I do my best to accept the diversity of opinions expressed by people who leave comments on this blog. Diversity is good. If we all believed in the same things, life would be super boring.
However, I'm also big on coherent conversations. While I understand that it is difficult to accomplish this via blog post comments, there's much more value in comments that can be understood by other people, as understanding is the foundation for agreements or disagreements.
Here's an example.
A few days ago I wrote "Some thoughts about what oneness is, and isn't." It wasn't one of my best blog posts. Adequate, but not more than that. I was hoping that someone else would have something wiser to say about oneness.
Because I've found that Osho Robbins, a regular commenter on this blog, often makes good sense, I did my best to understand what he was getting at in his comments on my oneness post. I failed. Here's quotes from his comments that seem to summarize his position on oneness.
I have not claimed the existence of ONENESS.
What I have done is shown that ONENESS cannot be known or experienced.
ONENESS is non-existent because it ticks all the boxes for a non-existent thing.
ONENESS has NO CHARACTERISTICS hence it does NOT exist.
OK. I can understand those statements. Oneness doesn't exist and, not surprisingly, it can't be known or experienced. What I can't understand is how Robbins says a whole lot of other stuff in his comments that apparently he considers to be related to nonexistent and unknowable oneness.
Look, over the years I've been fond of saying that existence exists, and wow, isn't that amazing, that there's something rather than nothing. I readily admit that in one sense, existence can't be known or experienced, since all we can know or experience are entities that exist.
So when I say that existence exists, I'm not claiming that existence is something that stands apart from what exists. This appears to be similar to Robbins' statement that oneness can't be known or experienced, just the unity of things that can be known or experienced.
However, the difference is that Robbins seems to have a lot of fondness for oneness that doesn't exist. He isn't expressing admiration for love and other manifestations of the unity that undergirds reality, as manifested in universal laws of nature, ecological interconnectedness, and such.
And that's what I don't get. His take on oneness isn't that it is beyond speech, reason, perception, and other human ways of knowing and communicating. That would put oneness in the sphere of Zen. Rather, it is that somehow we should care about oneness even though it doesn't exist in any fashion.
I can understand the appeal of mysticism, even though I've fallen away from embracing it. What I don't understand is talk about oneness that doesn't exist.
I also don't understand the appeal of NotebookLM, which is capable of fashioning "podcasts" from videos, recordings, or writings, creating two personalities from the thoughts communicated by a single person.
Previously I shared a NotebookLM podcast from Osho Robbins. Then Jim Sutherland, another regular commenter on this blog, emailed me about a NotebookLM podcast fashioned from reports of his about a 2017 visit to the Dera, the headquarters of Radha Soami Satsang Beas in India.
I listened to about a third of the 17 minute audio podcast. I guess I have a low tolerance for NotebookLM, because I found the artificial intelligence generated voices so irritating, I wished that Sutherland that simply shared a written version of what the podcast is about, rather than having those reports filtered through Notebook LM.
The way I see it, NotebookLM simply is regurgitating a communication that already exists in a podcast form. Nothing new is added by NotebookLM. It merely fashions a pseudo-dialogue between two AI generated "people," each of whom reflects the content of the original communication.
Sure, I can understand the appeal of having the NotebookLM personalities gush over the wisdom contained in something a person has created, be it a video, audio recording, or document. But for me, the listener/watcher of NotebookLM, I don't see what benefit there is in having the original communication fashioned into a "podcast" with the same content.
If I'm wrong about NotebookLM, I'll be pleased to be corrected. That's just how I see it at the moment.
@Brian,….before you abandon the opinions of the Commentators of the NotbookLM podcasts,…because you have become bored with the sound of their voices, ..I would really enjoy hearing YOU , posting your most comprehensive support of you becoming a fundamentalist, dogmatic, Atheist. Sprinkled with your Scientist views to support your Atheism, and give your best Theses of your conversion to Atheism from being a 35 year follower of RSSB and Charan Singh. , and your deconversion ftom Mysticism.
You’ve already shared many posts about it, over the years, but only you can bring your favorates, all up to present, of where you are now, and where you presently i.e. , Jan. 2025, and give it to NotebookLM to see what
I suggest your mentioning the late Paul Kurtz, Madelyn Marie O’Hara, Bertran Russel, etc. and any other well known Atheist, such as Col. Robert Ingersol, as your Mentors. Just a mention of their Names , and the AI characters will grab their Bios to support your support of Atheism.
After all, it was you and Osho who introduced NotebookLM here, in your Churchless Church.
Are you now banning the NotebookLM new Female/Male Commentators from your Churchless Congregation, just because you’re bored with their voices?
Jim Sutherland
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | January 10, 2025 at 02:10 AM
I must be living in the stone age as far as some of the ideas I have read about oneness try to point at. Why complicate something that is so simple and apparent in everyday life. I can only think that it is because we do tend to like a mystery.
Actually, in my view, there is no mystery. Sure, there are many things to study and find out through the science, but for we simple humans who live everyday in oneness, mystery only exists the moment we overlay the everyday realities with any of our conceptual meanderings. It’s not that we shouldn’t care about oneness, more that we should perhaps care about (or pay attention to) what is appearing to us through our senses.
Mystery only manifests where we turn what is perceived into a thought form. There is no real need to turn a natural happening into a mystery through invoking Gods and overlaying what is natural with abstract thinking. The only reason we perhaps prefer the mysteries compounded by thought is through the craving to want life to be something other than what it is.
Oneness, our natural interconnectedness with all about us is already sublime and works magnificently (unless we overly interfere to upset the natural balance). It’s surely no good relying on any authority be it the authority of our own accumulated knowledge or the authority of gurus or governments. Just as we have constructed a self, a thought created identity, we habitually construct the world about us in terms of our prejudices and desires.
Perhaps all that’s needed is to work more toward re-connecting with nature (and our own natures) to retrieve our natural balance.
Posted by: Ron E. | January 10, 2025 at 03:25 AM
Just to add: - Basically, I could be described as a naturalist, but like atheist, agnostic, believer or non-believer they also are thought forms, terms designed to pigeon-hole or categorise people in an attempt to assume we understand them. But people are other than that. We are all struggling to find our place in life, or find who/what we are when all the time we are just this, this present moment, forever flowing, a flux that we try to fit into pre-conceived notions, ideas and patterns.
Posted by: Ron E. | January 10, 2025 at 03:42 AM
@Brian,,,the effectiveness of our audience’s ability to listen to us, or read any thing we share in script or words , depends on Fate.
FATE =
F = FOCUS
A = AUTHORITY
T = TRIBE
E = EMOTION
Take it to the Bank! I made my living for 30 years, plus as a Professional Sales Engineer, Regional Manager, Sales Manager, and V.P.- Sales for several different Companies, traveling all over the U.S., Coast to Coast, my Territory was Maine through California and some International.
The Bible teaches to NEVER CAST YOUR PEARLS TO SWINE” , which means, by doing so with out FATE, your wasting your time.
My “Other” interests and involvements were not ever used to earn my Living. I’ve never taken a Dime for any of my Pastoral Work, or sharing my thoughts about Religeon and mysticism.
So, please Readers, don’t ask me for any refunds! Haha
Jim Sutherland
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | January 10, 2025 at 09:02 AM
The bots will put a positive spin on anything. I fed NotebookLM a few Charles Manson quotes...
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/cae6be66-b972-4377-9b13-f7205745a211/audio
Posted by: umami | January 10, 2025 at 10:16 AM
Everything is Radha.
Posted by: sant64 | January 10, 2025 at 10:18 AM
Novel theory on why consciousness exists. Biology is proof of divine ontology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMrKX0_N1Vo&t=127s
Posted by: sant64 | January 10, 2025 at 03:19 PM
sant64. This hypothesis kicked off with the Penrose-Hameroff theory of quantum consciousness and their microtubules, which assume they would enable quantum processes to occur. It’s an idea that has been debunked by numerous scientists.
Most view consciousness as having an evolutionary basis beginning with simple sensory awareness and later developing into the ability to be self-aware or conscious. The quantum hypothesis serves to provide a mystical interpretation with the hope or wishes of some divine purpose to our lives.
To be conscious is simply to be aware of one’s cognitive processes – our brains have evolved for this. The natural fact is that as biological organisms, we are born, live and experience for a while and then die – as is the way with all life.
Rather, biology is proof of the evolutionary process of consciousness rather than divine ontology.
Posted by: Ron E. | January 11, 2025 at 07:37 AM
Ron E
If we experience
we are born, live and experience for a while and then die – as is the wa
Then how one gets reborn again?
Posted by: October | January 11, 2025 at 08:54 AM
Sant64. This hypothesis kicked off with the Penrose-Hameroff theory of quantum consciousness and their microtubules, which assume they would enable quantum processes to occur. It’s an idea that has been debunked by numerous scientists.
Most view consciousness as having an evolutionary basis beginning with simple sensory awareness and later developing into the ability to be self-aware or conscious. The quantum hypothesis serves to provide a mystical interpretation with the hope or wishes of some divine purpose to our lives.
To be conscious is simply to be aware of one’s cognitive processes – our brains have evolved for this. The natural fact is that as biological organisms, we are born, live and experience for a while and then die – as is the way with all life.
Rather, biology is proof of the evolutionary process of consciousness rather than divine ontology.
Posted by: Ron E. | January 11, 2025 at 12:58 PM
Thanks Ron E. On the matter of the cosmological purpose of consciousness, the guy's theory sounds romantically intriguing to me, but of course unprovable. Anyway, I'm glad the link was at least interesting to someone here, but frankly this topic is too deep a rabbit hole for me.
Posted by: sant64 | January 11, 2025 at 02:15 PM
Indeed your right sant64, it's all a bit of a 'rabbit hole'. Infact all our ideas and opinions fall into just that. The only thing we can know for sure (imv) is just this moment -all else, past and future being thought constructs.
Posted by: Ron E. | January 11, 2025 at 03:12 PM
To really get a first hand look at thinking we all are ONE,… you need to live in any Sanctuary City in the U.S. , especially with Democrat Mayors, and where the majority of the Population are Liberals, such as in L.A., Chicago, New York, and many others.
Like as in Meditation, it really can’t be explained. It must be experienced , in order to understand it.
EVERY ONE,……not only IS different, but WANTS to be different, …not ONE!
That’s why every major city has its own China Town, ; India Village, Viet Namese Village, , etc. each Race and Culture branches off in their own neighborhoods, seeking to retain the cultural traditions they left , from their native countries.
There is no ONEness, any where in the 75 countries I’ve traveled, where Immigration is allowed. Diversity is the KAL of ONE, and rules planet earth.
I like, and prefer, diversity.
Would any ready choose to be any one else’s exact Clone here? If not here, why there?
Jim Sutherland
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | January 11, 2025 at 05:16 PM
Jim. (imv) Oneness is more to do with interconnectedness in that nothing exist in isolation. Everything is naturaly dependent on everything else - physically and for us, psychologicaly.
Oneness is not about togetherness. Human diversity is more to do with our thought habits.
Posted by: Ron E. | January 12, 2025 at 05:05 AM
@Ron,…..It’s still a conundrum, huh, and will always remain so.
By the way, I’m finding that some of the NotebookLM podcasts I’ve shared here, seem to be changing a little, some increasing in length and content, while others decreasing.
Interesting. AI must be either altering the information, based on listener comments, or other soft ware used in their programs,
Jim
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | January 12, 2025 at 05:43 AM
I’m finding NotebookLM seems to be altering my prior Chats with out me changing any thing. Sone are increasing in length, while others decreasing. For instance, this one was my favorate, that I wrote 20 years ago.
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/3d4a6838-95bc-4598-9546-ad94b5a13212/audio
Jim
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | January 12, 2025 at 06:21 AM
Jim, thanks for the comment. The oneness/ separateness issue is only a conundrum where thought (i.e. beliefs, opinions, views, etc.) divides everything into this and that. It is quite natural for us to do that, being a hallmark of our cultural and social conditioning.
All life and the universe is interdependent and could not exist without interconnections. No thing exists in isolation - except as an idea, a thought construct which paradoxically itself is dependent on the thinker.
Brian's new posting on "How Meditation Deconstructs Your Mind" talks of predictive processing and may open a window to how we are programmed and that a more spacious awareness and “non-dual” practices help to re-programme our minds.
Posted by: Ron E. | January 12, 2025 at 08:46 AM
"And that's what I don't get. His take on oneness isn't that it is beyond speech, reason, perception, and other human ways of knowing and communicating. That would put oneness in the sphere of Zen. Rather, it is that somehow we should care about oneness even though it doesn't exist in any fashion." - Brian Hines
That IS my take on ONENESS -,that it is beyond speech, reason, perception - which is exactly what zen says.
You cannot "care" for oneness - because there is nothing to care for.
My take on ONENESS is exactly the zen perspective. however, the zen perspective will be as misunderstood as what I am saying.
The issue comes when one is trying to understand. It is beyond understanding - hence my statement that is does not exist.
That is simply in line with what we call existence. To say "oneness exists" would mean it has to have some attribute. it has none.
i am not saying you need to care about oneness. that makes no sense.
what i AM saying is exactly what the upanishads say, shankara says, and advaita says.
but they are NOT saying what most people think they are saying. this is the dilemma.
everyone creates a theory and says "I understand advaita, non-duality" but they don't.
they only understand their version - their own created concept.
going beyond this to "realization" is almost impossible. why? because the mind creates it's own concepts which become the barrier.
one example: enlightenment is not an experience.
this is a huge issue.
anyone reading this will to totally confused because we only know things through experience so how can i know ONENESS if it is NOT an experience.
once you solve this - you are awakened.
but solving it is almost impossible because the only thing you know is experience.
this is why the topic is not easy to understand
notice what osho says in there two videos.
i am not saying become a fan of osho.
i am just saying - understand what he is saying about why the mystic HAS to be misunderstood
https://youtu.be/-nSMi0whFEA?si=_XPLKIPH7arTot71
and part 2
https://youtu.be/JKOI_N-nvzM?si=x1I901DQl2nyGUMQ
Posted by: Osho Robbins | January 12, 2025 at 08:15 PM
"It is beyond understanding"
(a) What, exactly, is it that you're claiming is beyond understanding?
(b) On what basis are you claiming that it is beyond understanding?
----------
"anyone reading this will to totally confused"
No, you're the only one here that's confused. It took a while, because "we" were giving you the benefit of the doubt. But it's fully clear now that it's you, squarely you, that's confused. Not your readers.
----------
" because we only know things through experience so how can i know ONENESS if it is NOT an experience.
once you solve this - you are awakened."
Not "awakened", Osho Robbins, but effectively brainwashed. That's what Advaitic realization amounts to, I see that clearly: it is brainwashing, it is accepting as self-evident truth what there is no evidentiary or logical support for at all. You're brainwashed, is all. No less than your dead-seriously-hooked Jesus worshiper, or Allah worshiper, or Shiva worshiper, is brainwashed. Brainwashed to the extent that you don't even see your own beliefs as beliefs, or indeed your own claims as claims, but as self-evident truth; even as you are able to point out the flaws-motes aplenty in other religious dupes' eyes, while remaining completely oblivious to the beam in yours: the same as any fully-hooked Christian, or Muslim, or RSSB follower.
Wake up. Use your time here to rid yourself of your fallacious, superstitious belief system.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | January 12, 2025 at 08:42 PM
here is what you cannot grasp and will fight against
1. the buddha lives in a state beyond the mind
the atheist will instantly say it is impossible because how can there be a state beyond the mind.
2 to translate from beyond mind to the mind is the most impossible thing in the world.
atheist will say it is nonsense because there is no "beyond mind"
hence i said "non-existent" because "beyond the mind" is non-existent to us
3. the buddha had to say the unsayable
he has to express the inexpressible
that is what i am doing - saying what cannot be said
he calls it an absurd act and he is right
4 life is not what you think it is
5. you are like a blind man, thinking about light ( you cannot understand light)
6. buddha has eyes - yours are closed.
7. the blind man may use logic but cannot come to a true conclusion because what is needed is eyes not logic.
8. eyes are attained only when you have gone beyond the mind.
at this point - the athiest will say "give me evidence that there are eyes and you have attained" it cannot be given, because it is beyond mind. hence my position that oneness does not exist- from your viewpoint.
it has similarities to teachings such as RSSB - but those teachings are dualistic and beliefs. enlightenment is zen - but you have to be open enough to understand. if you dismiss it immediately then nothing can be done.
the athiest has his own God - his God is doubt. he relies heavily on his God. His God promises him nothing, so he cannot be disappointed.
9. you have to become a witness of the mind
the atheist will say "no such thing" because the mind is his God - how can there be a witness? impossible
10. when you know that you are not your thoughts, or body- the athiest says "impossible"
11. when you know that you are only "knowing" -impossible for the athiesf to understand because now this is beyond language - what is "knowing"? logic cannot grasp it and an argument will start.
12 yoi are pure seeing - atheist has a huge problem because what is "pure seeing" so he will say "talking complete nonsense" and from his perspective it is rigth - but only from his perspective
13. you are not really blind - but keeping your eyes closed
14 society teaches you to be blind because society needs blind people- they are good slaves - dependent on the leaders, pundits, gurus, priests.
15. meditation is the art of opening your eyes
16. the buddha is trying to communicate what he has found in a state of no-mind
17 a buddha will always be misunderstood. only a few will understand - who are disciples
Posted by: Osho Robbins | January 13, 2025 at 02:33 AM
Notebooklm doesn't do anything amazing - it just skirts around the topic in twin voices giving the impression of figuring things out.
but it's only repeating the input data
Posted by: Osho Robbins | January 13, 2025 at 02:35 AM
" That's what Advaitic realization amounts to, I see that clearly: it is brainwashing, it is accepting as self-evident truth what there is no evidentiary or logical support for at all"
- AR
what is the evidence that you exist?
when you fall asleep, you completely lose awareness of the person who just a short while ago was so sure of his existence.
now, asleep, you know nothing about what you were so sure about.
so "reality" is not so definite
you are aware in the dream state and you claim to be alive in the dream and you claim it is real - until you wake up.
so how is the different from the waking state? one day you will sleep and never awaken again.
will you still exist?
advaita says no - you will not exist because this "you" isn't real even now.
what will remain is the eternal.
"you" are not the eternal.
the eternal cannot be known by "you"
the eternal IS but cannot be known because there is nobody to know it.
where is the brainwashing
where is the claim?
you are claiming more by saying "i exist"
Posted by: Osho Robbins | January 13, 2025 at 07:34 AM
The realization that both Oshos refer to is a thing. I had it in my late teens. The world emptied, just like that, and I no longer wanted to participate in the project.
Did desire go down the drain with it, as for a Buddha? No. Maybe the desire to desire but not Desire itself. Not done yet.
Posted by: umami | January 13, 2025 at 07:48 AM
"will you still exist?
advaita says no - you will not exist because this "you" isn't real even now.
what will remain is the eternal.
"you" are not the eternal.
the eternal cannot be known by "you"
the eternal IS but cannot be known because there is nobody to know it.
where is the brainwashing"
----------------------------------------
Enough of your halfwittery, already, Osho Robbins. Enough of your blatant disingenuity, indeed your outright dishonesty. Enough.
We've danced this dance enough times. That last discussion of ours, in that thread, ending just before XMas, that was completely conclusive, completely unassailable. So much so that you've admitted yourself, in your own words, that you concede you have zero evidence for your Oneness, and also that you've been deliberately disingenuous and illogical in what you're saying. There's nothing more to be said, beyond that.
If a shred of the honest, desperate seeking of truth that set you on your path of self-discovery still remains within you, then clearly, honestly examine that discussion. You'll find your answers. Should a sincere examination of that discussion still yield any points where you fail to understand what's being said, or indeed any points of bona fide disagreement, then sure, I'll be happy to address those.
This crazy dance? It's over. Not starting another wild goose chase with you now all over again.
----------
And why the fuck do you care what Advaita teaches? Why the fuck do you care that Advaita says no? You don't believe in Advaita. You said as much to me. You don't believe in Advaita. You've merely misappropriated the terms Oneness, and Turiya, from their teachings, and you use them merely as random placemarkers like X and Y and Z, not as Advaita uses them.
So why the fuck blather on all over again about what Advaita says, and whether it says Yes or No?
Enough with your lies already, Osho Robbins. Just stop now.
----------
You ask, "Where is the brainwashing?"
This has been CLEARLY discussed in our discussion on the other thread. Very clearly. Don't feign ignorance.
Here, let me spell it out: That there is a Oneness that is fundamental to existence, a Oneness that somehow we are a part of, that our consciousness is part of; and that the Turiya state is to the waking state what the waking state is to the dream state: all of that, the whole lot of it, it's all completely unevidenced. Advaitic self-enquiry is not a rational exercise at all, but it is an internalizing of this dogma, and basis this dogma doing the whole "Who am I" thing, and subjectively arriving at a "realization", essentially an agreement, of all of this, of Oneness, and the rest of it. Completely sans evidence. That's the brainwashing.
It's beautiful, the Advaitic schema/doctrine, particularly when compared with oafish religious doctrines like the Judeo-Christian-Islamic one for instance. It's also been honed to completely internally consistent perfection. But there's zero evidence holding it up. As such, it is no more than a flight of fancy. ...That may have been good enough in Shankara's time, when we didn't have the scientific method, when the Logic+Empiricism combo hadn't been honed into the instrument for uncovering truth that it is now. But we know better now. Shankara was a genius. Mistaken, but a genius. His present day followers are simply idiots, or at any rate, if not necessarily idiots, but ignorant, certainly --- and just as mistaken as Shankara was.
Your Oneness ideas? It's all nonsense. Live with it.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | January 13, 2025 at 08:14 AM
The realization that both Oshos refer to is a thing. I had it in my late teens. The world emptied, just like that, and I no longer wanted to participate in the project.
Did desire go down the drain with it, as for a Buddha? No. Maybe the desire to desire but not Desire itself. Not done yet.
Posted by: umami | January 13, 2025 at 07:48 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------
As have I, umami.
Not quite as viscerally as Osho described it to me. Not to that extent where I looked at my hand and wondered what on earth is this object and who on earth it belongs to, not that kind of disconnect. But what you describe, that, certainly.
In fact, I don't like to beat my breast and bullhorn out my own "experiences", such as they are: but what you describe, with me it is not just a thing that had one time happened, it is my lived reality, every day now. So that engagement with the world is something one continues with, in all its complexity, so far: but that one might drop just like that any day, any moment.
Yes, what you describe, that complete detachment and disinterestedness and lack of identification with externals, it is very much a thing.
But that does not translate into this absurd fairy tale Osho Robbins spins for us, and that in the face of challenge which he cannot face tries to keep afloat with misdirection and deliberate disingenuity, as he has himself admitted in so many words to me. The one does not imply the other, at all.
For that matter, even the more visceral experience that Osho Robbins has described to me, and the yet more visceral experiences than that have been documented, with a complete falling away of the ego, of the sense of self: nor do those translate, in any shape or form, into Oneness. There's no reason at all to reasonably attribute anything but straightforward neuorological causes for this. Our straightforward materialist schema adequately explains this. There's no reason to imagine that you or I, or Osho Robbins with his more pronounced experience of what you and I have experienced, or the even more pronounced experience that those that have suffered complete ego loss have had, mean that there's a Oneness at the back of everything and that we've somehow directly accessed and "realized" that Oneness. That's ...just nonsense, complete nonsense, with NOTHING linking the one to the other.
It's just a bunch of twaddle, these blatherings of Osho Robbins'. I've given him the benefit of the doubt for the longest time. Examined his ideas threadbare, to the minutest extent. Our discussions, and particularly our last one on that thread, that ended around Christmas time, that clearly, unassailably shows up his ideas as completely spurious. Completely. Beyond any doubt. End of.
(Albeit one may still keep idly wondering, and/or actively exploring further, both subjectively, and objectively as well, why not. When I say beyond any doubt, I don't mean we close our enquiry, we can keep that open if we want to. I do. But Osho Robbins's Oneness ideas no more work as a plausible explanation, than does the more oafish Judeo-Christian schema.)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | January 13, 2025 at 08:39 AM
AR,
Indeed, words will never capture the sublime TRUTH! Lol
Posted by: umami | January 13, 2025 at 09:06 AM
@ Umamai
Can you rephrase this part:?
>> ....and I no longer wanted to participate in the project.
What refers the word "project" to?
Posted by: um | January 13, 2025 at 09:21 AM
um,
The movie, as I think you say.
Posted by: umami | January 13, 2025 at 09:43 AM
An example of a “oafish” Judeo-Christian Apologist.
https://www.wesleyhuff.com/
He was born in Pakistan. Does any one here want to debate this oafish twaddle?
Billy Carson was eaten for lunch by him!
I sure wouldn’t want to debate him.
But no don’t, AP would ?
Jim Sutherland
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | January 13, 2025 at 09:59 AM
@ Umami
Okay ...thank you
Posted by: um | January 13, 2025 at 10:10 AM
https://youtu.be/YqTQEIe4q80
PBD interviewing the “oafish twaddle.”
Jim Sutherland
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | January 13, 2025 at 10:37 AM
I’m impressed with NotebookLM . Here’s my latest!
I’m getting positive feed back from people who have known about my blog since I started it, but never took the trouble or time to read any of my Posts over there.
Why? Well, I am a Rebel, and a Free Spirit who has irritated many people I’ve encountered in the past, on various forums , who have crossed paths with me, and are still holding old grudges from the past for some thing I ether said, or,…didn’t say.
But NotebookLM is forgiving! Haha
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/f510a028-6958-4425-ba74-c5eb524391af/audio
Jim Sutherland
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | January 13, 2025 at 12:07 PM
"AR,
Indeed, words will never capture the sublime TRUTH! Lol"
------------
I *hope* that was a joke, that parodies the would-be wise Taoist take, and that our Osho Robbins tries to emulate sometimes. Because how, in that case, would the Daoist sage come to know of it, and more importantly, why would he keep talking endlessly about it? As you know, I have little sympathy for that sort of thing. Mysticism per se is a fascinating subject, when investigated with clarity. Like the Buddha did. Obscurantism I have zero sympathy for.
But of course, if that was a straightforward joke ---- as, coming from you, I'm sure it was, umami ---- then LOL, indeed.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | January 13, 2025 at 02:13 PM
Jim, I try to keep away from your claptrap, and leave you to air your halfwitted nonsense unmolested.
But since you directly address me, then okay: No, I've not clicked any your links, and nor do I have any intention to. No, I've no idea who you're talking about. But yes, emphatically yes: if this is someone you personally know, some Christian apologist maybe, who's willing to come up here, then yes, I'm willing to engage with him here, absolutely. By all means, bring him on.
----------
But really, you mustn't think of this in gladiatorial terms. The point is to examine ideas, clearly, dispassionately, and yes, critically. And reject those that don't pass muster; and either provisionally accept, or else keep aside for further more serious examination, those that do.
My point is, this isn't about personalities. Whoever this guy is, if you've found his ideas compelling, then why not just present them yourself, and we can then examine them here together, why not. It doesn't have to be an adversarial thing, with debates taking the place of gunfights.
----------
But again: If you're asking me if I'd be willing to talk with your friend, whoever he is, if you brought him here: then the short answer is, Yes.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | January 13, 2025 at 02:59 PM
"what you describe, with me it is not just a thing that had one time happened, it is my lived reality, every day now. So that engagement with the world is something one continues with, in all its complexity, so far: but that one might drop just like that any day, any moment.
Yes, what you describe, that complete detachment and disinterestedness and lack of identification with externals, it is very much a thing."
AR,
Your words capture it well actually. Once seen, can it be unseen?
Our Osho must've had the same experience. The way he talks about One, he could talk about Tao. Same animal.
Posted by: umami | January 13, 2025 at 06:50 PM
AR,
Oh, I missed his description of the experience! Duh.
Posted by: umami | January 13, 2025 at 07:49 PM
"AR,
Your words capture it well actually. Once seen, can it be unseen?
Our Osho must've had the same experience. The way he talks about One, he could talk about Tao. Same animal."
--------------------
Sure, umami. Agreed, absolutely.
But the point is, well, three points actually, if I were to express what I'm getting at fully coherently:
(a) Point #1 : There's nothing mysterious about it, at all. Only an obscurantist will seek to present it as such. Which, of course, is why I'm not particularly sympathetic of much of Daoist woo-woo either ---- while remaining appreciative of the concrete ideas they've presented, including the process-based representation of the world (as opposed to the object-based representation generally).
What I've experienced, what I continue to experience --- and presumably what you've done as well --- can answer easily enough to a combination of factors, which include: (i) to begin with, an instinctual predisposition both for understanding deeper reality and also for not mindlessly following being wedded to received tribal ideas ; (ii) a clear examination of one's drives and motivations, which ends up revealing the emptiness of much that we often take for granted, completely unquestioned ; and, most importantly, (iii) regular mediation, and a direct experiential examination and understanding of our drives and impulses and thought processes and beliefs and desires and the rest of it, of the mind in short, which, not surprisingly, nudges one towards what is evocatively and very correctly described in the spiritual literature as the "waking in the movie hall experience" --- haha, an experience our um alludes to often here.
Point is, none of this is remotely mysterious, unless one deliberately wants to make them sound mysterious to others. It's all clearly enough understood and explained.
(b) Point #2 : The more visceral version of this, that Osho Robbins spoke to me about, when he spoke to me about staring at his hand and wondering what that object is, all that ---- and even more dramatically, the yet more remarkable experiences documented in the literature of people who've suffered ego-loss basis some trauma ---- even these, while certainly they're a bit less easily explained than our more mundane "realization" : but even so, and particularly given the physical-trauma-to-the-head cause directly documented in the literature, and also given our understanding today of what the brain does and what the mind is and what our sense of self amounts to : given all of that, there's no reason to assume that it isn't a straightforward case of some atypical tangling up of one's brain cells and nerves. Certainly something worth investigating, but most assuredly not a matter of Mystery, with a capital M.
(Although again, with both Points #1 and #2, while this is the reasonable conclusion : but nothing stops us from investigating this further if we wish, to see if just perchance the rabbit hole does lead deeper and down more mysterious pathways. I do myself, like I've said. Point is, it's silly to *conclude* now, that there's anything Mysterious --- capital M --- about any of this.)
(c) And, most importantly, Point #3 : There's NOTHING, nothing at all, connecting any of this with the Oneness that Osho Robbins keeps on blathering incoherently about. His shtick is obscurantism plain and simple. I don't know if you've read our exchanges, his and mine, and particularly that last series of exchanges in that thread ending just around XMas time : but I've examined his ideas completely threadbare, and found them completely utterly wanting. Like, completely.
He's no different than any other religious dupe, simply trying desperately to somehow pretend to others --- and to himself as well, I suppose --- that his nonsensical beliefs make sense. That his beliefs are a bit more cerebral than your garden variety Jesus-worhiper's more oafish beliefs, takes nothing away from that similarity.
His endless flaying and twisting and contorting, and misdirection, and unnecessarily clothing simple ideas in complex expressions --- all of that is no more than obscurantism. His thesis itself is complete nonsense, and can be easily dismissed as such by any reasonable person.
(Albeit, again, no reason why one might not want to investigate this further. I know I do. But to investigate if little green men exist, is very different than concluding, and claiming, and "teaching", that little green men exist. That difference, that nuance, I believe it is a very important one --- in all respects, but particularly when it comes to spirituality.)
------------------------------
Haha, sorry, that got unexpectedly long-winded, didn't it? Just, I wanted to make sure I conveyed my thoughts on this clearly. Given how much I resonate directly, personally with your observations. And given how important I think it is to not end up imagining that the one has any connection with the other, that is to say this nonsense that Osho Robbins keeps peddling here.
Apologies if what I've just now hammered out just now reads incoherently, basis typos, basis whatever else! Usually I preview my comments to check for such before posting: but I simply haven't the time now, and I'm just going to press "Post" directly now, hoping what I've hammered out now is coherent enough that it gets my point across clearly to you.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | January 13, 2025 at 07:53 PM
AR,
Oh, I missed his description of the experience! Duh.
Posted by: umami | January 13, 2025 at 07:49 PM
--------------------------
I haven't checked out any of the links he's presented in this thread either. What I was referring to is his graphic description of his "awakening" experience, while undergoing a workshop, that he's described to me in great detail, in a discussion some years ago. He may nor may not have referred to it in his links here as well, I wouldn't know.
Actually, I like this guy, very much, you know! Osho Robbins, I mean to say. His sincerity in wanting to know the Truth, that he's spoken of to me, is completely palpable, and one that I resonate with. He says many very insightful things generally. And overall he's a gentle soul, unlike many religious people. ...Just, none of that translates to making the absurd ideas he's peddling at all true. A clear examination of his thesis, and I've examined it very very clearly indeed, show it up to be completely wanting, completely invalid, complete nonsense.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | January 13, 2025 at 08:05 PM
Anyway, I admit I was not rendered egoless.
Posted by: umami | January 13, 2025 at 08:10 PM
Eat, Drink, and Be Merry, because tomorrow, you may die!
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/13666aac-ff7e-4014-b2fb-1630c7975f01/audio
This is another podcast made from one of my blog posts of the past, where I challenged Advaita Vedanta Oneness.
Jim Sutherland
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | January 13, 2025 at 09:20 PM
what is Non-dual?
can it be experienced?
non-duality: there is only one and no other.
this does not mean: let's go start seeking the ONE. wherevis it? what evidence is there for it, does it exist...?
that sends you into the direction of logic.
logic doesn't function in that arena.
dual:
the world of phenomena we interact with.
experience happens here.
logic can be applied successfully
there is subject / object
if there is a dualustic god such as some notion of sat purush, or jesus, or the guru, that can be experienced
there is an experiencer
there is the thing experienced
that makes two.
hence experience happens here
now, for oneness.
a) it is not a thing. hence i say it doesn't exist because it cannot be examined, there is nothing there to examine. all examining happens in duality.
the experience of looking at my hand is not oneness, it is an experience in duality.
"i lost my ego" is a duality experience
"i felt disconnected with the world" is an experience in duality
seeing light inside, seeing the radiant form, hearing shabd etc: these are all experienced in duality.
oneness, by it's very nature, cannot be experienced.
all experiences, with no exceptions, happen within duality.
hence my insistence that oneness is not a thing and cannot be known through any experience.
illogical? yes, if all you know is experience. and for all of us, that is the case. experience is all we have to go by. everything we have ever experienced was an experience
so if some crazy fuck says "there is a oneness, but it is not a thing and it cannot be experienced but it can be known another way" then he has to be labelled exactly as AR has labelled me.
i have no issue with that - it is the only possibility. AR is correct from his perspective. That is where his reasoning leads to and like a good scientist he has to follow the evidence.
his conclusions are correct.
ONENESS is not a thing. hence to make it absolutely clear, i denied its existence.
to say it exists, is to make it a thing.
it is not a thing.
i have also never said "there is an underlying oneness to life" - that may be some teaching or some philosophical idea, but it has nothing to do with the non-dual oneness that i "peddle"
where time and space disappear, there oneness is.
can i prove it?
yes - take me to where there is no time and no space and i will show you the oneness.
of course you cannot take me. because there is no such place. and even if you had a magic carpet like in arabian nights (cartoon i watched as a kid), one the way, the carpet will disappear, as will you and I.
then who will i show the oneness to?
oneness is not an object - it is emptiness, the empty set.
"prove oneness exists" is like the waves saying "prove that water exists"
the wave itself IS water.
water is all there is. the ocean, the waves, are all water. the water cannot be seen because it is the essence of everything that is seen. the wave IS water.
you are ONENESS, there is nothing else.
you cannot see it - it is your essence.
you cannot take it to a lab and put it under the microscope.
does that mean it doesn't exist?
yes - it is not an object.
if you are only concerned with objects then, you are correct, it cannot be proven in the world of objects because it is NOT an object.
in the hindu scriptures they call it
"neti neti"!
neither this nor this nor that nor this
the negation of all you can point to and know.
that is the very definition of oneness
now be very careful here.
i have not attempted to prove oneness with the above words.
I have never attempted to prove oneness because that is impossible.
instead i concede and say categorically "oneness does not exist"
you take this as "i won the debate"
there is no debate because i have never taken the position that oneness is a thing.
this is mystical by nature. not mystical as you might define it. because most people seek flashing lights and call that mystical.
this is the zen type of mystical - no flashing lights.
similar to tony parsons : he is difficult for most people to understand because he makes it clear "you CANNOT seek this because there are no benefits to it"
perhaps watch this from 4 mins in.
it starts getting more interesting at around 6 mins
"everything is no-thing appearing to be something"
the interviewer says "that is very clear"
it isn't because what is being described is beyond words.
you can call it nonsense because by it's very nature it cannot appear to be anything but nonsense.
but that is just the perception of the listener - it has nothing to do with what tony parsons is saying
https://youtu.be/dvokZJjemfg?si=Fa8CV8mbxpqzkOct
Posted by: Osho Robbins | January 13, 2025 at 10:22 PM
"there is no such thing as personal enlightenment. enlightenment is the end of the person" - Tony Parsons
at 7:30 of the video.
the "I" does not get enlightened
the person does not experience enlightenment
this is a huge issue, because everyone seeks it as a thing
rather enlightenment is the end of the person - the end of individuality or separation
for someone who is seeking - the conversation is very different from the exchange between AR and myself.
going on the so-called journey is not the same as seeking evidence. there is no evidence because "no-thing" ( which i just call oneness- the absence of many) cannot be shown in that way. no evidence is available
does that mean that ashtavakra, janak, shankara, zen masters, bullah shah, farid, rumi, tony parsons, osho, osho robbins were all deluded?
quite possibly if you seek objective proof.
AR, from his viewpoint is correct. he is saying he has examined my position with great accuracy and detail and found it to be lacking and a fallacious argument.
he is correct because i have nothing logical to offer. it doesn't fit into logic.
logic does not function in oneness.
i make no claims that it does. i conceded the argument right from the start. i said oneness does not exist.
clearly a "no-thing" does not exist.
it is the absence of all things
Posted by: Osho Robbins | January 13, 2025 at 10:41 PM
https://youtu.be/dvokZJjemfg?si=Fa8CV8mbxpqzkOct
this is precisely why it cannot be discussed
at 8:45 he answers "what is enlightenment"
nothing to do with a person
nothing to do with process
process means like " meditate, ask who am i," etc - anything that you do - method
it is NOT ATTAINABLE
when it apparently happens
then it is seen that
all there is is "beingness"
but it isn't seen by anyone (not an experience)
there is just what is happening
and nobody it is happening to
the seeker, seeks enlightenment as if is it an experience that will happen to them and set them free.
that is duality.
this is not how it is.
Jim Sutherland describing exactly that - experience that happens to an I.
10 mins in:
the mind wants enlightenment to be something that happens to a person.
so AR was impressed with my "who's hand is this?" experience - but that was just tge beginning of the disconnect with this so-called reality
it is not enlightenment
enlightenment has no bells and whistles and is mundane - empty - hence AR correctly concludes that even what he thought OR had, even that is questionable because now OR says it is not even an experience. AR can only conclude that OR is deluded. it is the only conclusion possible
that is where the logic leads
Posted by: Osho Robbins | January 13, 2025 at 10:59 PM
"Depersonalization-derealization disorder (DPDR, DDD)[3][4] is a mental disorder in which the person has persistent or recurrent feelings of depersonalization and/or derealization. Depersonalization is described as feeling disconnected or detached from one's self. Individuals may report feeling as if they are an outside observer of their own thoughts or body, and often report feeling a loss of control over their thoughts or actions.[5] Derealization is described as detachment from one's surroundings. Individuals experiencing derealization may report perceiving the world around them as foggy, dreamlike, surreal, and/or visually distorted.[5]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization-derealization_disorder
Posted by: manjit | January 14, 2025 at 03:56 AM
To conflate depersonalisation/derealisation with "non dual enlightenment", for example, is like conflating a cancerous tumour on your arm with an Olympian weightlifter's 24 inch biceps.
Posted by: manjit | January 14, 2025 at 04:14 AM
https://youtu.be/dvokZJjemfg?si=Fa8CV8mbxpqzkOct
this is precisely why it cannot be discussed
at 8:45 he answers "what is enlightenment"
nothing to do with a person
nothing to do with process
process means like " meditate, ask who am i," etc - anything that you do - method
it is NOT ATTAINABLE
when it apparently happens
then it is seen that
all there is is "beingness"
but it isn't seen by anyone (not an experience)
there is just what is happening
and nobody it is happening to
the seeker, seeks enlightenment as if is it an experience that will happen to them and set them free.
that is duality.
this is not how it is.
Posted by: Osho Robbins | January 14, 2025 at 04:37 AM
https://www.scribd.com/document/522619983/Mystical-Languages-of-Unsaying
Posted by: manjit | January 14, 2025 at 06:54 AM
https://www.scribd.com/document/522619983/Mystical-Languages-of-Unsaying
Here's a relevant quote from the above book which covers a lot of what is being discussed above for anyone who may have a serious interest:
"How are we to approach critically a discourse that claims to speak from the point where subject and object, self and other, are one? Simply put, does one have to be a mystic to understand the transferential language of mystical unsaying?"
Posted by: manjit | January 14, 2025 at 07:02 AM
To conflate depersonalisation/derealisation with "non dual enlightenment", for example, is like conflating a cancerous tumour on your arm with an Olympian weightlifter's 24 inch biceps.
Posted by: manjit | January 14, 2025 at 04:14 AM
-----------
Haha, no! It's like comparing it with the biceps of the invisible undetectable dragon in my garage.
...This halfwittery I can understand. It is what it is, halfwittery. What I have difficulty wrapping my head around is the sheer hypocrisy of this pair, who suddenly grow grey cells and discover logic and reason and the rest of it, when discussing OTHERS' imbecilic beliefs.
*enough time wasted, walks firmly away from the halfwittery*
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | January 14, 2025 at 08:15 AM
*checks in, somewhat compulsively I suppose, to see if the above correction --- that that's not so much like my biceps, but more like the biceps of the invisible, undetectable dragon in my garage --- has hit home*
Apparently not.
Amazing, this level of willful self-delusion.
Outright stupidity I can understand. Outright ignorance I can understand. Outright dishonesty also I can understand. But this thing here, this *selective* halfwittery, and this complete, utter lack of intellectual integrity from people who I don't believe are fundamentally dishonest, and whom I know to be generally possessed of intelligence and acuity ---- this truly baffles me.
Yeah, the Urban thingy, I guess. *shrugs*
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | January 15, 2025 at 08:40 PM