« 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.

I remembered many dreams but MORE:
I dreamed many dreams knowing I was dreaming

Gurinder recently said that karma can be dealed with in dreams

and yes GOOD Karma TOOO

Dreaming is the same trick of conciousness as life
there is also hypnose to discuss if you want so
DON 'T

Do just stop thinking 2/5 seconds via the contemplation processus called meditation
Easy to do by LOVE
Come'on guys : It's your deepest Self you must Love, . . cannot be to difficult

That will be clarifying

777


You can also contemplate on any other human than yourself , you see God in,
like in yourself
to love and stop the thinking, . . even many seconds, . . minutes

combined with the 5 words_energy it's a win_win_winner and so much fun

Nest you will fall in this state seeing any_thing were God' is IN
which is everything

I said it before :
This Path is crazy_like_fun_pleasure_God_Given Pleasure
Don't be so serious, . . . seek the Sweety

777

“ ..............Actually I do have a fairly clear idea of who and what I am. Our entire body, our brain, our nervous system, the bacteria that dwell within our body, all of these is what we are. Our consciousness, as well as our sentience, is an emergent property of all of this. That seems a pretty clear answer to that question.”
- Appreciative Reader

So you are your consciousness and sentience?
But what are they? Do they continue after your physical death?

Coming to the point about no time:
Time IS related to movement.

Speed = distance covered / time taken
All movement can only happen in time.
And if there is no time then movement cannot happen.
Time and space are both needed

@Osho

You are the Sound Current that energizing all that

BE IT

777


For some reason I get the feeling that the world is going to be drastically different a year from now…

“ Please explain how "karmas and the numerous births or lives that the consciousness or soul takes" fit into all of this.”. -Solomon

Karmas only exist as part of the illusion of the false I.
The false identity carries the karmas. Once you realise that your identity is false, all karmas disappear because there is nobody left to link them to.

As long as you don’t realise the truth - the karmas continue.

It’s like dream. The moment you realise it’s a dream you awaken and the dream ends.
Or you continue the dream knowing it is a dream (lucid dreaming)

Quote of the Day
"We meditate because we want to go back to the Father and escape from birth and death. That is the purpose of meditation. "


— Maharaj Charan Singh Ji —


Dear Osho Robbins,

My response to the two questions/points in your recent comment, first. After that, some observations that I find myself constrained to make.


-------Your first question :
-------“So you are your consciousness and sentience?
-------But what are they? Do they continue after your physical death?”


Well, that’s what science overall, including recent findings from neuroscience, seems to be telling us.

Our consciousness, our sentience, and indeed our sense of self, these all seem to be an emergent property of our body (including our neural system, and our brain, as well as all the external symbiotes that populate our body).

Who am I? Well, this “I”, which is to say my sense of self, seems to be an artifact of the above, and something that evolution seems to have thrown up. Like all things evolution, it serves a purpose, and helps propagation of genes; but equally, like all things evolution, it comes with both pros and cons for the organism, that is to say, for me, for us.


And, you further ask, would my consciousness, and my sentience, and my sense of self, continue after death? There seems to be no reason to think it would, and every reason to think it wouldn’t.


That’s what seems to be the most likely case, and that’s what I provisionally believe. Provisionally being the key qualifier, and absolutely, subject to correction if fresh evidence (whether subjective or objective) so warrants.


-------Your second point :
------- Coming to the point about no time:
------- Time IS related to movement.
------- Speed = distance covered / time taken
------- All movement can only happen in time.
------- And if there is no time then movement cannot happen.
------- Time and space are both needed


That only speaks to “movement” as we know it in this universe, Osho Robbins. As I keep pointing out, when you’re speaking of a state that is beyond time and space, that is something basically neither you nor I, nor anyone else, knows anything at all about. While it is true, movement as we know it here, change as we know it here, would naturally not occur there, I don’t see how we can say anything at all about what might be the equivalent of movement and change in such an environment, should such exist.

To take your mathematical example, Speed = Distance / Time.
Because distance = 0, since there is no distance to cover, therefore you’re saying there’s no movement.
But on the other hand, time = 0 as well, and anything divided by 0 is infinity.
So that another way to view this is to say that movement is infinite, that is to say, change is infinitely more pronounced in that state beyond time and space, than it is here.

Actually all of these mathematical operations above, mine as well as yours, are entirely nonsensical. The relation between distance and time and velocity is something that we’ve observed and formulated in and for this universe. When we’re speculating about a state beyond time and space, that’s something we know NOTHING about. We can’t just go about attaching random qualities to that kind of a total unknown (whose very existence is highly doubtful, and that we’re merely assuming).


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


Here’s a general observation about the burden of proof, Osho Robbins.

I know we’re on the same page as far as the burden of proof (or, more precisely, the burden of evidence). We’ve both discussed with each other as well as others on this very subject, some months back, in the thread about soft atheism and hard atheism. So I know we’re in agreement about the principle of the burden of proof, of when and how it might apply.

Well, you seem to be making a fundamental error as far as this, when it comes to Oneness.

You keep saying, at different times, that the Oneness is beyond time and space, and therefore it is not possible to prove it. And you’re right. Where you’re clearly wrong, is where you imply that because that proof is not possible, therefore that proof is not required. You’re basically using the impossibility of proof (or disproof) to claim a free pass on your Oneness. That isn’t how this works.

The burden of proof gives out no get-out-jail-free cards. If you cannot prove a claim (or, more precisely, if you cannot back up a claim with evidence), then you have no rational reason to accept that claim, and are constrained to reject that claim. At least if you are to be guided by rationality. It does not matter why you cannot produce your proof. It could be that proof is theoretically possible, but in practice you haven’t produced it. Or it could be that proof is simply impossible, even in theory. No proof (or, more precisely, no evidence) equals no acceptance of claim. Period.

Just think back to all of the arguments we’d made about God in that soft-atheism-hard-atheism thread. We were on the same “side” there. What are the arguments we’d presented? We’d said, both you and I, that some Gods we reject directly, a la hard atheism. Others we don’t or can’t directly disprove, but still, do not find any proof for, that is, any evidence in support of; and this latter is the case with soft atheism. In either case, we reject the God proposition, equally firmly.

Why should it be any different for your Oneness? We don’t have direct disproof of Oneness, so we can’t be Hard A-Oneness-ists. But then we don’t have any proof of it, we don’t have any evidence in support of it. We don’t, because, as you have said more than once, such evidence is simply not possible. Well fine, in that case Soft A-Oneness-Ism would seem to be the reasonable position.

And I’ve already, in an earlier comment in this thread, responded to your point about proving a 3D reality to someone who lives in a 2D world, by referring to the correct scientific approach to that kind of a problem (which, like I’d pointed out, has a direct parallel with string theory).


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


Two more observations, Osho Robbins.

The first is this: Previous occasions, when we’d discussed this, I’d been very struck with your openness. That open-mindedness I strive to cultivate myself, as best I can, and that is a quality I greatly appreciate and respect in others. I’d found you fully possessed of this quality, and that is what had struck me so very positively, regardless of our actual discussion itself.

Well, this time that openness seems to be conspicuously missing, and I find that disconcerting.

In this very thread, and in direct response to the points you yourself had raised, I’ve presented entirely on-topic and direct responses to you. An open-minded engagement with ideas would have meant that you’d have tackled ALL of my responses, in all of my comments, including those that seemingly left your answer-less. In fact especially those, because that is the kind of thing that is the very point of these discussions. At least that is my approach, and that is what I’d expected would be yours as well.

And yet, what you do is, you simply ignore (or at least, don’t actually respond to) all of those points — points which, remember, you yourself had raised, and I’d only presented my own response to them — to which you found you had no answer, and in your response to me only cherry-picked out those one or two things that you believed you had a fighting chance of making a case for.

That recent series of posts of Brian’s seems apposite here, about Julia Galef’s analogy of soldier mentality vis-à-vis scout mentality. You’ve been going about this in soldierly fashion, totally ignoring every point that seems to have gone against you, and jumping into those points where you believe you have a fighting chance of defending your Oneness. Why, for what reason? A scout mentality would have seen you engage with each and every point, and especially those points which seemed to go against your position, because those latter are the very points which might admit of real learning.

Pardon me, Osho Robbins, I’m going out of my way and saying this to you, because in you I had found one rare individual who was so atypically open to being shown wrong. (And that is the model I myself try to follow, as best I can — although no doubt there are times I trip up too, and don’t realize it.)

Why don’t you just go back to the beginning of our discussion here, and, starting with the first comment of mine in this thread, go through each and every point that I’ve spoken on (which, after all, are your own points, that you’d yourself raised here, and that I’ve only responded to)? And present your own thoughts on what I’ve said? And freely admit it if and when your own position is shown up short? That may be beyond most people, but you at least I do have that expectation from.


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


And finally, Osho Robbins, I’m going to confess to you, that I found our recent exchanges profoundly depressing.

Last time we’d left off at an impasse, where I found that I simply wasn’t able to follow you beyond a point. That is why, this time, I’d thought of repeating the process I’d followed last time, and prepare a structured discussion, a structured Q&A, via which to tease out the different elements of your realization of Oneness, and thereby try to understand, as best I could, the content of that realization.

But then you chose to follow your own process. And this is perfectly fine, I was happy enough to follow along. But thing is, following on the discussion in this thread, I now think I do understand, perfectly, the nature of your realization of Oneness.

I was thinking it is, at bottom, some kind of direct perception. That, after all, is how you yourself keep describing it as. I realize I’m mistaken in thinking that.

All you’ve done is reasoned your way into convincing yourself that Oneness is what the whole thing is about. And, I’m sorry to say this, but I’m afraid that that reasoning itself is fallacious, as I’ve clearly seen and shown here.

You keep insisting this is direct perception, but I’m sorry, it’s nothing of the kind. Not unless you simply redefine away the very meaning of the word “Perception” itself, just as you’ve conveniently tried to redefine away words like “Real” and “Unreal” and so forth.


And I find this whole thing very deeply depressing. Most religious ideas I’ve found myself constrained to reject, because no matter how rosy, they turned out, on close examination, to be untrue, false. I had hopes that this Oneness might be different. I find now it isn’t. I find it difficult to express to you the depth of my …disappointment, at coming to this conclusion.


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


Nevertheless, Osho Robbins, if your belief keeps you happy, by all means keep it. Not my place to attempt to change someone else’s belief system. That goes for any kind and stripe of theist, including deists like you. In fact you guys are lucky: theistic nihilism, stark atheism, can be a very lonely place. It is not a place one chooses willingly, it is something one is constrained to accept when and only when reality inexorably points there.


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


I hope you will not have taken offense at my plainspeak. I wish you well, old friend, always.


With my good wishes,
--Appreciative Reader.


@ it’s like dream. The moment you realise it’s a dream you awaken and the dream ends.
@ Or you continue the dream knowing it is a dream (lucid dreaming)

The mystic would argue that realisation is often a chimera. Just
an unraveling of one layer of the dream. A child triumphantly
declaring he understands when he clearly doesn't. Ishwar Puri
cited the case of the lucid dreamer who says to his co-dreamers
"This is all a dream".

But his "aha" realisation is counterfeit.. He was like an exited child
talking with phantoms in his dream world. The dream hadn't ended
at all. The very next moment he is beguiled by deeper layers of the
dream and doesn't understand his short-lived awakening or what
it really meant. When he really awakes though, he realises his
co-dreamers were only phantoms who had disappeared along with
the dream itself.

@ AR

>> That goes for any kind and stripe of theist, including deists like you. In fact you guys are lucky: theistic nihilism, stark atheism, can be a very lonely place. It is not a place one chooses willingly, it is something one is constrained to accept when and only when reality inexorably points there.<<

As long as you put the burden of proof and finding an end to that loneliness on the shoulders of others and certainly those who are less gifted and trained in rationalism, that feeling of loneliness will only aggravate.

And ... THAT wil in the end show you the way out. .... that is to say ...IN.

Good luck

@ S

>.For some reason I get the feeling that the world is going to be drastically different a year from now…<<

It lifts up that feeling of being alone with that feeling ever since 2012, a feeling that gets stronger and stronger. Not knowing what it is, I can't say it is a comfortable feeling.

It is said that:
We human beings are so bound by karmas, past and present, that there is very little freewill left to is. We are pushed and jostled into a situation where we cannot but act in a particular way.

Once the bolder is pushed, it will roll down the slope of the hill.

Most of the structures humanity had developed and that bound them together in groups, societies, cultures, structures that gave meaning and direction to human life, have lost their meaning and their are no new authorities, caharismatic people and ideas, to replace them.

There is the solace ... of a shinny day, lovely colours and the taste of a cup of coffe.

“That’s what seems to be the most likely case, and that’s what I provisionally believe. Provisionally being the key qualifier, and absolutely, subject to correction if fresh evidence (whether subjective or objective) so warrants.” – Appreciative Reader

The atheist (which I presume you label yourself as) doesn’t accept the validity of subjective evidence – because in your mind you can create any reality you choose, and indeed people do.
An RSSB follower may have many “mystical experiences” that make him believe that after death he or she will go to some other region.
Subjective experience is prone to error. You could be and are even likely to be deluded.
Now, coming onto our dialogue here – you have missed the entire point.
I am not saying this is my proof, which is what you have apparently concluded.
All this is just setting the stage. It’s getting to the point of loosening our conviction that we know, that other possibilities exist, that perhaps there is a “no time – no space” state os being and perhaps that is our true form.
The reason I say perhaps – is because I am not attempting to prove it – only put it forward as a possibility.
Realization cannot happen as long as you hold onto beliefs that will specifically stop realization from happening.
Realization happens when the soil is fertile. Soil becomes fertile when you are open to possibilities.
When you think you know that the physical is all there is – then realisation is not possible because you have closed that door and locked it.
Clearly other possibilities DO exist. The very fact that we dream and that in the dream world – our perceptions are very different from the waking state, show us that a different perception is possible. That was the whole purpose of the dialogue, not to convince you through logic that a state beyond time and space exists.
Science cannot help in this regard.
Why? Because it deals only with the physical.
If you only want to deal with the physical universe – then your conclusions will be that you are this body, this mind and your perceptions and thot those will end and you will also end.
Science stops there. Science does not deal with the metaphysical.
According to science – I am just deluded, and there is no “enlightenment” simply because it is a subjective experience.
Science is based on proof and evidence – not on beliefs and subjective experiences.
Awakening or realization is a whole different topic. When it happens to you – it’s overwhelmingly real – but this is also what a deluded person will tell you.
What I was showing you was this:
That if you remove time and space – even by physical laws – movement is not possible simply because time is a needed element for movement and change.
In the same way – separate objects cannot exist if there is no space.
Of course “no space and no time” are nonsensical notions for us – simply because we exist within time and space.
Even the question: does a “no time, no space” regions exist – cannot be answered because of the problem of “existence”
Our definition is based on the reality we perceive – and according to that – anything outside of time and space cannot exist.
I was playing with the notions to get to the conclusion that “eternity would necessarily require a no-time and no-space world.”
Maybe you can’t see this – so I was attempting to show you using the physical laws.
Time is necessary for change to take place – so if there was NO TIME it would mean that change cannot happen. That is all I am saying. I am not trying to prove anything.
So I am presenting the possibility of a different reality.
In that reality – there is no space and no time. There are no separate being and nothing happens (because all happening is within space and time)
Now it appears that you don’t even accept this possibility, perhaps because you are focussed on proof and thought that I was attempting to prove something.
You responses appear to come from that viewpoint.
You are expecting me to prove a “no time and no space” universe.
I was only proposing it as a possibility in order to explore other possibilities.
From our perspective -our existence ends with death.

"You keep insisting this is direct perception, but I’m sorry, it’s nothing of the kind. " - Appreciative Reader

Of course this is not direct perception or realisation.
This is simply a play on words and opening up the possibility of more. This is laying the foundation that something else might be possible.

realization or direct perception is a moment where it all suddenly becomes crystal clear. It't not a belief you qcquire through thinking. It's more like dropping all those ideas and beliefs and then you being to see something that was shielded by those beliefs.

for instance - trying to get to this direct perception - is itself a barrier to it because - you conceptualize it and make it a future goal - it never happens that way.

It happens despite your efforts.

so what I was writing here has nothing to do with it - it was only to set the groundwork - and you have taken this to be the whole thing.

probably because I did not start off by explaing all this - I just jumped right in - without explaining what I was doing - so you naturally thought I was presenting my proof and evidence.

Hi Osho and Appreciative
Proving that a reality exists with no actual time or space is relatively easy. Newton and Liebnitz took care of that for you.

Calculus is based on the premise that movement and change are an infinite summation of separate discrete points. That is to say each point is static. And the total set of those points comprise the entire set needed to perform the equation.

Like the images that flash on your television screen at 60 FPS. Each frame is a single static photo. The entire episode was already created and is a single whole. What you are seeing is the display, played out one single frame at a time.

The time it takes for you to watch the episode is determined by the number of static frames, but all of them already exist. They exist without any time at all. Movement is the same. A person walks through a series of descrete points along a path. But each point on the entire path had been traversed already, in each discreet moment of time. That is the only way to calculate the path.

This is the only way scientists can view this creation, as a summation of a static set of points, the entire set pre-determined by the equation. Hence for the equation to exist, the points of reality must all ready exist, all points of movement and all points of time. We see things watching a series of such points along a single dimension that proceeds at a set pace. But all science is based on a Mathematics that requires all such points in the series as a set, and each point entirely static.

One small point in addition to the above.

While in Calculus the "integral" represents the summation of the set of such points of change in a series, the "derivative" is the formula used to view any single point.

In the simplest terms, the integral is the total volume, but the the derivative is the slope of change.

We are living in a derivative, where each point of movement and time can be defined. But for the entire set that comprises the integral, there is no time or movement.

"You’ve been going about this in soldierly fashion, totally ignoring every point that seems to have gone against you, and jumping into those points where you believe you have a fighting chance of defending your Oneness. Why, for what reason? " - Appreciative Reader

Why? because I am not trying to prove anything - I thought I made it clear from the start when i said that I am going by a new definition of REAL. This was not just for fun. It was because it leads somewhere.
And without that possibility to start with - you cannot see beyond the physical - hence will remain an athiest.

the atheist is very close to truth because he does not believe in any God. If as an atheist you are happy to conclude that there is nothing beyond our physical existence - that is cool. It is even true because of the word "existence"
The thing I am taking about is not even a "thing" and the God I am friends with is not even a God! ONENESS is not arrived at through logic. I was using logic to show you possibilities - not to prove anything.

If I have tasted a mango and you have never tasted one - I cannot through logic show you what it tastes like. For that - you will have to eat it yourself.
But you will only eat it if you think there is such a thing as a mango.
So I was trying to show you that there MIGHT be (not there IS) such a thing as a mango.

Clearly I cannot logic you to oneness - all i have do is present a possibility of it. Actually it doesn't exist - because it doesn't tick the boxes on what we call 'exists'
that is why I was presenting another way of viewing things - as a redefinition - not as proof in itself.

This was meant to be a straightforward process - so we could move onto the process.

Nothing happens if you're not open to 'possibilities'.
If you have a certain view and insist it is the only one - other possibilities are closed, Enlightenment happens when you let go of the fixed view and are open to other possibilites.
then the possibilities become might open the door to something you could previously not even imagine.

like I have described before, when I was going through my own version of this - I looked at my hand and I didn't know who's hand it was - and I didn't know what I was - I knew nothing. This is not possible if I 'KNOW' as that knowing stops all other possibilities.


Osho Robbins, apologies if that comment of mine was premature, and if as a result I ended up interrupting what was simply a planned process on your part all along. If you're willing to continue the process, I'm more happy to continue to follow along, absolutely.

Just one or two clarifications, following from your your responses to your last post, as well as requests for clarifications from you, before we resume:


1) You rightly observe that "The atheist (which I presume you label yourself as) doesn’t accept the validity of subjective evidence ". The allowance for subjective evidence is my personal position, and that is the additional slack that I myself cut, over and above what a strictly rational outlook would require. I'm a meditator myself, and I don't, myself, see any contradiction between rationality and meditation; and, should I encounter subjective evidence of a supra-normal reality, that wouldn't necessarily pass muster in a strictly objective sense, then I'd still be open to considering it.


2) You say again: "I was attempting to show you using the physical laws. () Time is necessary for change to take place – so if there was NO TIME it would mean that change cannot happen". To that I have to say, yet again, that I don't see that, at all. As I've observed myself, more than once, change as we know it in this universe bounded by space and time, wouldn't happen in a state that is beyond time and space ; but equally, changelessness as we conceive it from within this universe of time and space, wouldn't obtain, either, in that state beyond time and space, should such exist. We just cannot go tagging random qualities to a state that we know nothing about, and whose existence we have simply assumed arbitrarily for the space of our process. There is no reason to think that that hypothetical state is either a benevolent or just situation (which qualities you don't invoke), or that it is an evil and unjust state (which qualities also you don't invoke), or that it is a state that is in constant flux (which you steadfastly say it isn't), or that is in entirely changeless and eternal (which last you do claim). We simply cannot say anything about such a state, should such exist, other than simply as unsupported speculation.


3) To my telling you that I conclude that your realization is not direct perception, but simply your reasoning your way to your conclusion of Oneness, you say: "Of course this is not direct perception or realisation." That is a bit confusing. Can we just take time out from the process, for a minute, while you tell me just what this realization of Oneness is? It isn't some kind of mystical knowledge, of the kind that meditative and spiritual (and, for that matter, religious) traditions speak of, that you've said prior. Nor is it simply reasoning, you've assured us. What then, exactly? What is left, if you leave out these two? What other means is there of coming to some conclusion? You've arrived at a position of accepting Oneness, from a prior position of not accepting it: Well, *how*, exactly, did that change happen, in what exact terms? Your teacher / workshop-facilitator kept on hammering you relentlessly and telling you about Oneness in that workshop, and then, you've described your reactions there, but ultimately, what, exactly? What mode of understanding led to that cognitive shift, from not accepting Oneness to accepting it? It would be great if you could take a minute to clearly formulate your thoughts on this, and discuss this, because from where I stand it sure looks as if, no matter your protestations to the contrary, reasoning your way to convincing yourself of Oneness is exactly what did happen, and what you're attempting here as well. So that a clarification on this would be great at this point.


4) You say, at one point, "Now it appears that you don’t even accept this possibility, perhaps because you are focussed on proof". Not at all, Osho Robbins, I assure you. You must have gathered from our past exchanges, as well as from my #1 in this comment, that I'm open to this possibility, indeed, actually hopeful and desirous of this possibility. I wouldn't do this process otherwise, after all. But I have to ask, how do you expect me to react then, for the duration of this process? When you raise all of these points and statements, which appear erroneous and/or fallacious to me, how am I supposed to react? Am I not to point those out to you clearly? These aren't rhetorical questions, I'm asking you how and in what terms I am to participate in this process. That input would probably be important in how we carry on with this going forward.


5) "This was meant to be a straightforward process - so we could move onto the process", you say. Again, my apologies if I've upset the process with that interruption. The clarifications I've requested now might be helpful. But that apart, if you're willing to resume, then like I said I'm happy to go on with this.


"To my telling you that I conclude that your realization is not direct perception, but simply your reasoning your way to your conclusion of Oneness, you say: "Of course this is not direct perception or realisation." That is a bit confusing. Can we just take time out from the process, for a minute, while you tell me just what this realization of Oneness is?" - AR

I was referring to our dialogue. This dialogue and my statements here have nothing to do with the realization of oneness.

naturally you are asking - what is it?

I don't recall saying that it is not the state that spiritual traditions speak of - as it is! You may be confused over this because I don't agree that the traditional methods like meditation (RSSB type meditation) facilitates this state - rather is keeps one firmly embedded in duality.

It is the same state that sikh scriptures describe. In fact Nanak specifically states that "there is no time and no space" there.
I just thought this "no time no space" idea was clear and obvious to everyone, so I have never questioned the idea. Perhaps it's not so obvious!

I will describe what the ONENESS is later.
For now - let me say a few things.

I have, from childhood, been steeped in the RSSB teachings. I used to take the "spiritual link" magazine to school with me. It was my whole life. My sole ambition was to meet Sat Purush and I was convinced he was a real person, residing in the spiritual region called Sach Khand.

Then at age 18 I found out about John Yarr whilst at university and I got initiated into light and sound and would meditate for long periods, hoping to get enlightened.

These were my formative years. It was after that, that I met Thakar Singh - before the bad publicity about him. I left before all that because I was looking for someone who could give me personal guidance and he wasn't that helpful. Darshan Singh became my first serious sant mat guru and I got initiated and would meditate on light and sound.

However it wasn't until the year 2000 that my life started falling apart.
I never even heard of ONENESS and had no idea what enlightenment was. I was certainly not seeking it. I had zero understanding of it.

What happened was that I became suicidal and was almost going to kill myself and began to ask questions. I wondered if the guru would come just before or after I slit my wrists.

Asking these questions - I had a moment in which it became clear that I was following a belief system and that no guru was going to come.

My firm beliefs began to drop off. All of a sudden - my whole life became clear to me. I started writing a book and it was like it was writing itself. Answers came thick and fast to even unformulated questions. I didn't know what was happening - only that things were becoming clearer.

This was not enlightenment - but it was preparation of the soil.
I met my first enlightenment guru in Wolverhampton and he said things that seemed crazy - but now they made perfect sense.

The process with the spiritual guru (Mikaire) was a short while after this. It was all happening all together. In the same weekend I came across the Osho tapes about the Japji Sahib and Mikaire.

During the 5 day with Mikaire - I questioned all my assumptions and my whole view of life changed. I was no longer a seeker of a God. I disappeared and a new me emerged. This "new me" was enlightened, but it wasn't "me". It was at that time that I started asking GSD questions on the mic.


As long as you put the burden of proof and finding an end to that loneliness on the shoulders of others and certainly those who are less gifted and trained in rationalism, that feeling of loneliness will only aggravate.

And ... THAT wil in the end show you the way out. .... that is to say ...IN.

Good luck

Posted by: um | June 02, 2021 at 01:02 AM


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


Hello, um.

I agree, the "burden", in that sense, is clearly mine, should I wish to take it on, that is. That burden can be lightened by guidance from others, and also, perhaps, by Divine Grace --- should such exist, and also, should such be forthcoming --- but beyond that, the burden per se is one's own, absolutely.

What I was referring to is the philosophical burden of proof, that no doubt you're aware of, where the burden of evidence vests not so much with any particular person as with the claim itself, whose acceptance or rejection is a function of the fulfillment or otherwise of that "burden".

-----

And thank you, um, for your clearly heartfelt good wishes.



"(...) The time it takes for you to watch the episode is determined by the number of static frames, but all of them already exist. They exist without any time at all. (...)"


-------


Hello, Spence.

As ever, some well-reasoned, informative posts you.

Not to to get too deeply into this at this point, because I want to focus on this thing with Osho Robbins without simultaneously getting into another involved discussion, but one small ...well, I was going to say "disagreement", but I'm not sure we do disagree, so let me just say, instead, one small nuance.

Math is simply formalized logic. Math does not necessarily represent reality, at all, any more than English grammar does. Many things, both real, as well as entirely unreal, as well as entirely nonsensical, can be spoken of in words, as well as expressed mathematically. Math per se is not evidence of anything at all.

But absolutely --- and, I forget who it was, it may have been Roger Penrose but I may be mistaken, as this whoever-it-was put it --- math is indeed the language in which nature speaks to us. Except math says a great deal of things, says it better than any other means we have of saying or understanding anything, but whether to accept what has been said is up to us, and is, properly, a function of what the evidence supports.

-------

That was the short context of that particular portion of that exchange of ours, between Osho Robbins and me, that you commented on. The formula for velocity is mathematically expressed, but that math isn't sacrosanct. We take it to be true because it happens to be true, as borne by actual evidence.

And it is in our universe, with space and time, that we have found it borne out by evidence. To extrapolate that to imagine that that formula would remain inviolate in any and every situation, including a wholly alien situation where time and space do not obtain, is fallacious. Because while that mathematical formula would remain the same, no matter what, nevertheless its validity or otherwise would be a function of the nature of the reality that obtains in that space-less and time-less environment.

Therefore, to attempt to reason mathematically in that manner is to implicitly assume that the conditions that obtain in a world that includes space and time, would continue to obtain in a state without space and time. And there is no reason at all to make that kind of an assumption. So that any conclusion derived via that line of reasoning is ultimately fallacious.

That was the context of those comments of mine in response to Osho Robbins's math.


@um

I don’t view karma in the traditional Sant Mat way. Of course I believe in karma and reincarnation but I think karmas can be erased through forgiveness if we can forgive others and I think reincarnation ends once we realize how useless guilt and judgement are. But to truly believe these things you have to act on them with every encounter you have with every person you meet. Meditation doesn’t remove karmas but it can help you realize your true nature—that you are not this body or personality.

No need to worry about the past or past lives. Just forgive yourself and others and always show love. Judgement was never part of God’s plan. Kal was never part of God’s plan which is counter to what RSSB and most other paths teach. I’m not saying Kal doesn’t exist, I’m simply saying that he is not a servant of God. He only serves himself. He is essentially the source of the ego and he believes he is God, which is why the 5 names invoke the ego/“devil” and not something I practice. It’s a very, very dangerous path to follow.

Don’t mean to come across as argumentative, I’m just simply explaining my beliefs.


Hello, Osho Robbins, back to you!


-------


"I was referring to our dialogue. This dialogue and my statements here have nothing to do with the realization of oneness."


Oh, ok. I misunderstood your meaning there, in that case.


-------


"I don't recall saying that it is not the state that spiritual traditions speak of - as it is! "


That isn't quite what I was asking, though. This realization may or may not coincide with what X, Y or Z turbaned or bearded gentlemen living in times past may have said, but that wasn't what I was getting at. What I was wondering is what might be the *mode* of your realization.

Let me clarify:

How does one know anything at all? As far as I can think it through, in one of four ways: The first is through direct perception. The second is via reasoning (based no doubt on past perceptions, but still, not direct perception but by adding mental constructs based on reason on to those perceptions). A third might be simply blind faith in things one is told, by religious traditions for example. And a fourth, hypothetical mode of knowledge, that may or may not in fact actually exist at all, is direct mystical perception.

I was wondering where, in that framework, your realization of Oneness might fit, Osho Robbins. You've already ruled out religious dogma. You'd also ruled out reasoning. That leaves direct perception, whether mundane or mystical (should the last exist). Now mundane perception can be ruled out, because naturally that will not point to something exotic like that. Which leaves mystical perception, and I'd imagined, assumed, that that is what your Realization of Oneness amounted to. It was basis that assumption that I had tried in the past to try to tease out the elements of your realization in the past, and the basis on which I was attempted my structured Q&A this time as well, before you started with this process of yours.

Well, while going through this process, it occurred to me, basis what you were saying, that you'd simply reasoned your way to Realization of Oneness. (And what is more, reasoned fallaciously, so that your conclusion itself was fallacious as well.)

Now you clarify that that reasoning, that you'd presented, was not how you'd got to Realization at all.

Well, fair enough. But in that case, my question was, by what mode did you end up getting this realization of Oneness?

You get me, right? Let's say for the sake of argument that you're right, that the beyond-space-and-time Oneness does obtain. The question is, by what mode did knowledge of that state and the Oneness get to you, and for that matter to Mikaire? You say it wasn't reasoning. What then? What was the nature, the mode, of your direct perception, what was it exactly, per this framework?
Mystical perception, would you call it that? Because there is nothing else left to attribute it to, other than mystical perception (should such exist).

That is what I wanted you to clarify, if you would, before we proceed.


-------


" will describe what the ONENESS is later.
For now - let me say a few things.

I have, from childhood, been steeped in the RSSB teachings. I used to take the "spiritual link" magazine to school with me. (...) (...) "


Fair enough, we'll get to the Oneness part when you will, later on.

Meanwhile, I find your own account of your early spiritual leanings and your subsequent journey to Oneness --- that you'd touched on in bits and pieces in the past --- to be absolutely riveting.

Do carry on, please, at your own pace and in your own way.


@um

I really appreciate and agree with what you said about enjoying the little things each day.

In a year I believe things will start to improve. Slowly but surely.

They say Sant Mat is the teachings of the Saints. But in case you haven’t noticed, not all the Saints agree with each other. So, it’s a very confused-pick-and-choose path.

@ S.

Hahaha ...before becoming argumentive one has first to understand a point of view, an I don't. I read your answer several times but did not come up with an understanding of it .. certainly not the last sentence about the 5 names and the dangers of the path.

@ AR

As far as I understand what you wrote, the burden of proof is indeed related to the claim itself .... as far and as long as a claim is part of the philosophical domain.

Of course if a scientist, a scholar comes up with an hypothesis, a theory etc in his field and they are accepted by the academic players in that field as such, everybody in that field can work on it.

But not all things that pertain to the universe are or can be incorporated in that particular field, to advance understanding of it.

Was that maybe the reason why the philosopher Wittgenstein wrote at the end of one of his tractates .. one should not speak or write about things that can not be spoken of.

and fyi .... I did not study all of his writings and it is doubtful i understood what I did read. Consider me as a kid walking the streets picking up pebbles and all sorts of small things that are to be found laying around on his way home, not even knowing why he picks one thing and not the other.

You have chosen another way home and set other conditions for your self to move forwards. Having done so you have to obey your own rules.

Sooner or later we all have to face our motivations, the causes that drives us forward.

As the parable goes that a friend was looking for his keys in the streets and the markets of life, while he had lost them at home, because on the streets an markets of the world there is more light.

That is what I suggest is the "fate" for all.

https://youtu.be/aUtdLfdnpzs

Dark matter findings suggest Einstein’s Theory of Relativity “may be wrong”

Appreciative Reader,
What caused the ONENESS / non-duality?

Well in my case - conversations with a man who I met in Wolverhampton.
One of my friends introduced me to him. He said "I don't know if he is enlightened, but he is worth meeting."
This was the first step of the beginning of my journey. I met him and would meet him every Friday after work. He was ex-RSSB and openly claimed to be enlightened, but made no big deal of it. He was the first loosening of my beliefs in RSSB. He showed me that the scriptures were saying something different from what RSSB teaches. I had great difficulty accepting it because I had bought into the RSSB ideas and the ideas about SHABD etc.

So what happens is a Paradigm Shift. All of a sudden - everything changes. It's not a logical process. It's more like all the pieces of the puzzle suddenly coming together. Not a piece by piece process of putting the puzzle together.

It was at this time that I met Mikaire. The very first meeting - I went with a friend, (Barry) who told me about him. It was in London. You have to arrive by 1.45 or they close the doors. Mikaire arrives at 2pm.
I arrived, with Barry at 2.15 and someone came to the door and told me to go away. I said I had come from Wales and I wasn't leaving until I met Mikaire. Mikaire noticed someone had come and shouted "Let him in." So I sat down.
In front of me was a man like I had never seen. He was wearing shorts and talking spontaneously. He would say whatever came to mind. He looked at Barry. "Do you think I am enlightened?"
"No" replied Barry.
"And how the fuck would you know anyways?" he shouted back.
"do you even know what the fuck it is?"
"Enlightenment is the biggest fucking nightmare...." he continues.....
"You have to face all your fucking damn demons - you don't just sit there blissed off your face."
I ask a question about Arjuna and Krishna and the Gita.
"Enlightenment is the biggest fucking contradiction. It totally destroys you. Can't you see I am fucking possessed? I would like to think I am possessed by Osho - but I'm not - I am possessed by God - I'm a fucking mad man. Don't you get it? You're not going to get enlightened and then life will be great. It doesn't happen that way. You're going to go though the fucking same nightmare - you're going to fucking lose everything and especially your fucking mind."
Whoever this guy was - I had to go further into this. Barry got scared and never went back. I went to one more meeting and then asked about the "intensive" they spoke about. It was £400 and five days of madness with Mikaire. Only thing was - I was not allowed to attend because you have to attend the weekly meetings for six months before you can attend.
I asked the guy and he gave me Mikaire's email. "Email him - if he says you can go - then you can go"
I did and he gave me a one sentence reply "Yes - you can attend the next intensive"
That intensive was the turning point of my life.
I understood what it means when they say "spirituality is caught - not taught"
The company of the enlightened is what does it.
The first day after lunch - he looks at me and talks directly to me
"So you think it's a fucking joke? Look at these letters! People are pouring their hearts out to me and I have to answer all of these."
"You need commitment - don't you get it - nothing happens without commitment. and I've got people giving me commitment - written on fucking toilet paper. You get me? toilet paper! Today they are committed and tomorrow they go to some other fucking enlightened guru and leave."

"You see - I don't give a fuck about you - any of you! Until you give me commitment - then I'll work on you - then I'll turn your fucking world upside down. But until you're committed - I am not interested in your stupid intellectual questions."

Very few people stayed - most got scared because he would start shouting and get you to deal with your fears.

The five day intensive was where the real deep stuff happened. Because those five days - there was no teaching - because there is nothing to teach. It was all intense confrontational conversations that would bring out whatever was inside you.

You would deal with your demons - the things you hide away from everyone and never talk about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWRsgZuwf_8


@ Osho

Searching the internet on that name, I came across this site:
http://www.n0by.de/2/rst/mikaire_e.htm

The translation from german into english is not that well i feel but anaway; it describes the reaction of an seeker and his opinion on the man.

Osho attracted many psychiatrists and psychotherapists for example the dutch Psychiatrist Amrito: https://www.oshonews.com/2016/03/01/amrito-jan-foudraine/

It is strange how these movements are intertwined. The idea's of psychotherapists in the 70ties, with the philosofical ideas coming from india in those days. In those days there was the "primal scream" movement born in the USA and related to the newly developed drug LSD as means to free people from mental obstacles. and in the work sessions in Poona.

Reading what you have gone through reminds me of those forms of psycho therapy.


Quote of the Day
"Love is the life force of the entire universe - those who lack it are already dead."
— Awhad al-Din Kirmani —

me:
So, Just help an granny to cross the road
or safe an ant
what follows is automatic
if there were no second thoughts
like discussion_turmoilling

777

@ Osho

What you described in the last message offers for me the context for whatever you wrote earlier on ... thank you.

What remains a question for me is why you, after having gone through that experience, instead of being happy with it, went to haynes park to question GSD caused frustration in the audience that resulted finaly in you being thrown out.


“As far as I understand what you wrote, the burden of proof is indeed related to the claim itself .... as far and as long as a claim is part of the philosophical domain. (…) Was that maybe the reason why the philosopher Wittgenstein wrote at the end of one of his tractates .. one should not speak or write about things that can not be spoken of.”


.................I'm afraid I haven’t read Wittgenstein, um, at all. I’m aware of that famous aphorism of his, but beyond that I’m quite ignorant of his work.

Burden of proof, in the sense that I’d used the term earlier, hasn’t much to do with philosophy per se. That is, it is a philosophical construct, but what it is is a straightforward heuristic that guides critical thinking. It’s simply that any claim carries the burden of proof (or, to be more precise, the burden of evidence). To the extent that evidence is forthcoming, and the burden fulfilled, to that extent it is rational to accept the claim.

It’s not as if this only applies to the philosophical domain. It is part of the scientific method, and will apply to science, obviously. But it finds equally valid application in any and every aspect of our daily life.

It’s common sense, if you think about it. I claim to be a Nigerian prince who, if only you’ll furnish me your bank account details, will be happy to send you large sums of money. Makes sense to accept that claim if and only if satisfactory evidence is provided to back up my claim. That's an extreme, bizarre claim, but the same general principle applies for any and every claim. (For that matter, when you think about it, people claiming that there is life after death, and/or further claiming that they will look after you after death, and/or put you in touch with some supra-normal reality, are probably a far more extreme and bizarre kind of claim than Nigerian princes!)

Of course, what kind of evidence is satisfactory, that is kind of key, obviously. While generally evidence is thought of as objective evidence, nevertheless I myself, in matters spiritual, do admit of (the possibility of) valid subjective evidence as well. Subject to lots of ifs and buts, but it isn’t that I rule out subjectivity altogether. Like I said, I speak only for myself, as far as that last.


-------


“You have chosen another way home and set other conditions for your self to move forwards.”


.................We all choose our own paths, sure. But rationalism doesn’t really represent some specific path, I should think, so much as a general way to look at and evaluate all paths.

Yes, I’m looking for a way home. In fact, I’m already walking the path. But I like to keep my eyes open. Does the path actually lead home? Is there even such a thing as a path home? Is there even such a thing as home? We do our due diligence when we invest in stock, we do our due diligence when we’re looking at real estate. When we’re careful with due diligence when it comes to such mundane decisions, why should that due diligence be absent from matters spiritual? After all, if some specific path is in fact true, then there is no reason for its adherents to shy away from a test that is bound to validate its authenticity. And if it isn’t true, then so much the better that one realizes it, rather than continue wasting one’s time and energy at it.

-------


“As the parable goes that a friend was looking for his keys in the streets and the markets of life, while he had lost them at home, because on the streets an markets of the world there is more light.
That is what I suggest is the "fate" for all.”


.................Heh, that’s deep. I’ve heard that related as a joke about a drunk, and it’s funny, but at the same time it’s deep. I take your point (I think!).



Osho Robbins, your account of your experiences with Mikaire made for very interesting reading. Carry on, please, these accounts are both interesting and instructive.

-------

And at your own pace, and in your own way, do go on with the process as well, please.

-------

Although, before you start with the process itself, I have to say, you didn’t actually answer my question about what you think is the mode of your Oneness perception. I think I’d made my meaning clear enough and specific enough in my last post. Would you like to have a go at doing that?

That’s okay, I won’t insist on this if you don’t want to get into this. But this I have to say, Osho Robbins, as gently as I know how, and without in any way taking away from what you’ve gone through, that it seems more and more clear to me that, although you don’t seem to realize it yourself, that paradigm shift you’re talking of, was a function of reasoning, if only implicitly. If you’d like it I could show you clearly why I’m saying this. But I’m not here to disturb your worldview against your wishes, and I’ll go into that only if you yourself want to, and ask me to.

So, if you’d like me to, just ask. I’ll be happy to tell you, at some length. And we could then, after that, continue with the process. Or else we could just move on to the process without going into this, if you don’t want me to. (In either case, do continue with your account of your personal journey. I find myself very drawn to it, and in fact find myself empathizing with it to an extent.)



Spence, you'd been following this discussion, and made some insightful comments the other day. If you'd like to add anything to this, at any point, and especially if you find me making any errors in my reasoning (that I'm myself not able to catch), do please step in, will you?

I hadn't wanted to get into a separate discussion with you over the math thing at this point, or indeed about any other unrelated subject, given this ongoing thing with Osho Robbins, and given time constraints, but I value your well informed and reasoned comments, and we all have our blind spots, and I wouldn't like to march on through this thing with blind spots of my own, if I can help it.


@AR

Two earlier messages were not seen in here. So to be sure I will copy this one first.

Whatever you write about science, its use, its rules etc is correct and well versed but it doesn't address the scientist.

Science is a functional tool, After formulating its proper use, the fields where it can be adopted etc the question arise "WHY" why does this person for "WHAT" reason uses that tool.

If there is a claim, the man that makes the claim needs not always to come up with evidence or proof, sometimes it is even impossible. In those instances all comes down whether the person hearing of the claim is willing to research the truth of it himself.

If somebody visits me and asks something to drink. The answer could be: "it is in the frige". Now suppose he would react saying: "How do I know you are not telling nonsense? and I guess I would say "look YOU are thirsty, I told you were to find it, do you want me to get it for you and drink it myself to proof it??? All mystic claims are in fact THAT SIMPLE.

And reading the last part ... If you are indeed a seeker as I do understand from what you wrote and you will use rational thinking as a tool to guide you, one day you will certainly succeed.... but ... probably it will be different from what you previous helt for possible.

@ The five day intensive was where the real deep stuff happened. Because those five days - there was no
@ teaching - because there is nothing to teach. It was all intense confrontational conversations that would
@ bring out whatever was inside you.

I'm sure that an intensive may well facilitate insights. Even deep stuff as
you say. But will those shouting confrontations peppered with F-bombs
empower you to uncover fears and doubts tomorrow or next week or years
later...or will it require 400 quid more to drill down to even deeper layers.
Even if you believe some magical incantation sets you free, what's its
shelf life. Permanent? Or will a refresher seminar be needed after the
mind continues 24x7 to gin up a fresh layers of angst and dysfunction?

Insights that help you live in peace with heightened awareness are
great gifts but, no mystic practice I know of will promise eternal
enlightenment after a 5 day intensive. No matter how committed or
willing to confront fear the participant is. We've spent eons creating
mental baggage. Their deconstruction will take considerable time too.

Hi Dungeness
You wrote
"Even if you believe some magical incantation sets you free, what's its
shelf life. Permanent? Or will a refresher seminar be needed after the
mind continues 24x7 to gin up a fresh layers of angst and dysfunction?"

Perfect.
Hence the necessity of a daily cleansing.. Meditation.

Hi Appreciative
Nothing new from my end.
All is good.
As my Master Tells me within, so I say to you...." Proceed."..

On a side note I began to think of what Brian Ji is doing here after all this time. He is tireless and relentless. He sets a high watermark for Truth that is extremely hard to live up to.

We are fortunate to opine in his shadow.


"Insights that help you live in peace with heightened awareness are
great gifts but, no mystic practice I know of will promise eternal
enlightenment after a 5 day intensive."


-------


Dungeness, as you see, while I'm going through this with an entirely open mind, nevertheless at heart I'm extremely skeptical about this. Besides, there's one flaw in the process, that I've already commented on earlier, and that I'll expand on further should Osho Robbins want me to (but not otherwise).

But my skepticism notwithstanding, and that one flaw apart --- and I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, absolutely --- but as far as the above: Isn't that something of a fallacious argument from incredulity? That you or I do not know of any such intensive process that might produce such instant enlightenment, does not mean such might not exist. We can leave this sort of thing aside if we want, but if we are to engage with it at all, shouldn't we evaluate it on its actual merits, rather than dismiss it without actually understanding it fully?

Besides, as far as instant results from quick intensives, there is at least one instance of this sort of thing that I myself am aware of. I'm referring to Ashtravakra. That apparently was something of an intensive, although I doubt there were F-bombs involved. And instead of 400 "quid", Ashtavakra went home with cows, I think.

(Like I said, I'm playing devil's advocate here. As you know, I don't myself lay much store by hoary old scriptural stories, at least not in the sense of treating them as authoritative references, although I do enjoy them as mythology.)


"(Brian) is tireless and relentless. He sets a high watermark for Truth that is extremely hard to live up to.

We are fortunate to opine in his shadow."


-------


Amen to that, Spence.

(Not to mention tireless. Yes, you did say tireless. I read a great deal myself, I should think, but nowhere at all close to what what he seems to go through. The rate at which the man reads and consumes tome and tome after tome --- and presents their essence here for our benefit ---- and what's more, does that day after day after day, leaves me ...very impressed.)

"He is tireless and relentless."

-------

Yeah, *that's* what how you phrased that reminded me of, Spence:

"The terminator is out there, it cant be bargained with, it cant be reasoned with, it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not stop... EVER, Until you are dead!"

:---)

@ Isn't that something of a fallacious argument from incredulity? That you or I do not know of any such
@ intensive process that might produce such instant enlightenment, does not mean such might not exist.

Quite! My brain was unconsciously filtering the improbable... driven no doubt
by the relentless low rumble of the Terminator's footsteps in exploring the far
nooks and crannies of possibility. Actually, maybe direct perception is just such
a case of instant enlightenment although I suspect the "instant" is misleading if
there's vast unseen preparation for that insightful moment. There usually is.

Then there's always the danger of pursuing shortcuts too. Some of the most
enduring scams promise "instant" gratification. We gravitate to them, um,
instantly.

" We've spent eons creating
mental baggage. Their deconstruction will take considerable time too."
- Dungeness

Simply not true. It only takes an instant of insight to break free from a false belief you have held all your life.

Proof of this is available with the "EST" seminars that Werner Erhand was famous for in the 70's. The successor, Landmark is not quite so effective as it's watered down too much.

Werner's methods were extreme - it was no sunday walk in the park.
In his sixty hours of training - he got more results than most people get in 10 years of therapy. Why? because he left you nowhere to run. You have to deal with your "Goddam Bullshit" as he called it. He didn't have a spiritual angle - he simply dealt with what works in life.

As a side note: Ashtavakra's fee was Janak's entire kingdom - that was the price he demanded and was paid. He gave it back - but that was hios choice. Mikaire also gave me back the £400 when he kicked me out on the morning of Day 5.

@Appreciative Reader

Let me first get some clarification on what you are asking,.

You quote four possible ‘modes’ of knowing
1. Direct perception
2. Reasoning – mental constructs
3. Blind faith
4. Direct mystical perception (if it exists)

Direct perception I presume you mean – like if I eat an apple – I know the taste. No mental process is needed.
Reasoning I would say you mean if I use reason to arrive at a certain conclusion. For instance the discussion we had about no space and no time – and whether change was possible in such a state (if indeed such existed). I used reason and thinking to say that change would be impossible and you used reason to say such a conclusion was fallacious and that no conclusion was possible.
Blind faith – I would argue is not a mode of knowing as it is just a mode of acquiring a belief – and we are talking about knowing – not beliefs.
Finally – DMP (Direct Mystical Perception) – I am not sure how you would define this and determine it even existed or what it was like.
How does “insight” figure into these categories?
The zen koan: What is the sound of one hand clapping? Cannot be solved rationally. So when a disciple gets an insight – what mode is that? Do you consider that to be reasoning or DMP?

When Isaac Newton discovered gravity from the falling apple – which mode is that?
Nobody had considered there could be a force called gravity.

"no mystic practice I know of will promise eternal
enlightenment after a 5 day intensive."

I got That after a <2 minutes, perhaps a few seconds intensive which was GRATITUDE
If you are in the right position , even in the middle of nothing than failures and arrogancies ,
it's
Worth trying !!

777

honest gratitude is Love is cut thoughts


“@Appreciative Reader
Let me first get some clarification on what you are asking”


……….Hey, Osho Robbins. Sure.


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


“You quote four possible ‘modes’ of knowing
1. Direct perception
2. Reasoning – mental constructs
3. Blind faith
4. Direct mystical perception (if it exists)
Direct perception I presume you mean – like if I eat an apple – I know the taste. No mental process is needed.
Reasoning I would say you mean if I use reason to arrive at a certain conclusion. For instance the discussion we had about no space and no time – and whether change was possible in such a state (if indeed such existed). I used reason and thinking to say that change would be impossible and you used reason to say such a conclusion was fallacious and that no conclusion was possible.
Blind faith – I would argue is not a mode of knowing as it is just a mode of acquiring a belief – and we are talking about knowing – not beliefs.”


.


……….Actually, let me introduce a small digression here, as far as the above. That part about blind faith, and what you have to say about it.

This part isn’t really essential to this discussion, not quite central to what we’re actually talking about, and we may well have moved directly to the next part, where you ask about intuition, which is really what concerns us here. But still, this clarification:

I think we don’t directly know anything. We usually know things at a remove, so to say. When we say “I know such and such”, it is usually more precise to say, “I believe I know such and such”. To that extent, all of the above are, equally, ways of knowing, that is to say, ways of arriving at what one believes is knowledge.

For instance: I hear you, Osho Robbins, tell me that you’re mad at your boss, and are going to kill him. I see that you are really furious. Then I see you pick up a gun, load it, and put it in your pocket. Then, later on, I see you confront your boss, and point your gun at him, and shoot him dead. And then when the police arrive, you surrender, and reconcile yourself to years locked away behind bars.

And I’ve been a direct observer throughout. I “know”, at first hand, that you have killed your boss. And what's more, I've both seen you and heard you admit it yourself. That’s apparently direct knowledge, of your guilt, arrived at via direct perception on my part, right?

And yet, in the customary denouement in the last chapter, all of us who’re aware of the murder sit together, and Sherlock Holmes (or Hercule Poirot, or Miss Marple, or Adam Dalgliesh) describes to us how, in fact, you never ever intended to actually kill your boss, how you only wanted to scare him as well as vent your anger, and shot a whole foot away from your boss, as evidenced by the bullet hole there. There was someone else who, at the same moment, shot your boss, and had been cleverly trying to pass off the crime on to you, and had even gaslighted you into imagining that it was you who did after all kill your boss whom you hate so much.


My point is, what we think of as “knowledge”, is essentially belief. Sometimes that belief corresponds directly with reality, something it is close to reality but with some distortion, and sometimes it is wholly removed from reality. But, as I see it, all of these “modes” describe how we arrive at our “knowledge”, or what we believe is knowledge.


Let me go through the first three modes again:

1. Direct perception : Something directly impacts my senses. I see something, or hear something, or touch something. And basis that perception, arrive at some knowledge (or what I believe is knowledge).

2. Reasoning : As you say, mental constructs. I perceive something, and over and above that perception, I add my own reasoning, to create a mental construct. That is, knowledge (or what I believe is knowledge), based on perception, but at one remove from the perception. Not direct perception, but perception (or memory of perception), plus reasoning.

3. Blind faith : I called it “blind faith” in my last post, but I suppose what I really mean to convey is, “cultural constructs”. That sounds like a better descriptor. Religious beliefs would be a subset of this. This category would include the hundred and one things we simply take for granted, that we take as knowledge (or what we believe is knowledge). Certainly religious “facts” (or so-called facts), but even, I guess, scientific facts. For instance, the speed of light. I "know" that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. But I haven’t actually directly perceived that myself, personally, have I? For me personally that factoid is simply a cultural construct, that I take on faith. (Although for the experimental physicist who actually understands and himself uses the equipment that lets us arrive at that measure, that factoid might belong to category #1, direct perception. (And incidentally, now I think about this, I'd say "direct perception" would include direct perception using equipment as well, so that something seen through binoculars would qualify as direct perception.)


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


I’d say that everything that we know, or believe we know, derives from one or more of these three modes.

How closely does what we know, or what we think we know, correspond to actual reality? That is a separate question, and needs to be evaluated on case to case basis. It would be erroneous to assume that all direct perception is true knowledge, or that all cultural constructs are false. I myself furnished one example of how direct perception can lead to knowledge that does not comport with reality (the part where I see you kill your boss), and one example of how cultural construct or blind faith can sometimes lead to knowledge that does comport with reality (my knowledge/belief that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second).


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


As far as the question you raise, about intuition, I’ll address that in the next comment, so as to clearly demarcate that, set it aside. Because, like I said, the clarification in this post, while it seemed apposite to present it here, but probably this isn’t necessary to our discussion. While the next portion, about your question about intuition, as well as the subsequent point about mystical perception, are clearly absolutely central to our discussion. So I’ll go into those two in my next, separate post.


(Warning: Another huge post coming up!)



“How does “insight” figure into these categories? (…)

(…) When Isaac Newton discovered gravity from the falling apple – which mode is that?
Nobody had considered there could be a force called gravity.”


.


……….I would suggest that intuition is a combination of the above three modes of arriving at knowledge, that is, a subconscious and serendipitous coming together of the knowledge (or belief of knowledge) acquired through the above three modes.

I would propose that intuition isn’t a separate mode of arriving at knowledge, but merely an amalgam of the above three types. But of course, I can see how a case might be made for treating intuition, and for that matter dreams, as well as hallucinations, as a whole separate category. Regardless of whether we treat intuition as a separate, fourth mode of arriving at knowledge, or else merely treat is an amalgam of the first three modes of arriving at knowledge, the fact is the intuition essentially derives from the first three categories.

So what is intuition? It clearly isn’t conscious, clearly isn’t deliberate. I’d suggest our subconscious processes the inputs received via these three modes, acts on our existing stock of knowledge (or what we believe is knowledge), and produces what we come to see as intuition.

And you know what? I’d say that intuition is very important to new ideas and paradigms, but by itself it amounts to a big fat nothing. It is no more than a possible starting point, that’s all.

You bring up Newton’s insights on gravity, and I think that example might serve as an excellent basis for expanding on this.


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


Of course, that story of the apple is probably apocryphal, but regardless, it is a fact that Newton did have that insight of his about gravity.

Now while that intuition was important, indeed essential, nevertheless it seems to me that by itself it amounts to nothing at all. It takes at least two more steps, for that intuition to actually contribute meaningfully to knowledge.

The first step was the intuition itself. The next step is clear formulation of that intuition. In Newton’s case, that would be all of the work that he actually put into his Principia Mathematica. All of that painstakingly developed math, and the fine-tuning of this actual theory, all of that.

Without this second step, that intuition itself is meaningless, no more than speculation. It is this detailed formulation, that stands up to scrutiny by other mathematicians and physicists and the overall knowledge base then extant, that elevates that intuition into something that’s coming close to becoming knowledge.

The third step would be the all-important evidence. Even with satisfactory formulation, Newton’s theory is no more than a well-fleshed-out fairy tale that is consistent with the knowledge then current. I guess people would take it seriously enough, but still not elevate it to the status of actual established knowledge. For that evidence is necessary.

And that evidence was fully forthcoming, as far as Newton. His theories clearly explained the planetary movements, and what is more did this better than Kepler’s model was able to. His proposals and its formulation threw up predictions that were validated by actual observations.

Therefore, after satisfying all of those steps, his intuition became knowledge. Otherwise his intuition, by itself, amounts to diddly squat.


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


Now let’s bring this back to our discussion, Osho Robbins.

You’ve saying that all of what you’ve said here, that I found *not* quite reasonable, and posted detailed objections to, you haven’t engaged with all of those objections because your statements aren’t the proof by which you arrived at your Realization of Oneness, they’re only part of the process via which you’re guiding me on.

Let’s just clarify one thing here. The difference between proof and evidence. This may sound like semantics, but it isn’t, it’s very important to getting to the core of what I think is the flaw in the Oneness proposition, as you present it, and as I see this whole thing.

Proof is what you get in closed abstract systems like logic and mathematics. Not in real life. Nothing can be “proved” in real life. In real life, whether in formal science or in our everyday life, what you get are observations ; and hypotheses to explain those observations ; and further observations that serve as evidence to either bear out or to invalidate these hypotheses. To the extent that evidence bears out some hypothesis, we accept it, and it becomes a theory, and part of our knowledge. (Of course, since there is no “proof” as such, therefore this is only provisional acceptance, and provisional knowledge. Should new evidence come up and invalidate today’s theory, or should some future theories improve on our current theories, we readily discard them and accept the new theories.)

I’ve gone into this, because on this basis let us look at your intuition of Oneness.

Everything that you’ve said here about Oneness, in this post, all of those things that I’ve presented somewhat detailed objections to, all of those follow from your Oneness intuition, presumably? That is, I’m sure they’re not random observations plucked out of nowhere and having nothing to do with the subject at hand, right? To that extent they are formulations of your intuition.

It doesn’t matter that they are, as you say, not the proof of your Realization. Because no realization, no real-life knowledge, actually carries “proof”. Newton’s intuition on gravity had no proof. What it did have was detailed formulation, details that follow from that intuition.

Well, all of what you’ve said in this thread, they’re what follow from your intuition of Oneness. To that extent, they are, in effect, the de facto formulation of your Oneness Realization.

Had Newton’s formulations not held up to scrutiny, then his intuition would have been tossed out of hand right at that stage. (Not necessarily entirely discarded, he may at that point have either binned the intuition outright, or else re-worked his formulation all over again. The point is, it is whether those formulations ultimately stand up to scrutiny, that decides whether his intuition itself is ultimately accepted or rejected.)

Therefore, when all of what you say following on your Oneness realization, I raise objections to, you cannot simply brush those objections aside saying they’re not the “proof” of your realization. You need to squarely address each and every one of them, but a single valid objection ends up invalidating your formulation, and by extension your intuition itself. Regardless of the nature of your intuition itself, it is those formulations that decide whether your intuition itself is to be accepted or not. (Accepted or rejected not just by others, but by you yourself, as well, if your approach is rational.)


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


And it doesn’t stop there. Your Oneness intuition has not passed the formulation stage, and therefore was rejected at that point.

But even had it passed that stage, it must yet pass one more test, that of evidence. It needs to explain actual observations better than a worldview without Oneness. And it needs to throw up predictions that a reality without this Oneness would not throw up, and those predictions need to be borne out. Pass the test of evidence.

Newton’s intuition, once its detailed formulations passed muster, people took it seriously, sure. But it was only when it actually passed the test of evidence, and clearly explained planetary motions better than Kepler’s formulations, and also threw up predictions that were borne out by subsequent observations, that his intuition, his work, became actual bona fide knowledge. (Provisional knowledge, sure, but actual knowledge.)


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


Whew, this post also, like its predecessor, has become absolutely huge.

I’ll address your question about direct mystical perception (that you abbreviate to “DMP” in your comment, and it’s a cool term and we can continue to use that henceforth) in the next post.

That part also will have direct bearing on our discussion, on what I think is the fatal flaw in your Oneness, as you present it, and on the part where I ask you what mode of knowledge your Realization can be best described as.


@ AR

Having read your last message I was reminded of what happened when i first came to know of the possibilities of living masters the like of those of the past.

It evoked many, many questions and one answer gave birth to more questions. After a while it dawned upon me that there would never be a person that could come up with answers that would satisfy my mind and calm it down.

Those who are not on a path are not suited, nor those on a path who had no experiences or were not allow to speak about them and finally the only one really qualified, I soon realized, do speak but remain silent in their speaking. These days I would say, they never speak, they have nothing to say ... but .... find out yourself, I have told you where to look and how to do it. They cannot answer the real questions and if they could they certainly would refrain from doing it.

I gave up asking, writing letters but the questions still remain unanswered. Most of them I left behind realizing that the answer or the desire of my mind to have them answered is just an trick of the mind to do what should be done....become a silent witness.

The mind is an instrument coupled to the senses, in a survival mode. It is not in its interest to have you do other things than process sensoric information and the cultural overlay related to it.

There is no way to satisfy it, or to conquer it ... mystics have found ways to trick it.
Those with a strong mind and well trained will experience higher amplitudes.


“Finally – DMP (Direct Mystical Perception) – I am not sure how you would define this and determine it even existed or what it was like.”


.


……….DMP (as you called it, and cool abbreviation by the way!), as I’d define it, is intuition, that is different from the kind of intuition that we discussed in the preceding post. It’s a direct perception of some supra-normal reality, and/or by some supra-normal means.

Would DMPs exist at all? I don’t know! Very likely not. And if anyone proposed that they do exist, then they’d need to provide convincing evidence in support of their claim.

I include this mode, because it seemed apposite, given the subject and nature of our discussion.

Some examples of this kind of perception, DMP, would be: Bushes bursting into flames and speaking with Moses. Moses getting visions of God. God speaking with Jesus. For that matter, the Devil speaking with Jesus in that desert. Or Jesus, or God Himself, appearing and/or speaking with the devout. The mystic’s visions and mystical knowledge. The knowledge of people and places and entire cosmologies, that are allegedly revealed spontaneously to the RSSB meditator. Kundalini rushing up the Yogi’s Sushumna, and flooding him with inexplicable-in-mundane-terms knowledge of future events, or of present events at distant places. Something something something impacting on the meditator’s pineal gland, and resulting in direct intuitive knowledge of a whole breadth of things (or perhaps some focused subject). That sort of thing.

As far as I know, this “mode of knowledge” is just a hypothetical. It isn’t real. But religious and spiritual traditions do claim it. So there’s no harm in rounding off the picture to include this in our list of “modes of arriving at knowledge”, with the clear understanding that this is only a hypothetical, and we will accept this as real if and only if we find sound evidence for it.


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


Thing is, last time, when we left off our discussion at that impasse, and for the time agreed to disagree? Well, I’d imagined that your Realization was tantamount to some kind of a DMP, some kind of a supra-normal intuition triggered by your overall distress/trauma at your crisis at that time and especially by that workshop you’d attended (much like how Kundalini episodes sometimes allegedly follow on a period of deep distress and trauma ; much like how satoris sometimes follow on deep distress and trauma, as in the story of Ananda’s final enlightenment after the Buddha’s passing).

Naturally I am entirely skeptical of this whole idea. On the other hand, I don’t toss it out the window because I’m interested in it. Although I’ll accept it as true only if I find satisfactory evidence. Although, I have to say, I’m kind of hopeful, in the sense that I’d be very happy if I did find myself able to admit this as real. (Much like your Oneness itself. I’m skeptical, but I’m genuinely interested, and I’d be genuinely happy if this turned out to be true — but that doesn’t mean I’m cutting it any slack in terms of how I evaluate whether it is real.)


So. Like I was saying, I’d imagined your Realization was some kind of DMP. And this time I’d wanted to explore some of the aspects of the content of your realization, the content of what I imagined was your alleged DMP — not accepting any of this as true, obviously, but keeping an open mind for the present.


Well, in the course of this “process” that you yourself initiated this time (with me following your lead, and discussing the specific issues that you were raising), the nature of your Realization became clearer to me. It seemed to be simply an everyday intuition, not a DMP. (And I’m not trivializing it by calling it “an everyday intuition”, I only mean that it is the regular kind of intuition that we’ve been discussion in the post prior.)


To make double sure, I thought to cross-check this by directly asking you, at that point, which of these modes of knowledge you’d yourself class your Realization as.


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


Why was I so sure, this time, that your Realization isn’t a DMP? And why did that make me doubly skeptical of your Realization itself? Here’s why:

Your Oneness is a Deist God. That is, it does not, in any shape of form, actually interact with its creation, right? As such, as you’ve yourself pointed out so many times, from our perspective it does not exist at all.

Well then, if it does not correspond with our universe, then how is it that it is able to make itself known to you? How exactly does knowledge of this One occur to you? This Direct Perception of Oneness, this intuition of Oneness, call it what you will, what is its exact mechanism?

You see what I’m saying? HOW, by what mode, does Oneness reveal itself to you, Osho Robbins, or to your teacher Mikaire, or to Nanak, or to Paltu (whom you keep quoting here), or to Ashtavakra?

A Oneness that does not interact with the universe, is also a Oneness that does not interact with people or provide any DMP (even should DMPs be a thing, which itself is highly unlikely in the first place). Therefore, the intuition that led you to your Oneness realization, cannot in substance have been any different than any other intuition that anyone else has, including Newton’s intuition, or for that matter Einstein’s (to take dramatic examples), as well as the whole gamut of more mundane and humble instances of people having intuitions.

In which case, there is no reason to treat your intuition of Oneness any differently than any other intuition. No need to put in on a pedestal. Hell, if at the end of this process I had an intuition similar to yours, that would be no reason to put it on a pedestal either, or to treat it as special.

We’d still need to clearly formulate it ; and to accept it only if that formulation passed muster. (Which in your case it hasn’t, in this discussion of ours. Not unless you can go back and satisfactorily tackle every objection I’ve raised.) And what’s more, even if passed the test of formulation, we’d still need to gather and to produce evidence in support of it.

And if none of this can be done, then you can’t evade the burden of proof (or burden of evidence) by saying no proof is possible, no evidence is possible. Because if no evidence is possible, then we are constrained to simply reject this intuition. No reason at all not to.


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


You’ve brought out 2D-3D analogy more than once. In a 2D world, how do you produce evidence of a 3D reality? Let me end this post by revisiting that analogy.

We’re living in a 2D world, say. And in that world, I suddenly get this intuition, that the world is actually 3D. Well, I can go ahead and formulate the consequences of that intuition. Build up a detailed model, and see at every stage if that formulation holds up. If it doesn’t hold up, then I go back and refine my formulation further, until it does hold up. Or else I bin my intuition at that stage itself, discard it myself. That would be the rational thing to do.

Even if the formulation stage held up, even then I’d need evidence. I present to you, one more time, the analogy of research into string theory. I’d need to work out how a 3D reality would be different, to a 2D world, than a 2D reality. What kind of changes it might mean for a 2D reality. And see if the evidence supports it.

And if this 3D reality simply has no way of producing any evidence in the 2D reality, then, even if the formulation did hold up—and note, your intuition of Oneness has not even crossed the formulation stage—I was saying, even if the 3D intuition passed the formulation stage, even then, if I find that my reality remains identical whether the ultimate reality is 2D or 3D, that is, evidence is simply not possible, then the only rational thing to do is to reject the intuition.

One can continue to research it, sure. One can treat is as some kind of fun speculation, sure. But beyond that? It simply isn’t rational to accept that intuition as true, because that way lies madness. That way lies accepting any and every cock and bull intuition anyone ever had, that withstood the formulation stage (and note again, your intuition did not even pass the formulation stage even). One more time, I refer you to Carl Sagan’s garage dragon thought experiment, as a perfect analogy for this sort of thing.


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


And as for Mikaire’s crazy demeanor? Again, it is conceivable that a bona fide DMP might induce that kind of craziness. (Assuming purely for the sake of argument that DMPs might be a thing.) You know, Moses sees God and comes back with hair turned white and whole demeanor changed. Some mystic sees visions of a deeper reality and goes apparently crazy, but in fact internally connected with that higher reality. (Again, only hypotheticals, I’m not saying for a minute that this kind of thing is real.)

Well, in your Mikaire’s case, even that hypothetical does not hold. Because we aren’t dealing with a DMP at all, right, but just a normal intuition, as we’ve established already, right? So that his craziness accrues from something else altogether, something more mundane, more everyday. That immediately makes his craziness far less impressive than your account made it appear, in fact it makes it likely that he’d simply hallucinated his Oneness. And even if not, even if it was a genuine intuition, then his craziness adds nothing to it. He’d still need to formulate it, and then have that formulation pass the test of scrutiny, and then do the whole evidence thing. As would you yourself. As would Nanak. As would Ashtavakra.


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


Osho Robbins, this is not to take away from your experience in any way. It is not my intention to denigrate what has clearly been a very meaningful experience for you. And I understand how this thing helped you at a time when you were in a deep crisis, and when you yourself were in a very vulnerable state of mind. Plus I see how this helped you break free from some hocus-pocus belief system that had kept you under its thrall for years and years, and that also is all good.

But you do see now the point of my objection, right? Which I’ve detailed, at some length—in fact, at GREAT length, I’m afraid!—in this post and the last post?

Also, you see now, I hope, why it was important to get this clarification in before proceeding with the process. Because even if the process did end up giving me the intuition of Oneness, what would that amount to after all?

(Contrast that with RSSB meditation. If I did RSSB meditation, and found whole cosmologies within, and found those cosmologies comport with such of the outer reality as we do know, then that would be evidence, right there. Not that I’m batting for RSSB theology here, I hope you see that, but merely pointing out that while RSSB theology is potentially falsifiable, and therefore verifiable, your Oneness isn’t even that.)


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


It was in that context that I’d asked you what was your mode of arriving at the knowledge of Oneness. And this is my larger objection to your whole Oneness thing, and why I was insisting that your intuition probably derives from reason, even if you’re not aware of it. And why I was insisting that the objections I’d raised you cannot simply brush away as inconsequential because you’ve arrived at your intuition not via those reasons but via your intuition. And why the first step (but by no means the final step) of your rationally defending your Oneness (to yourself, first and foremost, as much as to anyone else) would be to go back and satisfactorily address every objection I’ve posted to the points you’d raised here.


"Mikaire also gave me back the £400 when he kicked me out on the morning of Day 5."

Kicked out? Don't tell me, violation of his no cell phone policy?

@AR @U @Osho

I think U are all right as far as it's to behold in your own cranium

I like AP's comparison:1. Direct perception : Something directly impacts my senses. I see something, or hear something, or touch something. And basis that perception, arrive at some knowledge (or what I believe is knowledge).

2. Reasoning : As you say, mental constructs. I perceive something, and over and above that perception, I add my own reasoning, to create a mental construct. That is, knowledge (or what I believe is knowledge), based on perception, but at one remove from the perception. Not direct perception, but perception (or memory of perception), plus reasoning.

3. Blind faith : I called it “blind faith” in my last post, but I suppose what I really mean to convey is, “cultural constructs”. That sounds like a better descriptor.

My say "BEST" Direct Perception was to be Charan First,
next to be the 5 Words, Next to be The Shabd "entirely , that is : The Creator like descrbed in the first paragraph of Jap Ji and of course "Before Abraham, . . I AM"
It lasted less than an hour, . . I couldn't survive physically any longer

2
Then years later One revelation concerned a person at a "low end"
of society
My revelation was this individu just under PINDA at work : creating Creations - There are no words than Gorgeous Splendor
Then I was ordered to give assistance and after 5 years initiation followed

3
If you think this created Blind Faith in me, . . yes but then years later another revelation followed, . . this time a jeeva
of even lower "standing" without education
but it's hardly to believe ABOVE the Sunna Blackness , doing unbelievable things
It is the Region of which Adi Granth sais :
"There are thousands upon thousants of Warriors, all dancing on the Breath of The Almighty"
I cannot explain better
Next Charan MaharJI who showed me that , slowly changed
in Gurinder who said := "Do Help" . . . and I did!
This is only 5 years ago

Now AR , I smile at the expression of Bind Faith , burting in tears almost, . . a lot of reasoning ( to remember in grey cells ) occurs but the Faith is what it does

At all occasions Simran & Shabd ( they form a bastion together with "The Son of Men" were swelling ( highlighted )
Please understand that absolutely nothing is steady
enlighting is a sinusoide accumulating LOVE , an ever swelling wave form a la Fibunacci
never touching The Center

777
PS
Swami JI was absolutely decribing things magnifficiently
even using for that time comprehensive poetics
masterly translated by Prof.Lekh Puri, . . Ishwars Father


"Kicked out? Don't tell me, violation of his no cell phone policy?" - umami

No - he didn't have that policy.
He told me to "Get out" because I was sitting in his chair and teaching in hos absence. Which was according to this instructions because he said
"If I am not here - someone better be in my char teaching."
It was done on purpose to push me to a cetain point. It was a crucial and necessary part of the process.

Appreciative Reader
I read your comments yesterday. My head hurts just reading it. So I went to bed after replying to umami as that was an easy reply. Apparently my claim to fame is centred around breaking rules to do with phones.
But actually it’s just around breaking rules as I am not a great fan of rules. I am a great fan of sitting on the chair of the guru just to see what happens next. In Mikaire’s case, he was overjoyed that some idiot had dared to cross the line and invited further idiots, but none were forthcoming.
Another incident. We were in a park and everyone was standing around Mikaire and listening - including me. Then I sat down. Everyone looked at me as of to say “WTF are you doing?” Except Mikaire. He looked at me “is the grass dry?” I said it was. “Everyone sit down”’ he commands.
Then I take over again. Just like when I sat on his chair. Except it wasn’t me, that was talking. The owner of the talking had gone away and the talking was just happening.
Without going into detail just now, let me just say. The enlightenment falls into none of the categories you elucidated. Because in the first place it never happened and in the second place it never happens to anyone because it is not an event.
I don’t claim to be enlightened - but sometimes just for a laugh I will say I am just to engage you because you believe there is such a thing.
There is no such thing because to seek it is to miss it.
The seeker ready considers himself separate. Then to add insult to injury (metaphorically speaking), he tries to unite with the Oneness.
How can the idiot possibly unite?
He is not separate in the first place. And in the second place he doesn’t even exist.
Only the ONE exists. But he claims to be separate from the ONE. Already he has created two and now he is trying to get to the ONE, as if the ONE is some distant destination he has to arrive at.
“Absurder and absurder” as Alice might say in wonderland.
And now he is trying to get there. An impossible task because he is already that which he seeks. The seeking is doomed to fail. The assumptions are incorrect.
From duality there is no pathway into ONENESS. It is absolutely impossible because you have to begin with the truth - not seek it from untruth.
So what is the enlightenment and what type of knowing is it?
Which category?
None.
It has no category.
I tried to put it into a category but every category failed to fit.
In the first place “I don’t know it” because there is nothing to know. Enlightenment is not knowledge. I never “got enlightened”
And I deny there is such a thing as “enlightenment”
The Buddha also denied it. So he coined a new term “nirvana” but all to no avail because now people seek that instead.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
He changed the name but it’s still there as a goal in the seekers mind.
The seeker seeks - there is nothing to seek. The seeker himself is an illusion.

I made up a statement which is also nonsense like all other statements about enlightenment - but at least it’s my nonsense. At least I can claim something just for laughs.
This is it.
Enlightenment is a journey ………
( even the first four words are nonsense because there is no journey and no enlightenment - but I have started so I’ll finish like in “university challenge”)

Enlightenment is a journey, the destination of which is ………. the absolute realisation that there was no journey, there is no destination and there was nobody to undertake the journey.

Typo corrections
“ The seeker ready considers himself separate.”
Replace “ready” with “already”.

There was a time when ……..
I was not enlightened and I was seeking it……….
Now I am enlightened and I have found what I was seeking.
I have succeeded, please congratulate me and put me on a pedestal. I will get you there too, for £1000. No refunds.


The above is the illusion.

The seeker thinks there is an unenlightened state and an enlightened state. And he is trying to go from the former into the latter.
Using various methods like “seva”
“Meditation” or “intellectual dialogue”

All will fail.

The Buddha failed.

Osho failed.

Mikaire failed

And I failed

Nothing fails so magnificently as enlightenment.
It is the ultimate failure from which there is no recovery. No hope.

Above the huge gigantic gates that lead to enlightenment world, are written these words.
I know because not only have I seen them, but I wrote them ……..

“Give up all hope, if you choose to enter herein ……. Nobody has ever survived …… nobody has ever come back ……
And nobody has ever lived to tell the tale……. Good Luck…..
And good riddance. xxx”


@um

Sorry, really busy the last few days so just now responding (not like you were waiting around for me to, just saying…).

It’s funny, ACIM talks about how critical meditation is and describes the inner regions in an extremely brief way but the discretion is very similar to RS’s description. However, it approaches it a little differently. The focus with ACIM is not on the inner regions but the final destination. And it does warn against the dangers of merging with the ego which is called by other names such as Kal, negative power, “devil”, whatever. But it says not to be afraid of anything or to consider anyone or anything your enemy. At the same time it warns against merging with the ego. If a master has merged with the ego he will never believe there is anything higher and he will truly believe that he is “God” deep down. And if you are following a master/guru/guide like that then you’re compromised. Of course “God” is simply the energy of pure love and oneness. But the ego… the ego in all its “glory” is separation. A guru merged with the ego is the opposite of enlightenment (like the ones who never go beyond what RS calls Trikuti). And it should be pretty easy to spot those types of gurus. Buddhism is much closer to oneness.

The first three names that satsangis repeat in simran are names of rulers of the lower realms. They shouldn’t be given any focus whatsoever. There’s no need for a mantra from a spiritual perspective but if someone has a mantra that is truly uplifting that’s good. But focusing on the astral and causal realms and all the silly experiences that go with them is a waste of time and slows your progress quite considerably—to the point of preventing a soul from ascending. Satsangis travel the meandering backroads which are dangerous. Not saying it’s impossible to make progress that way but it can easily take lifetimes and centuries. It’s not the only way. But it’s definitely the slow way and suffers all the perils of the ego much more than the straight road.

It would be irresponsible for me not to point this out.

@ Enlightenment is a journey, the destination of which is ………. the absolute realisation that there was no
@ journey, there is no destination and there was nobody to undertake the journey.

Villager: I'm terribly sorry, Mr. Frog, but you've fallen in our well.
Be still or you'll sink deeper. Grab this rope.

Frog: What makes you think I've fallen? I 'spose you'll next claim
I need to recognise my predicament and need to take a long,
arduous journey to get out. Hah, I'll have you know there
was no fall. No journey is needed. There's no destination.
Nowhere to get to at all. Ah, there's no "Mr. Frog" or "Villager"
either. All is Oneness in reality, by Jove. Once you realise
that, then you'll see--

Villager: --Oh dear, another one in the well has lost the way.
Call for help if you realise a little is needed. I'll leave the
rope just in case.

Frog: Rubbish. But, if you could lower down a spot of tea,
I'd be grateful all the same.

@ s
Now I am even more puzzled. What is Acim?

And ... I lost track because the 4 last reactions never appeared here.

@ Osho
>> Enlightenment is a journey, the destination of which is ………. the absolute realisation that there was no journey, there is no destination and there was nobody to undertake the journey.>MIDWAY upon the journey of our life I found myself within a forest dark,
For the straightforward pathway had been lost.

Ah me! how hard a thing it is to say what was this forest savage, rough, and stern,
which in the very thought renews the fear. So bitter is it, death is little more;<<

If one walks in the woods of life it can so happen, that all of an sudden, the path one was following disappears in nothingness; something that happens with so called animal trails.

The words of the poet can be used to describe the feelings if such a thing happens.
There and then one is forcefully made to realise that one had never been on a path and that the trail was leading nowhere. Then comes the realisation that one is all alone in the situation and nobody around to help.

In the beginning that is as scarry and bitter as the poet describes but slowly one settles down, and accepts what is to be accepted as an fact, there is no escape there, no solution and one cannot but make the best of the situation.

"Robbed" from goal, meaning, destination etc what remains are the simple joys of life.

@ .... test

The previous message was posted on my phone and arrive here but a newer post, made on the PC didn't again.

If this one arrives it is a matter of different browsers.

@ Osho
>> Enlightenment is a journey, the destination of which is ………. the absolute realisation that there was no journey, there is no destination and there was nobody to undertake the journey. >MIDWAY upon the journey of our life I found myself within a forest dark, For the straightforward pathway had been lost.
Ah me! how hard a thing it is to say what was this forest savage, rough, and stern, which in the very thought renews the fear. so bitter is it, death is little more;
But of the good to treat, which there I found, Speak will I of the other things I saw there.
I cannot well repeat how there I entered, So full was I of slumber at the moment In which I had abandoned the true way<<

Those who walk the woods must can recognize the situation, when one is following a path, thinking it to be man-made and it turns out to be an animal-trail that all of a sudden disappears in nothingbess. THAT very moment one becomes aware of the fact that it was not an path at all, that it had no real beginning nor end, no purpose. Moreover one is lost, not knowing where to go and what to do.

In the beginning it is as bitter and scary as the poets describes but little by little one starts to accept what has to be accepted and make the best of the circumstances one finds oneself in ...unwanted.

anew ...

@ Osho
>> Enlightenment is a journey, the destination of which is ………. the absolute realisation that there was no journey, there is no destination and there was nobody to undertake the journey. MIDWAY upon the journey of our life I found myself within a forest dark, For the straightforward pathway had been lost.
Ah me! how hard a thing it is to say what was this forest savage, rough, and stern, which in the very thought renews the fear. so bitter is it, death is little more;
But of the good to treat, which there I found, Speak will I of the other things I saw there.
I cannot well repeat how there I entered, So full was I of slumber at the moment In which I had abandoned the true way<<

Those who walk the woods must can recognize the situation, when one is following a path, thinking it to be man-made and it turns out to be an animal-trail that all of a sudden disappears in nothingness. THAT very moment one becomes aware of the fact that it was not an path at all, that it had no real beginning nor end, no purpose. Moreover one is lost, not knowing where to go and what to do.

In the beginning it is as bitter and scary as the poets describes but little by little one starts to accept what has to be accepted and make the best of the circumstances one finds oneself in ...unwanted.

@Respected readers,

there seems something going wrong posting here and I do not know what and how, it makes the message partly unintelligible ... I am sorry

The first sentence is a recap. from what Osho.wrote and where MIDWAY starts are the words of Dante At the beginning of his book on the hell.

-
Who desires enlightement when you can have LOVE?

777

If you hold a specific opinion, and in contrast with that opinion, others are wrong who hold a different view, then that view itself is flawed.

... As is the view you are using to measure theirs against.

You have made them wrong holding such a view.

Therefore your opinion, while perfectly true for you, must also be false applied to anyone else.

Truth is only one. There isn't more than one truth. But everyone and everything is that truth, including the different viewpoints of all those other people, situated as they are in different times and places.

You could say that they are all ignorant of your view, or even each others'.

But they are reporting perfectly their own perspective, which is a real place in this reality.


“Appreciative Reader
I read your comments yesterday. My head hurts just reading it. “


……………..Ha ha ha! :----) I can feel, no, “realize”, literally dozens of folks sending me their blessings, as I read that, for titting that particular tat!

Nah, kidding. Apologies for going so heavy with thins thing! I *was* taking your Oneness, this whole business, kind of seriously, you know. Not solemnly, nor particularly respectfully; but seriously, absolutely. Hence that very detailed probing.


-------


“Then I take over again. Just like when I sat on his chair. Except it wasn’t me, that was talking. The owner of the talking had gone away and the talking was just happening.”


……………..That’s kind of key to what happened to you, I realize that.

How do get from that to Oneness, though? ---I have to ask again. But I ask now with little expectation of getting a cogent answer! *rueful smile*


-------


“Without going into detail just now, let me just say. The enlightenment falls into none of the categories you elucidated.

(…) So what is the enlightenment and what type of knowing is it?
Which category?
None.
It has no category.
I tried to put it into a category but every category failed to fit. “


……………..Well okay, you’ve clearly tried your best to answer that question. Thanks for that.

I don’t know if you realize it, but in claiming that your Realization does not fall into any of those four categories, you’re automatically claiming, in effect, that it does fall into category #4.

Because you’re saying that one moment you had no idea of Oneness, and next moment you did have some incontrovertible realization of it. And, unlike regular intuitions, not subject to error, and therefore, unlike regular intuitions, not dependent on validation for acceptance by the rational minded, but taken immediately as reflection of truth. At least that seems to be your implicit position, because you yourself have clearly bought into that idea, despite not having in any way been able to validate it yourself.

That’s a “DMP”, all right. Or at least, a claim of such. (That is to say, an implicit claim of such. And in any case, you’re yourself, in having bought into it, clearly treating it as such.)


-------


“Only the ONE exists. “


……………..There you go again. Why do you keep saying that? How the eff do you know this, exactly? ---is what my question is, asked this time in prescribed Mikaire-speak (albeit with the eff-bomb sheathed in abbreviation).


-------


“I don’t claim to be enlightened - but sometimes just for a laugh I will say I am just to engage you because you believe there is such a thing.”


……………..But I’ve already told you, many times, that I DON’T believe there is such a thing. (I am interested in this kind of thing, and I do keep an open mind, but I decidedly don’t believe in this kind of claptrap, and nor would I actually accept such even if I came face to face with something like this, not without rigorous verification.)

Given that I don’t believe in this kind of thing, why do you keep saying that you’re saying these things simply to engage with my belief? That makes no sense at all!

And you’re literally saying here that you’re simply saying things that you know aren’t true! Why, for what reason? Why keep saying these random things that you simply cannot defend, and that you yourself say aren’t true?


-------


“It is absolutely impossible because you have to begin with the truth - not seek it from untruth..”


……………..Copybook question-begging there, Osho Robbins. You “begin with the truth”, that is to say, you begin with Oneness as your starting point, that you directly assume is the truth, just because. Then you repeat it often enough that you start believing it is self-evident, and then circle your way back to it as though it were a fait accompli.


========================================


I don’t know what to make of all of this, Osho Robbins. You genuinely don’t seem to realize the copybook fallacies you’re treading at every step here. You genuinely don’t seem to realize that your leap from whatever experience you’d had over there, to your present worldview of Oneness, is an unsupported one. That it simply isn’t rational to believe in what you believe—as far as I can make out by talking with you.


.


No matter. Let’s leave this be, we’re simply going around in circles now. And I’m done probing, I’m doing trying to figure this out. No more questions from me, no more digging for clarifications.

But if you’d like to continue to talk about your journey and your experiences, then I’m very happy to listen on (without necessarily reading into your words any deeper meanings). Your account of your journey and your experiences is interesting, and fun too, and in an odd kind of way I find myself empathizing.


.


Oh, and although you do keep insisting that you’re impervious to this kind of thing, still, if in the course of my probing, I’ve ended up pressing up any sensitive spots (for instance by openly doubting, and in fact now having come close to actually dismissing, your deepest beliefs), then my apologies! There was no other way of doing this, other than with some degree of straight talk.


@Dungeness and other interested @Disrespected readers - Hello dear ones

WooDrop #3

Dungeness poetically opined thusly: "Villager: I'm terribly sorry, Mr. Frog, but you've fallen in our well.
Be still or you'll sink deeper. Grab this rope."

Woo is confused (who, you say, that is for woo to know and you to find out....).

Woo reads your metaphor differently.

Some frog, in an apparent state of ecstatic happiness and unitary consciousness, gets hijacked by some random villager who then presumes to tell the frog it is in a dire predicament from which it needs extraction, to the villagers level of reality?

It seems to woo that what is actually going on here is that there is no well and that what the villager is actually selling to the frog is an imprisonment that didn't exist prior to this indoctrination; in such a circumstance, then yes, "realisation", or "escaping the well" is as instant and simple as realising you're not actually in a well, after all.

And so it is with adherents of eastern religions and schools of metaphysical thought. Nobody is born in the "bondage" of "karma" or "reincarnation", these are all conceptual and intellectual beliefs by which we must become conditioned and indoctrinated to give them any credence. They hold absolutely no reality on any level whatsoever if you have not been exposed to these mental viruses, or if you simply do not believe them.

Karma is the biggest crock of shit. Listening to RS gurus like Gurinder spin themselves into babbling and incoherent repeatedly self-contradictory loops trying to make sense out of the messy morass that is karma theory is, for one woo at least, highly amusing to behold. I mean for anyone not conditioned to believe he knows what he's talking about, the obvious absurdity of his answers on questions of karma, destiny being unchanging, but meditation changing your ability to cope with it, that effort needs to me made in meditation etc etc.....I mean seriously, if he wasn't being listened to by unquestioning sycophants you'd have to laugh!

And so it is....the villager is trying to tell a happy being that, actually, it is deeply unhappy. The villager knows best.

Woo wonders, perhaps it is the villager who is unhappy, and all this talk of falling into deep wells merely an expression or projection of their own self?

Woo knows?

Prof. Assagioli {Psych synthesis], if i remember correctly, stated that, symptoms related to the spiritual development of a person, often resemble those of problems that urge people to visit a psychotherapist.

For that reason, or the other way around, many so called spiritual developments are in fact nothing else or more than psychological problem solving. Let it be clear they too can be impressive, but they are not the same as a step forwards on a spiritual path.

It is remarkable, that the practises that passed here last days, have all their roots in those activities of the seventies and "the pioneers" of those days that travelled to the east ... with central themes of being ANTI this or that .. mostly establishment and authoritative figures ... ending up with practices and viewpoints that are far worse than they revolted against.

It makes me time and again think of the movie of last emperor, in which the old feudal rule and its outward show of beaty, is replaced by communist salary men in green uniforms.

>>And so it is with adherents of eastern religions and schools of metaphysical thought. Nobody is born in the "bondage" of "karma" or "reincarnation", these are all conceptual and intellectual beliefs by which we must become conditioned and indoctrinated to give them any credence. They hold absolutely no reality on any level whatsoever if you have not been exposed to these mental viruses, or if you simply do not believe them.<<

So, because the rare indigenous tribes that have not witnessed the western world the things in the western world just do not exist.

Naturally for THEM the concepts of our world are not related to any content and for that reason cannot exist.

WooDrop #4

"Quote of the Day
"We meditate because we want to go back to the Father and escape from birth and death. That is the purpose of meditation. "

— Maharaj Charan Singh Ji —
Posted by: 🙏 Charan Singh 🙏 | June 01, 2021 at 06:23 PM"


Nice to see Charan Singh posting and quoting himself on this blog.

Yes you are absolutely correct Mr Singh.

But he obvious question that arises is, why did you us tell about separation from the "Father" and that we need to "escape birth and death" in the first place? I had no feeling of separation or fear of birth and death prior to this (or, more likely, it was my fear of THIS birth and inevitable "death" that so terrifies me that it makes me lend credence to your strange, incoherent and completely unproven "realities"?).

The next question that arises is, did this "Father" not place me "here" in the first place; am I to assert my own will and try to "escape" to somewhere other than where "Mother's" omnipotent will has placed me? Such egotism!

This is a strange situation......meditation seems to be a package deal.....it comes with fear, the feeling of separation, effort, and the sole desire to "escape birth and death".

Woo suggests it is no great surprise or mystery why there is a seemingly infinite line of RS initiates queuing up to the microphone to state their absolute fear and failure with RS meditation.

It is joyless from it's inception. Woo says y'all need to find real meditation masters to find real inspiration to meditate, not symbolic figureheads.

Woo out.

>>Karma is the biggest crock of shit<<

For those human beings that have a desire for an explanation why things are as they are and not want to lean on the fictive stick of "chance", karma is the most beautiful theory human scientists have come up with. It carries all the attributes of a well developed scientific theory .

Before things can be proved scientifically they first must exist as an theory.

>> But he obvious question that arises is, why did you us tell about separation from the "Father" and that we need to "escape birth and death" in the first place? I had no feeling of separation or fear of birth and death prior to this (or, more likely, it was my fear of THIS birth and inevitable "death" that so terrifies me that it makes me lend credence to your strange, incoherent and completely unproven "realities"?).<<

You are told about birth and death, you have seen children be born and relatives seen die .. i suppose .... but for YOU both birth and death are EMPTY concepts and as such have no reality whatsoever.

Nobody needs to explain or prove to themselves and others that the food in this or that restaurant is unpalatable in order to decide not to go to that restaurant.

Or to argue about the [doubtful] expertise of the chefs in the kitchen, the behaviour of the staff in the restaurant and the products they serve to the public.

These types of decisions are only related to the visitor,his likes and dislikes and not his expertise.

Of course, if one finds pleasure in doing it ..one is free to do it, certainly in a country where "hate talk" is appreciated as the height of freedom of speech.

But if one is not a qualified chef or seasoned visitor of different restaurants of class one selves, ones comments easily become "informative" about the commenter.

WooDrop #5

Beloved Um wrote: "You are told about birth and death, you have seen children be born and relatives seen die .. i suppose .... but for YOU both birth and death are EMPTY concepts and as such have no reality whatsoever."

"For those human beings that have a desire for an explanation why things are as they are and not want to lean on the fictive stick of "chance", karma is the most beautiful theory human scientists have come up with. It carries all the attributes of a well developed scientific theory .

I think this is the problem, lots of people mixing apples and pears.

First of all, the theory of cause and effect is not karma theory in any way, shape or form. One of the great imprisonments of souls and minds has been the association of the cause and effect of matter and materiality to consciousness, being and the "soul".

Listening to eastern and new-age guru types talk about "karma" is not beautiful or elegant, it is a nonsensical, sprawling, repeatedly self-contradictory and hypocritical mess of uncritical and lazy thinking. Let's please not conflate the simplistic elegance of cause and effect applied to matter with Gurus claiming rebirth as a human being *only* due to being fed an egg whilst unconscious on a deathbed. That would just be bizarre and surreal.

As for "ME" only seeing birth and death as a concept, but others having seen relatives die etc so it being real for them, I think you may be misunderstand my point. Of course birth and death are real in the sense that is the experience we are all having. That goes without question. The issue is the "birth and death" Charan is referring to is clearly births and deaths we have no awareness of or reasonable reason to believe in. Even the most deluded on RS believers do not imagine they will "escape" THIS "birth and death". Even RS meditation and RS gurus aren't THAT powerful :) So being afraid of relatives or oneself dying is aided by Charan's claim, as his method cannot affect THIS birth and death.....it only affects some unseen, hypothetical cycle of "births and deaths" and about which we must be very fearful, even if one is rather enjoying the current incarnation quite immensely......apparently such a one should shun their gratitude towards reality AS IT IS, and must assert some control and effort to escape it........but of course all our actions and completely predetermined and outside our control........wait, isn't that contradictory......:-/

So, first we must imagine, believe and have faith in something that, actually, doesn't exist (at least for the vast majority of living beings, remarkably even those that completely believe and are indoctrinated by this belief-set, they have absolutely no evidence or persuasive argument for it's existence.....all talk of juridical karma as the driving force for transmigration is simply mental masturbation with no basis in any experiential reality (including people who claim to actually experience "past life memories", or NDes etc, as absolutely nobody mentions juridical karma as a force in the universe and their "incarnation"....why not?).

Thank goodness y'all have a saviour in these be-turbaned children and grand children of other be-turbaned saviours, they will ensure you are very aware of just how miserable reality is.

Woo

@ Wooanon
As for "ME" only seeing birth and death as a concept, but others having seen relatives die etc so it being real for them, I think you may be misunderstand my point. Of course birth and death are real in the sense that is the experience we are all having.

I did not write that only others witnessed birth and death, i wanted to put before you just the simple fact that YOU do not know whether birth and death are real or not. For you these are just empty concepts ... you have seen others born and die upon which you conclude it will happen to you ... is is not an experience, proved fact.

You wrote
>>So, first we must imagine, believe and have faith in something that, actually, doesn't exist (at least for the vast majority of living beings, .....<<

Yes, before you can prove an hypothesis to be true or false you have to accept it.
Proof goes AFTER that acceptance ... faith goes after proof. Ofcourse most would like it to be the other way around.

If you want to falsify the hypothesis the mystics of all places and times have put before humanity ... I wish you good luck in comming up with something better to explain the facts of life, the meaning of life.

Nobody needs to use it ... meaning is attributed ... but if you do or not do, it changes the way of life.

And Wooanon
My dad, blessings be upon his soul for eternity, taught me a simple lesson on young age that facts, things, material or abstract are like tools and whether they are beneficial or not depends not upon these tools but the upond the user.
One day I put before him the observation that many monks in the school had an cramped facial expression most of the times. So I asked him if he knew why that might be. He murmured ..Son, it is celibacy and sighted, the last was his prayer before the lord what he had done to deserve such ignorant son and it was often a sign that there was no further discussion. As I insisted to explain himself he said: "Look, celibacy is a problem for all men but if you have no idea what its purpose is, it becomes an millstone around one's neck.

In this country there are many very strict communities of protestants. Part of these communities have the facial expression of the named monks, for them their believe has become un burden in other communities following the same doctrines, the faces are relaxed so to say.

Those who come to the path bring with them the social an cultural imprints related to how to deal with religion ... no dogma tells its followers how to deal with it. They the followers...ATTRIBUTE ...the meaning.

For me karma etc is just a rational and loving explanation of the facts of life

@ It seems to woo that what is actually going on here is that there is no well and that what the villager is
@ actually selling to the frog is an imprisonment that didn't exist prior to this indoctrination; in such a
@ circumstance, then yes, "realisation", or "escaping the well" is as instant and simple as realising
@ you're not actually in a well, after all.

No, "Woo-Osho San" the villager is only reacting to the Frog's evangelism
that enlightenment is as instant as reading a fortune cookie. The Villager
accepts, but just doesn't applaud, the Frog's choices as a matter of fact.
With the needed preparation, devotional intensity, and effort as backdrop,
enlightenment can happen instantaneously. In differing paths too.

But something in the Frog's evangelical zeal rings uninformed and glib to
the Villager's ear. Particularly with mention of 400 quid seminars, buckets
of F-bombs, and bullying to compel, er, disciples, to deal with "their b.s."
The Villager wasn't deprecating the efficacy but only offering a "rope" in
case the Frog decided on an alternative approach to get the heck out of
that well. They may well share a spot of tea on the journey or, if you like,
that "non-journey".

WooDrop #6

I was once walking with my Master, OshoRobbins, and I happened to glance upon a dog urinating against a Church wall, and I asked my Master, "does a dog have buddha nature or not?". Master replied, "Woo!".

In an instant "I" disappeared and only Woo could be found.

Follow the trail little doggies, a big biscuit awaits the courageous.

@"If you want to falsify the hypothesis the mystics of all places and times have put before humanity ... I wish you good luck in comming up with something better to explain the facts of life, the meaning of life."

Who are these "mystics of all places and times"? Surely you just mean scholars, pandits and teachers from the Indian sub-continent post Buddha? This question is as misleading as asking if I want to falsify the hypothesis of "mystics of all places and times" who have stated Jesus Christ is the sole saviour of all humanity. This is is just another socio-cultural-linguistic specific phenomena in time, the notion or "reality" of this hypothesis is completely irrelevant to somebody who hasn't heard of Jesus Christ, meaningless and irrelevant.

The question woo asks - after more than 3 decades of woo-self deeply exploring all such woo-subjects - is it *really* "mystics of all places and times" who've come up with this theory? Woo thinks not. But woo does deeply appreciate your sharing of your recollections with your father. I often enjoy your way of saying things, your insights, even if I very often disagree.

@"No, "Woo-Osho San" the villager is only reacting to the Frog's evangelism
that enlightenment is as instant as reading a fortune cookie." & "But something in the Frog's evangelical zeal rings uninformed and glib to
the Villager's ear. Particularly with mention of 400 quid seminars, buckets
of F-bombs, and bullying to compel, er, disciples, to deal with "their b.s."

First of all, Woo is merely a humble and adoring servant of the Great Huzur Maharaj Baba Sant Osho Robbins Ji Maharaj. I grind myself into dust as offering to his lotus-petalled feet in contrition for having the lowly woo adjoined to His Glorious Name. Really we should show due respect and not even sully His name by uttering it from our sinful and degenerate lips.

Second-wise, Ah! I did not realise the frog was evangelising; I thought it was merely expressing it's own experience, not imposing their reality on somebody else, like the villager imposing wells, when, well, maybe a well is where frogs are happiest?

Thirdly, "uninformed and glib" is very subjective. It can seem very "uninformed and glib" to some to believe
that extremely greedy and almost certainly fraudulent billionaire Babas from the Punjab who inherent their positions through family dynasties lasting decades have some special level of "realisation" or insight about reality, or that they embody in any way, shape or form what a "Pooran Satguru" is as defined in their very own magical-thinking dogma, satsangs and literature etc. Would you not agree it is a matter of perspective, and being open to those other perspectives rather than judging them a priori? Your man Osho was born into RS, was an official satsang speaker, met and stayed with several other RS gurus etc....he knows where you're coming from; have you even tried the kind of intensive Osho refers to?

Yes, uninformed and glib; common characteristics of humans "debating" online.

Woo la la

@ Woo san

The proof of the transcendental, the existence of the divine and everything related to it, has been asked since antiquity and never been given, as it is as impossible to transfer water from one place to the other with a sieve.

The importance of these metaphysic theories, hypothesis and claims is not their proof but their use for those who have faith in them as it gives meaning to the facts of life.

Compare their effects with the effects placebo's do have in those who take them in good faith.

And to bring a smile on your face:
>> I often enjoy your way of saying things, your insights, even if I very often disagree.<<

In one of the strips of "Suzy and spike" as they are recently called in the VS, there is a situation wherein Jerom hits an bolder and Lambik, holding his belly from laughter because the bolder doesn't crack or react. Jerom without moving the expression in his face, says Labic better not laugh ... turning the page one sees an total cracked bolder, with in the cloud, ... the bolder needed time to realise that it was hit.

One answer 4this enceclopaedia above :

It's like music, . . common music I mean

Can Mozart join his feel with us . . . no, not even when he plays himself
In Amsterdam they have these street organs . . could that ever make me happy ?
Crowds say Yes

Everybody has Shabd LiveStream but some don't hear
There is nothing to explain about whatever chord of it
Karma decides if you are totally deaf or not and what to do about it

777

Also in my case:
One need two to dance the Tango, mr Osho


-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TLUouyXeI4&list=RDGMEMTmC-2iNKH_l8gQ1LHo9FeQ&index=3

@ Yes, uninformed and glib; common characteristics of humans "debating" online.

You make a good point, WooAnon. It was hasty... made on a dark night
when slipping into a well is far easier and ropes are most effective when
you use them to get yourself out of the well first.

This video made me appreciate Alan Watt’s.

https://youtu.be/dYSQ1NF1hvw

To wahiwooanonji:

An indomitable frog named Manjit
Said that ‘karma’s’ a big pile of shit.
As a result of this view
Understanding - it grew
And belief systems took quite a hit.

@Tim R & Woo,

Ahh… enlightenment at last. You’re spot on—the karma theory is fundamentally flawed and isn’t even a distant relative of cause and effect.

No one can deny cause and effect, but this so called “exact and perfectly balanced theory of karma” is utterly insane. Karma is just another way of saying mentally unbalanced.


Quote Sonia: "Ahh… enlightenment at last. You’re spot on—the karma theory is fundamentally flawed and isn’t even a distant relative of cause and effect."


.......Huh. Fitting summing up of this thread. Project Obfuscation succeeds spectacularly. Congratulations, manjit, on your stellar service in aid of your Master.

Not to worry, my work is done. And my work consisted of nothing more of disinterested evaluation for none other than myself, so that your efforts, while they appear curious to me, and revealing as well, do not really clash with mine, at all.

Food for thought. At more levels than one. Thanks for introducing this interesting meta angle, this final and very interesting twist in the tale.


FINAL WOODROP ALERT!!!

It seems my identity may have been compromised.

I am afraid for my safety.

I have already been threatened by murky, apparently humourless anonymous online characters whose online communications I have not even read in several weeks or months accusing me of "obfuscating" their important plans, and claiming to have revelations about me.

Further, it seems some people are clocking onto this karmic theory crock of shit - and that saying "so and so happened because of karma" is no more factually evident, informative or predictive of other future events than saying "shit happens". This is very a very dangerous situation for me, there are agents of karma everywhere. And they're generally a pretty unhappy bunch.

So I must leave you all with my last WooDrop before heading off to my secret cave in the Himalayan mountains;

Get a bat; but treat it kindly.

Gently encourage it to listen to the following audio on loop 12 times.

https://youtu.be/LxQxY3Imj2s

Then feed the bat a very nice vegan bat-meal (errr, you know, whatever bats like to eat).

Then gently massage it's belly to encourage it to defecate.

Then take that shit and smoke it in a pipe.

This is Woo's last information drop.

PS - Whatever ever happened to Jesse? Woo misses that obscene fool.

May you all be blessed by a vision of Woo

And may you be blest with an anchoring in reason. Truth is unpretentious, and cleverness sometimes gets in the way of comprehension.

Instead of knowledge and wisdom, what one finds is irony. Meta-irony that leaves one ...bemused, and wiser. All that glitters, and so forth.

Hey Appreciative Reader. Based on our earlier, very lengthy discussions I've had with yourself, I thought I would provide a more honest and straightforward reply to your recent comments.

First of all, with all your resolute "anchoring in reason", imagine how your 2 recent comments read to me, somebody who hadn't read more than a single line of your comments in more than several weeks and didn't respond or (presumably, and if not it's purely accidental) refer to, or have any concern or consideration to any of your comments in any way? Please consider it suggests your "reasoning" has lead you into imaginary motivations on my part, as well as that you consider yourself to be the centre of everyones, or at least my, attention. I have far more pressing concerns to attend to :) I post about whatever I feel like posting about whenever I post, I can assure you your posts on this blog have absolutely no influence on the content.

As to why I haven't read your posts in a while, it's because we've already engaged in very lengthy discussions in the past on more than one occasion. I personally feel I understand the conceptual loops you've spun yourself into, and they simply do not warrant the investment of time engaging with further. Don't take it personally; I can assure you far more people have forcefully told me they disapprove of my lengthy posts, and probably won't read them. If you feel affronted by my lack of interest in your insistence of containing mystical experience within your so-called rational intellectual concepts, please consider the attitude I express towards those who have told me the same - who gives a shit, I post for my own pleasure and have no obligation to anyone, just as they have no obligation to read a single word of it.

Here's a link to plenty of woo:

https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references

Of course it is not comprehensive, but there is probably a few years worth of research into the various "rational" and scientific evidence of "woo". It should at least make one aware there is just so much mystery there.

As for the non-dual "mystical experience", it is beyond words and concepts, and no amount of your insistence upon your intellectual rationality being able to somehow prove or demonstrate it's "reality" will change that. Your posts read to me like somebody sidling up to the ocean with a thimble and insisting they be able to fit a whole ocean into it, otherwise the ocean doesn't exist.

You are of course welcome to believe you and your rationality is somehow seeing into the nature of reality more clearly than those blinded by woo. It really is no concern of mine. Just don't expect me, manjit, to pay exclusive attention to you and your concerns in my posts, as your 2 recent posts quite bizarrely suggest you imagine I should be or indeed am doing.

That's as honestly and politely as I can respond to your 2 recent posts, which, strictly rationally speaking, were astonishingly non sequitur to anything I actually wrote. For me to comment any further almost demands that I descend into the absurdity of the afore-happenstances of WooAnon, because that is quite literally how absurd I find the whole situation.

I wish you luck on your journey.

:)

Fair enough. I may have misjudged your comment, and your intent.

I could spell out what led me to what I'd concluded, as far as your comments. Both in terms of mine, as well as regardless of that. And also spelt out whence the jaw-dropping irony, in the unlikely case that that isn't obvious, and already understood. But I may have wasted enough time already, others' no less than mine, and done more than my share of spelling things out. Any more would amount to exhibitionism.

Sure, I wish you well too. But I think I've actually been the drunk in um's joke -- which too you may not have read, of course, so that I feel compelled to offer up a defense of my self-referential indulgence, by pointing to my probably foolish, and yes, again self-indulgent, disappointment with this thread. I know, silly of me to get so invested in murky anonymous online interactions. But I did want to find my key. And no harm done, after all.

Cheers.

P.S. I haven't checked out your link yet, but I will. Thanks for posting it.


I'm clearly into cruelty-to-dead-equines stage now, with this whole thing here, and well past the stage when I should be moving resolutely away, but as far as this:

"As for the non-dual "mystical experience", it is beyond words and concepts, and no amount of your insistence upon your intellectual rationality being able to somehow prove or demonstrate it's "reality" will change that. Your posts read to me like somebody sidling up to the ocean with a thimble and insisting they be able to fit a whole ocean into it, otherwise the ocean doesn't exist."


If you're still here, manjit, the above is the kind of thing that sounds, you know, deep, profound. Yet, when you think about it, it is entirely nonsensical.

The fact is, if people come over with tall tales of oceans, or of a wider reality than I see on the walls of my cave, or beyond my two-dimensional world, then it is entirely reasonable to ask for evidence. Even if one is inclined to keep an open mind --- which I myself am --- as far as objective evidence, even then, it is entirely reasonable to at least ask for a detailed explanation, and certainly for a clear and cogent and reasonable and internally consistent account of how exactly it is our prophet has come across said ocean, or said world beyond cave, or said three-dimensional reality beyond my own two dimensions.

If none of this is forthcoming, despite repeated attempts, and despite having taken a great deal of trouble over said attempts, then it would be foolish to continue to to be taken in.

Sure, you post for your pleasure. As do the other sundry mystics that populate these pages, and in fact every other page everywhere, and not just online. And absolutely, others can choose not to read what you post, or engage with what you say. That is merely stating the blindingly obvious. Neither of us owes the other anything at all.

What this examination amounts to are the actual reasons that someone who does choose to engage with this sort of thing would have to either accept or to reject these experiences and worldviews, that Osho Robbins and you profess. These discussions aren't street theater, at least not where I'm concerned. They aren't empty posturing, at least not from my side. And yet, that is exactly what the other end seems to amount to. And I say this basis what I have myself seen and heard and understood. Whether the posturing is fraudulent in nature, or merely owes to delusion and the attempt to keep up the delusion in the face of cognitive dissonance when confronted with reality, that is something I do not know. I'd like to charitably assume the latter.

And of course, it is always possible that despite every appearance to the contrary the ocean does rage on beyond the grasp of the thimble. But that can be said of every crazed claim ever heard. That would apply equally to the RSSB claims that you so love to denounce, or to psychic powers, to any and every, yes, woo, that floats around in this world. It is spectacular special pleading to hold some beliefs like the RSSB faithfuls' to account, while invoking thimbles and oceans to in effect give a free pass to your own pet woo.

I was astonished with your performance in this thread. Because performance is what it amounts to. Far less words and far less effort and far less time invested would have sufficed to clarify questions asked here, and asked in the past, if such clarification were within your power. As for your not wanting to, sure, I respect that, but then that raises the question why someone would want to coyly hint again and again at some profound depth of experience, but every time step back when clear and cogent elucidation is requested.

I've tried to extend the benefit of the doubt as far as I humanly could. Not just out of personal regard (because that regard was and is fact, the murky anonymous nature of these particular interactions notwithstanding), but also because, I suppose, of hopes and wishes that are to my own account. It seems reasonable to extend it no more.

Sure, as you say you don't give a shit either way. Understood. I could say the same, that I don't give a shit either, to whether you give a shit, except that wouldn't be true. I do give a shit, as evidenced by the considerable time and effort I've given over these exchanges.

On reflection, I don't regret these exchanges, at all. Neither with you, nor with Osho Robbins. I've personally learned a great deal from both of you, both directly from what you've said, and also from my own cogitations around what you've said. Regardless of how I end up seeing your experiences now, for that I'm grateful.


@ AR

In the story of the man looking for his lost keys, I never portrayed him as a "drunk" ... It is tempting to do so as it makes the character seen in another light but it changes also the atmosphere of the scenery.

In the story as i told it, the man looking for his keys, is addressed by his "friend" .. a well wisher to him. He could also have met somebody else, someone that was more than willing to search the streets with him.

The "scout" from this or that indigenous tribe, after having come to know all the gadgets of the western world, one day returns to his tribe, sharing what he came to see and experience.

The only means he has is to use the language of his people, the language that has its roots in the forests and lacks concepts for Internet, Pc and everything related to it.

He cannot make his fellow tribes people experience what he has seen. Whatever they discuss and whatever concept they use of their own language it will be for ever impossible to even create a faint idea of the reality he has seen.

What he says can only be an invitation for other tribes people, if they so wish, to go also to the west/east to see for themselves.

Or ... he can try to disqualify the "scout" as an qualified reporter. ... yes , there are many "storytellers" around ...and yes, some of these stories are fantasies.

@Appreciative Reader
https://youtu.be/iXyLbU1GGqU
Check out at 15 mins in

I honestly wish all these posts and words were about
the vâks - just to save your physical body
We took Ivermectine ( go youtube) which harmless molecule
our gov banned november 2019

7

@AR
“I don’t claim to be enlightened - but sometimes just for a laugh I will say I am just to engage you because you believe there is such a thing.”

……………..But I’ve already told you, many times, that I DON’T believe there is such a thing. (I am interested in this kind of thing, and I do keep an open mind, but I decidedly don’t believe in this kind of claptrap, and nor would I actually accept such even if I came face to face with something like this, not without rigorous verification.)
Given that I don’t believe in this kind of thing, why do you keep saying that you’re saying these things simply to engage with my belief? That makes no sense at all!
And you’re literally saying here that you’re simply saying things that you know aren’t true! Why, for what reason? Why keep saying these random things that you simply cannot defend, and that you yourself say aren’t true?

I wasn’t referring to YOU (AR) specifically. I was saying “Just to engage YOU – (not AR – a general “you”)
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.

For instance – I am attempting to say that “Enlightenment is not an experience”
To which you may reasonably ask “Well what the heck is it then?”

Seeing “Light” or the radiant form is an experience.
It happens at a certain time and you can explain the experience.

But…..
All experience requires TWO - The experience and the experiencer.

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.

Also – I was attempting to explain the TIME/SPACE thing to you and there was a reason for the redefinition of the real/unreal, but you cannot see it because you are too focussed on the “logical fallacy”.
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.

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.
Realisation cannot dawn on a mind that believes it knows.

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

The awakening is not a belief and cannot be explained through logic or words.

Osho: It can ; and more compact

Enlightened : 1 * 1 = 1
Not so much , : 0 * 1 = 1
further:
The under educated
The stubborn

Beside this math, . . . are atheists ever in Love?

777

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.