« The idea of a guru being more than human makes no sense | Main | The mystery of Julian Johnson's death at the Dera in 1939 »

June 10, 2022

Comments

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

"This is a central tenet of both the RSSB teachings and the broader Sant Mat philosophy..

..RSSB teachings say the guru is. And that claim is so grandiose -- that a human can possess the consciousness of God -- it deserves to be subjected to serious criticism."

Posted by: Brian Hines, in Radha Soami Satsang Beas | June 10, 2022 at 09:22 PM

Those were very good notes brother.

As I struggle with, as I continue to read the gurus pay homage to their Teachers. Many times, I've read they regard them as saviours. To me a saviour is a redeemer or a guide. I also struggle with the lessons on 'drops' from the 'cosmic ocean'. As this escapes an argument that God is only in the Guru, or they claim this exclusively for themselves. I read, the 'drops' refer to all sentient or living beings. So you too brother, are 'God in Human Form' if without any exclusives. Or, one of the 'drops'. In my opinion, the whole of the experiment is for humans to grow into 'Waves'.

Very clear stated Brian!!

That is my point too, the ´GIHF´..

It costed time to come loose from it, also because one ´grows´in the idea one has his/her family in the Sangat.

´Perfect Living Master´ Syndrome.

What knowledge and interest do the guests, the consumers, have in the restaurant about the skills of the chef that prepared their meal.

What do they know about food, its growth, its preparation, its digestion beyond their interest in "pleasure".

What happens at the time of initiation?

THAT is the question when discussing what guru's are and do.

@ Brian [ My point is simply that any attempt to make the guru into just a regular human being (which I believe is the truth) is at odds with what the RSSB teachings say the guru is. And that claim is so grandiose -- that a human can possess the consciousness of God -- it deserves to be subjected to serious criticism. ]

But, a non anti-theist atheist in theory leaves a door ajar for belief
if evidence of God is found, right? Ditto for God consciousness?
So, again in theory, if there's evidence for both, this God status
and consciousness could be latent in all "regular human beings"
until tuned in to it by an anointed Guru.

RSSB's metaphors don't shut the door on this notion as I see it.
That makes all Guru(s) just regular human beings whose God
consciousness is transformed from latency to active reality and
GIHF status. Meanwhile they remain regular human beings
living ordinary lives but with elevated awareness of who they
are.


Thanks for clearing that up, Brian, and for clearing that up so comprehensively, with references galore.

I was actually surprised when Karim said that to me in the other thread. But of course, limited as my own knowledge on RSSB scripture and doctrine is to one single book read and digested, and that apart basically your blogsite, comprising your posts and people’s comments, I was ill equipped to judge the veracity of his words myself. Clearly, then, he was mistaken.

Dungeness also believes, like he told me in the other thread, that the “Master” is not so much some GIHF but more like a general “catalyst” in the process of enlightenment (that “enlightenment” to begin both with a capital E and a small e, both kinds of enlightenment): and his role is essentially no different than, to use his example, Laurel’s catalization of your own enlightenment (in this case the initial ‘e’ firmly minuscule). But that’s fair enough, because, and as he clarified, that was his own individual take, and he wasn’t claiming that as doctrine.

As I was discussing with Spence --- or trying to, because not unexpectedly the discussion wasn’t going anywhere --- the key point here is what doctrine states, what the official position of RSSB is; and the truth value that reasonably attaches to such doctrine and official position. What individual followers believe, and to what extent their personal beliefs differ from the party line, that too is an interesting question, but it is a whole separate question, kind of tangential to the question of the truth value of the actual items of faith.

-----

So anyway, it’s great that this was cleared up, and, one hopes, for good. The “Master” is clearly GIHF, and a superhuman entity essentially different than you and I, per official RSSB doctrine.

Grandma used to say: "little boy, do not sell your soul to the devil""
[she used a very old word dating back to the middle ages, that I know not how to translate, that had an other "sound" all together]

The universe is based upon cause and effect, so like there is no free will , nothing is for free ... or ... everything comes at a price.

So, was there a price to be payed at the time of initiation?

The dictum was:
As long as you are outside the walls of the compound of the "french legion" you are free to do whatever suits you. Once you pass, you not only lose your identity but also your freedom; from then on you have to live under the command of the legion.

The protection, the salvation by the legion comes at a price

How many people do know or ever gave a single thought to what happened to them at the time of initiation ....

Further to the references Brian’s already provided, here’s a non-RSSB-insider’s humble attempt at a quick-and-dirty to provide some more references. Very easily replicated, takes no more than a minute, so anyone can try this out.

I just Google-searched the RSSB.org site itself for these four terms (simply separated with the OR separator, all at one go): GIHF; and PLM; and “God in Human Form”; and “Perfect Living Master”.

Got as many as 342 results. Didn’t trawl through the whole thing, merely glancing at Page 1 was enough. There’s no hits there, at least on the first page, for GIHF, or PLM, or “God in Human Form”. But hits aplenty for “Perfect Living Master”. Where they say things like, “Getting initiated by a perfect living Master means that after billions of years our souls will finally take their first step on the road to spiritual liberation ...”; and “From the moment of initiation by a perfect living Master, the Master is always with us…”; and “the only way to realize the Lord and find true peace is through a perfect living Master”; u.s.w.

So, while they aren’t going out and saying, not in so many words, that this dude with the weird flowing white beard is the PLM; but they ARE saying that only the PLM will do, and no one else; which is as good as saying, in a slightly roundabout way, that GSD is indeed the PLM. "Perfect", no less. QED, effortlessly.

@ AR

As I wrote, it is all about what happens at the time of initiation and about what the guru DOES>

These are things hardly ever discussed or spoken of but if you delve into the teachings of sant mat, not only as it comes from RSSB, you will find that the initiation takes place at a specific point in time in relation to a balance of karma. Next the guru takes over the account of karma. You can campare it to what is done in this country what we call " financial reconstruction of debts" in which the government takes on all the debts, finds an agreement with all to whom money is owned and from then on the person is under the financial guidance, so to say of the government.

The silver cord that binds peoples soul to this or that place in the universe, is taken from the lord of the universe and taken into the hands of the guru.

These are all things that can be found with a little effort in the available literature.

SOoooo ... without THEM, these gurus, no one can reach its source.

That is the tale, the story, the script that lies behind the game of Dayal Mat.

One can go on and on discussing whether the food is tasty and whether the cook is a good one but that are all things of the consumer and are not relate to the real stuff.

And ...

As In this universe all live on by ending the life of another creature in order to consume the lifeforce contained in it, so the question arise whether that is only confined by the world we see.

In the books of Castaneda it is suggested that there are powers that consume these life forces at the time of death... they feed themselves on it and the only way to escape is to offer them an impeccable replica of the self.

Was there something in the dictum of Grandma ... that there are forces beyond our understanding that feed on us ... not the body, the flesh but the more abstract parts that make up a human.

Hahahah ... I better have some coffee.

Ha ha, yes, um, the whole Karma business. I'm aware of it, both in the context of RSSB, as well as generally. (RSSB did not invent the idea, after all.)

At best that's a hypothesis that one might elect to put to the test. More likely it's all superstition, albeit extraordinarily subtle and extraordinarily sussed-and-ironed-out superstition. Which, I gather, is what you're suggesting as well, that none of this has anything to do with reality.

People without much thinking and in love with an other human being, put their signature under a contract that binds them in many ways for the rest of their lives ... marriage.

That is how they asked and accepted initiation ... without giving very much thought to the consequences.

I guess hardly any satsangi is the faintest idea about what he embarked upon.

"Love" makes people blind ... hahaha when the wake up from their dream the reality of the partner they bind themselves to, might be not as "simple"

@ AR

It is not in my power to find out the truth of it all.

Having realized that whatever there is available in the world to know is endless and my capacity to take it in and digest it, also realizing that due to my education my mind is already filled up with so much I could never verify in this life, I decided to let go and just restrict myself to the very simple things of daily life ... as there is now ... another coffee


>> and my capacity to take it in and digest it<<

is so limited


etc

Can't go wrong with coffee, ever. There's a nice steaming mug of black sitting right next my keyboard, as I type this. Cheers!

@AR

Unfortunately only once in a while the coffee is ...real ... real as it ought to be

There is very little we can do about what and how we experience the world. It seems we can but in reality it is not.

Maybe all of life is as going to bed, going through the routine of preparing for sleep, FALLING asleep and WAKING up ... it is beyond our will and understanding.

In the loime light of the street, one can easily get the impression being more alive, having more controll than in reality we have.

So time to close the door again and wave to you with a smile.

Hi AR:

You wrote:
As I was discussing with Spence --- or trying to, because not unexpectedly the discussion wasn’t going anywhere --- the key point here is what doctrine states, what the official position of RSSB is;"

Unfortunately, you are changing positions, AR.

Your original statement was:
"" RSSB followers believe that GSD is someone more special, someone somehow different in nature, than you or me or Brian or Dungeness."

You made a claim about what RSSB followers believe. This was a statement what RSSB followers actually believe. That can and is different from what you may find in the books. Unless you read them out of context. Then you can pick the sections that support your case, as Brian Ji has done. However, that is not a balanced picture because it leaves out other important teachings that provide a balanced official position.


None of the teachings Brian Ji has cited are "official" in the sense that anyone is required to believe them!

Let me restate this for you, and Brian Ji.

RSSB has no official position on who or what the Master actually is, only the teachings of past Masters. RSSB has no official position on what the followers are to believe. Only records of what the Masters believe.

There is no vow required of any seeker or initiate to believe anything at all about the Master!

Several newer initiates, including those I took initiation with in Riverside CA (home of CalTech) with some mechanical engineers, hold no belief about the Master at all! And no one cared. It was not any requirement for initiation or practice on the path.

No Master in Sant Mat in any branch requires any such belief at all! This may seem very unusual to a non-Satsangi such as yourself.

As someone raised in a Christian environment, I'm sure you are familiar with the necessity of the claim of who Jesus is, is in fact THE VOW you had to take to be accepted into any Church.

But in Sant Mat, the teachers only share their view, just as you and I might share ours.

It would be the same AS IF Jesus said "I am the son of God, but that's just my view. Anyone can follow me and engage in meditation and prayer with me, and no one ever needs to claim they believe me at all. We can just be friends if you like. But if you do want to claim you are following me, then you must live a gentle lifestyle that includes meditation, even though you don't need to know or pretend to know who or what I am, or whom or what God is. You can even be an Atheist simply exploring what is in you..Do this sincerely, live this life sincerely and you will find out for yourself all the answers you are seeking. You won't need me to tell you."


The Masters require nothing of such belief, no such "faith" or Vow to be an initiate. Only faith that the vows, the lifestyle, and their meditation will provide insights into the great unknown.

Brian Ji knows this already, and while it doesn't serve his argument about RSSB, it happens to be the truth. Brian Ji, at any time, can acknowledge this fact.

A factual argument includes all the facts.

And I challenge Brian Ji or anyone to provide any such literature from RSSB at all that does require such as these beliefs in order to receive official initiation and be considered an initiate.

It doesn't exist.

If you take a look at the narrative of the Initiates posting here, a very biased sample of course, you will see their views are quite variable on the notion of who or what the Guru really is.

But if you were to go to a Satsang and ask those initiates there, you will also receive a variety of answers.

I would be surprised if ANYONE makes the claim that they know their Master is God In Human Form....

But I would not be surprised if several people claim not to actually know, and that neither such knowledge or belief is at not relevant to their practice as initiates.

It is certainly not relevant to initiation.

Their testimony even of those here stands as evidence that your claim about what RSSB followers, as a whole group, believes is a false statement. Your statement was a sweeping generality you have not provided any evidence to support. Lacking evidence, you need to withdraw that claim directly, AR.

OR.....

You can always confirm either my position or Brian Ji's or the other positions of the initiates (they vary) as the official position by speaking to someone in RSSB appointed to represent that organization.

Remember to ask them what they THINK is the official view of RSSB, what they THINK is the view of their Master, and what their personal view is.

These are three separate things.

And you can ask them what is required for inititiation. These last are the truly important "beliefs".

But it will require more than asking. It will require listening and acknowledging.

There is a Satsang where you live in your region. Go and ask and report the results here.

I for one will honor those results as real investigation, objective investigation. If in fact that is what you are truly interested in.

Otherwise, please acknowledge that your generic claim about what RSSB followers believe has no evidence, and in fact the testimony of other initiates here actually refutes your claim.

I get it AR, Truth is a bitch. But if it's bitch for everyone else besides you, at some point what goes around comes around.

As an Initiate, I do make a claim for all RSSB followers: They are confronted by Truth every day. They must learn to live with that bitch and only make progress honoring what she teaches, painful as it often is.

Your turn. Welcome to the Truth Club!


What do the followers actually believe?


You wrote:
As I was discussing with Spence --- or trying to, because not unexpectedly the discussion wasn’t going anywhere --- the key point here is what doctrine states, what the official position of RSSB is;"

Unfortunately, you are changing positions, AR.

Your original statement was:
"" RSSB followers believe that GSD is someone more special, someone somehow different in nature, than you or me or Brian or Dungeness."

You made a claim about what RSSB followers believe, not the "official teachings" which we will get into in a moment.

Without any actual effort to understand the variety of beliefs of followers, you made a claim about what the followers believe.

The reason our dialogue didn't get anywhere is simply because you tried to change positions, rather than acknowledge that your statement had no grounds to generalize to all RSSB believers.

If you take a look at the narrative of the Initiates posting here, a very biased sample of course, you will see their views are quite variable on the notion of who or what the Guru really is.

So their testimony demonstrates your claim about what RSSB followers actually believe is false.

Hi AR and Brian Ji:

Let me be a little more pointed to see if we can wipe away a lot of emotion and filtering going on here, to get to a clear picture.

Brian Ji:
If anyone said they wanted initiation and was willing to follow the Path as instructed, but acknowledged that today they are an Atheist, don't know of any God and don't feel any such belief is necesssary; that they simply wish to learn more about what is in them, the Truth of who and what they are, the unknown that they make no claims about, and are willing to follow a path of meditation and lifestyle, to find out; willing to dedicate their life to it, passionate to know the unknown, honoring their teacher with full respect as merely their teacher to help them make progress on their OWN internal exploration, following the formula at least to do their sincere best at it long enough to make their own judgement of progress, their own discoveries, would they be accepted for initiation?

The answer to that question is YES!

You know this!

An Atheist can become an initiate!

Does that help you AR?

Are you sincere in your interest for Truth, or only your argument to dismiss, rather than explore?

Spence, you remind me of Republicans/conservatives who are trying to rewrite history and claim that the January 6 insurrection was no big deal, no planned coup, just a bunch of misguided people who felt like breaking into the Capitol and chant "hang Mike Pence" while looking for legislators to harass and harm.

Meaning, you constantly shift your position to fit your personal self-centered view of the world, not the world that actually exists in a human shared reality. I believe in shared reality. You appear to believe in a form of subjective realism in which the only real thing is what exists inside the heads of believers.

It's ludicrous for you to claim that the RSSB teachings aren't founded on a tenet that the guru is God in Human Form, a Perfect Living Master who is essentially one with the power that created and sustains the cosmos, Holy Sound or Shabd.

This is the foundation of RSSB's Sant Mat, the Path of the Saints. Without it, there is no basis for RSSB. RSSB claims that only initiation by a Perfect Living Master will allow someone to contact Shabd. You can't do it on your own. You have to be connected to it by the guru, as noted in quotes I shared in this post.

My point in this post is that RSSB teachings definitely do say that the guru is a very special person with supernatural qualities. His astra/radiant form supposedly is put into the consciousness of a disciple at the time of initiation, after which the guru can be in constant contact with the disciple, and the physical form of the guru can even be aware of what is happening with the disciple. This is a core tenet of RSSB.

Yet you are trying to shift the discussion to whether an atheist could be initiated. Totally irrelevant. Just another example of how you use a bunch of words to deflect from the fact that your arguments are baseless on one subject, so you try to shift the subject.

As I'll probably note in another post, what you are arguing -- that the past words of the RSSB gurus mean nothing, being just their personal view -- undermines the entire justification of RSSB being a "Science of the Soul." That isn't the way science works. How could it be that the teachings of every RSSB guru prior to Gurinder Singh say one thing, but now that Gurinder is saying a different thing (albeit never written down, because he doesn't allow this), the current guru's very different take on RSSB is the new reality.

Einstein didn't overthrow Newton by saying, ignore that guy and believe in me instead. No, Einstein accepted the truth of Newton's laws of nature and then extended them by finding a different basis for gravity, relativity theory. Yet in the supposed science of RSSB, you are claiming that there's no fixed body of knowledge, that what one RSSB guru teaches can be overthrown by the next guru.

This shows that RSSB is bullshit. There's no there there. There's no substance beneath the froth. There's just a bunch of people, including you, who want so much to believe that they're special, they ignore the disturbing facts about RSSB that are right before their eyes. You can't respond to a simple argument or discussion in a simple way. You deflect because a straight answer would show how confused your belief system really is.

So here's a simple question:

The RSSB teachings say that the guru is God in Human Form, a Perfect Living Master, and that only a Perfect Living Master can lead a person back to God by connecting them with the Shabd who is the true guru. Do you accept that this statement is true? If you say yes, this means that Gurinder Singh is one of those Perfect Living Masters, since he is the current RSSB guru.

Simple question. I look forward to a simple answer from you.

"Unfortunately, you are changing positions, AR.

Your original statement was:
"" RSSB followers believe that GSD is someone more special, someone somehow different in nature, than you or me or Brian or Dungeness."


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


Ha ha, conceded, Spence. I had indeed phrased it exactly that way, I see. So that, from that point on, should you elect to hold me to correctly evaluating people's de facto beliefs, rather than doctrinaire teachings, well then I can't fault you for doing that. Conceded, absolutely.


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


Except: That was NOT my "original statement" at all, was it, Spence? That was from my EIGHTH comment in that thread. And from my FOURTH comment addressed to you on that thread. Not my "original statement" at all, not by any means.

In a thread that was about "The idea of a guru being more than human (making) no sense", this what you had to say: ""Trying to understand why people attrribute subjective qualities to others starts with listening to their experience. (...) It is simply a matter of asking what they see in their guru and why, and to let their answers speak for themselves. (...) The answers might be interesting. (...) Let's collect real information then like real, rational scientists, attempt to summarize it. Then, at least there is a basis for something more than mere opinion. (...) Let's at least pretend to be scientific and open minded and see where that gets us."

In other words, you were implying, in context of a discussion about the Guru being seen/projected as GIHF/PLM, and that idea (Guru = GIHF/PLM) making no sense, that to say that was mere unsubstantiated opinion, and that the only way to approach such a discussion scientifically would be to speak with or maybe poll the followers to ascertain what their actual beliefs are.

Whereupon I'd responded to you, and said this to you, IN MY VERY FIRST COMMENT IN THAT THREAD ADDRESSED TO YOU: "Sure, we can 'pretend to be scientific', and study why people believe what they believe. But focusing on just that will only tell us why they believe what they believe, nothing more. It won't take us to whether what they believe is actually true or not."

Then, in my second comment addressed to you, in which I was responding to your having made that same argument again, this is what I said to you: "While that kind of research might have some kind of interest for some sociologist with a niche interest in cults, sure; but generally speaking I don't see it serves any purpose. (...) For instance, if I wish to "study" RCC beliefs: then it would serve me well to simply look at what the official position of the RCC is, on what official dogma states. Sure, a sociologist may, if his research interests are so oriented, break down into finer detail what de facto beliefs Catholics actually harbor; but generally speaking, checking out the official RCC position is surely adequate for all practical purposes? Likewise, if you're looking at RSSB beliefs, then again, surely looking at what the official RSSB position is, is surely enough? (...) In any case, and like I emphasized in my last comment, studying people's beliefs will only lead us to understanding people's beliefs, that's all. It won't lead us any closer to the truth value of whether Jesus was born of a literal virgin, or of whether Godhead is not One but Three. And likewise, it won't get us any closer to the truth value of any of the claims that RSSB makes. The way to do that would be to straightforwardly examine the propositions themselves, to directly evaluate the claims themselves. Whether people only half-believe those claims that they swear by, surely that is just a largely irrelevant detail? (Altbeit interesting to niche research interests, in sociology for instance, sure.)"

While it is true that in my fourth comment addressed to you I did end up phrasing the my comment as you quote it, but that was simply a slip. The parameters of my argument with you were well set long before then. My entire point was that your suggestion that we poll folks about their de facto beliefs was simply a red herring. It was no more than deflection, it was no more than changing the subject. It was no more than to detract from the inevitable conclusion that would follow from the original argument, that the RSSB doctrinaire position of the GIHF/PLM-hood of the "Master" is spurious, or at any rate entirely unsupported. What I'd been doing in that thread, at least in my discussion with you, from three comments before the one you've quoted from, is to point out exactly what I'd said to Brian in my first comment on this present thread, to wit: "As I was discussing with Spence --- or trying to, because not unexpectedly the discussion wasn’t going anywhere --- the key point here is what doctrine states, what the official position of RSSB is; and the truth value that reasonably attaches to such doctrine and official position. What individual followers believe, and to what extent their personal beliefs differ from the party line, that too is an interesting question, but it is a whole separate question, kind of tangential to the question of the truth value of the actual items of faith."

Further, this is how that entire paragraph reads, of which you've only quoted the first sentence. Seeing that paragraph in whole makes my meaning fully clear, without a shadow of a doubt. This is what I'd said: "RSSB followers believe that GSD is someone more special, someone somehow different in nature, than you or me or Brian or Dungeness. Meditating on his form will yield results and experiences that meditating on your, or me, or Brian, or Dungeness won't. That's precisely why he's the Guru, and you are not, and nor am I, and nor is Brian, and nor is Dungeness. That much we can understand by reading RSSB books like Johnson's, and without necessarily speaking to the followers themselves; although sure, I agree, speaking to them would tell us if most of them really believe that, or if many only pretend to."

So that, Spence, your attempting to now latch on to a slip in how I'd phrased myself in one single sentence, at a time when we were already midway into our discussion, and by which time the parameters of our discussion were already well established; and in any case within a paragraph that makes my larger meaning fully clear; and to now pretend on that basis that cherry-picked loosely phrased sentence of mine quoted out of context, that you were in fact responding to that phrasing of mine, and further that it is I who am changing goalposts midway, that is ...I'm sorry to say, Spence, that is disingenuous in intent, and dishonest in fact. I'm sorry, that sounds rude, that sounds harsh, but there's no other way to say this.


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


Spence, I've enjoyed so many of our discussions in times past, and I've learned a great deal from you. Certainly about RSSB and about Judaism, both of which you know far far more about than I do; and also in general. You've always been very generous in sharing your knowledge and insights, for which I'm grateful. So that it actually distresses me, believe me, distresses me greatly, to have to so rudely point out this kind of disingenuousness and dishonesty on your part. But what the hell else am I to do?

Why play these asinine games at all? You've gone to a great deal of effort here to cherry-pick that loose phrasing of mine, off of which to base (that part of) your comment to me, and to accuse me of changing goalposts midway. And I've had to go to a great deal of effort myself, in order to clearly unravel the exact nature of your disingenuity, and to spell it out here. What does this gain us, this sort of thing? I have no clue why you keep doing this, you who are so accomplished and knowledgeable in things of this nature, this spirituality business I mean to say. (Accomplished in other respects as well, no doubt, but I'm focusing on what we tend to focus on in our discussions over here.)

I find these games extremely tiresome, and entirely pointless. I've played on, this time, in order to clearly see where you were coming from here, and to clearly show you that as well. But I think I'm going to desist, from now on.

No offense intended, either now, or ever in the past, I hope you know that.

Hi Brian Ji
You wrote:
"Spence, you remind me of Republicans/conservatives who are trying to rewrite history and claim that the January 6 insurrection was no big deal, no planned coup, just a bunch of misguided people who felt like breaking into the Capitol and chant "hang Mike Pence" while looking for legislators to harass and harm."

Actually that's what you are doing taking information out of context and, most importantly, refusing to acknowledge some very obvious and simple truths about Sant Mat anyone can read in the books or hear from other Satsangis.

You wrote:
"Meaning, you constantly shift your position to fit your personal self-centered view of the world, not the world that actually exists in a human shared reality. I believe in shared reality. You appear to believe in a form of subjective realism in which the only real thing is what exists inside the heads of believers."

I would think that acknowledging facts isn't part of what you claim. Since I acknowledge what you wrote, but you refuse to acknowledge the facts of Sant Mat you don't happen to like, I would have to say that you are cherry picking, but claiming to be objective.

I'm sorry but your view of Sant Mat isn't so. And ARs sweeping claim of what all RSSB followers believe is simply a glittering generality already proven false by the narrative of other Initiates right here on your blog.

The fact that you are unable to acknowledge even one fact that doesn't support your opinion paints a much more Trump like "Reality Distortion Field" than I think you are aware of.

You wrote:
":It's ludicrous for you to claim that the RSSB teachings aren't founded on a tenet that the guru is God in Human Form, a Perfect Living Master who is essentially one with the power that created and sustains the cosmos, Holy Sound or Shabd."

Again, you are refusing to acknowledge that initiation doesn't actually require the seeker to agree to any of this.

Unlike Christianity, where in that religion one must take a vow that "Jesus Christ is God and there is no other!"

There is no such vow in Sant Mat.

You know this to be true. And you yourself claimed that you were a Satsangi for decades and didn't actually believe this, though you wanted to.

Do you really think you are the only one honest with themselves? Because you aren't acknowledging the fact that the position you were in is the same one most other Satsangis are in...they just make a different choice than you do.

What you have done is paint a picture of a rigid organization demanding blind devotion to a person as God.
That is not Sant Mat. You know this. Nothing in Sant Mat demands that.

You have conflated the view of the Masters, their own report of their experience, with some requirements that simply aren't there. And by implying it is, though that supports your biased image, it is false.

You know this. Calm down and acknowledge the facts.

Your wrote:


"This is the foundation of RSSB's Sant Mat, the Path of the Saints. Without it, there is no basis for RSSB. RSSB claims that only initiation by a Perfect Living Master will allow someone to contact Shabd. You can't do it on your own. You have to be connected to it by the guru, as noted in quotes I shared in this post."

No. You've got it wrong. This is what the Saints report as their experience of their own Master. They offer to help you discover reality, whatever it is, within yourself.

You do that ON YOUR OWN with the help of the Master. Yes, you need a teacher. That is all.

There is No VOW at all you must take declaring who or what the Master is.

And, most importantly, there are many Satsangis who have no claim on that matter, no opinion about it! Some of them are giving Satsang just as you did!

Anyone may want their Master to be God, but they don't claim to know such a thing, and many will tell you it isn't required...belief isn't required.

And belief won't get you there. No one is given initiation who simply declares belief that the Master is God.

Not a single individual has ever, in RSSB history been granted initiation for declaring their undying belief in the "Core Tenets" you write of. No one. Never.

On the other hand, millions of people have been initiated who gave vows to living ethical lives, harming as little as possible, and conducting their own research following the given method of meditation. In fact, this is all that was expected of every single initiate. No statement of divinity at all. Zero. Zed. Zip.

Practice is required. Meditation practice alone is required. Then you find out for yourself. Yes, an Atheist can be a Satsangi, at least one was, and likely several more. But even those Athiests, scrupulous on their method, made astounding progress. They can tell you about the stars within, the sun, the moon, the flight across the heavens. They can tell you about their love for their Master. But they cannot tell you, because they know they don't really know, who or what their Master is, other than a very loving and helpful Teacher, who told them the Truth about their inner journey.


The very notion that you are promoting, that you don't find out for yourself, is actually in absolute conflict with the teachings about the path, and our practice of it.

Again, you leave things out that serve your slanted view, and no view can be objective doing that.

You wrote:
"My point in this post is that RSSB teachings definitely do say that the guru is a very special person with supernatural qualities. His astra/radiant form supposedly is put into the consciousness of a disciple at the time of initiation, after which the guru can be in constant contact with the disciple, and the physical form of the guru can even be aware of what is happening with the disciple. This is a core tenet of RSSB."

I'm sorry but you have misunderstood the very path you claim to have given your life to.

Peter Drucker, the great management writer, once wrote that 50 years of experience may just be the same year repeated 50 times. It may not actually be 50 years of real progress, real experience.

And this leaves us with you believing these are "core tenets" and "Teachings"...But once again, they are the reported views of the Masters, not requirements for anyone to believe.

You have failed, Brian Ji, to point to a single RSSB statement that such beliefs are required for initiation. They aren't..

You are conflating RSSB reports by the Teachers of their personal experience with the "core tenets" of the Christian Church, whose members are sworn by vow to believe in. But no one is sworn to believe any of that in Sant Mat.

The two are completely different.

Your effort to obscure the difference by not acknowledging them, nor all the practicing Satsangis who don't believe this blindly, nor believe any of this as any requirement for their following the path, as witnessed right here on this blog, and by your own admission also relates to your own years on the Path, is an absence of vital factual information.

So, Brian Ji, why would you leave this out? Why is the testimony of others so abhorrent to you that you must pretend it doesn't exist?

Why do you insist that you understand all of Sant Mat, when clearly, whatever you do understand requires leaving stuff out?

Brian Ji, an Atheist doesn't pretend to know it all. That's part of being a good Atheist. Unlike other religions.

But not unlike Sant Mat, which requires no beliefs at all, just faith in a method, a formula, a simple and loving lifestyle, and the assistance of a teacher.

You wrote:

"Yet you are trying to shift the discussion to whether an atheist could be initiated. Totally irrelevant. "

Very relevant. You think the requirements for initiation have nothing to do with the Core Tenets of RSSB? To use your terminology? You think the entire meditation practice and the vows are meaningless, in your imagining of the Path?

The practice IS the path. Go ahead and burn the books. The books aren't RSSB. The Practice is RSSB.

You wrote:

"Just another example of how you use a bunch of words to deflect from the fact that your arguments are baseless on one subject, so you try to shift the subject."

It is you who are shifting from the actual requirements or meditation, thee actual beliefs of satsangis, the true "Core tenets" of RSSB.

Rather than deal with those, incorporating those, you are attempting to dismiss them. Why? Because they conflict with the picture of blind obedience you are painting. A false picture.

There actually isn't much room for Dogmatism in Sant Mat. And I think I'm seeing why you may have come to odds with the actual path.


You wrote:

"As I'll probably note in another post, what you are arguing -- that the past words of the RSSB gurus mean nothing, being just their personal view -- undermines the entire justification of RSSB being a "Science of the Soul." That isn't the way science works. How could it be that the teachings of every RSSB guru prior to Gurinder Singh say one thing, but now that Gurinder is saying a different thing (albeit never written down, because he doesn't allow this), the current guru's very different take on RSSB is the new reality."

No Brian Ji it is you who have ignored what those Masters wrote about their own experiences. They are not to be taken on faith. Each person must discover the reality within themselves, and the Path is there to provide necessary assistance.

That this simple truth, repeated by four of the RSSB Gurus, actually five including Ishwar Ji, is something you just can't acknowledge, and in place of incorporation that truth, you make accusations about me, is well, disappointing. But understandable. It's a human quality. We all are guilty of it.

BUT it's not fooling anyone, Brian Ji.

You wrote:
"Einstein didn't overthrow Newton by saying, ignore that guy and believe in me instead. "

Neither should you.

You wrote:
"No, Einstein accepted the truth of Newton's laws of nature..."

No he did not. He tested the whole thing. He questioned the whole thing, Brian Ji. He started with a blank sheet of paper, believing only what the science had shown, and built up from there. Why? Because new results with light research didn't fit Newton's laws. He placed the experience of the new data above the old teachings.

Nothing in Quantum Mechanics requires believing Newtonian Mechanics. They are separate equations.

And if you had taken even a high school physics class, you would have had to conduct experiments on gravity, mass, acceleration and velocity to re-confirm Newton's laws. You would have to go through all that evidence gathering and recalculation to prove it to yourself.

No one is let off the hook of having the see it for themselves, Brian Ji. Certainly not in the hard sciencces.

Your understanding of how scientists are trained has some gaps.

And in Sant Mat, you build your own from experience also. just like the training of good chemist's and physicists.

The Masters report what they experienced, and it is likely , from their experience, that you will have the same,, or at least some milestones that are similar if you set up your lab and the controlled conditions as prescribed. if you are actually discovering reality, all that matters is that you do your investigation. The Masters provide a means of doing that, a laboratory within you that you weren't aware of and never spent time in before.

I guess you missed that from Science of the Soul.


You wrote:
" and then extended them by finding a different basis for gravity, relativity theory. Yet in the supposed science of RSSB, you are claiming that there's no fixed body of knowledge, that what one RSSB guru teaches can be overthrown by the next guru."

Exactly. Sawan Singh wrote that if, in your journey, you find a better wayto truth, come back and tell him and he will follow that. He said he was just sharing the best approach he could find. Ishwar Ji reiterates this very same teaching nearly word for word.

As it turns out several of these Saints had exactly the same discoveries. But as to you and I, we must make those discoveries for ourselves. That's Sant Mat.

You wrote:
"This shows that RSSB is bullshit. There's no there there. There's no substance beneath the froth. There's just a bunch of people, including you, who want so much to believe that they're special, they ignore the disturbing facts about RSSB that are right before their eyes. You can't respond to a simple argument or discussion in a simple way. You deflect because a straight answer would show how confused your belief system really is."

I think that is the pot calling the kettle black. You are not acknowledging simple teachings within RSSB.

I get that to a dogmatist, it might seem there is no there there. Yes, exactly. All that's there is what your own experience puts there. The rest is just loving guidance and support.

Your getting it.

Welcome to Sant Mat.

You wrote:

"So here's a simple question:

"The RSSB teachings say that the guru is God in Human Form, a Perfect Living Master, and that only a Perfect Living Master can lead a person back to God by connecting them with the Shabd who is the true guru. Do you accept that this statement is true? If you say yes, this means that Gurinder Singh is one of those Perfect Living Masters, since he is the current RSSB guru."

I have no opinion about who or what Gurindar Singh is, beyond my personal experience that he is the most loving hard-ass drill seargent burning his life away on behalf of his followers. That's just my personal opinion.


You wrote:
"Simple question. I look forward to a simple answer from you."

There are no simple questions or simple answers, Brian Ji. You have to leave out stuff to make it look simple.

Life is a little more than that.

"The RSSB teachings say that the guru is God in Human Form, a Perfect Living Master, and that only a Perfect Living Master can lead a person back to God by connecting them with the Shabd who is the true guru. Do you accept that this statement is true? If you say yes, this means that Gurinder Singh is one of those Perfect Living Masters, since he is the current RSSB guru."

Posted by: Brian Hines | June 11, 2022 at 10:56 AM

Pardon.

Can you provide any notes, links, videos links, and time-in-vid-where-stated, or other evidence showing Baba Gurinder Singh Ji calling himself The Perfect Living Master, or God in Human Form as exclusive material fact?

Hi All,

I'd like to add a post to the blog, how does one go about doing that?

Ah, good point, Karim. The basic issue seems to be that up until Gurinder, there was a consistent Sant Mat message from RSSB. But Gurinder has broken a lot of norms, including, seemingly, the notion of there being a Perfect Living Master who is God in Human Form. Which, of course, basically is the core of the RSSB teachings.

So Gurinder seemingly is saying that the previous RSSB gurus were incorrect. Actually the guru is just a normal human being with no special powers. But this leaves the RSSB guru as just an administrator of the RSSB empire, essentially. That's confusing to those of us who were initiated under Sant Mat v.1.0, which held, as in the quotes I shared from Sawan Singh and Charan Singh, that the guru is one with the power that created and sustains creation, Holy Sound or the Shabd, and injects that power into the consciousness of the disciple at the time of initiation.

The previous gurus taught something very different from what Gurinder is teaching. This shows either that Gurinder doesn't know what's he talking about, or the RSSB teachings have no foundation in reality. Personally, I think the latter option is most likely. Gurinder knows he has no special powers or qualities and is telling people this. But either they don't hear the message, or they believe he's just being humble, whereas actually he's being honest.

Noor, only I can add posts to this blog. If you want to suggest a guest post, you can email it to me: [email protected]

What an interesting exchange. as someone who have watched my parents on the path i completely agree with Spence's statements---nothing is required of the initiate other than they follow the 4 vows. Everything is meditation sounds like those who dont meditate dont understand the path at all.

Since you could find NO evidence of the current RSSB claiming in his own words to exclusively be Good in the Human Form.

I found something from your old Master, to support what is my position. Which is that the RSSB Masters are only teaching an experiment for anyone to achieve proof within themselves that they are a part of the Ocean of the Cosmos. (see below)

"All the saints, sages and prophets of the world
affirm that "the Kingdom of God is within us" and
one is not to wander outside to achieve Salvation. In
this Temple of Nine Gates (our body) the Lord dwelleth.
One only needs a Teacher or Guide, who knows the
Secret of the Path to enter this Palace and who can
lead us to the Presence of the Lord—our Loving
Father."
-Hazur Maharaj Charan Singh Ji

http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/spiritualgems.pdf
[Source - page viii (5 in Adobe Reader)]

Huzur Maharaj Charan Singh Ji himself said it was intellectually impossible to take the Master as God. This is on tape. Spin that whatever way one wishes.

100 times in Adi Granth
"This says Nanak, the lowliest of the lowly "
and Swami JI:
" . . . and all this saying of mine is from a total hypocrite "

Please Guys , . . . They mean that 100%

777

PS
@Raman
You are not a drop, . . You are The Ocean in voluntairy amnesia
Good scheme to accumulate Love
YOU made myriads of such schemes Sir

"Practice is required. Meditation practice alone is required. Then you find out for yourself. Yes, an Atheist can be a Satsangi, at least one was, and likely several more. But even those Atheists, scrupulous on their method, made astounding progress. They can tell you about the stars within, the sun, the moon, the flight across the heavens. They can tell you about their love for their Master. But they cannot tell you, because they know they don't really know, who or what their Master is, other than a very loving and helpful Teacher, who told them the Truth about their inner journey."

------ Nicely worded message. Reading such, I can see how the newbie could get hooked into the SatMat path. What an intoxicating Word Salad. I feel bad for such a Newbie ........... For the many, the dissapointment and let down that will one day come forth .....

"You are The Ocean"

Posted by: 777 | June 11, 2022 at 05:42 PM

Dope rule

"Can you provide any notes, links, videos links, and time-in-vid-where-stated, or other evidence showing Baba Gurinder Singh Ji calling himself The Perfect Living Master, or God in Human Form as exclusive material fact?"

(Posted by: Karim W. Rahmaan | June 11, 2022 at 01:01 PM)


----------


Hello, Karim.

I've already addressed this in a comment of mine in this very thread. Here's the link: https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2022/06/rssb-definitely-does-teach-that-the-guru-is-god-in-human-form.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e202a308d1432d200c#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e202a308d1432d200c.


A one-minute google search reveals that the official RSSB website says lots of things about the Guru's PLM-ship. For instance:

“Getting initiated by a perfect living Master means that after billions of years our souls will finally take their first step on the road to spiritual liberation ...”

“From the moment of initiation by a perfect living Master, the Master is always with us…”

“the only way to realize the Lord and find true peace is through a perfect living Master”.


And further, it says in the website itself that "The information on the website is updated to keep everyone abreast of the latest developments." So that you can be assured, provided you trust what the RSSB folks say, that this POV is currently considered valid.

In as much as GSD is the Guru of RSSB; and in as much as RSSB itself proclaims that only the PLM can deliver people from the cycle of birth, that only initiation from a PLM is valid, that only via the PLM is the RSSB method effectual, et cetera; and in as much as, presumably, there isn't utter anarchy within the RSSB organization, with random and mutually contradictory notices flying around from the official sources tasked specifically to disseminate official information; to that extent, this is tantamount to GSD saying --- or, at any rate, fully acquiescing with the idea that --- he is the Perfect Living Master.

Hi AR
Only if you ignore what the Masters themselves say about themselves.

You must ignore that.
And the fact that no such belief is required for initiation.

Ignoring facts leads to a slanted picture. Why do that?

Hi Brian Ji
You wrote
"So Gurinder seemingly is saying that the previous RSSB gurus were incorrect. Actually the guru is just a normal human being with no special powers"

A Satsangi in Fayetteville once said, "Baba Ji, you are the Lord, you are God."

Baba Ji laughed and said, "No no. That's being presumptuous. I'm just like you. Go to the place you can know these things for yourself."

Someone said a similar thing to Maharaji and he said "Sister I'm no different from you. I'm doing the job I was appointed to. If it were up to me I'd be there with all of you in the audience looking to the Master."

Same teachings.

If you really need to answer the question of who and what is Master you will have to go within and find that for yourself.

Or, you can just not feed the addicted mind that needs an answer to every question, whether real or invented.

Live in that beautiful and peaceful space of not needing to have an answer right now. A cheap answer. An invented answer.

Instead go to that inner laboratory inside yourself where you really live, a comfortable and spacious home with great views will suited to lab work. Well suited to observation, and discovery.

Hi Brian Ji
You wrote
"So Gurinder seemingly is saying that the previous RSSB gurus were incorrect. Actually the guru is just a normal human being with no special powers"

A Satsangi in Fayetteville once said, "Baba Ji, you are the Lord, you are God."

Baba Ji laughed and said, "No no. That's being presumptuous. I'm just like you. Go to the place you can know these things for yourself."

Someone said a similar thing to Maharaji and he said "Sister I'm no different from you. I'm doing the job I was appointed to. If it were up to me I'd be there with all of you in the audience looking to the Master."

Same teachings.

"evidence showing Baba Gurinder Singh Ji calling himself The Perfect Living Master,"

You have failed to provide this, AR.

In Fayetteville a Satsangi said to Baba Ji "You are god!" to which he replied "no. No. That's presumptuous. I'm just like you."

AR you can also scour the books for evidence about what any of the RSSB Gurus say about themselves. You will find that in complete contradiction to what you have sited. What you read isn't wrong. But neither is what I wrote or the words of the Masters about themselves. Don't ignore all the facts.

What you wrote aren't the core tenets of Sant Mat. The vows are.

Here are the cure tenets straight from the RSSB website

"At the heart of the RSSB teachings is a belief that there is a spiritual purpose to human life – to experience the divinity of God who resides in all of us. It is through this experience that we will realize the truth of the concept that there is only one God and we are all expressions of his love.

"Central to the RSSB teachings is a spiritual teacher who explains the purpose of life and guides and instructs members in a method of spirituality based on a daily meditation practice. The present teacher is Baba Gurinder Singh, who lives with his family at the main centre in northern India.

"By performing the meditation practice according to the teacher's instructions, individuals can realize the presence of God within themselves. It is a solitary practice that is done in the quiet of one's own home. Members commit themselves to a way of life that supports spiritual growth while carrying out their responsibilities to family, friends and society. There are no rituals, ceremonies, hierarchies or mandatory contributions, nor are there compulsory gatherings. Members need not give up their cultural identity or religious preference to follow this path."

https://rssb.org/index.html

AR
You claimed to have quotes from the RSSB website about the guru.

But you must have missed the link to "What is a guru?" right from that website.

https://youtu.be/Ai-DRO8Clds

In that RSSB link Baba Ji says we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord. The only thing that distinguishes the Guru is they have developed that relationship within themselves with that reality. Maharaji and Ishwar have also said as much.
Please provide links to the quotes you gave and we can discuss.

There is also a page on the RSSB website's online newsletter Spiritual Link about the Master.
https://rssb.org/2018-08-02.html, which has some of the quotes you site.
But none of these say the master is God in Human Form, or anything more than a good teacher connected to his subject. A God Realized teacher. Please read these again in context.

Even so, that link is merely the opinion of the author. In the Judaic tradition everyone's interpretation carries validity and we have the Commentary that records even conflicting views as valid for consideration. The Commentaries also include the perspective of Atheism.. Right in orthodox Judaism! A variety of views isn't chaos, AR, because the core tenets, which are only the vows, are the solid foundation and we are all at different places of progress. Hence Atheists sincere to find reality have been and are welcomed in RSSB.

Ha ha ha, desperately-muddying-the-waters time again, is it, Spence? Let it go, man.

I readily admit I haven't read a fraction of the RSSB literature, or listened to a fraction of the RSSB talks, that y'all have. And also that my own "research", basis which I said what I did, took no more than just a minute of my time.

That said, what I found in that one minute stands there. How do you square that, then? How do you square RSSB officially saying that, for instance, "Getting initiated by a perfect living Master means that after billions of years our souls will finally take their first step on the road to spiritual liberation"? Are you suggesting they don't know the core teachings either, the folks that have put that out?

Look, it's simple. Karim asked for references to where GSD claims he's the perfect living master. And so I supplied him with references to where he's clearly acquiescing to being pointedly and repeatedly described as perfect living master. And that's all there is to it.

I can't contribute anything about the RSSB teachings or whether their guru's declared themselves to be GIHF as I am unfamiliar with this organisation. Just a brief reading though does say that many followers believed the guru to be just that.

I am no fan of the guru tradition mainly because I see many of their teachings to be, well, extravagant – if not irrelevant or misleading in the quest for what is called truth or reality. It is so easy for followers to exaggerate in their own minds the status and attributes of their particular guru. Also, it is known that some guru's have a mentalist's ability to influence people. I recall mentalist Derren Brown who used his technique to convert a roomful of atheists into believers.

It's as if the simplicity of life is easily obscured by the human mind's desire of wanting to be something special, something more than what it actually is – and there are many who are on hand to provide such a message.

AR
You can read the words of the Masters themselves about their own status. And the words of Satsangis here and in other places to see the variety. But you are avoiding these.

And you and Brian Ji made claims about what you call the Core Tenets of RSSB. But what you claim are not the actual Core Tenets, as in required beliefs and vows, necessary to follow. You can see this in the link I provided. Brian Ji could have admitted this to you.

But you have both avoided this inconvenient truth.

No where in the vows are any such views required to follow the path.


The answer to your question is perspective, AR. As we have pointed out.

Some people sincerely believe the Guru us one with God. Others just don't know but follow the path with all effort and sincerity.

The Gurus themselves only claim they are like everyone else except that they are connected and are there to help others connect to that reality within. They don't even suggest we believe any statements about the Master or God. They suggest we find out for ourselves.

So how can such views you claim as core tenets really be so when the gurus says don't believe such things?

That ranks higher than any statement you find because the practice is the vow, the true Core Tenets.

The Gurus also say repeatedly that such beliefs are unnecessary to follow the prescribed practice of meditation and can even get in the way. Because they are just inventions of the mind, AR.

You are cherry picking, AR, to support a slanted perspective.

Ask yourself if " being right" by ignoring facts is more important than being factual. If dismissing facts you don't like is more important than dealing with uncomfortable truths.

Is that really your value system?

I know it isn't, AR.

I know that in the days ahead you will digest and work hard to see the whole picture with respect and appreciation.

Today is emotion. Tomorrow will be a little more thoughtful.

You can at any time simply look back at the narratives on this blog to see the variety of belief among initiates.

And you can look back at the RSSB pages I provided to see the actual core tenets as well as the words the the current Guru says about who and what the Guru really is. And if you like you can find the words of other past RSSB Gurus about themselves to see they are the same.

But most importantly you will come to understand that a person's beliefs are of very little importance in Sant Mat.

If you choose to become an initiate, your own practice, your own experience of reality and the Master, your own journal will become your sacred text, as all Masters hope for you.

You can go on defending the blue pill...

Or you can take the red pill, and watch everything you thought was real get turned on its head.

And then, informed, truly informed, make your own decision.

Take the red pill, AR.

The idea is that the Sat Guru brings you home ´where we belong´
The SAT GURU does that, says the teachings.
Darshan from the Guru is important and one should also concentrate (Dyan) on the FORM of the Master.
He brings you back to God.

He the Sat Guru is already Perfect.
We are not at all Perfect so we need a PLM ( Perfect Living Master)
Deciple should do two hours Simran repeating 5 Holy names and after that half an hour sitting in complete silence and listening to the Sound (Shabd)
We are not Perfect the Guru is.

I must say that I learned a lot from Maharaji and I am very thankfull for that..
But I had also difficulties where my Guru could not help..o.k.. Karma.
The Teachings were never ever fine for me.Too much Judgmental as I felt that.
The Love was beautiful..also painfull.
Because one could not stay with Him forever and has to live ones own life..
One always fell short because we were ´never´perfect.

"Practice is required. Meditation practice alone is required. Then you find out for yourself. Yes, an Atheist can be a Satsangi, at least one was, and likely several more. But even those Atheists, scrupulous on their method, made astounding progress. They can tell you about the stars within, the sun, the moon, the flight across the heavens. They can tell you about their love for their Master. But they cannot tell you, because they know they don't really know, who or what their Master is, other than a very loving and helpful Teacher, who told them the Truth about their inner journey."

---- Nicely worded message. This kind of message is what could trap so many newbies into the Satmat path. It seems like one of many Word Salads used to recruit new members. I feel sad for the many that end up frustrated and disappointed.

Science of the soul, spiritual bouquet. Page 204 #23. 8th edition 1991.
"You want me to define a True Master and tell what he gives? Well, the Perfect Master is a Man-God or God-Man. He is a human being, in whose person the Lord of the Universe, the Eternal Sat Nam, the Everlasting Shabd comes to reside on earth. He is the "Wird" turned into flesh. The Lord leaves Hos Palace, conceals Himself in the human garb... "

@ AR

Just to open the window and call you near by passing my house ... hahaha

Find somebody that can give you Volume 5 of "Philosophy of the Masters" that is a series of 5 boooks and covers all ins and outs of this Mat.

Almost the entire book is dedicated to who and what a master is within this tradition.
Chapter 5 speaks of "The oneness of the master and the Lord."

What is important is how these masters use the word "HE" whenever they address an audience. The meaning can jump within one sentence from one to several other positions. THAT has always been very confusion for many ... hahaha ...and GSD are realy jugglers .... they have masterd the art and it is almost impossible to have them speak up without them jumping from one stone to the other ... I must say very elegant and often funny to.

Many people, over decades have tried their best to force them to say that they are [a] a master [b] the master is god ... all in vain ... and... this discussion proves what i write here.

SO THEY will never speak up and hide themselves behind the available literature. Speaking of OTHER masters than themselves, they feel free to say whatever they want.

I guess If you have read that book, you know almost everything / the ,master being one of the 3 pillars of sant mat.

I should not do this and wave to you from behind the window without opening it ...hahahaha ... prabably due to the coffee being to late.

Maharaj Sardar Bahadur Jagat Singh, Science of the Soul:
"It is not every day that such Great Masters come to the world. His [Sawan Singh's] reach was immense and His Spiritual Power immeasurable...
Saints are Shabd or Nam personified--'the WORD made flesh'" ( p 139)
"Nam itself can be obtained only from an Adept, and one will come across such an Adept only through the Grace of God. (p 91)

Maharaj Charan Singh, Die to Live:
"Saints do not come into the world of their own will; they are always appointed and sent by the Father. By themselves, neither do they desire to preach, nor do they want to initiate anybody. Whenever the Lord wishes, He Himself sends a Master to collect His marked souls, the souls which He has allotted to him. Christ speaks of 'the Father which hath sent me,' and says, 'For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.'" (p 3)
"We need a Master because we are not at the level of the Lord. Only somebody at our level can give us the way to go back to the Father; can fill us with His love and devotion; can put us on the Path; can guide us back to the Father. It is necessary to go to a Master because we cannot be at the level of the Father, and the Father in His real form cannot come to our level.
"The living Master, however, while being one with the Father, is also at our level. As Christ says: 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father...Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.'" (p 20)
"Our real Master is the Word, the Logos, Shabd, Nam, the Audible Life Stream, or whatever name one may choose to give it. The Master is that Power manifested in human form. We need someone in the human form who has merged himself in the Shabd or Word, who is 'the Word made flesh,' and who can in turn connect us with that Power within; and that someone is the living Master. Swoami Ji says: 'Radhasoami, the Supreme Being, descended to earth as a man; He came as a Master to initiate souls into the mystery of Nam.'" (p 22)


Sounds like God in Human Form to me, but what does "God" actually mean? That's the big question and the loophole for an atheist. Are theists ahead of the game? If they know "God" already, why get initiated?

@AR

Just think for a moment AR about what would happen if GSD or any other master would publicly sayin aloud ... I am God.

THINK, AR .... T H I N K!!

They are not free to do that and those being in full ecstacy that did were all without exception put away or kille , like Mansur.

Gurudom is a dangerous profession AR

"The masters are all waves of the same ocean, because the body is not the master; that creative power is the master, the creative word is the master.... Once a person is in touch with that spirit within, that spirit is the master, and the spirit will never leave the soul until that spirit takes the soul back to its own destination. "
Spiritual Perspectives Volume 1, page 437, Maharaj Charan Singh

Find that spirit within yourself. That is the sole purpose of meditation, and meditation and lifestyle are the only vows, the true core tenets of Sant Mat.

"The Shabd (the audible spirit within, the Holy Word) and Nam (holy Name) is our real master.... So the real master is not the flesh, it is the word which is our real master - the holy ghost or shabd or Nam. That is our real master. Guru Nanek says" Shabd is your real master, and your soul is the real disciple. " This body is not the real disciple and the Master's body is not the real master.... The real master is that Shabd or Nam."
Spiritual Perspectives Volume 1, page 437-438, Maharaj Charan Singh

"Our real master is Shabd, that holy ghost, that Spirit, that logos or Word which is within every one of us. That is our real master, that creative power which has created the creation. But unless we find someone in whom the word has taken its abode and he connects our soul with that word, we cannot be brought in touch with the word within. "
Spiritual Perspectives Volume 1, page 441, Maharaj Charan Singh

Amazing that nobody here seems to remember
that without exception All Saints , including Jesus, say these things about their Master - 100%

And there is indeed Mansur Bullah Shah , Shams é Rumi
declaring this about themselves
or about a disciple ( Kabir )

and many of 10 000 000 see overwhelming Splendor inside themselves
before become Their Master Themselves

What we see in this blog are the Tribe members asking the white guy :
"When do you feed these people inside that box of you, that talk to you?"

777

@ 777

Maybe for you.

But otherwise.

Things are what they are
seldom what they look like
let alone how they are presented.

This discussion is not about the "things" but how they are [mis]presented, how they are made to be seen, how they are used to win arguments, discussion, to make one self seen in a given way etc.

@ 777

Dad would say ... you children, be aware of those that speak at the table?
How so dad, what is wrong with them?
You cannot trust them?
What has trust to do with food and speaking, dad?
Do I have to explain everything in this house?
Why did the lord gave me these children?
Dad do not joke around, tell us what you mean!
Well ...
Those that are hungry and those that enjoy, do eat and keep mum; they have no time to entertain you, to converse with you, that would be a distraction from what is near and dear to them.

Hahahaha ... I wonder If dad ever had heard about, Lao Zi and Wittgenstein who must have known about my dad when they said that one cannot and should not talk about what is near and dear.

Hahaha .. let alone shout it out to the world

"Practice is required. Meditation practice alone is required. Then you find out for yourself. Yes, an Atheist can be a Satsangi, at least one was, and likely several more. But even those Atheists, scrupulous on their method, made astounding progress. They can tell you about the stars within, the sun, the moon, the flight across the heavens. They can tell you about their love for their Master. But they cannot tell you, because they know they don't really know, who or what their Master is, other than a very loving and helpful Teacher, who told them the Truth about their inner journey."

---- A newbie to the Satmat path should be cautious of statements like this. Don't get sucked into such. So many that received their initiation ended up frustrated and disappointed.

"This discussion is not about the "things" but how they are [mis]presented,"

precisely Um.

Hence the utility to give voice to different views.
Which is the representation and which the misrepresentarion?

I don't claim AR, Brian Ji or you are wrong in so far as you represent a perspective. Anyone can go to the RSSB website or to a Satsang and get their own first hand information. Still, it will be filtered through each of our different experiences.

But it is absolutely wrong to claim one view is a truthful representation for all. And therefore that others here sharing their view are wrong.

Sant Mat contains a variety of opinions and a single practice.

It is easy to nail down the specifics of the practice, but in practice even that gets a little challenging.

We are all at different levels of development, Um.

At our dinner table we were encouraged to share how our day went and our views. Quite different from your upbringing. We were blessed with enough to eat, so that we could consider more philosophical matters. My parents had a love for knowledge, learning and diversity of views. I thrive on it.

I can only present what I see from my position, just like you.

But unlike you I don't presume to tell you that you should remain silent. Still, if telling others that they are wrong just for speaking is your tradition, please proceed, sir.

As President Obama said to Governor Romney at the pivotal last debate, "please proceed Sir!".

Spence, I've tried to explain to you how your discussion style is unproductive by comparing you to Trump, who loves to ignore facts and keep saying irrelevant stuff. Here's another attempt, using Kellyanne Conway, a Trump devotee, who appeared on Bill Maher's Real Time show on HBO last Friday. If you watch the part of the show with Conway, you'll see your discussing style reflected in her. Maybe this will spur you to embrace a more productive approach.

Over and over, Maher tries to get Conway to stick with the subject they're discussing -- that Trump was told by numerous close advisors that he'd lost the election, yet Trump kept saying that the election was stolen and he was taking steps to overturn the election that likely were illegal.

Conway's "debating" style is to try to change the subject. "OK, but gas prices are through the roof. Isn't that the really important thing?" Maher would say, "We'll get to gas prices later Kellyanne. Right now we're talking about Trump knowing he lost the election but trying to overturn it anyway." A little while later Conway would do the same thing.

She knew she couldn't make a valid point if the discussion stuck to the subject of Trump and the January 6 insurrection. So she deflected. To a viewer like me, it was really annoying. I wanted to hear an intelligent, reasonable discussion of Trump and January 6, as the televised hearing the day before had addressed. Instead I got Maher and Conway talking over each other as Maher tried to get Conway to stick to the subject.

You do the same thing, Spence. I proved in this post that the RSSB teachings say that the guru is God in Human Form and initiation by a living Perfect Living Master is the only way someone can be connected to the Holy Sound, Shabd. Every knowledgeable observer of RSSB knows this is true. Almost certainly you do also. Yet instead of admitting it, you deflect and try to change the subject.

You ask if an atheist can be initiated. Irrelevant to the discussion. You ask if RSSB members really believe the guru is God. Irrelevant to the discussion. You ask if RSSB members have to accept that the guru is God. Irrelevant to the discussion.

What's being discussed in this post is whether the RSSB teachings say that the guru is God. They definitely do. They also say that it is impossible for someone to return to God without being initiated by a Perfect Living Master. I have no idea why you are so reluctant to admit these simple truths, and why you persist in changing the subject instead of saying, "I agree. That's what the RSSB teachings say." I don't believe in past lives, but if I did, I'd think that Spence Tepper was a used car salesman in a previous life, because you absolutely love to change a subject rather than admit something is true.

Last point: imagine yourself having a face to face conversation with someone like yourself. You'd probably hate it if every time you said, "We need to fight global warming," the other person said, "Strengthening the border with Mexico should be our top priority." Deflecting and obfuscating like you do isn't even a weak debate tactic, because it isn't debating at all. It is failing to engage in a debate, apparently out of a fear of losing an argument.

@ Spence

You might think you are at your family table where you cannot leave without a proper argumentation ... but you are not and I am certainly not sitting at that table.

You are even able to show verbaly that a stone is alive, if it so suits you.

You never left that table where you were trained; you take it with you wherever you go to whomever you speak irrespective the subject .. it is all about argumentation, truth doesn't matter

Well this thread is digging into some interesting stuff.
First up - Brian can you add some page numbers and references to your quotes, then folk could verify them easier?
I do agree with what you’re saying. My take on RSSB was that the Guru, ‘Sat Guru’, was very much considered to be a PLM as well as GIHF. For me, this was like a major selling point for the path, as different from others where these titles were less obvious.
Perhaps another selling point was that this path was essentially about Bhakti - being so much in-love with the ‘other’ that one forgets oneself completely ….. - surrendered. It’s my view that this set the bar too high for most of us. Maybe that’s why GSD adjusted the teachings - as has been discussed here many times.
The apparent move away from traditional Bhakti, soul/God, drop/Ocean duality to a more soul/shabd/consciousness interchangeable ‘same thing scenario’ (as I interpreted the last RSSB literature I read), provides weight to the view that not only Masters/Gurus are GIHF - we all are. If one considers consciousness/shabd/soul as = to God, and if God = everything then surely we must all be GIHF? Well that’s my view (as a believer in the totality of consciousness).
Genuine Gurus and such just spend less time than us self-referencing themselves as separate entities and more time operating in the now.
This would indicate there’s obviously a spectrum of Guruship from the partially separated through to the fully connected.

Jim - nice to hear from you. Great internal trip advisory.
Um - I found your initiation comments interesting. The price we pay for love?
I read this the other day in Nisargadatta’s ‘I am that’: ‘mind creates the abyss, the heart crosses it’ (p.8)
Best wishes.

"..this is tantamount to GSD saying --- or, at any rate, fully acquiescing with the idea that --- he is the Perfect Living Master."

Posted by: Appreciative Reader | June 12, 2022 at 06:23 AM

"Look, it's simple. Karim asked for references to where GSD claims he's the perfect living master."

Posted by: Appreciative Reader | June 12, 2022 at 07:30 AM

A Google search with unreasonable inferences?

No. I asked for something tangible, not inferences nor anything circumstantial.
(see below)

Can you provide any notes, links, videos links, and time-in-vid-where-stated, or other evidence showing Baba Gurinder Singh Ji calling himself The Perfect Living Master, or God in Human Form as exclusive..
(found here)
https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2022/06/rssb-definitely-does-teach-that-the-guru-is-god-in-human-form.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e202a2eec7508f200d#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e202a2eec7508f200d

By the way,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/evidence

We can wait.

Hi Brian Ji
You wrote
"You do the same thing, Spence. I proved in this post that the RSSB teachings say that the guru is God in Human Form and initiation by a living Perfect Living Master is the only way someone can be connected to the Holy Sound, Shabd. Every knowledgeable observer of RSSB knows this is true. Almost certainly you do also. Yet instead of admitting it, you deflect and try to change the subject."

Brian Ji, every knowledgeable observer of RSSB knows that this isn't required for initiation or meditation practice.

I don't disagree with your evidence, only that your conclusion is wrong. Because it is incomplete.

The result of your cherry-picking what you want to include as a premise results in a false and misleading picture of RSSB as if, like many religions, it requires a vow of blind faith to their version of God. Nothing could be further from the truth for RSSB, and you know this.

I'm surprised that as a liberal you have a hard time with inclusion of different perspectives than yours, especially when they include OTHER factual information you have trouble acknowledging.

Now, as to your ", proof"

You wrote
". I proved in this post that the RSSB teachings say that the guru is God in Human Form and initiation by a living Perfect Living Master is the only way someone can be connected to the Holy Sound, Shabd"

You most certainly did not prove those two things at all. I'm sure you meant to say something like this...

"I proved that the RSSB organization considers the Guru to be.
.... And therefore this is a core tenet of RSSB."

That is statement we can discuss.

Because I proved, using your own experience and that of others, that many practicing Satsangis quite happy on the path don't actually believe this, and if asked would tell you this.

And further, that believing this is not a required vow or belief.

The Masters also insist we can't know such things at our level, and that our only commitment is to find out for ourselves, applying the prescribed lifestyle and practice.

Therefore, while the descriptions of the master by other masters includes what you wrote, the descriptions of the masters also includes the quotations I've provided above: that the real master is the Shabd in you, and in fact in all people. You seem to have trouble including this fact, but it is central to the very purpose of initiation, to go within yourself and find that reality inside you.

You like to say that the information you don't like is a distraction. But in fact it is central to understanding what is actually the core teachings, which is, apply the method and see for yourself.

This is why an Atheist serious about finding out more about this inner life we all have need not take any vow of belief and can quite readily partake of all the objective information available through practice.

Those writings you site are the result of progress on the path. They are not beliefs, but documented experiences of the Masters about their Master and the path. No Master asks anyone to believe it without doing the work to verify whatever that inner reality is for yourself. So calling these reports beliefs or teachings is false.

1. It isn't belief.
2. IT IS recorded anecdotal experience.
3. No RSSB Guru teaches that these should be believed.
4. All RSSB Gurus teach that these reports are only provided to encourage practitioners to make progress and discover these things for THEMSELVES.


No one in RSSB asks anyone to believe it, Brian Ji.

In fact you are encouraged to test these these things for yourself. That's what the path is all about.

For you to imply anything else is misleading.

I see why you may have had such a hard time on the path. There was no need to leave it, actually. You could have just owned your experience honestly instead, and continued your work in your own lab.

No one would fault you, Brian Ji. The work can be very difficult. But it's much easier to share that and get some tips from others.

The idea is to work for answers, living most of your life without a hard answer. Just like every scientist passionate about their field of exploration.

Master is already there. Whatever is in you is already there. It's just for you to uncover it.

So, if you had said "Here is what happens when I mediate... Here is what happens on days after I drank alcohol. Here's what I recorded on days I avoided alcohol... Etc."

That is all you can do. But for many of us, that is all that matters. We are seeing more of how our brain functions, and learning to get some control over that, and seeing new things arise from deep within the brain. Even experiences of joy. Maybe that's just turning a brain switch on with natural heroin. Yay! This is the result of simply learning to observe as we do our Simran and see our Master. Then there is hearing the sound and listening to it.

It is no more difficult than playing a challenging video game. Takes focus, patience, time and effort. Results are progress.

And you do get a view of how the brain and body shut down, some of the things that will happen at death. Very exciting.

So, these results become more interesting than any belief, but they do reflect well on the instructions, the Master's assistance and a deeper understanding of this body, brain and mind.

Well worth it.

Brian news for you…. You are God in human form you just dont know it—haven’t realized it. RSSB masters have claimed that their masters have realized this (awareness) and encourage us all to practice to realize this for ourselves.
Until you don’t experience it from within, you won’t know this to be true so they highly highly encourage we all do so. Now you ask in your precious post is the guru as human like everyone else??—YES is he God in human form? Also yes 😊 just like all of us.

@Spence/Brian,….It really saddens me to see supposedly good past friends turn against each other, arguing. I mostly disagree with both of you, because your both Trump hating Progressive Liberals, yet I still like both of you, and consider you Brothers, because of each of us being initiated by Charan Singh. But hating Trump and thinking you have your Politics correct is a stretch. But I also quit arguing with “WOKE” Folk long ago. I could argue for weeks on end , defending Trump and his MEGA followers, but its not worth it.

https://www.devolution.link/
Its a shame two Indians have to teach WOKE Americans the truth about the movie “2000 Mules” and “Devolution” just for a start, and what an absolute Sham the J6 Committee hearings are.
Dr. Julian Johnson is responsible for convincing Westerners that RSSB Master are GIHF.
REGARDS,
JIM SUTHERLAND

@ Spence [They don't even suggest we believe any statements about the Master or God. They suggest we find out for ourselves. ]

Thank you, Spence, for pounding the nail so squarely on the
head in this thread. Practice ( "finding out for ourselves") is
the core tenet/challenge of the mystic path.

P.S.
GSD famously said "How do you know I am not a fraud?"
How could the rationale be stated more elegantly...

Hi Jim
We are all friends. No change there. That's why we can have such a discussion! It would be impossible otherwise.

You should be happy we are all airing our views in finer detail.

The point isn't to all be in harmony around a single set of principles.

That's just group think.

If AR, Um, you and Brian Ji all said "Spence you are right" I would find another blog. Because none of us needs an echo chamber.

Kites rise against a strong wind, not a place without any wind.

And Church of the Churchless, is, to me, the true Satsang. It isn't one guy on a stage reading what some mystic wrote that only a handful in the audience at best knows anything about.

And everyone else going "holy holy" like the monster angels in Revelations.

Nope. We can all question the blog writer. Nothing holier than thou here.

And that is what makes this place sacred.

Trump in Sach Khand: "How do I know I'm not at Mar-a-Lago?"

Hi Um
You wrote
"You might think you are at your family table where you cannot leave without a proper argumentation .."

Exactly. And you all my brothers and sisters.

So don't be shy Um.

As if..

Tim Rimmer, I just added the book source and page numbers to the quotes in this blog post. Found that one quote I had as from Sawan Singh was from Charan Singh.

@ Dungeness

Yes yes, one has to prove it to oneself.

but ....

Before one practice, one has to have a reason, a motive to practice and that motive is based upon a believe, a believe in a story, a tale, a script of reality or however you want to phrase it. ... and .. in that tale there is a role reserved for the master, the guru.

@ Spence

Just do read my last answer to you.
If we would stand shoulder by shoulder as GSD used to say and were looking in the same direction, yes maybe, it could be worthwhile now and then but not now.

It is what YOU do with your "wealth" in the public domain, not the wealth itself., that makes it evil in my eyes Spence ... and ... that you are not able or willing to accept it is part of who and what you are in public.

Hi Um
You wrote
"Before one practice, one has to have a reason, a motive to practice and that motive is based upon a believe, a believe in a story, a tale, a script of reality or however you want to phrase it. .."

There are three powerful reasons for an inner path of exploration that don't require a fable:

1. Love of Reality.
2. Love of Truth.
3. Love of Love.

Hi Um
"If we would stand shoulder by shoulder as GSD used to say and were looking in the same direction, yes maybe, it could be worthwhile now and then but not now."

Just look forward Um. To the unknown bright destination. Knowing that each of us is standing in a different place is obvious and unworthy of our attention. Just keep looking forward, never sideways at each other.

Then we are standing shoulder to shoulder, our task before us.

@ Spence

But that is exactly what you do in my opinion Spence. ..looking sideways

Your way of handling your wealth in public, makes you look sideways, ... your very presence here and the time you spend here tells the tale.

Whether a person has love, real love, in any form and use, is in nobodies hand.

As always, nothing wrong with your inner experiences and you enjoying them, it is the way you write about it and use it as a debate topic, a debate you HAVE to win before you can leave the table ... at least win in your own mind to be worthy of the others.

So, then Brian : Let mé say it
Yes it s in the books; all books, Adi Granth included

And isn't it logic, . . . try to be an hour in the Sahara
You have to find a Bedouin teaching you that
Next try the SUN
etc a zillion Universes, try them, . . a quillion Astral time_space_environments
( add it to the dicussion : we have an astral body - it s perishable . . a causal one . .
not stable at all either
this what Abraham learned from The Priest of The Highest God )

This is the Greatness of this human race : Maximum Love &nd Maximum Hate

. . . and each initiate will see. Brian too

Yes UM, . . read my early comments . . . . might shock U more

Todays :
"Knowledge can be communicated, but not wisdom. One can find it, live it, be fortified by it, do wonders through it, but one cannot communicate and teach it."
— Hermann Hesse —

Hi Um
You wrote
"Your way of handling your wealth in public, makes you look sideways, ... your very presence here and the time you spend here tells the tale."

No, Um. My focus is on the path.
But look at your own comments. They are all about me.

Take a closer look

"As always, nothing wrong with your inner experiences and you enjoying them, it is the way you write about it and use it as a debate topic, a debate you HAVE to win before you can leave the table ... at least win in your own mind to be worthy of the others."

This isn't about our destination at all. Who are you writing about? Who is your focus here?

Look forward please, Um.

Discussing our path forward had nothing to do with you or I. It is the Truth in both of us. That is all that matters. To teach that goal of helps to keep it ever in mind, ever the focus, the pleasure, and yes, the discussion
Not each other. We are just shells, always imperfect.

So share your views of the destination, if you like. I would enjoy reading that.

@ um [Before one practice, one has to have a reason, a motive to practice and that motive is based upon a believe, a believe in a story, a tale, a script of reality or however you want to phrase it. ... and .. in that tale there is a role reserved for the master, the guru.]

Quite right, um, and, if the stage actor seems too dodgy,
walk away! Don't hesitate! But, if there's a resonance,
an indefinable something in the narrative that makes
you want to linger a moment to be sure of the verdict,
then do that first.

Set aside unwinnable debates if the guru is GIHF or
what the "core tenets" are and whether he subscribes
to them. Think back. Is the vibe one of absolutism?
Did you hear a tone of "must do this" or "believe that"?
Talk of sure damnation if you "break away"?

Or is there promise of a practice that empowers you
to experience what's within and test for yourself the
rosy supernatural claims? In fact a guru encouraging
you to do that and, if you exit and find a better way,
to return and share it. Then you may want to linger
a few minutes longer... examine further, question,
probe and ultimately give it a try.

Hello, um.

I take your point about the utter centrality of the Guru to RSSB philosophy, to the point of perceived divinity. That has been my impression as well.

As for the dangers of Gurudom, I agree that used to be a thing. Yes, the Mansur story is cautionary. He goes around screaming "Anal Haq", and gets his throat cut for his pains (or whatever the actual execution MO had been). But of course, that was in past times. That danger may still be real in some places, like in Muslim theocracies for instance, but the First World, at any rate, is probably largely free of such physical dangers. Of course, GSD lives in India, a country that isn't quite Muslim-theocracy backwards, but on the other hand fast accelerating in that very direction at present, so who knows? Agreed, speaking aloud things that might be considered blasphemous, that might well carry real risks, even today, at least in some parts of the world.

In any case, I would imagine that, should some blinding insight about the true nature of things were suddenly revealed to one, then the only plausible reaction would be to be struck dumb in wonder; that silence owing to the sheer absorption of it, as well as the sheer wonder of it, and further to both the impossibility as well as the futility of communicating such. A cacophony of words is unlikely to result from the real deal, I agree.

On the other hand, it may simply be a question of temperament; that is to say, my individual temperament happening to agree with yours in this respect. And in any case, I'm only speculating here, as far as the above paragraph, about what to me is no more than a hypothetical; so what do I know, really.

Still, with all of those qualifications scrupulously made, and for what it is worth, I do agree with you fully on this, um.

"A Google search with unreasonable inferences?

No. I asked for something tangible, not inferences nor anything circumstantial.
(see below)"

----------


Hello, Karim.

That google search referenced specifically the official RSSB organ, and more than fully three hundred hits about the "perfect living master" business, directly from the official RSSB organ --- that specific website maintained by RSSB and tasked by RSSB to disseminate information to the world at large. That's pretty much "tangible".

While that isn't evidence of GSD himself saying this, but this is incontrovertible evidence of his acquiescing to being referred to as PLM. I dont see how that admits of any other explanation; can you?

That said, your beliefs are your business. You've never tried to preach or proselytize here, Karim, nor ever tried to force your views down others' throats, that I recall. As such, your privately held religious faith and beliefs cannot possibly be any one's business other than only yours. I have no quarrel with them or with you.

God bless, man.

Hi Spence,

Not going into detail into the entirety of your comments to me. Just wanted to point out that, unlike what you're suggesting, to see the negatives in RSSB is not to shut one's eyes to such virtues that it possesses. I think I've already said that, compared to the RCC, and indeed compared to Christianity as a whole (bar its firmly-non-mainstream gnostic offshoots) --- and Islam as well, if you leave out the Sufi branches of it --- I find RSSB far more flexible, and indeed far more civilized. Unlike the cross-eyed superstitious blindness insisted on in Christianity and Islam, RSSB does, in theory at least, provide an experiential platform.

But, that said, the stark negatives do remain. They cannot be wished away by trying to change the subject.

And about your enthusiastic attempts at proselytization here, Spence. Unlike um it doesn't really offend me. I just don't take it very seriously, because I like to make up my own mind, not have it made up by others. Also, your insistence that my not wading in myself to try out RSSB meditation, given that atheism is no bar, is indicative of a lack of sincerity towards truth on my part, that seems very curious to me. After all, I could say that exact same thing to you for not practicing Vipassana meditation, or indeed some of the decidedly experiential (well, supposedly experiential) techniques that Vajrayana traditions teach. And in any case, although I won't link them here, another very quick google search (of no more than 3 minutes in total) uncovered for me two separate references, on in the RSSB website FAQs, and another in the current issue of the Spiritual Link magazine, that very clearly instruct people not to proselytize, or to try to propagate the faith. RSSB has no use for preachers, none. And that, in my view, is another good thing about RSSB, when you compare it to Christianity and Islam.

That said, and like I've already said, I personally don't mind, really, not generally. Probably a question of temperament. Although I can see why um finds it offensive. Just wanted to point out that RSSB demonstrably, and very emphatically, dissuades its followers from doing that.

@ Dungeness

If these things are there, you are right and that is what happened in the past.

But after I woke up in the theater, the movie, I enjoyed so much, lost its attraction.
Even after the last scene in the movie that brought a whole week of joy and happiness, there was no desire left in me to find my way back into the movie.

Again:
If the pull is not there what can you do.
I know ...
Nothing

Nor do i know why there is a pull or not.

For the record .. I do not suggest to have made the first step in the interior..

If I was not sensitive to the behaviour of spence I would probably not write here. Even reading becomes tiresome after a couple of days. as the same drums are beaten again and again.

Having left the movie behind, most topics if not all, become like eating stale bread. For decades these topics are discussed without gaining any foothold anywhere.

@ 777

>> Yes UM, . . read my early comments . . . . might shock U more <<

Why should your words shock me?
They might have so in the many years ago.
Today, you appear as a lonely old wolf, howling.

Most of the time i do not understand a single word of your strange language of love.
The inteligable rest it take withe a grain of salt as you behave as an atypical satsangi .

Otherwise I have kind memories of you in the past.

@ um [ If I was not sensitive to the behaviour of spence I would probably not write here ]

That's a valid pull then. It could lead to more critiques or even
more expansive quests such as why the movie that brings joy
turns empty so quickly. How do we step beyond an argument
or a movie that goes stale...and again leaves us in darkness.

@ Dungeness

These things do not happen at will.
They are like thoughts, dreams, and so called inner experiences,.
They appear of their own accord like a cloud and disappear again.

Call it fate or whatever.

If the pull is no longer there it is just not there and there is nothing one can ... and ... should do about it.

To say "I" eat, he used to say, there has to be two conditions fulfilled, [1] there has to be food [2] there has to be hunger ... and .. both are given.

Life has taught me that to be true.

With the hunger gone, the desire to have or be interested in what others have is also gone. The so called inner experiences have lost their attraction.

If these experiences befall a person and it makes him or her happy so be it

Hi AR

1. The actual beliefs of Satsangis is something you have admitted you do not know, or know well enough to make sweeping statements about. That is a very good thing. At least it is honest.

2. The only vows in Sant Mat are those that promote the meditation practice, the vegetarian and drug free lifestyle, and living to the highest moral standards

3. There is no requirement to swear any vow of faith or belief in anything or anyone.

4. The masters write as much, and some Satsangis here have already confirmed these things.

5. Unfortunately, These facts, items 2-4, you, Um and Brian Ji have refused to acknowledge. But instead have indulged in personal attacks.

6. This sums up the entire dialogue on this blog post. And in some ways the entire blog.

The dark side of any philosophy is drawing negative conclusions about other people's beliefs: bigotry.
And the light side is inclusion, inquiry and confirmed understanding.

When you understand the truth in the Other, you take a step forward towards Truth. And you have an objective basis to then evaluate where the Other may come up short.

When you are searching for information only to destroy, that is never going to be balanced or objective because you must leave many facts out. And doing this proves you are starting with a pre-conceived conclusion in mind, which is actually prejudice, rather than loving all the facts and letting the scales fall where they may.


@ Spence

Hahahaha .....

Find a quote of me that proves your point 5 to be correct and not an fantasy ...
Not YOUR interpretation but an actual quote.

hahahaha

Spence, you're the one who creates discord through your incessant comments that mostly either attempt to convert people to become RSSB initiates through your preaching of the glories of your supposed inner experiences and the marvel of the RSSB philosophy, or try to deflect attention from the subject of the post when your arguments are shown to be false and hollow.

In other words, you act iike a troll -- a form of humanity on the Internet that I'm intimately familiar with after 19 years of blogging. Because you're an interesting troll, and from time to time make reasonable points in your comments, I allow your troll'ish comments to remain published.

I just respectfully ask you to examine your commenting behavior, instead of responding defensively whenever I or someone else points out that you constantly change the subject when you're caught in a logical/factual corner that places your assertion in a bad light.

The most recent example is that I and others have conclusively showed that a key RSSB teaching is that the guru is God in Human Form, a Perfect Living Master, and that the only way back to God is initiation by a guru who possesses these qualities. Otherwise, it isn't possible.

Instead of admitting that you were wrong, just like Trump never admitting that he lost the election even after he was told this by his close advisers, you persist in calling what I said in the preceding paragraph "fake news" even though it clearly isn't.

I don't know what your motivation is for continually causing doing this in your comments. I can only assume that your faith in yourself and your chosen spiritual path is so weak, you only feel good about yourself by constantly denying facts and proclaiming your own spiritual greatness. Which, as others have pointed out, goes against the RSSB teachings to be humble and quiet about one's inner experiences.

I'll end by saying that you just did this again in a comment above. Neither Appreciative Reader nor I, I'm pretty damn sure, have said anything about belief in the guru being God in Human Form being a requirement for initiation. The subject is whether this belief is part of the RSSB teachings. This is another example of how when you've lost an argument, you try to shift the discussion to a completely different subject.

The subject at hand, again, is whether the God in Human Form thing is part of the RSSB teachings. Indeed, it is. It is the most important part. If you don't understand this, this tells me that either you are ignorant of the philosophy that you claim to embrace, or you're purposely trying to stir up dissension on this blog for your own personal interest and enjoyment. Either way, I urge you to click on the "Commenting" link at the top of this page and refresh your memory as to how commenting is to happen.

@ Back from the dead,

Agreed,´ we are all God´
What else could we´ Be!
Every living creature...is...

Just Be...
With God..

S
If you agree then why the shock that the masters are aware of this state?

Hi Brian:
I understand your view. But I stated in my view above what I believe.
The name calling doesn't really suite you Brian Ji, nor is it appropriate.
We can go over it again, or you can just skip this.
I don't troll anyone, Brian Ji. I responsed to AR's comment in response to what I'd written earlier.

It would have been fair and objective to review the facts. I'm not a complainer though, so let's go ahead and do that.

I stated facts without name calling:

Let's review them in detail:
"1. The actual beliefs of Satsangis is something you [AR} have admitted you do not know, or know well enough to make sweeping statements about. That is a very good thing. At least it is honest."

Would you agree to this as well, Brian Ji? Or do you believe indeed you actually know what all, or even generically most Satsangis believe? And what would be the evidence for that?

Simple question. No name calling needed.

"2. The only vows in Sant Mat are those that promote the meditation practice, the vegetarian and drug free lifestyle, and living to the highest moral standards"

Is this true or not?

"3. There is no requirement to swear any vow of faith or belief in anything or anyone."

Do you disagree? Do you have evidence of some other vow I missed at initiation? One that says "I vow that the Master is GIHF?"

I don't think so. That's my point, Brian Ji. But if you have such evidence please present it.

"4. The masters write as much, and some Satsangis here have already confirmed these things."

True or not?

You are arguing that Sant Mat teaches that the Master is God In Human Form. You are insisting upon it as a teaching...like you should believe it. I certainly agree that the Masters have written this about their own Master. Their own experience. Yes, it's there. Is it a requirement to believe? No it isn't. How hard is that to acknowledge?

It's only there to encourage you to find out for yourself, according to the same Masters you quote.
No? Is that not right?

The only thing the Masters insist upon is following the prescribed lifestyle and teachings.

That's why I say that an Atheist serious about inner exploration as one scientific avenue of exploration would be welcomed into Sant Mat.

In fact when asked about this very point they say it's impossible to know and advise NOT to hold blind superstitious faith even in these disclosures. They agree with the scientific side of your thinking...to find out for ourselves and not take these things on blind faith.

If you have any citation from a Master who wrote that we should take this on blind faith I would like to read it. Certainly not my Master or yours.

But my point is that believing in that isn't central to initiation or the practice. Therefore while it is a recurring theme, as a personal observation of the Masters, it isn't a core tenet or "teaching". Unless telling you what the Masters believe is a teaching. I think a Teaching is something you are supposed to believe in and follow...like the instructions for meditation. Like the vows for initation. Those are core teachings / tenets.

To me the rest is just common discoveries reported by practitioners, ie; the Masters.

You claimed this is irrelevant but I present it to contrast with your claim, to point out that none of what you presented is contained in the actual vows we took. However, there are indeed vows that the initiate must believe and adhere to.

It would be easy for you to simply say "Yes, this is the vow, but I believe the Masters are teaching GIHF".

I would disagree on that front also, because no Master demands or even asks any seeker or initiate to believe it, only have enough belief in the possibility of inner progress that they vow to do the meditation.

Brian Ji, I've not ignored what you wrote. I didn't claim it wasn't real. In fact I did something you do not. I acknowledged the quotations you made as real, but tried to put them into a real context.

"3. There is no requirement to swear any vow of faith or belief in anything or anyone."

Is this wrong? Show me where.

"4. The masters write as much, and some Satsangis here have already confirmed these things. "

That our job is to see for ourselves, not take things on blind faith.

Call me all the terrible names you like Brian ji.

But along the way if you could address item by item what I wrote, it will be easier for me to put all that aside and seriously consider what you are writing.

I think it is a good exercise to place the writings of the Masters about their beliefs and experiences, and the actual requirements those Masters make of us for RSSB initiation, into a balanced context with each other.

Really, why not balance these in context Brian Ji?

I'm sure your balance will be different than mine. But leaving out these facts, not addressing them as part of the whole is problematic for me, appears slanted. Addressing the whole story costs you nothing to acknowledge.

You already know that I have no belief in the supernatural. I take all those stories and claims as nothing more than culture-bound labels around a real practice.

But I do believe this path is a real connection to whatever is in our bodies and brains. And one worth understanding. Because there are a few unknown mysteries in each of us. No need to glorify it with supernatural terminology. But it is understandable how past cultures would do this, especially if the experiences are valuable.

That's also why I said you needn't have left RSSB.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.


Hey, Spence.

Since that comment of yours was about what you'd said to me, and what you'd said to me is referenced on what we said to each other across those two threads, I suppose this is where I'm supposed to do a point-by-point sussing out of your comment. Except, I'm thinking, I won't. This ...thing, it's gone on long enough. So let me just quickly touch on two things, one directly from your comment, and the other a general observation.


(1) As far as Guru = PLM/GIHF in RSSB, Brian's presented voluminous quotes directly from their scriptures, and I myself (albeit in an effort-free exercise of google-fu!) presented over 300 references, officially made. The latter show, incontrovertibly, that GSD acquiesces in having himself described as the Perfect Living Master. Not once have you acknowledged that plain fact.

You've introduced the vows into the discussion. Now personally I found that interesting, both what the actual vows are, as well as the fact that someone who's openly atheistic can be admitted into their fold, because I hadn't known that. But, while that's interesting, especially to someone like me who hadn't known this, but it's still a non sequitur. I wonder why you can't see this plain fact. It's an added nuance, sure; but it doesn't change the fact RSSB teachings and de facto practice, obviously at the very least as acquiesced to by the Guru himself, does look on the Guru as PLM. And, to that extent, to keep harping on the vows thing, which is something you chose to introduce as a sidebar, and what's more focusing on it not so much as an additional nuance but as somehow central to the discussion itself, that is the part that is ...let's just say, not quite ...quite. And your repeatedly employing tactics like that comes across as either amusing, or else exasperating, depending; but all it serves to do is to impede discussion and understanding, not further them.


(2) All of this is just a blip. You're a great guy, with a wonderful knowledge base of things spiritual, and specifically RSSB, as well as well able to clearly reason through most things most times, so that your inputs here are usually very instructive, and very much welcome. Just wanted to put that out there as well.


Anyhoo. Maybe we could just ...move on, from this thing, whatever it was?

Hi AR
I wrote above to Brian Ji
"But my point is that believing in that isn't central to initiation or the practice. Therefore while it is a recurring theme, as a personal observation of the Masters, it isn't a core tenet or "teaching". Unless telling you what the Masters believe is a teaching. I think a Teaching is something you are supposed to believe in and follow...like the instructions for meditation. Like the vows for initation. Those are core teachings / tenets.

"To me the rest is just common discoveries reported by practitioners, ie; the Masters."

This is why I don't believe GIHF is a "teaching" or a"core tenet" because it isn't required.

That's why I place very little importance in it. Yes every RSSB master claims their Master is GIHF.

No they don't care if you believe it or not in order to be initiated or their "follower" . Yes they do insist that you follow the instructions for meditation and lifestyle.

You see, that's why I place so much importance on the vows and the practice. They are core requirements, teachings, tenets.

GIHF is an interesting belief of the Gurus but not one they want anyone else to believe in their report.. They only want you to see things for yourself. That's more important, more central, a real teaching, and in fact it is a requirement.. Therefore I don't think it's actually that important or central or "core" to the RSSB teachings or requirements whatever the hell the Gurus report.

I hope that at least acknowledges what you wrote and also places it into perspective.

An Atheist can be a Satsangi... Just as Atheism is accepted within Judaism.

You see, my training as a Jew has this logic: All that is required is to follow the ten commandments. Outside those you can do and believe whatever the hell you like. Even that God doesn't exist.

This isn't a new way of thinking at all.

AR,

It's funny you referred to RSSB books as scripture. We don't see ourselves as having scripture, but there I was quoting from them like they were!

I like how our Masters expressed themselves on the page, but the point (as per Spence) was always to get us to practice and go within. Charan Singh's constant refrain was "simran and bhajan."

@ Brian [ The subject at hand, again, is whether the God in Human Form thing is part of the RSSB teachings. Indeed, it is. It is the most important part. ]

Brian, oh mercy me... I agree with you! But Spence made an
equally important point. Talking about GIHF is like idle chatter
about, say for instance, a lovely "unicorn" in your garage.
Alleged of course until evidenced thru practice, peeping
tirelessly thru the window to catch a glance. It remains idle
chatter though until the unicorn is experienced inside and
you merge with God consciousness.

But, whether he himself is a "unicorn" remains unspoken of by
a guru. It would be immodest to hint a comparison with himself.
He will, if asked directly, say he's an ordinary person, a servant
doing seva. That's what fills his moments.

Besides, you've given evidence GIHF is clearly there in official
RSSB literature. Now we can continue looking for unicorns.

Hi, Spence.

We’re back to repeating ourselves now. I don’t see the point to doing that yet again, but since you’ve addressed that post to me, and at such length, it would be discourteous of me to ignore it.

I totally reject both of your themes in your comment. Here’s why.


-----


First, your insistence that GIHF/PLM isn’t a “core teaching”. I reject that proposition in the strongest possible terms, both in terms of being a non sequitur unrelated to the original discussion, as well as stand-alone. You’re, once again, trying your damnedest best to shift goalposts, first by bringing in this idea of “core teachings” vis-à-vis simply “teachings” (when all that was being discussed is whether RSSB teaches GIHF/PLM, which you refuse to once acknowledge); and further by equating “core teachings” with vows.

Now, like I've already said, I appreciate your bringing up the RSSB vows, in general terms, because I hadn’t known about this; and further, and like I’ve said more than once, I think that shows that RSSB is less rigid and less authoritarian than, say, (most denominations of) Christianity, certainly than RCC, and less rigid and less authoritarian than Islam as well, in as much belief in Guru and God isn’t something you need to swear to and by, apparently. Nevertheless, and even despite not being an expert on things RSSB, my acquaintance with their teachings makes it entirely obvious that Sach Khand, and Kal, and the inner cosmology, as well as GIHF/PLM, and Surat and Jiva, all of these are very much teachings of RSSB.

Sure, as you’ve said, these aren’t part of the four vows. But “vows” aren’t all the teachings are about. For instance, apparently our Osho Robbins was shunted out from speaker-ship with RSSB for putting forward his view that Sach Khand is metaphorical, and the ultimate truth is Oneness. (Now I’m not saying I agree with Osho Robbins’s Oneness; but I’m simply pointing out that his dissension wasn’t tolerated; and, while he wasn’t ejected from his membership of RSSB, but his speaking assignment was taken away from him.) Likewise Brian as well, in fact; at this moment I don’t remember what exactly he’d said that got him banned (from speakership, not the organization), but it is a fact that his views, that differed from the official teachings, wasn’t allowed free play within RSSB.

And finally, it isn’t a question merely of some practitioners, including Gurus, presenting their testimony about GIHF/PLM and leaving it at that. The fact is that the present Guru acquiesces to being himself referred to repeatedly as PLM by others in the organization. And clearly presents himself to the organization at large as some kind of spiritual authority, by fielding Q&A sessions that cover a whole gamut of questions that he simply hasn’t the (secular) authority to address, lacking any professional qualifications in psychology, for instance, or career counseling, or what-have-you; any authority he holds, by virtue of which he presumes to give those wide-ranging talks and answer those wide-ranging questions, derive purely from his supposed GIHF/PLM-ship.

I could go on, but it’s clear, at this point, that you’re trying your best to spin this, in order to somehow avoid admitting that RSSB does, without a shadow of a doubt, teach the Guru’s GIHF/PLM-hood.


-----


As for atheism being accepted within Judaism: A few individual self-confessed atheists may well be tolerated, I don’t know enough to comment on that; but Judaism itself is far from atheistic. This I can say with confidence even despite not knowing a great deal about Judaism.

For instance, and as you yourself say, “All that is required is to follow the ten commandments.” And what are these ten commandments?

This quickly googled link (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-ten-commandments) will take you to those commandments, the first three of which are as follows (and I quote):

1) I am the Lord thy god, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

2) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.


So that following the ten commandments necessarily means accepting the God as your Lord. It necessarily means not revering and worshiping any other God other than the Jewish God. And further that you won’t blaspheme against this Jewish God.

And those are the top three, and therefore presumably the most fundamental, of the commandments. None of that squares with atheism.

Sure, individual atheists may be tolerated within Judaism. Like I said, I don’t know enough to comment one way or the other myself about that. But that is a question of tolerating a few individuals. Like you might, in an organization that is put together specifically to hurt and kill others (for instance the mafia; or, to take a more “legal” example, the army) might accommodate a few individuals of peaceable comportment who refuse to take up arms themselves, in roles that don’t require actively fighting and killing; but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the organization itself is exactly the opposite of peaceable.

This is not to take away from the Judaic traditions you’ve grown up in Spence. All respect for that, and for the open debate that was and is encouraged in that tradition, absolutely. But Judaism as a whole is most definitely the exact opposite of atheistic, as evidenced by the top three commandments; as well as evidenced by the fixation with the Bible (why the hell bother, at all, with that horrible document about the horrible Monster-God and the utterly horrible “morality” taught in it via those utterly reprehensible passages that “teach” misogyny and genocide and rape and pillage, otherwise, I mean why the hell even bother with the Bible at all, for what reason?); not to forget the asinine observances about and around Sabbath, and kosher, and all the rest of it, that is utterly nonsensical and derive entirely and wholly from supposed “teachings” from a supposed God.

Sorry, Spence, no disrespect intended towards Judaism, I hope you know me well enough to understand that isn’t my intent. But you’re the one who brought this up; and there’s no way in hell that I’m going to sit here and either agree with or by staying silent indirectly acquiesce with your implied claim that Judaism as a whole is somehow either atheistic or even remotely rational or reasonable.

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.