Is a mechanism required for realizing Oneness?

Below I've shared a lengthy comment from "Appreciative Reader" that deserved to be made into a blog post. Why?

Because the comment is nicely thought out and well written.

It addresses an interesting question: whether someone's experience of Oneness just happened, and can't be described in a step-by-step fashion, or whether a mechanism that leads to an experience like this can be communicated to others.

I tend to agree with Appreciative Reader that in general, someone's spiritual realization is capable of being analyzed and critiqued to a significant degree.

As I've noted before, dreams are highly personal and unlike everyday experiences. Yet if I remember my dream, I can describe it to another person -- albeit with that description including language like "It was sort of like this" and "Hard to describe, but this is the best I can do." 

Of course, dreams aren't considered to be a reflection of a reality existing outside of the mind of the dreamer, while many, if not most, people view their spiritual experiences as reflecting something true about the world/universe/cosmos.

I'm assuming that an experience of Oneness is more like that, and less like a dream.

So while it doesn't make sense to challenge the veracity of a dream -- this is just what the brain does while we sleep -- it does make sense to question the nature of a spiritual experience, if the person who had the experience claims that it points to a truth about our shared reality.

As a final observation, I agree with Appreciative Reader that Oneness isn't what the Buddhist notion of emptiness is all about. Emptiness concerns the lack of a lasting essence or permanence in objects, including us.

The emptiness of existence is characterized by interdependence, interrelationships, dependent arising based on causes and conditions. Superficially this has to do with unity or oneness, but not in a deeper sense. 

Oneness implies a foundation to reality. Buddhism teaches that actually there is no such thing. Even emptiness is empty, not standing by itself as an independent metaphysical principle.

Here's what Appreciative Reader said in the comment. I've corrected a few typos and broken up some paragraphs to make them easier to read.

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

Osho Robbins, I just read the seven posts you’ve addressed to me. Thanks for the detailed response.

I’ll compose this response to you in two parts. In the first part, I’ll touch on all of the points you raise, in those six posts of yours, in the order you’ve raised them ; but I’ll do that very briefly. I’ll number these out, and if you wish me to expand on any of these, then I’ll be happy to if you ask. And in the second part, I’ll concentrate on one specific part of your comment ; and I’ll do that at some length, because I think this might be crucial to our discussion, and will, or at least I hope it will, settle this might-there-or-might-there-not-be-a-specific-mechanism-for-Oneness issue once and for all.

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

(1) I’m afraid your Oneness is nothing at all like Nothingness, nor Buddha’s Emptiness. Do you remember, in our original discussion I’d clearly demonstrated exactly this to you, beyond all doubt, by quoting your own words back to you? I can do that here as well, if you want me to.

No, it isn’t, at all, a matter of semantics. Your Oneness, or Non-Duality, is very different from Nothingness, and no, it does not comport with the Buddha’s teachings.

(2) Your invoking the Buddha at that point was exactly and entirely a case of fallacious appeal to authority. We refer to Einstein or Newton as authorities when speaking of reality, because it is established that what they published, within their core field, is descriptive of reality.

That isn’t something we can say about the Buddha’s teachings, any more than we can say that about the Bible or the Quran. The only thing that the Buddha is a bona fide authority on, are his own teachings (just like the only thing that Tolkien is a bona fide authority on, is Middle Earth).

To invoke the Buddha’s words as an argument on actual reality is as fallacious as invoking LotR as an argument on actual reality : to do that you’d first have to show that what you’re referring does comport with reality in the first place.

(3) You’ve gone into great detail discussing your experiences. Despite not buying into the core arguments you present, nevertheless I do find your core experience fascinating, and your account of your broader experiences very appealing.

Please do not let my repeated refutation of such of your arguments as I find fallacious stand in the way of your sharing more of these, because I find them both enjoyable and instructive; and, like I’d said, in some odd way I find myself empathizing very closely.

(4) You’ve discussed at some length, across three posts, why you believe your Oneness is neither perception nor knowledge, and why asking for a mechanism is meaningless. I intend to focus on one particular example you’ve presented to illustrate your point, and address that particular example at some length ; and hopefully show you thereby, once and for all, what exactly I mean when I keep demanding that you discuss the mechanism of this knowledge, and why your claim that such demands are pointless is mistaken. I’ll do that in the next section of this post of mine.

(5) The video you’ve referenced, on the Multiverses, seems fascinating. (Watched a short portion of it for now.) As with the earlier one of Brian Greene’s that you’d linked, I’ve bookmarked it. Bears listening to, absolutely. One keeps putting these things off, time constraints I’m afraid, but thanks for posting the link. I’ll get to watching all of it when I can.

(6) You’ve asked me about the origin of thoughts, et cetera. That question is actually very much like that other question you’d asked me (Who am I?). Both questions are seemingly very deep, and people of earlier ages clearly had a blast faffing around with those questions, but modern neuroscience has very clearly and simply answered both questions.

The answer to the earlier question I’ve already given you. And the answer to the latter question is, apparently our thoughts arise in our brain before we even become aware of it. So that we are, in effect, no more than witnesses of our consciousness.

(Mind you, the above does not present you with a get-out-of-jail-free card. To answer the question you’d asked of Spence in a subsequent post : Even if, as it appears, the narrative we build around our actions and our lives is a post-facto construct, nevertheless that construct is still a fact, so that for all practical purposes that makes no difference.

Although sure, knowledge of this mechanism might nudge us to be more consequential in our evaluation rather than purely judgmental, but that’s about it, as far as what difference this makes.

You still need to produce the narrative explaining your thoughts and your actions, or else admit to ignorance of it. This last won’t help you in this particular discussion we’re having, because this is simply a broad outlay underlying all of our thoughts and actions, not just that particular realization of yours.)

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

And now, here’s the portion I wanted to focus on in some detail in this comment of mine.

In discussing why you think asking for a mechanism isn’t really applicable to your realization of Oneness / Non-duality, you present this example, that I’ll first quote here in full :

This is my answer. There is no mechanism because the thing you are asking about (How the oneness communicated) didn't happen.
It is like this:
Person A - sitting at home.
He does not realise he is at home.
He thinks he is somewhere else.
He now decides it is time to go home. He puts on his coat to leave the house to go home.
"where are you going?" asks his friend.
"I am going home" he replies.
His friend takes him outside the house.
"Take a good look: is that your house?
Look at the garden - it's your garden.
Look at the front door and the door number and the street name"
"Oh yes - you are right - I am already at home.
I was just mistaken for a while when I was sitting the settee" he says
He then re-enters his house and sits on the same settee.
Nothing has changed. He is sitting in the same place.
He has not gone anywhere.
His mistaken idea that he is not at home has been corrected,
He now KNOWS he is at home and does not seek to go home anymore.
What is the mechanism by which the home communicated to him that
this is his home? How does he know he is not mistaken again?
There has been no communication and no mechanism is needed.
He simply was mistaken when he thought he was not at home.
That mistake has been corrected and he can now see clearly that in fact he was ALWAYS at home.
He didn't go anywhere, and nothing has changed.
Only his mistaken notion (that he is far away from home) has been removed.
This is what it is like. ONENESS is already the case - always was and always will be. ONENESS did not suddenly happen. It always was. no mechanism is needed.”

In that example of yours, here’s how I’d describe the mechanism of how Person A, who had hitherto believed he was not at home, has now come to believe (or has come to know, if you prefer that latter word) that he is at home after all and in fact has been at home all along.

I think we can split up that process, or that mechanism if you will, into four distinct parts:

Step 1 : Person A, on being directed by friend, clearly sees his house and garden and neighborhood and door number and street name. Direct perception, if you will.

Step 2 : Person A then brings up the conception that he has of his own home.

(And what does that conception comprise of? We don’t know, in this case, because you haven’t detailed that. It’s probably his own memory, And it might, possibly, also include other ideas he’s gleaned about his home from other sources, including his friend’s words. If we are to study Person A’s identification of his present locale as his original home, then it becomes imperative that we do find out what exactly this conception of his own home comprises of, that is, how exactly he’s come by this conception.)

Step 3 : Person A then compares his direct perception of what he’s seen just now, with the conception that he has of his own home.

Step 4 : Having compared his immediate perception with his conception of his home, Person A then decides that his perception coincides with his conception of home (that is, his perception is either exactly identical to his conception, or else it is sufficiently close).

Therefore, he concludes that he is, indeed, sitting in his own home. As a result, he replaces his old belief (or old knowledge, if you will), that he’s NOT in his home, with this new belief (or new knowledge, if you will) that he IS, indeed, in his own home.

As you say, this is indeed a paradigm shift. That is, it is an outright overhauling of Person A’s worldview.

However, to say that no mechanism is applicable here is clearly entirely erroneous. There is a very definite mechanism at play here, that you yourself have not been aware of, because you hadn’t been watching out for it.

Now that I’ve clearly spelt this out, using your own detailed example that you yourself had presented to explain your POV, I hope you do understand what I’m asking for? I hope you now get what I mean by “mechanism”? And I hope you see how a demand that you clearly discuss that mechanism is entirely reasonable in a discussion on how Person A came to believe (or know, if you prefer the word “know”) he’s now at home?

And also, why I’m insisting that you discuss this mechanism also is probably obvious now. First, in order to clearly understand your POV — because any discussion of your Oneness is incomplete without a discussion of this mechanism, and because a clear understanding of your POV is simply impossible without a clear discussion of this mechanism.

And second, once you clearly describe that mechanism, then we can suss out to what degree we can rely on different portions of this mechanism. That is the only way to reasonably arrive at an opinion on how reliable is your realization.

(And forget me, even if I did not exist at all, even then I should think even for you this exercise would be essential, for you to clearly understand your Realization, and to then clearly evaluate if your Realization holds up to scrutiny. To simply gloss over those steps and to focus on the paradigm shift itself, while ignoring the underlying mechanism of that paradigm shift, and what is more to directly assume that that paradigm shift is bona fide, is clearly fallacious.)

(Mind you, I’m not saying here that your paradigm shift is fallacious. But I AM saying that your directly assuming that your paradigm shift is beyond examination, and your assuming without examination that it is bona fide, is what is fallacious. It is only after carrying out this examination, and this evaluation, that one can arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to whether that paradigm shift is bona fide or not. Because, as you can see, and as I can further elucidate at greater detail if you ask me to, each of those steps, in your particular example, can admit of error. Which is not to say there is necessarily any error there ; but absolutely, at every step there is the possibility of error.)

The point of clearly identifying this mechanism is twofold : first, it facilitates a clear understanding of your paradigm shift ; and second, it gives us a clear basis to evaluate how reliable is your paradigm shift.

I realize you might need to introspect, to go back to clearly recalling and visualizing that experience of yours, in order for you to clearly identify and to describe this mechanism of your realization of Oneness. Take your time, Osho Robbins. Identify the steps involved.

(Probably it will mirror the four steps that I myself identified in your example, but feel free to structure it out as you think might best capture the process.)

As and when you’re done with identifying this in your mind, and at such time as you’re comfortable doing this, let’s now, finally, have a clear description of the mechanism of your having arrived at your paradigm-shifting understanding of Oneness or Non-duality.

Comments

[Osho Robbins]

“Of course, dreams aren't considered to be a reflection of a reality existing outside of the mind of the dreamer, while many, if not most, people view their spiritual experiences as reflecting something true about the world/universe/cosmos.
I'm assuming that an experience of Oneness is more like that, and less like a dream.” – FROM ABOVE ARTICLE

When you have a dream – you consider it to be REALLY HAPPENING (while the dream is ongoing). You don’t generally KNOW it’s a dream. You think it’s REAL. You are fully convinced that it’s NOT a dream – and it is REALITY.
For example, you might have a “falling dream” in which you are, for instance falling from a building. It seems REAL – you are about to DIE. Sometimes – you DO die. From the dream perspective “dying” means the END of the dream. So – if you suddenly WAKE UP from the dream, just before you hit the ground – in effect you died in the dream and woke up to this reality. In this reality – there was no death – you were simply asleep on the bed and then you sigh “Thank God (or Allah or Guruji) that it was JUST A DREAM and NOT REAL.
What is my point?
If YOU are the person who is to be taken as a RELIABLE WITNESS to determine what is TRUE and what is REAL, then I am afraid that you don’t have much credibility. Just like you would not trust a persistent liar, you would not trust a witness who keeps getting it wrong. It is not reliable testimony.
Let me spell it out – just in case my point is not clear.
We’ll call the person Fred (very original of me)
So, Fred says “I KNOW that this life I am living is REAL”
Sceptic: “How do you KNOW?
Fred: Well – it SEEMS real enough. I can see and touch things and well everything appears pretty solid and real to me.
Sceptic: But, Fred, I don’t mean to question your credibility (just being nice, of course he IS questioning his credibility), but, you thought the dream was real – while it was happening. You only changed your mind once you woke up!
Fred: Well clearly the dream is not real – but this is!
Sceptic: Fred, you are only saying that NOW THAT YOU ARE AWAKE and the dream has ended. It was a very different story while the dream was in progress. While the dream was happening – you KNEW it was real. There was no doubt in your mind. You experienced fear, laughter, joy, sadness, in fact all the emotion of waking life – because you were 100% convinced that it was real.
Fred: (getting frustrated) yeah, so? And your point is….?
Sceptic: My point is: you are not a reliable witness. You were wrong to think that the dream was real. You didn’t know you were dreaming. So just because you say “this is real” means nothing to me, because you were wrong last time (about the dream) so give me some definite concrete proof that you are not wrong now! Without that proof, I don’t believe you, as you are an unreliable witness. Your saying so, it not reliable
Fred: Oh – I see – you’re saying that THIS might be another dream? And I might wake up from it?
Sceptic: Well, why not? That is what happens to you EVERY NIGHT! You dream and you are convinced that it is real life, then you wake up. Isn’t the same thing happening now? Maybe you will wake up to another reality MORE REAL than this and from that perspective – this is unreal and dream-like. I am not saying that IS the case, but I am saying, it is quite possible, since a similar thing happens to you every night. Is there any way that you KNOW that this is real? On the other hand – you DO know that this will end! And you don’t know what happens when it ends! So just maybe, this is a longer dream than you nightly dreams.
The point is that there is no way for Fred to prove even to himself that this life he is living is any more real than the dream state.

[Osho Robbins]

“As a final observation, I agree with Appreciative Reader that Oneness isn't what the Buddhist notion of emptiness is all about. Emptiness concerns the lack of a lasting essence or permanence in objects, including us.
The emptiness of existence is characterized by interdependence, interrelationships, dependent arising based on causes and conditions. Superficially this has to do with unity or oneness, but not in a deeper sense.
Oneness implies a foundation to reality. Buddhism teaches that actually there is no such thing. Even emptiness is empty, not standing by itself as an independent metaphysical principle.”

“Even emptiness is empty” – This also applies to my so called ONENESS. I am NOT saying that there is a thing called ONENESS that is real and exists. That would be absurd. Here’s WHY it would be absurd: Existence means “It IS – it exists – it’s real” That would be impossible to say because ONENESS has none of the characteristics of what we call “EXISTS” - it is not a "thing" , it can only be called "non-existence" if you use our normal definition of "existence"
something that doesn't move, act, judge, love, die, stand, sit, or whatever word you want to place here, can only be called "Empty" or non-existent because of how we define "Existence". Anything outside of time and space cannot be called "REAL" by our definition.
This is why this cannot be explained.
Science is not of any help here simply because we are not dealing with a thing that can be examined. Logic also breaks down because once you are dealing with "outside time and space" - logic no longer works.
I posted some of those videos for this very reason. To point out that even top scientists have to admit defeat in even trying to figure out the physical universe. For example they say that the laws of relative speed don't apply once we reach the speed of light. It seems you cannot travel faster than light. If you did - your normal laws breakdown.
Science is useful for dealing with the physical universe. Logic is useful but has it's limitations.
Both are out of their depth in this arena.
I am also not claiming a supernatural God who is all powerful and therefore cannot be explained - like the christian God. My God is closer to Buddha's God: a strange non-existent God who does nothing all day and all night. You cannot see him, have tea with him, shake hands or have a chat with him. You cannot even unite with him.

I am using ONENESS as a synonymous word with “Nothing, empty, zero”.
I understand that word ONENESS suggest it is real and exists because of the ONE – rather than ZERO, but that is not what I mean by it. I would mean that if I stated that something else OUTSIDE of the ONENESS also existed – that could perceive the ONENESS.
If there is only the ONE – and it exists everywhere and in all time: it has no boundary and no end: it doesn’t matter if you call it ONE, EMPTY, or ORANGE. It is all there is, there is nothing else to compare it to.
We only have two ideas in our mind because we can contrast them – compare ONENESS to EMPTINESS. But if there is only ONE thing and nothing else – it matters not what name you give it. Emptiness and Oneness and Nirvana are then the same. The mind creates the differences in the process of trying to understand.

This difference arises because we have to employ language. In my view, ONENESS does not imply a foundation to reality. I am using ONENESS and emptiness to mean the same thing: namely that non-duality.
Let me spell it out:
DUALITY NON-DUALITY
Separate things no separate things
Individual souls no individual souls
A changing world no change is possible
Movement no movement is possible.
Events happens no events can
happen (nothing ever happens)
Getting to realisation Realisation (an event) cannot happen
Having an experience no experience can happen
– as there is no subject and no object

I will go into the reason why the “mechanism” cannot be described in the next comment. It is a limitation of my example, that the same does not apply to the example. The example was to illustrate a point about that fact that the person is in the same place (home) but now he knows he is home and doesn’t seek to go home anymore.

[albert]

Once a thought is generated and cognized, "oneness" has been obliterated. Thoughts obscure and divide the original timeless, motionless and spaceless. Thoughts are things that are constantly in flux.

Describing "oneness" is fun. Go ahead and give it your all. I humbly offer the following second aphorism from Patanjali's Yoga Sutras: "Yoga Chitta Vritti Nirodha".

Translated, this quintessential aphorism describes that Yoga (union with the unmanifest Being) transpires when all fluctuations of the mind have ceased.

The sutras also describe the practice to attain such stillness.

How can any semblance of "Oneness" be experienced in the heat of dispute, polemics, cavil or rationalization? It cannot. To be one with the One, one must be coverless and we all have many layers of covers over our conscious Self. Look up "koshas" and find at least five covers which ARE NOT the true Self, but obscure It and sully its pristine and original state.

[Osho Robbins]

@AR
So now, having read AR's detailed comment - I can understand that "mechanism" means
HOW did it come about? Like in the example, the person shows him the house and compares it to his house (or what he knows about his house) and then he can see that actually this IS his house.

Now that is relatively easy to explain. What I was previously talking about what how the ONENESS communicates to the person of Osho Robbins, which is a different matter because the ONENESS is not a thing and therefore does not communicate.

So explaining the process of what happened to create this paradigm shift where there is no longer a ME and only the ONENESS (or emptiness, nothingness) IS - that it relatively easy to do. It is too profound to be a belief in the sense that I am using the word belief.
RSSB and sant mat - that was a belief. I BELIEVED that regions existed and that I was a separate being and I needed to merge and that the method was meditation. All of those were beliefs.
The paradigm shift and what came along with it was not a belief. It was too profound to be a belief. It was undeniable. Hence I say "I know" but actually to even say "I know" is not truthful because the "I" that would know has gone. There is still a body/mind here - but it is not ME anymore - it is A body and A mind - not MINE.
Now I understand these are just words to another.

There was a "loosening" of the previous beliefs - from certainty they went into "Not-knowing" and only in that vacuum did the "paradigm shift" occur. I did not create it or manage it or have anything to do with it. I did not even understand what it was and what was going on. All I knew what that SOMETHING was happening and I could not understand what it was.
I had no understanding of the word "Enlightenment" or "Non-Duality" as I was not on that path.
It was like the owner of my life went on a holiday and didn't inform me. Life continued - but "I" was absent. There was no ownership and no goals. I did not seek anything. I stayed alone for quite a while - doing nothing in particular. Nothing mattered anymore. The "chase" was over as there was nothing to chase anymore. Desires were cut from the root because no desire had any meaning - as everything was unreal and ended.
I will create an audio with a more detailed explanation of the mechanism and the process as best as I can - if that is what you mean by mechanism.
An audio will be easier and it's easier to just talk than write.

[Sonia]

I’ve been meaning to say this for a long time—I don’t think everyone interprets “emptiness” the same way, and (IMHO) it’s not a very good way of translating the original texts.

Śūnyatā is void of natural phenomenon.

From Wikipedia:

Śūnyatā (Sanskrit: शून्यता, romanized: śūnyatā; Pali: suññatā) – pronounced in English as /ʃuːnˈjɑː.tɑː/ (shoon-ya-ta), translated most often as emptiness,[1] vacuity, and sometimes voidness[2] – is a concept that found in diverse religions from Buddhist, Shaivite and Vaishnavite, which has multiple meanings depending on its doctrinal context.

In Theravāda Buddhism, Suññatā often refers to the non-self (Pāli: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman)[note 1] nature of the five aggregates of experience and the six sense spheres. Suññatā is also often used to refer to a meditative state or experience.

In Mahāyāna Buddhism, śūnyatā refers to the tenet that "all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature (svabhava)",[4][5] but may also refer to the Buddha-nature teachings and primordial or empty awareness, as in Dzogchen, Shentong, or Chan.

[Uchit]

A warning, donot repeat mantra that summons demons. RSSB 5 holy words are names of demonic entities. The first name means the "light of the devil". You have been warned.
If you repeat these names you are calling entities that dont have your best interests at heart. Once the door is open, it is difficult to shut.

[Cousin Zigzag]

The first name means the "light of the devil," Mr Uchit?

Oh, really? Prove it!

[Spence Tepper]

If you wake from a dream now you are perceiving reality differently than in the dream state. You see things you didn't in the dream. You are aware of more things than you were in the dream.
And you may also remember things you had forgotten. Since you knew them, and you are recalling them as if they had never been forgotten, you can say that there was nothing new. It was there all the time. No one needed to prove any of it because you already knew it. You had just forgotten. That can happen in an instant. But it can all be forgotten again too. These brains are tiny. And as bags of chemicals subject to uncontrolled variation.

When you forget again all you may have left are the vague recollections of having once known something more.

This is a daily experience in meditation. As the mind settles down, awareness expands. But at first it is brief and fleeting. In time it becomes reality, more stable than our waking state, inclusive of our waking awareness but much greater.

Awareness levels change in meditation. And with expanded awareness comes connections to memories as if they had never been forgotten.

[Spence Tepper]

One more point. If everything you become aware of in meditation in time comes with memory of these things, nothing appears new. There is no expansion of awareness to new things, just a return to the familiar. But a familiar that in our waking life we had no knowledge of.

[Spence Tepper]

Cousin Zig Zag
Luci-fer.

Carrier of light and truth. Knowledge.

But also a son of God.

[Cousin Zigzag]

Spence,

Then not "the devil" at all!

[Osho Robbins]

Cousin Zigzag,

"Nirenjan in Sanskrit means the one without blemishes or the one who is spotless and pure. Nih means not and Anjana means black colouring matter. So, Niranjana means not matter or not even a colour which itself is abstract. So, Niranjana signifies untarnished by any sort of matter; Pure to the Extreme, the Om and it is Shiva according to Vedas."

So at a stretch, if you take the last part: it is Shiva. Part of the Triad of the three Gods: Brahma (creator), Vishnu (sustainer) and Shiva (Destroyer).

If you consider destruction as a devilish thing - I guess one might interpret this as the devil. However in hinduism - destruction is seen as a necessary thing before a re-birth: as described below:

here's a more detailed description of Shiva.

Shiva has many titles and forms, and can be seen differently by every one of his worshippers. He is a part of the trimurti, a triad of the three most powerful Hindu gods. Brahma is “the creator”, Vishnu is “the preserver”, and Shiva is “the destroyer.” Together, they make up the cycle of the universe. While in Western thought, destruction is generally seen as a bad thing, “destruction in Hindu belief implies reproduction” (Iyengar). To Hindus, destruction is just a holy act necessary for new birth. It is often contested whether there is one member of the trimurti who is the most powerful. Some say it is Brahama, since he created the universe, and there are some legends that claim Vishnu to be the most powerful, but many argue it is Shiva, since he the power to destroy the universe. In one story, Brahman and Vishnu were arguing over which of them is the supreme god. Suddenly, a pillar of fire appeared before them. Brahman flew up to try and reach the top of the pillar, while Vishnu tunneled underground to find the base. When they met again, Brahman lied and told Vishnu that he had reached the top. Out of the pillar appeared Shiva, who reprimanded Brahman and declared himself to be the true god. This pillar symbolizes Shiva’s never-ending power and omnipresence in the universe. Some sects of Hinduism believe that Shiva himself is the Supreme Lord of reality, and he may be likened to Brahman.
One of Shiva’s other major titles is Nataraja, the god of dance. There are many icons of Shiva in his Nataraja form. He is usually depicted dancing alone inside a ring of flames, called a torana. This dance is the tândava. It is the angry dance of destruction that paves the way for creation. In depictions of this dance, he has four arms—one holds a damaru, or drum, that “emanates the creative energy of the universe”, while the another holds the flame of destruction (Cush). With the upper two arms, he offers abhaya, or protection, and he indicates salvation with the lower two. He stands with his left foot suspended while his right foot is standing on the demon of ignorance, Muyalaka. This is his dance of anger with which he has the power to destroy the universe. Shiva is also associated with the Lasya natana, a couples dance of peace and love. He performs this dance with his wife, Parvati. Both the tândava and the lasya natana make up “the cosmic dance of Shiva” (Williams).
One of Shiva’s unique characteristics is the fact that many of his forms and powers are paradoxical. He is known as the Mahayogi, an ascetic who dwells and meditates on Mount Kailasa, in the Himalayas. From there, he looks down upon all of humanity. In this form, he lives a celibate life and bears a beggar’s bowl made from a human skull. He holds the key to the highest spiritual knowledge and miracles. However, he is also the god of sexual energy and can represent fertility. He has a certain erotic quality and some of his forms are very suggestive. This is one of the reasons he is worshipped in the form of a lingam and yoni, which represent the male and female reproductive parts. He represents destruction, but also regeneration, and he has both male and female forms. Shiva is both feared and venerated, and he contains all opposites within him.
Though Shiva can take many forms, he has certain physical characteristics that remain consistent. His most iconic attribute is his third eye in the middle of his forehead. This eye is associated with his ascetic form and is used to look inward instead of outward. With it, he has the power to grant wisdom or to ultimately destroy. He famously incinerated Kāmadeva, the God of love. Kāmadeva had been trying to get Shiva to break his vow of chastity so that he would marry Parvati. He planted arrows of lust into Shiva’s heart while he was praying and when Shiva awoke, he opened his third eye and Kāmadeva was destroyed. Together, the three eyes of Shiva represent the sun, moon, and fire. Another unique mark of Shiva is his blue throat. He drank halāhala, a poison made when the gods and demons started to churn the ocean. To keep this poison from destroying humanity, Shiva drank it and held it in his throat, so that it would not reach his stomach, where three worlds dwell. Shiva is usually depicted wearing an animal skin and holding a trident, which represents the trimurti. He wears his hair in a matted bun, and it is said that the sacred river Ganges flows from his head. He also wears a cobra and sacred beads around his neck. The cobra represents Shiva’s dominance over the world’s most powerful animals. The beads are called rudrāska and represent “the eyes of Rudra” (Cush). The rudrāska is made from seeds and represents celibacy, since Shiva strung them together instead of letting them plant in the soil. In many paintings and icons, his bull Nandi stands behind him. Nandi serves as the gatekeeper and protector of Shiva and Parvati. Shiva is often also associated with evil spirits. He is said to be followed by a retinue of goblins and spirits, called ganas. They are uncivilized beings who are described as deformed. Whenever Shiva needed to exact revenge, he called upon an army of ganas to fight alongside him. He even named his son Ganesha, meaning “king of the ganas”.

[Osho Robbins]

interesting video by Alan Watts about illusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYSQ1NF1hvw

[Dungeness]

@ Zigzag; Then not "the devil" at all!

I agree. He's been given a bum rap. The real "devil" is always
hidden in the "Karma User Manual".

[Cousin Zigzag]

Osho R,

So yeah, not the devil at all, but I can see where someone could twist it!

[Osho Robbins]

The interesting thing is that we can make anything fit if we want to.

We can choose our own version of good and bad. Shiva, the god of destruction, we could consider bad, because, well, destroying is bad, right?
But we can make it good by saying destruction is needed before you can create the new. So now it’s good.

Good god! We can create any meaning.

Now take your life as an example.
Let’s say, death is the end. Now wouldn’t it be good if you could exist beyond death? If you could get a second chance and a new body?

But now let’s say: Reincarnation is true.
So you will be reborn as a dog, cat, mouse, monkey, whatever. Human if you’re lucky.

So now your target and goal is to NOT be reborn.

You want to get enlightened so you will not come back.

So in reality, which is it?
Do you want another life or not?

You can’t answer because you don’t know which one is the “yes I made it, I won” and which is the failure.

If you believe death is the end, then another life is a “win”, a good thing.

If you believe in the cycle of birth and death, then breaking free of the cycle and not being reborn is the “win”

So really you don’t have a clue

[Jim]

Have you seen the work of Jurgen Ziewe on youtube? I like the one Celestial Song Angel of the earth. I like this guys explanation too. https://www.reddit.com/r/AstralProjection/comments/n9t307/the_illusion_of_method_my_ap_guide/
Cheers!

[Appreciative Reader]

“So now, having read AR's detailed comment - I can understand that "mechanism" means”

……………..That’s great. I’m glad that we’re finally, and at long last, on the same page now, Osho Robbins.

.

“I will create an audio with a more detailed explanation of the mechanism and the process as best as I can - if that is what you mean by mechanism.
An audio will be easier and it's easier to just talk than write.”

……………. I don’t think we need more detail here. I think what we need is exactly the opposite of more detail.

Don’t get me wrong, in general I enjoy your idiosyncratic posts, and your detailed discussion of your experiences and your ideas. And many’s the time I’ve actively sought out such detailed posts and discussion, and no doubt I’ll do that in future as well. But here, now, as far as this focused question — and especially now that you have, as you say, understood what is being asked — what we need is a short, succinct, to-the-point answer.

By all means make an audio if you wish, but you know what? The words you’ve already typed in this thread, I think just a tenth, hell, just a twentieth as many words would have sufficed to present a concise, succinct, to-the-point description of the mechanism of how this happened.

Let me see if I can lend a hand. In the next section of this comment, I’ll myself present you with a draft framework of what might be this mechanism, basis what I’ve already heard from you. It won’t take me more than five minutes at the outside to do that. And it won’t take you more than five minutes at the outside to just fill in the blanks, and alter the draft framework by adding or altering steps as you see fit.

Over and above that, by all makes make your audio if you wish, whenever you are able. I’ll look out for it.

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

TENTATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE MECHANISM OF YOUR REALIZATION OF ONENESS

(Please add in and/or alter as you see fit, Osho Robbins.)

Step 1 : Your actual experience : You seemingly lost your sense of self.

Step 2 : Your actual experience : After ____ hours/days, something like your original sense of self returned to you. (Or, alternately : That earlier sense of self has still not quite returned to you.)

As Step 3, choose either one of Step 3 (a), or step 3 (b), whichever seems more appropriate.

Step 3 (a) : Cognition of Oneness : Following on your experience, as detailed in Step 1 and Step 2, it seemed to you that the existence of Oneness, and/or your somehow having ended up accessing this state of Non-duality or Oneness, was the best explanation for what had happened to you.

Or, if more appropriate, choose this one instead :

Step 3 (b) : Cognition of Oneness : Following on your experience, as detailed in Step 1 and Step 2, you were, spontaneously and without having to think this out, filled with the utter certainty that the ultimate underlying nature of reality is Non-duality or Oneness, and/or that you had somehow ended up accessing that state.

Just fill in the gaps, and add or alter as you think might best answer your particular situation.

Afterwards, if we should both want to, we can discuss this further — both in terms of adding color and detail, as well as in terms of evaluating this — by referencing, and building on, this basic underlying framework.

[Appreciative Reader]

P.S.

I'd like to emphasize one more time what I've already said there: By all means make your detailed audio. This is not in any way to discourage you from doing that, or to express any lack of interest in what you might have to say in it.

Just, all of that will probably be additional color, additional nuance, additional texture. Let's first, in the interests of clarity, focus on the actual question at hand. And that's done easily enough, given that we're not talking of something you need to research out or reference from outside, but instead simply reach within yourself and recall. All that should take is some introspection, if that.

And, like I'd said more than once, at any point, for any specific part, or indeed for the whole thing as well, it is always acceptable to simply say, "I just don't know how", should that happen to be the case.

[Uchit]

You answer your own questions. Spencer now admits lucifer is the good guy, thats the entity that guides him.
lucifer =shiva= jot nirunjan = jot "light" nirunjan the lord of the first region = the destroyer = god of the physical = the god of meditation = ENKI=marduck etc = the snake= the alien = rssb =satan. Lucifers pride was his fall, the jealous one of man kind, the false light. Remember the devil doesn't come with horns, he comes to fool mankind as a saint or a guru .

[Spence Tepper]

Uchit, who is Lucifer's Father?

[Osho Robbins]

"Uchit, who is Lucifer's Father?" - Spence

you'll have to watch all the episodes of "Lucifer" on Netflix and just hope they mention who his mum and dad are

[Osho Robbins]

@AR
Step 1
Dropping my existing beliefs. I was shown clearly that they are wrong.
Without this crucial first step, nothing else could have happened.
In the example, this is the person saying “Take me home”
The reason for saying this is that he is convinced that he is somewhere else.
As long as that belief remains, he will continue to say “Take me home”
If he refuses to listen, he is doomed to say those words forever.
In my case the beliefs were:
1. I am a separate soul
2. God resides in Sach Khand
3. There are 5 regions and each has a Lord
4. The only way to traverse a region is to repeat the Lords name and he will then let me pass onto the next region
5. My soul is covered with dirt and sins and the meditation is cleansing my soul to make it worthy
6. The initiating guru placed his Radiant Form within me and it will guide me to Sach Khand
7. Without intense meditation I can’t reach Sach Khand
8. I have lots of karmas and these hold me back and only meditation will burn these karmas away
9. The guru is sat purush in human form, and I need his help, hence I need to beg him for grace and if he gives it, I will be taken to higher regions.
10. If all else fails, the guru will definitely come at my death and take my soul to a higher region where I can continue to meditate. This is my insurance policy.
11. All of the above is the absolute truth and all the saints and masters of the past have declared this same truth. I know because I have read it in the books and have been hearing it in satsang for many decades.
12. Masters are one with god and they know everything. They can read my mind. They are all powerful. They are perfect in every way since god is perfect. Anyone who considers guru to be an ordinary man is a blind fool.
13. There is no other path to god. As dr Johnson has shown, all other paths stopped short. Many took the first and second region to be the final home. I am so lucky that I have a guru of the highest regions.
14. Only an idiot will even look at other religions since this one is the highest.
15. Meditation is hard but it has to be done because there is no other way. In the meantime I can also do seva which will help as it will make me more humble through the act of bossing people around and even punching them if they challenge my authority. It is all okay because it is done in the guru’s name
16. If the guru appears to be flawed, be very careful because it is a test. Always remember he is the supreme lord. Those who leave the guru will not find solace anywhere.
17. Without initiation and complete trust in the guru and without love, you cannot make spiritual progress.
18. Thousands of other related beliefs

The point to understand here is that these beliefs are taken to be
100% absolute truth. They are never questioned, no matter how absurd.

If anyone tries to take these beliefs away from me, I will refuse to listen and will leave their company. I have my whole salvation at stake.,

These are the same beliefs that I had.
Until these beliefs were challenged and destroyed, it was impossible for anything to happen.

Continued ……..
On next comment

[Osho Robbins]

@AR
So everyone has beliefs of their own. In your case, the beliefs include:
1. Logic is supreme and nothing can go against the rules of logic
2. Scientific method is the only way to discover truth reliably.
3. If it doesn’t make sense to me, it cannot be true
4. If it doesn’t fit into my current model of reality, I will dismiss it
5. Many others

The reason I posted some of those videos was to show that science doesn’t have all the answers. It doesn’t claim to. It only has the best known answers at any given time.
Science cannot help in this arena because it is non-physical and beyond time and space.
Of course you can say, there is no such thing and you would be correct in saying that.
How can I possibly say that “beyond time and space” is REAL? When it cannot be proven?
But let me ask another question.
How do I know that black holes, anti-matter and parallel universes (multiverse) are all real? How do I know what happens when something travels at the speed of light?
Does it start to go backwards in time? Is that possible?
Science has so many unanswered questions. The universe seems to be infinite.
When it comes down to it, we don’t actually know anything. All we have done is created models so we can explain certain things.
Science has its place, but is not much help in the spiritual journey. Certainly logic is useful to stop us holding onto false beliefs.

As long as we have a sense of certainty based on our beliefs, nothing can happen. Our worldview will always remain the same.
We will doubt and deny anything which attempts to go against our beliefs.

Continued…..

[Osho Robbins]

@AR
Step 1 was to destroy all those beliefs that I held all my life.
Those beliefs created my version of reality. If those beliefs somehow get loosened (go from certainty to uncertainty) and then get dropped altogether, you will arrive at confusion.
In this state you say “I don’t understand”

So that was the first step for me. I had a firm footing in Sant mat. I knew the answers.
Now, listening to this person, the ground was becoming loose under my feet. I no longer had firm soil to stand on.
The more I listened, the more of my beliefs got destroyed.
I didn’t “believe” what he was saying, but at the same time I could not deny that he had some very irrefutable points.
One example:
First he said that all sikh scriptures made it clear that the only barrier between you and god was the ego.
I believed in the Sikh scriptures so he used them to show me I was mistaken.
The ego is the sense of “I”
It is the one who claims to DO
It is the one who says “I am right”
It is the one that makes all claims
It is the one that feels that “I exist”

So, then, how can any action that is done by the ego, possibly take you out of the ego?
It can only strengthen the ego.
All “doing” makes the ego stronger.
And then, he said, “and you are ‘doing’ meditation and making your ego stronger”

There was no denying the logic.
Any act done by a “me” cannot possibly take me beyond the “me”

Not only that, after 2.5 hours of meditation, “I” feel happy. Time for a pat on the back of the ego. So the sense of ‘me’ get even stronger.,
Now “I” start to feel I am getting somewhere. In fact the ego is getting stronger.

I could not deny what he was saying.
But what he was saying was destroying my certainty.
After 8 weeks of this, all my certainty had gone.
Now I asked a question and I remember very clearly when I asked it.
“Okay, this is all very well, I understand it all, but I still have not met god and I want to meet him, so what shall I do next? What is the next step?”

He laughed. I didn’t see the joke yet, unless I was the joke.

“You have not understood a single thing I have said”
“In 8 weeks, nothing has sunk in”

I said that had understood

He said “but I have been explaining that god is not a separate thing for you to meet. He doesn’t reside in some place. You are not separate. You are already the thing you seek because there is nothing else”

“You” will never meet him because this “You” is the ego, it is the barrier.

“Only when this disappears will the truth be known, but then the knower will also not be here. So who will claim to know”

It all sounded very strange to me. I was wondering if this man was actually mad. Perhaps I should just check if anyone has escaped recently from the local lunatic asylum.

“When will it happen to me?” I asked, losing hope of ever meeting god.

“When will what happen?”

“You know, the meeting, the thing we have been talking about for eight weeks. When will I meet god?”

Again the same laugh. It was getting annoying now. It was like he was laughing AT me. What a fucking blow to the ego.

“No meeting is going to happen.”

“So what have I been doing here for 8 weeks, you promised me that I would meet the big guy in the sky” I replied.

“The meeting has ALREADY happened”

“What? Where was I When it happened?”

“It wasn’t a happening. There was no meeting as such. Meetings only happen in duality.”

“In non-duality nothing ever happens. There is no you, no me, and no god”

“So what was all the fuss about? What have I spent 20 years searching for?”

“What fuss? There is no fuss. I have no idea what you were looking for. All I can tell you with certainty is that god is not lost. So he can never be found. Once “YOU” go, then god is here. He was here all along but obscured by “YOU”

I walked out, without even saying goodbye.
“WTF is all this shit?” I kept thinking.
“This guy is loony tunes. I need to check the local insanity wards. They are definitely missing a patient”

Nothing made sense. Perhaps I should go back to Sant mat. At least it made sense. This stuff makes no sense at all.

This was the process of step 1 in practice.
Letting go of my beliefs and seeing reality without those beliefs in place.

[Osho Robbins]

Step 2 didn’t happen in his presence.
It happened when my marriage fell apart.
But it wasn’t just a marriage falling apart, it was my whole life.
I was falling apart.
I no longer had faith in Sant mat. My marriage partner was trying to destroy me. She left me and her sister’s husband called me and said “the best thing is to kill yourself”
And I agreed. There was no hope left. I was contemplating suicide. I was just wondering that of the 4 gurus I had been initiated by, which one would come first? And would they have a big fight over who I belonged to? Who would take the credit?
Of course no guru was going to come. This was all a fairy tale.
This was when step 2 happened.
All the words that I had heard, suddenly made sense. Everything the lunatic had told me was becoming clear. All the pieces of the puzzle fit.
This was a glimpse of non-duality.

Other steps followed, including the whole process with Mikaire.

After the five day process with Mikaire, it became a permanent state. There is no “me” and there is only the “ONE”
The “me” never came back. It’s dead.
No reincarnation.
This was not an experience. This was the end of a “me”
Now life continues - but I am not here.
Somebody is here, but I don’t know who the fuck that guy is. Life continues but it is not MY life.

[um]

@ Osho

>>Somebody is here, but I don’t know who the fuck that guy is. Life continues but it is not MY life.<<

Well Osho, you should not be wondered when the things that are described by mystics having an inner experience, could happen also to that guy .

If that does happen, you will recognize what the ego was, is, and that it had/has nothing to do with "you" but with what you call the guy you do not know anything off.

The ego os just an tool of that guy like an hand, a functional tool.

And ... as brilliant and wonderful as a hand.

You gave up or lost the identification with the ego as one can realize that one is not the body.

That realization does not bring anything and what they talk about in santmat remains a secret untill you experience it ... you ... that guy.

[umami]

"lucifer =shiva= jot nirunjan = jot "light" nirunjan the lord of the first region = the destroyer = god of the physical = the god of meditation = ENKI=marduck etc = the snake= the alien = rssb =satan."

Uchit,

We go into RS with the understanding that the inner regions have gods that could be mistaken for God but that are only stepping stones. You don't have to worry about us so much. We already know.

[Uchit]

We know that the RSSB agents have a great reverence for lucifer/satan as stated clearly by spensor. Spence I don't care who the father of your NARSASIST god is, you should know as he is your god not mine. GSD and RSSB and his agents are nothing but preaching enlightenment to their false god, who was outsted from heaven. Here narunjan/ lucifer rule and play with the poor trapped souls who are in perpetual suffering in an endless cycle of birth and death.

@osho: he is said to be followed by a retinue of goblins and spirits, called ganas. They are uncivilized beings who are described as deformed. Whenever Shiva needed to exact revenge, he called upon an army of ganas to fight alongside him. He even named his son Ganesha, meaning “king of the ganas”.

This summarises it all perfectly, lucifer satan/ Shiva / nirunjan work with the demonic forces to do their bidding. Case closed, RSSB and GSD is a sickly satanic cult that work with demonic forces (eg spences inner entities) that does not have your best interest at heart.

[Appreciative Reader]

Osho Robbins, some follow on questions:

(1) Is that it, as far as what you wanted to say about the mechanism, or are there more posts coming in?

(2) I'm summarizing what you've said so far into a bare-bones ...well, summary, in the next section of this comment. Tell me if I've got that right, so far?

(3) Question : You were well and truly sold on the RSSB theology stuff, right? And that was from the time before your crisis. So what made you go to Mikaire for the enlightenment workshop?

Two more follow-on questions follow the bare-bones summary. I’m putting those last two questions there, as they follow from the summary itself.

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

BARE-BONES SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED OF THIS MECHANISM SO FAR

Step 1 : Over a few days at that workshop, Mikaire provided you with arguments and reasoning, based inter alia on the Sikh scriptures, that convinced you that Oneness or Non-duality is the underlying nature of reality, and that your RSSB theology, that you’d implicitly believed in thus far, is fallacious (or at least, not quite as absolute as Non-duality).

Step 2 : You don’t mention this in these last four posts in which you describe the mechanism of your cognizance of Oneness, but I’m putting this in from what you’ve said in the past : The workshop also led to a loss of your sense of self. And that loss of sense of self seems permanent, in that it hasn’t come back to you yet.

Step 3 : Subsequently, and following on a traumatic personal crisis, involving both marital and financial difficulties, you came to see Oneness and Non-duality as the clear underlying basis of reality.

.

Follow-on question # (4) : This last (Step 3, as I summarize it from what your own more detailed post) would imply that at Step 1, at the workshop, you hadn’t been entirely been convinced about Oneness or Non-duality. That conviction came only later on. Is that correct?

Follow-on question # (5) : It isn’t very clear how exactly your personal crisis would end up offering you greater certainty as far as Non-duality or Oneness, than you had already had before that. Can you elaborate on that?

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

Two general observations :

(a) Not to get into personalities and personal issues, because I realize you’re relating this not to actually discuss that issue but merely as background for explaining what happened to you : but I cannot help observing that your ex-wife and her friends (or, at any rate, at least your brother-in-law) seem like a vile piece of work. A relationship breaking down is sad, but that kind of thing does happen sometimes, and people then move on. But to actually attempt to drive someone who’s already traumatized and vulnerable into suicide sounds …well, actually evil. You’re well rid of such lowlifes.

(b) Your comments about beliefs in general, and specifically about my beliefs (on science, logic, models, etc), as well as about the general applicability of rationality and the scientific method, all that, like I’d said earlier, is kind of central to this. And this in itself merits a full-on discussion, so that we can examine each others’ views on this (which seem to be diametrically opposed, so far), and perhaps end up coming to some kind of an agreement. But I’m holding off from commenting on that part, so that we can focus on the mechanism part for now, without digressing off into that other discussion. We can revisit that after we’re done with this mechanism thing.

[Osho Robbins]

@AR
Just a quick reply for now.
1. More coming shortly
2. Not read your summary yet. Will read it and reply to that shortly
3. The divorce and suicidal thoughts happened in 2000.
I met the guy from Wolverhampton about 6 months earlier. So I was just beginning to break free. I met Mikaire a few months after that. At that time I was also realising that the RSSB path I had followed was duality based and could not be truth. I had some kind of a mental shift, but there was more to come.

[Osho Robbins]

Summary questions
STEP 2: Not Mikaire. He did very little discussions. He was more “in your face” and shouted a lot and told you to be authentic and didn’t have any teachings and the workshop was completely free format. There was no plan or agenda. It was just dealing with whatever came up.
The RSSB beliefs etc was all discussed with the Tarsem, the guy from Wolverhampton. Incidentally he is about 95 years older now but still perfectly healthy.
He had personally tried everything to find god all his life. He was initiated by charan Singh and did meditation too. Some RSSB followers would come to him to try to get enlightened. He runs a charity.

Step 2: not quite a “loss of self” which might come back one day.
It was a clear recognition based initially on the logical process presented to me, but then it became a realisation that
“There is no me. Never has been. There is just life”
Step 3. Correct

Follow on Q4:
I had taken in the information about Oneness/ non-duality from Tarsem over a period of maybe 6 months. I understood the ideas, but that was all.
If I accepted them, I would just be replacing one belief with another.

During the personal crisis (had not met Mikaire yet - he came later) I began to get realisations - insights - clarity.
It didn’t matter what Tarsem said anymore - It was like pieces of the puzzle coming together.
It had a certainty that I had previously never known. It was nothing like the beliefs in RSSB because I fully believed in them, but I always knew they would only be true once I reached Sach khand. Until then, the jury was still out.
This was different. It was not like the acquisition of mew beliefs. This was more like what’s remains when the beliefs are dropped.
The process with Mikaire was something else. Hard to say what happened other than to say it was a deepening of the realisations and an intense “live now - don’t postpone” urgency that was constantly present in his 5 day process.

Follow on Q5
The personal crisis that happened before I met Mikaire, was seriously traumatic. It was crucial to the process. Suicide seemed to be the only solution.
I used to live in South Wales in a small village. That’s why Mikaire used to call me “The swami from Wales”.
I went to a friends house. He lived a 1 minute walk away. We all leave our front doors open during the day, there, so I just walked in.
He could tell I was not in a good state and asked what I had eaten. It was 4pm
“Nothing” I said.
He phoned my sister to tell her to come over and she came over and took me to her house to stay there as I was depressed and suicidal.
The world seemed a very sinister place.
This was essential to the process.
My life was over. The evil people around me were very necessary. It caused a breakdown in my personality.

Will answer more later

[Appreciative Reader]

Osho Robbins, no rush, whenever convenient.

And I was under the impression that it is Mikaire who was this "guy from Wolverhampton". I now see that these are two different individuals, whom you'd met at two different periods. That clarification makes the chronology clear.

Carry on, please, at your own pace. I'd presented this summary in order to make sure I was following you correctly. I'll keep off from commenting any more here until you're done with presenting your mechanism in your own words.

[Tim Rimmer]

Hey Osho
Been following your recent comments and ongoing interchange with AR - interesting even though many of us (esp you) have been thrashing this stuff around for many years now. The current thorny question - how is this non-duality proven? - seems it’s a very illusive thingamajig.
How do we ‘function’ without a sense of ‘I’? This is obviously possible based on your example, however, everything I’ve assimilated on the subject would tend to indicate some semblance of I is left in order to function, but what would I know? - it’s very hard to get one’s head around this stuff.

I believe AR is now doing a more concise job of focusing your responses in regard to this. Also with Brian’s ongoing posts, as I see it, basically saying this ‘non-dual’ realisation stuff can’t be proven, doesn’t stand up to scientific/critical scrutiny and therefor is likely to NOT be reflective of what reality is about, then we (in a general sense) have to improve how such realisations are explained/communicated. After reflecting on this I would again say this is one of, if not THE core issue many of us continue to grapple with and discuss on this blog. Thanks Brian.

Osho - “It was like the owner of my life went on a holiday and didn't inform me. Life continued - but "I" was absent”-
TR - I wonder who this owner is?
Osho - ‘Life continued but I was absent’ -
TR - life is, he/she who thinks they live it isn’t, (ultimately? - fair enough).

Which reminds me of this quote from Wallis’ ‘Recognition Sutras’:
‘Life is not your story about it. Reality is what’s happening BEFORE you have a thought about it’

So there again someone is alluding to this non-dual state and for me another question - What is this ‘you’ that no longer thinks?

And Osho I also enjoyed your post in regard to Shiva - always had an interest here. Reminds me of the YouTube clip showing all these ancient shiva lingams that were exposed when a river in India dried up.

As a final point I’m wondering about your ‘Oneness’ ‘awakening’ and weather it’s the same as that supposedly realised in paths such as Sant Mat RSSB? Or are the two fundamentally different creatures in your view? I can see why throwing one’s lot in with the separate soul, stage by stage, attain the goal approach (+associated dogma) appeals to many as there is this sense of security/family there too.
From what I’ve understood, you are not the only one to hit rock bottom before getting the non-dual realisation, something similar happened to several other guru types - Eckhart Tolle comes to mind. Not everyone’s cup of tea (the life falling apart bit).

Shall we henceforth call you ‘The Swami from Swansea?’ :-).
Thanks for sharing.

[Osho Robbins]

Now here is something different that changes everything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb8c_302lxs

2:44 "The very definition of the Big Bang is that SPACE and TIME were created IN THAT INSTANT"

So what does that mean? It means that PRIOR to that - there was NO SPACE and NO TIME. Obviously. So now that points to the very argument I was making: The NO SPACE NO TIME possibility.

The counter argument was: Such a thing does not exist. But here is SCIENCE saying it DOES. Prior to the Big Bang - there was no space or time. Who is saying this: Science!

The biggest objection to the whole argument I had presented was that we have to proof that a "no space, no time" state can exist.

Science here is this video is saying that prior to the big bang - that WAS the case.

[Osho Robbins]

"The current thorny question - how is this non-duality proven? - seems it’s a very illusive thingamajig.
How do we ‘function’ without a sense of ‘I’? This is obviously possible based on your example, however, everything I’ve assimilated on the subject would tend to indicate some semblance of I is left in order to function, but what would I know? - it’s very hard to get one’s head around this stuff." - Tim Rimmer

Hi Tim
It comes down to a mis-understanding of the terms used and what they mean.
So when I say "The 'I' disappeared" or "went on holiday", these are words used to explain that can't be explained.
I am not saying that it happened on the timeline.

So at 8am there was Osho Robbins with his "I" or "EGO" intact.

Then suddenly at 8.01 the "I" disappeared, the "EGO" dropped,
and now Osho Robbins continues without an "I".

That is what it sounds like: but that is not how it is.

So HOW is it? is the obvious question.

There is a state of NO SPACE / NO TIME.
Now you have to understand something important here.
If you miss this, you miss the whole point.
NO TIME means no change. Change is not possible, because change
necessarily needs the dimension of TIME (and space)
so the NO SPACE NO TIME state remains FOREVER (that is what no change means: it can never end)

So the NO SPACE NO TIME state is the case RIGHT NOW! (and always)

So it's not that I "LOSE" the ego or the "I" - it is that the "I" is not REAL.
It is an illusion, it is MAYA. SO the illusion and the MAYA remains.
The illusion of the "I" continues, with the proviso that it is not RECOGNIZED for what it is: illusion or unreal.

it is not even that a "small part" of the "I" remains intact.

The WHOLE of it remains - it has to, for the survival of the body.

So my "I" is fully intact and fully operational which is why I can function perfectly well in the world.

ALL that has happened, is that there is no more IDENTIFICATION with the body / mind as being ME!

The "ownership" of the body / mind has gone. it is only a recognition, that the "I" is not a real thing. It doesn't actually open the front door and go on holiday.

[Osho Robbins]

"Also with Brian’s ongoing posts, as I see it, basically saying this ‘non-dual’ realisation stuff can’t be proven, doesn’t stand up to scientific/critical scrutiny and therefor is likely to NOT be reflective of what reality is about
This is one of, if not THE core issue many of us continue to grapple with on this blog."
- Tim Rimmer

Well said Tim. I agree this IS the CORE issue. Solve this and it all becomes clear.

I presented a very detailed argument to AR and his main objection was all centred around the "Existence" of the NO TIME / NO SPACE.

Well from the video I have quoted above at 2:44, it clearly states that TIME / SPACE did NOT EXIST prior to big bang. And this is the scientific viewpoint.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb8c_302lxs

"It is, as far we know, the coming into existence of TIME and SPACE itself"
2:48

Like I said, I have a certain way of making sense of this in my mind. The argument presented is not the CAUSE or the way that this state came about. I am currently trying to explain the process or mechanism as clearly as I can. The logical argument (or illogical one) is just how I explain it after the fact. To add a logical framework to it. Maybe that framework doesn't work for others, as AR says it logically flawed, and it may be, but it's not my proof. My personal proof it what transpired and became real for me - the "realisation".

Now if you take my whole logical arguement in view of this video - now it's much easier to make sense of it - because the main objection of "Assuming the NO TIME / NO SPACE actually exists" no longer applies because the Big bang theory accepts that state.

[Osho Robbins]

"Osho - “It was like the owner of my life went on a holiday and didn't inform me. Life continued - but "I" was absent”-
TR - I wonder who this owner is?
Osho - ‘Life continued but I was absent’ -
TR - life is, he/she who thinks they live it isn’t, (ultimately? - fair enough).

Which reminds me of this quote from Wallis’ ‘Recognition Sutras’:
‘Life is not your story about it. Reality is what’s happening BEFORE you have a thought about it’

So there again someone is alluding to this non-dual state and for me another question - What is this ‘you’ that no longer thinks?"
- Tim Rimmer

Excellent comment and very aptly stated.

The "owner" who left was the "I" that claims everything as it's one.
It's the one that says "All of this is mine. It is busy accumulating things"

A man checked out of a hotel and walked down the road. He suddenly remembered that he has left his umbrella in the hotel room. He goes and can hear sounds. He peeps through the keyhole and it's a newly wed couple. The man is saying "And whose are these beautiful eyes, that you have?" "They are YOURS" she says with a smile.
"And whose are these beautiful lips?" - again she says "They are yours, darling"
"And whose is this cute little nose?" he asks, fully knowing it is his.
Now the umbrella man is getting impatient.
He shouts through the keyhole.
"When you get to the umbrella in the corner - it's MINE"

That is the "I" - only concerned with it's umbrella.
It has two concerns in life. ME and MINE.
It puts a STAMP on everything it comes across.
The stamp is it's name.
It says "Everything is MINE" and it tries to accumulate as much as possible. It tries to collect MONEY, BIG HOUSES and CARS, PEOPLE, etc.
anything in it's path - it labels as MINE.
it claims ultimate ownership.
Humans have even divided the moon and I think mars and someone is
selling property deeds or areas of land.
Like I said - it puts it's stamp everywhere.
You own you life, your children, your house, your spouse.
You get very upset if your spouse even looks at another, let alone has a date with them. Why? because of the ownership.

Yes - you almost nailed it
"Life is, he/she who thinks they live it isn’t"
Close - but no cigar. (you won't care for the cigar if you get this!)

Life IS. But it's not YOURS. You never paid for it and you have no receipt.
This body IS (for now) and then it will suddenly be taken away.
Of course it's not YOURS, if it was, nobody could take it away.

Everything in your life (including the body) is momentary and not forever. When you GET something you are SO happy and throwing parties. When you LOSE something, you get upset and look around to see who you can sue.
Your whole life is one big ownership battle.
That is why I got punched in the face by that sevadar I have spoken of.
It was just so funny when he said "I own the dera and all the deras".
The purpose is the drop the ownership and this guy is owning evertthing.
Naturally - it was funny. The punch wasn't quite as funny.
When I laughed, his ego was hurt. "Who does he think he is?"
What he didn't know is that I don't think, I KNOW - "I am nothing"
So a part of me just watched the whole drama unfold.
I was both involved and a passive observer, both at the same time.

This all is the opposite of positive thinking.
The positive thinker is still trying to win.
The wise man has already embraced LOSS and is happy with it.

Buddha said "Life IS suffering" - so accept it as such.
Everything you are now busy accumulating - you will LOSE it all.
accept the loss right now - including your life.

My mum is currently in hospital. She had radiotherapy for cancer treatment. She now has water on the lungs and the water is being drained. She is in pain. I am sad for her.
I am not detached or a positive thinker. I am a witness - but I am also involved. This came from the Mikaire days -" be authentic and real".

So it's not like most people imagine. I am fully involved in life. I cry, I laugh, I am sad and happy. But I can also see - it's just a game.
I fully play also - but I am not seeking any outcome - because all outcomes are meaningless in the end. As long as the life is there - live it
but just don't own it.

It's not even that I have all the answers - I have just stopped seeking answers - because the mind will never fully grasp.

[Appreciative Reader]

Osho Robbins, I hope your mother recovers soon. You and your family must be going through such a very trying time right now.

As far as our discussion on the mechanism of your cognizance of Oneness, just let me know when you think you’ve said everything you want to say on it for now. Until then I’m leaving off commenting here.

(And naturally, whenever and however you’re comfortable posting. Even if it takes days, given your situation. Just let me know clearly when you’re done.)

-------

“I presented a very detailed argument to AR and his main objection was all centred around the "Existence" of the NO TIME / NO SPACE.
Well from the video I have quoted above at 2:44, it clearly states that TIME / SPACE did NOT EXIST prior to big bang. And this is the scientific viewpoint.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb8c_302lxs ”

.......I don’t want get too deep into that discussion again at this time. First, because clearly you’re fully engaged with your mother’s treatment, and this is hardly the time to initiate another very involved discussion with you. And in any case, in the interests of taking one thing at a time, rather than getting mired into too many things all at once, it might make sense to first finish with the mechanism part, before moving on to other conceptual discussions. So I’ll limit myself to just this one post on this for now.

I did watch the video, around the first half an hour of it. It’s an excellent presentation. I enjoy watching that particular series myself, although I don’t remember having watched that specific episode.

But I don’t think they’re saying anything new there. And nor does it really support your case. I’m no expert, let me hasten to make that clear, but I think it is kind of established that time and space as we know it was created at the time of the Big Bang. There are speculations about quantum fields and such, but beyond that, to my knowledge, no one knows the first thing about the time preceding the Big Bang. In fact, in as much time started at that point, it doesn’t even make sense to speak of a time before the Big Bang. I know, mind-bending stuff.

So anyway, the whole point is that, beyond the quantum fields thing, absolutely no one knows anything at all about the time prior to the Big Bang. So that it makes no sense to posit either something like constant flux, or to posit something like changelessness or eternity, to that period before time and space were created.

Further, there is this idea that there might be pocket universes, that is, multiple universes that have their origin within our universe itself, triggered by black holes, that might end up with similar processes as our own Big Bang and subsequent inflation. So that, beyond time and space as we know it, there might well be multiplicities of universes. (And that is not even considering the multiple-universes explanation of QM, which is a whole other can of worms, as well as another whole gaggle of multiplicities.)

If you’re going to attempt base your claims of Oneness on science, then I’m afraid you’re on very shaky ground. We simply don’t know enough yet to posit anything with any degree of certainty of what might lie beyond time and space ; and what little we do know points more towards multiplicities than towards unity and Oneness, as far as the beyond-time-beyond-space thing.

(Let me emphasize again in concluding, that I speak only as a layman who’s happened to look up popular sources here and there, like these video presentations, and articles, and some books by physicists etc. It isn’t as if I’m some expert, and might well be mistaken --- although I don’t think I am, at least not as far as a very superficial reading of all of this.)

[Osho Robbins]

@AR
You wrote
“ I think it is kind of established that time and space as we know it was created at the time of the Big Bang. There are speculations about quantum fields and such, but beyond that, to my knowledge, no one knows the first thing about the time preceding the Big Bang. In fact, in as much time started at that point, it doesn’t even make sense to speak of a time before the Big Bang. I know, mind-bending stuff.” -AR
Not sure if I am missing something obvious, but you just agreed that
Time and Space was CREATED at the Big Bang.
This means that before Big Bang there was no Time and no Space.
So we DO know about the time before Big Bang: there was no time.
And no space.
Not sure how you interpret that to mean that we don’t know.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Time and Space was CREATED at the Big Bang.
This means that before Big Bang there was no Time and no Space.
So we DO know about the time before Big Bang: there was no time.
And no space.
Not sure how you interpret that to mean that we don’t know."

-------

I'd said that "we don't know" that Oneness or Non-duality obtains in the state beyond time and space, should such exist at all.

In response to your (implied) question, though, I think I can say two things (with the qualification I'd made earlier, that I'm only a layman and am open to correction by an actual expert) :

(1) We don't know that in the state beyond time and space, Oneness or Non-duality obtains.

(2) We don't even know whether, in the period "before" the Big Bang, there actually was time and space present.

-------

Let me explain both :

(1) As far as the first "we don't know" above : We don't know anything at all about the state beyond time and space. We don't even know if such a state exists or existed, we're merely assuming it. There are speculations about quantum fields, but they are just that, speculations. And, while obviously in the absence of time and space as we know it, movement or change as we know it won't obtain, but nor will changelessness or permanance as we know it. Similarly, while obviously multiplicity as we know it won't obtain, nor will non-multiplicity or Oneness or Non-duality as we might conceive of it from within this universe. I've said this before, more than once, I think. My point is, let us not leap to baseless assertions about what we simply don't know. We may speculate, sure, but that's about it.

(2) As for the second "we don't know" above, which is, We don't even know that there is no time and space prior to the Big Bang : Time and space as we know it was "created" at the time of the Big Bang. So time and space as it obtains in our universe wouldn't exist prior, obviously. But might time and space of a different kind obtain there? We don't know, either is possible.

In fact, here's a concrete example of how time and space of might actually obtain "prior" to the Big Bang (always understanding that this is simply speculation, and that actually speaking of "before" or "beyond" the Big Bang is simply meaningless, as far as science, so far that is) :

I'd spoken of pocket universes before. I think I read about it in Stephen Hawking's later book, but I might be mistaken. (I've got the book, and can check; but I haven't yet, and speak from fallible memory.) Regardless of whether it was Hawking, or whether it was from the book, the idea is that black holes might perhaps be where our universe ends, in the sense that at that point there's whole new Big Bang, and a new universe created. That new universe is separate from our universe. Of course, we know nothing about the physical "laws" that obtain in that universe, should such exist at all, but assuming it is more or less similar to ours, then in that new universe, time and space would have started at the Big Bang. However, prior to that Big Bang ("prior", from the perspective of our universe), while clearly time and space as it might obtain in that new universe wouldn't have obtained, nevertheless time and space as it does obtain in our universe was and is a fact. So there you have it, one concrete example how it is entirely possible to have time and space even "prior" to the Big Bang.

Another way to look at this is to imagine that our own Big Bang might have taken place in a black hole of some other universe. So that, sure, no time and space as we know it obtains beyond our Big Bang, nevertheless the time and space (or equivalent correspondence) in that other universe would still operate.

But of course, the correct thing is to recognize that we don't really know anything at all of that period, as yet. So that to speak of Oneness or Non-duality before the Big Bang or in the state beyond time and space is pure unsupported speculation. It might be true, for all we know, but if it does turn out to be true it would be so only by happenstance. Any other number of wholly different speculations might also turn out to be "true", including the possibility that such a state does not exist at all in fact.

(And note, I'm very much keeping an "open mind", as you'd insisted I should. But being open to some idea, for the duration of a thought experiment or some specific exercise, is very different than buying into those premises for good.)

-------

And here I go holding forth, once again, on pre-Big-Bang physics, like the expert which I most emphatically am not! And in any case, this is hardly the time to go deeply into this, preoccupied as you must be with your mother's health and treatment.

Over and out from me, for now. I popped in for this comment only because you expressly directed this (implied) question at me.

Afterwards, when your mother is better (as I hope and pray she will be, soon), we can get back to properly formulating our mechanism (well, *your* mechanism, that is to say), as well as speak of things like the Big Bang as much as we want. My best wishes, till then, Osho Robbins.

[Osho Robbins]

1. Chickens come from eggs.
2. Eggs are laid by chickens.

Both the above are true.

So the classic question is.
Which came first?

If it’s a chicken, did the chicken arrive by a different route? Or from the egg?

If it’s the egg, the egg can’t just magically appear.

Clearly the chicken is here, so there has to be some answer.

If humans evolved from monkeys, monkeys must have evolved from something else, call it X.
X must have evolved from Y.
Etc.
So eventually we come to the first cell of the first life.
Where did that come from?
How did the first cell come about?

Where did the universe come from?
A Big Bang.
Where did the Big Bang come from?
What caused the Big Bang?
It just happened?
But there is no time before it, and no space.
And without the element of time nothing can “happen”
And there is no space within which it can happen.
Even going by the theory of a prior universe, what about the creation of that universe?

The very FIRST universe. There was no time or space in any sense of the word. So there could only be emptiness.

The Big Bang theory only gives us the illusion of an “answer”. The answer is no more scientific than saying “a big magical fairy created the universe”

Obvious question will be who created the fairy?

So who created the Big Bang? It just happened?
Well in that case, I could say the universe just suddenly appeared.
The Big Bang theory doesn’t solve anything. It’s a circular argument.

Where did the universe come from?
A Big Bang.
Cool.
Where did the Big Bang come from?
Oh - it just happened for no reason and with no prior cause.
Well in that case, why can’t the universe just happen?

The Big Bang theory just gives us the illusion of an answer.

The answer is as illogical as the god answer: god created the universe. Who created god? Nobody. He just suddenly appeared in a sudden Big Bang, or
He always existed.

[Appreciative Reader]

Osho Robbins, what you’re invoking here is textbook God-of-the-Gaps. Except, in your case, it is the Oneness-of-the-Gaps.

Sure, there’s a great deal we still don’t know. Hopefully one day we’ll fully know the answers to all of those questions fully satisfactorily. Or maybe not, maybe we’ll have snuffed ourselves out in a nuclear war or through climate armageddon long before that.

But showing that there are gaps in our collective knowledge gap thus far --- as assuredly there are huge gaps, no doubt at all about that --- is not to somehow make a case for Oneness or Non-duality, at all.

-------

Think about it. The exact same difficulties that you identify in positing a God of the Gaps, those exact same difficulties obtain when you posit your Oneness of the Gaps.

Let us identify those difficulties. There are three separate difficulties, as far as I can see:

First : The one does not lead to the other. That we don’t know such and such and such, does not in any way indicate that there is a God. Similarly, that we don’t have complete answers yet to every single question that might be asked about chickens and about eggs and about cosmology, doesn’t in any way indicate that there is a Oneness or Non-duality at the back of it all.

Second : Where is the evidence? There’s no evidence for God. Similarly, there’s no evidence for Oneness. The God-believer will say, God is beyond our senses, and must be apprehended with faith, not reason. You say, Oneness is beyond our Universe, and therefore leaves no evidence. The point is, if there is no evidence, there is no reason to accept the proposition of Non-duality at all, just as without evidence there is no reason to accept the proposition of God. The fact that, as you say, no evidence is possible for Oneness, does not mean that no evidence is needed, like I’d said before, what it means is that the claim is untenable.

And third : You correctly identify the difficulty with positing God, which is : Where on earth did God Himself come from? And the same difficulty, stated with some variation but essentially along the same broad theme, will obtain when it comes to your Oneness as well, like so : If you claim that Oneness always existed, then the question arises : So how does that relate with this universe? Where did this universe of ours come from? It may be temporary, it may even be an illusion : but where and how did this temporary illusion come from? For this temporary illusion to have arisen at all, some proclivity, some potential, for this temporary illusion must have obtained within the Oneness : and where and how did that proclivity, that potential, come from? And so on. Positing Oneness answers nothing at all, as far as the actual questions about our universe, but only gives rise to more questions than it sought to answer. Much like the God proposition.

Let it go, Osho Robbins. This is a totally nonsensical proposition. There is clearly no way to defend it, at all, by using arguments based on reason and rationality and science. (That is, I don’t mind engaging with this line of discussion, it’s a fun subject after all, but I don’t see any of it going where you want to take it.)

-------

As far as this :

“The Big Bang theory just gives us the illusion of an answer.
The answer is as illogical as the god answer: god created the universe. Who created god? Nobody. He just suddenly appeared in a sudden Big Bang, or
He always existed.”

……. Like I’d said before, science isn’t a matter of proof, or of logic, or of proving propositions. Science is a matter of constructing best-fit models with which to apprehend the world. (That is, we always apprehend the world via models. Rather than using ad hoc models based on religious dogma or ideology or random unsupported pseudo-explanations, science gives us the means to construct best-fit models based on evidence, and the means to keep improving on past models.)

The Big Bang theory isn’t the illusion of an answer. It is actually an answer. It is a model that points to how reality might work, and a far better model than any we’ve come up with so far as far as that particular aspect of reality.

Are there things that Big Bang does not yet explain? Sure there are. To that extent, might we be justified in thinking of it as a part-answer, as opposed to a fully complete answer? Absolutely. But I don’t see where the difficulty lies in that. Science is an ongoing affair, it isn’t a done deal that has closed shop and gone away, leaving us with its finished products.

-------

In any case, Osho Robbins, why are we even discussing all of this at all at this time?

We were discussing the mechanism of your Oneness. You’d discussed it to some degree. Whereupon I’d summarized what you’d said so far. And you’d corrected my summary to some extent, and validated the rest of it. And then said that you would continue with posting about this mechanism.

Whenever you’re comfortable resuming, whether afterwards when you’re free from your current preoccupations, or right now if that’s what you yourself want, let’s get back and finish that first.

Going all over the place with ten different discussions all at once is sure recipe for none of those discussions going anywhere at all. All we’ll end up with that way is lots and lots of talk, and nothing to show for it, no actual conclusions arrived at.

[Tim Rimmer]

Hey Osho
Thanks for your responses. Best wishes supporting your mum.

I’m still thinking about what’s your take on the essence of teachings such as presented by RSSB and ‘Oneness’ which I understand to be essentially non-duality. From conversations years back I’m wondering if your view is that at the core they are about the same thing, especially in light of your interactions with GSD? What’s your view of where ‘shabd’ fits?

Re the Big Bang discussion, I just looked at this (news is 2 months old) - New experimental work in Chicago has got scientists ‘plausibly excited’. Because they can’t explain the behaviour of a sub-atomic particle called a muon in terms of the ‘Standard’ model of particle physics. It could well lead to some re-thinking about the formation and make-up of the universe and the possibility of a 5th force.
Interestingly Neil Degrasse Tyson describes a muon (in this context, I think), as a kind of heavy electron, that operates at a much higher ‘energy level’.
I surmise from this that the basis for everything can be described in terms of ‘higher energies’ - Maybe that’s why heavy metal could be linked to the dark side of the universe! :-)
Of course they could have got the particle’s name wrong - perhaps instead of a muon its more of a WuAnon!
See DW story at: https://youtu.be/Aa50SyDkiKg
Rock on

[Osho Robbins]

“ I’m still thinking about what’s your take on the essence of teachings such as presented by RSSB and ‘Oneness’ which I understand to be essentially non-duality. From conversations years back I’m wondering if your view is that at the core they are about the same thing, especially in light of your interactions with GSD? What’s your view of where ‘shabd’ fits?”
- Tim Rimmer

GSD has given the teachings a different slant based on his interest in Buddhism.

He does say things like “you are already one with god, but just need to realise it”

His idea of meditation has changed a lot from the traditional idea. Before it was about getting to Sach Khand.
Now he says “don’t be concerned. Just stay in the hukam and accept his will”

A very different view.

Shabd is the “unstruck melody. ”
how can a melody be unstruck ?
It is a reference to the ONENESS

In RSSB teachings it is a “sound” that takes you back to its source ( Sach khand)

GSD combines the old teachings with the new.
“You” (the ego or haumi) is the barrier to oneness because you see yourself as separate. There is no “you”

[Osho Robbins]

“ The very FIRST universe. There was no time or space in any sense of the word. So there could only be emptiness.”

That is not the “God of the gaps” fallacy.

Emptiness is the lack of any object even space. That is not the same as saying “therefore God” as the God of any religion is a character with characteristics.

“The Big Bang theory only gives us the illusion of an “answer”. The answer is no more scientific than saying “a big magical fairy created the universe”
Obvious question will be who created the fairy? So who created the Big Bang? It just happened?
Well in that case, I could say the universe just suddenly appeared.
The Big Bang theory doesn’t solve anything. It’s a circular argument.”

The “answer” doesn’t answer “where did it start?”
What’s more the question cannot be answered, because there will always be the “what caused that?” Question

I am also not presenting this as the proof of oneness. Obviously there is no proof of oneness because oneness is not an objective reality that can be shown

[Appreciative Reader]

“The Big Bang theory only gives us the illusion of an “answer”. The answer is no more scientific than saying “a big magical fairy created the universe”
Obvious question will be who created the fairy? So who created the Big Bang? It just happened?
Well in that case, I could say the universe just suddenly appeared.
The Big Bang theory doesn’t solve anything. It’s a circular argument.”

The “answer” doesn’t answer “where did it start?”
What’s more the question cannot be answered, because there will always be the “what caused that?” Question

I am also not presenting this as the proof of oneness. Obviously there is no proof of oneness because oneness is not an objective reality that can be shown"

(Quoted from the above.)

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

This is getting weird. You keep on running the same old record on a loop, as if nothing preceding had been said at all. Everything you say here has been addressed already, more than once. You need look no further than my last comment for a fairly detailed answer.

What sets the Big Bang theory apart from sundry origin myths, including idiosyncratic ideas like Oneness, is, in a word, EVIDENCE.

The Big Bang theory is not an "argument". It is a model of what actually transpired, as best as we can understand it from the evidence.

It isn't circular, but because it isn't an argument. But yes, certainly, it is incomplete. It is a work in process, as is all science.

Your Oneness, on the other hand, is no more than a random unsupported whimsical idiosyncratic argument, no more than simply a proposition, with not a jot of evidence supporting it. To that extent it is exactly the same as the dozens of other theistic ideas of God that are found in different traditions around the world, and no different from the hundreds of speculations to be found in science fiction.

----------

And you keep on repeating that, as you say, obviously no proof can be found for Oneness. And you keep on ignoring the consequence of that statement, despite such being expressly pointed out repeatedly : that because no evidence can be found, therefore it is not rational for you to believe in that proposition, and it is not rational for you to propagate that idea as anything other than sheer speculation.

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

And on and on you insist on riding your circularity, ignoring past arguments, and also ignoring what we'd actually set out to do here in this thread.

Carry on doing that, by all means, if that is what you want, but you must accept my apologies and permit me to bow out.

And, once again, and on an entirely different note, my good wishes and prayers for your mother's recovery. Ciao.

[Osho Robbins]

“ What sets the Big Bang theory apart from sundry origin myths, including idiosyncratic ideas like Oneness, is, in a word, EVIDENCE.

The Big Bang theory is not an "argument". It is a model of what actually transpired, as best as we can understand it from the evidence.

It isn't circular, but because it isn't an argument. But yes, certainly, it is incomplete. It is a work in process, as is all science.”. - AR

Evidence? Here is the so-called evidence:
“ The measurement of cosmic background radiation (as the Holmdel telescope's noise is now called), combined with Edwin Hubble's much earlier finding that the galaxies are rushing away, makes a strong case for the big bang. By the mid 1970s, astronomers called it "the standard model."”
“Makes a strong case for” is not evidence. It is an argument.

It seems you have a god too: your god is science. You will happily agree to anything that science endorses.

Neither you nor science has an answer to the questions I have raised. You are unable to address them or answer them without saying “it’s a work in progress”
Those questions will never be answered because they cannot be answered.
The answer is fundamentally flawed but for some reason you cannot see it or don’t want to see it.

Let me make it clear, just in case it might make sense finally:

A: where did the universe come from?
B: there was a gigantic Big Bang. The evidence is that universes are constantly expanding.
A: you are postulating a Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang?
B: we don’t know yet
A: then your answer solves nothing. It doesn’t answer the fundamental question: where did it start?
You might as well postulate a god. He created the Big Bang. But that’s not an answer either, because it still leaves the question of where god came from.
B: but there is evidence for Big Bang. The universe expanding and the low level background radiation
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp65co.html
A: I am not questioning the Big Bang. I am asking how that answers “where did the universe come from”
What caused the Big Bang? If it just happened, then you might as well just say the universe just suddenly appeared. It’s not an answer. Just like “God created the universe” is not a valid answer because now you have to explain where he came from.
B: what caused the Big Bang? We don’t know
A: exactly. What was before the Big Bang if time and space started with the Big Bang. Obviously a “no space, no time” state. The Big Bang theory says so. Science says so. Saying that there was emptiness prior to the Big Bang is not the same as saying there was a God.

For some reason you can’t see the simple logic of this. Proposing an “emptiness” (no time no space) is nothing like proposing a god figure.
“Everything started from emptiness” is a perfectly valid argument. Science itself agrees with it by saying that the Big Bang was the start of time and space.
You proposed that maybe there was a prior universe. So I said, “well what about the very first universe”

[Osho Robbins]

“ Your Oneness, on the other hand, is no more than a random unsupported whimsical idiosyncratic argument, no more than simply a proposition, with not a jot of evidence supporting it. To that extent it is exactly the same as the dozens of other theistic ideas of God that are found in different traditions around the world, and no different from the hundreds of speculations to be found in science fiction.” - AR
You keep on saying this, but I have shown several times that it is not the case. I am saying and science agrees with me that prior to Big Bang there was a “no time, no space” state.
That is what it means when it says “With the Big Bang, time and space was also created”
Why is that so hard to accept? You seem to think it is the same as saying “in the beginning there was a God”
It is nothing like it. I am not proposing anything supernatural like a God.
Absense of time and space is perfectly reasonable assumption, especially as the Big Banf proposes this anyway.

[Osho Robbins]

“ And you keep on repeating that, as you say, obviously no proof can be found for Oneness.” - AR
Oneness or emptiness is not an objective reality. So no proof of it can possibly exist.
But it can be realised.
A fish is seeking proof that water exists.
It will never find it because it is surrounded by water. Once it has the correct understanding of what water is - it can realise that the water is always there even though it can’t “see it”
Oneness or non-duality is similar. It can be shown to anyone who is open and wants to realise it. Not through meditation or any prayer or seva or any action. It can be shown like it was shown to me.
Your denial of it makes no difference to anyone who has realised it.
A million fishes can say “there is no water” but the fish that understands it is surrounded by water realises the truth. It can’t “show” the water to another fish because water is all there is.
Logic is useful but it has its limitations. You have irrationally made logic into your God and credited it with powers it does not have.

[Osho Robbins]

I don’t believe in the supernatural. I don’t believe in a God.
The Oneness is neither, and is not a belief. Anyone can realise the same thing. They can duplicate the experiment. Nothing mysterious or mystical in it. No long sessions of meditation that may give you illusions of visions.
This is the opposite. The end of all beliefs. It is not a new theory or a proposition. To realise it, you have to go beyond “yourself”.
You have to drop your god of logic too because you clearly endow your god with more powers than it has.
Logic has its place, but it’s not everything.

You can deny the existence of the oneness, but that doesn’t invalidate or remove my realisation, just because it doesn’t fit into your model of the world or your logic.
It also doesn’t require belief. Certainly I never believed it or had faith in it - the realisation happened despite my non- belief.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Osho!
You wrote:
"I don’t believe in the supernatural. I don’t believe in a God."
What is the supernatural?
If it is all that is unexplained, then yes, the supernatural exists. If it is events that defy current known laws, then yes, I believe in it. Because we don't yet understand all the laws governing this creation.

There is a great unknown in this reality.
If we acknowledge only what we already know as real, we are leaving most of reality, denying most of reality.

Once the Supernatural is measured and explained by science, then it isn't supernatural anymore. It's all "natural".

But until we can acknowledge the great mystery that science daily and intimately endeavors to explore, then we aren't living in reality, just our selective piece of reality. And that self-selection is its own self-created world, not exactly the real world in its whole and integrated existence. Our need to claim all the important parts of reality are what we already know, is a false claim.

So, yes, I believe in the Supernatural. And I believe in God. And I believe day by day science is bringing that into the natural. Of course it was always in the natural world. But people need verification to accept anything as real. But of course, the unknown is absolutely real.

As for God, the definition of God as a thinking being insults God. Human beings need to think because they don't know. An all-knowing God is beyond thought. So the problem isn't whether God exists or not. It is our false definitions. But those definitions that anthropomorphize God into something we can understand is also right. It is our way to take principles we understand, and even the principle of the unknown, even the unconscious connections to reality deep in our brains, and boil them down into a conscious representation, something we can be intimate with on some level. It is a reasonable symbolic representation of this connected, integrated and well-coded reality, that responds and develops, and is within each of us (as biological beings integrated with, part and parcel of this physical reality) until science and verified inner experience gives us more clues to create a better symbolic representation, or our brain does so for us, from its developing connections automatically.

Whatever you see, hear, touch, or even imagine, is sourced in realty. And it is an actual part of reality.

But the notion that an illusion isn't real, is a false notion, a simplified thing for human consumption.

It is real. But a real symbol representing something real, may have the face of something else. It's a symbol, after all. The brain's language is symbolic.

It is real. But what part of reality is it?

[Osho Robbins]

@spence
You say you believe in a God.
Is your God dualistic?
Meaning does he have characteristics?
Does he have a personality?
What do you mean by all-knowing?
Does it mean that he knows everything?

You wrote
“ As for God, the definition of God as a thinking being insults God. Human beings need to think because they don't know. An all-knowing God is beyond thought. So the problem isn't whether God exists or not. It is our false definitions. But those definitions that anthropomorphize God into something we can understand is also right.”
A dualistic God has to think. How else is he going to operate in duality?
I don’t believe in a God because a dualistic God makes no sense. One thing is certain. Everything in duality comes to an end and cannot be eternal.
So if your God is in duality then he cannot be eternal because eternal means non-duality
My non-dualistic God is not really a God because he doesn’t actually do anything and his existence can’t be proven because he actually doesn’t exist.
The reason I say this is because “exists” cannot apply to something outside of time and space

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Osho
You asked
"Is your God dualistic?
Meaning does he have characteristics?
Does he have a personality?
What do you mean by all-knowing?
Does it mean that he knows everything?"

Since God is not separated from the creation he can be found in everything. Each thing reflects his presence, and his qualities, at least in the aspect we see when we consider those things.

A personality, yes, but that like a holograph, depends on our viewing position. Change your perspective, boom, God's personality is different.

All information in this creation is in him and he in it, so yes all knowing.

But not exactly thinking. Thought is abstraction, an intermediary between information and action. There is nothing separating God from information or action, so God does not think in the way human beings and animals think. They must perceive reality through translation and communication. God is reality.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Osho
You wrote
"My non-dualistic God is not really a God because he doesn’t actually do anything and his existence can’t be proven because he actually doesn’t exist.
" The reason I say this is because “exists” cannot apply to something outside of time and space"

God exists everywhere, and time and space are like her beautiful earrings. She wears them, but she exists both outside and inside of time and space.

[Osho Robbins]

Everything within time and space is part of duality. It changes. What the Hindu scriptures call “Brahma (birth) Vishnu (sustain) and Shiva (death / end).”

If it’s in duality it cannot be eternal.

Outside duality means no time or space.
Eternal

Is your god eternal or does he change

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Osho:
You asked:
"Is your god eternal or does he change?"

Both, of course.

That is each of us. Eternal and ephemeral.

Depends at what level or depth you look:

As I'd written:

"A personality, yes, but that like a holograph, depends on our viewing position. Change your perspective, boom, God's personality is different."

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Osho
You wrote:
Everything within time and space is part of duality. It changes. What the Hindu scriptures call “Brahma (birth) Vishnu (sustain) and Shiva (death / end).”

And then you commented:

"If it’s in duality it cannot be eternal."

That conclusion may be a little hasty. Take a closer look at Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. God is in them too, and they all worship the same lord. They may transfer from home to home, but they remain the same people underneath.

My dad who lived with my step mom for decades in Canada, on Salt Spring Island, loved nature.

He called birds people of aviary persuasion. He called dogs people of canine persuasion. And cats he called people of feline persuasion.

If you are raised by a father like that, these coverings mean very little.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Osho
Thought this might help, when you asked about duality.

You asked:
"Is your god eternal or does he change?"

And I had answered
"Both, of course.

" That is each of us. Eternal and ephemeral."

Here is more about that:

"4.One unmoving that is swifter than Mind, That the Gods
reach not, for It progresses ever in front. That, standing,
passes beyond others as they run. In That the Master of
Life establishes the Waters.

" 5.That moves and That moves not; That is far and the same is near; That is within all this and That also is outside all this.

*6. But he who sees everywhere the Self in all existences and all
existences in the Self, shrinks not thereafter from aught.

" 7. He in whom it is the Self-Being that has become all exis-
tences that are Becomings, for he has the perfect knowledge,
how shall he be deluded, whence shall he have grief who sees
everywhere oneness?
Isha Upanishad

Oneness isn't seperate. We are all part of it.It is both moving and unmoving.