The idea of a guru being more than human makes no sense

Sometimes the obvious escapes us because our mind has been distracted with other stuff. This just happened to me.

I was idly thinking about what I should write about in tonight's churchless blog post, remembering that my previous post was about how to prove that a guru is a fraud.

What suddenly struck me was the simple reason why this is so difficult: believers in a guru typically consider that he or she is qualitatively different from other humans. 

Meaning, the guru isn't just someone with some special talents, abilities, and traits. That's true of lots of people. Sports stars. Talented actors. Brilliant scientists. Masterful politicians. Amazing musicians. So many other examples.

No, a guru often is viewed as being more than human, possessing some sort of special attribute that makes them stand apart from other people. 

The weird thing is that whatever this attribute is, it isn't apparent.

If a dozen people were put in a room and the goal was to determine which person was a guru who, say, was God in Human Form, there's no test, examination, questions, or any other means that would distinguish the guru from the others.

The guru wouldn't be more intelligent. Or more wise. Or more ethical. Or more kind. Or more eloquent. Or more anything. 

Gurus stand out only because other people say, "He or she is a guru." So it's virtually impossible to prove that a guru is a fraud, because there is no way to tell the difference between a non-fraud guru and a fraudulent guru.

Again, the reason is that there's no way to tell the difference between any sort of guru and other humans.

I'm reading a story in The New Yorker about a talented big wave surfer from Hawaii. He has many videos showing how he not only can surf giant waves, but can do tricks on them in pretty much the same way other surfers do tricks on much smaller waves.

There's no problem identifying this person as a big wave surfer. But there's a big problem identifying a person as a guru. 

Again, I'm talking here about gurus who are viewed as being more than human, as possessing some sort of divine quality, as having attained knowledge of a supernatural realm beyond the physical. I'm not talking about a "guru" who is merely a meditation teacher or a moral guide.

That sort of guru is firmly in the category of other teachers and guides, a normal human being with a talent that can be conveyed to others. 

Since the other sort of guru, the God in Human Form variety of guru, has no attribute that sets them apart from other people, it's no wonder that they typically get the title of Guru in one of two ways. Either they are anointed as guru by another guru, or they start calling themselves a guru.

Pretty good game. It fools many people. No talent required.

All you need to set up shop as a guru is the title, which you can give to yourself or inherit from a previous guru. Then money, prestige, and power can be yours if you play your guru cards properly.

While some may call you a fraud, there's no way for them to prove this, since there is nothing that distinguishes a guru from a non-guru other than the fact that people have chosen to believe that one of them is a guru and one isn't.

Comments

[Dungeness]

@ Brian [ While some may call you a fraud, there's no way for them to prove this, since there is nothing that distinguishes a guru from a non-guru other than the fact that people have chosen to believe that one of them is a guru and one isn't. ]

Pure speculation but I think a mystic, while nominally agreeing, would
say the real tests are inside. A guru wannabe can fake outward signs.
He can sport a robe, full beard, a serene demeanor, speak entrancingly
about inner regions... but he can't fake being fully awake or con others
who are. After all the mystic who realizes God they say attains "totality
of consciousness". The pretender has nowhere to hide.

Even before exposure within, the fake will be walking a tightrope before
credulous audiences. Ishwar Puri tells the story of a "mystic" boasting of
his experience in the inner world when a mischievous child ran up and
jabbed his leg with a safety pin. The serene "mystic" flew into a rage...
chasing him with a stick. The jig was up.

[Spence Tepper]

Trying to understand why people attrribute subjective qualities to others starts with listening to their experience.

"She is lovely!"
" He is kind!"
"I find nothing special in them"

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. If we are open minded I guarantee we will all learn something new.

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.

[777]

Good piece Spence
10 000 000
say "She is lovely!" " He is kind!"

9
say "I find nothing special in them"

777

[Appreciative Reader]

"Pretty good game. It fools many people. No talent required."

----------

Indeed. To become a 'Guru" is the perfect scam. If you get carried away with your success as a "Guru", and start to fill your pockets overly much, like GSD did; or start killing people, like some others who were caught out have done; or maybe start reaching inside the skirts of your more attractive disciples, as again quite a few of those who ended up disgraced had done; that is when it's a bit of a toss-up: that is to say, you may quite likely get away even with all of that, but on the other hand there's a fair chance that you'll be exposed and disgraced and all of that. But if you're content merely to let the rubes hail you to the sky as the messiah, and quietly enjoy the fame and, more to the point, the material benefits that usually follow, well then you're set. You've got a good thing going, that no one can do anything about. You can only fool some of the people all of the time, but those "some" are quite adequate to keep you well fed, so screw the whole bunch of others that see through your charlatanry, who cares about about those others?

Yep, that's the best con game in town, "Master"-hood.

[Say what]

Near death experiences are supposedly a preamble to what we may see when we approach our final breath. Who do people see in their visions? They see a very close friend, they see Elvis, or their mom or dad. What does this mean? Don't know. If you see your "guru" in your mind's eye, that means you're attached to him in some sort of emotional way. Good for you if that's a goal for you.

We can't, in my limited scope and opinion, use this as proof of anything. Seeing something or hearing something your mind generates is proof of nothing.

I believe Prof David Lane did an experiment with his class and asked them to sit quietly and meditate at the eye center. I don't remember the exact numbers, but a large percentage saw or heard light/sound. I guess that makes David Lane a guru. He just needs to grow his beard out and learn how to tie a turban...

We're so eager to latch on to anything that we'll gravitate to anything, and we tend to throw our sense of discrimination and reasoning in the process.

[Ron E.]

In my view, anyone who sets themselves up as a guru, spiritual guide, mystic, holy man or any sort of worshipful figure – or even accepting such a role is someone to be very wary of. Not saying that they are necessarily frauds, more that they have overstepped the mark of being a teacher. A teacher can help enlighten people (in the sense of helping to understand) more about themselves and their relationship to their particular environment and their place in it.

To grant oneself any sort of divine or God-like status and to be worshiped as such is in danger of creating a cycle of psychological dependency and exploitation. By contrast, someone who is simply a teacher, someone who has understood the problems encountered in just being a human being and who can communicate such without becoming or accepting veneration (maybe simply a friend) is just maybe, someone to listen to.

But it is difficult, mainly because our lot as human beings often includes a good deal of fear and anxiety, it is quite natural to look for some person, organisation or system to tell us what we should do, and, the more knowledge they appear to have, (particularly in the spiritual sphere) the more appealing they sound. Their messages often encompasses the area of our mortality with some sort of assertion that we are special.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Trying to understand why people attrribute subjective qualities to others starts with listening to their experience.

"She is lovely!"
" He is kind!"
"I find nothing special in them"

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. If we are open minded I guarantee we will all learn something new.

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."

----------

.I've quoted all of your comment here, Spence, to capture all of what you're saying here without leaving anything out.

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.

Further, there's a huge difference between someone saying subjectively, "He's a kind person", or, even more subjectively, "She's beautiful"; and someone believing, also subjectively, that "That gentleman there was actually hatched from an egg, as all avatars of the One True God are, and when he was a baby a day old he wiped everyone's memories to make them all believe that he was born like everyone else. And how the world works is, it is basically the thoughts of this gentleman materialized, that and nothing else. And when he dies, another avatar will take his place. And that is how the universe has functioned, right from the time The One True God created this universe." That last subjective belief, comprising all of those sentences within the quote marks, falls in a very different category than merely "He is kind" and "She is beautiful", even though in a sense all three ideas/beliefs are subjective.

[Appreciative Reader]

"A guru wannabe can fake outward signs.
He can sport a robe, full beard, a serene demeanor, speak entrancingly
about inner regions... but he can't fake being fully awake or con others
who are. "

..........Always assuming, Dungeness, that, to begin with, "inward"-ness is even a thing. We don't actually know that. Also assuming that this inward-ness, should it happen to be a thing, does not, as you say, admit of subterfuge. We don't know that either. I'm afraid what you said is just a string of one random assumption after another, all of it unevidenced and unsubstantiated. I'm not saying it's necessarily impossible; but we don't actually know that any of it applies to the real world.

[Trust but verify]

GOD'S righthand man arrested again. Wondering if Sunil (who was doing guru's work and believed guru can do no wrong) understands and appreciates the mysterious workings of a all knowing and wise guru (PLM/GIHF)?

RELs ex-chairman Sunil Godhwani arrested for alleged Rs 800-cr fraud
https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/rel-s-ex-chairman-sunil-godhwani-arrested-for-alleged-rs-800-cr-fraud-122060701171_1.html

[Dungeness]

@ Ron E. [ To grant oneself any sort of divine or God-like status and to be worshiped as such is in danger of creating a cycle of psychological dependency and exploitation. ]

IMO authentic mystics don't... they call themselves servants and reject terms
of worship. I believe over-zealous followers tend to imbue them with special
status, ritualize the use of divine titles, and lay stress on outer rites/practices
however. The slippery slope of religion.

[Dungeness]

@ A.R. [ I'm afraid what you said is just a string of one random assumption after another, all of it unevidenced and unsubstantiated. ]

Right, that's why infuriating authors, esp. of vintage techie books, would insert:
"The proof is easily derived and is left as an exercise for the reader."

Everyone stopped inserting it though as a safety measure.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Easily"? Really?

(Kidding! Just my [weak attempt at a] joke.)

---

But seriously, Dungeness, if one is to take this discussion as a means to at least trying to apprehend reality just a wee bit better than we'd started out doing, as opposed to merely bandying words and merely voicing aloud our long-held beliefs: then imagine what the result would be if one literally left the truth of what you said for the reader to test out. We have plenty of people here who've actually given meditation a more than fair trail, and some who still do. You and me included in the latter group, I believe. Can anyone, anyone at all in here, then say what their personal proof has been, that might bear on either of those questions: First, Is "inwardness" even a thing, that is, is alleged mystic experience indicative of anything at all beyond merely the (alleged) having of those experiences? And second, is there any reason to suppose that such might not admit of subterfuge, that is, one mystic will inerrantly be able to recognize the veracity of another? Given the yardstick you suggest, shouldn't we then have to reject both those propositions?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"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."

I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

If you learn what people actually believe then at least your opinion about what they believe will be closer to the truth about what they believe.

Once you know that, you can take the next step to ascertaining what is or isn't truthful in those beliefs.
Might be a mixed bag.

How much actual observation and dialogue with gurus and their followers is your current opinion based upon?

Is there any possibility your opinion might be 100% wrong?

50% wrong?

25% wrong?

Let's find out.

Let me suggest it is not complete. But you could shore up that weakness and add some objectivity with an investigative approach. Let's ask questions first then draw conclusions later.

We can count the positive and negative reports. And there will be new details. Our understanding of gurus and their followers will improve. We can dialogue with them to determine how much of their views are based on belief, what they read in books, and their own direct experience. We can get a feel for the the balance of reports. Just like product reviews.

Or reviews right here on this blog. It never hurts to get the narrative of people a little closer to the subject than we are.... And to dialogue with them for further details.

And if we fear that, then why? What have we to fear? Being wrong? All that means is that we have learned s new truth.

Can we refine those reports? Maybe ask a few more detailed questions about lifestyle and impact of belief?

No need to limit ourselves at all.

Just like real research.

It may not tell you anything about the personality of the guru, but may tell quite a bit about the person reporting, and how and why they continue in their faith, or their unbelief.

And thinking about the variety of reports, may tell you something about the personality of the believer, as well as the personality of the nihilist, and how they process similar information.

That is much more valuable than one particular opinion.

To be objective, it is important to keep the lines of communication open.

You wrote
"Further, there's a huge difference between someone saying subjectively, "He's a kind person", or, even more subjectively, "She's beautiful"; and someone believing, also subjectively, that "That gentleman there was actually hatched from an egg,"

Who thinks that? Have you actually spoken to them?

Or only speaking about them?

Your profile of the RSSB initiate is based on what? How may initiates have you actually spoken with to obtain that profile?

Did they all agree with your depiction?

If even one initiate says "that certainly doesn't apply to me" is that enough for you to open your journal and record a few more narratives before hard coding your conclusion?

[Appreciative Reader]

"If you learn what people actually believe then at least your opinion about what they believe will be closer to the truth about what they believe."

-----

Hi, Spence.

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.)

[Scott]

These posts remind me of a story I read in my childhood. One elephant surrounded by many who are blindfolded. One grabs the trunk of an elephant and describes what he thinks the elephant looks like, another grabs the ears and thinks he understands the elephant and the story goes on. Everyone with their own individual experience but since they are all blindfolded no one really has the full picture of this elephant.

A Guru and a Master is personal relationship for each individual. One feels one way and another feels something different so let it be…..

[Brian Hines]

Scott, "let it be" makes sense when we're talking about purely personal preferences. One person likes the lead singer in a rock band. Another person doesn't enjoy rock music, so either dislikes the lead singer or has a neutral opinion. Let it be. Each to their own.

But what we're talking about here are claims about reality, which we all share. It isn't a matter of like and dislike. It is a matter of truth and falsehood. Does a guru really possess some unseen inner quality that makes them more than human, even God in Human Form, as the teachings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas proclaim?

If there's no evidence of this, then it makes sense not to believe in the unseen inner quality. This has nothing to do with your elephant analogy, since elephants clearly exist. It's more like people describing how they feel about fairies. All their talk about the different qualities of fairies is meaningless as regards reality if fairies don't exist.

That talk tells us something about those who believe in fairies. But it tells us nothing about whether fairies are real. That was the basic point of this blog post.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"Can anyone, anyone at all in here, then say what their personal proof has been, that might bear on either of those questions: First, Is "inwardness" even a thing, that is, is alleged mystic experience indicative of anything at all beyond merely the (alleged) having of those experiences? And second, is there any reason to suppose that such might not admit of subterfuge, that is, one mystic will inerrantly be able to recognize the veracity of another?"

The point is to conduct your own research, AR.

If you come up empty it is entirely appropriate to claim that as for your experience, you did follow all the guidelines and the result was zero.

That's valid.

Someone else may give a different answer. But how could you judge their report?

Let me suggest a different approach.

When you mediate you are experiencing something. What is it?
What changes in your preparation have you made and what new results did you get?

You could only experience nothing if you are unconscious. So long as you have any wakefulness at all, you will experience something. What is that?

What is the object of your focus? Are you able to discern when your focus and wakefulness are better or worse?

And under what conditions?

The brain is doing stuff all the time and you can witness that by focusing within and limiting distraction from outside.

So, what is the experience? Start there. Then, how to expand that? Longer periods of more wakeful focus, and noticing the effects.

If you don't recall what actually happened from the time you sat for meditation this morning to the time you got up from meditation, there is your first objective:to wake up and become aware of what is happening.

Once you are aware you can stay focused longer. Once you stay focused longer you can see the effects of that. You will become aware of things you are not now aware of. Things your mind is too distracted normally to even become aware of.

Again, an investigative attitude yeilds new results.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"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."

No AR, I think you did not understand what I wrote.

I wrote
" If you learn what people actually believe then at least your opinion about what they believe will be closer to the truth about what they believe.

Once you know that, you can take the next step to ascertaining what is or isn't truthful in those beliefs."

I did not explain this clearly.

I do not advocate studying people's beliefs.

I advocate learning from them what they believe, and their experience around that, the reasons they hold that belief or disbelief.

The human experience may be the only tangible and immediate truth that you can grasp. But it contains amazing things. It is a truth that is available to you. Not a concept that cannot be measured.

No two followers have exactly the same belief. There are reasons for the differences. Those reasons reflect something about them. There is the glimpse into truth.

There are reasons why people who are active in their religions live longer, with less stress, less anxiety and are healthier. That is the available and visible symptoms of their belief.

And that reflects a hard truth that supports their continued belief.

Learning more from them directly provides invaluable information, factual information.

Isn't it funny how believing something that cannot exist physically actually is quite beneficial, even the very hub of life? That entirely empty vase that gives the vase its very purpose? According to the Tao?

Consider the belief in the triangle and the rectangle. There is no actual perfect physical reflection. They don't actually exist in physical reality. Yet belief in them and efforts towards building them are the foundation of just about all construction in physical space. Every tall four sided rectangular building is built upon invisible and unreal and non-existent rectangle.

The non-existent ideal is the basis for the real, though that ideal has never actually been.

[Scott]

Hi Brian, your comment:
Does a guru really possess some unseen inner quality that makes them more than human, even God in Human Form, as the teachings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas proclaim?

If there's no evidence of this, then it makes sense not to believe in the unseen inner quality.

What evidence does one need? Does he need to create some magic for people to believe?
There was an Indian guru who would create ash to come out of religious pictures thousands of miles away, is that the type of evidence you seek?

Magical tricks? My point- each one of us has a certain frame of mind as we go through life , good moments, bad times, etc. if during a point in your life you go through some experiences that is sufficient evidence for the individual to hang on to something that worked for them.

Let it be as many people have and continue to benefit from these teachings otherwise they would stop following him, isn’t that evidence this works for them? Or Guru has an inner quality which makes them follow

At the end of the day we are all evolving in this creation, if the path made sense to you in the past but it doesn’t now that’s fine also but to insist a Guru cannot be proven is only a personal opinion, The same way one describes an elephant blindfolded as he can only base it on his own experience and perhaps would ask another for evidence of what they feel elephant looks like. Even with the evidence unless it’s a personal experience who would believe?

[Appreciative Reader]

"If you come up empty it is entirely appropriate to claim that as for your experience, you did follow all the guidelines and the result was zero.

That's valid."

Hello again, Spence.

That was actually in response to Dungeness's specific suggestion, that the "reader" test this out for himself. Test what? In the context of the discussion between him and me, two things: First, is any (real or alleged) mystic experience indicative of anything at all outside of merely that experience itself? And second, is it true that one mystic can clearly recognize whether someone else claiming to be a mystic is actually a mystic or merely a fraud?

Let's take you, for instance. You've had some mystic experiences? But do you know that these refer to anything beyond merely the fact that you've had them? (That would mean, obviously, that your nerves and brain cells acted in a certain way; but that's merely restating the same thing in different words. Beyond just that, I mean to say). I think the answer's a no. (And no, don't bring in the beneficial health effects of meditation, et cetera. Because those accrue off of the meditation itself, and regardless of whether experiences per se happen or not; and in any case, are still a function of the biological processes that correspond to the meditation and the attendant experiences; they don't speak to anything beyond the experiences. So that again, I think the answer has to be a No, that is, no one here has any proof, despite a great deal of "research", that mystical experiences are indicative of anything beyond merely the tautology of those experiences having occured.)

And the answer to the second question, again correct me if I'm wrong, would have to be a No. You've had mystical experiences yourself. Does that give you an inerrant insight into whether someone else making a claim of mystical insights has truly had them at all or not? I should think not, but like I said, you can correct me if you believe otherwise.

Therefore, going by Dungeness's yardstick of personal verification, we'd need to reject both propositions, was my straightforward point there.

[In Search Of]

I think the problematic issue here is that there's nothing wrong or unacceptable with following a guru/master on faith. That's your choice and your belief. Good on ya.

What irritates people, me included, is when they verbally state a belief as fact/truth. It further irks me when the these beliefs are propagated by the institutions these gurus/masters run. Believe what you want, it's your right to do so. But don't come here and start expounding your beliefs as truth. They're not truths. They're your personal beliefs.

The guru says certain things are possible and he states that what he says is what he believes to be true, not what is the truth. He tells people if they don't believe in it, they have the choice to follow whatever faith they put their belief in.

Don't mistake your unshakable faith in your belief as the truth.
Just don't tell me it's the truth.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You asked
"You've had some mystic experiences? But do you know that these refer to anything beyond merely the fact that you've had them?"

Of course, AR! They refer to whatever caused them.

AR, when stuff happens there is a cause to those things!

Again, you make the same error
" Because those accrue off of the meditation itself, and regardless of whether experiences per se happen or not; and in any case, are still a function of the biological processes that correspond to the meditation and the attendant experiences; they don't speak to anything beyond the experiences"

Sure they do, biology, psychology and everything we are connected to that we don't understand yet.

Are you actually claiming that if you don't know it, it doesn't exist?

For real?

You wrote
"we'd need to reject both propositions, was my straightforward point there."

That would be a circular argument.

You can do better, AR.

[Appreciative Reader]

And, Spence, as far as your second comment, addressed to me: I'm not really clear what you're trying to say here.

One more time, let's deal in something concrete, rather than abstractions.

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.

But then, when it comes to actually assessing the truth value of the claim: I don't see how checking with people what their beliefs are, plays any part in this. To check the truth value of that proposition, we'd need to actually carry out these experiments on meditation by focusing on different people. And in any case, all of that again leads back to the question: So what? Do any of these experiences mean anything at all, do they have any consequences or any implications beyond merely the fact that they happened?

(Please don't keep bringing up the incidental health benefits. Those are a red herring. Because those, like I said in my previous comment, are not so much a function of the experiences per se, as of simply meditating. And in any case have nothing whatever to do with whether the Guru is someone special, or just the same as you or me.)

In other words: I don't see where you're going, at all, with your suggestion that we study the beliefs of the people.

I mean, sure, a sociologist might be interested. Also, examining someone's beliefs may be important if that person is important to you. Again, generally learning about people might itself be seen as a good thing, on general grounds of empathy and understanding. All of that, sure. But I don't see how any of this ties with whether the Guru is in any way special, in a way that others like you and I and Brian and Dungeness are not.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi In Search Of.

You wrote
"The guru says certain things are possible and he states that what he says is what he believes to be true, not what is the truth"

Exactly. That's the case for all of us.

Who knows? But we all have our beliefs, each for our own reasons.

But our beliefs are just a summary of where we are today.

The unknown awaits us! Believer and Atheist alike!

[Appreciative Reader]

"Of course, AR! They refer to whatever caused them.

AR, when stuff happens there is a cause to those things!"

.......That much is obvious, and tautological. And not what we were talking of.
The question we were discussing, Dungeness and I, was whether any of this has any implications beyond merely the fact of their having occurred (and, of course, the correlation with the physical states that correspond to such).

----------

"Sure they do, biology, psychology and everything we are connected to that we don't understand yet.

Are you actually claiming that if you don't know it, it doesn't exist?"

..........That makes no sense, Spence. I was saying, that the discussion of the health benefits to meditation is a red herring when it comes to evaluating the implications of experiences had while meditating. Because the health benefits are a result simply of meditating. To my knowledge there's no scientific research that says having experiences while meditating has beneficient effacts that meditating sans those experiences does not. So that those health benefits are irrelevant when the subject of discussion is specifically experiences.

And you seem now to be trying to overturn the burden of proof, by asking me if I have proof that it doesn't. I cannot, and don't need to, prove a negative. If I don't have evidence of something, then, while it --- whatever "it" is --- might well exist, obvously; but I have no reasonable grounds to incorporate its existence on to my worldview, not until such time as such evidence is actually forthcoming. That much is Rationality 101. And I'm not sure why we're discussing that either, and what that has to do with whether the Guru is in any way special.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"RSSB followers believe that GSD is someone more special, someone somehow different in nature, than you or me or Brian or Dungeness."

No that is not correct, AR.

There are folks who came to the path without any thought one way or the other about Maharaji or Baba Ji, and who, after decades of meditation still do not claim they can make any assertions at all about them.

And here is the wild part.

When they asked the Master, the Master never directed them to hold such beliefs.

Even in his letters to them in the books.

Nor is any such belief as you claim a requirement for initiation.

Your conception of the actual belief of all initiates is far off the mark of many, including any stated requirement to follow the path.

I challenge you to dig up any actual RSSB literature that says to follow the path one must believe the guru is superhuman. It might help you meditate without distraction, but even there the master is clear. Just be at the eye center and enjoy that. No need to believe anything. Leave off all belief.

In Christianity you must take such a vow of belief in Jesus as God.

But you are mistaken suggesting the same for RSSB. It isn't there.

Brian Ji, can you please help clear up ARs misunderstanding here?

Or do you attempt to prove your assertion?

Or simply leave the

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR

I asked..

"Are you actually claiming that if you don't know it, it doesn't exist?"

And you answered
"
If I don't have evidence of something, then, while it --- whatever "it" is --- might well exist, obvously; but I have no reasonable grounds to incorporate its existence on to my worldview, not until such time as such evidence is actually forthcoming"

So that would be a yes?

Really?

How about a different answer....

"I don’t actually know."

[Appreciative Reader]

"That would be a circular argument.

You can do better, AR."

............No way, Spence. Not in this case.

Don't just stick an empty label like that, with the air of making an argument; and what's more, with the smug air of having made an irrefutable argument; when the fact is that you aren't even saying anything, at all, of substance here.

Go ahead, then. Please lay out, clearly and unambiguously, your understanding of what Dungeness and I were discussing; and how my argument to him that, going by his own yardstick, we'd need to dismiss those propositions, is a circular argument. Go on, do that, seriously. If you're right, i'll be very happy --- really --- to acknowledge that, and acknowledge that most fulsomely.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"RSSB followers believe that GSD is someone more special, someone somehow different in nature, than you or me or Brian or Dungeness."

Which followers are those, AR?

All of them? 50% of them? 25% of them?

Unlike Christianity, initiation doesn't require any vow stating who or what the Master is.

There are many Satsangis initiated without any opinion about the Master and who have no such opinion even today.

And when some have asked the Master directly he has stated that no such belief is necessary at all.

You are mistaken.

An investigative approach to reports and dialogue with actual Satsangis can correct and inform your understanding.

Or Brian Ji could tell you the truth about this.

[Appreciative Reader]

How about a different answer....

"I don’t actually know."

Posted by: Spence Tepper | June 09, 2022 at 02:14 PM

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

You're playing silly games now, Spence.

Question: Are exo-planets made of cheese?

Will you answer, "I don't really know!" ?

(You've already conceded this point in the past. "I don't know", while technically correct, is NOT the correct answer here. You've already conceded that, don't forget.)

---

Another question: Can I fly simply by flapping my arms?

Will you answer: "I don't actually know!" ?

---

Yet another question: Do I have an invisible unicorn living in my garage?

Will you answer: "I don't really know!"?

(Again, this too is a question you've already conceded, in the past.)

----

The burden of proof is a thing. When you make a claim, then you need to back it up. If you can't, then your claim stands rejected. I don't have to prove the opposite in order to reject your claim. I don't have to say, "I don't know, maybe your claim holds, and maybe it doesn't, because I can't prove the opposite." No, if you can't prove your claim, it stands rejected. That is how rationality works. That is how a scientific worldview works.

----

(Which does not stop either you or me or anyone else from researching the issue further, of course, if we're interested and if we have the resources to spare. That's a whole separate question.)

[Appreciative Reader]

"Which followers are those, AR?

All of them? 50% of them? 25% of them?"

----------

What on earth does that have to do with whether or not the Guru is actually special, Spence?

----------

That was exactly my point. Evaluating what percentage of Catholics (or RSSB types) actually believe some point of faith, is entirely irrelevant to evaluating the truth value of that point of faith itself.

Is the Guru special, in terms of being able to channel meditation by focusing on him, in a way that you are not, in a way that I am not, in a way that Brian is not?

That question must be judged on its own.

What percentage of followers believe that proposition is utterly, utterly, utterly irrelevant to testing the truth value of the proposition itself, was my entire point in my previous comment.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"Another question: Can I fly simply by flapping my arms?"

You can answer that for yourself.
Your argument here is spurious and has nothing to do with spirituality nor science.

A more apt argument is the cave man claiming people can't fly because they simply are living in a place where aircraft are unknown.

You wrote
": Do I have an invisible unicorn living in my garage?

" Will you answer: "I don't really know!"?"

It's your garage AR.

If it were in mine I'd believe what I saw. But was that mind or spirit? That would be the basis of investigation.

Because, even seeing it, who knows? I'm seeing something. It's coming from someplace.

When five other neighbors pull me aside and ask me about that horse with the fake horn coming out of its head then I have some verification that even if it was incorporeal something indeed is happening. Could be radio waves.... Or?

When people said UFOs were a hoax they were wrong. Now the Pentagon has revealed they are a real thing.

Scientists didn't call them a hoax. Scientists said "we don't have enough information to draw a conclusion."

This is a point you seen to be missing.

Lack of data is not actual proof of anything. It's proof of those three words you seem to loathe...

I DON'T KNOW. "

Try it. It's refreshing.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"That was exactly my point. Evaluating what percentage of Catholics (or RSSB types) actually believe some point of faith, is entirely irrelevant to evaluating the truth value of that point of faith itself."

AR if 50% of the people practicing that faith do not hold that view can you really depict them all as holding that view?

You wrote
" RSSB followers believe that GSD is someone more special, someone somehow different in nature, than you or me or Brian or Dungeness."

That's a sweeping generalization and you need to back that up.

Because I don't believe, from my limited exposure to Satsangis, that you can make this statement about them.

Anyway, they burden of proof for this claim is in your court.

[Spence Tepper]

Brian Ji

During the years, say, after the twentieth year as a Satsangi, did you believe the Master was God in Human Form?

After twenty years as a Satsangi, what was your view at the time and why, at the time, did you hold that view, from your perspective then, and, separately, in retrospect, today looking back?

[Brian Hines]

Spence, I wanted to believe in Charan Singh. But I was never sure he was God in Human Form. Twenty years after being initiated was 1991. I'd gotten married to a woman who was spiritual but not religious. Laurel would ask questions about my Sant Mat beliefs. She didn't find some of my answers convincing, because they weren't. I was never a true believer.

Again, I wanted Sant Mat to be true, so for a long time I submerged my doubts -- until they rose to the surface and made it impossible for me to believe that way again. I knew the Sant Mat theology in great detail, and could communicate it to others. But that's much different from truly believing it. Surveys have shown that a high percentage of Christian clergy don't believe in God. It's a job to them, in somewhat the same fashion as I made believing my job, because it helped me get through life.

[777]

Interesting is to ask the 10 000 000 "Are U happy? . . . extreem happy .

Same qiestion to the 9

777

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

"No, a guru often is viewed as being more than human, possessing some sort of special attribute that makes them stand apart from other people."

You are well versed in the teachings. And I also agree with 777, the only quality that makes a guru more academic is humility.

You might see, in most books on the RSSB sant mat they talk about a spiritual experiment. As there are others. Other sant mats, other gurus.

But it is the experimentation which make all paths scientific. So I will make clear that I agree that even at RSSB people coin the guru as much higher than what the teachings hint to. "Holder of the Cosmos", "God's Special Representative".

These were how certain people referred to a guru when I first began to read RSSB teachings.

Yet I must add, the more I read. The teachings say that to truly become Humble or display Humility is the hardest part of the experiment! Hence where meditation begins in sitting, emptying the ego.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian Ji
You wrote
"But I was never sure he was God in Human Form."

"Again, I wanted Sant Mat to be true, so for a long time I submerged my doubts -- until they rose to the surface and made it impossible for me to believe that way again."

"Surveys have shown that a high percentage of Christian clergy don't believe in God. It's a job to them, in somewhat the same fashion as I made believing my job, because it helped me get through life."

Thank you. This helps.

I think most people have faith for a number of different reasons.

People do different things with those moments of truth when we get to the point of" I don't actually know. " They make different choices and move in different directions.

Did you have any experiences you could not, to his day, adequately explain?

Anything that would cause you to say," I don't actually know? "

[Dungeness]

@ A.R. [ Is the Guru special, in terms of being able to channel meditation by focusing on him, in a way that you are not, in a way that I am not, in a way that Brian is not? ]

I believe yes --not because the stage actor is special-- but rather because
our intuition of truth resonates with what's been communicated from the
stage.

The Guru acts as a catalyst just as Laurel's questions did for Brian. He
didn't need to worry about subterfuge or some external litmus test for
truth. Her questions/doubts mirrored ones that had already coalesced
within him.

The truth is already there accessible to us, often thru intuitive glimpses.
Our experiences in support of it become sign posts until certainty kicks
in. Later, other experiences may impart a deeper, more nuanced under-
standing of that truth too. That acuity is developed by our inwardness.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Hi AR
You wrote
"Another question: Can I fly simply by flapping my arms?"

You can answer that for yourself.
Your argument here is spurious and has nothing to do with spirituality nor science."

..........It's an analogy, Spence. And what's more, far from being "spurious", it was one of the exact analogies I had used in our past discussion, where you had clearly and unambiguously conceded this very point to me.

----------

"You wrote
": Do I have an invisible unicorn living in my garage?

" Will you answer: "I don't really know!"?"

It's your garage AR.

If it were in mine I'd believe what I saw. But was that mind or spirit? That would be the basis of investigation.

Because, even seeing it, who knows? I'm seeing something. It's coming from someplace..."

..........A whole lot of words, that say nothing. A large helping of word salad, that's clearly an attempt to somehow avoid committing to a Yes or No answer. And, what's more, once again the exact analogy I'd used in our past discussion, where you'd clearly and unambiguously conceded the question to me.

----------

"Lack of data is not actual proof of anything. It's proof of those three words you seem to loathe...

I DON'T KNOW. "

Try it. It's refreshing."

..........Ha ha ha, very clever. Very passive-aggressive condescending. In fact, very Spence.

To lack data on a claim made is to admit to a research potential. But then again, a research potential does not really need justification, except as a matter of pragmatism: merely the availability of sufficient resources, human and financial and technological, is usually adequate argument to suggest a direction for research. That is not so much a scientific question as, ultimately, a political one (in the broadest sense of the word "political").

To lack compelling evidence to back up a claim is to give up that claim. That is the bedrock of a scientific worldview, that is the very basis of a world that is "not demon-haunted", to paraphrase Carl Sagan.

Once again, we're not treading new ground here. This same argument we've had many times in the past, most notably over the course of our very long discussion, at the end of which YOU CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY CONCEDED THESE VERY QUESTIONS TO ME, that you're trying to argue de novo now, as if that past discussion never happened.

This may sound harsh, Spence, but here's a suggestion. Try intellectual honesty. Try arguing in good faith. Try to use words and reason, and your not inconsiderable intellectual capacity, to illuminate, and not to obscure. I assure you you'll find it very, very refreshing!

[Appreciative Reader]

"Hi AR
You wrote
"That was exactly my point. Evaluating what percentage of Catholics (or RSSB types) actually believe some point of faith, is entirely irrelevant to evaluating the truth value of that point of faith itself."

AR if 50% of the people practicing that faith do not hold that view can you really depict them all as holding that view?"

..........I'm saying --- very clearly, and so clearly that I don't see that you can possibly fail to understand --- that what percentage of religious folks actually have or lack belief in a certain article of their faith, is utterly irrelevant to evaluating the truth value of that claim.

Is the guru special? And is he special specifically in the ways that doctrine holds? The evaluation of the truth value of that question does not really need a sociological breakdown of the exact nature of the beliefs of the followers, and whether or not the latter varies from doctrine. Therefore, the introduction of this sidebar on your part, about polling people to ascertain their actual beliefs, while it is in itself a good enough subject for sociological research, but in the context of this present discussion it is no more than a red herring. Once again, a modus operandi you're not employing for the first time in discussions here.

----------

"You wrote
" RSSB followers believe that GSD is someone more special, someone somehow different in nature, than you or me or Brian or Dungeness."

That's a sweeping generalization and you need to back that up.

Because I don't believe, from my limited exposure to Satsangis, that you can make this statement about them.

Anyway, they burden of proof for this claim is in your court."

..........With the far more intimate knowledge of RSSB doctrine that you have, as compared to my far more cursory exposure to these things, you cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact that the very fundamentals of RSSB meditation technique involve visualizing the Master's form while meditating. Not any random form, but specifically the Master's form. Not your form, not my form, not Brian's form, not Dungeness's form; but specifically the form of the Master. How utterly weird that you should ask me to back this up! That's RSSB Meditation 101 --- and anyone here, including you yourself, can correct me on this if you think I've got that wrong. (But I KNOW I haven't --- got that wrong, I mean to say.)

In as much as that is basic, FUNDAMENTAL RSSB doctrine, to that extent that is what the followers believe. But, and to reiterate what I've been saying throughout this thread, and that, true to style, you keep side-stepping:

While the question of what percentage of RSSB followers actually believe in some specific article of faith that RSSB teaches might be an interesting question, and a valid enough subject for sociological research, whether formally or simply informally: But that has nothing whatsoever to do with how the truth value of that claim, that is derived from doctrine, stands. That visualizing the form of the Master helps channel and focus one's attention effectively, and fundamentally differently than doing that with some random person like you or me or Brian or Dungeness. Is the Master actually special in that respect? THAT is the question. (Of course, the more general question is, Is the Master special? So there's other traits to it, that RSSB doctrine holds as special, that one would also want to examine, sure. For instance, his GIHF-hood. But I've used that one single instance of his being thought special only as example, and stuck to that example alone simply for the sake of simplicity.) TO EVALUATE WHETHER THE MASTER IS "SPECIAL", IN THE SPECIFIC WAYS THAT DOCTRINE HOLDS HIM TO BE SPECIAL, AND THEREFORE THE SPECIFIC WAYS THAT FOLLOWERS PRESUMABLY HOLD HIM TO BE SPECIAL, DOES NOT REQUIRE, AT ALL, A BREAK-DOWN OF WHAT PERCENTAGE OF FOLLOWERS ACTUALLY HOLD THAT VIEW. THAT BREAK-DOWN, WHILE A VALID RESEARCH QUESTION, IS IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION, IN THE CONTEXT OF ANSWERING THE QUESTION, "IS THE MASTER SPECIAL, IN A WAY THAT YOU AND I AND BRIAN AND DUNGENESS ARE NOT, AND IN THE SPECIFIC WAYS THAT RSSB DOCTRINE MANDATES?" ------ OR, MORE BRIEFLY AND SIMPLY, THE QUESTION, "IS THE MASTER SPECIAL?" ---- IN THE CONTEXT OF ANSWERING THAT QUESTION, THAT SIDEBAR THAT YOU'VE INTRODUCED, AND THAT YOU HOLD ON TO FOR DEAR LIFE, IS UTTERLY IRRELEVANT, AND SERVES AS NO MORE THAN A RED HERRING, A DEBATE POSTURING THAT SEEKS TO SIMPLY DIVERT ATTENTION AND OBSCURE THE ISSUE.

[Appreciative Reader]

@ A.R. [ Is the Guru special, in terms of being able to channel meditation by focusing on him, in a way that you are not, in a way that I am not, in a way that Brian is not? ]

I believe yes --not because the stage actor is special-- but rather because
our intuition of truth resonates with what's been communicated from the
stage.

The Guru acts as a catalyst just as Laurel's questions did for Brian. He
didn't need to worry about subterfuge or some external litmus test for
truth. Her questions/doubts mirrored ones that had already coalesced
within him.

The truth is already there accessible to us, often thru intuitive glimpses.
Our experiences in support of it become sign posts until certainty kicks
in. Later, other experiences may impart a deeper, more nuanced under-
standing of that truth too. That acuity is developed by our inwardness.

Posted by: Dungeness | June 09, 2022 at 07:27 PM

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

Fair enough, Dugneness. That sounds reasonable.

You're saying the Master is special, in the specific context we were discussing him in, but not because of anything intrinsic in him, but precisely because people hold him to be special, basis doctrinal teaching, so that their very faith helps to create a channeling and a focus. Fair enough. Very clearly explained, and a reasonable enough POV.

However, to tie it back to what we'd been discussing: I don't know how commonly held is your POV amongst RSSB followers at large --- I suspect it is an atypically enlightened, atypically reasonable, and an iconoclastic/fringe view, but of course I don't know that for a fact --- but clearly your POV is at odds with what RSSB teaches, and very much at odds with the specific kind of "special"-ness that it teaches for the Guru. And indeed, objectively speaking, then, basis your POV, the Guru is not special at all. He is no more special than Laurel was for Brian, in your example, in his arriving at his particular truth, merely an incidental catalyst that happened to helpful but was probably not absolutely necessary to the process. The "Master", then, basis your POV, is no more special than you yourself might be, or Brian, or I, or Spence, should someone elect to focus on one of us with full faith instead of the Master.

(Of course, whether any of this amounts to anything at all outside of simply the act of mediation, and outside of any mystical experiences should they be forthcoming --- that is, whether this mediation and these experiences have any external validity [outside of the utterly mundane and utterly irrelevant-in-this-context red herring of the medical benefits that Spence keeps bringing up] --- that question still remains unanswered. But that's fine, because that wasn't a question we'd set out to answer, in this instance. Just, I wanted to make sure that that's clearly understood, that that external validity continues to remain unaddressed through this discussion. Which, of course, is fair enough, like I said, given the subject matter of the discussion.)

So then, basis your POV, we've come to the short answer to our question, BASED OFF OF RSSB DOCTRINE ITSELF which we're granting only provisionally and only for the present and only for the sake of this argument (BUT THAT
RSSB DOCTRINE TEMPERED WITH YOUR PARTICULAR POV AS FAR AS THE ROLE OF THE GURU):

And that short answer is: ----------------------------------No, the Guru isn't special, at all. Although sure, he plays a useful role. A role that anyone else, including you and me, might play just as effectively.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

"RSSB meditation technique involve visualizing the Master's form while meditating. Not any random form, but specifically the Master's form. Not your form, not my form, not Brian's form, not Dungeness's form; but specifically the form of the Master.."

"So there's other traits to it, that RSSB doctrine holds as special, that one would also want to examine, sure. For instance, his GIHF-hood."

I will just add the actual doctrine from a book written by one of the gurus himself available online in Spiritual Gems, people may want to see for clearification. Since you left out the term; dhyan in your post. This term itself proves no such claim or claiming of 'gihf' by a RSSB guru.

Such concentration is allowed to be at the navel center or other centers depending on the form of yoga:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali
(see dhyana)

&

DHYAN

-Contemplation; a form of spiritual practice;
attention; esoterically, beholding the form
of the Master within.
http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/spiritualgems.pdf
[Taken from Glossary - page 392 (404 in Adobe Reader)]

[777]

"But I was never sure he was God in Human Form."
You never generated some Love for Him

You deliberately ignored the physical tangible proofs that
I offered here in this blog
You ignored my repeated offers to send you this material proof
What does it say?
Yes, . . the existence of this blog was at stake
or you had to make a 189° turn

777

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR

I had commented on your question about seeing a unicorn...

"If it were in mine I'd believe what I saw. But was that mind or spirit? That would be the basis of investigation.

" Because, even seeing it, who knows? I'm seeing something. It's coming from someplace..."

And you responded with

" ..........A whole lot of words, that say nothing. A large helping of word salad, that's clearly an attempt to somehow avoid committing to a Yes or No answer."

No, AR, clearly you missed what I wrote altogether.

If I'm seeing something then it's real for me. It's in my experience. I don't need to have any explanation to at least acknowldge the experience.

Then, I can investigate it rather than label it or dismiss it.

You failed to understand what I wrote and chose to dismiss it as nothing, or worse.

I was clear on this point...

"But was that mind or spirit? That would be the basis of investigation."

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"To lack compelling evidence to back up a claim is to give up that claim."

And you made a claim about RSSB followers.

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

How do you know that this is a generally held belief?

So far you've not backed up your claim that in general RSSB followers believe this.

You're shifting away from your own statement trying to claim it is a basic tenet of Sant Mat when in fact it isn't required and not a vow.

Brian Ji himself indicated he believes many Satsangis probably don't believe this. He was a practicing Satsangi for decades who admitted he never believed it, though he wanted to. Maybe the vast majority of RSSB followers are similar. Maybe for many RSSB followers it isn't a claim they make or have any interest in at all.

Clearly you have no idea of the proportion of initiates who don't have any opinion on this point.

And you are also unfamiliar, apparently, with the statement of at least four of the RSSB Gurus on this point: it isn't necessary to believe anything at all about the guru other than that they are simply teaching a method of meditation and a lifestyle of peace and harmony.

So, as for your contrary claim that this is in fact what RSSB initiates believe, you will need to take your own advice and give up that claim.

"To lack compelling evidence to back up a claim is to give up that claim."

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
""RSSB meditation technique involve visualizing the Master's form while meditating."

This is not exactly correct, AR.
If you have read any Sant Mat literature it is very clear that you are not to use imagination at all at any point.

If you have seen the Master in real life, and you can recall his form, you focus on that. That's memory, not imagination. If you have never actually seen him in person, then you are to just sit in the darkness. The idea is to put aside thinking and imagination, not indulge in them.

At some point his form comes all of its own, no effort on your part.

When the Master's form comes it comes from a different place altogether than imagination. Therefore imagining the Master is actually preventing that natural process from happening.

Even still you are just getting my take, and not actual verification with RSSB, or through the books. That would be your true standard and source to confirm your claims about RSSB and Sant Mat.

[Jim Sutherland]

If those who have tried the Sant Mat Meditation Technique and have never heard or seen any of the promises, don’t give up! Forget about which Guru is God in human form, or who is a Saint or a Charlatan , and just get back to the absolute basics of the Technique we were taught at Initiation.
I have been using the same Meditation Technique since April, 1988. I still meditate 2-3 hours daily, using exactly the Technique that Ishwar Puri still shares with all he Initiates. Bhajun ( it has various spellings, depending,. I.e. Bahjun, Bajhun, etc,) means listening to the Sound. In the Initiation, we were told there are 10 or more sounds, but the Great Master, Sawan Singh said to focus on only two., i.e. the Conch, and the Bell. Actually, the Conch sounds like a big sea shell, when lightly plugging the right ear with the thumb. It also sounds like Jet Engines when flying. But that is no longer needed once the Ringing Radiance of the Bell is heard. Seasoned Initiates usually hear the Bell 24/7. Sant Mat, or The Path of The Masters, is the Path of the Sound Current. ALL Lights, and Visuals originate from the Sound Current, which is called Shabd, by Sant Mat Masters.

When initiated in to this Sound & Light Meditation, we were instructed to spend 3/4 of first time, focusing at the 3rd Eye, looking in to the black Void, while doing “Simran”, which means Repetition of the Mantra we ALL were given, as Initiates of this lineage of Living Masters. During this time doing Simran, the very same internal visions at the 3rd Eye is duplicated in every “ successful” Meditation, by ALL Initiates of this Lineage who took the Vows and continue to do their best to keep them to their ability. The internal Signs are specs and flashes of silver white light, of various shapes, then a golden Sun or Sphere, which then forms a Silver White Moon inside, or within the Sun, ......until the Golden Sun dissolves leaving only the Moon,....until it morphs in to a swirling Silver White rotating Cloud, with a black hole in the center that either sucks you in, or you rapidly fly thru the black hole to rest in the Black Void, where all visuals and sounds cease. This is the Region of Samadhi , of Hindus, or Sach Khand of the Radhasoamis, or the I AM THAT of the Advaitists. Only Awareness remains there. But this “death” in this Void, is only temporary, while traveling there to die while living, ......until the physical body dies, and the knotted mind/soul remains in the Void until Reincarnation back in to Duality, ( to further become Missionaries of our Higher Soul Selves to balance Karmas.) during Meditation, after the 3/4 times is completed doing Simran, ( For Initiates, we ALL use the same Mantra, but for those not initiated, I suggest using your own favorite Mantras during Simran) , then comes the time to devote the last 1/4 time to doing Bahjan, or listening to the Sound. This is similar to doing “Mindful Meditation” while listening to the Sound. Using a Recliner Chair, as I do, its very easy and practical to raise my knees up far enough to support resting my elbows on my knees, instead of sitting on the ground, or floor in the Indian Squat position we were shown at Initiation. Or, using the T - Stick to support the elbows. In the Recliner, minimal change of position, or interfering with exiting Samadhi, or the Void interferes with transition from Simran to Bahjun. Once the elbows are resting on the Knees, then, the RIGHT Thumb LIGHTLY plugs the hole of the RIGHT EAR, ( experiment with how much pressure is needed to listen to the variance in Sounds). The LEFT thumb should NOT plug the left ear, but only rest on the ear flap. The reason only the right ear is plugged, is that we are instructed to listen to the sounds coming from the right of the 3rd eye first, until it centers in the middle. Now, we were told by The Great Master, Sawan Singh, in his Book, “ Spiritual Gems”, that there may be 10 different Sounds, but once the right ear is plugged, the TWO Sounds to listen for is first, the Conch, ( sounds like large sea shell, or roaring wind, or Jet engine while flying),......until the Sound of the Shabd, becomes the ringing Radiance of the Bell tone, with out any breaks in the Ringgging! Once this Rinnnngggging Sound has been reached, most Initiates continue hearing the ringing Radiance 24/7 when ever the mind is unoccupied by work, or normal duties. Last but not least, as another “ personal “Tip”, during listening to the Conch Sound, I internally, silently Hum,.....OMMMM,....until the Ringing Radiance of the Bell starts chiming, then I Internally start Humming,...Ahhhhhhhh. THEN the Visuals of people, places, and things start being visualized, inside the Astral Realms. From here, all of our experiences are different, and vary, depending on our past lives, memories, and Samsaras and Karmas. Hope this helps my Fellow Travelers in the Journey of Souls.
Here are a few more tips, for accessing the Astral Planes for new Initiates, or Meditators. It really doesn’t matter your Master or Lineage, as long as you are using the Surat Shabd Yoga Meditation Technique, focusing at the black Void at the Third Eye while doing Mantra Simran. Before the whirling Silver White Multi-pointed Diamond appears, it usually first manifests as a greyish white cloud. To increase the size and clarity of the cloud, after it appears at the Third Eye, move the cloud up to the Crown Chakra for a few seconds, then back to the center; then down towards the heart for a few seconds, then, back to the center; then to the right for a few seconds, then back to the center; then to the left and back to the center. Continue to manipulate the cloud like this several more times until it will SEEM to disappear! But don’t quit doing repetition or Simran. The cloud has not disappeared. What is happening is, YOU have entered the Cloud, and should now be watching for the Silver White Star Gate inside the Cloud. Then, as you keep focusing at the tiny black hole in the center of the Star,....either you will travel through the Star in to the Astral Plane, or it will seem to travel towards you, engulfing you. Once your in the Astral Planes, all experiences will be unique and individual ,depending on your individual Karmas.
If any Seekers here, after reading this, tries it, and is successful, please share your experiences with us, and what you saw in the Astral Planes, if possible. Radhasoami!
Regarding Sant Thakar Singh! I really think , had it not been for him, I would have never started on the Sant Mat Path. I have dozens of Lucid memories of him, that I will never forget, because he first initiated me, in to the Sant Mat Path, in person, at the University of California Auditorium in L.A. in April, 1988. I “ could” share many personal experiences with him, here,....( if Any Readers are interested ? )........, because I followed him around to many of his Southern California Satsangs, in public meeting places, such as Libraries, Auditoriums, Unitarian Churches, College Campuses, and in Oregon, at his public Auditorium Sat Sangs, and climbed the mountain to see him when he was at his Mountain Ashram in Oregon, with his U.S. Female Rep., Joannie Solomon. Thakar personally touched my forehead, several different times, massaging my Third Eye, until my Third Eye was recharged , and flashes of Light came back from loosing it between seeing him. I think Thakar lost most of his Western appeal and followers after David Lane posted his Video critiquing Thakar, exposing his abuse of a few disgruntled “ me too” females. Professor Lane’s favorite Mission has been exposing the negative baggage of Gurus such as Thakar, Sai Baba, Twitchell, and most of the others who have ever been even remotely involved with Sant Mat. Considering Dr. Lane now has even critiqued Yogananda, and his Book, “ Autobiography of a Yogi”, I wonder how many Sacred Followers will leave the Path after reading Lane’s new Book? But back to Sant Thakar, I think he deserves Credit where ever it is due, especially by those like me, who he initially put on the Path, and had it not been for him, I never would have become a Vegetarian, at the very least, or continued on the Path , or stayed on it to now. Compared to the negative baggage being exposed in Gurinder Singh’s life, as Head of RSSB, Sant Thakar Singh was an Avatar!
I wonder how Professor Lane will eventually write Gurinder Singh’s Biography, as well as Dr. Ishwar Puri’s past baggage, after they die, so they also can be critiqued by Dr. Lane! I would never be allowed to share the thoughts I have shared here, on any other forum, except this one, because Dr. Ruquist , who is the Administrator of this Forum and I have always had a special, tho, unusual relationship. It was I who introduced him to Sant Mat, and Ishwar Puri, as he has shared with others. But back to Thakar,.....He had an uncanny ability to project Lazar Beams from his eyes, directly in to the eyes of any one he made personal eye contact with, in the audiences sitting in various Auditoriums. Of course, I was also an Unbelieving Skeptic until he Lazar Beamed me while I was sitting in the audience in an Anaheim, California Auditorium, and I could actually SEE the Silver White Beam of Light projecting from his eyes to others, as he made contact with their eyes. As I was waiting for my turn, hoping he would not miss me, considering I was in the center rows of hundreds of others in the Audience, he suddenly turned his head, and made personal contact with my eyes, projecting a Silver White Cord of Light, that looked like a nylon fishing line, right in to my both eyes! He held the projection there, for about 5 seconds, which almost blew my ear drums open, with the Sound of the Ringing Bell sounding like a Police Cruiser Siren! Then, the Sound left immediately, as soon as he turned away from making eye contact with me! I was not even initiated yet,....but THAT was the very first time I was EVER exposed to the Sound of Shabd! It was addicting,....and still is,...to this day! So, the Moral of my story is,....never refuse a Gift, offered by a tainted Messenger, because that may be the only time you will ever be offered such a Gift by another in this Life Time! Jump on the Salvation Express, before it leaves the Terminal, never to return! Even if only Coach Class is available, and First Class has already been filled by the Elite! ( The Last Shall be First,...and the First shall be Last), as the Bible tells us!

[77]

@JIM
Just asked myself if U were still alive
You are
I m at 10% of your introduction
See You

77

[777]

@Karim
Dhyan is imagination as U said
It's the force which made Creations and not to underestimate

It s also used when you can't find your car keys -
you don't find them without dhyan
, . . even when they are in your hand

It's very basic as opposed to the phrases used to un-learn children
by saying to them : "Just your imagination"

Btw in this discussion
Straight AFTER We were initiated
we both had a total impossibility to have dhyan of the Master
The day before we could easily
That was very strange : We could imagine our whole family
and movie stars etc, . . . but NOT Charan, . . . until it happened

but I have already given to much descriptions in this blog about this
kind of sweet nucleair explosion/implosion

and many of those 10 000 000 had that and cannot be 'un_believed' anymore

777
@JIM
Jet engines must be SWEET Jet engines , . . also these Sounds are LIVING

[Spence Tepper]

Hi 777
You wrote
"Dhyan is imagination as U said
It's the force which made Creations and not to underestimate"

This is a great demonstration that everyone has their own take on Sant Mat, including initiates.

I don't believe imagination has anything at all to do with meditation. Remembering the Master you saw in person is not the same as imagination. A woman asked Maharaji about this very point and he said "Imagination and Meditation are two completely different things. Imagination is of the mind. Meditation is to go beyond that."

when we try to think about our Guru, we are going to get it wrong time and again.
When he comes to us within that is a pure expression and experience.

Brian Ji says "The idea of a guru being more than human makes no sense"

The idea makes zero sense. It can't be comprehended. The guru can't be comprehended as an idea, let alone a reality. The very idea is absurd. The reality is another thing altogether.

But experienced directly, within? Yes. That's the point of Shabd practice. To get beyond conceptual and imaginary thinking.

Here the scientist and the mystic share the same passion: Reality.
And reality beyond human conception and imagination is more important than theology and explanations, which are, at best, rough crayon drawings of reality.

Reality is far more important. To be in passionate awe of the sunset, of the microorganisms, and the swirling clouds of stars within, these do not actually require any explanation at all. to know these things we must become the grains of sand we really are, and nothing more.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

"Hope this helps my Fellow Travelers in the Journey of Souls."

Thanks!

I now have more information than before. My first guru was a man who claimed Sant Mat yoga no longer existed. Boy I'm glad I didn't take his words as true without further investigation. I was about 21 at the time. The guy had too many followers, more disciples than I've seen anywhere, and boy was he rich, influential, and powerfully known and revered by other leaders.

Anyway, my research finally led me to Baba Ji in 2008. And I learned his meditation method. Had to walk 22 miles, was exhausted by the time the Initiates came out and found me late and staggering to make it there. I didn't get a chance to learn about the Signs you shared. Only had time to learn the charged Names, Posture, and method for Listening for Sound.

So again, thank you sir for your input!

[Spence Tepper]

The search for reality can be done in at least a couple of ways.
1. Cutting out all the stuff that is absolutely false, as far as we can tell. And BTW our judgment about that may also be false.
2. Exploration into the unknown, discovery. Whatever we find is a real thing, but real what? Who can say? Could be real imagination! See item 1 above.

;)

[Appreciative Reader]

The search for reality can be done in at least a couple of ways.
1. Cutting out all the stuff that is absolutely false, as far as we can tell. And BTW our judgment about that may also be false.
2. Exploration into the unknown, discovery. Whatever we find is a real thing, but real what? Who can say? Could be real imagination! See item 1 above.

;)

Posted by: Spence Tepper | June 10, 2022 at 09:49 AM

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

I don't know why I keep saying this again and again to you, considering that you keep sidestepping. I guess after this I'll let you alone, to keep saying whatever the hell you want to, unmolested; and touching base only to check on things directly factual; because this wild dance that never ever goes anywhere, simply doesn't lead anywhere, given your endless sidestepping and non sequiturs and red herrings and other sundry word games.

Anyway, as far as the above, that I've quoted:

Those two are not mutually exclusive, as you keep implying.

It makes sense to reject out of hand claims of teapots orbiting the planet Mars, if evidence isn't presented to support such claim. That's the part about the scientific worldview thing.

But that does NOT, in any shape or form, preclude conducting actual research about and around the planet Mars, should that subject interest one. That's the actual scientific research thing, and subscribing to a rational reasonable hard-nosed scientific worldview does not preclude curiosity and actual research.

To put in differently: Someone who is credulous, and ends up believing, or at least provisionally granting, all kinds of random unsupported claims, as far as their everyday worldview, isn't any more likely to actually conduct research on these things. Such a person is not scientifically minded; such a person is simply credulous and gullible and not very rational. And someone who does adhere to a scientific worldview, and who does reject wild unsupported claims as far as their personal worldview, is not therefore any less likely to be supportive of actual research into any of these areas that one is discussing. The one has nothing at all to do with the other.

What I'm advocating for is a rational scientific worldview. I am NOT advocating closed-mindedness as far as actual research.

You, Spence, on the other hand, subscribe to a woo-laden worldview. Since you cannot directly find fault with a rational scientific worldview --- and indeed were at one time forced, screaming and kicking, to finally admit to the reasonableness of such --- therefore, in order to defend that woo-laden worldview, you keep persisting in trying to conflate the former with the latter (that is, to conflate a rational scientific worldview with closed-mindedness as far as actual research), when in fact those are two wholly different things.

THE RATIONAL-MINDED AREN'T NECESSARILY ANY LESS LIKELY TO BE OPEN TO ACTUAL RESEARCH. AND THE WOO-MINDED AREN'T NECESSARILY ANY MORE LIKELY TO BE OPEN TO ACUAL RESEARCH. IT IS FALLACIOUS TO ADVOCATE FOR A CREDULOUS WOO-LADEN WORLDVIEW ON GROUNDS OF OPENNESS TO ACTUAL RESEARCH. AND IT IS FALLACIOUS TO REJECT A HARD-NOSED RATIONAL SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW ON GROUNDS THAT THIS SOMEHOW NECESSARILY MAKES ONE CLOSED TO ACTUAL RESEARCH. TWO SEPARATE THINGS ALTOGETHER.

I don't know why I'm taking the trouble to say this again, because no doubt you'll sidestep this one more time, or try to non-sequitur you way out of it one more time, rather than clearly acknowledge this plain fact. Habit, I guess, is why I'm doing this yet again. I'll try not to, going forward.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

"Hope this helps my Fellow Travelers in the Journey of Souls."

Thanks!

Yes, what you shared did help

[Back from the dead]

Jim Sutherland thank you 🙏 my experiences corroborate with yours

[Appreciative Reader]

Hi, Karim. Sorry, just saw your comment.

Yep, it's Dhyan, like you point out, that part of it, where one visualizes the Master in RSSB meditation. The Master, and he alone, no one else. Thanks for that input.

As far as the latter part of what you said, I wasn't very sure what you meant. Are you suggesting that the Master's GIHF-hood is something RSSB doctrine does not teach? I don't know if they use this term specifically, of course; but it is my impression, both from Julian Johnson's book Path of the Masters, as well as my general perusal of posts and comments here, that the Master is held to be someone directly connected with Godhood, he and he alone, in a way that other mere mortals are not. Are you saying that is not the case, that RSSB teachings do not claim that? (Sorry, it wasn't very clear, what you meant to say about GIHF there, in your comment addressed to me.)

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
The two methods I laid out above include all the possible combinations. They are not exclusively one or the other. In fact we each engage in a version of both.

I see the dichotomy you have provided... Woo vs Rational thinking.

I'm not sure that's well stated.

What is woo to a caveman may just be electric power to the citizen of a metropolis.

What is barbaric to the citizen of that same metropolis is just rational and basic, normal daily living to the caveman.

Their thinking is divided by their experience.

Rational thinking, restricted to the premeses they know and trust, is just dogma, not science. And not just dogma, but the basis of nationalism and racism. The rational thinking of any culture in history goes out of date regularly.

Today's religion was yesterday's rational thinking.

Rational thinking, broadened to include the unknown and indeed committed to knowing the unknown, is science.

Accepting the legitimate personal experience of others you or I will never hope to know, is the basis of inclusion. And inclusion of the unknown and untested, the full acceptance of this as part of reality is in fact the front door of science.

Whether that is the unknown experience of the Transgender, the Person of Color, or the Mystic; or the anomalous and unexplained observations of objects in space or particles that can't exist but somehow do.

Inclusion is the basis for expanding beyond the blinders of dogma.

No science can be conducted without the unknown which dogma insists can't be.

[777]

Right Spence
Water is not ice and not H2 which is not fissable H from Nagasaki

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

"As far as the latter part of what you said, I wasn't very sure what you meant. Are you suggesting that the Master's GIHF-hood is something RSSB doctrine does not teach?"

YES

Really far from what RSSB doctrine teaches.

Humility is what is not easily grasped

[7]

@Karim
Better to use the @ and repeat a lind so that we know who & what you address

7

[Trust but verify]

@Karim
" "As far as the latter part of what you said, I wasn't very sure what you meant. Are you suggesting that the Master's GIHF-hood is something RSSB doctrine does not teach?"

YES

Really far from what RSSB doctrine teaches"

Recall what is said during initiation and look at the list of shabds on the official website.
Guru is very much more than a human in RSSB/sant mat.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

"Recall what is said during initiation and look at the list of shabds on the official website.
Guru is very much more than a human in RSSB/sant mat."

Posted by: Trust but verify | June 10, 2022 at 07:15 PM

I asked him if he was. He told me he was a human being like me. And he was just parroting what his Master taught him; a better way to worship Va Hi Guru or in my religion La Ilaha Illallah

@777
sorry, sometimes my page times out before i can hit the POST button, so was chilling out on quoting more than what's been said
(will try harder)

[Dungeness]

@ trust but verify [Recall what is said during initiation and look at the list of shabds on the official website.
Guru is very much more than a human in RSSB/sant mat.]

Guru's awareness is elevated beyond that of an ordinary human who is not
fully awake.That's the key difference.

[Spence Tepper]

To know, really know requires a level of rational thinking that is uncommon. It requires a calm mind that can consider and weigh a very broad and of information often outside what is is used to.

So long as we are restricted to our own thinking, we can be deceived. Er can deceive ourselves.

Swapping views with others is another good way to get information we may have missed. However that group may not have all the relevant information either. Or they may have dismissed information they are unfamiliar with.

The human mind can be deceived. Even intellectuals are deceived often.

More thinking may not be the answer.

Investigation, testing can help.

Or we could be investigating our entire lives and come up empty.

Because we pick and choose what premeses to believe, we bend logic to our preconceived thinking all the time. It becomes merely justification.

Logic is a good prostitute who assumes any position for a fee. And that fee is our ability to understand.

But in the company of a clear-headed person we see more clearly.

Does that make such a person superior to all of the above?

[Spence Tepper]

Should read
"It requires a calm mind that can consider and weigh a very broad range of information often outside what it is used to."

[Roger]

HELLO ............ WILL THIS GO THRU ???

[Butch Punjabi]

A guru is equated with wisdom.

A guru is not the wisest or most knowledgeable or most intelligent person in the room, he doesn’t know everything - he knows something far far greater - what is worth knowing.

Who am I, wtf is it all about and why are we here?