« Salem Gay Pride speaker has a lesson for atheists | Main | No, communion isn't about the body and blood of Jesus »

June 21, 2021

Comments

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

When, . . . at the moment of death , one persists in what she 60/24/7
said to herself ( and firmly believes )
the eternal Creator God that you are, might grant that condition to find out.

Seems quiet to me but not pleasant
After all God is a "tester_accumulator for Love, whatever That is
( whatever SHE is )


“ Why not stop right there, and, until such time as you can formulate some rational means of defending this, why not stop claiming this Oneness worldview EVEN TO YOURSELF? That is what seems to me to be the sane and rational thing to do.” - AR

No rational explanation can emerge because “no space no time” is not logical or rational.
Obviously I cannot offer proof because no proof can exist.
The mechanism can also not be explained. There is clearly no known mechanism.
But from this point of view it becomes irrelevant at least to me. The knowing is beyond any doubt.
Doubt is a mind phenomena. This is beyond mind. It is not arrived at logically even though I can attempt to give a logical explanation.
One to one in person, if the person listening is open to explore, they can get a glimpse of this. To realise it, it then has to go deeper and at that point the mind is dropped.
This may not be the answer you seek.

It’s a bit like when you solve a zen koan. No logical answer exists, yet the disciple knows the answer and cannot explain it. What is the mechanism for arriving at the answer? There is no mechanism but when you know the answer - you know it even though you cannot explain the answer to another

Appreciative Reader, I did actually draft an answer - but it took a while to write it - and by that time you had already made your concluding statement. So I will paste here what I had drafted:


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

My reply:
Apparently not. You are too quick to draw conclusions. You assume that responding here is my full time activity. I have other tasks in life – as I am sure you do too.
And the nature of your question demands more than a quick reply. So just a few minutes here and there may not be enough to give an adequate reply.
Incidentally I have replied but perhaps not to your satisfaction:
“I have already answered the question.
It was when you said “answer the second one too”
The answer to the second one is also there. In my answer I did not claim any special mechanism of receiving information
For clarity: this was the answer:
“ Enlightenment is outside of your model.
Oneness is not a knowledge that gets communicated to me from beyond.
The contradiction arises because you are trying to fit something that is outside of your model into your model
I don’t “see” or “perceive” ONENESS
It is not a “thing”
It is not a noun.
It does not communicate to me
The way you view ONENESS is the reason for the contradiction
Perhaps calling it Non-Duality is more appropriate because it’s clearly not a noun.”
You are viewing oneness as if it was a thing. In your view it is not real because everything outside time and space is not real. So the question cannot arise because something unreal (oneness) cannot communicate with the real (me).”

The above was the answer I gave. You are asking about the MECHANISM and I am saying the mechanism is irrelevant. You are asking HOW the information was communicated to Mr Osho Robbins.
I am saying it wasn’t. There was no information. How can there be information to communicate when the “thing” (it’s not a thing) is outside of time. A “thing” outside of time cannot communicate to a thing inside of time (Mr Osho Robbins).
What happened was that Osho Robbins entered what I have described as a paradigm shift, in which the “Realness” of “Osho Robbins” disappeared. So Osho Robbins is not real in the sense I am writing here about. From the new POV – only the outside of time and space thing (again – not a thing) is real. This is a shift and from the new POV – the old POV is gone and irrelevant.
To YOU – it is relevant – as you are seeking a rational answer to a rational question.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio”

This is not rational – and I don’t claim rationality.
You meditate. Ask yourself why you meditate.
If you were to get some ‘mystical’ experience through your meditation, which itself is unlikely if not impossible, you would seek a rational answer and there is none.
If your purpose in meditating is just to get a little “peace” – then it is perfectly rational, but if you seek some kind of experience that will show you some mystical world – the very act is irrational because you seek only rational answers.
The atheist has a certain POV: that only the rational and the logical is meaningful. The rest is pure fantasy and fiction.
The POV is correct, there is nothing to be said against it. It is logical. It is rational.
Any atheist and any rational human has to reject my claim as “irrational” – which I am perfectly okay with. I too accept it as irrational. I am not claiming it is rational. I have no desire to fit it into the world of rationality.
Love is irrational. Yet a person in love will happily drop his rationality – because the field he has entered IS irrational.
A person in love will definitely act irrationally. If he comes “out of love” he may say it was a moment of madness. During that time he was in love, the mind and it’s questions were irrelevant.
This is the same.
One thing you need to understand – I was not seeking this “thing” – I had no idea what it was. I had zero understanding. What I was previously seeking was specific – “Sach Khand – the RSSB version of the place where Sat Purush resides” – what I got was nothing like it. What I got was emptiness – similar to Buddha’s finding of “nothing”. Buddha says he got “nothing” but now he says he knows there is nothing to seek because he has accepted and embraced the nothingness – the emptiness. He can no longer seek a god, because his perception of “nirvana” excludes all dualistic “things”. The conventional god is dualistic.

AR: My question, like I was saying to 777 just now, was a very focused inquiry about the mechanism of your Realization. The actual mechanism basis which cognizance of Oneness, hitherto absent, was manifested to you at the point of your Realization.
That focused question, and its focused answer (and, like I’d said, admitting you don’t know would have been an acceptable answer too), like I’d clearly pointed out repeatedly to you, did not and does not depend on, nor is its elucidation in any essential way a function of any disagreement we might have over, such abstractions as models of how knowledge is arrived at, or one’s particular worldview, and so forth.

My Reply:
ONENESS is not a perception. It is not a thing separate from me – that I can explain. ONENESS is all there is. Mr Osho Robbins is not giving information about a state called ONENESS that he is now aware of. It goes further than that. ONENESS is all there is. This is not some new theory. ONENESS has not descended upon the person of Osho Robbins. It has not communicated to Osho Robbins in some way. Hence there is no mechanism as the thing (communication) has not happened.
It is a paradigm shift – just like when you solve a zen koan. Suddenly the illogical koan is solved – but try explaining it to another and it will sound like nonsense.
So in a sense the question cannot be answered because there is no mechanism because there has been no information received from beyond time and space.
In my model of reality – Mr Osho Robbins is not ultimate reality. He is just momentary reality – similar to a dream character who exists only for the duration of the dream – after that the dream character has not reality. And it is not Mr Osho Robbins who is the perceiver of this ONENESS.
Imagine one wave of the ocean suddenly realises that waves are not real and only the ocean is real in the sense that waves come and go – but the ocean remains. That one wave loses it’s separate identity and realises that only the ocean is real. So, if it could talk – it would say “Only the OCEAN is – I am not”
If asked “How did the ocean communicate to you” – it would say “the ocean has not communicated to me – the ocean just is and we all exist in the ocean. It doesn’t communicate.”


Thanks for those responses, Osho Robbins.


You and I seem to differ in one fundamental respect. You seem to think that somehow your Oneness --- and indeed, all mysticism, basis what you say to me about my meditation --- lies outside the domain of rationality.

In this I differ with you. I don't see how ANYTHING at all can be out of the domain of rationality, and empiricism, and the scientific method. (Albeit I do agree that one might need to let in subjective evidence, subject to rigorous standards and tests, as bona fide, and not rely exclusively on objective evidence.)

This difference seems to be the key to why my words seem not to make sense to you, nor yours to me.

Let me not pester you any more with these questions. Perhaps we could, at some time going forward, first resolve this more fundamental difference in how we view rationality. There's no doubt in my mind that I'm right about this, but still, I'm happy to open my thoughts to examination, and in turn examine yours as well. But that too is likely to be a protracted business, and it doesn't have to be now.


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


Apologies if my impatience seemed presumptuous. Let me present a defense by explaining where I was coming from.

If you see things from my POV, that everything, no matter what, Oneness, Twoness, the Trinity, your Sach Khand, all those realms that Sufi mysticism speaks of,--- everything --- answers to a rational and empirical and scientific worldview (albeit letting in subjective observations), then you'll see where I was coming from. You've arrived at a certain realization, a certain knowledge. That has already happened. Detailed formulation may take time, but a succinct bare-bones explanation can be made in brief, in no time at all ; or, if you don't know, then that admission too can be made in brief, in no time at all. None of that needs reams of text. It needs no more than two minutes to speed-type, five minutes at the outside, provided you know ; but sure, if you don't know, and are only faffing around, then not even twenty well-rehearsed long posts composed over hours will suffice.

That was why my impatience, and whence my conclusion. Again, apologies if any of that appeared presumptuous or rude. It was, and is, my honest conclusion, that I drew from that discussion of ours.

And to repeat: This is not to take away from your experience itself. At least not necessarily. But yes, this does bring into question the broader worldview, of Oneness, that you've drawn from that experience.


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


But like I said, I see that before we embark on another detailed discussion on this, we'll first need to establish that more fundamental matter, about nothing about being outside the realm of rationality. Without that we'll only keeping talking past each other.

And sure, you're busy, I know, as are we all. I do appreciate your taking the time for this detailed discussion, both this time as well as that earlier discussion some months back. We'll do the rationality discussion thing later some time, when both of us are able.

Cheers, old friend. No hard feelings, I hope?


https://youtu.be/CKJuC5CUMgU

If you watch this video you will see that concepts we normally take for granted, like for instance the speed of light being a constant (186,000 miles per second)
Is actually not a constant according to the theory of relativity which Brian examines here.
Our normal rules and logic don’t work anymore.
Now with regard to oneness, which I would rather call “non-duality” for reasons which will become clear shortly, logic and rational explanations no longer apply.
First understand what is non-duality.
Everything you and I know is in duality.
We cannot even comprehend non-duality.
So logic will not work. It is beyond mind, beyond concepts, beyond comprehension, and therefore contradictory by nature.

We know about Time, Space, Energy, Matter, Light.

Non-duality is beyond all of these. Only for brevity I said “no space, no time”
The actual definition is “no anything”
It is neither finite nor infinite.
It is neither Love nor Hate.
It is neither Light nor Dark
It is neither in space nor spaceless
It is neither in time or outside time.

To describe it (which is impossible) the Hindu scriptures used
“Neti Neti”
Which means “”not this, not that”

So then what IS it?
This is the mind trying to capture it or understand it.
It is absurd to even try.
Hence the reason I readily admit defeat in the arena of logic and rationality.

I will openly admit that it does not exist.
Because “exists” is a duality concept.

In non-duality all concepts cease.
So essentially we cannot have the discussion unless we are happy to embrace irrationality.

For the sake of sanity, it is better to deny it altogether.

By the way, as always no offence taken over our discussion. Being direct is not offensive but often necessary in the interests of pursuing truth

Just for clarity - the reason "Non-Duality" is more accurate than ONENESS is because "ONENESS" appears to have alternatives such as "nothingness, twoness, manyness". Non-Duality means that which has no opposite, no alternative,

"we'll first need to establish that more fundamental matter, about nothing about being outside the realm of rationality. Without that we'll only keeping talking past each other." - AR

That is the whole point. Rationality does not apply to non-duality because it is not a thing. I concede the rational argument. My position is irrational - I agree.
This is frustrating for anyone who seeks a rational explanation. I know - as I have been there. The mind wants a valid model to use - and there is no valid model for non-duality.
The only way is to say goodbye to the god of rationality and to sanity and to understanding.

parting quote
“Only those who attempt the absurd can achieve the impossible.”
— Albert Einstein, The World As I See It

"Hopefully someday many more that 69% of American Catholics will stop believing that what's consumed at communion is the real presence of Jesus."

I think that here the human bluetooth works and the strength of that is the
conviction, the REAL belief, Ingrained in us as Jap Ji says

DO THE FOLLOWING EXPERIMENT

Go to a church when active - take your phone and scan Bluetooth
Do it again when people come outside
and see/copy the macaddresses
You can do this also outside a school
but it will give addresses of many devices inside too

NOW pay attention and perhaps you can ask people
if the are vaccinated or not
All this is positively tested with astra-zeneca infected
I think the "messenger" vax also does this

My point
they found out the very light in/out emissions of DNA RNA
and now are preparing capturing that
At the receiver side it
Might change people in zombie characters
See again the movies like :
World War Z, or
I Am Legend.

I guess the 'Soul' can do this too
with way way finer / higher frequencies

77

( all portable phones can scan Bluetooth )

Lao Zi wrote, that regulations and the keeping of them only arise in a corrupted society and if he did not, he could have done so ... otherwise my understanding of his writings is wrong. If people are good, there is no need to tell them to be good and how.

So if people in certain areas, where there were no fridges etc and other means to preserve meat, would accept that pork is dangerous as food, they would abstain from it. If they do not heed that simple advice and one wants that the people stays healthy etc what other means is there than to use another thread, another fear, greater than becoming sick ... speak in thew name of the local god and tell them that they will go to hell if they eat pork

If that was done with addictive habits like smoking, the issue would have become less important than it has become over time.

Now .... if you tell the people there is no hell, there is no god to fear, the ultimate possibility to withhold people from doing things that have an negative effect upon their welfare as an individual and society as whole, is gone .... they certainly become slaves ... slaves of the marketeers, etc and last but not least their own mind and senses.

More and more kids these days conscious or unconscious understand that their educators, the parents and teachers in school have their corrective hands bound, both literally and figuratively. So due to fear of using corrective means parents and teachers let them have it their way ... the inexperienced telling the experienced what life is all about.

That are the fruits of something that started in 1968 ... by those who were not able or willing to adapt to society. Not better example than the ones that are not even able to draw a tree better than a 3 year old kid, telling in the schools of art, that drawing trees as it was done by the great painters of yore was suppressing their creativity and that teachers that would insist on learning first the very simple skills were dictators of the mind and worst. Instead of admitting they had no talent and if there was talent not the willingness to develop it, it was much easier to find fault with the ...establishment and blaming them, demonizing them and where possible criminalizing them.

A couple of days reading papers, seeing TV etc will show the fruits of this process with in its worth form Qanon, extremists from all walks and sorts prepared to take up arms to kill the members of establishment. Virologist that have to be brought to safe houses because people are threatening to kill them.


“By the way, as always no offence taken over our discussion. Being direct is not offensive but often necessary in the interests of pursuing truth”


…….That’s good to hear! Cheers, Osho Robbins.


.


A couple of comments, as far as these two posts of yours :


.


First : As far as your views on rationality, I’m afraid I’m not able to agree with your POV.

The most obvious objection would be the argumentum ad absurdum that I’d already presented to you yesterday. Which, to briefly recap, is this: What you say is exactly what Christian apologists have long been saying. You know, the whole separate-magesteria argument. The God (of the Bible) is outside of our Universe, outside of time and space et cetera, and indeed outside of the whole rationality thing. Therefore, to attempt to understand God with our puny minds is a priori doomed to failure. This world is fair game for science to explore, but God’s kingdom is a whole separate domain, that is accessible only to Prophets and others whom God directly vouchsafes such messages as He sees fit.

Do you see the point of my argumentum ad absurdum here? By your own standards and going by your own arguments, then, as applied by these Christian apologists since well before your time, you have no business criticizing nut jobs who claim Jesus speaks to them, and you have no business presenting rational arguments in support of atheism (when it comes to the God of the Bible).

Anyhoo : Clearly the first step would be to examine your unusual position on rationality as it applies to Oneness / Non-duality. But that also will, I think, end up devolving into a long discussion. I’ve presented only the most obvious objection that occurred to me, but there will be many others. Do you want to do that now, that (probably long-drawn) discussion?

If you’d like to, then I’m happy to, myself. But you did indicate time constraints, in your comments the other day ; and besides, you do sign off your last comment with what you refer to as a “parting quote” ; which is why I’m checking. If you’d like to do this some other time, when you’ve more time on your hands, that’s fine by me too. Your call.


.


And two : I note that you’ve still not actually described the mechanism of how exactly knowledge of Oneness manifested itself to you. I’m afraid you keep …well, pardon the plainspeak, but you keep waffling and faffing away, instead of clearly explaining in a sentence or two (or, in a sentence or two, admitting that you don’t know).

You keep on saying things like “paradigm shift”. Well, a paradigm shift is simply an overhaul of one’s worldview. I can see how a paradigm shift might follow on some knowledge dawning on you, but that says nothing about the mechanism by which that knowledge came to you. Or you keep repeating, in comment after comment, weird phrases like “the disciple suddenly knows”, et cetera. WTF, what disciple, whose disciple? You’re clearly regurgitating some material you’ve read somewhere, that speaks of “disciples” doing this and that and the other.

When it comes to simply answering this question --- or simply admitting you don’t know --- then, provided you do know what you’re talking about, at most five minutes of typing would suffice, at least for a bare-bones and to-the-point answer to that question. A quick paragraph or two, that’s all. Everything else is a distraction, as far as that focused question. Everything: Our respective views on rationality ; broader models of epistemology ; the nature of time and space ; lengthy quotes on what people like Babaji and Papaji, or older saints like Nanak and Paltu, or for that matter ancients like Ashtavakra and other Vedic sages, happened to say in musty old scriptures ; everything, all of that, is a distraction.

I do wonder why you won’t directly and simply address that simple question. Either to quickly and briefly discuss the basics of that mechanism, or else, equally briefly, to clearly admit you don't know how you came by that knowledge.


.


But circling back to rationality: If you want to discuss and defend your POV on rationality as it applies to Oneness, do let me know. I’ll be happy to start, then, with a more detailed response to the two comments you’ve posted here. Else we’ll get back to this at some later time.



“By the way, as always no offence taken over our discussion. Being direct is not offensive but often necessary in the interests of pursuing truth”


…….That’s good to hear! Cheers, Osho Robbins.


.


A couple of comments, as far as these two posts of yours :


.


First : As far as your views on rationality, I’m afraid I’m not able to agree with your POV.

The most obvious objection would be the argumentum ad absurdum that I’d already presented to you yesterday. Which, to briefly recap, is this: What you say is exactly what Christian apologists have long been saying. You know, the whole separate-magesteria argument. The God (of the Bible) is outside of our Universe, outside of time and space et cetera, and indeed outside of the whole rationality thing. Therefore, to attempt to understand God with our puny minds is a priori doomed to failure. This world is fair game for science to explore, but God’s kingdom is a whole separate domain, that is accessible only to Prophets and others whom God directly vouchsafes such messages as He sees fit.

Do you see the point of my argumentum ad absurdum here? By your own standards and going by your own arguments, then, as applied by these Christian apologists since well before your time, you have no business criticizing nut jobs who claim Jesus speaks to them, and you have no business presenting rational arguments in support of atheism (when it comes to the God of the Bible).

Anyhoo : Clearly the first step would be to examine your unusual position on rationality as it applies to Oneness / Non-duality. But that also will likely end up devolving into a long discussion. I’ve presented only the most obvious objection that occurred to me, but there will be many others. Do you want to do that now, that (probably long-drawn) discussion?

If you’d like to, then I’m happy to, myself. But you did indicate time constraints, in your comments the other day ; and besides, you do sign off your last comment with what you refer to as a “parting quote” ; which is why I’m checking. If you’d like to do this some other time, when you’ve more time on your hands, that’s fine by me too. Your call.


.


And two : I note that you’ve still not actually described the mechanism of how exactly knowledge of Oneness manifested itself to you. I’m afraid you keep …well, pardon the plainspeak, but you keep waffling and faffing away, instead of clearly explaining in a sentence or two (or, in a sentence or two, admitting that you don’t know).

You keep on saying things like “paradigm shift”. Well, a paradigm shift is simply an overhaul of one’s worldview. I can see how a paradigm shift might follow on some knowledge dawning on you, but that says nothing about the mechanism by which that knowledge came to you. Or you keep repeating, in comment after comment, weird phrases like “the disciple suddenly knows”, et cetera. WTF, what disciple, whose disciple? You’re clearly regurgitating some material you’ve read somewhere, that speaks of “disciples” doing this and that and the other.

When it comes to simply answering this question --- or simply admitting you don’t know --- then, provided you do know what you’re talking about, at most five minutes of typing would suffice, at least for a bare-bones and to-the-point answer to that question. A quick paragraph or two, that’s all. Everything else is a distraction, as far as that focused question. Everything : Our respective views on rationality ; broader models of epistemology ; the nature of time and space ; lengthy quotes on what teachers like Babaji and Papaji, or older saints like Nanak and Paltu, or for that matter ancients like Ashtavakra and other ancient Vedic sages, happened to say in musty old scriptures ; everything, all of that, is a distraction.

I do wonder why you won’t directly and simply address that simple question.


.


But circling back to rationality: If you want to discuss and defend your POV on rationality as it applies to Oneness, do let me know. I’ll be happy to start, then, with a more detailed response to the two comments you’ve posted here. Else we’ll get back to this at some later time.


I've posted this comment twice, maybe thrice, but somehow it gets swallowed up into the maws of the Holy Blog Khand. I guess these comments will resurface sometime, somehow, but when they do, Brian, I'm afraid you'll find two or three sets of the same lengthy comment sitting here. Apologies for that inadvertent cluttering, and perhaps you'd just keep just the one comment, and throw out the rest? Thanks!

"First : As far as your views on rationality, I’m afraid I’m not able to agree with your POV.

The most obvious objection would be the argumentum ad absurdum that I’d already presented to you yesterday. Which, to briefly recap, is this: What you say is exactly what Christian apologists have long been saying. You know, the whole separate-magesteria argument. The God (of the Bible) is outside of our Universe, outside of time and space et cetera, and indeed outside of the whole rationality thing. Therefore, to attempt to understand God with our puny minds is a priori doomed to failure." - AR

I posted a link to a video which shows that science too eventually says "It is irrational" when it comes to for instance the speed of light and relativity. So there does come a point when our normal models of reality fail.

All this debate we are having is a way to understand - and science does this through models. Atoms were once considered the smallest elements of matter. Then it was discovered that the atom had a nucleas and electrons circling it a bit like our solar system. Then we have the wave theory of matter.
All these are models. matter behaves like particles and also like waves. So what is it really? No definite answer. We just have models - not real answers.
You are seeking an answer about "NON-DUALITY" which is impossible because it is non-duality, and we live in a duality universe.

Non-duality is nothing like the God of the Christian - or indeed the god of any religion. Rather it is the absence of them.

These two are different:
1. There is a god and he has various attributes. He is all love and also judgemental and jealous.
2. There is no God. There is a state of non-duality which is the absence of all known things including time, space, matter, energy.

Siddharta went in search of a God and instead realised emptiness. He did not find another God. Emptiness is not another God to believe in,

Clearly logic and rationality cannot apply to that which is outside the world of phenomena.

Logic and rationality only operates in the material world.

You have stated that you meditate. Why? if you are a rational human - no experience you get in meditation will ever convince you that you have experienced something real or profound.

I like this 😁

https://www.verizon.com/about/news/how-kind-is-america-academic-study

@ Osho

W. James, writes in his "Varieties of religious experience" that he is not interested in the sources and causes of so called [inner] [ecstatic] experiences but in the effect they have on the persons involved, whether they have lasting effects and whether these effects were beneficial for the persons involved and those he contacts.

One knows the tree by its fruits.

Just for fun Osho ... If I watch TV showing an issue around people in a monastery and a gathering of skeptics, i always see more relaxed and smiling faces of the inhabitants of the monasteries than those of the skeptic. Their laguage is also different and their opinion on others too.

Faces Osho and eyes tell the truth about inner welfare. Those who are happy and contented inside, have peace, spread it without saying a word and are good company

@AR
https://youtu.be/dd82-LlOnPg
The first 20 mins of this might explain why we cannot agree.
This is Tony Parsons.
So a few points he makes
1. There is no individual
2. The enlightenment is not an event that happens.
3. There is no individual and therefore no knower. He calls is “unknowing” and it’s already the case
4. The enlightenment or “unknowing” does not happen to the individual like winning the lottery.

Hence the question of “mechanism” does not arise. You are asking “how did it happen, what is the mechanism” and he is saying that nothing has happened because there is no individual and never has been. This is what I am calling the paradigm shift. It appears to be waffling to you because you’re not getting coherent answers. I completely sympathise with your POV. You want clear cut and precise answers that cannot be refuted. All you are getting is more waffle and nonsensical answers. Furthermore I have now departed from rationality and logic, and admitted that my position is irrational. You won the rational argument.
There is more to this, and Tony Parsons explains it by saying that the notion that “everything happens to ME” is itself erroneous

@um
That may be correct. However in non-duality or Oneness - all that becomes irrelevant because “seeking to be good” is what the “ego” is doing. It is the “ego” that is on the spiritual path seeking some kind of “answer” because it is unhappy and wants “completion”
The realisation that there is no individual and therefore nobody that needs to get enlightened is when this whole box opens up. When “you” no longer exist, then who is seeking enlightenment?
Zen is full of these questions to get the seeker to examine them.
“What is the sound of one hand clapping”
Is a nonsensical question.
But meditate on it and you might just get a moment of clarity and realise that “OMNG - one hand cannot clap. It cannot do anything because it’s just ONE”
The koan was designed to give you an insight into ONE.
“OMNG”is not a typo
It means “Oh My Non-God” since zen doesn’t accept a God character.

“There is only ONE - there is no other” is designed to remove “you”

“If you meet the Buddha on the way, kill him” is designed to get you to realise that there cannot be a Buddha because there is only ONE. Only your disappearance will solve the problem.

Trying to be a “good person” means you are still a person.

“When I was (existed as a separate soul) then You (god or the ONE) was not (couldn’t be found anywhere despite all the meditation etc), but now
ONLY YOU ARE and I AM NOT”
- Kabir.
It’s a reference to the same ONENESS. In oneness - there cannot be two. There also cannot be any “good” or “bad” or “karma” or “heaven” or “hell”

@ Osho

In the end we are all alone and have to cope with what we are, who we are and the circumstance of where we live and understanding your words as best as I can you have freed yourself from that burden. ...so be it.

As there is no ego left, you can neither be happy or unhappy as there is nobody there to register these things.

But i suppose this must be wrong understanding also

@ Osho

You reasoning makes me thing of these beautifull stories of the days of great master, people justifying there acts as they were all gods acts.

They didn't want to questioned about what they did, identifying themselfs with god.

You too do not want to be questioned with the argument there is nobody there to be questioned.

You are free to make yourself belief that there is no you ... [Yes, yes I understand it is no belief] ... but those around you think otherwise and the will act accordingly.

I am afraid many more "Haynes park issues" will become your share in the future.


“I posted a link to a video which shows that science too eventually says "It is irrational" when it comes to for instance the speed of light and relativity. So there does come a point when our normal models of reality fail.
All this debate we are having is a way to understand - and science does this through models. Atoms were once considered the smallest elements of matter. Then it was discovered that the atom had a nucleas and electrons circling it a bit like our solar system. Then we have the wave theory of matter.
All these are models. matter behaves like particles and also like waves. So what is it really? No definite answer. We just have models - not real answers.”


……………..What you present here, Osho Robbins, is the classic God-of-the-Gaps would-be-defense that theists so often employ.

That’s an interesting video. I’ve bookmarked it, but it’s kind of long, fully two and a half hours It runs on in the background this moment, in fact, as I type this now, but it’s kind of involved, and I’ll listen to it without multitasking later on, when I can.

But regardless, Osho Robbins, your words make clear that, I have to say, you don’t fully understand the nature, and the point, of the scientific method.


First : New theories constantly update old theories in science. That isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. It’s what makes science what it is.


Second : Many of the things science points at are counter-intuitive. None of them is irrational, and certainly none of them is outside the purview of empirism. QM is a prime example. Hell, forget QM, think simply of an earth that is spheroidal and not flat, and think of a heliocentric cosmology as opposed to the sun and the stars going around our stationery earth. Both those ideas are entirely counter-intuitive. That does not mean they are irrational.


And third : When you say, “So what is it really? No definite answer. We just have models - not real answers.”
Well, I’m afraid that right there shows that you don’t get the point of the scientific method at all. True, science gives us models that approach reality closer and closer, but the whole point is, the only way we have to make sense of the world is through models, regardless of whether or not we employ the scientific method. What science does is clearly recognizes this, and gives us a method of formulating optimum models, rather than relying on ad hoc models.

In other words : These models ARE the “real answers”. There can be no other “real answers”.

Or are you claiming there is some other way of arriving at “real answers”, of perceiving reality “as it is” and without recourse to models? If that is what you’re claiming, please say that plainly. And let’s discuss, clearly and plainly, how exactly this remarkable feat might be achieved.


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


“You are seeking an answer about "NON-DUALITY" which is impossible because it is non-duality, and we live in a duality universe.”


……………..Huh, okay. But how is it, then, that you yourself have at least some inkling of this answer? How is it that you yourself know that non-duality is at all a thing (as opposed to plain fiction)? How is it that you know anything at all about non-duality?

I ask again, and will keep on asking you yet again, that simple question. That simple question that, if you know what you’re talking about, can be answered in two or three short sentences. That simple question that, if you do not know the answer to, then that ignorance can be honestly admitted in two or three short sentences. That simple question that for reasons best known to you you keep on avoiding, in comment after comment after comment, as you keep throwing words and distractions to deflect from the fact that you’re avoiding this question. That same question that I’ve aready asked you many times : What is the actual mechanism by which such knowledge as you have of non-duality manifested itself to you? What is the actual mechanism by which you know what you know about non-duality?


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


“Non-duality is nothing like the God of the Christian - or indeed the god of any religion. Rather it is the absence of them.
These two are different:
1. There is a god and he has various attributes. He is all love and also judgemental and jealous.
2. There is no God. There is a state of non-duality which is the absence of all known things including time, space, matter, energy.”


…………….. The separate-magesteria argument of Christian apologists says exactly what you’re saying abour Non-duality. God is the Creator of this Universe. He is outside and beyond the Universe. We in our limited frame of reference interpret what little we see and know of Him as “jealous” and “merciful” and so on and so forth. But His actual nature is beyond our understanding, and beyond rationality, and beyond logic, because He is in every way greater than and beyond our capacity to understand.

The Christian God is everything you’re in effect claiming for your Non-duality, as far as the limited question of being outside our capacity to interpret Him/it.

But you know what? The Christian God is at least a more logically consistent construct than this Non-duality of yours. Because the Christian God does interact with His creation. This all-powerful Being employs means that are beyond our comprehension to communicate with us, and to make known to us such of His aspects as we do dimly know of. But your Non-duality, in as much as it does not interact with the Universe at all, is by definition outside of any means of knowing it, which gives the lie to your claim of knowing the first thing about it, including its reality.

As far as being beyond the reach of rationality, as far as that limited focused claim, the Christian God is exactly the same as your Non-duality. Indeed, like I’ve shown in the previous paragraph, it is in fact a less self-contradictory construct than your Non-duality. (I’m not saying the Christian conception of God is true. It’s entirely nonsensical. But at least it is, like I’ve clearly shown in the last paragraph, less nonsensical than the idea of a Non-duality that cannot possibly communicate with us --- so that we cannot, by definition, possibly know the first thing about it, including about its very existence --- and that you yourself nevertheless speak so authoritatively about.)


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


“Siddharta went in search of a God and instead realised emptiness. He did not find another God. Emptiness is not another God to believe in,”


Invoking the Buddha is yet another fallacious appeal to authority. We do not actually know that any of his teachings are actually and really true. Many of those teachings are promising, and less obviously nonsensical than other religious ideas, but still, to quote the Buddha as some kind of authority is simply fallacious.


But okay, let’s leave the above objection aside for a minute, and engage with what the Buddha did say. I suggest we focus on the Theravadin teachings, that reflect the earliest records of what he taught, rather than the gaudy additions in subsequent Mahayanist and Vajrayanist versions.

What the Buddha found was emptiness, true. Anatta. But that does NOT tantamount to Oneness, at all! Of that larger reality he simply would not speak, at all.

When we’d first discussed this at length, many months ago, do you remember my trying to suss out how exactly you yourself went from Nothingness to Oneness? That was exactly what I was trying to get at, how it is you get from A to B. How it is you move from Anatta, and arrive at what is in effect the Advaitic Brahm. How it is you go from Emptiness, and end up at Oneness.

In fact, even if we do grant for the sake of argument that the Buddha knew what he was talking about, and that he did have some means (in the absence of scientific knowledge) of arriving at the underlying nature of reality, even then I’d say his actual original teachings comport far better with outright atheism than with deism, than with your Oneness / Non-duality.


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


“You have stated that you meditate. Why? if you are a rational human - no experience you get in meditation will ever convince you that you have experienced something real or profound.”


……………..Why do I meditate? Three reasons, speaking for myself, and each reason equally important.

Reason # 1 : It keeps me centered. It brings me peace of mind. It helps me engage with the world more effectively. And, most times, I enjoy doing it.

Reason # 2 : It has been objectively shown that meditation helps keep one in good health, both mentally and also physically. So another reason for me to do it is because I know it helps my long-term health and well-being.


(Reasons #1 and #2 are kind of the same reasons why I work out. It’s fun, I enjoy doing it, it keeps me healthy physically, and mentally also it does me good. As far as working out, there’s a third reason too, that doesn’t apply to meditation. Which is, it makes me look good! Similarly with meditation, there’s a third reason that doesn’t apply to working out, that I discuss below.)


Reason # 3 : Science by its very nature is a tentative process. What we know today is just a small sliver of that infinity that waits to still be known. It could be, just maybe, just perhaps, that meditation might help us access states of the mind, or perhaps in some other way access certain aspects of reality, that are not yet available to us via science. Which is not to say that those things are outside the scope of rationality, or outside the scope of science, not at all. If at all those states are real, then one day science will doubtless make it clearly known to all. But who knows how long that might take? We humans may simply blow ourselves up, or destroy our climate and simply become extinct or at least devolve to some kind of brute-like existence, well before we arrive at such knowledge. And in case my individual life is a short thing, with a span of at most a hundred years, and probably much less than that. If at all such states might be accessible via mediation, I’d like to have a shot at accessing them myself, within my short span of life, no matter the actual odds of that happening.

This third reason of mine, think of it like buying a lottery ticket. For a few dollars, you get a chance at winning life-changing millions. The odds are infinitesimal; nevertheless, the odds are not zero. If you don’t buy a ticket, you are 100% sure you won’t win ; but if you do buy a ticket, then maybe, just perhaps, you might actually win. You’d be a fool to gamble more than you can afford, but it does make sense, to me, to put in a few dollars every few weeks, that I won’t miss even if I don’t win, for a shot at literally millions. Likewise with meditation. I’d be a fool to do the equivalent of gambling extravagantly, by risking my sanity and my lucidity and my health by ingesting drugs and whatnot, but if by investing a few short hours a day doing something I in any case enjoy and that in any case gives me other benefits like general centeredness and better health, I get a shot at perhaps accessing some aspect of reality that is not readily available to us, then why not?

You’re right, if I do get some “paradigm-shifting” experience as a result of my meditation, then I will not rush to immediately change my worldview. If I suddenly see entire cosmologies within me, I will not automatically conclude that I’ve accessed some way to travel to other lokas. If I suddenly experience Non-duality I will not immediately conclude that the underlying nature of existence is Non-dual. I’ll take that experience, if I were actually blest with such, for what it actually is. But yes, if I do arrive at reasons that I can defend (if only to myself), then sure, that might make me change my worldview. But if I did ever change my worldview, basis actual experiences had in the course of meditation, then I’d know exactly why I’m doing it. I’d change my worldview only if I were in a position to defend that new worldview to myself, and therefore in a position to explain my reasons to someone else who were invested enough in me to take the trouble to ask me why I’ve done that.


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


From your subsequent comment, Osho Robbins:

“@AR
https://youtu.be/dd82-LlOnPg
The first 20 mins of this might explain why we cannot agree.
This is Tony Parsons.
So a few points he makes
1. There is no individual
2. The enlightenment is not an event that happens.
3. There is no individual and therefore no knower. He calls is “unknowing” and it’s already the case
4. The enlightenment or “unknowing” does not happen to the individual like winning the lottery.
Hence the question of “mechanism” does not arise. You are asking “how did it happen, what is the mechanism” and he is saying that nothing has happened because there is no individual and never has been. This is what I am calling the paradigm shift. It appears to be waffling to you because you’re not getting coherent answers. I completely sympathise with your POV.”


.................Again, I haven’t watched the video. I fully intend to, but I haven’t yet.

As far as the above, if “nothing has happened”, then what the fuck --- pardon my French, but what the actual fuck --- is Tony Parsons blathering away about? If indeed nothing has happened, then why on earth is he even saying anything at all? If nothing has happened, then what is his point, even? Why does he presume to say anything at all to anyone in that case?

Look, Osho Robbins, I’m sorry, but you’re simply playing with words now. If literally nothing has happened, then neither you, nor Tony Parsons, nor Mikaire, nor UGK have any business pontificating about this, because in that case this “this” is literally nothing.

You just can’t have it both ways. Either you know nothing at all : in which case there is nothing meaningful you can possibly have to say. Or you do know something, no matter how tenuously : in which case the knowledge of that something, no matter how tenuous, must somehow have reached you ; and, in that case, it is entirely valid to ask what the mechanism is for that knowledge to have reached you.


@ A.R.

>> ..... and, in that case, it is entirely valid to ask what the mechanism is for that knowledge to have reached you.<<<

James argues, as far as I understand what he writes, that the only thing that realy matters is the effect things have and the duration of the effect.

To the youngsters in the family that have come in temptation to use oral mind altering things, I use to say ... Before you do, please do go where these things are used in abundance and at a time that you can see the effects. Then just sit there and watch and if they appear to be happy, all of them!!, than do what they do. If you feel it is otherwise, leave the scene and never think about it again.

I have found that many skeptics, atheists and also a lot of advaita personalities to be seen on the internet, have facial expressions that I consider as tense, the opposite of an happy and relaxed facial expression. They way they talk to their audience often is also not that agreable a ceratin amount of "anger" in their voices cannot be denied by me.

Hi Osho!
I really like what you wrote:
"All this debate we are having is a way to understand - and science does this through models. Atoms were once considered the smallest elements of matter. Then it was discovered that the atom had a nucleas and electrons circling it a bit like our solar system. Then we have the wave theory of matter.
All these are models. matter behaves like particles and also like waves. So what is it really? No definite answer. We just have models - not real answers.”

The mind can only construct models. The mind builds models out of perception and conceptual thinking. We live, drive our cars, interact with our friends and family all through the models the mind builds to represent each of these. That includes models of creator, universe, existence, consciousness.

The more abstract the notion, the more prone to error the mind is. Testing allows us to gather information that improves our model. But it is always a model. A theory. It can be a "proven" theory or just a theory.

This debate can never be more than a discussion of different models, the one that you hold, Appreciative, Um, Brian, myself and others. That's all it will ever be.

We can learn about each others' models / theories. It doesn't matter if you or I say "I Know"...that is a personal conclusion, an opinion of our experience. It is what the brain concludes.

But we can test what each other says in our own lives to confirm that or refine that theory.

Because we each don't know what we don't know. Therefore it is impossible to claim a complete understanding. Even many, many articulate speakers on Youtube, or philosophers down through the ages, can do no more.

I've written before that I have experienced, occasionally, by the Grace of my Master, all the eight regions (or we could define them here, in concrete terms as eight...the first three are remarkably distinct, like different regions of worlds, but beyond that, they are like walking onto a higher balcony of the same building...The horizon expands ever larger to include all that was seen before, and adding dimensions to the ones below.

But I can only tell you about what this brain, this gooey brain, has recorded, and at very poor resolution, of those experiences after the fact, after my medication. I can only recall the image, and the awe of that.

I solved many problems in meditation, there were none in fact. Whatever thought arose, it was dissolved in an ocean of solutions. The ocean of love is, chemically, THE solution! :) But sadly, here I can hardly solve my daily challenges, and sometimes at great consternation!:)

There have been occasions here, where shabd rang out inside me in the middle of the day, in the middle of a presentation, in the middle of being attacked in a meeting, or beset with complaints by the leaders of our corporation, and fearing for my job, I withdrew into Him in that moment, and everyone just quieted down, and they talked to each other, and solved their own problem. And no come complained about anything after that.

Or in a similar moment he gave me two words, and speaking those, even though I didn't understand them, the others did.

My own control over such things is zero. When I'm called, I follow.

From that perspective it is of zero utility to anyone else, except to say that one knucklehead insists he was there. So, with such insight came no power, only humility. Only an appreciation of how tiny we are, how tiny I am. Progress on the path made me smaller, infinitesimally smaller, zero power, zero intelligence. I was an young adult before, now I'm an infant!

But to the extent we submit that we ourselves are limited beings, to that extent we can also submit to testing and verification, either personally or amongst a team of peers who can keep us honest. It's an exercise in humility and wisdom, or its development.

Conclusions are based on something, even "nothing" whatever that might be.

You rightly point out it can't be proven or disproven. That is extra-human in nature. But again, even there you are drawing a line between what can and can't be known. That's an opinion.

And all opinions are, whether we like it or not, subject to someone else's evaluation and testing.

You once said to me "It would be better for you, Spence, to say 'I believe' rather than just state your conclusions."

I concur.


Typo.. not "after my medication" but "after my meditation!" I guess that is my medication.

@ Spence

Yes, yes, we humans look the same but otherwise we differ from one another as crows do from nightingales and eagles all living in their own universe.

Nothing can change, nothing be learned, we are born, grow and die as we are.

According the teachings you are a god man, a saint, the eagles among humanity, you have to deal with it as others have with their ignorance. or rationalist with their understanding.

Your saintly hood is only of value to you and those who have the good fortune to be in your presence.

That is your fate, karma .

No one in this world should say to another person ... do as I do. ... as it has brought almost all misery in the world that can be read in history books... the idealist spreading their word of happiness

Hi Um
You wrote
"According the teachings you are a god man, a saint, the eagles among humanity, you have to deal with it as others have with their ignorance. or rationalist with their understanding.

" Your saintly hood is only of value to you and those who have the good fortune to be in your presence."

If you take a clod of dirt from the fields
Driver home, and place it on a clean dinner plate, and place that on the fireplace mantle and surround it with flowers and claim," This is a Saint! "

It's just about that ridiculous.
It's still dirt, and inedible.

A grain of sand is a grain of sand, and there is nobility in that.

There is nobility in realizing we are all grains of sand.

But making one different or higher than another that separates is. And it isn't really accurate. The crow, the nightingale and the eagle all must rest and sleep, help each other, find away to live together, and suffer to care for their young. They are all family members.

@ Spence

Huzur said ... give them an good example and led them grow.

Well my dad was not interested in the accomplishments of anybody and without words he made all understood that his respect, his generosity his love could not be had by anybody and by no means.

It was HIS and nobody else and he was free to distribute it to anybody he wanted for his own reasons and those who had the guts to question him would have to face his reactions.

So we have learned as an fact that their are saints and ignorant people, like their are trees and animals.

And Spence ...

My reaction was based upon your summing up of the inner stages. Together with what is said in the teachings, there is no other conclusion than that your are an achieve saint. It has nothing to do with my appreciation or validation. So I do not understand why you make it seen otherwise.

Hi Um
It's interesting what you wrote about your Dad.

I had a young employee I was training and at some point he said I had to earn his respect.

I countered that it's the opposite. We give respect to each other, first, without condition. We trust each other as a sign of our own humanity.

We help build each other up. That's how how we earn it.

@ hahaha Spence

I hear my dad ... what did you say, did I hear what you said .... and then he would turn his back upon you and walk away ....hahahahaha

Respect cannot be earned, it is a free gift.

I am sitting here laughing my heart out, all sorts of sayings of my dad pop up. He never made a compliment and he warned us for people who did ... hahahaha ... you cannot trust them he would say ... hahaha

@um

Do you agree with your father’s notion that you shouldn’t give out compliments and that you can’t trust people who do?

Did you ever feel in your own heart that that was a bit jaded or did you believe what he taught you simply because he was your dad?

Anyway, I had was meditating the other day and realized something kind of profound about meditation in general. The old school Christians believe the Heavens and God are above us. As if they’re somewhere in the sky. Then people in Eastern religions say it’s all within. But it’s actually both. You focus within to expand your consciousness out. That’s why satsangis (the ones who describe their experiences) say you first see your body just sitting there and then you keep going and see the moon and sun and on and on.

Did you know their are trillions of universes at minimum—all containing different levels of density and gravity. And remember space + gravity = time. So, from just the observable universe alone (with the help of scientific instruments), we know that other galaxies experience time differently. And then there are black holes… don’t even get me started.

It’s all so fascinating. I love physics and quantum mechanics. Science keeps getting closer to identifying what some would call a super consciousness.

There are infinite possibilities.

But it’s the density or “denseness” of things that contribute to a downward pull (gravity). In the body that can manifest as physical and mental illness when unbalanced. Awareness changes vibrations. And it’s all vibrations. The hippies were right.

@ Sonia

Yes I do agree with him and for good reasons.
What does "jaded" mean. What I found in the dictionary does not make the sentence more understandable

um,

Jaded basically means you’ve had a lot of hard knocks in life, experienced negativity and those experiences cause you to be more suspicious—less trusting.

So, why do you agree with your dad?

Wouldn’t you agree that most people are basically good or at least trying to be?

“Fate karma” what a fascinating subject.

Most of the world fears God. And there isn’t any healthy fear. People believe that guilt and shame and suffering will absolve them of their “sins”. It’s guilt and shame and fear that keep people coming back life after life. It certainly isn’t love or God that sends us back to this world. Being here in a place of suffering isn’t God’s will for us. But who has ever truly followed God’s will? Who believes that Gods only will is for you to always be happy? Almost no one believes that. People view following God’s will as if it were a sacrifice. The only sacrifice we ever make is when we don’t want his will. What we want won’t make us happy or feel content and truly loved. We have no idea what will make us happy. And we fear the only thing that can actually make us happy and give us peace. We’re afraid if we don’t believe in sin and judgement that the world will spin wildly out of control.

We punish people instead of correcting them because our hearts are so full of fear. And yet exercising punishment instead of correction (two totally different things, BTW) is exactly why the world is in such a state of turmoil and suffering. People suffer because they think it will redeem them. On some twisted basic level we believe we deserve to suffer and that through suffering we will become free. Devil’s logic.

God gave us the ability to make choices. The fact that you’re even thinking is proof of that. :) “Devil’s logic” is inconsistent because it’s built on fear. It’s irrational.

@ Sonia

Thank you.

yes I do tend to be suspicious and less trusting, but for good reasons.

No, ...people are basically neither good nor bad nor do they try to be it.

I have been writing and deleting but I cannot find the right words to properly answer you

"What the Buddha found was emptiness, true. Anatta. But that does NOT tantamount to Oneness, at all! Of that larger reality he simply would not speak, at all.
How it is you move from Anatta, and arrive at what is in effect the Advaitic Brahm. How it is you go from Emptiness, and end up at Oneness." - AR

You clearly have a different concept of ONENESS than what I am referring to.
Let me clarify.
NOTHINGNESS and ONENESS to me are the SAME. They both mean NON-DUALITY.
I do not mean “inter-connectedness” or “We are all ONE and connected” when I say ONENESS. That is a different meaning – and not what I refer to when I use the word ONENESS.
Neither “nothing” nor “ONE” are a “thing” that can be observed, described or experienced.

ONENESS means that there is ONE THING that is everywhere and all the time. So it encompasses all space and all time. It has no boundary, no end. It is infinite. Nothing else apart from the ONE can exist because it encompasses ALL space and ALL time. So then YOU, right now ARE the ONE because nothing else exists.

That is ONENESS – not some idea that “We are all ONE and the same.” There is no “we” in oneness – there is only the ONE!
Nothing ends up in the same place. There is only NOTHING – no you, no me, no space, no time. Just NOTHING.

You can call the NOTHING – NOTHING – or you can call it ONENESS. There is practically no difference. In both cases – there is nothing else. There is only the ONENESS or the NOTHINGNESS.
What difference does it make what name you give it? So they are synonymous in my way of explaining. It makes no difference what word is used: the result is the same.

There is no difference. I can call it ONENESS and in the next breath I can call it NOTHING. I am referring to the same thing that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. In fact all descriptions of it are futile because both are outside the scope of time and space.

So when you say “Of that larger reality he (Buddha) simply would not speak, at all.” It is because there is nothing that can be said.
Hence the reason I make no distinction between them.
Buddha was not an atheist nor a deist. He is saying the same as what I have stated above. The emptiness is the same as ONENESS as I am using the term.

“Invoking the Buddha is yet another fallacious appeal to authority. “ – AR
The “Appeal to Authority logical fallacy” does not mean that no person can quote any other person in their discussion. Simply quoting of referencing them does not categorise it as the “Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.”
It is only a logical fallacy if the person is “INSISTING it is true just because the person said it, without reference to any other reason.” For instance If I say “Jesus said to the person he was crucified beside ‘this very night, you will be in heaven with my father’, thereby proving there is a heaven” – that would be a logical fallacy because I am saying that just because it is written in the bible – it MUST be true and that is my ONLY proof.
I just referenced Siddharta – I did not insist it must be true just because he said it. It is not a logical fallacy. If that was the case, nobody would ever reference any source without it being a logical fallacy.
This explains why it is not a logical fallacy
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority

Appreciative Reader, you have asked me a number of times to give an answer to the question
"What is the mechanism by which oneness communicated to the person of Mr Osho Robbins".

I have answered. Whether you like the answer or not - is another matter. However, I have answered.

For clarity this is my answer, copied from above.


The answer to the second one is also there. In my answer I did not claim any special mechanism of receiving information
For clarity: this was the answer:
“ Enlightenment is outside of your model.
Oneness is not a knowledge that gets communicated to me from beyond.
The contradiction arises because you are trying to fit something that is outside of your model into your model
I don’t “see” or “perceive” ONENESS
It is not a “thing”
It is not a noun.
It does not communicate to me
The way you view ONENESS is the reason for the contradiction
Perhaps calling it Non-Duality is more appropriate because it’s clearly not a noun.”
You are viewing oneness as if it was a thing. In your view it is not real because everything outside time and space is not real. So the question cannot arise because something unreal (oneness) cannot communicate with the real (me).”
The above was the answer I gave. You are asking about the MECHANISM and I am saying the mechanism is irrelevant. You are asking HOW the information was communicated to Mr Osho Robbins.
I am saying it wasn’t. There was no information. How can there be information to communicate when the “thing” (it’s not a thing) is outside of time. A “thing” outside of time cannot communicate to a thing inside of time (Mr Osho Robbins).
What happened was that Osho Robbins entered what I have described as a paradigm shift, in which the “Realness” of “Osho Robbins” disappeared. So Osho Robbins is not real in the sense I am writing here about. From the new POV – only the outside of time and space thing (again – not a thing) is real. This is a shift and from the new POV – the old POV is gone and irrelevant.
To YOU – it is relevant – as you are seeking a rational answer to a rational question.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio”

ONENESS is not a perception. It is not a thing separate from me – that I can explain. ONENESS is all there is. Mr Osho Robbins is not giving information about a state called ONENESS that he is now aware of. It goes further than that. ONENESS is all there is. This is not some new theory. ONENESS has not descended upon the person of Osho Robbins. It has not communicated to Osho Robbins in some way. Hence there is no mechanism as the thing (communication) has not happened.
It is a paradigm shift – just like when you solve a zen koan. Suddenly the illogical koan is solved – but try explaining it to another and it will sound like nonsense.
So in a sense the question cannot be answered because there is no mechanism because there has been no information received from beyond time and space.
In my model of reality – Mr Osho Robbins is not ultimate reality. He is just momentary reality – similar to a dream character who exists only for the duration of the dream – after that the dream character has not reality. And it is not Mr Osho Robbins who is the perceiver of this ONENESS.
Imagine one wave of the ocean suddenly realises that waves are not real and only the ocean is real in the sense that waves come and go – but the ocean remains. That one wave loses it’s separate identity and realises that only the ocean is real. So, if it could talk – it would say “Only the OCEAN is – I am not”
If asked “How did the ocean communicate to you” – it would say “the ocean has not communicated to me – the ocean just is and we all exist in the ocean. It doesn’t communicate.”

Our normal rules and logic don’t work anymore.
Now with regard to oneness, which I would rather call “non-duality” for reasons which will become clear shortly, logic and rational explanations no longer apply.
First understand what is non-duality.
Everything you and I know is in duality.
We cannot even comprehend non-duality.
So logic will not work. It is beyond mind, beyond concepts, beyond comprehension, and therefore contradictory by nature.
We know about Time, Space, Energy, Matter, Light.
Non-duality is beyond all of these. Only for brevity I said “no space, no time”
The actual definition is “no anything”
It is neither finite nor infinite.
It is neither Love nor Hate.
It is neither Light nor Dark
It is neither in space nor spaceless
It is neither in time or outside time.
To describe it (which is impossible) the Hindu scriptures used
“Neti Neti”
Which means “”not this, not that”
So then what IS it?
This is the mind trying to capture it or understand it.
It is absurd to even try.
Hence the reason I readily admit defeat in the arena of logic and rationality.
I will openly admit that it does not exist.
Because “exists” is a duality concept.
In non-duality all concepts cease.
So essentially we cannot have the discussion unless we are happy to embrace irrationality.

@AR
I will summarise the answer here for clarity

Enlightenment is outside of your model.
Oneness is not a knowledge that gets communicated to me from beyond.
The contradiction arises because you are trying to fit something that is outside of your model into your model
I don’t “see” or “perceive” ONENESS
It is not a “thing”
It is not a noun.
It does not communicate to me
The way you view ONENESS is the reason for the contradiction

You are asking about the MECHANISM and I am saying the mechanism is irrelevant. You are asking HOW the information was communicated to Mr Osho Robbins.
I am saying it wasn’t. There was no information. How can there be information to communicate when the “thing” (it’s not a thing) is outside of time. A “thing” outside of time cannot communicate to a thing inside of time (Mr Osho Robbins).
What happened was that Osho Robbins entered what I have described as a paradigm shift, in which the “Realness” of “Osho Robbins” disappeared.
ONENESS is not a perception. It is not a thing separate from me – that I can explain. ONENESS is all there is. Mr Osho Robbins is not giving information about a state called ONENESS that he is now aware of. It goes further than that. ONENESS is all there is. This is not some new theory. ONENESS has not descended upon the person of Osho Robbins. It has not communicated to Osho Robbins in some way. Hence there is no mechanism as the thing (communication) has not happened.
It is a paradigm shift – just like when you solve a zen koan. Suddenly the illogical koan is solved – but try explaining it to another and it will sound like nonsense.
So in a sense the question cannot be answered because there is no mechanism because there has been no information received from beyond time and space.
In my model of reality – Mr Osho Robbins is not ultimate reality. He is just momentary reality – similar to a dream character who exists only for the duration of the dream – after that the dream character has not reality. And it is not Mr Osho Robbins who is the perceiver of this ONENESS.
Imagine one wave of the ocean suddenly realises that waves are not real and only the ocean is real in the sense that waves come and go – but the ocean remains. That one wave loses it’s separate identity and realises that only the ocean is real. So, if it could talk – it would say “Only the OCEAN is – I am not”

If asked “How did the ocean communicate to you” – it would say “the ocean has not communicated to me – the ocean just is and we all exist in the ocean. It doesn’t communicate.”


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.

@AR
That is as complete an answer as I can give,

I was seeking "God-Realisation" and I did lots of things to find the God that was lost. I got initiated by lots of "perfect" and "imperfect" masters. Ishvara, Thakar, Charan, Darshan. I also met lots of others and spent time with them: Soami Divyanand, Ajaib singh, Tarn Tarn guru: Baba Keher,
Kirpal's doctor: Dr Harbhajan (who became a guru after kirpal).

I meditated intensely, spending entire weekends and entire weeks in meditation. I saw light, heard the shabd, and saw the radiant form of Darshan Singh who I was quite close with. I thought I was on the path to God-Realisation.

Then the second phase of the journey began without my knowledge. It began with a chance meeting with someone who told me there was no separate God and no Sach Khand. Naturally I thought he was deluded and needed to read more of the RSSB books. To me, they were the proof of truth. If it was written in the RSSB books or Kirpal's books, then it was truth. That is the "appeal to authority Fallacy". I fully believed that the books were the only truth.

It was shortly after that - I met Mikaire. This was not my path. I knew nothing about "enlightenment" ad was not seeking it. I was seeking Sach Khand - a duality place with multiple regions and where things happen - and clearly time and space exist. I believed that I was a separate soul and needed to go to Sach Khand and meet Sat Purush. To me it was real.

So Mikaire and the five days I spend with him were nothing to do with what I was seeking. They were more about being authentic and expressing the truth and not being "Fake". Hence his emphasis on "Go whatever you feel like doing - do not deny it and pretend to be at peace : express what you feel in the moment. Live in the moment"

It was only after all this: when I got told to leave and went back home to wales - that things began to open up. I no longer knew who I was. I looked at my hand and I didn't recognize it as "mine" anymore. I no longer knew what "mine" meant. Life was happening - but there was no longer a "me" living it and it wasn't "my" life anymore.
At that time and over the next few months I wrote every day. I had no idea what I was writing. The writing was just happening. No plan. No goal.
I didn't even realise that I was writing a book. It was only when I finished that I realised it was a book.
I titled it : "Your life is Perfect"
Then I changed it to
"Maybe your life is Perfect and you just don't know it"

The theme of the book was that the way your life is unfolding is perfect - not from your viewpoint - but only when looked at from a different perspective. That you are here to learn lessons and the lessons keep on getting repeated until you learn them. And there were chapters called "Will the REAL world step forward please" and "Nothing is Good or Bad"
because those two are just perspectives of the ego which seeks it's own benefit.
I didn't write the book to publish it - It wrote itself - it was a kind of unmuddling of all the ideas in my head. I had no idea what I was writing until I read it later.
Everything made sense - but only because I had to go through everything I went through to arrive at this place.

It was at that time that I started asking questions on the mic. I really wanted to know if this thing that had happened to me was the same as what RSSB describes in the books. I had no regions and I had not met Sat Purush, so it must be different. But GSD said it was the same. He said there are no regions - they were just levels of consciousness.
When I said "My God in HERE," He replied "My God is also here".
I told him that "His" God lived in Sach Khand - after crossing the first four regions.
He said "There are no regions"
I said "In the books the regions are described in great detail"
"Burn the books" he said.

I was shocked because this was no private interview. This was in public for all to hear. he also said "there is no journey: the soul is already one with God"

So when I created the video on sant mat V2 - it was from what I had heard directly from GSD. Others refused to believe it and called me a liar, but of course - I had heard it first hand from the guru.
What did it matter what others said?

The same with what happened to me at Haynes Park. It was no accident. It was meant to happen and it all happened perfectly.

I doesn't matter to me if others believe. I know what happened because I was there. It showed me the truth of what was happening it Haynes Park. Whether others believed makes no difference to me.

It was perfect, just like the title of the book. Even when it was all playing out - I was perfect - it was like an unfolding drama, like it was nothing to do with me. Like I was just watching it happen and it was unrelated to me.

https://youtu.be/2Qt-eGKa34M

I watched this discussion about the multiverse. These top scientists cannot agree. And it’s so complicated that at one time they all admit that they cannot even understand each other.

They talk of ten dimensions of space and other things equally incomprehensible

Hi Osho,

Do you have a copy of your book available to read online? Is there any way that I can read it. You do a lot of writing on this blog and I think it would help me understand where you’re coming from if I could read your book.

Hi Sonia
I never published it. I never wrote it for the purpose of publishing it. Later, I did try to publish it, using the traditional publishers. This was before Amazon, so very few books got published unless you were an established writer.
Now I could publish it with Amazon fairly easily. If you send me an email, I can send you some of the chapters. The email is my name on here, at gmail.com

Appreciative Reader
Let me ask you a very simple question.
Do you control your thoughts?
Do you decide what to think of next?
Can you, for example, decide to think of a pink elephant, just because you decide to?
If the answer is yes, then what is the mechanism? How does this work?
So relax and let your mind wander freely. Now I want you to decide to consciously think of a pink elephant.
Pretty easy.
Now let’s see what happened.
You DECIDED to think of a pink elephant.
How did you decide? What is the mechanism?
Presumably you had a thought that said
“Okay - let me think of a pink elephant”
Then you thought of it.
Easy.
But……. Where did the thought
“Let me think of a pink elephant come from?”
You created it, right?
But how?
The same way you create all thoughts.
You had a thought, I presume.
And this thought was:
“Let me have a thought called
‘Let me think of a pink elephant’ “
Hmmm…
So you then created that thought
After first deciding to.

But……
Where did THAT thought come from?
Another thought?
Because the only way you can decide is to have a thought.

So this means that you need an infinite number of thoughts in order to generate a single thought.
So it would take you the rest of your life just to generate one single thought

Unless there is a different mechanism

Hi Osho and Appreciative
Osho, you wrote
"But……
Where did THAT thought come from?
Another thought?
Because the only way you can decide is to have a thought."

Who said we decide?
We react. And along with that reaction comes both thought and behavior, but not necessarily in that order.

We are conditioned. Conditioned by genetics, Conditioned by experience, Conditioned by education, conditioned by environment, conditioned by people who were themselves conditioned so that we can no longer place the source of any behavior or thought. Was it our environment? Or our past that brought us to this environment? Was it what she said? Or the deeper reaction of a deeper, unconscious memory long forgotten, triggered by what she said? But triggered in emotion not conscious awareness? Still hidden but affecting us?

We carry baggage. Impressions. So whatever we accuse others of doing to us is largely our reaction to their perceived actions.

Thought then action? No.
We often construct notions after the fact of what we believe we were thinking at the time to justify actions. We try to come up with the best explanation for our behavior. But a face palm plant is more honest.

"What was I thinking?!"

"We think we move, but we are being moved."
Goethe

"Who said we decide?
We react. And along with that reaction comes both thought and behavior, but not necessarily in that order."
- Spence

Hold on a minute. If you believe that to be true - then you are effectively saying that you act (or react) WITHOUT thinking. That would mean that if someone upset you - and you had a gun handy - you would shoot them first then think about it. You are saying the action of shooting the person did not have a thought behind it.
Not even a reactionary thought.

If that was the case - we could not legally hold anyone responsible. They would say "Well - it just happened - I didn't plan it or think it"

What is a reaction? is there no thought involved?
or is the thought process so fast that we appear to react.
do we in fact think - and decide to take the action and deal with the consequences afterwards.

I doubt if you are really saying that as humans we just act without thinking.

Hi Osho
Yes we act on the basis of conditioning and conditions that trigger that conditioning, whether operant or classical conditioning, and construct the most rational explanation we can invent afterwards.

Is there never a thought? No there are always thoughts.

But thoughts are like heat off an engine, as I explained in an earlier post.

Thoughts are the bi- product of the engine produced right along with motion. That heat doesn't make the engine run at all.

Again, wet perceive we are actors but we are puppets of deeper conditioning.

It is interesting that one argument of Atheism against the notion of an all powerful God who created this creation is that there is no evidence of a pre-conceived design. And they dismiss the plethora of evidence that all life is generated from a pre-established genetic code.

Human beings can find no evidence of a thinking, "conscious" God.

But no such evidence exists for humans either. Both thought and action are biochemical reactions triggered and conditioned.

The idea of thought causing action is the flaw in the argument against a creator, along with the concomitant notion of consciousness. We are not conscious.

Lack of understanding, ignorance of our conditioning is the basis for this flawed thinking that we are conscious, think, than act.

Therefore a creator may well exist, but not by the false definitions we flatter ourselves with regarding thinking, consciousness, awareness and behavior we claim is caused by those.

Try this experiment Osho
Watch your thoughts, then try changing them. Try thinking about something else.
Afterwards, reflect on the entire series of thoughts from this viewpoint: It was all pre-determined. When you thought you were observing and when you thought you were acting you were actually still just observing. The sequence was written beforehand, the code was written beforehand.

You thought "here I'm observing my thoughts" and "now here I'm changing my thoughts"...

But you never stopped simply observing.

Like watching a movie. The main character is watching, then they are taking action. But you are always passively observing. You are sitting in the audience. Even the action was prescripted. You are just watching your favorite hero "Osho" going through his famous classic story. The film was made a long time ago.

Try it.

@ Spence: "It was all pre-determined. When you thought you were observing and when you thought you were acting you were actually still just observing. The sequence was written beforehand, the code was written beforehand. "

Ishwar Puri used to describe the little trick of the mind that
beguiles us into thinking a future is being played out. A flash
of anticipation --positive, negative, or neutral-- enters the
thought stream to begin the sequence of events. So we are
convinced the events have not yet occurred. That anticipation
is just another thought we are observing though. It was all
choreographed to support the illusion of a future. Without
that anticipatory prefacing thought, we are just remembering
the past which is in fact what is occurring.

Hi Dungeness

You wrote
"the mind that
beguiles us into thinking a future is being played out. A flash
of anticipation --positive, negative, or neutral-- enters the
thought stream to begin the sequence of events. So we are
convinced the events have not yet occurred."

We become aware one instant at a time because we are too busy reacting to everything like a ping pong ball. We don't see the future except vaguely in anticipation, and only know the recent past by short term memory. Our brains at best perceive one tiny point of time at a time. We are one dimensional perceivers, and mostly one dimensional thinkers as a result.

But reality has a lot more too it.

A gradual change of attention opens that up.

If one perceives another as anything else than equal, then competition has entered the mind. Do not underestimate the need to be vigilant against this type of thinking because all conflict comes from it.

Gurus, Teachers, Saints, Students, Friends are all equal. We’re here to help each other realize that each is God.

It must be really cold 🥶 in the Q&As. I thought it was really hot in the Punjab in June. Why the winter coat? 😅

Wow. When you can make a lullaby sound this good.

https://youtu.be/2cBzMSPYKas

(just a random share)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B2tXs8CX6I

Music also helps stop the line of thoughts and included crying

Goose Bumps on the Heart can surely trigger The Higher Chakras

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B2tXs8CX6I

777

@777

🎶 🎼 Lovely 🎵


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-mechansm-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 Green’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 contruct, 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.


>> There has been no communication and no mechanism is needed.
He simply was mistaken when he thought he was not at home.<<

No?
Than what would have happened if he would have remained in the house and a friend would not have urged him outside and he had not followed that friend?

Just thought ....

The maintenance of the self defense mechanism we call "ego" demands a lot of energy and power it can only balanced out by an equally strong power .... these powers can be love, devotion, faith and belief as they have one thing in common they are the opposite of self centered energy ..... centripetal / focused centrifugal

Enlightment, enlargemen of consciousness is only possible with these powers.

These powers can only arise if certain conditions are there.

The pull, for that reason must come from within ...those who were not able to break free from the walls of the ego, all suffered in one way or another that power.

Guru bhakti ... i

Just thought ....

The maintenance of the self defense mechanism we call "ego" demands a lot of energy and power it can only balanced out by an equally strong power .... these powers can be love, devotion, faith and belief as they have one thing in common they are the opposite of self centered energy ..... centripetal / focused centrifugal

Enlightment, enlargemen of consciousness is only possible with these powers.

These powers can only arise if certain conditions are there.

The pull, for that reason must come from within ...those who were not able to break free from the walls of the ego, all suffered in one way or another that power.

Guru bhakti ... i


"No?
Than what would have happened if he would have remained in the house and a friend would not have urged him outside and he had not followed that friend?"


.................Actually, um, that "communication" is different from the "communication" I'd asked Osho Robbins about, and that he was responding to me on.

I'd asked him to describe the mechanism by which knowledge of Oneness communicated itself to him. In other words, how knowledge of Oneness manifested itself to him. Osho Robbins was insisting there is no such mechanism as such, and I've just now showed him, using his own very detailed example, that there is in fact a very explicit mechanism at work there, and what is more, one that is susceptible to error at every step.

.

The "communication" that you refer to is part of the larger background, and kind of incidental as far the realization. That is, whether the impulse for Person A to go out and see his house and his neighborhood for himself came at the prompting of his friend, or whether it simply occurred to him, spontaneously, to do that, is entirely incidental. In that example, it might have happened either way, without in any way impacting the nature of the process itself, or indeed the essential mechanism of the paradigm shift.

.

(I realize fully well where you're coming from. I realize you're alluding to the role of the Guru. And that may well be true, Or not. But the point is, in this particular context, that issue is incidental to what we were discussing. Unless you want to bring in direct shaktipat? If you do that, then sure, regardless of whether that's true or not [that is, regardless of the truth value of the claim itself], that would indeed be part of the mechanism being claimed. But I don't think that is what Osho Robbins is alluding to, at all. In his case the guide is merely a facilitator, not someone that does the shaktipat thing, not someone that does your heavy lifting for you.)

(But of course, Osho Robbins can correct me in the unlikely event that I'm mistaken about this. If there is an element of shaktipat involved here, then sure, then the friend's communication will then be a legitimate part of the mechanism, and we'll have to add an additional fifth step that precedes the four I've outlined. But not is there isn't. And I'm pretty sure there isn't --- although, like I said, I mustn't presume to speak for Osho Robbins, and am open to correction by him on this point.)



Incidentally, um, it occurs to me --- and I don't mean to pry, nor to doxx you out in any way, so please feel free not to answer if you don't want to, for whatever reason --- but I was wondering, what's "um"? Is it, like, just a random expression you happened to put in the first time you commented and later on simply persisted with (like "er", "um", "ah", "hm", that kind of thing)? Or are those letters your initials, that you choose to put in the lower case?

Just idly curious, is all. Like I said, please feel free to not answer if that doxxes you out in any way, beyond what you're comfortable revealing on an open forum.


@AR

>> I'd asked him to describe the mechanism by which knowledge of Oneness communicated itself to him. In other words, how knowledge of Oneness manifested itself to him. Osho Robbins was insisting there is no such mechanism as such, and I've just now showed him, using his own very detailed example, that there is in fact a very explicit mechanism at work there, and what is more, one that is susceptible to error at every step.<<

These are very comlicated matters. As far as I understand it an mechanism demands two, like two people are needed for a tug of war to bring to an end.

If however the rope is not accepted are put down, there is no longer an tug of war as there is nobody to pull nobody to win or lose.

Or ...let down the shields as is said in starwars, makes the ship vulnerable.

Or ... if a government transfers its legislation power to the president, it was its last act

That is how I understand what Osho tries to convey ... letting go of the ego defense mechanism results in the ens of the feeling of separation and that can be called oneness.

Um is just part of the callingname, an very short abrevation. Lowercast is easier typing.


"That is how I understand what Osho tries to convey ... letting go of the ego defense mechanism results in the ens of the feeling of separation and that can be called oneness."


.................Well, that's a different kettle of fish altogether, and I don't think that comports with the detailed example he'd offered there, of Person A sitting in his own home. But like I said, I shouldn't go doing Osho Robbins's explaining for him, and perhaps in the process misrepresenting him. He can clarify this himself, if he chooses to.


"Um is just part of the callingname, an very short abrevation. Lowercast is easier typing."


.................OK. Just idly curious, like I said. Cheers!


@ AR

If reading here has to make sense to me I must try to understan what is written and that is what makes me react ... like tears can well up listening to this or that Raga. Those tears do not tell of understand anything about that raga, the player etc etc.

He has gone trough a mental catharsis understanding what he writes ... the way a mental catharsis is labeled depends upon the field.

If a person lets go, there is nobody left as all interactions are relative.

You are right, he can speak for himself and probably he will. But he should understand that it makes no sense and keeping mum, go on with his life.


"But he should understand that it makes no sense and keeping mum, go on with his life."


.................Well, that depends. If all it is some kind of cathartic but mundane psychological process, with no larger ramifications, then you're probably right, that would be the wisest course.

However, if he's really on to something --- that is, in either of two cases, either the more extravagant possibility that he's arrived at some understanding of some deeper reality, or the less spectacular (and probably more likely) but nevertheless pretty much significant eventuality that he's arrived at some psychological state that is outside of our everyday understanding but that is nevertheless accessible to others as well --- well then in that case he does have something of great value to communicate to others, and something of inestimable value for those who are interested in this kind of thing to understand from him, and perhaps to actually imbibe from him. In that latter case, speaking out aloud would seem to be the better course of action. (Provided he is so inclined, of course. This latter is not to suggest that he is under any obligation to spread the good news, as it were.)


@ A.R.

If a person digests his experience, and is not "forced" to speak up as commanded by the content of his experience and he is not tempted by mental motivations due to his social cutural background .... nobody would speak up.

The conditions that make a person have an inner experience or even an psychological catharsis, are in nobodies hands. If they do happen one has to deal with them like others maters of fate, like be born in a body, character, country, family etc etc.

They have nothing to offer of themselves.

The suggestion that the world, the situation the person can and should be changed for the better, is the very source of much, very much misery, not alone mental.

You can talk to him however long, it will bring you nothing nor him ... sooner or later one of you will understand an give in, drop the cord.

You better understand what you are doing and realise that it will never offer you the answers you crave for.

Unfortunately for you it will be difficult to come across people that are as gifted and sjkilled as you are.


"The conditions that make a person have an inner experience or even an psychological catharsis, are in nobodies hands. If they do happen one has to deal with them like others maters of fate, like be born in a body, character, country, family etc etc."


.................But can we be sure of that? There are whole traditions that claim otherwise. I'm not suggesting those traditions are right, nor suggesting that you are wrong, but wondering how one can a priori come to a conclusion on this.

That is, spontaneous enlightenment (or, in Tantric terms, spontaneous activation of the kundalini) is apparently a thing. But is that the only way to go? Can this not be actively sought, and deliberately imbibed? (Not rhetorical questions. I'm wondering what the answer might be, and on what basis that answer might be arrived at.)


"You can talk to him however long, it will bring you nothing nor him ... sooner or later one of you will understand an give in, drop the cord."


.................That's possible, certainly. I don't want to keep doing this interminably. Nor would Osho Robbins want that, I guess.

But we may have arrived now at some kind of a breakthrough, with this very detailed example that he's himself offered up, and that I've used to demonstrate, pretty much incontestably I think, what I mean. We'd simply been speaking past each other thus far. That may have come to an end now, and he might now be able to come up with a clear description of the mechanism of his realization, which might, perhaps, turn out to be a rewarding thing for everyone who's following this thread, myself included. At least one hopes so.


"Unfortunately for you it will be difficult to come across people that are as gifted and sjkilled as you are."


.................God, no, um. Please don't say things like that. I mean, I'm as pleased with being thought exceptional as the next man, but I'm only too painfully aware of my many failings, and end up feeling like a fraud when such sentiments are expressed.

(Which is not to criticize you in any way for saying what you did. I thank you for your kind words, absolutely. But I'm afraid I don't think it's true, your very high opinion of my "gifts".)


@ AR

>>That is, spontaneous enlightenment (or, in Tantric terms, spontaneous activation of the kundalini) is apparently a thing. But is that the only way to go? Can this not be actively sought, and deliberately imbibed? (Not rhetorical questions. I'm wondering what the answer might be, and on what basis that answer might be arrived at.)<<

What I write is just what wells up inside me and the answer is .... NO, it cannot

But how to explain that I came to understand it that way??

Let me just trow a stone in the water and see what the ripples do.

King Akbar is said to have done an [cruel] experiment. He ordered just born babies be brought to an island and looked after by nannies that could not speak.

Now imagine AR, that fate would have been your share in this life. What would be in your mind now about these things you mentioned.

How I came to write these things, needs disclosing my personal hystory and that is not necessary

Many are called and few are chosen
Many have heard and few understand
Many have tried and few were gifted etc

The pull must come from within
In order to state "I" eat 2 conditions must be fulfilled. There must be food on the table and there has to be hunger; both are not in our hands.

If there is a pull, an inner hunger, sooner or later another human being is found that has already mastered the talent.

All things, all keys are in the house. Nowhere outside.
We cannot become another person or imitate his life

We are not here to know what can be known, to experience what can be experience

We are all unique variations and it is our duty, calling to find out what it is and in that processes it is of no help to look at others, ask them for help, take their example, do what they do.

Against this background you might understand why I write as I do.

Or if you like ...it is caught not taught ... hahahaha

@Sonya

yes
Who can think while really enjoying good music
The answer on all discussions here

I love also her radiation and from the Sweet One Expressing Him/Herself in Her

777

I said it before U joined this blog
If I was a master, I would ask any aspirant his/her favorite Goose Bump music/song
Next I would prudently drop the first sweet unstruck anahabad Shabad tones in that
I would treat the oldies and the exers the same way
I might be crusified or worse from all that karma haha Auuuuw -
Fini the start_UP_difficulties of meditations -
Fini discussions
Wauuuuw

@ AR

All have to give up their efforts, but without efforts there can be no giving up, no receptivity, no openness.

All have done so

So it is the seekers fate, to put in effort until he is no longer able to do so.

Yours its the path of rational thinking, you have to walk it to the end and only you will know when the end has come. Giving up prematurely, understanding that that will be the outcome is not an option ....

That is how things develop .... that are all laws of nature.

The simple Mechanisme is Love
Whatever Love
We have to love
If there is nothing . . . pray on yr knees 4IT

With Love you can be One IN THE EYE OF THE NEEDLE
I couldn't continue by lack of training ( meditation)

But I saw that behind the One-ness --and U are allowed to keep that state--,
there are zillions of new & old creations and their outcome
of "wonders above wonders (Soami Ji)

You are right about dreams
Hence my last persistant Dream :
Gurinder in a big Satsang : "Hii There is Mr. 777 - he comes to check me out"

I was transported to a hospital ( in that dream )
So, . . I checked HIM out
I don(t know why , this dream, because I had seen his radiant form in life
and HIS gotgeous One-ness with Charan MaharaJI several times

Whatever we might conclude about HIM,. . . . He got and has the Package of Naaam
HIS Simran was so pure

What a bizarre and wonderful universe
What I proposed in th former text can be granted after more raffinations

777 ( Yes , I saw the todays RSSB Quote )


All words "Existence" can be replaced by "LOVE"
As I often said : To start with not killing a Mosquit (even)
or help an oldy

To advance that by pure meditation : To start with
a few holied words from The Package
To ever grow a la Fibonnaci in rythmic Love Explosions
( seems ever because of a frequebcy with 99 zeros )

Quote of the DayToday :
"Love is the master key which opens the gates of happiness."
— Oliver Wendell Holmes —

Little PS
Helga will have cut out the Melanome Tumor
Please pray with us Maharaji to prevent more Metastases
I would love that even while The Mauj will prevail

777


Seriously, is it winter in the Punjab?

My dearly beloved 17 year old cat passed away this evening. I cried and cried. But then I felt this overwhelming sense of peace. We gave him the best life we could and now he has moved on to a better life. I know this because of the immense peace that came over me. That’s proof enough for me.

Perhaps peace and love and joy are the greatest forms of proof. Fear is a sign that something is wrong. We live in a world that no longer values intuition. Our minds are restless for more and more data. Most of the time facts and statistics are merely data interpreted according to the dictates of one’s mind. It’s just data… and we’re drowning in it.

When was the last time you felt overwhelmingly at peace?

https://youtu.be/sSfejgwbDQ8

Brian:
"The same questions are being debated today as were being debated hundreds or thousands of years ago."

cause
💕 The information is on a need to know basis only" 💕

777

peace and love and joy are the greatest forms of proof
(Nobel Prize Worth Really Sonia)

Waaaauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuw

Nobel prizes are the highest form of worldly achievement? I think so and it’s clear why. Run after the world and get the “no-bell” price.

Makes you think what you want doesn’t it????

Free will is 100% and fantastic for Those who know themselves ( God )

and zero for those , knowing nothing about themselves

777

Isn't that beautiful : another para-feu . . . Wauuuuw

The first fire-wall : are the seven frequencies ( one has to go from one Freq_'region" to the next
with the exception of those guided by a Sat SatGuru
(page 110 Bardo Todol)

they are made jump from 1 to 7 or any other combination in a nanosecond

But the reward of hate is just paralyse of most chakras

. . . and this is what mighty Aliens in many galaxies
are seeking to obtain for themselves in vain . . .
Now the pentagan top general said : "read your bible, They are demons"
Of course they are not, some work with IQ 777 AI_androides

Yes they come from far away to carbon copy our Crown but can't
Hence mutilations : See Youtube : Earthfiles with Linda She knows some about reincarnations
She calls that the "driving engine of the universes"

7 ( because this is physical un_intuitive stuff , 100% not understood by science))

❤️❤️❤️✌🏻🪐⭐🔥✌🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🔥
Helga's Tumor is gone
7

. . . . and had been an authorised speaker for many years.

It seems I'm reading your ego each month in this blog
🔥
I live in a kind of earthly paradise
minutes to the beach @french Riviera and of course everybody of my family first
are welcome to co-enjoy
I have place enough for all them : 42 rooms; 16 renovated
I explained about it in earlier comments

From 9 brothers and sisters; one sister, 3 years younger than me, felt offended
35 years ago because
after a her surprise call 10 minutes before her planned arrival here

I said :
"take an hotel, . . i have a business associates here and can't mix your visit with that
at this particular moment" - She talks a lot -

SHE SMASHED THE PHONE AND NEVER SPOKE AGAIN TO ME

Of course she suffered a lot by denying (forbidding) herself, her nice children and grandchildren to visit me , nice and cheap vacations, also financially
but she is ego_stubborn

It's really sad
35 yrs of douleurs

7


Forgot to remind

Beaches mostly nude

RS

7

How Star Clusters vanish

They do, before the Galaxy vanishes

Some weeks ago on Space. com it was reported
that some stars were missing, . . . they were there 20 years ago
Gone now

https://www.space.com/black-holes-overrun-star-cluster-palomar-5-star-cluster?utm_source=Selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20210709_SDC_Newsletter_Adhoc&utm_content=20210709_SDC_Newsletter_Adhoc+&utm_term=6162512&m_i=Pnkp5QLa3n%2Bk7BQ8%2B3ZBV43KiTzlohhGqg8K3JJknaRaBF0q7Bgd31KA3GREVULvKg7qUjkgMGv3phQ5%2BpQf%2BCzAaN5w%2B8k%2BPX&lrh=126d5c16aa49c0f2ff0f726520a8dfc88d9457796d0062e5c0636a89cc771a85

7

Quote of the Day
"Whether you think you can or whether you think you can't, you're right!"
— Henry Ford —

I realize, this is exactly what I commented on
-free will
on Love
on knowing yourself
happinesss
rules
sex
even fun
though that's rare here
on all subjects

Who's satisfied with 0% , ... so be it

777

@Sonia

Copied yesterday from FB / Rumi


A drunkard once
approached
a glorious saint,
and, baffled by
despair, made
this complaint:
'The devil is a
highwayman,
a thief, who's
ruined me and
robbed me of
belief.'

The saint replied:
'Young man,
the devil too,
has made his
way here to
complain of you.
'My province
is the world,'
I heard him say;
'Tell this new
pilgrim of god's
holy way,
to keep his hands
Of what is mine -
If I, attack him It's
because his
fingers pry,
In my affairs; if he
will leave me be,
He's no concern
of mine and can
go free.

- attar

One day a proud and noble moose, with a Jay bird on its back, strolled in regal and liesure fashion through the forest. They saw a pig with its snout in the mud, snout and body filthy from its routing about in dirt the whole day. The Jay whispered to the moose, "How shameful these forest creatures that live in mud. So backwards."

The moose whispered in reply, "Yes, they really are living like beasts. So ignorant. They simply don't know how to live any other way. Poor and stupid. Well, we must educate them, mustn't we?"

The pig was so focused on its activity it did not see the moose or the Jay.

"You there. You, Pig, what are you doing there? You are a mess! Stop that. Stop that now! I am the police moose in this forest, aurhorized, and I command you to stop!"

The pig stopped and looked up, mud, dew and rain water dripping from its snout, which had specks of dirt and damp tree bark caked on it.

" Huh? "

" I told you to stop! You are filthy creature! Why are you messing about in the mud!.. Really, I guess it's just your nature! How backwards and ignorant you are!"

The pig replied in a lovely and quite sophisticated French accent ," Monsieur, what on earth are you talking about? "

It puts its snout back into the mud and with its paws dug out a beautiful white truffle.

Purple cows with three heads -- maybe they exist. Nobody can say that one won't show up one day. So, David, do you believe that purple cows with three heads exist?
Posted by: Brian Hines | March 31, 2016 at 10:21 AM

me:
I just wanted to comment to U to buy a nice 300$ 4K second TV with headphone
and your ploblem is solved
We did that long ago and never quarrel

Then I saw the Salem 115° , . . WOOOW
after reading that any city having 50°C for two weeks will no longer exist
that s a big Header - I believed it so I didn't read it

But on the purple cows, . . .
of course they exist
Eternity is SO long
that everything has tried out, . . I think that's where inspiration comes from
a giant archive

Success with TV and A/C

7


Dear 777,

Genuinely nice and happy to hear Helga is better.

All the best and take care,

Manjit

Thank you Manjit
but she lost 26 Kg
but at least I have her back a few weeks, perhaps months
Each day I think about poor Faqir in his MI Hospital bed
Anyway I can't imagine things without A Beautiful Satguru
So much respect for people suffering on their own
So nice you reminded

Quote of the Day
"There is no peace without forgiveness."
— Marianne Williamson —

I like her very much, . . I am friends on FB
She's hugely blessed by not being (Vice) President

777

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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

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

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

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

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

Welcome


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