetime of rigor,
though. There's no way to sugarcoat it. Here is one intensely devotional,
meditative practice that helped me. It can help you as well. If it doesn't,
discard it without hesitation. Try another. Look for one that strives to
find answers within yourself."

Hi Appreciative!
Yes I agree. All things that are real must undergo testing and verification repeatedly, whether we do this personally or through more formal, rigorous means.

"Behind the shelter in the middle of a roundabout
A pretty nurse is selling poppies from a tray
And though she feels as if she's in a play
She is anyway"
From Penny Lane, Lennon and McCartney

As are we all.

AR: First, you do have a belief. The belief of Oneness. Right or wrong, that is a belief. Regardless of how you arrived at that belief, you do have that belief, that there's this Oneness thing. Regardless of whether you need to prove it to me or not, you do have that belief, that there's this Oneness thing

OR: I maintain that it is not a belief.
A believer does not know – hence he needs the belief to console himself.
A knower simply knows – no doubt – no belief – no question.
If I say I have £1000 in my pocket – you can believe or doubt. No other possibility exists.
But then I put my hand in my pocket and you can see the £1000.
Now no doubt exists and belief is not possible or needed. Now you know and it doesn’t matter if
1000 people say I don’t have the £1000. You KNOW!

ONENESS is not an opinion and not a belief. There is simply no other possibility.
As long as you continue to consider it a belief, we will not agree.

So some examples to clarify.

“I believe Jesus is the Son of God.” – clearly a belief unless you have met jesus and seen his birth certificate and it says on it “father: God”. Reciting verses in the bible are an appeal to authority. Belief in the bible is required – so this is a logical fallacy.

If you eat a banana; You KNOW the taste of a banana. The taste of a banana is not a belief.
If I describe the taste to you – you can only acquire a belief about it – not the taste itself.

If my car is going along at 60 mph, after 1 minute, I have covered exactly 1 mile. Is that a belief? Or a truth?
I haven’t seen the mile, I haven’t measured it – but I KNOW (not just believe) I have covered a mile.
Now one more. More subtle.
Assume for this that there are no reflective surfaces (mirrors, water etc)
Further I am going to not allow you to use your hands (or another part of your body) to feel.
Then I pose a question: How do you know that you have a beard (assuming you have one)
If you cannot see it (in a mirror) and you cannot feel it.
How do you know you have hair on your head?
How do you know you have eyes?
How do you know you have ears?

Is it a BELIEF or KNOWLEDGE that you have a beard, hair, eyes, ears?

spence just posted this:


"Behind the shelter in the middle of a roundabout
A pretty nurse is selling poppies from a tray
And though she feels as if she's in a play
She is anyway"
From Penny Lane, Lennon and McCartney

As are we all.

Posted by: Spence Tepper


That we are "all in a play" is a belief.
quoting the Beatles is an "appeal to authority" (a logical fallacy)
as the Beatles saying so doesn't make it true.

on the other hand - Spence may not be making that statement as
a statement of truth - but merely writing it as something interesting
- like poetry - not saying it is true. In which case, it's not a logical fallacy.

So it also depends on the context of the spirit in which the statement is made.

If it was a formal debate of "Is life a play" and spence was trying to prove it was - then it would be a logical fallacy.

"The earth is flat" - is that a belief? (flat earthers believe this)

"The earth is a sphere" - is that a belief? or is it knowledge?

If you have two apples and I have you eight more - you now have ten apples - is that a belief -or knowledge?

we have to be clear first before we can say if oneness is a belief or knowledge. Otherwise we will both continue to say the same
I will say it is a knowing and you will say it's a belief.

Hi Osho!
'Life is a play'
You call it a belief. Perhaps for some. For others it may be knowledge. In my case, it's just an observation.


Hi Osho
You wrote
"A believer does not know – hence he needs the belief to console himself.
A knower simply knows – no doubt – no belief – no question.
If I say I have £1000 in my pocket – you can believe or doubt. No other possibility exists."

Actually you missed a third possibility. You may not doubt or believe. You simply may not know. I don't know. I neither doubt nor believe. I hold no opinion. I think this is the pure definition of A-theism.

Interestingly enough, an individual may witness the power of creation in all its detail, at every level, but avoid trying to squeeze it down into a set of mental concepts. They would not label that God or No God. They would just accept it is beyond their capacity to describe with any accuracy, and worthy of experiencing, not labeling. Is that Atheism of mysticism?


@ If I say I have £1000 in my pocket – you can believe or doubt. No other possibility exists.
@ But then I put my hand in my pocket and you can see the £1000.
@ Now no doubt exists and belief is not possible or needed. Now you know and it doesn’t matter
@ if 1000 people say I don’t have the £1000. You KNOW!

What if it's counterfeit? Suppose the speaker misstated the amount?
Or he owed you the £1000 and you misheard him out of a wish fulfill-
ment fantasy that flashed in your head?

It's not simply argumentative. Duality toys with us. It plays a sleight
of hand game with truth. Perhaps DP/DMP Is more accurate. But
the analysis of what's experienced in DP is fraught too as others
mentioned. In the end, the mystic only says "it's not this, not that"
and goes silent. The journey inside has to be taken to really know
and then the mystic is at a loss for words.

@Appreciative Reader

That was just perfect - couldn't have done it better if I had set it up on purpose.
It was as if the deck was stacked (setup).

Let me explain.

we're on the subject of Belief / knowledge / neither (just an observation).

a simple statement like "Life is a play" creates so many possibilities.

One person may consider it a belief. Spence says it's not a belief - to him. He says it could be knowledge for some people.
and in his case it was just an observation.
observation of a fact? or an opinion?

Do you see the point I am making?

even this simple statement - it's not clear if it's knowledge or a belief or neither!

one person may insist it's a belief and another says "it is knowledge"
and it may even be subjective - "It's knowledge TO ME"

on the "£1000 in my pocket" example, spence says
"You simply may not know"
Clearly - you don't know - which is why it cannot be knowledge

so then he says
"I neither doubt nor believe. I hold no opinion. I think this is the pure definition of A-theism."

This, as he correctly points out is the atheist position of
"Maybe God exists, maybe he doesn't - I have no clue.
If you believe he does - then prove it to me"

Now in the case of the "£1000 in my pocket" - proof is easy.
In the case of God - there is no proof possible since God cannot be taken out of my pocket.
In the case of ONENESS - proof may be possible - but it will be subjective proof - your personal proof.

When Vivekananda went to Sri Ramakrishna - he asked
"Where is the proof that God exists?"
Sri Ramakrishna doesn't give an intellectual answer.
Instead he jumps up and gets close to Vivekananda's face and says
"I am the proof".
That answer changed Vivekananda's life because he now had to figure out who this madman was! No logical answer was possible.
Vivekananda had to spend many years trying to get the answer.
In that time - He himself (Vivekananda) changed and the question was
answered from within - not a logical answer.
Any logician will say Vivekananda was a fool.
But it was the only way he could find his own personal proof - go on the journey - take a leap into the unknown.


Spence goes on ......
"Interestingly enough, an individual may witness the power of creation in all its detail, at every level, but avoid trying to squeeze it down into a set of mental concepts. They would not label that God or No God. They would just accept it is beyond their capacity to describe with any accuracy, and worthy of experiencing, not labeling. Is that Atheism or mysticism?"

To some people the world itself is the proof. But it's still a belief.

"Some would just accept it is beyond their capacity to describe with any accuracy, and worthy of experiencing, not labeling."

Belief / doubt - don't lead to knowing - to know - you have to go further and make a personal investigation - like I did with Mikaire, like some people do with their meditation.


Quote Osho Robbins:


"I maintain that it is not a belief.

(...)ONENESS is not an opinion and not a belief. There is simply no other possibility.
As long as you continue to consider it a belief, we will not agree.

So some examples to clarify. (...)


.


.......Hey, Osho Robbins.

All right, let's first, and for the present, leave aside all of the other points we've disagreed on, and focus on this one single thing: Your Oneness worldview, is that a belief, or is it not? You're right, this does seem to be fundamental to our discussion, and without first fully exploring this and without first coming to agreement on this, we're likely to keep on talking past each other.

I'm rushed now. Can't sit down and give to your posts the attention they deserve, so I'll respond to them later on, as soon as I'm able. And discuss those very interesting examples you've provided, as well.

Meanwhile, though, I'd like you to answer these two questions, if you would:

(1) You keep claiming that your Oneness is not a belief. Fine, then, what would you yourself describe it as? Your considered answer, please.

and (2) Whatever you've answered to question #1 above, would you say that whatever-you've-described-it-as is fallible, that is, there is the possibility that it might be mistaken; or would you insist that it is entirely inerrant?



Clarification:

In that second question, I'm not asking if you think your Oneness worldview is inerrant. Because I already know that you do think that. I'm asking whether that whole class of whatever-it-is, that you would describe your Oneness as belonging to, do you think that whole class of whatever-it-is is inerrant, or do you think that it might be open to error?

For instance, if you describe your Oneness as a belief (which I know you don't), then would you claim that all beliefs are necessarily inerrant? Similarly, I'd like you to first tell me what you would yourself describe your Oneness as (belief, or perception, or knowledge, or inspiration, or intuition, or whatever else you think best answers this); and to then tell me whether you think that class (that is, all beliefs, all perception, all knowledge, all whatever-you've-put-it-down-as) is necessarily inerrant, in your view, or if you think there is the possibility that it might, in some individual cases, turn out to be wrong.


@Apprec Reader
1) You keep claiming that your Oneness is not a belief. Fine, then, what would you yourself describe it as? Your considered answer, please.
and (2) Whatever you've answered to question #1 above, would you say that whatever-you've-described-it-as is fallible, that is, there is the possibility that it might be mistaken; or would you insist that it is entirely inerrant?

The ONENESS or NON-DUALITY is a absolute knowing – not subject to error. Just as when you taste an apple – you KNOW the taste of an apple – it is not subject to error.
If you have never tasted an apple – and have only read about it – that is a belief, no matter how convinced you are of the truth of it – a belief is still a belief.
You have compared a number of times with RSSB – which I state is a belief.
How so? Because the followers only have book knowledge – they are convinced that after X years of meditation on the five names – they WILL reach. That is a belief.
If someone claims to have reached – then it is no longer a belief – then they are claiming to KNOW.
They also claim it is not subject to error – because they have had a vision or experienced the inner regions etc.
However – and this is the important part: they could still be mistaken because the vision could be delusion. It could be a fabrication of their mind.
The NON-DUALITY / ONENESS cannot be a fabrication because :
1. It is NOT an experience
2. It is beyond the mind and cannot be fathomed or understood by the mind
3. It is beyond time and space – it is a state of NON-DUALITY
It is not a DMP (Direct Mystical Perception) either – which is why I was reluctant to label it as such also.
Why is it not an experience? Because experience happens is duality and this is non-duality.
Why is it beyond the mind? It is not a vision, or something I saw or experienced.
It is not something that gets ADDED to me(OshoRobbins) : it takes Osho Robbins away and only the ONENESS remains. Osho Robbins disappears before this comes. So there is no witness to it.
It may sound like nonsense – but that is unavoidable because what I am speaking about cannot be spoken: cannot be described.
So here is what I KNOW:
There is no Osho Robbins – so I have no concern about going to Sach Khand or the equivalent.
I do not seek salvation. I cannot say to GSD “Please shower your grace on me……” It is impossible for me to do that because I am already GONE. There is no hope at all for me. I have already accepted my non-existence; so I cannot seek salvation. I need no saviour because there is none. Obviously I cannot also be a saviour also since there is no such thing.
These are not my opinions: all this is absolute truth, not subject to error.
Big claims, you might say, but actually I am claiming nothing. My claim is that I don’t exist : it is a negative claim. I claim there is no God, no heaven, no Sach Khand, no regions, no Sat Purush, No Kal, No karma, no individual soul.
But I can be easily mis-understood, so I rarely say these things. They are reserved for those who are ready to listen. Those who acknowledge that they don’t know and who truly want to know. Most people are too proud of their knowing and thus cannot go any further. To go on this journey of discovery, they first have to admit: “I know nothing”
Osho goes so far as to say that the mystic MUST be misunderstood. If he is NOT misunderstood then he cannot be a mystic: he must be talking about a different topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nSMi0whFEA


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

2 mins in he talks about meditation but this is not the meditation that RSSB followers practice. That is concentration: His idea of meditation is very different and he has thousands of meditation techniques.
3 mins in: communication is impossible
The master speaks from his WISDOM and you JUMP on his wisdom and reduce it to knowledge. You are looking for answers and a master knows that answers never satisfy. All questions are fake. To get the answer you have to go on a quest, not ask a question.
You cannot stand looking at the river and ask questions. You have to jump into the river (Quest) to KNOW the river. Questions give you words and words are not the river.


Read through your response, Osho Robbins. Detailed response later, but for now, and following on what I'd asked earlier and your own response:

You're saying your Oneness is a matter of "absolute knowing", and "not subject to error". In your view, is there anything else, other than Oneness, that admits of this kind of "absolute knowing" that is "not subject to error"? Or is Oneness is the one and only example of this kind of absolute knowing that is not subject to error?


(Sorry about the staccato responses. Like I said, rushed. I'll sit down later on for a more comprehensive reading of your posts, and also respond more fully.)


Hi Osho and Appreciative

I've been reading your dialogue with some interest, and in the interest of sharing another view let me suggest the following logical argument.

1. Osho doesn't exist.
2. Osho can't have an opinion or view because he doesn't exist. He doesn't occupy a body or a brain like the rest of us therefore....

3. Therefore whatever observation, or opinion written by the fallable physical body and brain of the person labeled Osho cannot be the Osho who doesn't exist, who is the one writing about not existing here.
3. There might be a connection somewhere, but it could be said they are so far apart they might as well be divorced.
4. Or we fallible beings might just be having a shared hallucination about this Osho Bot, originally written to blog positive to Toaster and Deodorant reviews on Amazon, but well out of control here.

"This Toaster is perfect. Beyond perfect."

"The scent of this deodorant is absolutely an out of body existence. This smell is beyond what this nose can smell, therefore I KNOW it is out of body."

"I wanted a waffle maker. What i got was a life changing event!"

"Can anyone really love a Pizza oven? I can only say this oven IS love!"

Appreciative Reader replies to Osho Bot
"No Osho, the oven is just an oven.. Metal, wires and glass. You might feel love when you use it, but the oven is an oven."

Osho Bot replies
"How can you understand this Pizza love, which transcends human love? When you realize there is no you, no me, only Pizza."


"You're saying your Oneness is a matter of "absolute knowing", and "not subject to error" - Appreciative Reader

It is unique. There is nothing else in the same class as this.
There is a valid reason for this. Everything else is in duality. This is the very essence of "beyond duality".
If anything else was in the same class, it would invalidate it.

This is what the zen koan "What is the sound of one hand clapping" finally arrives at.
If there is any true meditation - it is this - to go into the depth of ONE hand clapping. The logical mind says "One hand cannot clap"
but the zen koan is not giving you that possibility. That is a mind answer.
The zen koan is telling you with absolute authority that one hand IS clapping. That is not the question. It is asking you the sound.

ONENESS or non-duality is not something you arrive at through logic.


@Spence

You are mocking the idea simply because you have never understood what ONENESS or non-duality is. This is despite the fact that you claim to have visions of the "Inner Gurinder"

When asked - you simply say that the "Inner Gurinder" is different from the outer one. You have stated many times that the outer Gurinder has fallen from the path and needs help.

The "inner Gurinder" however is still there and gives the right guidance.

What you have is an experience within duality - in which there is a spence and an "inner Gurinder". This is a mind fabrication as are all visions.
Everything that has two - duality - like a vision or a radiant form is within the realm of mind and error prone. What you see is a projection of your own mind.

Just to give a reference Kabir describes this same ONENESS. Kabir clearly says that "Kabir" does not exist.

"When I was (existed = in duality), God wasn't."

clearly kabir is saying that you cannot have a vision of God or ONENESS because YOU still are, God cannot be ADDED to Kabir. Instead it takes Kabir away then IT (ONENESS) alone remains and Kabir disappears.

"Now YOU (ONENESS) are - and I (Kabir) am not"

Kabir is saying that Kabir does not exist.

so following on from what you wrote - you would also have to say this about kabir:

1. Kabir doesn't exist.
2. Kabir can't have an opinion or view because he doesn't exist. He doesn't occupy a body or a brain like the rest of us therefore....

3. Therefore whatever observation, or opinion written by the fallable physical body and brain of the person labeled Kabir cannot be the Kabir who doesn't exist, who is the one writing about not existing here
when he says "Now Kabir Isn't....."

4. There might be a connection somewhere, but it could be said they are so far apart they might as well be divorced.
5. Or we fallible beings might just be having a shared hallucination about this Kabir Bot, originally written to blog positive to Toaster and Deodorant reviews on Amazon, but well out of control here.

@spence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dWAkmCmzAc&t=5s

4:30 mins into the video - your own guru (that you see in his radiant form within) says there is no separation. He says we are ALREADY ONE.
already ONE means you are not two - meaning that there is no Spence.
If there IS a spence - then spence is separate from God and needs to merge - here he clearly says "The separation is not there" and "You are already ONE with him"

That is the same as saying that you are not separate - there is no Spence.
The very thing you are mocking is what your guru is saying.

I'm sorry Osho that's one Toaster I won't be buying.

Brother, I’ve seen some
Astonishing sights:
A lion keeping watch
Over pasturing cows;
A mother delivered
After her son was;
A guru prostrated
Before his disciple;
Fish spawning
On treetops;
A cat carrying away
A dog;
A gunny-sack
Driving a bullock-cart;
A buffalo going out to graze,
Sitting on a horse;
A tree with its branches in the earth,
Its roots in the sky;
A tree with flowering roots.

This verse, says Kabir,
Is your key to the universe.
If you can figure it out.

The path of Love is the answer.

Where intellect was born but can never return.

Lacking love, a good sense of humor will suffice.


Spence,

Pardon me, I realize it might be seen as presumptuous for me to act as some kind of gatekeeper for who writes what in these pages, which are not even my pages. This is just to share my views about this particular mode of "debate".

Thing is, I am not a fan of bringing in derision and mockery in order to (attempt to) dismiss someone else's arguments. Not even when that mockery is brought in support of my own arguments.

I know, manjit will label me as lacking in humor for saying this kind of thing. So might you ---- at least, I hope you won't, but it is possible that you may. It is not that I lack a sense of humor, at least I don't think so, but to try to laugh someone's sincere views out is, in my view, not quite done. Chiefly because it hinders the process of proper understanding. To begin with such attempts at derision don't usually succeed at all ; and thing is, even if they do, then what they achieve is drive the other POV out of the discussion not by resolving the argument but simply by belittling them. That's something none of us gains from.

Of course, an actual argumentum ad absurdum is a different matter. But let's not try to drive out Osho Robbins by calling him a poopy head.

Once again, apologies if my comment seems presumptuous.



Osho Robbins, I was starting a somewhat involved response, starting with the examples you've yourself presented. But then instead of both you and me writing long posts at each other, and in effect speaking at each other rather than with each other, I thought I should first get your response to these two specific questions, which occur to me on reading your last response addressed to me:


(1) You say here: "It is unique. There is nothing else in the same class as this.
There is a valid reason for this. Everything else is in duality. This is the very essence of "beyond duality". <> If anything else was in the same class, it would invalidate it."


So let me ask you : What, in your view, is the actual mechanism by which knowledge of this Oneness reaches you?


.


(2) You'd presented a number of examples earlier. Examples that I'd begun to respond to, but thought better to first get in your answers to these two questions first. You know, how we "know" the earth is spheroidal, how we plebs "know" we've got 100 dollars in our pocket (and our more privileged brethren "know" they're carrying 1000 pounds in their pocket), how we feel our unshaven chin and know we've got a stubble (or a beard, as the case may be), and so on, those examples you presented upthread.

My question is, What was the point of those examples? Given that you think that knowledge about Oneness is a stand-alone thing, that apparently has no counterpart, nothing else comparable, it now isn't at all clear what point you were trying to make by using those examples. If you could spell that out clearly, that would be great.


@Spence
Kabir’s point is obvious. All those things are illogical. You cannot arrive through logic.
There is no reference to “Love” so you made that up.
However, love is part of the journey as long as you understand what it is.
It is just a four letter word that we use without understanding the importance or significance of it.
It cannot be defined so it’s meaning can be conveniently created to fit into any illusion you or I choose.
In the case of a master disciple connection, the love means a deep trust that enables the disciple to understand that which others dismiss.

Appreciative Reader,
Just like the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy if the argument is that “because X says it - it MUST be true”

What you have pointed out is also a logical fallacy that Spence has used.

It’s the “appeal to ridicule / appeal to mockery / the horse laugh” fallacy.

By mocking or ridiculing the viewpoint, the implication is that it cannot be true because it is so ridiculous.

@Appreciative Reader
Those specific questions had a point.
I can tell you the point.
It would be helpful if you could answer them in all honesty first.

Specifically this one. The others were just to differentiate between belief and knowing.
So let me re-iterate the question here:

Now one more. More subtle.
Assume for this that there are no reflective surfaces (mirrors, water etc)
Further I am going to not allow you to use your hands (or another part of your body) to feel.
Then I pose a question: How do you know that you have a beard (assuming you have one)
If you cannot see it (in a mirror) and you cannot feel it.
How do you know you have hair on your head?
How do you know you have eyes?
How do you know you have ears?

Is it a BELIEF or KNOWLEDGE that you have a beard, hair, eyes, ears?



“@Appreciative Reader
Those specific questions had a point.
I can tell you the point.
It would be helpful if you could answer them in all honesty first.”


.
……………..Sure, if you wish. I’ll go right back and address every example you’d raised in that earlier post of yours.


But I see that you did not answer the questions I’d asked you. Granted that you think you would be better able to explain the point of your examples AFTER I give you my response to your examples ; but would you answer the first question I’d posed you, that you did not answer? And would you do that squarely, and without moving on to other subjects, and what’s more do that before you say anything further?

Here, let me copy down that question here again:


What, in your view, is the actual mechanism by which knowledge of this Oneness reaches you?


.


I’m not asking this to trap you or anything. I’m sure why I’m asking this is clear to you. In case not, let me clarify. How do DMPs occur? Each has its own mechanism. For instance, the RSSB sound and light, that everyone here is familiar with, and that probably draws from Tantra traditions, is predicated on the idea that the human body is somehow the “microcosm” that is a micro-level replica of the “macrocosm”, and accessing the inner planes gives you access to these …regions, lokas, whatever. Or if you’re secularly minded, then you might simply believe that there are neural centers within the brain that activate these sensations. So what is the mechanism of the knowledge of Oneness having reached you, is my question.

And the point of my question is this: You claim this Oneness is outside of time and place, and does not interact with our universe. In which case, there is no way information from this Oneness gets to be conveyed into our Universe. So that there is no way for information from (and therefore about) this Oneness to reach you, who are part of this Universe.

You see the contradiction? Even if one were to somehow blindly believe you --- which one doesn’t, obviously, not for a minute, although one is willing to be open-minded in *considering* this business --- even then your Oneness proposition carries within it this fatal internal contradiction.


In light of the above, I ask again: What is the mechanism, exactly, by means of which information/knowledge of this Oneness has revealed itself to you?


.


And now I’ll address all of your examples, like you asked me to, in my next post.



All right, Osho Robbins, moving on now to all of your examples:

.

(1) The following is the first example you’d posted upthread :

“If I say I have £1000 in my pocket – you can believe or doubt. No other possibility exists.
But then I put my hand in my pocket and you can see the £1000.
Now no doubt exists and belief is not possible or needed. Now you know and it doesn’t matter if
1000 people say I don’t have the £1000. You KNOW!”


……………..I think Spence had discussed this very aptly. I agree with his POV, that when you put your hand in your pocket and remove the wad of notes and assure yourself that you do have a thousand pounds there, you feeling the texture of the notes is perception, you seeing them is perception, but your conclusion that you've got 1000 pounds is knowledge derived from that perception and via mental constructs as well as cultural constructs. what you’re left with is the knowledge that you have your money there. I guess knowledge is interchangeable with belief here, because another way of saying this would be to say that you’re left with the belief that you have that money there.

That knowledge, that belief, could be either correct or incorrect.

Most times it would be correct. The hear-hooves-think-horses-not-zebras thing. Nevertheless, “horses” is a belief, and as such is fallible. I agree with Spence’s example of how your knowledge, your belief, might be incorrect: It could be that those notes in your pocket are counterfeit, so that what you are left with is a big fat zero in terms of actual pounds in your pocket.

Potentially fallible, in other words. (Although sure, most times what you see is what you get.)


.


(2) Quote Osho Robbins again:

“So some examples to clarify.
“I believe Jesus is the Son of God.” – clearly a belief unless you have met jesus and seen his birth certificate and it says on it “father: God”. Reciting verses in the bible are an appeal to authority. Belief in the bible is required – so this is a logical fallacy.”


.................Agreed, this would, in most cases, simply amount to belief. In fact, if you would hark back to our framework of modes of knowledge, I’d say it is knowledge, but knowledge derived from belief. And this belief, and the knowledge arrived at from this belief, happens to be wrong, as far as we can tell.

That is what it is for most folks. Yet that is not the only possible answer. You could have some mystic type, some prophet, who’s had visions that directly tell him, directly present him with the knowledge, that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. For this prophet, this would be knowledge derived directly via perception. This could be DMP (should such be real), or it could simply be hallucination, delusion. But in either case, in this second instance this is not knowledge derived from belief, but knowledge derived from DMP (or delusion, as the case may be).

Again, potentially fallible.


.


(3) Your third example, Osho Robbins:

“If you eat a banana; You KNOW the taste of a banana. The taste of a banana is not a belief.
If I describe the taste to you – you can only acquire a belief about it – not the taste itself.”


……………..This is simply perception. You’ve eaten a banana, and this is what that banana tasted like. Just perception, if you stop there and go no further.

However, if you extrapolate this to say that this is what bananas taste like, then this is extrapolation. That is, perception, plus reasoning ; in other words, perception, plus mental construct : and this leads you to knowledge, and to belief, that this is what bananas taste like.

And that knowledge, that belief, could be either right or wrong. Most times it will be correct, sure. Horses not zebras. But occasionally you might get a zebra. Once in a while you might be wrong. For instance, you might be presented with a different kind of banana, I don’t know, one that isn’t ripe on the inside and yet looks the same as the ripe fruit, and therefore tastes very different. Or you might be presented with an artificial trick item, that either contains some other artificial foodstuff, or something entirely inedible, and yet looks pretty much convincing from the outside.

Same as the earlier two examples, then, what we have is knowledge, and belief, that is potentially fallible, although in most cases likely to be correct.


.


(4) Your next example:

“If my car is going along at 60 mph, after 1 minute, I have covered exactly 1 mile. Is that a belief? Or a truth?
I haven’t seen the mile, I haven’t measured it – but I KNOW (not just believe) I have covered a mile.”


……………..On the contrary, this too is your belief. (Or, to be more precise, your knowledge derived from your perception of your reading the speedometer and your watch, and your mental construct of that calculation you’re doing in your head, and the cultural construct that informs you of the function of the speedometer.)

And no, this knowledge of yours, that is derived from perception plus mental construct plus cultural construct, isn’t inerrant truth. Most times it will be true, sure, but this isn’t inerrant truth, not by a long shot.

For instance, your speedometer might be out of whack. You may actually be driving at 55 mph, not 60 mph, even though your speedometer reads 60, so that what you’ve actually covered in that one minute would be 0.92 miles.

Another fer-instance: Could be your speedometer is fine, but it is your watch that is out of whack. That too will mean you’ve covered not 1 mile, but somewhat more (or somewhat less, as the case may be).

Once again, fallible knowledge. Most often correct, in practice, but once in a while might be wrong. Not inerrant truth.


.


(5) You final example, Osho Robbins:

“Now one more. More subtle.
Assume for this that there are no reflective surfaces (mirrors, water etc)
Further I am going to not allow you to use your hands (or another part of your body) to feel.
Then I pose a question: How do you know that you have a beard (assuming you have one)
If you cannot see it (in a mirror) and you cannot feel it.
How do you know you have hair on your head?
How do you know you have eyes?
How do you know you have ears?
Is it a BELIEF or KNOWLEDGE that you have a beard, hair, eyes, ears?”


……………..As far as beard and hair, there will be no direct perception. But there will be mental construct, in that I know that unless I’ve cut off my hair or shaved off my beard very recently, then I know I’ll have hair on my head and face. And sure, direct cultural construct as well, in terms of people telling me, that is. As such, knowledge based squarely on mental construct and cultural construct.

As far as eyes and ears, the fact that I can see and the fact that I can hear will amount to perception that these organs are present and working. But I’m also using the cultural construct and the mental construct that tell me that I see with my eyes, and hear with my ears. And also belief directly, cultural construct directly, in that people tell me that they see that I’ve got eyes and ears.

And this knowledge of mine, this belief, that I have hair, and beard (well I’m clean shaven myself, although occasionally I do affect a stubble, but whatever), and eyes, and ears, this too, like all of the earlier examples, is not infallible. Most times it will be correct. But it is possible ---- unlikely, but possible --- that it might be wrong (in that others may have reported wrongly to me, or my mental constructs about what organs perform what function may be wrong).

So that in this last example as well, same as the earlier four, we have a “horses not zebras” situation. Most times “horses” will be right. Most times, and most likely, my knowledge, my belief, will be correct. However, as with the other four examples, so it is with this fifth example as well: this knowledge, this belief, is fallible, it isn’t inerrant truth.


-----------------


Incidentally, these examples bear out what I’d said in my earlier posts addressed to you. And indeed what Spence and I were discussing in those two or three posts that we addressed to each other, right in this thread. Which is: Perceptions are neither fallible nor infallible, neither right nor wrong, they are simply what they are. But when we go beyond perception itself, to knowledge derived from perception (and/or from mental constructs or reasoning, and/or from cultural constructs or beliefs), then that resultant knowledge is always fallible, and never inerrant.


-----------------


Let me add here two more examples of my own, that I’d already presented upthread, but might bear repeating here.

Example (6) : I see you, Osho Robbins, froth at the mouth and hear you declare you hate your boss and will kill him. I see you remove your gun from your cabinet, and load it, and put it in your pocket. Later, I see you point your gun at your boss and pull the trigger, and I see your boss keel over and bleed to death right there. And I see you subsequently confess your crime. All of these are perceptions, and they are what they are, neither right nor right. And then I conclude that you’ve killed your boss, which last is knowledge bases on perception plus mental construct, and that knowledge is fallible. Most likely, and most times, this will be correct; but it could be that Adam Dalgliesh shows both you and me in the last chapter how some third person was lurking there, and shot your boss at the exact same moment, while you yourself never even intended to kill your boss but only to scare him and to vent your anger, and had shot wide, but later on were gaslighted into believing you’d killed him.

Example (7) : I see water up ahead in the desert, or in the distance on the tarred road on which I’m driving. That much is perception, and neither right nor wrong, it is simply what it is. But then I conclude that there is water up ahead. And that conclusion is a mental construct, and this knowledge is not inerrant, it is entirely fallible: it is possible that what I’ve seen is simply a mirage, and that there is no water there at all.


Pretty darn good prize!

I did nothing than that, . .
in all my comments, . . 500 of them

It is a combi of
Education,
No high IQ? stay under 200;
Real Serendipities, amap
LOVE for Subject "matter"


777

@S
Love would have all souls return home today.

It does!

777

If this was FB I would like it

Hi Appreciative!
Humor is good if we can all laugh at ourselves. Nothing derogatory in it. We are all part of the same creation, so the Oneness is very real. Osho is right. It is a matter of perspective. And Appreciative, the distinction between belief and knowledge doesn't exist, as you claim. It is all belief, opinion, here. No one can claim higher ground in words. Everyone thinks they speak the truth, but each for different reasons.

Now, Osho, as for Kabir, he was a proponant of Bakti, not intellectualism.

Every line in his poem is true. It isn't absurd at all from a different perspective.

The flame of the lamp of Spirit burns downwards, and we struggle to be imolated in it.

The mother born after her child is her own rebirth after the child of her own spirit has been awakened.

And the Master who lay prostrate befor His disciple sees God in everyone.

Love of the key. Love is the secret, Osho, not intellectualism. Love will take you to Oneness. In fact there isn't a particle or wave of Oneness that isn't love.

You cannot demonstrate Oneness with the carving knife of argument.

But you can give five stars to a great waffle iron!

"And Appreciative, the distinction between belief and knowledge doesn't exist, as you claim. It is all belief, opinion, here. "


.......I kind of agree, Spence.

That is, cultural constructs are purely beliefs. Whether right or not, beliefs are what they are. But thinking about this, in the course of this discussion, it did occur to me, and like I've said upthread, that when we say we "know" something, it's probably more precise to actually say we "believe we know" that something. With whatever level of accuracy, in terms of how close to reality our knowledge actually is.

To that extent, belief and knowledge are probably the same.

But as far as this discussion with Osho Robbins, that is a distinction without a difference. Because the whole point of knowledge, or belief, is that it is (a), at one remove from perception; and (b), it is fallible.

*That* is where the disagreement with Osho Robbins lies. With me, and I thought with you as well, basis what we'd discussed earlier. Osho Robbins imagines his Oneness is a direct perception, and that his knowledge of it is therefore infallible. I find that ...curious, for reasons already detailed.

@appreciative reader
We have a clash of definitions.
With unclear definitions there cannot be effective communication because the words I use and you use have different meanings.
I understand the argument that we don’t really know anything because our perceptions come from our senses. Our senses could be wrong.

But from that argument we cannot create any distinction between belief and knowledge. Then everything becomes a belief.
This is counterproductive for our purposes.
From this argument normal mystical experiences like inner light etc are all error prone - so the experiences Spence has with the inner guru are error prone.

Then all the followers of every path including RSSB are wasting their time because their experiences are all error prone

Hi Appreciative
You wrote
"when we say we "know" something, it's probably more precise to actually say we "believe we know" that something. With whatever level of accuracy, in terms of how close to reality our knowledge actually is."

I agree 1000%. ;)

Direct perception is another experience.

Think of it like this. When we have that experience we aren't ourselves anymore.

When we are ourselves, we can only speak from memory. And that gooey memory in the brain is just another recollection that must be reconstructed by the brain in order to discuss it.

Whatever we say, we are speaking off a photocopy at best while here.

Meditation offers a direct experience. But from a cognitive view, it's just seeing from a different part of the brain.

Still, it's another vantage point to view from, and there things look quite different. Even objects here are seen as mostly transparent!

Um replies to Osho Bot...
" Pizza, Shmeetzah!
If it doesn't make coffee it can't be more than, say, three stars!"

You asked

“What, in your view, is the actual mechanism by which knowledge of this Oneness reaches you?”

The question cannot be answered because of the word “knowledge”

By your definition there is no knowledge
There are only beliefs.

Knowledge doesn’t exist so how can I even answer?

The answer I previously gave was based on the normal meaning of “knowing” not on your version. By your version there is no knowledge so then you cannot ask the question without changing knowledge to belief.

Enlightenment is outside of your model.
Oneness is not a knowledge that gets communicated to me from beyond.

The contradiction arises because you are trying to fit something that is outside of your model into your model

I don’t “see” or “perceive” ONENESS
It is not a “thing”
It is not a noun.

It does not communicate to me

The way you view ONENESS is the reason for the contradiction

Perhaps calling it Non-Duality is more appropriate because it’s clearly not a noun.

Now the reason why I asked how you know you have eyes or ears without seeing them or feeling them.

The beard example was added to distinguish it from the eyes and ears.

You cannot know you have a beard. You can guess but now know.

However the eyes - You KNOW (in the normal use of the word) you have them
And the ears also
For the reason you correctly stated:
That you can see and hear.
You don’t need to see your eyes or feel them. The fact that you can see is the proof.
The reason for the question was to show that it’s possible to know you have eyes without seeing your eyes. Not so for the beard.
Oneness is similar. The way you realise non-duality is a similar leap.
The issue is that you are seeking a mind based answer
Logically so because the mind is all you know.

But the mind doesn’t get enlightened

Any answer I give and anything I say has to appear controversial and contradictory because by its very nature it cannot make sense.

It is not an experience.
Naturally the question arises, “what is it then?” And that too cannot be answered
Hence the Scriptures say
“What you see or experience is NOT it. What it IS, cannot be said”

Even trying to attain it is nonsensical because it’s not something to attain. It is a discovery not an attainment

Any dialogue with me necessarily has to be frustrating because I cannot give the answers that satisfy your mind.

You cannot find the answers you seek, because you have to enter into the same discovery before it makes sense. Even then, you will not get the answers. The questions will drop because you will see the futility in asking those questions.

When the thing is outside of time, how can a question within time make sense? How can you ask “how or when” and even if you got the answer - how will it help? No answer can help.

Let Oneness be what it is. For now I'm not contesting that.

And for now use whatever definition of "knowledge" that you like.

But how, in what manner, by what mechanism, does knowledge of that Oneness reach you?


To put that in your own idiom, how does Oneness communicate with the duality that is the organism called Osho Robbins, no matter how imperfectly? Because the organism called Osho Robbins does speak of Oneness. How, by what mechanism, did this knowledge, no matter how distorted, reach said organism at all?

The only way to resolve this contradiction is to claim that the human organism possesses some faculty, some mode of perception, that is outside and beyond our current scientific understanding. Is that what you're claiming?

The only way to resolve this contradiction is to claim that the human organism possesses some faculty, some mode of perception, that is outside and beyond our current scientific understanding. Is that what you're claiming?

Sorry, double post. I'm on my phone, which makes for awkward posting.

And Osho Robbins, please do address both those questions, asked in my two posts. Don't just answer one and ignore the other, like you sometimes do.

You too, Spence, if you'd like.

Hi Appreciative
There is who and what we are, body, brain, awareness, personality, and the entire creation... We are a drop in an ocean, connected to each other. And the more we measure this physical universe the more clearly evidence demonstrates we are all connected physically.

Our conscious awareness is separate from our subconscious parts.

Practice is about expanding our connscious awareness, largely through focus, and attentiveness.

Then whatever is we see more.

And that is Love. Or you could say there is the experience of being loved and being love and loving all things, and then seeing that all things are expressions of love, that just grows and grows as we think less and less and become still, and more aware and awake.

@appreciative reader
Not sure what the other question is
I answered from this:
“ Here, let me copy down that question here again:

What, in your view, is the actual mechanism by which knowledge of this Oneness reaches you?”

That’s the one I answered. If you want to copy the other one, I’ll have a stab at answering.

In your world view, nobody knows anything and in fact knowledge is not available since it’s all error prone.
So all scientific knowledge, all mystical knowledge, in fact everything is all delusion. With that works view, there is no point in attempting to find any answers because they will all be error prone

Spence says it’s all love but cannot define it - and even if he could - that love would be just as error prone

Whatever answer I give will also be error prone because if there was sone nee method of perception that would be just as error prone

You have convinced yourself there are no answers that are absolute.
So there is no way you can possibly accept my claim - as that is impossible in your world view

A. R. : "Perceptions are neither fallible nor infallible, neither right nor wrong, they are simply what they are. But when we go beyond perception itself, to knowledge derived from perception (and/or from mental constructs or reasoning, and/or from cultural constructs or beliefs), then that resultant knowledge is always fallible, and never inerrant."

Unfortunately, I believe too often perception tends to impart the notion of a static
sensory experience which requires a cognitive post analysis to comprehend. We
devalue or forget the assessment of a heightened awareness driven by and from
within consciousness itself. Tapping into all of the data of the subconscious and,
using its innate power, consciousness perceives and "knows" in an instant...
leaving plodding intellect behind.

Awareness will often manifest as a hunch or a flash of intuition. Dagleish senses
that poor chum suspected of murder isn't guilty. His faithful intellect then jumps in
and launches an investigation to "prove it". Behind the curtain, awareness sighs
"Elementary, my dear old friend... elementary."

So, heightened awareness ("direct perception" or DMP) within knows. But who
can explain it? It certainly won't happen back at the crime scene with intellect's
Keystone Cops squad running helter-skelter outside pursuing the usual suspects.
The K. Cops play an essential role though. It's part of the play's script. Without a
script, the audience jeers and demands its money back. Wearying, however, in
an attempt to really understand what's really going on, the spiritual detective will
eventually turn to the prime suspect: the power of consciousness within.

A belief is something you have accepted as true. It may be true, it may not. But you now see the world through this filter. You can never prove it to be true even subjectively, but you are convinced and to you it appears to be true.
Knowing, on the other hand is absolute. It is not based on opinion or teaching or what it says in a certain book.
The problem is with the word “absolute” because you don’t consider anything absolute as your perceptions can also be wrong. By that definition there cannot ever be any absolute knowing because you have disqualified everything from your definition. Even a DMP is disqualified because all perceptions can be wrong - there is no guarantee of truth.
After all, we see the sun going around the earth. Without understanding the layout of the solar system, our perceptions tell us it is a fact that the sun goes around the earth.
Spence puts Love above all else. However that is just as error prone because it’s not even a direct perception - it is many times removed from a direct perception. And experience tells us our so-called love is very unreliable as shown by the huge number of failed relationships where we once claimed undying love and now we cannot even stand their company.

Unless Spence has a new updated definition for love. After all he claims that love is the ultimate answer

A.R.
The only way to resolve this contradiction is to claim that the human organism possesses some faculty, some mode of perception, that is outside and beyond our current scientific understanding.

me:
Nobel price winner Prof. Luc Montagnier proved
The Memory of water in the laboratory
it s on Youtube
I found impressive cool:
dillution was One drop in the atlantic ocean and
yet far away water knew the information

Is H2O a sub-god?
Satsangis don't go there , . . maybe on special request allowed
to pause their ascend to have a look
but in general they are lifted up by love, . . up to the top ( a la Fibunacci)

777

“ Hi Appreciative
There is who and what we are, body, brain, awareness, personality, and the entire creation... We are a drop in an ocean, connected to each other. And the more we measure this physical universe the more clearly evidence demonstrates we are all connected physically.

Our conscious awareness is separate from our subconscious parts.

Practice is about expanding our connscious awareness, largely through focus, and attentiveness.

Then whatever is we see more.

And that is Love. Or you could say there is the experience of being loved and being love and loving all things, and then seeing that all things are expressions of love, that just grows and grows as we think less and less and become still, and more aware and awake.”

- Spence Tepper

Spence: how do you get to “we are a drop in the ocean And connected to each other”
Is that just something you read in a book? Or is it a random belief?

How is measuring the physical universe related to connectedness? Where is the link?

“Our conscious awareness is separate from our subconscious parts”
Do you think this is a fact? Or a belief?
What does “subconscious parts” even mean? And how is conscious awareness separate from them? In what way?

How do you “expand your conscious awareness through focus” ?
What exactly do you do?
Is that what you feel the RSSB meditation practice is?

And through this we see “more” ?
More what?
More perceptions that are error prone as you have previously stated?
And somehow this is your definition of love?
How does that even remotely relate to love?

And now you offer an alternative definition

“ Or you could say there is the experience of being loved and being love and loving all things, and then seeing that all things are expressions of love, that just grows and grows as we think less and less and become still, and more aware and awake.”

How do you see that “all things are expressions of love”
That is a sweeping statement. So large fish eating smaller fish is an expression of love? The slaughter house is an expression of love? You said “all things”
Perhaps you want to qualify that into “ few things”

And how does that love grow and grow as we think less and less?

If you become still, somehow you are now an expression of love?

I just don’t see how any of this makes any sense at all and certainly not to someone who says that all perceptions and mental constructs are error prone

For someone who says we can’t know anything and it’s all beliefs - it’s interesting that you write this as if it is all fact.
It would be far more accurate to prefix every statement with “I believe….,”


Hello again, Osho Robbins.

I'll try to keep this focused, so as not to get mired into too many things. And in this post of mine I'll clarify a few things about what you'd said to me in in your own recent posts, and repeat my two questions to you, that you've still not answered, in the next.


.


First : What I said about knowledge etc isn't "my worldview", in the sense that this isn't some idiosyncratic idea I've come up with. It is the everyday worldview, and it is the scientific world view.

True, if you take the last two or three posts of mine addressed to you as stand-alone, then that does give the impression that I'm conflating knowledge and belief. But you've read all of my posts, written over our somewhat lengthy exchange, and that isn't where I'm coming from at all. What I was trying to convey, by saying that it might be more precise to substitute "I believe I know" every time we want to say "I know", is the fact that what we know is clearly essentially fallible. Which is not, at all, to say, that knowledge and belief are the same things.

I've expressed this in brief here. I hope my meaning is clear? In case it isn't, then please ask, and I'll be happy to clarify at greater length.


.


Secondly : You've misinterpreted what I've said about the fallibility of knowledge in a very surprising manner. To say that all knowledge is fallible is NOT to say that all knowledge is delusion. To say that none of what we know is inerrant is NOT to say that knowledge is simply not possible. That's a very very surprising way to parse what I'd said.

Fallibility does not translate as "incapable of being correctly apprehended". Not being inerrant is not the same as necessarily being wrong. Absolutely not.

You'd presented those examples to me earlier on. And you'd asked me, again, subsequently, to go back and address each of them. Which I did. Did you actually read my responses to your examples, all of them not just the last about eyes and ears? I'd explained my meaning very clearly there.

And nor is this my own idiosyncratic understanding of the nature of knowledge. That is exactly how science deals with the world around us.

In each of those examples, the perception part is indeed inerrant. That is to say, it is neither inerrant nor fallible, it is what it is. However, the knowledge that we derive from our perception --- as well as from our mental constructs and our cultural constructs --- is necessarily fallible, is necessarily never inerrant. (Which is exactly the opposite of what you were trying to show.)

And to say that is not to say that all knowledge is delusion. Absolutely not. I mean, like, that is the whole point of the scientific method! I didn't think I'd need to spell this out like this, but clearly I'll have to.

Because our intuition is fallible, because our first impression (and for that matter our second and third and fourth impressions) are fallible, that is why we need the scientific method. Okay, let me just explain this with Newton's (apocryphal) apple, that you'd yourself brought up. We might just as well substitute any of your other examples as well here, that I'd discussed earlier.

Newton comes up with an intuition, and idea, a conclusion, about gravity. Now that knowledge is not infallible, it is not inerrant. But that is not to say it is necessarily delusional. It might be bang-on correct, or it might be correct in essence but flawed in some aspects (that is, partly right and partly wrong), or else it might be out and out wrong.

So what does Newton do? (And, indeed, what do every one of us need to do with all of our knowledge, at least in principle?) Newton first of all clearly formulates his intuition, his conclusion, in full detail. Refines it as small flaws here and there come to mind. In his case puts in the detailed math. Checks for internal inconsistencies, as well as inconsistencies with knowledge then extant. And finally comes up with a formulation that passes muster. And this is his hypothesis.

Had he not been able to come up with even this much, he'd have rightly flung his idea out as mistaken, absolutely. But even after having been able to properly formulate his initial idea/intuition, it is still no more than a hypothesis.

The next stage is to actually test the hypothesis. The evidence thing. Without clearing that last hurdle his perfect formulation is no more than a pretty and internally consistent fairy tale. Interesting, with potential, but not quite ...accepted. It is when the evidence test is passed, that he takes his idea as "true". (But mind, even that he does only provisionally.)


And all of the above --- which I'd already discussed upthread, and which in any case is simply what is the scientific method --- is what it means when I say that knowledge is fallible, that knowledge is never inerrant.

It absolutely does NOT mean that all knowledge is delustional.


.


And thirdly : This is exactly why I'd requested you to answer my two questions without changing the subject. All of this has nothing really to do with my questions, or how you might answer them.

Like I'd said, in order to answer those very clearly presented questions of mine, let's forget all of our disagreements about the nature of Oneness. Let us also forget even the foregoing, about where I insist that all knowledge is fallible (and you claim, erroneously, that some [everyday] knowledge is inerrant).

Regardless of the above, I'm one more time going to ask you those two questions. And in order to set them out clearly, I'm going to compose another, separate post to ask them in.

Those two questions, repeated one more time, coming up in the next post.


I know that strictly speaking Brian doesn't wish for there to be quote-bombing on this blog, but I thought that seeing as I am, in fact, quoting myself, and that the following quotes may be relevant to some aspects of the above conversation, especially in context of the misleading association between myself, Kabir, and the pandits of modern Radhasoami or "Sant Mat" doctrines, that on this occasion Brian may perhaps allow it....

“Pandit, you've got it wrong.
There's no creator or creation there,
no gross or fine, no wind or fire,
no sun, moon, earth or water,
no radiant form, no time there,
no word, no flesh, no faith,
no cause and effect, nor any thought
of the Veda. No Hari or Brahma,
no Shiva or Shakti, no pilgrimage
and no rituals. No mother, father
or guru there. Is it two or one?
Kabir says, if you understand now,
you're guru, I'm disciple.”
― Kabir, The Bijak of Kabir

"I have obtained the 10th gate as a distilling fire and the channels
of the Ida and Pingala are the funnels to suck in and spit out, and
mind as a golden vat.
In that vat, the extremely pure stream of Name Nectar trickles.
Like this I have distilled the essence of essences.
An incomparable thing has happened, my breath I have made the wine-
cup."
Kabir, page 92 SGGS

"O brute of brawling and uncultured intellect, reversing thy breath
from the world, turn it thou towards thy God.
Intoxicate thou thy mind with the ambrosial stream that trickles
from the furnace of the 10th gate"
Kabir, page 1123 SGGS

"The snake-like coil is now pierced through & through and I have
dauntlessly met my Lord, the King...
.....Merged in the Full-pervading Lord when I locked the breath
within, then the celestial strain
spontaneously began to resound."
Kabir, page 972 SGGS

If I say, "He is One," it is a lie; if I say, "He is two," I am guilty of slander. Kabir knows Him as He is, but cannot express Him. The devotee who can stay in that place where the Invisible and the manifest are one, Like a lamp in the doorway, illumines both what is within and what is without. As a piece of cloth is not different from the threads which comprise it, So Brahman is not different from the world, and the world is not different from Brahman. 0 Kabir, there is no difference between the world, the Creator, and Brahman; Brahman is in all and all is in Brahman. The fire is one, whether it bums in a lamp or a torch; so Brahman is all, and in Him exist all souls, God, and the world. Unity is the essence of the teachings of all the saints; Laugh at Kabir if you do not become perfect by living in accord with this truth!
Bijak, Shastri, 1941; pp. 42-43

There, what form or shape is there to describe? What second, what "other," is there to see?
In the beginning, there is no Aum, or Veda. Who can trace His birth?
There, no sky exists, no moon or Sun; no father's seed, no air, fire, water, or earth.
Who can name Him, or know His will? Who can say from whence He comes?
Remembering the Void, the simple One, a light burst forth [within me]; I offer myself to that Existence who is non-existence.
Bijak, Ramaini 6

Does [the Muslim's God] Khuda, live only in the mosque?
Is [the Hindu's God] Ram, only in idols and holy grounds?
Have you searched and found Him there?
You imagine that Hari [Vishnu] is in the East, and Allah is in the West;
But search for Him only in the heart-that is where Ram and Karim both live.
Which, then, is false, the Quran or the Vedas? False is the man who does not see the Truth.
It is One; It is the same One in all. How can you imagine that It is two?
Says Kabir: 0 Lord, every man and every woman are Your own forms;
I am the simple child of Allah-Ram; He is my Guru, my Pir
Brother, where did your two gods come from? Ram, Allah; Keshav, Karim; Hari, Hazrat-so many names!
There may be many golden ornaments, but there is one gold; it has no two-ness in it.
Merely for the sake of exposition, we make of the One, two.
Bijak, Sabda 97&30

O servant, where dost thou seek Me?
Lo! I am beside thee.
I am neither in temple nor in mosque: I am neither in Kaaba nor
in Kailash:
Neither am I in rites and ceremonies, nor in Yoga and
renunciation.
If thou art a true seeker, thou shalt at once see Me: thou shalt
meet Me in a moment of time.
Kabır says, “O Sadhu! God is the breath of all breath.”
Songs of Kabir, Rabindranath Tagore

From this last verse, I would like to emphasise "If thou art a true seeker, thou shalt at once see Me: thou shalt meet Me in a moment of time."

Kabir Sahib

https://youtu.be/dBIK-VFvDhA

This is papaji. Notice what the people say about what happened.
“ I disappeared” etc

Logically it makes no sense. That is why Spence mocks the idea. Nothing wrong in mocking it. He is only being true to what he feels. It appears to be nonsense. Anyone who makes nonsensical statements we naturally question.
I just questioned what he wrote because it appears nonsensical. Perhaps I am mistaken in which case I will understand his viewpoint.
Appreciative Reader is doing the same.
He is not mocking me, but he has questions because what I am saying is impossible in his world view.
Absolute knowing doesn’t exist in his world. So naturally he will doubt. He has no other choice. My position seems untenable.
Everyone goes through the same or a similar process. Enlightenment seems impossible because we are led to believe it is hard or distant, that it takes a long time. All of those are beliefs and they are incorrect.
Enlightenment is when you see beyond the dual nature of this world and it becomes obvious that the duality is an illusion and the non-duality is the real thing. You drop the connection to the duality personality as you realise it is not the real you. You connect instead with the unchanging and eternal Self which doesn’t have and boundary.
It can be called ONENESS only because there is nothing else.
But this ONENESS does not communicate with me or anyone.
Labelling it ONENESS is the seed of misunderstanding. It cannot be labelled.
The moment you try to categorise or label or understand it, you create the illusion that it is a thing. The only method is to drop the instrument you are using - the mind.
Of course scientifically this is absurd. How can the mind be dropped? It appears nonsensical. Hence the doubt and the questions.
No question can be answered satisfactorily because the only answer is to let it happen. Then the questions stop because you now know and the knowing is beyond the mind, beyond logic.


My first question was (and pardon the all-caps, I'm employing them to to clearly set the questions out in bold, because for some reason the html squiggles for bold font and italics and so forth don't seem to work here any more --- in answering, you can just quote the two all-in-capital-letters questions, and then follow on with your answers, the rest is just my further clarifications around the two questions):


QUESTION 1 : WHAT, IN YOUR VIEW, IS THE ACTUAL MECHANISM HOW KNOWLEDGE OF THE ONENESS IS CONVEYED TO YOU ?

IN OTHER WORDS : HOW DOES ONENESS REVEAL ITSELF TO THE DUALITY THAT IS THE ORGANISM CALLED OSHO ROBBINS?


Because it is a fact that no matter how imperfectly, no matter how distortedly, no matter how incompletely, the duality that is the organism called Osho Robbins does seem to have come to know about this Oneness, and no matter how vaguely, but he does seem to speak about it.


(Not to single you out or to embarrass you by personalizing this. Substitute "Osho Robbins" with whoever you feel more comfortable with discussing in this context, like your UG Krishnamoorty, or your Nanak, or your Paltu, or Ashtavakra, or your mentor Mikaire.)


I've already discussed the exact context of the question. You say your Oneness is outside of time and space, and does not interact with our Universe. That necessarily implies that no information about the Oneness can possibly be conveyed into our Universe. Given that, how do you account for this necessarily-beyond-reach Oneness having somehow revealed itself to you? Specifically, what, in your view, would be the actual mechanism how this knowledge has been conveyed to you, in your own case?

(And it is to get at this that we went through all of that different-modes-of-arriving-at-knowledge rigmarole.)


.


QUESTION 2 : THE ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THE ABOVE CONTRADICTION, THAT I CAN THINK OF, IS TO CLAIM THAT THE HUMAN ORGANISM POSSESSES SOME FACULTY, SOME MODE OF PERCEPTION, SOME MODE OF ARRIVING AT KNOWLEDGE, THAT IS OUTSIDE AND BEYOND OUR CURRENT SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING. IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING?


This second question is only to help you on with the first question. Just say "No" to this second, if you don't think that. (But you'll still need to actually answer the first question!)

It occurred to me that one way out of the contradiction of information of an outside-of-time-and-space Oneness being made available to organisms that are very-much-within-time-and-space, by maybe introducing some ...I don't know, some faculty, that our current scientific worldview isn't yet aware of. I'm not suggesting, myself, that that is the case. I'm merely advancing that speculation in order to help you along. Just say "No", to the second question, if you don't think that's the case. (And, mind, if you say "Yes" to the second question, then that immediately raises up a whole host of other questions. And it is on you that the onus of answering those subsequent questions will fall again, if you do claim an affirmative in answer to that question, so fair warning.)



Osho Robbins, I'd intended to post these two separate posts one after the other here. In between you've quoted some scripture and stuff, further to your discussion with Spence.

So as to keep my two posts, addressed to you, together in one place, I'll copy below the links of the two here (so that that mass of scripture that now sits between my first post and my second, don't somehow result in your seeing, or at least answering to, just the first post, or just the second):


Link to my first post today, with clarifications of what you've said to me in your own recent posts addressed to me: https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2021/05/open-thread-38-free-speech-for-comments.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e20282e1084fe9200b#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e20282e1084fe9200b


Link to my second post, the one with the two questions:
https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2021/05/open-thread-38-free-speech-for-comments.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e20282e10850dc200b#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e20282e10850dc200b



Hello, Dungeness.

I take your point about intuitions, and about the subconscious. And I do agree, I think.

Agreed, our conscious rational processes aren't the only means for us to ...well, to process our perceptions. We do have another means of doing that, and that would be intuition. And intuition probably has to do with our subconscious mind processing stuff for us.

Where maybe I differ with you ---- as far i understand your POV from your post, and correct me if I'm misinterpreting you here ---- is where you seem to imply that the knowledge that we derive from our intuition, the knowledge that we derive as the fruits of our subconscious doing its thing, is necessarily inerrant. Where you seem to imply that the only role of rational cogitations , when dealing with intuition --- and again, correct me if I'm misinterpreting you ---- is to explain this intuition to the rational mind, to make it acceptable to the rational mind, and to make the intuition of one person acceptable, at a rational level, to other people.

I myself would say that knowledge arrived at through intuition, knowledge arrived at through subterranean processing by our subconscious --- while a very valuable resource, absolutely! ---- is entirely as fallible as knowledge derived by the conscious mind. The role of conscious, rational processing is not only to just explain and make acceptable to the conscious rational mind the results of intuition, but also --- and, very importantly ---- to actually evaluate that intuition. Because that intuition may either be wholly correct, or partly so, or entirely mistaken. And we do need to clearly suss out which it is, on a case to case basis.

Adam Dalgliesh may get this brilliant intuition about this case he's working on, but that intuition isn't inerrant. He needs to clearly formulate it (and in the process test it for internal inconsistencies), and further to put the formulation of his intuition to the test of evidence, in order to decide whether to take his intuition as true.

.

And I agree, meditation might probably represent a way to further expand the reach of the conscious, and/or to explore and make available to us more of the subconscious mind than would otherwise be accessible to us, but I don't think there is any reason to think that the end result, that is to say the content of the intuitions that are the result, are any more inerrant, are any more infallible, than any other kind of knowledge we have access to.

.

And as for (the hypothetical) DMP? Would this above --- that is, intuition on (meditational) steroids ---- be what DMP amounts to (should DMP be a thing)? Could be, sure.

But, and maybe in additional to the above, DMP might also represent some entirely different mode of direct perception. That after all is what many spiritual/religious traditions actually suggest.

(In any case, this whole DMP thing is at this point hypothetical. Possible, sure. But we don't actually know that they're actually a thing, far less what kind of thing they are.)


https://youtu.be/dBIK-VFvDhA

This is papaji. Notice what the people say about what happened.
“ I disappeared” etc

Logically it makes no sense. That is why Spence mocks the idea. Nothing wrong in mocking it. He is only being true to what he feels. It appears to be nonsense. Anyone who makes nonsensical statements we naturally question.
I just questioned what he wrote because it appears nonsensical. Perhaps I am mistaken in which case I will understand his viewpoint.
Appreciative Reader is doing the same.
He is not mocking me, but he has questions because what I am saying is impossible in his world view.
Absolute knowing doesn’t exist in his world. So naturally he will doubt. He has no other choice. My position seems untenable.

@appreciative reader
I have already answered the question.
It was when you said “answer the second one too”

The answer to the second one is also there. In my answer I did not claim any special mechanism of receiving information

For clarity: this was the answer:

“ Enlightenment is outside of your model.
Oneness is not a knowledge that gets communicated to me from beyond.

The contradiction arises because you are trying to fit something that is outside of your model into your model

I don’t “see” or “perceive” ONENESS
It is not a “thing”
It is not a noun.

It does not communicate to me

The way you view ONENESS is the reason for the contradiction

Perhaps calling it Non-Duality is more appropriate because it’s clearly not a noun.”

You are viewing oneness as if it was a thing. In your view it is not real because everything outside time and space is mot real. So the question cannot arise because something unreal (oneness) cannot communicate with the real (me).

You are treating this like Isaac Newton discovered gravity. Intuition ; answering possible objections and then formulation of the theory.

This is not some new scientific discovery. This is like when the disciple solves the zen koan: what is the sound of one hand clapping.

In a single moment of clarity, all becomes clear. It is not knowledge in the traditional sense. The oneness did not communicate to the disciple.
It was a paradigm shift.
Suddenly the impossible becomes possible and makes sense.
But to all others it is still a mystery.

And any words the realiser uses will make no sense to the others.


Osho Robbins, you're simply playing with words now. Whether you're doing it intentionally, or whether you're doing it unknowingly, that I do not know.

It's quite simple. I'm asking you, how exactly do you know about Oneness? What is the mechanism?

Forget my model. Just forget all of that, and just tell me, if you would, clearly and to the point, without waffling on about twenty three about extraneous distractions:

WHAT IS THE ACTUAL MECHANISM BY WHICH KNOWLEDGE OF ONENESS, THAT IS OUTSIDE OF TIME AND PLACE, COMES TO YOU?


(And "I don't know" is a valid answer, if that happens to be the case.)



"In a single moment of clarity, all becomes clear. It is not knowledge in the traditional sense. The oneness did not communicate to the disciple.
It was a paradigm shift.
Suddenly the impossible becomes possible and makes sense.
But to all others it is still a mystery.

And any words the realiser uses will make no sense to the others."


----------


In a single moment, all became clear to you. Sure, I get that, Osho Robbins.

It was a paradigm shift for you. Sure, I get that too.

But somehow, information about Oneness communicated itself to you. How, by what mechanism, did that happen?

It is a simple question, that can be answered even without recourse to those models, and even without worrying about whether knowledge is inerrant or not.

(And, like I said, "I do not know" is a perfectly cromulent answer, should that happen to be the case.)


Hi Osho
As Papaji says, find the seer. You don't have to look to the Master, but most certainly, find the seer. You are looking, we are all looking, but who is looking? Who is the seer? Who is the man in the mirror, really? At another place he was asked why are we here? And he answered "to find out who we are."

Papaji is a very kindly, peaceful teacher. Quite beautiful, gentle.

If you need some help, there is the Master. There is Baba Ji, or Maharaj, Papaji, Kabir, Brian Ji. And if you do not need help, then good for you.

Many paths to the same light. If you have discovered there is no path, then you have reached your destination on your path.

And others on their path, Good for them to keep going.

One size doesn't fit all. But finding a good fit doesn't invalidate the other sizes. They are for others. And with whatever shoes fit, they can walk. The shoe store has its place in its entirety even though only one style and one size works for you. That doesn't invalidate the rest of the store. And shoes aren't the destination. But they are necessary to walk the walk, and not just talk the talk.

At some point to give up, to submit to reality is part of every path. And seeing that reality that you are submitting to, whether the Light, the Sound, your Master, the Holy Spirit, the sky, the mountains, the lake and river, the trees, even the people around trying to figure it out without hope, or the void itself, all of that makes it much easier. So submit to what you can. Give up what you can. And if you can't find that reality, then there are teachers to help point the way.

Everyone knows that the point of the vessel is the empty space within it. The entire center of the wheel is the hollow hub at the center. The reason for the theater stage is not the stage but the space above it where the performance happens. And even every performance is trying to express something beyond movement and sound. Every painting is trying to express more than the subject of the painting.

Not this, not this...
But this and that. And all of it.

Hello A.R. : "In any case, this whole DMP thing is at this point hypothetical. Possible, sure. But we don't actually know that they're actually a thing, far less what kind of thing they are."

I'm afraid religious-mystical bias permeated my response and I scarcely noticed.
As you argue, we best validate our intuitive hunches. Otherwise, dear Dagleish
might effectively have been abetting a murderer's escape and found himself
demoted back to constable as well. We find ourselves sliding down the slippery
slope of conspiracy theories easily enough as it is.

In spite of intellect's drumbeat of warnings, I firmly believe our intuition is perfect
and arises from that perfection within us some mystics have called the "totality of
consciousness" or god. Words fail beyond that. The intuitive voice is perfect but
our hearing is flawed, muffled and indistinct behind our mental filters. We "hear"
things of our own making.

Therefore, the way out is ultimately in until we hone a mindfulness that sharpens
our hearing to perfection. Then Dagleish could gather clues merely pro forma to
exonerate the the accused and know he was innocent from the onset. As a bonus,
he could enjoy the "show" playing out before him. All due to the clarity of improved
hearing.

Now at the age I am, I follow my intuition which guides me and makes me more aware of the intimacy of life. Love this song...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwV2YSR1OBE

Coldplay - Higher Power

"You've got a higher power..."

Performance of Higher Power from Glastonbury Festival's Live At Worthy Farm livestream, 22 May 2021.

Hi Osho
You wrote
"Unless Spence has a new updated definition for love. After all he claims that love is the ultimate answer"

If you love someone more than yourself, that is the start. But for some, that is an impossible barrier.

"When I was mad with pride, the Beloved did not speak to me;
But when I put on the robe of humility, the Master opened my inner eye,
Dyeing every pore of my body in the color of love.
Drinking the elixir from the cup of my emptied heart, I slept on His bed in divine ecstasy.
The devotee meets Hari as gold meets a gold-solvent-, the pure heart melts into its Lord."
Kabir
Bijak, Shastri, 1941;p.37

Merge into another, worship another more than yourself.

But who can explain how love works? We are the servants, not the Master, but many haven't figured that out yet.


None shall sleep, (nessun dorma)
None shall sleep!
Even you, oh Princess,
In your cold room,
Watch the stars,
That tremble with love
And with hope.
But my secret is hidden within me,
My name no one shall know,
No... no...
On your mouth, I will tell it,
When the light shines.
And my kiss will dissolve the silence that makes you mine!
(No one will know his name and we must, alas, die.)
Vanish, o night!
Set, stars! Set, stars!
At dawn, I will win!
I will win!
I will win!
-Nessun Dorma, Turandot, by Pucini

https://youtu.be/cWc7vYjgnTs


love is the every only god

who spoke this earth so glad and big
even a thing all small and sad
man,may his mighty briefness dig

for love beginning means return
seas who could sing so deep and strong

one querying wave will whitely yearn
from each last shore and home come young

so truly perfectly the skies
by merciful love whispered were,
completes its brightness with your eyes

any illimitable star

-E. E. Cummings

“ If you love someone more than yourself, that is the start. But for some, that is an impossible barrier.” - Spence

Depends of how you define and what you mean by “Love”

Would you take a bullet for the person you love. A mother may do it for a child.

One example I know is the devotee who literally took a bullet for Darshan Das, who was shot by two Sikh lads while conducting satsang. The devotee (the paathi) had literally a few seconds to decide. He saw the men with the guns and just moved himself in front of the guru and took the first bullet. The second one killed the guru.

@A.R. asked
WHAT IS THE ACTUAL MECHANISM BY WHICH KNOWLEDGE OF ONENESS, THAT IS OUTSIDE OF TIME AND PLACE, COMES TO YOU?
1)
Find a human who's already there
2)
Ask Her for the tangible Sound
3)
Love that Sound
4)
Love this trio : Guru, Simran & Sound
5)
Those three are ONE, . . . . DIVE in it, drink it eat it,
5b)
Be IT

Sawan Ji said it nicely about Augustinus
'And I entered into my inner Self, THOU being my Guide"

NO ENTITY CAN GO THERE ON IT'S OWN
The Ego would shout : I did it
and fall

777

Yes
I think that the Memory of Water has a lot to do with it
It can recognise, transport the Orgasmes to the "edges" of the universes


There are a few places where the seeker of love and truth come to believe there is no path to their destination. That whatever they are and wherever they are is the totality of all and their destination. But in truth they are at the starting position and static. Having no apparent wealth, except the platform they didn't create but which they stand upon in darkness, they feel there is no such thing as wealth. They mistake their own darkness for the great void, which is only reached by incredible inner movement, in which all creations are dwarfed, and passing through that, the light that dwarfs that void, the light that is love and consciousness.

Everyone thinks there is no path when they don't see their next step. At the beginning, where they see the world around them and all its harshness but no pathway through it.

At first within, where they see only darkness and their mind's distractions, their thoughts and memories that drag them down and away.

And after a little progress, after some shakey progress, like the spider, they fall back to the bottom.

When they have no teacher, when they have lost their connection and the curtain drops, and they forget what they once saw and knew. And on this path, the memories of those places is not kept in this brain. Like accessing the cloud, those memories are accessed by keeping the connection open and clean.

When they have arrived at some plane, some stage, and standing upon that precipice, see the worlds beneath them, and all around is nothing, they think their journey is complete. When all that is left on that precipice is themself, even a cleaner version of themself. And there is no path before them. And because the curtain fell, they see no one there with them. They don't see who brought them there.

And so the curtain falls over them again, because their vision was given only for the purpose of progress.

But their next step begins when they acknowledge they know nothing. They did nothing. And then the possibility occurs that they were always at the mercy of someone else's grace. So they learn to beg once more.

Then the fog lifts a little, the next step appears, and in a moment where tears flow uncontrollably they remember. And there is reunion and union.

In that instant both love and light illuminate their path forward.

So long as we are alive in these bags of flesh, forward movement is our only purpose and duty.

"When I was, He was not. When I am not, He Is!"


Well Spence what you wrote in the first alinea, sums it all up more or less besides ......>>They mistake their own darkness for the great void, << .... but who knows will I arrive to interpret my state that way in the future.

As I wrote several times ... I woke up during the presentation of an movie and never was able or willing to find my way back in the absorption of the movie. There was a part in that movie that was certainly a pleasure and stays with me as such if I want to remember it.

These days, i have divide the world in two, those who have experiences and those who have heard about them and is divided in many subgroups as can be seen in this blog.

I also came to understand the meaning of language and concepts in the use by those two groups.

And finaly ... the truth of the saying ... the pull must come from within and if it is not there it is just not there and nobody can do anything to change that.

Those born in adverse circumstance without their knowledge and consent, an tthose born in optinal circumstances, all have to accept whatever is placed before them and deal with it. ...or ... the crow is born a crow, will live his life as such and will end so

The mystic has to deal with his experiences, as has the believer with his faith, the lover with his love and those who lack these attributes do the same.

As is written in Genesis ...and he saw that it was good. Not that it is up to be to say a word about that he but it is a nice way to express what nature is all about ... it is just there and we are there too, as we are.

So for me there is not such a thing as the great void ... but there is a natural state of being human.

Culture makes one believe things to be other than they really are

Hi Um
You wrote
"As is written in Genesis ...and he saw that it was good. Not that it is up to be to say a word about that he but it is a nice way to express what nature is all about ... it is just there and we are there too, as we are."

What it is and what we are change radically upon inspection. Under the scrutiny of scientific inspection the results have been unbelievably, fantastically different than what a casual observer reports. But that starts with our attitude as investigators, quite, observant. Lifelong investigators, passionate for every new observation, keeping all things in our personal lab as stable and clean as possible. Every observation is a step forward.

Everyone has an inner experience. Very few attend to it. As with all observation, it requires putting aside distractions. And finding a mythod and assistance as needed. Love is a big part of keeping us going. Someone else's love pulls us forward when we are dry and exhausted.

At some point we realize we aren't alone. We are being guided. It's a magnificent moment. The particles and waves are interacting! Nothing is isolated except by senses and mind so we can function here. But when we seek to go beyond that, this little photograph we are living on is soon understood to be a single inteferometer image we feed our brain to make decisions when reality is so much larger.

Hi Osho
You wrote
"It would be far more accurate to prefix every statement with “I believe….,”"

Yes, yes. And in my case "I experienced... I experienced..." which is both experience and translation through this tiny and limited brain, which then deposits "I believe....", or more accurately, "I recall..what I believe is...."

Still you might be more interested in "What the hell happened to this guy that he thinks that? And still seems to have a scientific perspective??"

;)

@ Spence

As I wrote ... all have to eat the food that is placed on the table before them and digest it.

The food that is place before YOU is different than mine.

Those who have an talent and are aware of it, both not in their hands, and have the surroundings to develop it, are able to to so.

Just to use the use the theory ... an animal, is not an human being and its soul has to wait until it is given an human birth. Given a human birth it can so happen that it never has any idea about the divine, so it has to be reborn again etc etc etc.

You could in this life not escape your inner experiences and having them you are forced to deal with them and reap the consequences therof ... an ..so we all have to do the same ... play the role we are given. / not that there is a giver but language wants it that way

@ Spence

If somebody shares an experience with me that makes him or her happy, i love to hear their stories, take part in the atmosphere that is created when they related it but it never does arise of an desire, to go or do what they did.

That is how I read what you write and what others want to share here...they are descriptions and no invitations.

Their stories are all "selfies", describing what it is for them, exposing who they are.

Hi Um
You wrote
"If somebody shares an experience with me that makes him or her happy, i love to hear their stories, take part in the atmosphere that is created when they related it but it never does arise of an desire, to go or do what they did."

Yes, you can enjoy them vicariously, or perhaps be reminded of the value of your own, which is priceless. Personally I would never want to live as the characters on detective action TV shows. I I'd be dead in a minute. But it's fun to watch.

If it is our nature to be anxious, to struggle and to find sanctuary and the Lord's companionship, to forget, fall, be bruised and then remember and struggle again, that's how we are going to be. Seems to be my lot anyway.

@ Spence

Yes it is yours.

Huzur used to say sometimes, when people would bring things before him that no Indian would ever dear to discuss in public ... If you would not have put it before me I would never have known about it.

Well Spence, it took me many, many years and much emotional and intellectual pain to finally understand and accept that almost everything I know, understand and strived for were all things I would never have done or thought about.

Left alone I would never have had any interest in the divine in terms of questions who made this all, what was there before death and is there an afterlife

After I woke up in the cinema of life little by little these coverings started to fall from me realising that I had put on [cultural and social] clothes that were not my own, not of my own choice and that they didn't fit me.


Hi, 777.

That was a sweet comment. The content of it, but more so the thought behind it.

Agreed, what you discuss is, in essence if not in complete detail, the process that many traditions recommend. And agreed further, that to some extent that is exactly the kind of process that might (and often does) work, for mundane worldly pursuits, and therefore, why not, for the other, other-worldly kind as well (should that kind actually be a thing, that is).


.


But, as far as my discussion with Osho Robbins, that isn’t what I was asking him at all. My question to him, at that stage of our discussion, was a very focused inquiry about the mechanism of his Realization. The actual mechanism basis which cognizance of Oneness, hitherto absent, was at that point manifested to him. Not the broader process leading on to it, which part, with him at least, we’d discussed to death long since.



Hello again, Osho Robbins.

I’d deliberately held off responding to your response thus far — “response”, I say, because silence is sometimes amply eloquent response! — to my focused questions, repeated for the third time. Because it is better to err on the side of being overly fair and overly accommodating, rather than risk the opposite.

777, whom I’ve addressed just now, had misunderstood the nature of my query. You yourself couldn’t possibly have done that : there isn’t a shadow of a chance of that, not after that protracted exchange of ours. My question to you was not, like 777 assumed, about the overall process, that is to say the specific circumstances and events, that led to your Realization. That part we’ve discussed in full detail already.

My question, like I was saying to 777 just now, was a very focused inquiry about the mechanism of your Realization. The actual mechanism basis which cognizance of Oneness, hitherto absent, was manifested to you at the point of your Realization.

That focused question, and its focused answer (and, like I’d said, admitting you don’t know would have been an acceptable answer too), like I’d clearly pointed out repeatedly to you, did not and does not depend on, nor is its elucidation in any essential way a function of any disagreement we might have over, such abstractions as models of how knowledge is arrived at, or one’s particular worldview, and so forth.


.


Like I said, silence sometimes can be amply eloquent response. Your inability to answer that straightforward and easily answerable question (even while you find the time to go holding forth at length on voluminous scripture quotes and other irrelevancies) speaks volumes ; and your unwillingness, indeed your inability, to clearly face up to what that implies speaks actual libraries.


.


Like I’d said at one stage upthread, this was a very disappointing thread for me, at more levels than one. (You went ahead, thereafter, and continued with the process ; and I was happy to follow on, once more, with an open mind ; but the end result is no different than I’d concluded at that point, that much is amply clear now.)

Nevertheless, I don’t regret the time and effort expended. On the contrary. It was a learning experience, at more levels than one.

Thank you, very much, for taking the time to do this with me.

Cheers, and God bless, Osho Robbins.


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.