A dialogue about Radha Soami Satsang Beas

Shiloh: “Since one surrenders oneself to the will of the Guru and prays to him (if only for grace) the master clearly replaces God in the satsangi’s life, usurping what many would feel should be the Creator’s unique role in human lives.”
— Not exactly. The master is generally presented as being a bridge TO God, but at the same time also as an embodiment of that same Godhead in the form of the shabd. But since so much emphasis is placed upon the incarnate form of the master, then the transcendent God does sort of fall into the background.

I would like to make a few remarks regarding the exchange between Brian and Shiloh. I applogise for pasting in lengthy quotes of their exchange but it is only because I want to emphasize the significance of what they said.
Shiloh: “Whatever the template used for this visualization, I find it suspicious, since in the pliable astral sphere, long-held thoughts become things. This tells me that disciples are being encouraged to build their own thought forms of the master which they could then see and mistake for his radiant form if they are ever successful in leaving the body.”
—In Sant Mat meditation there is a supposed safeguard aginst this sort of self-deception. The satsangi is told to repeat the holy names as a test any time an image of the master appears before them in meditation. Illusory/false/self-created (or Kal the negative power) images of the master are said to disappear when the names are repeated. What remains is to be believed as genuine. I am merely repeating what was taught for the sake of clarification.
I think the idea is that any subconscious thought forms would be nulified by the mind being engaged in repetition of the names, aka simran. Also, it is taught that one should “follow” the sound current regardless of any appearances or other content in awareness as this is always to be regarded as genuine and therefore beneficial and pretective especially if the form of the master is simultaneously present.
Brian: “Absolutely. Questioning is supposed to happen before initiation. Afterwards, the initiate is warned to beware of Kal, the Universal Mind who stood on one foot for eons and earned the right from God to rule the lower regions of creation. (Shiloh: Great heavens! How spiritually athletic!) Kal’s job is to keep souls here, and the mind is his means of doing so.”
Shiloh: “I rest my case. The above-mentioned attitude nullifies the checks and balances ingrained into our very souls to guard against deception. Willfully giving up the critical mind must indefinitely commit one to labor, with dwarfed mentality, through a spiritual never-never land where the only hope of eventual rescue is through painful disillusionment. Since my sister defensively denied that there was any such requirement, she obviously knows, deep down, how dubious this is.”
—This is an astute observation by Shiloh of one of the most sinister aspects of Radha Soami where one is told to literally surrender and ignore the natural rational reasoning function of one’s mind. This is very dangerous and a typical technique in cult mind control.
Further as Shiloh indicates: “Hold on: even if any mistakes are made, the secret of his true human identity would remain safe with so many adoring satsangis primed to put a profound spin onto any awkward accidents! There seems little room for truth in god-man movements.”
—So true. One time after an initiation in India the master had a bad cough and cold. It was beleived that this illness was due to the master “taking on” the karmas of the disciples he had just initiated.
Shiloh: “(6) Do you know of anyone who has seen (first hand) the current master accompanied by machine-gun-bearing guards?”
—When I was at the Dera in India in 1984 there were problems in the Punjab and threats against the master. I personally saw armed guards posted throughout the Dera. However, they were armed with rather antiquated looking guns and not modern assault rifles or machine guns.
Shiloh: “(7) Is it true that satsangis are subtly pressured to donate money or property to the movement?:
—Westerners are not pressured to donate money in my experience although it is definitely considered a good thing to do. During both of my visits to the Dera (1974 and 1984) I was never asked or pressured for money in any way.
However, I have heard the opposite is true regarding Indians and that they are more aggressively asked to donate. I think Shiloh’s observation below regarding this is probably accurate. I have heard a number of satsangis report the same thing.
Brian: “In my experience, subtly. Not overtly. I don’t know what it is like in the Indian community.”
Shiloh: “I’m glad you mentioned the latter since I suspect that pushing for donations might be more easier and acceptable among faith based, notoriously blindly-believing Asian communities, and thus may be much more blatant there. This of course reveals the usual motive behind so many religious charades: money and possessions and the power that accompanies these things.”
Shiloh wrote: “Thinking of the current master as a man, I’ve just experienced my first pang of empathy. I believe he was a reluctant successor – and how terrible it must be to have to spend your entire life pretending to be God. How ghastly must be the constant scrutiny and the act of putting on a holy front and the continual dread of doing or saying something ungodly?”
—I think this is exactly the case not only with the current master, Gurinder Dhillon but also with Charan Singh, his predecessor who actually ran away for awile when told he was the newly appointed master.
However, as Shiloh finally stated: “Having now read this, I must confess it confirms my early belief that the current master seems more preoccupied with physical pleasure and material possessions than with the spiritual evolution of his fellow man.”
—I think this must be true otherwise he would come clean and admit that he is just an average schlub just like the rest of us. That would free people from bondage to this false, in my opinion, path to spiritual liberation, and what really is simply a very prosperous family business and perpetuation of the feudal system in India.

Phil “It all made sense to me, and given that the principles are presented as scientific, able to be verified through experiment, there was most definitely an appeal.”
Exactly !Though I had to add my own dose of fantasy and magical thinking.Amazing but somehow I consented to believe all this.How?and why? are still interesting ? for me

Matter and surat are antithetical to one another. The greatest delusion and biggest lie is to equate the two as one. They are not. Matter absorbs Surat. Surat is the only conscious life within us, but we know it not. Matter is so alluring that we equate our worldly desires and call them “spiritual”. All the while, the Surat is being forced outwards into greater depletion and diffusion. Concentration alone is the source of all bliss and happiness. But that concentration must be of Surat and is completely internal. You are all wasting your time, energy and noble faculties in this endless display of opinion and attempts to unify that which cannot be unified – Surat and matter are enemies. If you do not see this clearly, you are in delusion. Seek a Sant to differentiate and separate these two irreconcilable essences of creation.

albert, in some ways you’ve got a nice Buddhist/Taoist outlook, which I mostly share — aside from the notion that matter and consciousness (surat) are enemies. That’s too dualistic.
“Irreconcilable essences of creation”? Sure sounds strange that reality is composed of two irreconcilable aspects. What idiot creator would create in that fashion?
Plus, so long as we are alive, our consciousness is part and parcel of our physical being/brain. So there’s no way to tell if consciousness can be separated from the matter of our brain until we’re dead — and then, of course, we can’t communicate that fact to living humans, unless one believes in mediums.
That said, you do make a good point in this sense: psychologically, we get all identified and tied up with things and other people, not realizing that all these impressions are objects within the subjectivity of consciousness. So if I get a scratch on my new car, it hurts me! Almost as if my own body was scratched.
Meditation can help us relax and see that all the thoughts and emotions and such that roll through our minds are ever-changing, while the consciousness that is aware of this stuff remains the same. That can be a valuable thing to do.
But in my opinion you go overboard when you speak of consciousness and matter being enemies. If you didn’t have a physical brain made of matter, you wouldn’t be alive and able to post your comment about consciousness and matter being enemies.

I have a couple of questions for Albert.
He said:
“Surat is the only conscious life within us, but we know it not.”
—If surat is our life and consciousness how can we know it? Who is the “we” that would know what our life and consciousness is? In other words if surat were to know itself which surat would be the real one…the one knowing or the one known?
“Seek a Sant….”
—How does one know if a Sant is a Sant or not?

ooh!!
Forced to back again!
I thought to stick to my words and thought not to come back at all!!
But brian has not deleted the post with 5 names he mentioned which i told him to do so.
And i see again theres lot of mispresentation going on,which is not acceptable at all.
shiloh brian is not at all in any unique position to evaluate!! he is just into a confusion state of mind…
how can you refer him to be in unique position
who has meditated and followed the path for 30 years…
who even wrote a fantastic book on spirituality.
and now he doesnt follow it or do not believe it..its his choice..
but you can not depend on views of such persons who are not that capable enough to understand themself…and how then they can make others understand.
i even read phil story once again today
and i really feel sad for him though..
theres is no point in thinking or creating hype that why people join rssb and why they leave
theres is no point in asking them why you were singing songs of rssb when you are associated and when you are not you all are bashing
no point in asking these questions
as its very simple…everything happens for a reason and no one has the hold on their own lives..
brian never thought he would one day get connected to any spiritual path..but he did..
he never thought one day he will be out of this path but he did?
so every thing happens for a reason..
may be his duration was limited..
like i many times said not every person who enters in oxford comes out with flying colours
some student fail
some student reach to the highest grade
some are average
some are ok
this is just a matter of destiny…
but what is strange is when they start criticizing the same path which once they followed with devotion…
well this the main weakness of american people they are always rational,reasoning and analyzing,
i really feel sad when they even mispresent jeuses,
i really feel pity on them
when i see this selfish corrupted americans
uses the name of jesus and trying their best to convert religions
millions of innocent,illiterate indians were converted into christianity because they were fooled by this corrupted so called fathers
who openly states that jesus is only the god no one else..
so so much pity i feel on them….
one of the most corrupted mentality is of US people..they are all selfish..too cunning too clever..
they are so very much jealous of others fame..
they just cant take it that many westerners are getting converted into spirituality.
turning down to being vegetarian..doing yoga…
and tucson..you said how do one know to seek sant..
well when the disease comes the patient knows when and to which doctor he has to consult..
so when you would be hit by any want…need..pull for spirituality you would definetly automatically will get into it..
no one can force nor can plan to get into any spirituality path..its is mean to happen and it happens..
brian never thought any day internet will be avaialble so easily that one day he would be starting a blog like this
it was meant to happen and it happened.
we cannot solve every questions and get the answer through words or through this sessions…
just by saying burger burger you cannot fill you stomach…the stomach will get filled once you attend a bakery shop and eat the burger …
so its all self experience…more the doubts..more the questions..more the questions more the distractions..
if a women gets pregnant she is meant to follow certain restrictions and precuations..
but some times according to somebody immune system or body habits they cannot or able to follow the restrictions and hence the result is abortion…
they get aborted..
but who with patience and preservance follow the complete restrictions and taken proper care as per the doctors advise after 9 months she after going to a great labour pain delivers a child…
everything has a process..
but i m really feeling pity on brian ..
he i do not know..how misunderstood this path..
anyways tucson..when times come everything start happening automatically..
we have no control on our lives at all..
and TAO PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM MY POST I WOULD NOT WANT YOU to react OR REPLY TO MY POST

Manish, I see you’re back to making no sense. Once again, you forgot to say anything reasonable. What in this post did you disagree with, and why? Focus on a few statements that you feel are wrong, and give good reasons (not preachy reasons) why you’re correct. That’s how a dialogue works.
It’s interesting. You believe in obeying a guru, and following someone else’s authority. But you are big on telling other people what to do. You want me to delete a blog post that you don’t like. You want Shiloh to keep her views to herself. You want tAo to not comment on what you said here.
That’s a lot of unreasonable wanting. I also have to point out that your metaphors are unreasonable also. I’m planning to write a post today about how religious people love metaphors, because they distract attention from uncomfortable facts. Like, the truth of religious beliefs.
Example: I ate a vegetarian hot dog at the Oregon State Fair yesterday. Yes, Manish, everybody realizes that you don’t stop being hungry by saying “hot dog, hot dog.” But I could see the hot dog on the grill. I could hold the hot dog in my hands.
That’s a lot different from God. There’s no demonstrable evidence of God, so naturally all people can do is say “God, God.” The words don’t refer to anything known to be real, like “hot dog” does.

Manish said: “we have no control on our lives at all..”
—That must be why you are trying to control others…you can’t control yourself.

Manish has stated the following:
“TAO PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM MY POST I WOULD NOT WANT YOU to react OR REPLY TO MY POST”
— Manish, you apparently still do not understand the very basic fact that when you post anything on a public message board such as this one, anyone can reply to your comment. If you do not wish others to respond to you, then don’t post comments. So its absurd for you to demand that other people do not reply. There is something fundamentally flawed in your thinking process that makes you assume that you can post your own views and opinions, but yet demands that others should not do the same.
“brian has not deleted the post with 5 names he mentioned which i told him to do so.”
— Manish, this is Brian’s blog, so he can do as he pleases. Its really none of your business to try to censor what he posts. Why is it that you feel that others (like Brian) do not have the freedom to say whatever they want, or that it is somehow taboo to discuss or reveal a mere five simple sanskrit words and syllables?
“i see again theres lot of mispresentation going on,which is not acceptable at all.”
— Who says that it is “misrepresntation”, or that it is “not acceptable”? You are saying that, but this is not your blog site. You don’t have to accept it, but you don’t get to determine that for others. Here again, you seem to feel that you have a right to control, to deny or suppress what other people say, yet you yourself want the freedom to express your own opinions as if it is the only truth, and what some other people say is not the truth. So your thinking is out of balance.
“brian is not at all in any unique position to evaluate!! he is just into a confusion state of mind.”
— That may be your opinion, but it is definitley not the case with Brian. Brian has as much (or perhaps even more) capability to evaluate as anyone does. And the one who clearly appears to be in a state of confusion is you Manish. Thats quite obvious considering the faulty thinking that is revealed in your comments.
“how can you refer him to be in unique position who has meditated and followed the path for 30 years.”
— That’s a pretty darn good “position” if you ask me.
“you can not depend on views of such persons who are not that capable enough to understand themself.”
— How do you know that Brian does not “understand” himself? You don’t. You simply don’t like people who don’t follow and believe in Santmat & RS exactly like you do. Again, this is an irrational and unbalanced mentality.
“i even read phil story once again today
and i really feel sad for him though.”
— But other people may actually feel sorry for you. Why do you assume that your opinions and feelings are the only valid ones?
“theres is no point in thinking […] why people join rssb and why they leave”
— Thats just means that there is no point for YOU. But then why have you ;previously asked other people why they left RSSB if you don’t care?
“you all are bashing no point in asking these questions”
— But yet you are “bashing” people who chose to leave RS. So you have a double standard.
“everything happens for a reason and no one has the hold on their own lives.”
— That is merely your opinion. And I for one, do not at all agree. You may not have any “hold” on your life, but I very much do have a fair degree of hold on mine.
“so every thing happens for a reason.”
— Does it really? Perhaps, but then perhaps not.
“this is just a matter of destiny.”
— But who are you to say what is “destiny”? How could you know that?
“what is strange is when they start criticizing the same path which once they followed”
— There is nothing “strange” about that at all. People change. Life is change. Everything changes. And people can and do change their beliefs and the course of their lives. It happens all the time. If you can’t undertand that, then you have a long ways to go.
“this the main weakness of american people they are always rational,reasoning and analyzing”
— You have no ability or right to criticise the whole of the American people. You have no experience to make such a judgement. And furthermore “rational, reasoning and analyzing” are all good qualities and abilities…. which you apparently seem to be lacking.
“i really feel pity on them when i see this selfish corrupted americans”
— You don’t know any such thing about Americans. And moreover, there is much to criticise about Indians, so its pretty stupid of you to attack Americans so ignorantly.
“millions of innocent,illiterate indians were converted into christianity because they were fooled by this corrupted so called fathers who openly states that jesus is only the god no one else.”
— But thats exactly the same as what the Radha Soami religion states as well.
“one of the most corrupted mentality is of US people..they are all selfish..too cunning too clever.”
— Your ignorant ANTI-American atttiude has no place on this blog. Its the same as if Brian or I or others were to say that the people of India “are all selfish..too cunning too clever”. Its nothing more than derogatory nationalistic and racist bullshit. If you can’t confine your comments to the topic ata hand, and you are going to post anti-american racist crap such as this, then you don’t belong here.
“they are so very much jealous of others fame. they just cant take it that many westerners are getting converted into spirituality.”
— What “fame”? Most Americans by and large don’t care about eastern spirituality. They mostly are all christians and jews or atheists. Nobody in America is jealous or threatened by indian spirituality. They aren’t even really aware of it. So you are terribly mistaken and ignorant about this.
“how do one know to seek sant.. well when the disease comes the patient knows when and to which doctor he has to consult.”
— That example is not necessarily so. People who have disease do not automatically know who is a good docor and who is not. But in the case of spirituality, this example does not really apply, because there isn’t necessarily any such spiritual “disease” in the first place, so no doctor or guru needs to be consulted.
“so when you would be hit by any […] pull for spirituality you would definetly automatically will get into it.”
— That is not cecessarily true either. Just because people have interest in spiritual matters, does not mean that they must “get into” anything.
“to get into any spirituality path..its is meant to happen and it happens. […] it was meant to happen and it happened.”
— To say that something (such as getting into a spiritual path) is “meant to happen” is only an relative assumption. And so it doesn’t really have much, if any, significance.
“just by saying burger burger you cannot fill you stomach.”
— No one here has said that you could (“fill you stomach”).
“the stomach will get filled once you attend a bakery shop and eat the burger”
— But that is already quite obvious to everyone, so you aren’t saying anything new.
“more the questions..more the questions more the distractions.”
— I disagree… and my RS initiating guru Huzur Charan Singh disagreed with you as well. Many times he affirmed the value and benefit of asking questions. As a matter of fact, he welcomed questions. So your rahter misguided attempts at suppression are fundamentally wrong.
“i m really feeling pity on brian ..
he i do not know..how misunderstood this path.”
— Brian doesn’t “misunderstood” the path at all. Brian knows and understands the RS path extremely well. And so do I, and that is precisely why I can see this about Brian.
“we have no control on our lives at all.”
— That is not so. YOU may not have control over YOUR life Manish, but others do have relative control over theirs.

Based on the quality and character of Grads from RSU …..They would have lost their accreditation years and years ago.But like pears soap they remain in the market place if not for anything else but tradition

I think Baba Ji was justified in having that bee hive destroyed. It posed a threat to people, and it had to go. It’s not like an ant; ants can’t do the damage that bees can do. Just my $0.02.

Cell,
But obviously people (like this “Baba Ji” fellow), are definately a “treat” to the bees. Do the bees not have a right to live? What gives this “Baba Ji” any right to destroy THEM? Are we to assume that the bees have any less right to exist and live than we do? Your rationale is self-centered. If the bees were hurting people, then they could have been carefully removed by bee-keepers and taken elsewhere. I don’t know all the details, but just saying that something “poses a threat” is not sufficient. If HUMANS posed a threat to bees (which they obviously did in this case) then does that give the bees the right to deatroy humans, if they could? There needs to be more than just a ‘possible’ threat. There needs to be a good reason. And it still doesn’t require killing the bees.
So I don’t agree with either you, or with this “Baba Ji” character. If this “Baba Ji” was truly a “sant”, as you more or less indirectly implied on your other post, then he would have been reticent to have any creatures destroyed, and especially not BEES. Unless of course it was a dangerous rabid wild dog or something similar.

Hi Manish,
You are making one more assumption that all the people who question RSSB with open-mind are Americans. FYI, I was born and brought up in India, have seen creepy RSSB people since childhood and am pretty convinced now that it is a CULT !!

my dear adorable sapient..
ur name sounds very much indian like
SAPERA,
anyways i m not an anti american..please i have mentioned abt the few americans who are really corrupted and little small minded people..
and dear grown up my sweets..
questioning and bashing both are different aspects..
questioning is right
but asking a right decent question is right
but not criticizing,ok dear,
and yeah ofcourse there are millions of anti rssb in india itself..
holy my dear holy
even in my own known relatives i have anti rssb..but thats none of my business,
and i expected the same reply from tao and i m least bothered by that silly crap person..i m not going to reply or pay attention to any of his post..he is just meaningless person i came across through out my life..
tuscon please grow up my dear buddy
i m not controlling others ..
i m just telling what i know …
and as i know here there is only one point of view…no one is ready to believe others…
especially this blog will never believe or trust RSSB followers..
brian you always surprise me..
i really wanted to know how your parents bought u up and how you grown which schools you study which company you shared..
you r very smart and talented,but sorry to say you are lost in illusions..your lost in mind satisfying battle..
you asked me to prove how i m correct..
well brian for that answer ..you need to believe me
you need to understand me
you need to trust me have faith..
but you people have one point conclusion
dont believe and listen to rssb followers
then how can i make you understand regarding any issue over here..
always you say my post make no sense..
where as i feel the same for you…
yes i wanted to delete that post because ,it was me for whom you have posted that post
so i can request you to delete it..
and i m not saying anything about any other persons here..
well about tao not commenting on my post is my opinion and my liberty to state,its upto his wish whether he follows or not..
because he is an unreasonable,very foolish and silly person i came across i do not want to waste my time for him..
rakesh ji and george will take care of tao and they are taking very well taking care of tao comments…
you people always look for proofs..
you people always want proof..
well until now what i have felt is something i felt very long back..
making you people understand ..is not really easily possible
because no one of you from this blog is ready to agree with any other person..
and you people are only trying to criticize rssb,nothing more..
criticizing is normal..but there should be a valid resons..and valid points..
whatever ones feel …he cant just write it away..
everyone cant see the things and understand..
on seeing a half glass filled with water
some said its half filled
and some said its half empty
now both the statments are true..
but from different point of view..
so valid statments are accetable..
but bashing any path..is unacceptable..
that too for not knowing the entire truth..
look my dear brian
its not necessary that what one see is true
whats one hear is true…
what experiences people had through RSSB cannot be true..
because onething is really fake..the story about babani..
i said it already i m very well known to babani…his story was fake..
100% fake..
sometimes..mind plays the game …actually mind is playing the games all the time..
brian right now i need to leave..
i will be off for some more days..
and theres not much left right now to say
as whatever is said here..will be just one sided…
you anyhow will not believe or agree what ever i say..
and you need proofs..thats not possible..
because proofs arent required..where there is trust and belief..
proofs are only required for weak hearted and little minded people..
who do not know to believe.trust.agree.to others.
well like you planning for a new post..keep on planning and waste your time.
i m also soon planning to open a new blog..
which will 100% related connected with churchless
but i m finding and searching for a name
can you give me any idea
like
worthless
meaningless
senseless
or church of churchless where everything is less..
or churchloss from the chruchless

i m also soon planning to open a new blog..
which will 100% related connected with churchless
but i m finding and searching for a name
can you give me any idea
like
SACCHA GURMUKHI

Shiloh, thank you for the very clear, straight-forward questions and comments; and also Brian for your sane answers.
Shiloh, maybe your sister wants to get away from the known and the logical for a while. There’s a fair amount of discipline which in a way a person wants before they come across sant mat. Another thing that she may seek is peace and quiet, a connecting with things foreign, a distancing, new beginnings, neighbourliness, shared hardships and experiences with people working towards improving in a non-material way,… all that and maybe the promised ultimate truth too.
Maybe she just wants to experience something away from the family grip; perhaps she wants sense to be put firmly on the back burner. Whatever the case, she won’t respond to your efforts to persuade her otherwise through logic, because hers is a different way of thinking. She is never-the-less your sister and she will know when and if she has had enough.
One way or the other, she will have had a unique experience and view into a different take on life.

Shiloh,
“pushing for donations might be more easier and acceptable among faith based, notoriously blindly-believing Asian communities, ”
Go to RSSB or stay away. Listen to Brian/Tao/Tuscon or to Manish Arora… but please please desist from stereotyping communities.
What you are trying to suggest is that Asians are not intelligent enough (like westerners) because they will swallow any nonsense hook line and sinker?
May I request you on behalf of all dumb Asians that you watch what you write.
On the larger question of donations I have checked with people who frequent RSSB in India and there is no subtle or overt hints at asking for donations from anyone. It is not ‘prescribed’ as I have been given to understand.
In any case from a business point it would make no sense to give up the Dollars, Euros and Pounds and settle for Rupees. If it is purely a commercial enterprise then why invite/host Brian, feed him, give him a place to stay and then send him back without expecting a penny. It just doesn’t add up.

“On the larger question of donations I have checked with people who frequent RSSB in India and there is no subtle or overt hints at asking for donations from anyone.”
— That is incorrect. Donations may not be being solicited at the RSSB headquarters (Dera) in India, but they definitely are in America and other parts of India. So your information is incomplete.
“It is not ‘prescribed’ as I have been given to understand.”
— That is false propaganda. They merely SAY that, but do not adhere to it. As far as I know, there is considerable evidence to the contrary.
“It just doesn’t add up.”
— Thats because you simply don’t know the whole story, the whole truth. Many satsangis have been pressured to give both money and property.

why do the hare krishnas solicit for cash at airports?
anyone?

Tao,
Any basis for your assumptions:
1.
“but they definitely are in America and other parts of India. So your information is incomplete. ”
I have been to a number of Satsangs accompanying my parents. Still drive my parents for the Satsangs held at Delhi/Bangalore (though I am myself not into it). There is no evidence I have seen/heard to support it. In any case a large number of people at these satsangs are too poor to contribute anything substantial. It may not even cover the cost of infrastructure built for the conduct of Satsang.
2.
“That is false propaganda. They merely SAY that, but do not adhere to it. As far as I know, there is considerable evidence to the contrary.”
I don’t about US but on issues in India please share the evidence.
My counter is that in all my visits there I have not heard anything about it – coaxing visitors to give or leaving it to their choice. Just heard nothing. I visit the satsang, give nothing and no one says a thing or flings curses at me. My parents, I guess, give and its their choice.
3.
“Thats because you simply don’t know the whole story, the whole truth. Many satsangis have been pressured to give both money and property.”
And you know the whole story, the whole truth about what happens in India sitting in another continent. Who are these many satsangis, how many is many and what is your source of information?
There is a very fundamental rule to a fleecing operation. Minimum overheads and maximum revenue. The evidence I have seen is against it. You still haven’t answered my question:
Why host Brian, feed him, take care and then not ask for $$$ when he was most likely to part with them?
Why depend on piddly contributions by Indian disciples in Indian Rupees (to make the point clear the current exchange rate is Rs 48/49= $ 1)?
I am not zombie fan-boy of RSSB. This entire view is just to put things in perspective. Not everything about RSSB has to be sinister or evil. Don’t criticize for the sake of criticizing.
Shiloh’s reactions were a load of nonsense. Time permitting I will raise other issues.

why do the hare krishnas solicit for cash at airports?
There has been a change in the financing of the Ikscon and the devotees in charge of the centers have to fulfill their requirements without any financial assistance from the center, and in some centers the income is not sufficient to maintain the expenses of the center and full time devotees.

tao you just meaningless asusal..
you speak about others without knowing anything.
and perhaps your knowledge towards RSSB is just nothing
you know nothing about RSSB..
thats already proved many times and is proved everytime while reading your post.
No one in the history of RSSB has been ask for charity..
its all individual choice..
but you do not know about the indians how rich they are
they love to give lots of charity for their beloved master but its all their personal choice no one is ask to..
i never in my life has given lots of cash as charity as my charity system is different and i do not want to share with you..
and there are many people i personally know give lakhs to rupees anonymously to DERA RSSB.
its all their love for the master..
who can afford to give …he gives as per his convenience and who cannot they just do not..give it at all..
and you ask about property its all fake statements..
one of my relative was ask for a place from dera..they just asked that whether he would sell that place a piece of land for dera..
as he was a devotee he gave all the land for free…where just a piece of his owned land was sufficient..but he gave it the entire plot just for free…
he did so ..as its his love for the master..
and now a very personal point of view from the eyes of all true RSSB
when we love our parents and gift them things and in schools we love our teachers and gift our teachers presents we every time fulfill wishes of our children s…
when we are always exchanging gifts from relatives and friends..
Would not we love to give all we can,,to the master,who has given his own life for his devotees and who has given us the path of self realization..who have shown us the way back to true home..
whatever we give to our master will be less..
Tao i believe you are also an aged person..w
why are you wasting your precious time..on these blogs..
you will never gain anything….you have already given half of your life to rssb…now its time for you to realise your mistake
and get back to the real work with a fresh start..
god is love
love is god
he will forgive you…

juan
and how is this different from RS?
who have actually never solicited cash from airports?

In 1974 and 1984 when I was at Dera Baba Jaimal Singh I was never personally solicited or pressured for money “seva”. However, it was made perfectly clear how to do it if you wanted to make a donation.
On the other hand, during the bhandaras (large satsang gatherings attended by 100,000-200,000 or more people) money seva collection tables were set up with long lines of people waiting to donate whatever they could afford.
In those days the exchange rate was 12 rupees to the dollar.

George asked: “why do the hare krishnas solicit for cash at airports?”
Juan answered: There has been a change in the financing of the Ikscon and the devotees in charge of the centers have to fulfill their requirements without any financial assistance from the center, and in some centers the income is not sufficient to maintain the expenses of the center and full time devotees.
— Those are both incorrect. That is out of date info. Most HK devotees no longer solicit donations and distribute books at airports (and especially not in the US) They generally stopped doing that at airports many years ago. There may still be a tiny number of HK devotees who do go to some airports (in other countries outside of the US), but they do it independently of ISKCON and their temples. Also, airports in the US generally do not allow people to do that kind of thing anymore. However, HK devotees still do go out and distribute the Bhagavad Gita and other HK and Vedic books in other public places… but even then, they do that much less than they did in the past. As a matter of fact, nowadays, they get most all of their donations and funding primarily direct from their local Indian communities. The local Indian communities have more and more been their primary support and source of donations.

Vikas,
1. RS sangats in the US have on occasion pressured satsangis to do money seva (donations). Also, in India satsangis have definitley been urged to donate not only money but their property and real estate as well. And it is not the poor satsangis who are being pressured.
2. There have been many testimonies that indicate this is happening. Some were even posted on here awhile back. You can search for them on your own if you like.
3. Vikas said: “And you know the whole story, the whole truth about what happens in India sitting in another continent. Who are these many satsangis, how many is many and what is your source of information?”
— See # 2 above.
Vikas said: “You still haven’t answered my question: Why host Brian, feed him, take care and then not ask for $$$ when he was most likely to part with them?”
— I have also been to the Dera several times as well, in the 1980s, and I too was not asked to donate when I was there. But I have never said that donations were solicited AT the Dera.
Vikas said: “Not everything about RSSB has to be sinister or evil.”
— I have never said that it was.
Vikas said: “Don’t criticize for the sake of criticizing.”
— I haven’t. I try to stick to the facts, but also my own opinions.
Vikas said: “Shiloh’s reactions were a load of nonsense.”
— That’s merely your own personal opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t have to agree with it, and I don’t. Shiloh raised some good points, which are not “nonsense”. And imo, your knee-jek defensiveness and your biased objections do not.

tao,
Sure, fair enough, i can buy that, but then what is different from RS who also rely on donations from the indian community or others?
as someone correctly pointed out above (whose comment has been wiped?), this very site advertises a “Teeny Tiny Collection Plate”, presumably to support its operation.
Tucson made it clear that this seva was entirely voluntarily. if you ask me i think westerners are taking the piss going and living there for free, they should be charged at least for accomadation, and the money is used for the poor – whats wrong with that?
i think you guys go over the top sometimes with RS, hell i mean the HK movement has mantras, domgmas, divinities and ritual too.

and while i share your reservations that these may be cult-movements, its actually the HK movement that has some widely known bad press associated with it, there’ve child abuse and false imprisonment claims – have you heard of any abuses in RS? – i have not.
The other thing about RS is they dont annoyingly advertise and proselytize themselves remotely as widely as HK. In fact, i’d never even heard of RS, but everyone knows of the irirtating born-again christian or hare krishna marches whose overt happy-clappy advertising is so infurtiatingly irrating and often totally invasive.

George, yes, that comment was wiped because it was full of personal attacks. The “collection plate” mention wouldn’t have made any sense once I edited out the crap.
Along that line, the collection plate link in the right sidebar heads to the Amazon listing for my book about the Greek philosopher, Plotinus. I can’t recall the last time I got any money deposited in my account from someone clicking at that link and buying a copy.
Could be never. So I can assure you that the sum total of money I get from the Teeny Tiny Collection Plate is so close to zero, let’s say “zero.” This blog is completely non-profit. Or at least it would be, if somehow I made enough from it to cover my TypePad subscription expenses.
More accurately, it is less-than-profit, since I fork out money to keep it running. Almost all blogs are like this — few make enough money from ads or donations to cover expenses, and I’ve chosen to do neither (ask for ads or donations).

George said:
“Tucson made it clear that this seva was entirely voluntarily. if you ask me i think westerners are taking the piss going and living there for free,”
–Yes the seva was entirely voluntary. In the old days you could go there, stay for months in a clean private room with modern plumbing, eat well, do nothing and pay nothing. However, most westerners did contribute monetarily. This was done privately so I have no facts and figures. No doubt some were generous and some not.

brian,
thats not my point. if you’ve taken the trouble to write a book and have your own website i personally see no problem with you advertising a link to it to support your costs.
My point tho is that it seems this is all that RS and HK are doing, which is to cover costs. i’m not much of a churchgoer, in fact, never, but when i did as a child we’d always give to the congregation since you’d be pretty sure that money was going to a good place – is that not the basic idea behind seva – to cover running costs and for the poor in the area?
Tucson,
Well i find that generosity from a country and region (punjab?) that really has nothing, quite incredible actually.

George:
“then what is different from RS who also rely on donations from the indian community or others?”
— Huh? I did not indicate there was any difference in respect to donations.
“this very site advertises a “Teeny Tiny Collection Plate”, presumably to support its operation.”
— Brian gets no donations, he pays for this site himself. And in fact, I myself have even been intending to send him 2O bucks to help cover his costs a little. But he probably doesn’t even care anyway. So I don’t think you or anyone else has any basis to say that about Brian. And there is nothing wrong with receiving donations. The issue here was about RS. Some people in RS have indeed pressured satsangis to donate both money and property… ususally under the guise of “seva”.
“Tucson made it clear that this seva was entirely voluntarily.”
— Yes, by and large that is true. I have been to the RSSB Dera several times, and I like Tucson was never asked to give any money either. But that does not chage the fact that some satsangis outside of the Dera have been pressured in the past.
“i think westerners are taking the piss going and living there for free, they should be charged at least for accomadation, and the money is used for the poor – whats wrong with that?”
— Nothing. I have no objection to that.
“i think you guys go over the top sometimes with RS, hell i mean the HK movement has mantras, domgmas, divinities and ritual too.”
— But this isn’t about the Hare Krsna movement and their religios practices. That is an entirely different matter.
“its actually the HK movement that has some widely known bad press associated with it, there’ve child abuse and false imprisonment claims”
— I am well aware of that. But those problems were confined to a limited number of individuals, and have nothing to do with the Hare Krsna spiritual teachings and philosophy. And the same applies to the Santmat teachings as well.
“have you heard of any abuses in RS? – i have not.”
— I think there may have been some abuses, but they have been ignored or concealed from the public.
“The other thing about RS is they dont annoyingly advertise and proselytize themselves remotely as widely as HK.”
— So what? RS doesn’t generally preach to the public, but they do preach to satsangis and seekers. But again, so what? That isn’t really the point.
“everyone knows of the irirtating born-again christian or hare krishna marches whose overt happy-clappy advertising is so infurtiatingly irrating and often totally invasive.”
— Christians can be very irritating, dogamatic, pushy, and especially judgemental with their beliefs, but I would have to disagree with you about the HKs.
The HKs do offer many public programs, but attendance is always voluntary and they are not at all “invasive”. They actually go out of their way to be very nice and polite to people, in order to attract people to Krsna consciousness.
No donations are demanded or required, and they traditionally always offer lots of free Indian food to everyone at all their temples the world over. In fact they also do alot of feeding the poor and especially poor young school children in India. They also distribute alot of their books for free as well. And ALL their books are availble fr anyone to read online as well.
So on that basis, I would have to diasagree with you… however I am not trying to promote HK, or say that it better than RS. I am only pointing out some facts.

George, you said: “Well i find that generosity from a country and region (punjab?) that really has nothing, quite incredible actually.”
— That is not accurate. The Punjab, by and large, actually has a lot of abundance. There is a vast amount of farming and food production there. Have you been there? I have.And I have been all over the Punjab, and not just the little area nearby the RSSB. I have been all over India as well. The people of the Punjab definitely have far more than just “nothing”, and are relatively better off than people in other places in India.

i’m not going to get into a semantic discussion on a statement which is virtually totally correct under any plain reading thereof.
Its well known that india as a country has a massive poverty problem where rural india and its caste system mean india’s poorest make up a massive percentage of the world’s poorest, the area where the RSSB dera is (near the river), i believe provides much-needed hospital and food support for the ppl in that area, who i think it can be said with all reasonable fairness, probably do have nothing.
But i’m not going to carry this point on further, or the donation point or the HK point, they’ve all been knowingly sidestepped other than by Tucson – so we’ll leave it like that.

What is interesting though is the power of rhetoric.

George, I have been there, you haven’t. So you don’t know. Furthermore, you are wrong. The people there are not nearly as poor as you make them out to be. The RSSB does run a hospital, but they give food mainly to satsangis (but also to Indian workers and laborers and sevadars), both Indian as well as foreign, who come to the Dera for spiritual satsang and darshan. And just because the Dear runs a hospital does not mean that the people of the Punjab have nothing. If you don;t believe me, I have Indian friends whose families live in that area, and they can tell you first hand the same thing I am telling you. So with all due respect, I don’t think you are in any position to argue about this. You obviously have your opinions and your mind made up. You apparently aren’t interested in hearing the facts, but only in holding to your own reltively uninformed position. So go on and think whatever you want, it is inconsequesntial to me. I am not interested in debating this with someone like you who has never been there. I simply tried to give you a more accurate picture.

PS: I didn’t “side-step” the HK or the donation issues at all. I addressed them directly. You are the one who is now side-stepping and evading. And what Tucson said about there having been no pressure for donations at the RSSB Dera is correct, and it was my experience back in those days as well, but it does not mean that donations have not been solicited elsewhere. Because they have.

Tao, Tucson has been intiated into RS and spent 20+ years involved with it, you haven’t, so you don’t know. Furthermore, i don’t know where you have been and you don’t know where i’ve been so lets leave all of that alone. You have sidestepped the actual clear meaning of my point, which was a simple observation of the remarkable generosity provided by an impoverished ppl to westerners including meals and accomdation for nothing. Now i don’t know how many organistations you know of that do that, but it seems if they are running a fleecing outfit, they’re doing a pretty shit job of it.
My basic point is a simple one, which is that i believe your and Brian’s criticism of RS can be inconsisent and gratuitous, especially bearing in mind your apparent acceptance of HK and Brian’s ‘Teeny Tiny’. All donations seem quite reasonable in that they merely support running costs.
Now we can argue the finer details and nuances with crafty rhetoric until the cows come home, but the problem with rhetoric is when its used to distort in a battle of wits and extraneous issues are raised. Tucson, and i’m sure most others will have understood the points i was trying to make, and to Tucson’s utmost credit he has given an honest firsthand account of seva even tho he is no big fan of RS.

George, I just want to point out that “impoverished people” doesn’t accurately describe the headquarters of Radha Soami Satsang Beas. It is a well-funded organization with the ability to purchase valuable property in many places around the world and build expensive structures.
Yes, RSSB is generous to visitors, and engages in laudatory charitable activities. However, I didn’t want anyone to be left with the impression that the Dera is being run by poor Indians who are sharing their limited food and lodging.

Brian,
Tell you what, lets forget ‘impoverished’, you guys win and have convinced me the punjab is jam-packed with healthy wealthy folk and the hospital and charity activities are just a cunning front.
Accepted, but what is very difficult to understand is how they fleeced ppl with they offer them room and board for nothing.
What incredible economics. Those heathen conmen what what!

George, I never said anything about “fleecing.” I never said anything about “con men.” I never said anything about “cunning front.”
I just said that RSSB is a well-funded organization.
I realize that you’ve been dialoguing with several people at once. But reading through other comments on this subject, I don’t see anyone else talking about “fleecing” either.

George,
Let’s get something straight here. Because you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to me. You are (again) completely wrong.
I was formally initiated into RSSB by Huzur Charan Singh in the 1970s. So I have been involved and familar with RS for over 30 years, and I have been to and stayed at the RSSB Dera (the headquarters and colony) at Beas in the Punjab a number of times. So contray to your misinformed and ignorant claim, I DO KNOW about the RSSB and the Punjab.
Also, as far as I know, you have given no indication that you are an RS satsangi, or that you have ever been to the RSSB colony, or to the Punjab. Maybe you have, but you have not said so here.
However, I have said numerous times over the years on this blog a great deal about my own personal involvement and initiation with the RS path, and about my visits to the RSSB in India.
So for you to say: “Tucson has been intiated into RS and spent 20+ years involved with it, you haven’t, so you don’t know.” is completely unfounded and untrue. Where do you get this idea anyway? Certainly not from me.
So relative to that statement of yours above, YOU are the one who NOT “been intiated into RS” and YOU are the one who has NOT “spent 20+ years involved with it”, and so YOU are the one who “don’t know”.
So George, you really should get your facts straight about other people (like myself) especially before you go making such blatantly false and ignorant statements to me like: “you haven’t, so you don’t know”.
Furthermore, your calim of “remarkable generosity provided by an impoverished ppl to westerners including meals and accomdation for nothing” is also incorect. Those things are not provided to westerners by any such “impoverished ppl”. Those are provided to foreign (and Indian) satsangis by the RSSB Dera which happens to be very wealthy. It has nothing to do with any “impoverished ppl” whatsoever. The poor people do not provide any of those things to westerners…. the RSSB does. And the westerners are also contributing large amounts of money in donations TO the RSSB.
Also, I never said that the RSSB is “running a fleecing outfit”. So that is incorrect as well. I also have no such “acceptance of HK”. I simply related some information about them.
And yes Tucson has “given an honest firsthand account of seva”, but so have I. As I have said, my own experience at the RSSB Dera in India is identical to Tucson’s. So your trying to say that my views (on the RSSB money-seva/donation issue) are different than Tucson’s, is also incorrect and is a gross misrepresentation of what I myself have already said previously. You have been trying to put words in my mouth, and also saying that I am not a long-time RS initiate and so therfore I “don’t know” is total bullshit.
I did not start this argument, I merely shared my views abou it, but if you are going to make such false and unfounded assertions about me as you have done, then I must corrrect you on that.
I have no problem with your having differing opinions, but when you cross the line and go saying things about me which are absolutely NOT true, then I must protest.

Dear Brian,
I am pained to read the above discussions regarding offerings (sewa) at RSSB. Your only complaint is that you could not get anything in meditation even by spending 35 years and though u r still in it on a low magnitude……….
If you wish, you can put other things straight and clear about RSSB. I will restairn myself discussing RSSB and santmat here.
with regards,

Rakesh, a suggestion: instead of being pained, why don’t you join in the discussion?
If someone said something that wasn’t accurate, point out the error.
Instead, you made a vague reference to me for some reason.
You seem to be implying that someone wasn’t “straight and clear” in some comment above.
If so, set things straight. To me, it’s better to light a candle than to curse the blog comment darkness.

hi george do not trust brian at all
brian has lost his self respect and damaged his image ….
he has deleted my post…
actually he always delete my most important and valuable post,
why?
because reading them brian and taos attempt trembles..
people will come to know the real truth about tao n brian..
i posted about the donation scenario
and my personal experience
and brian deleted …
brian by being with tao you are also losing common sense..
why are you behaving like this..
i always respect your comments and your treatment to others
but why are you following and trying to become like tao..
brian think think and think with peaceful mind..
you are day by day losing all the years you put into meditation..
your wasting all the wealth you gathered…while being associated with rssb..
you do not even have clue what loss you have to bear…the day when you will realise the truth finally..

Manish, I didn’t delete your comment. I edited it, because it contained unacceptable personal attacks. However, somehow it didn’t get republished, so I just attended to that.
The comment that you just left got marked as spam by TypePad. I found it and published it.
You have a right to your opinions. I have a right to mine. All I ask is that you discuss issues, rather than engaging in personal attacks and criticism of me and this blog.
That isn’t productive.

personal attacks?
do you really understand what is personal?
why will i personally attack?
and when someone is really being senseless and meaningless..
is calling them with their qualities term to be as personal attack in your dictionary,
Brian i still stick to my words..
i have respect for you …
though i do not agree to many of your thoughts and ideas..
but tao is a person who has lost his way completely..
he is the person with personal attacks,
he is the person who always is waiting and wanting the post to be replied in different point of view,with different point of opinion or either his point of view..is important and seems to be only true..
brian..i tell you very clearly…
when a director makes a movie..
every movie cannot be a blockbuster..
but then if the movie fails we can never blame everyone immediately,
a director who gives blockbusters all the time,if suddenly delivers a picture which is not hit doesn’t mean that something from director side..it can be just people wasnt able to understand his direction and his expression..and took accordingly their own thoughts and thinking capabilities.
You people also have mistook many expressions of rssb and their masters according to your own belief,thinking process..
now you and me are totally opposite..
i never had any negative experience from rssb not Single me but as i always says our association is 100 years old..
i never heard anything against rssb from last 100 years,
though criticism is very natural..
that is something have to be faced by everyone,in this human land..
even in my close family relations they are many i know very personally who have lost their faith in rssb,
but all i can do is feel pity for those relatives of mine,,
because i know its just their lack of understanding and inability to follow path has lead them out of rssb..
i can clearly say that…
because many people has this thoughts in their mind,
“Everyone wants to go to Heavan
But no one wants to die”
And that is not at all possible..
thats the reason i said many times come down to india,lets meet up,not for an hour or a day,
lets stay together for some days..
come and i will directly show you things,
perhaps then only you can understand..
by reading posting nothing can be happened..
like it happened in one of the post
rakesh ji mistakenly posted the post with CAPS lock on
and the result is the wrath of TAo,he abused rakesh ji..
yelled on him..
for a reason?which he wasnt aware of and totally misunderstood it..
this is quote natural and normal..
to misunderstood the person other side..
because neither you can see him,or his expression,hear him,
and once again i would repeat
i agenda of being to this blog is one..
to safeguard my master..
because you people really do not know everything and do not know many things..
and its already been a very long time that you started this blog and what all i can see is
no one has gained anything here..
because these discussions will always lead to another and there’s no end..
perhaps life will come to end one day
but not these discussions…

Manish said:
“and once again i would repeat
i agenda of being to this blog is one..
to safeguard my master..”
–Don’t you think your master can safeguard himself? If he is one with the all-powerful, all-knowing Supreme Lord Sat Purush Radha Soami why does he need your help on this puny blog? (no offense, Brian)

tucson, no offense taken. You’re absolutely right. I’m just a blogger guy in my pajamas (actually, sweat pants at the moment) who spends some time every day writing about what’s on his mind, as do other people who choose to share their own thoughts via comments.
Why this blog is so threatening to some people is a mystery to me. Myself, I spend essentially zero time on web sites that spout a message I don’t like, or agree with. I follow general news sites, but politically I read progressive blogs that make me say “Yes, yes!” rather than “No, no!”
So it’s perplexing to me why some true believers keep on reading stuff here that offends them. They’re welcome to do so, of course. I just wonder what the appeal is in feeling offended all of the time.

Tao,
You have not answered a single point I raised.
“1. RS sangats in the US have on occasion pressured satsangis to do money seva (donations).”
– I have already told you I am not aware of what goes on in US. I am in no position to counter these arguments.
“Also, in India satsangis have definitley been urged to donate not only money but their property and real estate as well. And it is not the poor satsangis who are being pressured.”
– Last time around I asked for any proof for this accusation. You might want to consider using the journalistic term ‘allegedly’ somewhere in the sentence.
“2. There have been many testimonies that indicate this is happening. Some were even posted on here awhile back. You can search for them on your own if you like.”
– In a similar vein there have been many testimonies of people who have seen worlds beyond these. You may want to read them and stop doubting. I have not read the books so I can not quote but have heard discussions between my parents and others. Maybe Brian will know.
I will spend time to go through the testimonies here but a lot of things that get published here are with little understanding of the situation – as in the case of cash donations now.
I would trust what I see and hear.
“3. Vikas said: “And you know the whole story, the whole truth about what happens in India sitting in another continent. Who are these many satsangis, how many is many and what is your source of information?”
— See # 2 above.”
– See the response above.
“– I have also been to the Dera several times as well, in the 1980s, and I too was not asked to donate when I was there. But I have never said that donations were solicited AT the Dera.”
– I told you the example of Delhi and Bangalore. I have been to the Mumbai Satsang only once. That covers the three richest cities of India for you. I still find it strange that a fleecing operation will fleece at Delhi but not at the Dera. A visit to the Dera is like a pilgrimage for a lot of people. A visitor is most likely to donate there and in larger amounts. The entire premise doesn’t hold.
“Vikas said: “Not everything about RSSB has to be sinister or evil.”
— I have never said that it was.”
– When I wrote this the larger meaning was that if RSSB doesn’t work at a spiritual level for those who have tried that is indictment enough. Don’t try to find problems where they may not exist or of things you do not understand. It makes it look like a case of sour grapes and sidesteps the core issues.
“Vikas said: “Don’t criticize for the sake of criticizing.”
— I haven’t. I try to stick to the facts, but also my own opinions.”
– I have been waiting for the facts. Opinions are a different matter. When I went for my first job interview at GE Capital in ’97 I offered my opinion on a particular matter. My future mentor and reporting manager told me, “Vikas, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one”.
As far as possible I try not to give opinions unless asked for. I never write about spiritual matters about which I know nothing. These are facts (as seen and heard by me) and not opinions.
“Vikas said: “Shiloh’s reactions were a load of nonsense.”
— That’s merely your own personal opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t have to agree with it, and I don’t. Shiloh raised some good points, which are not “nonsense”. And imo, your knee-jek defensiveness and your biased objections do not.”
– There you go again. After not having a single fact to back your claim you call my response a knee jerk reaction. Wow.
Let me quote my last line once again.
“Shiloh’s reactions were a load of nonsense. Time permitting I will raise other issues.”
Let me add again. No spiritual matters will be raised. I don’t know that side of the story. Just facts and personal experiences.
Please wait for the objections to come before trashing them. I never asked you to agree with anything that I say. Why would I want to waste time doing that?
It is strange that none of you have ever been asked for donations directly yet some of you have huge objections to this to the extent of making unsubstantiated allegations.

Manish,
You apparently aren’t very observant or intelligent, and you are definitly confused and have a pretty significant lack of understanding when comes to the facts and points that I and others present in their comments.
It is YOUR comments that are “meaningless as usual”.
It is YOU who speak about others without knowing anything about them.
It is YOU who seem to know little or nothing about RSSB other than narrow-minded propaganda and dogma.
You say: “No one in the history of RSSB has been ask for charity.” — Well that is not so. It is a fact that some satsangis have been pressured on occasion to donate both money and property… regardless of how much you may wish to deny that.
You say: “you do not know about the indians how rich they are they love to give lots of charity…” — I happen to have known a great many Indian people very well. I lived in India for years. I have known extremely rich Indians and also very poor Indians. I am also very aware that Indian people give money to swamis, gurus, temples and ashrams. Andmany Indians give to RSSB as well. But so what?
You say: “its all their personal choice no one is ask to.” — In most cases yes, but that has not always been so in every case.
You say: “my charity system is different and i do not want to share with you.” — I don’t care what you do, thats your business. Just like what I do is none of your business.
You say: “there are many people i personally know give lakhs to rupees anonymously to DERA RSSB.” — I don’t doubt that either… but so what?
You say: “you ask about property its all fake statements.” — Wrong. I did not “ask” about any property. You are confused.
You say: “now a very personal point of view from the eyes of all true RSSB {…] the master,who has given his own life for his devotees and who has given us the path of self realization.”
— Your master has given no such thing. He has not given anything to anyone. Satsangis are the ones who give donations and seva to the RSSB. The master gives nothing. He only speaks a few words and makes appearances and plays the role of guru. He is an actor in a play. That is not giving anything of substance to anyone. He is actually taking. His expenses are all paid from donations. Satsangis are the ones who give to him. They give attention, money, and seva. But the RS master gives nothing to anyone. But you must posseses a rational and sober and objective mind to see that.
You say: “Tao […] why are you wasting your precious time..on these blogs..
you will never gain anything.” — But I am not looking to gain anything. I post comments here because I choose to. I am not in need of gaining anything. I have what I need to live, and I have my life. I am not looking to “gain”. I am looking to surrender so that I may be an open and clear vessel for the One. But you don’t understand that, or what that really means. You are caught up in a false identity and alot of related baggage.
You say: “you have already given half of your life to rssb.” — I haven’t given anything to the RSSB. My life for the most part belongs to me, and beyond that, to the One who guides me.
You say: “now its time for you to realise your mistake” — I have made no mistake. Everything in my life is exactly the way it needs to be. I am always right on course. And the One who guides me does not make mistakes.
You say: “he will forgive you.”
— Who is he? I answer to no man. And I don’t need any forgiveness either. And you know absolutely nothing about me or about my life, so who are you to say? You should simply ask for forgiveness for yourself Manish, and don’t worry about others. Others are not any of your concern whatsoever. What I know and do is really none of your business. You should simply attend to your own life and path, whatever that may be.

Tucson,
Yes, the exchange rate then may have been Rs 12 to a $.
Back of the envelope calculations show that 1USD contributed by Brian then would have become 30 USD (or more) by now. This is by investing them in secure debt instruments only.
That is nearly Rs 1500 today 🙂
$ 100 contributed then would have enabled some one to buy the cheapest car in the world today – the Tata Nano – with cash to spare 😀

Vikas,
You said: “I have already told you I am not aware of what goes on in US. I am in no position to counter these arguments.”
— Alright, so what? I simply told you what I know. I don’t care whether you “counter” or not.
Vikas said: “Last time around I asked for any proof for this accusation. You might want to consider using the journalistic term ‘allegedly’ somewhere in the sentence.”
— That is already implied. I told you you can search for that if you like. It’s your doubt, not mine.
Vikas said: “In a similar vein there have been many testimonies of people who have seen worlds beyond these. You may want to read them and stop doubting.”
— I don’t need to read them. I have expressed no doubt that people have experiences. I know other people have experiences. I have experiences myself. But so what? Subjective experiences don’t prove anything. You need to catch up to speed here, and get your facts straight. No one here is doubting that some people have had experiences.
Vikas said: “I have not read the books so I can not quote but have heard discussions between my parents and others. […] but a lot of things that get published here are with little understanding of the situation – as in the case of cash donations now.”
— You do not know that. You don’t know that others have “little understanding of the situation”. Other people have a great deal of understanding, and in some cases far more than you do. So what gives you the ability to say otherwise? Yo don’t know what other people know. And you also don’t know about the people who have been pressured oand intimidated to give money and/or property either. So its pretty obvious that you don’t know what you are talking about.
Vikas said: “I still find it strange that a fleecing operation will fleece at Delhi but not at the Dera.”
— I never said anyone was being “fleeced”. I never said anyting about Delhi either. I was talking about satsangis who were pressured and intimidated to give money and property elsewhere, not at formal satsangs or bhandaras. You have missed the point entirely. I have no interst in debating this further with someone like you who is so uninformed. Yor can go do the research on your own if its that important to you. There is even some some info in the archives on this site.
Vikas said: “The entire premise doesn’t hold.”
— What “premise”? I don’t think you even know what is being discussed here.
Vikas said: ” Don’t try to find problems where they may not exist or of things you do not understand.”
— Fyi Vikas, I understand vastly more than you do about all aspects of Sant mat and RS. And I have the experience to back it up. You say you are not even an initiate. I have more than 30 years experience and have been to the Dera numerous times. Do you? Have you? I don’t think so. And yet you say that I do not “understand”? LOL! Try to get some sense of perspective Vikas.
Vikas said: “It makes it look like a case of sour grapes and sidesteps the core issues.”
— You are obviously new to this site and forum, and lack familarity with what has been presented and discussed here. The core issues have been deliberated at length for years. And it has nothing to do with any “sour grapes”. I am not even going to bother responding to this kind of nonsesne from you after this post. Because you definitely don’t know what you are talking about.
Vikas said: “I have been waiting for the facts.”
— The facts are there, but you will have to dig them out for yourself. Perhaps others can steer you to where you can find some.
Vikas said: “I never write about spiritual matters about which I know nothing.”
— Then why do you presume to say or imply that others here do not understand RS?
Vikas said: “Shiloh’s reactions were a load of nonsense.”
— But how do you know that if, as you say, you know nothing about spiritual matters?
Vikas said: “It is strange that none of you have ever been asked for donations directly yet some of you have huge objections to this to the extent of making unsubstantiated allegations.”
— The allegations are not unsubstantiated. There are testimonies. And you are wrong and mistaken when you say “none” of us have ever been asked for donations. I was asked to contribute donations at a bhandara in California, at satsangs in Washington DC, and at a bhandara/initiation in St Petersburg Florida. So again, you really don’t know what you are talking about.
You seem to be rather defensive of RS, but have no experience. So why are you here? This is called Church of the Churchless for a reason. But you seem to be playing the same old game that other RS cult believers have done so many times before. If you want to debate something relative to RS, then at least make your position clear, and don’t assume things about other folks that you don’t know.

Vikas,
I can give you the proof. Our family friend’s parents are Satsangis for the last three generations. They have worked hard (doing sewa while neglecting their kids) all their life to step up the in the sewadar hierarchy. They are pretty rich by Indian standards working at Delhi center and frequent visitor to US centers. When they got retired, they went to dera asking for directions for what should they do in their life. Since they are very high in administration, they met BabaJi directly and they were told by him that they have too much property world wide and it will distract them in the meditation in their final days( they are hardly 60 though). They were asked to consolidate the property by selling it and were suggested to move to dera if they wish. Yes it came as a shock to our friend’s parents as they wanted to keep the properties for their kids. But how can you contradict if GOD is talking to you! They ended up selling almost all their houses and gave away a lot of money to dera, though they are still living in their Delhi house as moving to dera was given as an option. (Off course now you will say that they were not told to give money to dera. Yes but their cultic minds kept on thinking why did babaji ask us to sell the properties and move to dera). Why did Babaji suggested them to sell the properties. They could have easily given it to their kids.
Also give me few days (unless I have not trashed all of them) I will try to find the monthly newsletter of RSSB north America, where Vince sewarese once clearly wrote that we should give at least 10% of our income as dhan Sewa. And most of the people, I know in Sonoma county area do that diligently, even while they are going through foreclosures of their houses.
Anyway my point is that if you are following a sect with a cultic mind , ok let me correct if your sect is cultic in behavior ( emotionally draining you that once you are initiated you will be dragged with bulldozer, so that you cant run away), then you become a bonded labor who never complains that he is a slave. A sewadar is told that Sewa is the essence of path and sewa is of three kinds- tan, mann, and dhan. And what is Dhan-sewa : donating money to RSSB!

Manish said:
“when someone is really being senseless and meaningless..is calling them with their qualities term to be as personal attack”
“tao is a person who has lost his way completely.”
“he is […] always is waiting and wanting the post to be replied in different point of view,with different point of opinion”
“they are many i know very personally who have lost their faith in rssb, but all i can do is feel pity for those relatives of mine,, because i know its just their lack of understanding and inability”
“i agenda of being to this blog is one.. to safeguard my master..”
“its already been a very long time that you started this blog and what all i can see is
no one has gained anything here.”
— Manish, you say you feel sorry for other people who leave RS. But you literally don’t understand anything about Brian, about this site, or about most of the other people who comment here, especially me.
No offence Manish, but spiritually speaking, you really are the sad sorry one here.
The reason that you don’t ‘get’ where other people are at, is becuuse you think you know it all, and that they (especially those who no longer believe in RS) are “lost”.
That is arrogant, and self-righteous, and downright stupid. What do you know about others? You know nothing.
I am not trying to offend you. I am simply saying that you have no idea what you are talking about. Your english grammer and syntax is a bit poor (but thats OK), however your thinking is much much poorer. Your thinking is downright lame.
You are so full of your dogmatic beliefs and self-righteous attitude, you are blinded and can’t see or understand anyone or anything else.
I hope you grow up out of your fantasy world and become a real, mature, and rational individual someday. I really and sincerely do. But first, you need to get off that pile of crap you are sitting on.
I am sure there are other people like you in RS, but I am sure as hell glad I don’t have to be around them anymore or deal with them. Which then makes me wonder, what ARE you doing here Manish? Why are you still here? Do you even know? What are you trying to do here… besides preaching about RSSB and insulting those who aren’t believers like you??
I hope I have made myself clear to you.
And I don’t have anything more to say to you. People like you don’t deserve my attention. And if you keep posting unjustified personal attacks and insults, I am sure your comments will continue getting edited and/or deleted.
Adios Manish.

well tao you again proved yourself
that you have already lost your senses
you are meaningless asusal
and senseless asusual
your arrogant asusual
your ignorant asusual
well dear i m not here to insult anyone here
but who ever will speak bad and wrong about rssb then i will also reply back to them with the same language.
though all these replies are very personal and my own and RSSB has nothing to do with it,
well my dear silly tao..
its not that i know everything
what i can surely say is i know almost evverything if compared to you and brian..
you both do not know anything particularly regarding rssb,
and you are dogmatic
not me
and from starting when i have come to know about you i felt sorry for you..
and you please dont feel sorry for me poor child..
and about my grammar
i long back confessed i m not good at english..
but can speak and write 100% better than you guys,
because you cannot right spell or write hindi..
indians inherited with god gifted talent..
they are always good at multi tasking..
anyways ..
and innocent tao i will not say i m happy that your are out of rssb now..
for me tao and brian seems to have done kinda sting operation for rssb..
just to blame and criticize rssb they joined it learned through it known they wanted read books gained knowledge
and now consider the path to be unuseful and tao the “MISTAKE”(mystic)consider himself a master self..
how pity….
its like he saying to his mom i m your husband and my dad is my son
how silly
how silly
i hope brian would not delete this post of mine and will act as a man
rather than a coward…

Manish said:
“i m not here to insult anyone”…
“silly tao.”
“you have become old dumb idiot tao.”
“dumb person like you ”
“tao the “MISTAKE”
“how pity.”
“i hope brian
will act as a man
rather than a coward.”

More twisted personal insults from Manish:
“you are all confirmed cowards”
“get your sex changes.”
“get your sex changed”
“you are not deserve to call a man at all tao.”
“without giving any silly kiddish excuse get your sex changed.”

well yes
you can prove me wrong
thats not an confirmed statment yet
give me your real name
show me your face
ok share your contact details we will speak up on phone..
one to one that would be more better

tao you can email me you contact number at manishfantastic@gmail.com
i wanted to talk to on phone..
perhaps may be then we can have a good real conversation without misunderstanding..

Tao,
I concede the point. In fact all points.
You have infinite time to go around in circles. I don’t. In any case having known your propensity to hair-split and use rude language why did I even get into a discussion with you.
By the way, if you ever get any proof about your allegations ask for my mail id from Brian and write to me.
On the issue of Shiloh. My apologies to her. There was only one more point I had objection to. The rest were from other comments. I stand corrected.
Take care,

Vikas, you said,
I have been to a number of Satsangs accompanying my parents………………. There is no evidence I have seen/heard to support it. In any case a large number of people at these satsangs are too poor to contribute anything substantial. It may not even cover the cost of infrastructure built for the conduct of Satsang.
— Apparently you will not see any evidence. In RSSB if you happen to hold a high seva, and you want to maintain that position, either you have to contribute financially, or you should be a beurocrat or of some political influence, or beneficial for the organization. The poor sangat is governed and has to contribute with physical seva.
There are 60 satsangs drafted by the publication dept. in Beas and the readers conducting the satsangs in nearly all the centers in India are clearly instructed to read it as it is without adding anything of their own. Please listen those carefully and you will definitely get an ample evidence.
Further you said;
Why host Brian, feed him, take care and then not ask for $$$ when he was most likely to part with them?
Why depend on piddly contributions by Indian disciples in Indian Rupees (to make the point clear the current exchange rate is Rs 48/49= $ 1)?
…..Maybe to create a better image of RSSB. The attendance of Foreigners at satsangs had been very much helpful to attract the Indians during the decade of 60s, especially when Charan Singh had to face tough competetion with the Kirpal group.
I personally don’t feel that it is wrong, as money and man power are the necessity for the continuity and expansion of the organization.

Sapient,
Don’t bother with looking for documents to support ‘10% of your income as sewa’ thing. I have heard it too.
But sewa of money is not a concept invented by RSSB. It is followed in all faiths. All around I see charity / donations as an act of sharing your wealth with others or appeasing God or as a means to be popular in your community.
It is not even an Indian concept. Some of the greatest public institutions in US have been built by philanthropists.
I am not sure if the incident with your friend’s parents is as presented or there is an element of chinese whispers to it.
Is your friend upset that he was denied an inheritance? For the sake of argument let us keep these doubts aside.
It does make me think what if they had not gone and asked for advise. Were they told by someone to seek Guru’s opinion? What would they do if they had not sought any opinions?
The suggestion that they consolidate their properties does not in any way lead to a fat donation coming to the Dera account a few months down the line. Though it easy to connect the dots in hindsight.
If it was intentional the suggestion could have been a lot more direct. Should have been a lot more direct. Con artists do not leave things to chance.
Think about it.
Too many questions on this. Only your friend’s parents know what transpired and why? We can only speculate and draw conclusions either way.
However, the point that I originally objected to was:
“I’m glad you mentioned the latter since I suspect that pushing for donations might be more easier and acceptable among faith based, notoriously blindly-believing Asian communities, and thus may be much more blatant there.”
My objection to this still holds.

tao you once again asusal sound extremly nonsense to me..
you always claim a lot for no reasons
email me your personal id at manishfantastic@gmail.com
or if possible give me your contact number
i once for all wanted to talk you directly
this blog is not sufficient …to change views perfectly..
you already claimed a very fantastic nonsense statement..
but i will only confirm if you can directly email me or we can talk directly
else i have nothing left to say to u already

Vikas,
Don’t you think its none of the business of a spiritual guru to tell people to sell their properties and move to dera. My friend’s parents went there for spiritual advise and I am not sure why and how their properties and money came in the picture? Also why can’t one practice dhyan while living in material life. Thats the whole essence of sant mat, isn’t it? Why do you need to consolidate your business, property etc etc to focus on meditation?
Also this conversation was told by my friend itself who obviously is little confused about the whole issue. I wont say he is angry but his faith is little shaken.

Don’t you think your master can safeguard himself? If he is one with the all-powerful, all-knowing Supreme Lord Sat Purush Radha Soami why does he need your help on this puny blog? (no offense, Brian)
Tuscon my dear holy innocent sweet child of god..
well dear masters dont care…for these kind of issues as these kind of issues exist from the day this man kind existed..
and masters and me..holy my child holy tuscon dear
i cannot compare anyway to my master or any master…saint ..
why i do is a good question which has been answered many times
but its just as you guys understanding capabilities are so weak ..
you people doesnt understand..
i do this for my personal interest
complete individual attempt
RSSB has no connection in whatever i do..
RSSB never encourage this kind of discussions and i know i m doing wrong..
perhaps i will one day stop coming here
because consciously i m aware i m doing wrong in getting discussions with tao and brain
but it may be happening for a reason..
thats the reason i m a weak struggler of my path,
i many times ask this question that why i m here wasting time with tao and brain when by gods grace i know the truth and very well know that all these guys are very wrong and they are 100% wrong and incorrect in all their posts..
and what they want is…pity on them
they havent know yet at this age…
so sad..so sad..
may god bless you both always..and even tuscon,osho,
sapient(sapera)

Also about the 10% dhan-sewa (donation) issue:
yes you are right that ‘giving’ is essential part of any religious group but in RSSB, its considered Sewa.
So the trap is like this:
-There are four vows to follow once you are initiated else you will be dragged with a bulldozer.
-One of the most important vow is to do meditation for two and half hours every day. ( off course this time frame is impossible for a person with job, kids, parents and other responsibilities even if he neglects all his main duties in life and gets sleep deprived since he is getting up in the middle of the night for meditation)
-With all that mental pressure,the initiate is told that sewa does the cleansing and create the atmosphere for meditation. Sewa clears the Karmas and thus is very very important.
-And now he is told that Sewa is of three kinds: Tan (body), mann (soul) and dhan(money)
Then the poor selfless but scared soul thinks thats what the God wants.
Tan sewa: becomes a free labor at sewa centers during weekends when he should be spending time with his kids.
Mann sewa: devotes completely to the master and people associated with the master. Starts treating non-satsangis as untouchables.Thats the only way to become guru-mukh.
Dhan Sewa: Starts fighting with his family to donate 10% of their income to RSSB as he is in the hurry of cleansing his Karmas.
Oh yeah, he is never told to donate money but only to do dhan sewa!!! to clean his own bad karma else he will be dragged… Oh poor soul.

Thanks for your wishes ‘Man’ish but you don’t need to pity at me. Honestly I didn’t want to reply to any of your conversation as you doesn’t make any sense. I was only replying to Vikas as he made sense and was trying to discuss like a normal person which is what this blog is meant for.
Also don’t worry, at least I expect this behavior from you as from all other satsangis who thinks they are the only chosen ones and rest are doomed.
you are actually a great example of all satsangis who mock all the non/ex satsangis while always thinking about your greatness.
Let us be untouchables.You are free to live in your illusion. Though when the anxiety of all the RSSB vows becomes unbearable and you start getting panic attacks or delusions, please go see a shrink. I am not sure where you live but here in sonoma county/san francisco area, we have therapist who specializes in rssb patients.
(Also another unrelated advice to you. Don’t share your email on the internet or at least write ‘at’ instead of ‘@’ so that your email is not picked up by hack crawlers. Your master cant save your email. believe me)

Manish you wrote in your comment above:
“Tuscon my dear holy innocent sweet child of god..”
–Manish, my darling little lump of delight, you need to quit with these phoney platitudes. Even my mother never called me anything like that…I think she got as far as “dear” and that’s about it. Anyway, you come from a very weird culture if it is normal for strangers to address each other this way. It comes across as very fake and contrived unless you are being sarcastic.
You said: “RSSB has no connection in whatever i do..
RSSB never encourage this kind of discussions and i know i m doing wrong..”
–I know it’s hard, much like giving up cigarettes or liquor, but you can give up this sick addiction if you try hard enough. Master would be very pleased I’m sure.
You said: “perhaps i will one day stop coming here
because consciously i m aware i m doing wrong in getting discussions with tao and brain”
–Very good. Admitting your problem is the first step in conquering it. Whenever you feel the urge to argue with “Brain” and tAo think of the master and immediately start doing simran until the urge passes. I know you can do it, and with Master’s grace you will.
You wrote: “but it may be happening for a reason..”
–The Master is testing you to see if you are worthy of his grace.
You said: “thats the reason i m a weak struggler of my path,”
–But this is your chance to show you really have the strength deep inside to overcome your weaknesses and rise to celestial heights and to quit participating in this blog which is nothing but a dark pit of ignorance. (no offense, Brian)
You said: “i many times ask this question that why i m here wasting time with tao and brain when by gods grace i know the truth and very well know that all these guys are very wrong and they are 100% wrong and incorrect in all their posts..”
–Again, you realize your foolishness by throwing pearls before swine and that you are wasting your time with all us manmukhs. This is your chance to escape from the clutches of Kal and to do your duty as pledged to the Master. You know what that is…Attend to your simran and bhajan and leave the affairs of this world to the negative power. You have a higher calling. It’s time to move on. Don’t you think? It’s for your own good and you will be helping the Master in his duty and promise to deliver you to the lap of Sat Purush Anami.

Manish,
Swami Ji Maharaj (Shiv Dayal Singh) once said:
“God is within every one, but nobody knows Him. People commit sins while He looks on, but He does not prevent them, and makes them go through Chaurasi [the cycle of births and deaths]. What good then, is this God to us? But when we meet a Satguru [Master of Truth] and He explains to us in what form God is present in our hearts, then we are informed and avoid bad deeds, and escape Chaurasi. Hence it is necessary to seek a Satguru, for He is the God manifest, and the search for the unmanifested God is not possible without the help of a Satguru. Those who don’t do so will neither find God nor escape Chaurasi, but waste this precious human life. And whoever seeks the Satguru will surely find Him, for the Satguru is an incarnation eternally present upon this earth.” (Sar Bachan II: 208)
— So why ARE you here Manish, wrestling with manmukhs as you do, and becoming enmeshed in the domain of Kal?
Why are you wasting your precious time here and ignoring your Master’s instructions?
You will never reach Sach Khandd and Radha Soami by insulting and fighting with other initiates and satsangis on this blog, and you cannot help anyone either, as you have no power to do that. That is all in the Master’s hands, not yours.
Your obligation is simply to do yor meditation and to follow your Master and remain within His grace.
You are not doing that here, and so you will achieve nothing by remaining here, except to fail your Mastewr and fall down into the pit of Kal and chaurasi.

sapient my dear all you are really very very innocent and very kiddish
“””””Also don’t worry, at least I expect this behavior from you as from all other satsangis who thinks they are the only chosen ones and rest are doomed.
you are actually a great example of all satsangis who mock all the non/ex satsangis while always thinking about your greatness.
Let us be untouchables.You are free to live in your illusion. Though when the anxiety of all the RSSB vows becomes unbearable and you start getting panic attacks or delusions, please go see a shrink. I am not sure where you live but here in sonoma county/san francisco area, we have therapist who specializes in rssb patients.””””
you wrote this above in your post proves your ignorance,
i said so many times but i think as i already know western people are rather more dumb than smart,
you guys always think with your own point of view…which is almost always wrong..
i m not here to fight with ex satsangis i do not care if anyone leaving the path..
i really felt relaxed when i came across the sayings of guru granth sahib
in guru granth sahib its written clearly
guru nanak dev said,
if anyone goes of track from the path,it happens because of master only,when master sees that their disciple aren’t worth enough had have not able to understand the granth and masters word they themself create situations to make people go off track,
and there was 3 incidents occurred in guru nanak dev time.which i cannot translate it in english..
but i clearly understood it..what guru nanak dev was trying to say,
and sapient(sapera this name suits you best if your indian why use fancy names)
so sapera i m not here to fight..as i said in my blog i do not know everything,
but i know more than brian and tao and you and tuscon when it comes to RSSB,
and i do not need to clarify and prove,
because the owner of this blog is not that worthy person..because theres a reason behind him being not worthy?
I want to ask Brian when he wrote book for RSSB why he wrote and with what feelings hi wrote
what he has written was true?
if it was true?
why are you not following the same belief?
if it was not true and u knew
why did you wrote that book?
well many incidents proves brian cannot be trusted..
and sapera about sharing my email add,,
i m a computer geek and a very good hacker,do not worry….and you said master cant help,my dear darling it shows your ignorance…Master can do anything…
but for that you need to have faith and understand it..
and sapera as tao tells many time manish you do not know about me who i m what i am so and so,
so sapera its really true you guys do not have any idea or clue who i m ,,and how i m connected with rssb,and why i m following this path,
you all would have been fortunate..
but master doesnt want..so he already created the situation where tao and brian started there belly dance when i was new to this blog and hence my mind changed?
Now to tuscon,
the way i address you even you mother havent,
well thats the generosity of indians and humanity of indians..
they are more forgiving that anyone else in the world…
western region is more controlled by negative power (KAL) than Asian Countries
Read more books Trace more…and you will come to know more about the reality of the Land Called INDIA…
“””Manish, my darling little lump of delight, you need to quit with these phoney platitudes”””
tuscon my english is so simple that i looked in the dictionary to undertand phoney and platitudes meaning,
and your judgment towards me is incorrect,
but you have right to make you own judgment.
and yes tuscon for the first time your post really made a sense
the rest of your entire post was very well written
when i say well written
because theres truth involved in it,
thanks..tuscon for motivating me..i appreciate it..
and its co incident that tao also made good sense this time by posting right
your exactly right tao not only soami ji
but even guru nanak dev ji,kabir sahib and paltu said the same things..
and i very well knew..
now i will say something which will make you people in confusion and doubt?
i m saying this because may be you can realy understand the power of negative the KAL
i very well from the beginning knew i m here and its wrong to discuss spiritual stuff here,and to get into discussion guru nank dev said to avoid it..
guru nanak dev said if you face any such person instead of getting into discussion bow him and leave the place immediately,
but like they say …my bit of anger..made me stay here..and the reason i was here because i know everything about RSSB,more closely than you guys can ever know..
you people just do not accept my above words because the truth is you do not know about me at all,
what you know about manish is ..just through his posts…
and who knows may be manish arora is not at all the person,if you compare through his posts..
and again i would like to say i was never here for the reason to promote rssb..or to fight be any ex satsangis
its not at all true
i m here for my personal reason..
my attachment to my master
my love for him…
and conciously every time i spent here,
i spent with a thought that manish your doing wrong,but one day i want you to vanish..from here..
i use to say master forgive me,i use to ask him please make my mind stable ,that i should not react at all with such guys who are really ignorant..
i use to say in myself master anyhow help me out..
i use to talk to other people..to get inner peace and finally by reading guru granth sahib i accidently opened a page
and it was about these kind of posts,thought sand off track followers..
and i really felt relaxed..as i got answer to my latest questions..
and one more thing
i never felt pride or said i m the choosen one i m safe and you guys arent
read any of my post and you can see i never mentioned that
i only had discussion with tao and brian and that too only about the rssb,
the way they have thought and judged rssb,
but now as i realised..
i m very much relaxed..and happy
and see masters do everything by their own
yesterday night i got the answers and today
you guys really posted meaningful posts..
which by reading i felt happy..
sapera,tuscon and tao three gave very valid replies..
and i m happy for three of you..
and what tao said was all true
i agree to this post of his completely..
and i m off from this post for sometime now.. have to get back to my spiritual journey..
tao and brian i know your minds would be saying
manish will one day back from this illusionary world or master and sachkhand and join churchless..
but the same feeling i have for you both
you both will one day come out of the illusionary world and may be realised..
i m so so so fortunate to have a very good company of many spiritual seekers..
and i said my association is 100 years long..and its not that kind of association where you see and gain nothing..
but as i said i was here to share many wonderful true experiences..
not inner though but there are many more experiences …but anyways..
masters know all..
and they know what is right when is right who is right..
thanks for you three you made my day today

tAo
“I was formally initiated into RSSB by Huzur Charan Singh in the 1970s.”
If that is indeed the case, then you are a hypocrite and a liar, because i have once before asked why you guys who dislike RS so much actually fell for the all the stuff you now consider to be so ridiculous. I think that exchange is in the archives somewhere under our Taoist/nonduality discussion.
I believe you are a liar tAo and are intellectually dishonest. You are in fact many of the things you accuse other people of. I am actually very dissapointed in your approach, since its an utter waste of both of our time if ppl are intellectually dishonest. Basically that means your views have been formed and you will say or do anything to support those views.
I don’t know whether RS is a good or a bad thing, but its reasonably clear to me that you fellas have an agenda here and have formed unsupported inconsistent conclusions.

You clearly told me in our previous exchange that you had not been initiated and that my assumption that you were an initiated ex-satsangi were in fact incorrect.
I’m actually not sure you guys know what you believe.

George, for someone who admires science, sometimes you make unduly dogmatic statements. I was surprised when I read your comments about tAo, because they don’t fit with my understanding.
I did an initial search (which you could have done also, using the Google box in the right sidebar) of “tao initiate rssb.” It didn’t take long until I came up with a February 13, 2009 comment on this post:
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2009/01/rssb-guru-does-karaoke-he-must-be-god?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e2011278d7e40328a4#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e2011278d7e40328a4
He said: “You mean that after about 30 years of my being an RS initiate and practicing shabda yoga meditation, reading and studying ALL of the various sant mat books and literature several times over, spending many lengthy visits to India and the Dera, and speaking with the guru – both in formal satsang meetings and also privately one-on-one – on many different occasions… that I still somehow (according to you) “don’t understand Sant Mat”???”
Here’s another tAo comment from November 30, 2007:
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2007/11/another-one-bit/comments/page/1/#comments
“Speaking for myself, here is an example: Having already tread the over-all spiritual path as a serious yogi in India for at least 15 years prior, about 30 years ago (mostly out of curiousity) I got into RS. After about six years of significant experience in RS, I left or dropped RS completely and effortlessly. But more importantly, unlike many/most RS satsangis, I did not ever rigidly subscribe to or hold to any RS beliefs to begin with or during, and so I left/dropped RS without any beliefs either.”
What bothers me the most about the Internet, George, and what often goes on with commenters on my own blogs, is how people will go off on “flame wars” before getting facts straight.
This is exactly what you just complained about in your comments above, yet it is what you’re guilty of in this case. You could have said, “I’m confused, tAo, because I recollect you saying that you weren’t an initiate. But maybe I’m wrong about this. Please clarify.”
Understand: I certainly don’t agree with everything tAo says. I also don’t know whether at some time he may have given the impression that he wasn’t an initiate. But falsifiability is a key element of the scientific method.
A few minutes of Google research led me to falsify your “flame war” invective of “liar, liar.” You could have done this yourself. I’d rather be drinking my morning coffee and meditating at the moment rather than spending my time correcting your mistake. So forgive me if I sound a bit peeved (pre-caffeine irritation).

Manish,
You wrote:
“I know more than Brian and tao and you and tucson when it comes to RSSB”
firstly – you forgot to include me – but never mind.
secondly – I have heard the current RSSB master say in satsang:
“None of you understand anything about sant mat. All you have
is concepts.”
Now what exactly are you talking about when you say you
KNOW more then Brian, Tao etc?
Do you mean you have more theoretical knowledge, have attended
more satsangs or read more books?
Or do you mean you have reached the regions or Sach Khand?
In any case the current master has changed many of the traditional
teachings.
I will give you one example. Someone asked him – Will you come
at the time of death? Now sant mat teaches that the master comes
at the time of death to take care of the soul.
Now listen to the reply; it will shock you if you are a
follower of traditional sant mat:
“Please try to understand what I am saying. Who will come? and who
will they come for? When there is only ONE?”
He is also fond of quoting paltu: There is only ONE – there is no other.
These are enlightenment teachings – not sant mat teachings and the
current master is mixing the two and confusing the hell out of most
followers because most satsangis do not have the foggiest clue as to
what is going on.
Maybe he is doing it on purpose. Who knows? But one thing is clear –
things are changing.
So I don’t know what exactly you claim to know about sant mat.
Regarding the book – as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong, Brian),
but the current master ASKED Brian to write the book.
At the time Brian wrote it because it was what he believed to be true.
However, when we grow up – we can look back and laugh at ouselves.
I used to believe in Santa Clause many many years ago. Does it mean
I still have to believe him now? Now I know that Santa Clause does
not exist.
In the same way – I also know that the RSSB teachings are a METAPHOR
that have been taken literally.
The story of KAL standing on one leg (why on one leg? do you get extra
merit? and if so – why don’t we call stand on one leg to meditate – just
imagine how pleased Sat Purush is going to be!!)
is a FICTION – it is not literal. Sat Purush is also not literal,
neither is Sach Khand.
If you doubt this – I suggest you go back and ask your master.
I have already asked him in public and he said
“There are no regions – it is not literal – it is just a way of
describing. Actually they are just states of consciousness.”
I hope all the millions of people who meditated and tried to get to
Sach Khand understood they were trying to get to a fictional place!

no Brian, those passages are not what i am talking about, i distinctly remember Tao telling me that he had not been intiated into RS when i asked why you guys had bought into RS in the first place.
At the time I found Tao’s response puzzling since i thought he had been initiated (as evidence by your quotes). Instead i get the distinct impression he’s story keeps chopping and changing to suit.
I will do some searching through your archives on my own since this is very strange, and i would ask you, in advance, not to remove any posts. I actually just don’t know how honest you guys are. Are you crazy enough to distort things to such an extent as to save face?
The worst of the lot is that these egotistical issues are totally off the main point, which is the implication that RS are somehow profiteering. lol, and you want to know how flame wars are started. Why do you think this upsets ppl? Must be the strangest free-thinking site around. When your provocative views are aired they are public interest, but others are banned for not contributing to the subject. Madness.
Tao constantly reverts to lecturing based on some sort of self-assumed superior gravitas supposedly obtained from have learnt and done everything under the sun. Its utter bullshit. I am not interested in what he, or anyone else, claims to ‘know’. I am interested in a discussion of the content of the point in issue, not of the gravitas and credentials of the person making that point.
The most honest answer was given by Tucson, everyone can see that from a mile away.

osho as i have written in my post i m very happy..and not want to keep posting here..as i want to go off for some days..
well has you bothered to ask few questions..w
well osho all you questions are true?
and i have heard about them all..
but you understanding is what i can say not exactly correct..
about belief and trust
we can only say onething
either you trust believe or either you do not..
like a famous quotation said
a woman can either be pregnant or not pregnant
no woman can be either little bit pregnant and little bit not pregnant.
you said right when you said when you look back you laugh?
but these looking back theories doesnt apply here,
where the basic foundation is trust belief,
its like it has to be there or not there..
but its not like the age we keeps on changing..
when he wrote book..and now when he feels wrong
that means his mental stability is on stake..
that means brian cant be trusted at all..
who gave so many years to rssb and wrote a very wonderful book,
but later on he just not turn down his beliefs but start criticizing and gathering and encouraging more in doing so..
so if this was the future thought of brian that what all happened with brian was perfectly right..
thats the reason he havent gained and spiritual experience..w
what he gain may be he can call as spiritual experience but according to him..
and when you said “”I will give you one example. Someone asked him – Will you come
at the time of death? Now sant mat teaches that the master comes
at the time of death to take care of the soul.
Now listen to the reply; it will shock you if you are a
follower of traditional sant mat:
“Please try to understand what I am saying. Who will come? and who
will they come for? When there is only ONE?”
well this is true..he havent said anything wrong,its time is changing a lot,
why people havent gained much spiritual progress,if there are many reasons one reason is that they are carefree and keep on thinking that we are initiated and at the death time the master will come and rescue …this is actually not an accurate thought for an inititate..
to be carefree..
look osho if you want in detail give me your email i will try my best to explain you in detail,
because whatever i post here tao and brain will distract my point of view..and i do not want to get into that discussion.
and when master said none have understood santmat?its very true his point was clearly to tao and brian and etc and etc..
who actually do not understand santmat,
osho..my very weakness is my inability to express,my perfection in english language is not that good that i can convey my expression perfectly,
like rakesh ji does
like george
even like you
and sometimes even i like tuscon
way of writting,
in this blog i admire,rakesh ji george,ashy
i use to have good thoughts about brian but now reading his post..i doubt ..i lost faith in him..
and my dear we all ask master question related to materialistic point of view and mind satisfactory questions..
thats why you get those kind on answers..
and its true..theres no particular fixed regions..
no osho i do not want to get into discussions here..
you email me at manishfantasticatgmail.com
i will reply you personally..

George, for me the money issue isn’t so much about RSSB profiteering, but how these strongly-encouraged donations fit into the overall philosophy of the organization.
As you and others have noted, religions typically pass a “collection plate.” But RSSB doesn’t call itself a religion. Rather, a science of the soul.
OK, so in this case the donations would be like giving to the development fund at MIT or Cal Tech. Nothing wrong with that.
However, as some commenters have pointed out, with RSSB the message is that donating time, money, and such to the organization and guru confers spiritual benefits. This also is like a religion, in that fundamentalist Christian groups link “tithing to the Lord” with pleasing God.
Just wanted to point out this additional way of looking at the issue that has been discussed here.

My dear brother Manish..!!
You really need help. There is nothing wrong in following a path and then leaving it once you realize that its not a good fit for you or after realizing that you are not following a science but a cult.
The problem is when you are getting dragged by it, and still keep following because you are scared inside that something bad will happen if you will leave this path.
The problem is when you close your eyes and mind and keep following a path just because your three generations were following it.
The problem is when you live under an illusion that RSSB is the only solution and can not be criticized even by others.
I won’t blame you but you are showing all the signs of an obsessed mind. And I firmly believe that RSSB has a whole lot of obsessed and scared people and they have become so by closing their minds and following the fearful path literally.

sapera(sapient)
my dear innocent sapera,
you are among the one who is one of the silliest person involved in the post
you are a perfect example of ignorance read my post carefully dear again and again until you understand
3 generations is just a confirmation and proof for myself as we are going right
but my firm belief and trust on this path became more firm by many various reasons..
as i already mentioned in my pervious post many times
but you people are really dumb,not to understand the post,and just try accusing the other person for no reasons,
and my dear sapera i said many times i dont bother people coming out of rssb
its very natural thing which happens and is happening from the time of earth existed,
it happened with every saint and master through out the world,every one has faced criticism and thats the proof of negative power,
if saints would not have faced criticism then the whole world would have followed the single path,
its just a very natural thing..
but here my concern was totally different,
because here i can understand what has all happened with brian,
he went off the track is ok
but he is doing all this mess its not all ok
his claims about rssb are rubbish,
there are many many people who doesnt believe,
brian and tao is just among them..
my dear baby i m not at all scared of anything
you are really dumb dear
in spirituality theres no fear and scaredness,
if you are having this feeling of fear itself proves that you havent understood spirituality at all..
and what ever you believe about rssb followers is your own personal views and thoughts
you can continue having your own version of thoughts
its quite natural..
but please try to understand others first before replying for his posts..
ok dear
i m an follower of spirituality for many many wonderful great reasons,
and probably you all belongs to fear community..
i m among very few in this blog sharing my true identity
including tao and many arent even bold to pen down there real names..
contact infos..
why?
because of fear..
fear exist in you guys not in me..
i m always anytime ready to face anyone of you…
i know i m true,i m right
why the hell i will be scared..
so silly sapera..
so very much silly
you need rest for sometime dear..

George,
Again, for you and for the record, as I have already said previously:
“I was formally initiated into RSSB by Huzur Charan Singh in the 1970s.”
And yes, that “is indeed the case”.
I am definitely NOT “a hypocrite and a liar”, because I have never said on this blog (or anywhere else) that I am not an initiated RS satsangi.
Why would I have any reason to lie and say that I am not an initiated RS satsangi, when the truth is that I was initiated in RS decades before Brian had ever started this blog.
Therefore, either you are confused and mistaken, or else you are deliberately looking to try to discredit me for some other reason.
Your claim that I suppoosedly said that I am not initiated and that I am lying, is totally bogus.
I have never said or in any way implied that I was not an initiate of RS. You can search every comment that I have ever posted in this entire blog and you will not find that I ever said such a thing.
I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to say that. And in fact, in some of the very first comments that I ever made here (back in 2005, I believe) you will find that I mentioned that I was a long-time initiate of RS. So George, this can only mean that it is really you George who is more the “liar” here.
I (like Brian) have to feel some irritation and even resentment about this less than honest attempt of yours to make me out to be “a liar”.
And like Brian said, you could have simply asked me if you were in any doubt as to the facts. Or you could have simply accepted what I had said in that recent previous comment that you quoted.
But it appears that you weren’t interested in resolving your doubts or confusion at all… you are more interested in discrediting me and accusing me of being a liar.
You are certainly always welcome to question me if you need clarification of this sort, but you are not welcome to label me “a liar” without any justification or evidence.
What kind of crap is that George? What is your problem here? If you had somehow mistakenly assumed, or you accidently misinterpreted that I was somehow not really an RS initiate – even in spite of the fact that I recently made it very clear that I had been an initiate of RS for over 30 years – then all you had to do was to realize that your previous assumption was incorrect and in error.
It is as simple as that George. But instead, you chose to totally ignore and/or disbelieve what I had just recently said about myself being a long-time RS initiate.
So this is really rather irritating, in view of that recent statement and testimony of mine which clearly indicated that I have in fact been an RS initiate for a very long time. So there was and is no legitimate justification for you to call me “a liar”.
Who are you to say this about me? And what gives you the right to call me a liar? Where is your evidence George? Where have I ever said that I was not an RS initiate? It simply does not exist George, because I have never said that. I have no reason to deny that I am an initiated RS satsangi. I don’t practice shabd yoga in the formal traditional sense anymore, but that does not mean that I am not an initiate, as you so claimed.
So actually, all this really reveals is that you George, for some kind of fucked-up reason, are trying to make me look like someone that I am not. Trying to put me down and discredit me, and call me a hypocrite.
Which btw, may also be tied into why you have, on occasion, supported and defended blatantly deceiptful troublemakers like JAP and Ashy. (But that is another issue that should be addressed elsewhere.)
So to quote you, it is really should be I who am the one who is “very dissapointed in your approach”… and also as it turns out, it is really YOU who are the one who is being “intellectually dishonest” about me.
And here are my comments to a few things other things that you stated:
“I believe you are a liar tAo and are intellectually dishonest.”
— Where is the evidence George? Show me where I said that I was never initiated in RS/Santmat. Show us the evidence George, or else it is you who is the one who is being “intellectually dishonest” in this case.
“You are in fact many of the things you accuse other people of.”
— There is no evidence of that anywhere. But this seems to be what you may in fact be doing here, on this particular issue.
“you will say or do anything to support those views.”
— No, I simply tell the truth as it is (about myself), and also I express my own opinions about various subjects.
“its reasonably clear to me that you fellas have an agenda here and have formed unsupported […] conclusions.
— No, there is no such “agenda” here. We are all simply sharing our own points of view, which actually happen to differ from one person to another. But in view of this bogus comment of yours calling me a liar about my being or not being an RS initiate, you do appear to have some kind of agenda other than simply getting clarification.
“You clearly told me in our previous exchange that you had not been initiated and that my assumption that you were an initiated ex-satsangi were in fact incorrect.”
— I have never said that. You are grossly mistaken. It doesn’t exist because I never said that. Why would I say that if I really am an initiate? Why would I hide that? If I am going to criticise RS, then I have a much better position and more credibility to do so as an RS initiate, an RS satsangi, than a non-initiate non-satsatsangi.
So your assertion is wrong and its ridiculous in all respects. Why don’t you just admit that you made a big mistake here George? Or are you just too arrogant to see
and admit your error?
You have made a significant error George, and you called me a liar for no just cause or reason… and so you owe me an apology.
“I’m actually not sure you guys know what you believe.”
— I know exactly what I think and how I see things, and I am sure Brian and Tucson and Osho and others know what they think too, but the real question here is you George. I think you don’t know whats up here. I think you don’t understand where other people are really at, and what this blog is really all about. And Brian can tell you that its definitely not about bashing RS.
“i distinctly remember Tao telling me that he had not been intiated into RS when i asked why you guys had bought into RS in the first place.”
— Wrong George. You are seriously mistaken. You may have actually confused me with someone else. You have done that before you know. Because I never said any such thing George.
“i get the distinct impression he’s story keeps chopping and changing to suit.”
— That is your wrong impression George. I have never changed my story about my RS initiation in any way. However, there comes to mind another guy who has doubted and continues to doubt that I have ever been initiated, or that I have ever been to the RSSB Dera (ashram/colony) at Beas. I won’t mention his name here, but he lives in the UK, and he says that he is not an initiate.
So you may be confusing me with him. He too tries to call me a liar regarding my affiliation with RS. But he is the one who may have put that in your mind, I don’t know. Nevertheless, you owe me an apology because I have never said what you claim.
“I actually just don’t know how honest you guys are.”
— George, it has to be your own dishonesty that makes you think this way. Brian has no reason to lie, nor do I. You can search all you want, but you will not find that I have ever said that I am not an RS initiate. I was initited by Charan Singh and I have also stayed at the RSSB Dera for periods of several months on several different occasions during the 1980s, and the last time being in the winter and spring of 1990, which was the months just prior to when my RS initiating master Charan Singh passed away in June of 1990.
“Are you crazy enough to distort things to such an extent as to save face?”
— Not at all, but I suspect (in view of this issue) that you may be.
“these […] issues are totally off the main point, which is the implication that RS are somehow profiteering.”
— I never said that RS is “profiteering” or anything like that. And Brian and Tucson didn’t either. Actually I don’t recollect anybody saying that. At the least, I think you are misinterpreting.
“Why do you think this upsets ppl?”
— People get upset because their assumptions and/or belief systems are questioned or challenged. You yourself are an example of that.
“When your provocative views are aired they are public interest, but others are banned for not contributing to the subject.”
— Wrong. No one is “banned” because they are “not contributing”. They are only banned when and if they are intentionally disruptive and insulting.
“Tao constantly reverts to lecturing based on some sort of self-assumed superior gravitas supposedly obtained from have learnt and done everything under the sun.”
— That is simply not so. And I have a right to express my opinions and share my own story. I have shown no such “self-assumed superior gravitas”. If you are going to make such a claim George, you need to show the evidence. You are playing a devious little game here. If you think that one or more of my comments is “lecturing” or shows a “superior” attitude, then please make reference to it. Otherwise, as you
yourself said: “Its utter bullshit”.
“I am not interested in what he, or anyone else, claims to ‘know’.”
— But I don’t claim to know anything George, except and only what I myself have experienced or have done in my own life.
“I am interested in a discussion of the content of the point in issue, not of the gravitas and credentials of the person making that point.”
— OK, then you shouldn’t refer to your own credentials George, as you have done on at least one occasion awhile back.
“The most honest answer was given by Tucson, everyone can see that from a mile away.”
— But George, Tucson simply expressed some account about his own experiences at the RSSB Dera and that no donations were soliticed there, just exactly as I myself have done. So what then are you referring to? It seems that you are trying to make something out of nothing. Neither Brian, nor Tucson, nor I have said that that RSSB demanded or solicited donations at the RSSB Dera, or that the RSSB is “profiteering”. So what ARE you talking about? I do believe that you are confused George. And I also think that you may be trying to distort the facts and what other people have said to suit yourself and discredit others.
So again, why don’t you just simply admit that your have been mistaken and have misinterpreted a few things. Its no big deal. But it IS a big deal why you start calling honest people liars.
As Brian rightly said:
“What bothers me the most […] is how people will go off on “flame wars” before getting facts straight. This is exactly what you [George] just complained about in your comments above, yet it is what you’re guilty of in this case.”

George said:
“i distinctly remember Tao telling me that he had not been intiated into RS when i asked why you guys had bought into RS in the first place.”
“i get the distinct impression he’s story keeps chopping and changing to suit.”
— That “impression” is flat out wrong.
Let me be very pointed and very clear about this:
There is one thing, above all else, that I have never ever wavered on, or changed, or have said anything otherwise or to the contrary.
And that is the simple fact of my own formal initiation into shadd yoga and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (the Radha Soami Mat) by the previous RS master Huzur Charan Singh.
I have never even once said or implied at any place or time that I was not and am not an inititated RS satsangi.
I have maintained and stuck to that fact for more than 30 years. And I have no reason at all to deviate from that fact.
I have never had any reason whatsoever to deny my RSSB initiation, and expecially not here on this blog in any of the discussions about Sant Mat and RS, or in any of the other discussions and subject matters.
In view of what I have clearly said both here as well as on a number of previous occasions, anyone who tries to claim that I have said that I am not an RS initiate, or that I am not an RS initiate, is either grossly mistaken, or else they are intentionally promoting falsehood for other ulterior motives.

Brian,
Yes, well that is the point – is your assumption about RS of “strongly-encouraged donations” a correctly held one?
As i understand it, and from what Tucson has said, there is no requirement for a donation at all. Now whether it is explicitely advertised or taught that such donations are linked with spiritual reward, that is a question of evidence, do you actually have any to support this conclusion?
I’ve spoken to a few other RS folk who do not feel pressured to donate either time or money, their approach is not to invest time or money in writing books, giving satsangs or socialising like you did. Instead they prefer a private more contemplative and introspective approach. Could it be that their approach is actually the correct one?
tAo,
I should not have called you a liar, since i’ll just be contributing to what i’m trying to avoid. Nevertheless, i am quite simply exasperated since i distinctly remember you telling me you were not initiated, and i normally have a pretty sharp memory, but i will let it go – we now know for sure you have been initiated into RS.
Which actually brings me back to a point I made those many months ago. If you guys could all see the absurd dogma and crookery of this organisation, why did you get intiated in the first place?
Also, instead of spending a year or two on such an absurdity, you guys all spent decades before arriving at your disgruntled RS outlook. I believe you have referred to it as cult, and more specifically a guru-cult movement.
Do you not think this is a bit strange? I mean what actually enticed you and made you stay as long as you did? Surely you knew that RS had a supposed living master who was thought to be GIHF before joining?

Actually, i’ve managed to find the exchange i was referring to it, it occurs at the bottom of the thread
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2009/07/tai-chi-doesnt-have-much-to-do-with-qi#comments
Tao was lecturing me on why RS was such a destructive, poisonous and evil cult. I then asked him why he himself had joined this cult in the first place. His response was:
“Wrong George. Totally wrong. I have never been into any religion or beliefs, nor have I “joined” any cults. I have never been in or into any cult. So you’ve got me mixed up with someone else. You’ve definitely got some very mistaken assumptions about me.”
Now tell me if RS is a cult and you have been intiated into RS, how exactly can you say you have never been in or into any cult?
This is what i mean about rhetotic, its all just justifying your position.

George asked:
“Which actually brings me back to a point I made those many months ago. If you guys could all see the absurd dogma and crookery of this organisation, why did you get intiated in the first place?”
–Speaking for myself, I first found out about RSSB in the summer of 1968 when I was 19 years old. It sounded enticing to a starry-eyed, naive, neophyte with little sophistication, exposure, or understanding of cult mentality, spiritual paths and the ways of the world. Prior to that my only exposure to eastern meditative philosophies was TM (transcendental meditation with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi). Over time, my perspective has “matured” and RSSB is no longer relevant or needed. But I don’t see it as deliberate crookery or a fleecing operation as you put it. It is simply a large semi-feudal operation with a lot of donated money and manpower based on an illusory premise whose figurehead and his family are the beneficiaries.
George asked: “Also, instead of spending a year or two on such an absurdity, you guys all spent decades before arriving at your disgruntled RS outlook. I believe you have referred to it as cult, and more specifically a guru-cult movement.”
–That is exactly what it is in my opinion, but it took time to realize this. There is a great deal of emotional and intellectual commitment to this path which is not easy to overcome. There is a certain mindset which blinds one to the reality of what RSSB is and what the guru is not. But I am not “disgruntled” about my years with this path. It’s over and done with and I have moved on. I discuss it out of familiarity and a curiosity about how those still entangled react to the perspective of someone who sees this path differently. RS did teach me about good character traits and values that have served me well in life and in my relationships with others.
George asked: “Do you not think this is a bit strange? I mean what actually enticed you and made you stay as long as you did? Surely you knew that RS had a supposed living master who was thought to be GIHF before joining?”
—Well, if you are naive and are told that this guru has all these supernatural powers and can grant you visons of God and spiritual splendor you figure you might give it a shot. I mean it sounds pretty good to be among the chosen few to be sheltered under the cloak of this godman who supposedly has the responsibility to deliver you from the darkness of “Pinda”, the physical universe, to the eternal bliss and light of the highest spiritual region while the rest of the creation wallows in ignorance. If you believe this, you feel very fortunate. Also, when you see literally hundreds of thousands in rapt devotion to this path and guru you tend to believe they can’t all be wrong and deceived. We hear the story of the pied piper early in life but fail to recognise such a situation when we actually get caught up in it..

hi george
what tuscon said is right and true..
he is very right in his expression and confession
but george do also take this thing in consideration
what tuscon has said you is just a mere point of view..
because this blog and particular thread is about anti rs..activities and activism,
there is always another point of view as well
which in fact is not mentioned here..if suppose any would have mentioned his psot would have been deleted..
there are many people who were engaged to other religions,worships beliefs and system which later on turn down from the one they followed to rssb..because thet found rssb more genuine and for them the spirituality truth is more validly found in rssb so they turn down their years of faith and start believing in rssb
this is another point of view..
both the things happen
its very natural very common..
nothing strange in it.
but what is to see and worth understanding
after dedicately following a path..if suppose according to you who once really liked the spiritualism of rssb but then the same you after years claim that you understood and now trying to get out of itself shows that you are ignorant..
but then it is also natural,
but why you guys unnecessary try to exploit and criticize the path,
don’t you think it was your inability to understand the path lead you this way..
and tuscon said “”RS did teach me about good character traits and values that have served me well in life and in my relationships with others.””
Is this what you have learned till now..
tuscon tao and brian and dear osho
onething is very very very simply simple..
if what tao brian tuscon think of the path today..
as i already mentioned earlier
if this was meant to happen at this moment,then actually it itself somehow proves that this path has been not followed by you guys..the way it has to be followed..
because if at all you would have followed,you would have never come into this state of mind,where in you would have started abusing,bashing and criticizing the path..
now again another point of view
Brian say manish is wrong
manish say brian is wrong
now who will decide who is wrong and who is not..
brian think manish is in illusion
manish think brian is in illusion
now tell me who really is in illusion
reply me honest,without you only being the center of attraction and replying to this post asusally under your favorable extent.
and the way tao behaved with rakesh ji and george it self proves he havent followed the path the way he has to,
the way he reacted to me is normally
as i know myself i was many times rude and harsh with tao ,so i can expect the same from him.
but george and rakesh ji has always been very decent and kind to tao but still he havent gave the respect they deserved..
george its simple
if you agree to this guys they will like you
if you give this guys good questions they will like you
if you give this guys mind satifactory answers they will like you
but if you say them they are wrong they will not spare you..
brian uses his butter expression way
and tao use his asusual rude,arrogance and harsh nature..and reply it that way..
and tuscon you said
“” Over time, my perspective has “matured” and RSSB is no longer relevant or needed.””
this statement of yours itself say you havent even understood the A B C of spirituality..
you take any book regarding spirituality
]may be guru grath sahib
bhagwat gita
khuran
bible
every book mention the same things
complete surrender to the will of master
complete belief to the master
unless you cannot reach anywhere..
no one has put gun on your head to follow particular path
you made your own conscious attempt and effort,
now when you guys failed
you can only blame yourself not anyone else..
my message for you is only to say
if you can do good to others
don’t do bad atleast..

if you cant do good to others
dont do bad atleast.

George, you asked whether there is any evidence that RSSB links monetary donations with spiritual progress. Of course, there is. I say “of course,” because those of us who have been associated with RSSB for many years and decades know this.
I realize that you aren’t very familiar with the RSSB literature, so I crawled up into our garage’s crawl space to retrieve Sawan Singh’s “Philosophy of the Masters” series. Sawan Singh is known as the Great Master, so his writings represent solid Sant Mat, RSSB version.
In the first book of the series, there’s a chapter on “Spiritual Discipline — Physical Service (Seva).” Sawan Singh says:
“According to the Granth Sahib, there are four kinds of service:
1. Physical or manual service — that rendered with the body.
2. Service with wealth.
3. Service rendered by mind.
4. Service rendered by soul.”
So who should get this service? Sawan Singh says:
“The highest type of service is that to the Master. Guru Arjan Sahib says:
‘Whatever service is possible for you to do with your hands for the Master, you should do it, because it is the Master who gives us the protection of His Hands and saves us from the fire of transmigration.'”
And…
“Of all types of service in the world, service to the Master is acceptable in the Court of the Lord, because by such worship one can gain admittance into His Court.”
Regarding wealth seva (making monetary contributions), Sawan Singh says:
“Who can serve a Master? In other words, who can attain God-realization? Only such persons can do so who sacrifice their mind and their wealth for the service of their Guru (Master).”
So it’s clear: to realize God, you have to serve a Master. And serving a Master involves sacrificing your mind and wealth in the Guru’s service.
Regarding another point in your comment, long-standing initiates like me who eventually decide that RSSB isn’t for them can’t win.
You criticize us for not realizing within a short time that this path wasn’t what we were looking for. Others frequently criticize us in comments on this blog for not sticking with RSSB practices for much longer.
Do you see the illogic in your argument, George? I’ve talked about this before. It’s like a marriage. In my first marriage I was married for eighteen years. By your logic, I should have gotten divorced in year 1 or 2, because I should have seen that eventually my wife and I wouldn’t get along.
But at the time we were happy. And remained so for many years. It was only when both of us decided that it was time to split up, that we got a divorce.
Buying into spirituality or religion isn’t like purchasing a car and finding right away that it has lots of problems. There aren’t instant signs of truth or untruth on a spiritual or religious path.
With RSSB, you’re told that it takes a long time to clear your karmas through meditation and service to the Guru. So I gave the RSSB practices a good long test: about 35 years.
By nature, I tend to be a committed person. I stayed married to both my first wife and RSSB for a long time. Heck, I’ve been getting my hair cut by the same person for 32 years now. So it fits that I’d do everything I could to test the truth of the “science of the soul” that RSSB teaches.
Others surely have gotten different results. I just share mine on this blog, as do others.

Manish said: “because if at all you would have followed,you would have never come into this state of mind,where in you would have started abusing,bashing and criticizing the path..”
—How can you know this? Because the teachings say that if they are followed correctly there will be success?
You have no idea what degree of effort or sincerity we put into the path. You do not know if we followed correctly or not. You just assume on the basis or your faith that we must not have followed correctly or we would not feel as we do now. But what if your assumption is incorrect and it is the master who has failed and not us?
Who are you to criticise our commitment to the path when you yourself do not follow the guru’s instructions and engage in debate with non-believers such as ourselves?
Manish said: “brian think manish is in illusion…manish think brian is in illusion
now tell me who really is in illusion
reply me honest,without you only being the center of attraction and replying to this post asusally under your favorable extent.”
—All we are saying is that there is no objective evidence RSSB is true. So, Manish, if you want someone to believe and have faith in what you believe you may have to provide more evidence than you are able to provide. How can you prove Sant Mat and the guru are what they claim to be? The burden of proof is on you.
Manish said: “this statement of yours itself say you havent even understood the A B C of spirituality..
you take any book regarding spirituality
]may be guru grath sahib
bhagwat gita
khuran
bible
every book mention the same things
complete surrender to the will of master
complete belief to the master”
—Manish, I think it is you who does not understand the ABC of spirituality because there are many philosophies that do not require complete belief and surrender to the Master. Ch’an/Zen, Buddhism, Taoism, and Advaita Vedanta are good places to start.
Manish said: “now when you guys failed
you can only blame yourself not anyone else..”
—Let me clarify. I do not view my current position as one of failure. I am satisfied that my current understanding surpasses RSSB dogma. I feel that I have recognized “truth” in a way that RSSB is not even aware of. But I don’t tell others that my way is the only way or that they are failures for not recognizing that. I simply express my point of view as best I can.
Manish said: “my message for you is only to say
if you can do good to others
don’t do bad atleast..”
—No one here is intending any harm. It is you who is taking it that way, but it is not personal. All we are doing is discussing philosophy. It’s no big deal. If you don’t like it, you can attend to your simran and bhajan as your master enjoins you to do instead of engaging with us here.

Tucson,
Thank you for a very honest account, I can understand and appreciate all of what you have said.
You said you have also dabbled in TM when you were younger, are there any other mystic traditions that you have practiced which you felt you got alot out of? From listening to what you have said on nonduality, you appear to have moved away from the concept of a living master.
Manish,
Yes, I am aware there are different viewpoints. Tucson appears to consider it a cult of sorts, but that’s his viewpoint without gratuitous bashing. His viewpoint is subjective and his comments reflect and acknowledge that.
I understand you feel RS is the path for you and the ultimate path, which is also a subjective viewpoint. In fact, I think Sant Mat is based on the teachings of the different saints not so, implying perhaps different paths are possible for achieving the same ultimate experience?
Brian,
Fair enough that seems pretty solid evidence. I can understand how donations would be a good thing, but i would think it would be more voluntarily encouraged (i.e. coming from the heart as it were and in accordance with one’s means), rather then with the carrot of some spritial reward, so that does not look great to me. I will probably need to read some of the literature.
I am not criticising you for lack of effort, only you know that and it sounds like there was alot of effort. Instead, my criticm is that if RS is to be tarred and feather the evidence at least needs to be there for doing so. I mean one person’s cult is another’s salvation.
These spiritual beliefs are clearly very dearly held, and presumably once upon a time you shared them, so it just seems that if one is to bash it you gotta expect ppl to get upset but i mean you know that.

it is the master who has failed and not us?
my dear holy dear tuscon the above words of your itself the proof of your ignorance,
theres nothing more left to say to you after reading this words from you..
now i believe you
what you did was right
i agree your point of view towards rssb
your are correct
a person like you will have to stick with those kind of thoughts only
well done….tuscon..
wow wow wow
what another bunch of words
“I feel that I have recognized “truth” in a way that RSSB is not even aware of”
great tuscon
your now in my list
after tao..
good good
keep doing keep going..
george i will personally respond to your email address soon.

George asked: “You said you have also dabbled in TM when you were younger, are there any other mystic traditions that you have practiced which you felt you got alot out of? From listening to what you have said on nonduality, you appear to have moved away from the concept of a living master.”
—I became friends with some people who were Siddha Yoga devotees about ten years ago. They invited me to their satsang and I enjoyed the intimate atmosphere of ceremony, chanting, incense, candles, devotional songs and meditation. Since I play guitar it was sort of a yogic jam session for me which was fun and rather elevating. I went regularly for a couple of years but eventually had to quit because I never could put their guru, Swami Chidvilasananda (successor to Swami Muhktananda), on the same pedestal they did. In fact, I didn’t believe in her at all (lots of dirt on that lineage), but I do believe that chanting and music are transformative and beneficial if one is so inclined.
One time, at a satsang at the RSSB Dera in India I was having “darshan” (sitting quietly in the presence of the master). I became totally absorbed in his presence. At this point I became aware of a “field of golden white light” enveloping us. There was no longer the master and me, just this presence of light and awareness. It appeared that the master was experiencing the same thing and I attributed this to his grace, as they put it.
Later, I had simmilar experiences with other people present and I learned that this awareness in light is inherent in all of us naturally. During these moments it appears that everyone is aware in this light even though they may have no conscious idea of it. There is no requirement to have a guru to perceive it. In other words, it was not the entity “Charan Singh” that was responsible for this perception. It arose spontaneously within me as a result of my own state of mind, or rather, the lack of it. For it is when mind fasts that awareness shines in its purity.
So, I think that a master can be a catalyst for what is innate within us, but so can many other things such as a beautiful vista or even absorbtion in activities like running, surfing or riding a horse.
I like the idea of a teacher that can serve as a signpost for where truth may be seen, but I don’t like the idea of the guru as an entity to which we owe slavish obedience as our omnipotent saviour and sole source of spiritual reality.

In regards to George and George’s comments:
Both Tucson’s and Brian’s comments in response to George are very well articulated and accurately address the issue, they and both reflect my own sentiments on all of their points. So anything I could or would say at this point would be redundant. If I were to comment, all I would be doing is repeating exactly what they have already pointed out. My conclusions are virtually the same as theirs, with the only exception being that I started moving away from of RS in about ten years time rather than staying much longer. But I gave RS a serious run during those ten or so years. My reasons for getting into RS were basically the same as theirs, and my reasons for leaving it behind were very much same as theirs – namely that my spiritual interests and spititual growth process took me onward in other more meaningful directions, and not because I had failed to make progress or failed to understand it as Manish so mistakenly, yet repeatedly asserts. Thats because when it comes to understanding anything about other people’s spiritual orientations or their pathways, Manish has no clue.
Which then leads me on to commenting about what Manish said:
Manish said: “if what tao brian tuscon think of the path today. […] then actually it itself somehow proves that this path has been not followed by you guys..the way it has to be followed..” “because if at all you would have followed,you would have never come into this state of mind,where in you would have started abusing,bashing and criticizing the path..”
— This is nothing more than a version of the usual straw-man or catch-22 argument. Saying that people who criticise something (in this case a spiritual path) do so because they didn’t understand it or because they didn’t really follow it for their entire liife. Its absurd and its really not even worth addressing. This kind of rationale (or I should say lack of reason) is bogus and only reflects the stupidity of those who present such nonsense.
Manish said: “and the way tao behaved with rakesh ji and george it self proves he havent followed the path the way he has to,”
Manish said: “george and rakesh ji has always been very decent and kind to tao but still he havent gave the respect they deserved.”
Manish said: “and tao use his asusual rude,arrogance and harsh nature..and reply it that way.”
— All of that is absolutely incorrect. You are perpetuating a distortion and a lie.
My comments to George (and Rakesh) have been far more respectful, tactful, and accurate than yours have. I have shown no such “rude,arrogance and harsh” to George or to Rakesh. Even though George has outright called me a liar – and that was both rude and arrogant – even after I had clearly indicated (both recently and on many other occasions here during the past 4 years) that I was an initiated RS satsangi.
Even your own comments Manish are far more rude and arrogant than mine. I go to great lengths to be very tactful and reasonable and fairly respectful towards other people. You on the other hand, have not. So for you to say that I am not respectful or that I have not “followed the path” is downright utter bullshit.
I have been very reasonable and tactful and patient with both George and Rakesh. So what you are saying here is nothg but a big fat distortion and falsification of the facts.
Go back and look at most of my comments to George and Rakesh over the past months. And then go look at your ridiculous ranting insulting comments (many of which Brian had to edit or even delete btw).You are nobody to be lecturing other people about being rude or being disrespectful.
Frankly, most of your ridiculous rambling comments make you sound like an irrational religious wing-nut. So quit trying to cast me in a bad light, when your own comment are atrocious. My comments to other people are fairly articulate, honest yet tactful, open-minded, and usually pretty accurate.
Yours are obviously not. So you are noboby to be calling me or anyone else rude and arrogant and disrectful. And I know others here will back me up on this.
So Manish, quit trying to make such false and bogus depictions of me and my comments.
Manish said: “and tuscon […] you havent even understood the A B C of spirituality..
you take any book regarding spirituality
may be guru grath sahib bhagwat gita khuran bible
every book mention the same things
complete surrender to the will of master complete belief to the master
unless you cannot reach anywhere.”
— That is pure unabashed dogma. Devotion to a guru is only one path among many. To say that iis the only way, is profoundly ignorant, dogmatic, and uneducated.
As Tucson has rightly said: “Manish, I think it is you who does not understand the ABC of spirituality because there are many philosophies that do not require complete belief and surrender to the Master. Ch’an/Zen, Buddhism, Taoism, and Advaita Vedanta are good places to start.”
Manish your view of spirituality is clearly very narrow-minded. Thats alright if you want to be that way just for yourself, but you certainly can’t rightfully foist that on other people.
Your understanding of the various spiritual philosophies and paths is obviously very limited… which is why you tend to be so dogmatic and judgemental towards other folks and their different spiritual outlooks and directions. Your judgemental attitude is a common trait of people who have spiritual and religious views that are more fundamentalist in nature. Thats why you are unable to undertand people like Brian and Tucson and Osho and myself. You just don’t have the perspective and experience and open-mindedness that others do.
Manish said: “no one has put gun on your head to follow particular path you made your own conscious attempt and effort, now when you guys failed you can only blame yourself”
— It is only you Manish who thinks other people have “failed”. No one has failed. Life, as well as spirituality, is an ongoing process of growth and change. Just because other people choose to move in other diretions does not mean that they failed. No more than you have failed by not going in the same direction they have. There is no logic or reason in your narrow-minded judgements. Its just dogmatic religious fundamentalism. Just because some people do not remain with RS and they go on in other directions, does not mean that they have failed. Spirituality is avery broad spectrum, and that more evident in India than anywhere else.

Manish said: “it is the master who has failed and not us?”
— It is neither the master nor us. No one has “failed”. It is not about succes or failure. The master is not perfect and he is merely playing his role as master. Disciples are not perfect either, but they haven’t failed just because they choose to go another direction. True spirituality is not a matter of success or failure or reaching some goal. It is a matter of awareness and growth and finding peace and harmony with oneself.
“dear tuscon the above words of your[s] itself the proof of your ignorance”
— Not so. To grow and evolve and to move on from RS into a broader spirituality is not ignorance. Ignorance is to remain stuck in dogma and to rigidly adhere to doctrine and supposed saviors based upon the belief that that is the only way to salvation.
Tucson said: “I feel that I have recognized “truth” in a way that RSSB is not even aware of”
Manish replied (sarcastically): “great tuscon your now in my list after tao..”
— Nobody cares about your “list” Manish. No one gives a damn what you think. You behave here as if you are the ultimate judge of everyone and their spirituality, as if it is you decide who is right and who is wrong and who is ignorant and who understands. You are absolutely ridiculous Manish. Thats incredibly presumptious, immature, self-possessed and narcissistic. Tucson has honestly shared his story and his views (and so have others). You are not the judge of other people’s spirituality. All you have done here is to show everyine how totally deluded and narrow-minded you are. But then I already knew that a long time ago.
Like Brian recently said to you, why don’t your get off your high horse and particpate here. But actually you really don’t belong here in view of most of your comments, which are mostly just meaningless static. Why don’t you go find some RS satsangis to talk with. There is a better place for thatr than here. Its the Radhsoamistudies Yahoo Group. You will find people there who are more interested in the subject of Santmat and RS than here. I suggest you go there to carry on your views and issues. Discussing everything pertaining to Sant Mat and Radha Soami is what that site and that group is all about: Sant Mat and Radha Soami. You will be much better off over there and you will find many more like-minded satsangis.
Here is the link to that group for you:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radhasoamistudies/

And Manish, here is another Yahoo group that is devoted to discussing Radha Soami:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RADHASOAMI-REALITY/
Brian’s site is for the Churchless. You are not a churchless person at all. You are a staunch believer in Radha Saomi. So you really should be hanging out at these other discussion groups I have just given you links to. All you are doing here is making static and harassing and insulting people who have moved away from Santmat into a more churchless outlook. You should go to those other sites where you will find people that think more like you. I am simply steering you in a better direction where you can discuss with more like-minded people. Because frankly Manish, you really don’t fit in here at Church of the Churchless at all. Good luck.

Manish, I agree with tucson and tAo: once again you’ve gotten into a whole lot of preaching, and little or no discussing. Preachy comments will be deleted — that’s the policy of this blog.
You’re devoted to Sant Mat. That’s fine. But this isn’t a place to preach the glory of Sant Mat and the guru. tAo has pointed out some other web sites where this can be done. Or you can start your own blog.

George,
I’ve tried to put this issue to rest, but in your last comment to me you still appear to be defending your claim that I said that I was not initiated.
The evidence that you give is where you refer to a previous comment of mine (posted on July 11, 2009 at 03:46 AM).
You say that I had been “lecturing” you on why RS is a cult. And then you quoted my comment of July 11, 2009 at 03:46 AM as being an indication and evidence to support your previous claim wherein you said that I had supposedly said in the past that I was not an RS initiate, about which you then you called me a liar.
But George, the all-important and crucial problem with your claim, as well as with your reference to my July 11, 2009 at 03:46 AM comment as evidence, is this:
In my comment of last July 11 that you refer to, I actually never said anything even remotely to the effect that I have ‘never initiated in RS’.
All that I had said was this:
“I have never been into any religion or beliefs, nor have I “joined” any cults. I have never been in, or into any cult.”
This simply means that I (meaning me myself) have never been INTO any religion or INTO any beliefs, and also that I have not JOINED any cults. Nothing more than that.
Which is very different than saying that I was not an RS initiate. It is not the same at all. It is not what you claim or what you apparently have interpreted it to mean. In that July 11, 2009 at 03:46 AM comment, I did NOT actually say that I was not an RS initiate. It is YOU who have mistakenly interpreted it that way. However, I simply did NOT SAY what you claim that I said.
I simply said that I have never been INTO any religion or beliefs, and that I have never JOINED any cults.
So the the crux of this thing is that you have assumed that my saying that I am not into religion, beliefs, and cults means that I must not be an RS initiate.
But that is a very false assumption, an very incorrect assumption. Here is why:
A long time ago when I applied for, and was then given formal initiation into the RS shabd yoga meditation path by Charan Singh (the previous master/guru of RSSB), that had nothing to do with being into any religion, or having or holding any beliefs, or joining any cults. The RS initiation has nothing to do with any of those things.
The actual formal RS initiation (event) is simply about the aspirant receiving the secret internal mantra which is referred to as “simran” (meaning ‘repetition’), and the accepting of the four vows, which are:
1) strict vegetarianism (no meat or eggs).
2) abstinence from alcohol and recreational drugs.
3) a pure moral life (no sex outside of marriage).
4) two hours of shab yoga meditation daily.
In the actual formal RS initiation event, there is nothing anywhere that is stated or expected where the aspirant must be (as I had said) “into any religion”, or “into” any “beliefs”, or getting “joined” to any “cult”.
That is why I said simply that “I have never been in, or into any cult.” And that is the truth. What I said in that comment I posted on July 11, 2009 at 03:46 AM says nothing about not being an RS initiate. It simply says that:
“I have never been into any religion or beliefs, nor have I “joined” any cults. I have never been in, or into any cult”, and that is true.
Getting initiated into the RS path of shabd yoga meditiation does not imply having any religion, holding any particular beliefs, or joining any cult.
Now the RS cult organization is quite another different thing altogether. But when one simply receives the RS initiation into the shabd yoga meditation, there is no religion, beliefs, or cult involved.
That does not mean that many if not most all of the people that get initiated don’t go on to be part of the cult, they do, but not all. Being part of the RS cult is a separte thing altogether. A person could receive the RS shabd yoga initiaton and never become part of the RS guru cult and organization. And I am one of those people.
So as I stated, “I have never been into any religion or beliefs, nor have I “joined” any cults. I have never been in, or into any cult.”
That is simply a statement of fact about MYSELF. And it does not say or imply that I did not get initiated in the RS meditation path. I have explained all of this in even greater detail in other comments in the past, both here at Church of the Churchless as well as at the radhasoamistudies Yahoo group forum.
So George, if this July 11, 2009 comment of mine is where you had got this mistaken idea where you assumed that I said that I was ‘never initiated’, then you did not read it very carefully, and you also obviously interpreted it completely wrong… simply because, as anyone can easily see, I actually never said that I had not received initiation of the RS shabd yoga meditation.
And that is born out by your subsequent comment of July 11, 2009 at 03:53 AM (see below). For some reason I guess I must have missed that comment because as you can see if you go to that thread/page, I did not reply. So I just must have missed or over-looked your response. Perhaps I was out of town or I was not online for a few days. I don’t remember.
Nevertheless, in your response posted on July 11, 2009 at 03:53 AM it appears that it was actually YOU George who were the one who said that I had “never joined RS”. I did not say that, YOU said it.
Here is what YOU had said back to me:
“Tao,
So in that case you actually never joined RS, which you say is a cult, and for which you’ve been telling everyone you know inside and out?”
Posted by: George | July 11, 2009 at 03:53 AM
So therefore, it now becomes revealed and quite obvious that it was actually YOU George who were the one who said that I had “never joined RS”. I was not the one who said that, it was YOU who said that. And now, a few months later, you come back and make this bogus attempt to falsely claim that I had said it. That is wrong George.
So quite clearly George, it is really YOU who are the one who in a sense has fabricated a lie here, and not I. YOU are the one who was confused and YOU were the who jumped to conlusions and misinterpreted what I had originally said, and then it also was YOU who went on to assert that I had “actually never joined RS”… when in reality I had NEVER said that.
This is exactly why I have stated in ALL my recent comments that I would never say that I was not initiated. And now the real truth comes out:
The truth is that I did NOT ever say any such thing… YOU WERE THE ONE WHO HAD SAID IT George.
So I think this is somewhat related to what Brian was talking about when he mentioned something about you doing exactly what you try to accuse other people of doing.
It turns out that all along it was really YOU George who said that, and not me at all.
So George, let that be a lesson to you… to not jump to conclusions and put words into other people’s mouths.
Its disingenuous and its wrong, and it causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding and gives people false impressions.
Like I said before George, YOU really owe ME an apology, a big apology. And this here is the undeniable proof of that, right here in black and white.
*Note: If anyone wants to see the actual comments between George and I (as if anyone really cares) then you can find them at the very bottom of the page under Brian’s post of July 05, 2009 titled: “Tai Chi doesn’t have much to do with “Qi”… You can get there via this link:
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2009/07/tai-chi-doesnt-have-much-to-do-with-qi?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e2011570ff1101970c#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e2011570ff1101970c

Tao,
Thats alot of nonsense, you did lie and i will repeat what was said.
Tao: “The following video is why I criticise the cult and dogma of Radha Soami (RS) … All these cults and their dogma and their supposed gods, saints, masters and mysticism are very BAD news… Watch this video and perhaps you may start to understand why RS (just like the cult described in the video) is so poisonous and destructive and evil.”
Posted by: +@o | July 11, 2009 at 02:26 AM
I responded by asking why had you joined this cult and you responded:
Tao: “Wrong George. Totally wrong. I have never been into any religion or beliefs, nor have I “joined” any cults. I have never been in or into any cult. So you’ve got me mixed up with someone else. You’ve definitely got some very mistaken assumptions about me.”
Posted by: +@o | July 11, 2009 at 03:46 AM
You are the one who is clearly wrong and you are the one who lied, since by your own admission you have been into RS which is a cult.
I actually cannot believe you are defending the indefensible. Your minds are so closed it is frightening.

manish,
to be fair if ppl give a particular path a go and decide they’ve had enough thats also perfectly up to them.
perhaps they are failed, but the question is how many succeed, and what do you define as success. i mean perhaps even a little bit of spiritual progress helps them if the RS teachings of multiple life times are believed. Are they not many different levels of attainment with very few, only the satguru, having rached sach kand or being perfected?

This blog has been a wonderful read. I doubt if I can be as articulate as you guys & choose the right words to express myself.
I would like to share my thoughts and beliefs and would like to be excused if they may not be true for anybody else but me.
I have been in search of a spiritual Guru (since some years now) to guide me grow spritually as it has been difficult to follow the spritual path alone, when carrying on one’s worldly duties and trying to be detached from the material world and the negativity.
My mother and one of my sisters are involved with RSSB since a couple of decades. Since some time now, I had been contemplating being under the guidance of the RSSB Master’s teachings by referring to the RS literature. For me Seva means being always available for the needy (without neglecting my worldly duties) and I do not feel the need to travel from Bombay to Punjab (BEAS) to do seva.
Many of my relatives are RSSB followers and I have seen the worst kind of thinking & attitude and the best kind (spritual inclination) as well (my mother – Yes, my sister – No).
It all depends on how well one follows the spiritual path to reach one’s spiritual goal.
– A guru may not be needed by the ones who have found the path and are dedicated enough to just follow the path.
– A guru is needed if one does not know the path but is dedicated to follow the path (once known).
– A guru cannot help if there is no dedication (as in case of some of my relatives and my sister who spend good amount of time doing Seva but no Simran)
– A guru can be any entity from whom one can learn (literature or human being). However, a guru who has experienced the path is preferable compared to books or reading material which may give an excellent read but may not be true (unless by somebody who has experienced the path).
I agree with all those who wish to drift away from RSSB, and also with those who wish to stay with RSSB because they feel they are gradually achieving their spiritual goal and not because they simply feel good about being associated with RSSB.
I am still in search of the many questions that I have in me and am working towards finding their answers. I see the light but not the complete tunnel that I need to travel. I hope I find the answers and the path through the tunnel, or a guru to guide and direct me through.
I thank the great power for helping me find the many answers and helping me analyse and understand.
I wish you all the best in your quest.
Till life remains,
Naresh

Manish,
Your comment above dated September 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM states:
it is the master who has failed and not us?
my dear holy dear tuscon the above words of your itself the proof of your ignorance, [etc etc etc…]
Posted by: Manish arora | September 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Since you did not use quotation marks, I did not notice that you were quoting Tucson. So yes you are correct, I now see that you did not make the statement: “it is the master who has failed and not us?”
However, next time it would help a lot if you are repeating what someone else has said, that you do use quotation marks to show that. That way no mistake or confusion will result, as it has in this case.
If you had used quotation marks around that statement, instead of merely saying:
“my dear holy dear tuscon the above words of your…”
Then it would have been much more clear to me that the statement in question…
“it is the master who has failed and not us?”
…was actually not yours, but was from Tucson.
It is very easy for people (such as myself) to make such a mistake like this if you don’t bother use quotation marks in order to show that someone else made the statement. So in the future please use quotation marks, otherwise other people may not know who said what.
You also said that simply because I could not tell that you had noot made that statement, you then have called me: “dumb and foolish” and “silly and dumb”. But Manish, my mistake was not silly or foolish or dumb. It was you who were that way because it was you failed to use appropriate quotation marks so as to clearly to indicate that Tucson was actually the one who had made that statement. It was really your fault, not mine. It is difficult to tell who said what if you don;t use quotation marks. But this is all really very elementary. Anyway, next time try to use quotation marks when you are quoting someone, then there will be less likelyhood of this kind of mistake or confusion. Its real simple. If you don’t bother to show more clearly who said what, then you can’t blame others for not being able to tell the difference. You need to improve your communication in terms of proper writing and punctuation skills.
Moving on to other things now… you said:
“i said honestly is i know more than you guys on regarding RSSB and its spirituality”
“i say honestly i know more than you regarding rssb.”
“my dear tao,you really being very stupid.”
— No Manish, unfortunately you don’t know more about RSSB than other people do. You just think that you do. You have little or no humility relative to people who happen to much older, wiser, amd more spiritually mature than you are. Everyone sees that but you.
“when tuscon shared his story regarding is experience with rssb […] his experience with rssb was anti and negative
you guys appreciated tuscon welcomed him and praised him”
— No, Tucson’s story was not “anti”
or “negative”. It was about the fact that the RSSB did NOT ask or solicit any donations while Tucson was at the Dera. So his story was not “anti” or “negative”.
“i really dont like using words like dumb silly stupid for an elderly person like you, but your reaction forces me to use this kind of words for you”
— No, nobody is “forcing” you to do or say any such thing.
“when you people havent respect for the rssb masters or any other spiritual masters
you people can be called and referred by any kind of language with any kind of slang”
— No, and nobody must, or is required to “respect” RSSB masters. People have a freedom and a right to have their own views and opinions about RSSB masters. However, you do NOT have the right to use and express, as you say, “any kind of language with any kind of slang” you wish here on this site.
“and brian come out of the myth
i m not at all preaching”
— This is Brian’s site Manish, and if Brian says that you are preaching (which btw you are), then you are indeed preaching. Again, everyone can see that except for you Manish. And I think Brian’s patience with you is now growing very thin, as is mine, and other people’s as well. Its high time for you to cut the crap, or go somewhere else. This is not a place to preach and to endlessly argue and defend RSSB. Its rather tiresome, just as you are also fast becoming.
“tao who does the preaching part”
“you all are dumb silly and selfish people”
“when i spelled the truth”
“seeing your egosticism”
“the aim in this blog is the defame RSSB thats it”
“bashing and saying any path a cult”
“i m a failed person”
— LOL! Yes indeed Manish, you are indeed a “failed person”!
“fill your egos
about anti rssb
to count how many more are getting out of rssb”
— Sad. You really do need to go get yourself a real life Manish, and quit harassing Brian and other people here.

George said:
“Tao,
Thats alot of nonsense, you did lie and i will repeat what was said….”
George, the comment you posted above (on September 11, 2009 at 01:37 AM) is absolute utter bullshit.
You say that I “lied”. What did I lie about George? I never said anywhere in any of what you have copied and posted that I was not an RS initiate, as you had so claimed previously.
Your blatant dishonesty and distortion of the facts is appalling. I see that, and Brian sees that, and anyone else who reads what you have copied and said here can see that as well.
There is nothing anywhere in what you presented, where I had said that I was not an RS initiate or that I was into the RS cult. That was your claim, and it just ain’t there. End of story.
After quoting my comments of last July, you now said to me: “You are the one who is clearly wrong and you are the one who lied, since by your own admission you have been into RS which is a cult.”
— I never admitted any such thing. I very clearly stated that I had merely been INITIATED in the RS meditation path. That does not mean an “admission” that I “have been into the “RS cult”.
I clearly explained that being initiated is not the same as being “into” a cult. There is a big difference. I was never “into” the cult aspect of RS in any way. That is a fact, and I have maintained that all along, and long before you ever showed up.
I simply received the initiation into the RS shabd yoga meditation. I also visited the RS ashram/colony in India. That does not mean or make me “into” the RS cult.
So you are very very wrong George. Very wrong. You do not get to say what I am and what I am not. That is mine to say, not yours.
Somehow you fail to understand there is a difference. That’s because you desire and agenda is to call me a “liar”. But YOU are the liar George. You are asserting and claiming something about me which is not true.
What you say is a lie. I know my life and who I am, you don’t. I know that I was never into the cult aspect of RS in any way. I also know that I was never into the beliefs or the religion of RS. There is a difference.
So YOU are distorting the truth about me. And that is dishonest and despicable.
Therefore, it is I who “actually cannot believe you are defending the indefensible”. And it is YOUR mind that is “so closed it is frightening”.
I took great pains and sincere effort to try to explain at length to you as honestly and as clearly as I could, as to where I am at with the RS path, and where I was at with it when I got initiated, and all down the line.
But you have again chosen to distort and twist and misrepresent me and all that I have honestly said about myself.
I had my suspicions about you way back when (and so did Brian btw) but we gave you the benefit of the doubt.
But now you deserve it no longer. Now I know why you defended and supported those low-down deceiptful troublemakers Ashy and Walker/JAP.
Adios to Brian and Tucson and all you other good folks.

Why is this joining, or not joining virus so important? I don’t give a flip if someone is a member or not of RSSB.

george just give me sometime..a couple of days will definitely get back to you personally through email.

“”perhaps they are failed”
well you are very right,by understanding they have failed,but can you see anyone accepting the truth,No,
why,because of their Ego and their inability to accept the truth that they finally are failed and waste lot many years,its all there frustration you can very easily see in their comments.
“but the question is how many succeed, and what do you define as success. i mean perhaps even a little bit of spiritual progress helps them if the RS teachings of multiple life times are believed. Are they not many different levels of attainment with very few, only the satguru, having rached sach kand or being perfected?”
about the above message will surely talk to you personally.
this is not the place to discuss spirituality at all,
though they say i preach
i do not preach and their minds have damaged to understand this fact
i do not preach spirituality or rssb
but yes if you try to let down and path,
no true devotee is going to accept it.
and again finally i will stick to my words
brian and tao and even tuscon are spiritually illiterate.
And it is absolutely fine.
George you always make good sense and good comments.
you simple language is always understood clearly.

Manish said:
“but yes if you try to let down and path,
no true devotee is going to accept it.”
–Here is where you are wrong Manish. It indicates very clearly YOUR lack of understanding of the Sant Mat path.
The job of a true devotee is to attend to their simran and bhajan, attend to their necessary duties to family and employment and that’s it.
The masters specifically teach that a devotee does not unnecessarily involve themselves with worldly matters or concern themselves with slander and criticism. That is not the true devotees’ duty at all. All of that is to be left in the hands of the master and not to be worried about. The world will function as it must whether you involve yourself or not. The devotees’ only responsibility is to remain within the four vows.
So, it is YOU who are deliberately disobeying the instructions of the master by coming to his defense here. It is YOUR obsessed ego which is driving you on this mission which you have fabricated in your own mind, and it is a mission the master would not approve of. That I can guarantee.
You are a hypocrite and a fool to behave as you do on this blog. You resent others for their criticism of Sant Mat and the master when it is YOU who dishonor him and his teachings by engaging in debate and argument when you could be attending to your true spiritual duties.
It is YOUR actions that you should not accept any longer not ours. Otherwise, your karmic burden will only increase and delay of your spiritual progress will be assured.

George,
It is possible to accept the premise of Sant Mat teachings and get initiated without desire or acceptance of cult mentality and activities.
Really, the only obligation of a satsangi is:
1) meditation
2) vegetarian diet
3) moral living
4) no intoxicants
That’s it.
And that may have been tAo’s approach.
I think it is time to lay this hair-splitting to rest.

Tao,
LOL, i think you are absolutely barking mad to be honest, you first told me that RS is a cult, then you told me that you have never joined, been in or into any cult, and now you tell me you have been initiated into RS for two decades.
Spot the inconcistency. I don’t even know what you are trying to say anymore.
Best i just leave it again, but its inconcistency.
Manish,
Yes, i too sense alot of frustration, but perhaps ppl truly just have had enough and that is also fine, and it also seems fair enough that they talk about the aspects of the RS path that they did not like or agree with, not so?
Tucson,
I read your post above with a great deal of interest. Those experiences you talk off sound quite extraordinary, I have never come close to anything like that.
Yes, I will leave the hair-splitting well enough alone now, but there is inconcistency.
Do you think one really needs to stick to a non-vegeterian alcohol free diet?

George wrote: “I have never come close to anything like that.”
—It doesn’t happen with me every day either. Generally, you have to do something that takes you out of your habitual mental patterns but it is not a prerequisite. Meditation, fasting, silence, ceremonies, vision quests, etc. are commonly used. Even hallucinogens can be a shortcut but are unreliable and risky. Ultimately, such experiences are just experiences and have no bearing on perception of ‘reality’ which is not an experience but a recognition of how things are.
I don’t think a vegetarian diet is required for “spiritual” understanding, but it is a natural outcome of a more compassionate, sensitive view of life. It’s personal choice, but if you ever find yourself in an extended survival situation in the wilderness you eventually discover what the human body requires to maintain strength and vitality. Biologically, humans are omnivores. If you can’t find a tofu tree you may have to settle for an alternative such as a squirrel.
All of the above is just my opinion, of course.

perhaps they are

George,
I have been casually reading the issue between you and Tao.
Not that it is of any real interest to me, but I thought I would make a few comments.
Firstly it appears that it is a simple mis-understanding that has become personal – because you have called Tao a liar.
Tao has given a very detailed account of what he actually said and the logic behind it.
He is saying that he never joined a cult and you assumed it means he never joined RSSB.
In fact he did get initiated – but did not get into all the culty part of it.
Pretty clear really.
You are thinking
(1) RSSB is a cult.
(2) Tao was initiated and therefore joined RSSB
conclusion
Tao joined the cult.
While Tao says that RSSB is a cult – he is also saying that you can get initiated (technically – joining RSSB) and still not be a cult member.
How? by not getting involved in the cult part of it.
You cannot see beyond you circular argument which you state as follows:
“You are the one who is clearly wrong and you are the one who lied, since by your own admission you have been into RS which is a cult.”
Tao agrees with part 1 – he has been into RSSB. He also agrees it is a cult.
However, he did not becomes a cult member – he just got initiated.
You can get initiated and attend a few satsangs – but not worship the Guru
and not dedicate your life to seva etc. You are not really a cult member, unless you are ‘brain-washed’ into believing it is the only truth.
If you can understand the distinction which Tao is making – then the argument ends there – it was a simple mis-understanding.
Tao is not a liar – he is very outspoken. He is also very clear and thorough when making a point.
If he had lied – I think he would be the first to admit it.
He has not hidden agenda and has no reason to lie.
Forget this ‘lying’ business. Tao has made it as clear as possible.
(1) YES – he was initiated into RSSB
and (2) NO – he did not follow it like a cult member.
What is so diffifult to understand about that?
He is simply saying he has never joined a cult – which is true in his case.
So where is the lie, George?

Naresh,
I think many of us here appreciate that you appear to have an open mind regarding spirituality and Sant Mat teachings. It is refreshing after many conversations recently with certain inflexible fanatics.
I wonder what specific questions you hope to find answers to some day regarding your personal spiritual journey.

Manish, George,
Regarding the question of ‘failing in RS’
If you bother to ASK Tucson, Tao, Brian or myself
you would realise that we have not FAILED at all!!
We have succeeded.
It is all a matter of perception.
The Buddha spent YEARS seeking and searching for Enlightenment.
What he finally realised was emptiness – so he called it Nirvana.
It is the ABSENCE of all attainment. He did not ATTAIN anything.
If you ask the Buddha – he will say he found nothing.
Did he fail? No – because his realization is absolute – so the seeking ends.
Once the seeking ends – you are complete – because there is nothing missing.
You are no longer seeking to get to salvation or to get to Sach Khand or to
do good karmas etc. It all ends because you realise the simple truth.
To someone who lives in duality – it will not make sense because he cannot see
the simplicity of it.
FOllowers of RSSB want to get to Sach Khand – or at least they want their guru
to come at the time of death and save them.
Tucson Tao, Brian and myself – we are not waiting for the guru to save us.
Why? because we don’t need saving. We have no desire to reach Sach Khand.
Why not? Because we KNOW there is no such place. It is a fiction.
As is Sat Purush and the regions!
And by now all followers of RSSB ought to know there is no such place because
the present master has said so.
But they still keep following blindly.
By the way, manish – the guru granth sahib does not say follow blindly.
It also says “Until I see with my own eyes – I will not believe even what
the guru says.”

Osho, thanks for sharing your thoughts about the initiation issue. Good example of how a little clear thinking resolves unnecessary confusion.

“Regarding the question of ‘failing in RS’
If you bother to ASK Tucson, Tao, Brian or myself
you would realise that we have not FAILED at all!!”
Ok if a person joined with a belief may be what kind of belief if may be?
if he joins and later on 30 years if he does the mediation and stuff and later on realises the truth?
now tell me 1st of all will you not called it a failed thing
because you lost the belief
and now consider it as cult
which at one point you were very much ok with everything rssb did..
you later on said you have succeeded..
what success you claim to be succeeded..
well onething is sure you were neither succeeded nor failed before joining rssb
but when you joined rssb and being in rssb
according to you guys you realised the truth..
i mean your version of the truth..whatsoever you may call it..
so either this way or that way
RSSB is the main source for making you people realise..
it means if at all you would never would have been into rssb you would have never been successful in your spiritual understanding that too as per you claim..(i still do not agree your understanding towards spirituality especially rssb)
And about buddha
whatever you guys speak about any spiritual leader you guys speak only with your own point of view..
which can not always be correct..
you still have to gain more knowledge about buddha osho..
and what the present master as said probably like many people havent understood you guys are among those who havent understood,
and its very natural.
and you just bought a single line from guru ganth sahib,which you guys havent understood at all..
it very means ..guru helps you to show you the way,
master guides you
its ultimately you who have to carry on the spiritual journey..
osho you guys really havent understood spirituality..
especially rssb..
guru has given you the way..but you guys havent able to follow it and havent able to the see truth from yourself and failed and came out of it..
and now claim to say that you know all..
what all you claim to say is what you all have learned and gained from rssb only..
but as its written by kabir sahib,guru nanak dev ji,soami ji maharaj,
you people start thinking your spiritual inner enlightened to be yours..you people started involved the “I”ism and there you guys got distracted..and now are completely out of it..
well osho..its very natural..happened in my family as well..with few of my relatives..
and osho i do not know you follow my post completely o r not..
i said already many times
you guys asks for proofs and stuff..
if suppose i give you a proof that theres is sachkhand,theres is satpurash,
how can i trust you guys that you will believe my words…
when till now you guys never agreed to me with any single point..
and you speak on behalf of tao supporting him,
i thought you were a very nice gentleman
but supporting tao..now i doubt about you as well,
tao has committed blunder mistakes in this blog the way he said about rssb masters i very well remember..
if at all i would not been an rssb follower..
if i would be any normal person like tao,brain and tuscon..
then for the blunder tao has done..i would have chopped his head off..
he accused and said bad about my master..
which is not at all tolerable for me,if i think myself as a normal person..if i think with my mind..then i have that harsh hatred feeling …for tao alone..this happened when i was new to this blog..
but the best thing is i m into rssb..
i understand it..
and i m happy..that i m changing day by day..getting better..
now my blood pressure doesnt rise now and then like it use to happened before..
i feel more relaxed..
so hatred for tao vanished..
no need to chop is head..because i know i m no one to think like that ..and judge about tao like that..
and we have to be compassionate..
i know master will take care of tao..
in spite of his disagreeing habits.
osho..i already said you gave you my email
if you want to discuss with me ..i m ready to talk to you personally not in this blog.
according to me until tao like minded people are taking part here..theres no use in discussing here..
osho..
i do not know whats your real name..
i just want to ask you a question..
lets take your name as osho..ok
So osho
how can you say you are osho..
how can you be sure you are osho..
when you werent born yet..osho also never existed..
you were born..but it was you who was born
not osho..
because no one know who is osho..
its just after somedays your parents decided and gave you a name called osho..
but to whom your parents gave the name osho..
oh so it was you to whom the name osho was given
when you were given a name..
that means who were not osho..till then..you became osho after you got birth and your parents gave your name..
who actually you are..
i know this applies for all
no one is born with the name..
but then who is born?who is that born person?
i personally ask you to comment for this question..
just diverting the rssb topic..
as i know theres no use for speaking about rssb..
Because according to this blog rssb is this rssb is that..
and at any cost..they will never agree and listen to any person…

osho this is especially for you few more sayings from guru grant sahib
You Yourself are the Creator. Everything that happens is by Your Doing.
There is no one except You.
You created the creation; You behold it and understand it.
O servant Nanak, the Lord is revealed through the Gurmukh, the Living Expression of the Guru’s Word. ||4||2||
Aasaa, First Mehl:
In that pool, people have made their homes, but the water there is as hot as fire!
In the swamp of emotional attachment, their feet cannot move. I have seen them drowning there. ||1||
In your mind, you do not remember the One Lord-you fool!
You have forgotten the Lord; your virtues shall wither away. ||1||Pause||
I am not celibate, nor truthful, nor scholarly. I was born foolish and ignorant into this world.
Prays Nanak, I seek the Sanctuary of those who have not forgotten You, O Lord! ||2||3||
Aasaa, Fifth Mehl:
This human body has been given to you.
This is your chance to meet the Lord of the Universe.
Nothing else will work.
Join the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy; vibrate and meditate on the Jewel of the Naam.

Manish wrote:
“but when you joined rssb and being in rssb
according to you guys you realised the truth..i mean your version of the truth..whatsoever you may call it..so either this way or that way
RSSB is the main source for making you people realise..”
—Someone is looking for their glasses. They go to the desk and search in all the drawers. The drawers are called Islam, Bhuddism, Christianity, Kundalini Yoga, Hinduism, Judaism, Vedanta, Sant Mat and many more drawers with different names. After all, this is a big desk..an infinite desk.
Finally they realize their glasses were never lost, were on their nose the whole time and they were looking through them for something that isn’t seen but always present. You can’t see your looking. It is the seeing you are looking for. Looking is looking for itself. A tough assignment, but the remedy is simple. Quit looking and just see!
So do you understand Manish? RSSB is just a drawer and there are no glasses in it.

Osho,
Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but I’d like to clarify about some things you said about me:
“Tao […] He is saying that he never joined a cult and you assumed it means he never joined RSSB.”
— correct.
“he did get initiated – but did not get into all the culty part of it.”
— correct.
“While Tao says that RSSB is a cult – he is also saying that you can get initiated (technically – joining RSSB) and still not be a cult member.”
— not exactly correct. I took initiation, but I wasn’t “joining” the RSSB. I simply took initiation of the path of meditation. I was not interested in the RSSB organization or society or the master at all. I simply wanted to know about the meditation. I was not in any way “joining” the RSSB. I have explained all this in detail at other times in the past, but some people are relatively new here and they are not familiar with my story. So they assume that I was like other satsangis who did “join” the RSSB.
“by not getting involved in the cult part of it.”
— correct.
“Tao agrees […] he has been into RSSB. He also agrees it is a cult.”
— incorrect. I was never “into” the RSSB… only just the meditation. And apart from visiting the Dera a few times when I was traveling about India, I did not participate in the RS satsangs meetings or seva, or the organization or even hang out with RS satsangis. So I was not, as you say, “into the RSSB”. I had no interest in it whatsoever.
“he did not becomes a cult member – he just got initiated.”
— correct.
“If you can understand the distinction which Tao is making – then the argument ends there – it was a simple mis-understanding.”
— correct.
“He has no hidden agenda and has no reason to lie.”
— correct.
“Tao has made it as clear as possible.”
— correct.
“YES – he was initiated into RSSB
and NO – he did not follow it like a cult member.”
— correct.
“He is simply saying he has never joined a cult – which is true in his case.”
— correct.
“So where is the lie, George?”
— Indeed, there was no lie on my part. I don’t see why it is so difficult to get that I was only interested in the meditation, and had no affiliation or involvemetn with the RSSB organization, society, or cult. And visiting the Dera does not imply being “into” or a part of the RS cult either. Anyone could go to the Dera back in my day, no matter whether they were an initiate or not. There was never any requirement to be “into” or involved with the RSSB.
I have already said more than enough, and my position should be quite clear by now. Anyone who tries to say differently or says that I am inconsistent (like George continues to do) is simply wrong and is intentionally ignoring the facts and the truth, and for for less than honorable intentions.
I am not going to continue to be distorted, misportrayed, or misrepresented by such people like George or Manish, and so thats all I have to say.
So to you Osho, and to all the other good folks, my sincere best regards.

tuscon i very well understand and understood by the grace of lord,
its you have to understand..
what you gave me is a mere example..
yo guys keep scratching your minds…the itch will never go anyhow..
keep continuing..

“”– not exactly correct. I took initiation, but I wasn’t “joining” the RSSB. I simply took initiation of the path of meditation. I was not interested in the RSSB organization or society or the master at all. I simply wanted to know about the meditation. I was not in any way “joining” the RSSB. I have explained all this in detail at other times in the past, but some people are relatively new here and they are not familiar with my story. So they assume that I was like other satsangis who did “join” the RSSB.””
Tao now this is the strike point
this is the reason you failed in spirituality
this is the reason you failed is rssb
your motive itself was the reason of not gaining any spiritual progress…
because you came for a purpose for a motive…which means you were there to satisfy your ego..
my darling tao..
when you say you are not interested in the master or organization,then why you took inititaion,you thought that it will be enough..
dear tao your so very much silly
the basic foundation of any spirituality is
Belief ,
Unless until you believe have faith in your master you cannot gain any progress as said by guru nanak dev as well as kabir,
i already gussed right and today it came out from you directly..
your approach was null,grown up tao..
just for learning meditation you would have join any YOGA institute there are many wonderful yoga institute who will teach you meditation..
they why you joined rssb..
when you from starting had this type of thought of not caring about the organisation and its master..
you failed in your very basic attempt of understanding santmat and rssb..
thanks for your post..it proved.. the reason behind your failure..
George save the post of tao..in future it will help you a lot…

Manish,
In case you missed it…
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2009/08/a-dialogue-about-radha-soami-satsang-beas?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e20120a56447d3970b#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e20120a56447d3970b

Manish,
I have nothing more to say to someone like you. You have no understanding about me at all. You can keep on posting comments about me (until Brian deles them), but it says nothing meaningful about me. And this latest bunch is merely more of the same nonsense:
“Tao […] this is the reason you failed in spirituality this is the reason you failed in rssb […] the reason of not gaining any spiritual progress.”
— I have not failed at all, and I never said that I had no “gaining any spiritual progress”. You are confusiing me with other people. Because I never said that I had not gained spiritual progress.
“you came for a purpose for a motive…which means you were there to satisfy your ego.”
— That is also incorrect. I was interested in the shabda yoga and meditation, not for any such ego satisfaction. So again, you are wrong and you don’t know anything at all about my spiritual life or path. I am not interested in debating this with you because you are presumptious and closed-minded.
“when you say you are not interested in the master or organization,then why you took inititaion,”
— I already explained that Manish. You did not pay attention. I said that I was only interested in the shabda meditation. I already had a sufi teacher/guru and so I was not interested in any master or the RS organization. My interset was only in the meditation, not the master. I did not need or want any master or doctrine or to be a part of RSSB. The meditation was enough and sufficient for me. And that was my choice and not yours or any oof your business. In the Sant Mat meditation path, there is no requirement other than following the four vows.
“tao your so very much silly”
–No Manish, you are the “silly” one. My meditation and spiritual path is none of your business.
“the basic foundation of any spirituality is
Belief”
— That is true for religion, but not true for all spiritual paths, especially not for meditation. You have a very narrow and limited understanding of range of spirituality and meditation.
“Unless until you believe have faith in your master you cannot gain any progress”
— That is only your opinion. It is not the case for all.
“your approach was null,grow up tao.”
— You have no idea who you are talking to, or what you are saying. You know nothing about my spiritual life and path. All you have done is to show how very narrow-minded and foolish religious fundamentlists like you are.
“just for learning meditation you would have join any YOGA institute there are many wonderful yoga institute who will teach you meditation.”
— I did noot need to learn meditation, I was already very knowledgeable and very experienced in other types oand forms of meditation. I simply wanted to learn more about the Sant mat shabda-yoga meditation. I had already spent a few years living in the Himalayas doing other types of meditation.
“they why you joined rssb.”
— I just told you above, But I did not “joined rssb”. I simply took the RS initiation into shabda yoga meditation. I did not do that to “join” the RSSB. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
“you from starting had this type of thought of not caring about the organisation and its master.”
— That is correct. I was not interested in the RS organisation or the RS master/guru.
“you failed in your very basic attempt of understanding santmat and rssb.”
— No Manish, I did not fail. I learned and practiced the Sant Mat meditation. I accomplished exactly what I had intended.
your post..it proved.. the reason behind your failure.”
— Again Manish, there was no “failure”. I succeeded in learning and practicing the meditation, and gainmed experience, and then I moved on to other things. Its not a matter of failure at all. My endeavor in shabda yoga was a success. You are confusing me with other people, which obviously you have a tendency to do.
“George save the post of tao..in future it will help you”
— Yes, I agree. My post should further clarify my position and experience with regard to the path of Sant Mat and the RS initiation and meditation. And I hope you have a better understanding as well Manish. This will be the last and final time that I discuss this particular issue.
Good bye and good luck to you in your spiritual path Manish.

thanks for your good luck
and yeah your right its no use discussing spirituality…atleast related to rssb with you
may be you are 40 years elder to me..
but when it comes to spirituality you dont know anything..
what all you did..what all you say,itself proves..
that you do not know about spirituality at all..
and brian thanks for deleting the post which contains sayings from guru granth sahib..
i can expect these kind of reactions from you..
ok bye..
both tao and brian enjoy your nonsense preaching and claims.
god bless you both.

manish – Nice compliments about Tao.
“rather – no minded”
that is correct – to arrive at truth means to arrive at NO-MIND – so that is correct and a compliment
“You failed at spirituality”
The Buddha FAILED, I FAILED and everyone who eventually finds “Truth” has to fail. Why? Because it is the EGO that is trying to GET to God. The ego wants God to be a decoration to hang on itself. It wanted a certificate to prove it has acheived God.
However, it does not happen that way. God is not an achievement. It is a total and utter failure of the attempt to acheive.
“About your future I do not know…”
Truth is always in the NOW – not a future goal.
“you haven’t yet achieved any spiritual knowledge.”
Again – nice compliment. Those who get to Truth have dropped all ‘knowledge’ on the way. There is nothing to ‘know’. All knowledge is the mind creating concepts about that which can never be known by the mind. There is no sporitual knowledge – there is only realization – and that comes when you drop all your so-called knowledge which is all created by the mind.
I have created a blog just a while ago – to explain my version of sant mat.
It is called http://www.TrueSantMat.Blogspot.com
http://www.truesantmat.blogspot.com/
I explain there that a lot of the ideas behind sant mat are not meant to be taken literally.
Sant mat is mis-understood. There is a real meaning behind the teachings – but not the meaning that sant mat assumes. From the enlightenment view – there is a way to make sense of sant mat – but you have to look beyond the obvious meanings that given in traditional sant mat.
Go take a read.
And by the way – your own master tells you not to impose your own beliefs onto others. Let them find their own way – it is not your job to convert the world.
And besides – what are you converting to? If you yourself have not arrived at the destination – you cannot be sure that the road you are travelling is the correct one. It is best to keep quiet until you arrive. Othewise you could just as easily be mis-leading people. What you BELEIVE does not matter as everyone who follows some religion or path believes it is the truth.

Osho,
Very good comment. No-Mind and Failed-spirituality is an excellant way to get the message over.

Manish, you’re welcome. I guess you forgot that religious “spam” (such as posting lengthy quotes from a scripture) isn’t allowed on this blog. No problem. I was pleased to correct your error by deleting your comment. We live and learn.
Osho, congratulations on starting your TrueSantMat blog. I’ve looked it over, but haven’t read it in detail yet. Good stuff. I’m sure it will prosper and be a forum for interesting discussion.
http://www.truesantmat.blogspot.com/

Osho,
No, there is nothing circular about my argument at all, it is purely logical.
1. Tao said RS is a cult (not me)
2. Tao said he has never been in a cult.
3. Tao said he has been initiated into RS.
There is nothing more to say on this imo.
At best its rhetoric and at worst lying.
Tao
I am not going to fight with you, you have many good points, but your stubborness is embaressing and i don’t say that too belittle you. In fact someone of your intellect should also be capable of making certain recognitions. I’ve said my peace here.
Manish
I don’t know if they have failed, perhaps at RS but not at spiritual development, unless you consider RS to be the only path? But surely you are not saying that RS is the only path or mystic tradition? It might be what you consider to be the best but that is your opinion, which cannot be forced on others.
Anyway, thanks for the literature i will have a read.
Tucson,
Yep pretty sensible honest answers as usual. I do kind of understand the vegetarian argument from a moral perspective, but living organic material is still consumed. I guess the arguement is that these plants or eggs are lower lifeforms with less developed nervous systems and therefore are arguably conscious of less or feel less pain. Seems its all about the intention on the part of the veggie to inflict the minimum pain in the world?

George, I think this dispute between you and tAo comes down to the theme that I wrote about in my latest post: the difference between “common ground” and “private ground.”
Common ground is shared reality, what people often call objective truth. In this case, the truth is that tAo was initiated into RSSB some thirty or so years ago. There was some confusion on your part about this. Now there isn’t.
So it does seem that a “Sorry, tAo, I was wrong” is in order. That’s up to you, of course. But it would help to clear the air.
Your contention that you are right revolves around some logical linkages. They’re logical in your mind, but not in tAo’s, or in the minds of others. This is the sphere of “private ground,” where people look at things in different ways.
You seem to be mixing the two together. A lie usually pertains to common ground, an objective truth. Otherwise how would we know a lie isn’t the truth? But perceptions are something else.
You and tAo agree what the objective truth is — he’s a RSSB initiate. Your disagreement is over personal beliefs about how that truth was communicated, which falls into “private ground” territory of subjectivity.

Brian,
I think you are misreading me totally.
I am not wrong at all.
The 3 statements 1, 2 and 3 have all been made by Tao.
They are totally inconsistent.
I have no idea where the confusion lies.
Logic is logic, your private ground is illogical.

George, interesting question: is “private ground” logic the same as “public ground” logic? Meaning, does every individual use the same sort of reasoning processes inside their own heads?
I think the answer, pretty clearly, is “no.” I base this partly on my 37 years of marriage, where I have learned that women look at things quite differently than men do. Here’s a humorous graphic portrayal:
http://imgur.com/3iXvy.jpg
You say that “logic is logic.” I don’t think this applies in the private ground of individual minds, where people do indeed have idiosyncratic ways of processing information and viewing the world.
For example, you seem to operate under a binary sort of logic. RSSB either is a cult, or it isn’t. Thus if tAo says he has never been a member of a cult, and he was a member of RSSB, he must be lying or deceptive.
But this only applies within your own system of logic. tAo has explained that the way he sees things, RSSB can be a cult for initiates who buy into the cult’ish aspects of the organization, where others (like him) can be initiated for other reasons.
That makes sense to me. It is a private ground sort of logic that allows for individual differences, while you appear to operate under a public ground sort of logic where an organization has to be one thing or the other in an objective truth sense.
At any rate, it’s been interesting to follow along with the different thinking styles here. This issue points up the need for clear explanations and open discussion of any subject, because first impressions often can be wrong — owing to different people using different ways of looking at the world.

George inquired:
“I guess the arguement is that these plants or eggs are lower lifeforms with less developed nervous systems and therefore are arguably conscious of less or feel less pain. Seems its all about the intention on the part of the veggie to inflict the minimum pain in the world?”
–Certainly that is the motivation of most vegetarians. A secondary motivation is that a vegetarian diet is believed by some to be healthier than a diet that contains animal products due to concerns about cancer and cardiovascular disease. But the evidence for and against this is very conflictive depending on which studies you read. Also, individual physiological idiosyncracies need to be taken into consideration. In modern society we have the luxury of many food choices which make it possible for omnivorous humans to maintain health according to the ideals of a variety of dietary theories or systems.
According to Sant Mat and other philosophies meat eating causes suffering and thus bad karma which interferes with spiritual progress. It is also believed that meat and eggs excite the nervous system and stimulate “lower” tendencies and passions, again thought to be barriers to spiritual progress.
All this is a complex issue which can’t be resolved or explained sufficiently in a few paragraphs. Many books have been written and whole blogs are dedicated to dietary debate with the usual inflexible fanatics on both sides of the fence.
You asked earlier about the prohibition against alcohol and intoxicants in Sant Mat. It is simply believed, and reasonably so, that abuse of substances leads to errors in judgement, bad behaviour and thus, in the view of sant mat, the resulting bad karma and hinderance of spiritual progress.
In practical terms however, there is a big difference between someone who has a glass of wine with dinner and the person who finishes the whole bottle and another one afterwards. In sant mat even the former isn’t allowed as it could lead to becoming the latter. So, alcohol is off limits altogether.
Personally, I think for a religion to require someone to VOW NEVER to knowingly consume even a portion of an unfertilised egg or drink one glass of wine for the REST OF THEIR LIVES to be absurd, irrational, compulsively restrictive and originating from a decidedly unenlightened perspective.

George,
You are the one who is being stubborn. You called me a liar. You said that I had said that I was “never initiated”. You then presented my comments of last July as supposed evidence of that. But upon examining the evidence – namely my comments of last July – there is no evidence there that I said that I was “never initiated”. So the evidence really shows that your claim is wrong, and that I did not lie. I did not lie because I did not say I was “never initiated” as you claimed.
Secondly, you have present these three suppositions or claims:
1. Tao said RS is a cult (not me)
2. Tao said he has never been in a cult.
3. Tao said he has been initiated into RS.
So I will go over this once again, because you clearly still do not understand, and you refuse to acknowledge the crucial point.
If you were an RS initiate, you would have no difficulty understanding this issue, as you would would already know exactly what I am saying, and that it is quite accurate.
Here are your three suppostions and how they may or may not be correct:
# 1. is correct, because yes, I have indeed said that the RSSB is a cult. RSSB satnds for the Radha Soami Satsang Beas. It is an organization and a society, and it also a actual spiritual colony which is located near Beas in the Punjab, in India. That is what “RS” and “RSSB” stands for. The RSSB is a spiritual guru-cult organization if you will, and it is also a large colony and the headquarters of the RSSB.
However, the receiving of the initiation, which is simply the instruction regarding the shabd yoga meditation and the vows, does not mean nor imply nor require that one “must join” or be a part of or particpate in the RSSB, in the RSSB cult. It does not mean that the initiate has joined the RSSB cult.
Initiation is simply an instruction about the mantra and the meditation. Participation in the actual RS cult organization or satsangs is totally voluntary.
So being initiated, being instructed in the meditation, does not mean that one must necessarily go on and be part of or participate in the RS guru-cult.
# 2. is also correct, I have indeed said that I have never been in ‘a cult’, or in the RS cult. As I clearly explained (but which you continue to ignore and deny), I simply applied for, and I was then given the initiation of the Sant Mat shabd yoga meditation procedure. That meditation initiation does not constitute any “joining” of, or being “into” the RS cult.
It is simply a receiving of instructions on how to do the shabd yoga meditation, and the four vows (which have been listed elsewhere). Neither the meditation instruction, nor the four vows, constitutes being in or being a part of the RS guru-cult. That is entirely separate and voluntary. A person could receive the initiation into the meditation but never have anything to do with the RSSB cult, RSSB organization, RSSB satsangs, RSSB master, or any other aspect of the RSSB society and guru-cult.
# 3. Yes, I have indeed said that I was initiated in the RS MEDITATION, but I did NOT mean to say that I was initiated “into RS”, meaning into the RS cult. There is a difference, and that is the crux of your misunderstanding. Even though you are not an initate (as far as I know), and so therfore you don’t really understand this difference, you still refuse to accept the fact when other initiates tell you.
That is your fault and your error George, not mine. I have never changed or been inconsitent with my position regarding this fact, this difference. You are the one who insists on interpreting it your own way, and your interpretation is incorrect and faulty.
The simple act of getting initiated in the Sant Mat meditation procedure does noot constitute any being in, or joining, or bveing part of the RSSB guru-cult. That side of it is entirely voluntary and is not required in the initiation.
So its high time that you accept the facts George and reliquish YOUR stubborn insistence upon me being a part of the RSSB guru-cult just beacuse I was initiated. As I said, I never joined the RSSB guru-cult, I simply got the initiation into the Sant Mat meditation procedure. End of story.
And the fact that I visited the RSSB headquarters, the RS colony near Beas, also does not constitute my being “in” the RS cult. At that time, anyone could visit there. There was no requirement to be part of the RS organization or cult.
One more thing: Following or practicing the spiritual teachings and theology of Sant Mat does not constitute being a part of the RS cult either. The teachings are available in books and satsangs, to everyone, whether they are formally initiated in the meditation or not. Studying and/or believing in the teachings of Sant Mat has nothing to do with having to be part of the RSSB cult. There are other branches of the over-all path and teachings of Sant Mat that are quite spearate and apart from the RSSB. So simply because one meditates or follows the teachings of Sant Mat, also does not mean that they are “in” or part of the RSSB society, the RSSB guru-cult.
So George, it is high time you accept these simple facts (which any initiate of any branch of Sant Mat will also tell you), instead of stubbornly insisting that I am a “liar” or a hypocrite or that I am being “inconsistent”.
Brian will tell you the same, Tucson will tell you the same, and any other non-fundamentalist initiate of Sant Mat will tell you the same.
And you should also know, if you don’t already, that Sant Mat is the teachings and the path, and RS or the RSSB is only an organization – a branch of the over-all Sant Mat path. So one can be “into” Sant Mat and even get initiated and meditate, but not be “into” or be part of the RSSB cult.
If you have any more questions or need any further clarification I’m sure Brian or Tucson or Osho will be gald to help. I’m done with this now.
Cheerio.

tAo, as I’ve already noted in my own comments, I understand where you’re coming from. There’s a difference between speaking of “cult” in an objective sense (“XYZ is a cult”) and in a subjective sense (“I felt I was in a cult”).
You never felt you were in a cult when you joined RSSB, because you didn’t buy into the cult’ish aspects. George has been looking at RSSB from the outside, objectively, so he figures that if someone was initiated by a RSSB guru, they joined a cult (assuming RSSB is considered a cult).
Like you, I never felt that I was part of a cult. I was never as devotional to the guru as many disciples. And I took more of a scientific attitude toward the meditation practice.
I feel like both of you, tAo and George, offer up a lot of cogent comments on this blog, so I hope you’ll get back to discussing more than this issue.

Brian,
Yes, you are right in the over-all sense, but here’s the thing for me:
You said: “when you joined RSSB […] you didn’t buy into the cult’ish aspects.”
But what I have been trying to clarify is that at that time I wan’t interested in joining the RSSB. I didn’t “join” the RSSB. Thats not waht I did regardless of howother people see it. I just applied for the initiation because I wanted to learn and practice the meditation, and so getting initiated was really the only way to do that. I wasn’t interested in Charan Singh as a guru, or being my guru. All I wanted was the meditation.
Other people got into it because they wanted a master, a guru. I didn’t, so I wasn’t the least interested in being part of the RSSB sangat or being a disciple of Charan Singh. I already more or less had an unofficial guru. I didn’t want a guru or to be a memebr of the RSSB sangat (ie: cult). So even though I did receive the initiation, I did not consider myself part of the RS sangat/cult.
This is the crux of this thing for me. I know its hard for some people to understand maybe because of the whole dhyan thing, and also because most people assume that becoming initiated implies being a member of the RS sangat. Itr does and yet it doesn’t. Because for me, even though I got initiated, and even though I went to visit the Dera, I never considered myself to be a willing member of the RS sangat, or what I call the cult, or a diciple of Charan Singh, or that Charan Singh was my master.
I simply learned the meditation, practiced the meditation, but I hardly ever went to any satsangs or took part in those sort of aspects of RSSB.
I did go to the Dera, and while I did speak with Charan Singh when I was there, and I attended a few of Charan’s satsang meeting on the second floor of the old guest house… I rarely ever went to the morning darshans at the satsangar or didn’t do any menial labor seva.
While at the Dera, I spent most of my time either meditating, or walking around the grounds and hanging out with the Indian guys outside the guest-house, or going down by the river, or at the library, or hanging out on the roof, or going to Amritsar. I hardly ever went to the morning darshan or hung out with other foreign satsangis at the guest-house.
Like I said, I just was not into the whole RSSB sangat participation thing. I was very unlike all the other western satsangis. I had lived in India and Sri Lanka and Nepal for years in the late 60s & early 70s, and I was very familar with Indian culture and spirituality, and I just wasn’t into any part of the RS sangat/society thing at all.
I really was an oddball compared to all the rest of the western satsangis. I guess this is why most satsangis, and also people like George, just have a really hard time understanding my trip with Sant Mat and my non-realtionship with RSSB. Even a lot of initiates don’t get it, much less non-initiate people like George.
Anyway, thanks for your input. I just wanted to explain about that.
You also said: George […] figures that if someone was initiated by a RSSB guru, they joined a cult (assuming RSSB is considered a cult).”
— Yes, that seems to be the problem here. So George needs to listen to what I say about myself, and not hold to his interpretation and version of what RS initiation means.

And i will repeat for the narrowminded dogmatic folk, three clear statements were made by Tao, they were delivered with absolute certainty and clarity, there were no ifs or buts or interpretation attached.
1. Tao said RS is a cult
2. Tao said he has never been in a cult.
3. Tao said he has been initiated into RS.
Logic dicates these statements cannot all be correct, at least one must be false.
Either RS is a cult (as Tao said) or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.
That is how logic works, why the greyness? logic is very simple. One is either consistent or inconsistent. If there is inconsistency, the question then becomes subjective which is what was the subjective intent behind this inconsistency? Was it deliberate intent, in which case it is lying or undeliberate, in which is case it is inconsistency. Regardless of Tao’s subjective intent, at least one of these statements is incorrect.

Tao
“#3. Yes, I have indeed said that I was initiated in the RS MEDITATION, but I did NOT mean to say that I was initiated “into RS”, meaning into the RS cult.”
But how am i meant to mindread what you meant to say? I can only understand what you actually say. You did not make the distinction between the meditative aspect of RS and the others aspects of the tradition. Instead you said with absolute certainty that you were steeped in the RS tradition having been initiated into it and with decades of experience.
I repeat what you said to me above:
Tao said: “Let me be very pointed and very clear about this: There is one thing, above all else, that I have never ever wavered on, or changed, or have said anything otherwise or to the contrary. And that is the simple fact of my own formal initiation into shadd yoga and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (the Radha Soami Mat) by the previous RS master Huzur Charan Singh.”
After all that, now there does appear to be some wavering?
Even if you did only join for the meditation (as if i can mindread that), the objective fact (as you have said) is that you were voluntarily initiated into RS. Therefore, you did join this movement and were into it.

Was it reasonable for George to think that joined/participated and respect some rules/was initiated by RS involved a certain dynamic of being ‘in’ a cult? Personally, I think so. And it seems reasonable according to the dominant norms and conventions of sociology and philosophy of religions. Tao does not have the monopoly of deciding what ‘in’ means and can be interpreted or any other words for that matter (although he usurpates that power quite often).
What was Tao’s state of mind at the time and true motivations and intentions AT THE TIME. Why going to all that extent if you don’t believe in some aspects of RS? Does it make a lot of sense to say that I would like to become a part time scientologist or a scientologist not-believing in the tenets of scientology? Why bother? So far, what we have is a very partial and biased account/recollection of what has probably REALLY happened. But we will never know …
Looking back at Tao’s description of his own relation with RS, we see someone who has the tendency to downplay or overemphasize it depending how convenient it can be for him: either someone who knows the tradition very well and can talk about from experience or the free man without beliefs that he is (and was I guess) …
Can Tao be trusted? It is up to you and at your own peril if you do so! Brian will excuse almost anything in public abou it(working out things in the background). How edifying … But not if you ask Manjit …
We also know he can be deceiptful — like using his another name to comment about himself and how great he is … which he did a few months back … that was sad from a man “without beliefs” and “spontaneously living”

Sant Mat Initiation and Meditation means in as far as I’m concerned.

Regarding Elephant, George and this huge problem over Tao’s initation, I have to say that this is getting stupid. He was very clear in what he said. Sure some of you may not have understood him. I would say refused to understand him. I understood him in exactly the same way as he is saying now. Why are you talking about logic George? Logic is just one small part of human mental abillities and it is nothing more than rules that come from general human experience of dialogue and thinking. If we want to understand others it is simply not enough to rely only on the rules of logic, instead we should try to understand the logic behind a communication. If one only goes by the formal rules of logic, he will probably understand very little of what people have to say. Tao was for me completely logical and in no way inconsistent. Sure if you take those three sentences and make them into a logical argument alone, they will be inconsistent. But this discussion was not a logical tractatus, so you cannot expect people to limit themselves to that kind of expression.
I do not agree that just because one is formally initiated into something, that one also becomes involved in all the aspects of that thing. One can be baptised to be a christian for completely different reasons. One does it because he has faith in christian teachings, one does it because he wants to get married to a christian woman, another does it simply because he would like to know the insider life of christians (because of a study or something). Same with RSSB initiation, to want to try out a meditation tehnique does not mean that you become a satsangi. Formally yes, but in reality it can be quite a different matter. That was completely clear from what Tao was saying. And even if it was not to some, it is now as he has completely explained it and I cannot see how one could still misunderstand him except out of spite.

Amaranth,
No, I simply require consistency, thats all. Two was assertively clear in making those three statements, and they are not consistent.
I am talking about logic, because it is often the only tool able to cut through conditioned dogmatic responses which are not objective, and to highlight them for what they are.
I cannot read into or interpret what anyone says, this is a blog, i cannot even see the other person’s body language. I am not importing or distorting their meaning, they are precisely what Tao has said.
I never said anything about becoming involved in all aspects of RS. Tao said quite clearly that he had been formally intiated into RS, in fact he made it clear that he had never wavered from this claim, so what would you have me interpret to mean by that?
You guys are fooling yourselves, its madness.

George, I simply am wondering why this supposed particular breach of logic fills you with such outrage, while others do not. For example, what about the logic of people such as Obscrene/JAP/Walker/Neut er all posting comments under various self-contradictory identities?
The illogic of pretending to be various people (research director, academic, friend of Stephen Hawking) is obvious and deceitful. Yet so far I haven’t seen the same outrage from you about these displays of deceit.

George,
put this thing to bed – there has been enough said about it.
You want to be RIGHT, so you cannot see the obvious.
You probably still wont be able to see after this post – but let me write it anyway.
In YOUR mind “INITIATED into RS” EQUATES TO “INTO RS (The Cult)”
And indeed it MAY be the case for many people.
However, Tao has explained at great length – that he WAS NOT into the cult side – he did not even consider Charan Singh to be his guru.
Now that is pretty clear to me. Of course it might not be the normal way that most people join RS – but so what? That is how Tao did it.
Tao was clearly NOT INTO the cult side of RS. Why is that so difficult for you to see?
Imagine a journalist getting initiated to find out about the RS meditation. Does that make him a cult member? Of course not – he simply got initiated to find out about it.
Tao is similar – his interest was the meditation – not the guru relationship.
Therefore in Tao’s case it IS possible to get initiated and still not be into the cult.
So this paragraph that you wrote is not logic – it is your internal way of processing the information because you are not accepting all the information given to you.
You are DELETING what Tao is saying when he says “I joined ONLY for the meditation”.
You wrote:
“Even if you did only join for the meditation (as if i can mindread that),
the objective fact (as you have said) is that you were voluntarily initiated into RS. Therefore, you did join this movement and were into it.”
The last sentence does not follow logically – it is your interpretation.
While it is true that you could not mind-read – all you had to do was ASK Tao to clarify the apparent contradiction instead of jumping to the conclusion that he is a liar.
I am sure he would have been more than happy to clarify his position and it would have avoided all these accusations.
Even when he did clarify after you called him a liar – you are refusing to accept his way of thinking. Tao is entitled to take the RSSB initiation and not join the organisation if he so chooses. In your mind that is impossible as you are saying the two cannot be separated when Tao clearly has separated them for himself.
Logic will only work if you apply all the information – you are deleting some of the information and relying on logic to tell you Tao’s internal motivation for taking the initiation.

Osho, good analysis. We err when we assume that inside people’s heads is a purely logical analysis machine. Humans arent like that. Life isn’t like that. Rationality has a wonderful role to play in understanding the natural world. But when it comes to understanding people, and what they say, we have to apply additional skills.

Brian,
I was willing to let this go until you guys seemed intent on convincing me i was wrong. Madness, why are you trying to convince me that black is white?
Tao has left me frustrated because i assumed we were engaging in open honest discussion rather than semantic obfuscations and inconsisent rhetoric.
I understand Tao views RS as an evil poisonous cult, fine, but then wondered why any sane person would still be initiated into such a movement?
Instead of acknowledging statement 3 is also correct, i am getting fancy footwork about meditative aspects and such like, which were never mentioned.
The most telling thing is that no-one has actually questioned my logic, since its quite clear that those 3 statements are inconcistent. Instead, some have tried to argue that these statements mean different things, none of which were said.
This is rhetoric and self-justification. All the things reasoned thought is not.
Osho,
Wrong. I don’t want to be right, I want consistency. Its you lot who ‘want’ to be right, by trying to justify how clear statements mean something else.
Tell me where i am wrong. Tell me my logic is wrong or tell me one of those is statements is wrong, and i will admit it. But don’t tell me rubbish. Don’t interpret extra words or meaning into those clear statements, such as ‘meditative’ aspect. Tao has acknowledged statements 1 and 2 as being correct and has wavered on statement 3. However, there should be no wavering on statement 3 either, since Tao has clearly said that he’s been formally initiated into RS. There was no mention of a meditative aspect or anything else, which instead are belated meanings bestowed by some merly trying to join ranks and be right on an indefensible position.

oh please, you guys have posted article after article about reasoned thought and the scientific method, now all of a sudden its subjective and i’m the one who needs to understand the intricate complexities of reality. Please man, more rubbish inconsistent rhetoric.
You don’t like RS, fine, thats subjective dogma cos your reasons are inconsistent crap. If such dogma is allowed, then why are those RS ‘fundamentalists’ banned?

George wrote: “I understand Tao views RS as an evil poisonous cult, fine, but then wondered why any sane person would still be initiated into such a movement? ”
–Because maybe they were curious about the meditation aspect of the cult.
I personally knew an RS initiate who did not go to satsangs, or India or even have a picture of the master on his wall. All he did was meditate, work, eat and sleep. This guy had nothing in his rented room but a few odds and ends, a sleeping bag and the bike he rode to work. He had great disdain for all the organizational (cult) aspects of RS. He thought it was all BS. But he had faith in the meditation.

George, first I want to tell you that I really enjoy your posts and that I am not attacking you or anything like that. But on this occasion I think you are mistaken. And I do not mean that you are mistaken in saying that Tao joined RSSB as that is clearly not an issue here. But as you said, Tao was formally initiated into RSSB which is the whole point of pretty much everything most of us have been saying. Formally initiated does not mean that you also accept the cultish elements of an organisation. If I entertained the possibility of joining any religious organization I could do that with the knowledge that some aspects of it are dogmatic, not proven, even contrary to my understanding of reality, but I would still join it for any number of reasons. Thus I would be formally initiated into the group but would I accept the cultish aspects? Well no. This is where I give credit to RSSB as in my experience people who do get initiated are not obliged to actually accept the belief system behind it, except for the four vows where from my experience of hearing Gurinder speak, are not to be taken as absolute but rather as general practical things to do in life, as ethical and practical ideals.

Amaranth,
fair enough, you are entitled to your view.
however i find it very difficult to seperate out what are considered the cultish aspects of RS from the non-cultish aspects, but more importantly this distinction and qualification was in no way made when the orginal statements were made.
Tucson,
The meditation qualification was never made in the original statements. I still find it bizarre someone who feels an organisation is an evil poisonous cult would actually go to the trouble of being initiated in it at all, for any aspect. Also, lets not forget about the context of the orginal argument on here, which is Tao implying his extensive direct familiarity of RS he ‘knows’, where in fact under the meditative intepretation you put forward, the only thing he could claim to know is the the meditation aspect itself, none of the RS aspects since apparently he was not interested in such cultish aspects. Its all become totally distorted, which is what inevitably what follows from inconcistency.

My thanks to Brian for reiterating and emphasizing and supporting my position.
First of all, this is the last time that I am going to say this, and for those of you who seem to want to presume and act as if their mere opinions carry any weight or any authority in this matter, I am now telling you that I AM the ONLY one who has any authority to speak for ME, and I am the only one who gets to determine the following about this issue and especially about myself:
You all are entitled to your own personal opinions, but your personal opinions and points of view DO NOT determine who I am, or what I think or say, or what I do or have done in my own life, or the nature of my spiritual life and path and practice, or what my relationship is to any institution such as the RSSB. You have your opinions, but that is ALL they are: mere opinions. I am the ONLY one who has the authority to say what my life and my initiation means TO ME. It does not matter what it means to you, other than it being a mere outside opinion. YOU are not ME (and I am speaking to everyone). So YOU do not have any right or authority whatsoever in determining what my initiation means to ME, or what my initiation implies reltive to the RSSB. THAT is MY priviledge alone. None of you have any position whatsoever to determine or establish what my initiation means to ME. All you have a right to is your own personal views and opinions, but those views and opinions of yours do not ever, in any way whatsoever determine what the nature of MY OWN RELATIONSHIP to the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult is, or what MY OWN initiation MEANT to ME.
All any of you get to say or determine, is what YOUR initiation means to YOU, and what YOUR relationship to the RSSB is (depending on whether you are an initiated satsangi).
If you are not an initiated satsangi, then you have no say at all in what initiation means, and you have no say about how initiation relates to the RSSB organization and sangat.
Those of you who are NOT initiates, simply have no business even presenting your opinions, as you have no legitamte basis or authority or experience with which to say anything about this matter of initiation and how initiation reltes to the RSSB.
And for those of you who ARE initiates of Sant Mat, you ONLY have the right and the authority to say what YOUR initiation means to YOU, and the right and authority to determine what is the nature of YOUR relationship to the RSSB (or to any other branch of Sant Mat).
None of you (and especially George, the elephant, Catherine, or anyone else that thinks and assumes that they have ANY say whatsoever in determining what MY OWN shabd yoga initiation meant to ME, or what was and/or is the nature of MY OWN relationship to the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult)… I repeat, NONE OF YOU has any RIGHT or AUTHORITY whatsoever to say or to determine what MY OWN initiation meant to ME, and/or what MY OWN relationship to the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult is.
All you have is the right to YOUR own OPINIONS about what all these things may mean TO YOU. However, what they mean to YOU, is again, merely your own opinions, and it does NOT determine in any way whatsoever what these things mean for ME or for others.
This is the central crux of this entire issue, this entire debate and argument.
The problem is that some people here (like George) apparently think and assume that they have some sort of right or authority to determine what MY OWN initiation meant and implied, and HOW MY OWN initiation relates to the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult. But they do NOT have any such right or authority. All anyone has a right to is their own personal views and opinions. But their personal views and opinions DO NOT determine what my initiation IMPLIED or how that initiation relates to MY reationship with the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult.
All any of you people have, is your own personal views and opinions (and especially in the case of George who is not even an initiate, and who also is admittedly more or less fairly UN-familiar with these aspects of Sant Mat, shabd-yoga initiation, and the RSSB), which has NO BEARING whatsoever on the meaning or the implications of MY OWN initiation, nor any bearing on the nature of MY OWN relationship to the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult.
George is not ME, and George is NOT an initiate, and so George has no right or any authority or even any experience required to determine what MY initation means, or how it applies or does not apply to the RSSB, or how it relates or does not relate to the RSSB organization,sangat,society, & guru-cult. And this also has nothing whatsoever to do with George’s supposed, but totally faulty “logic” which is based on mere words and not on what MY initiation means to ME, and/or how that relates to the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult.
That all being said, I will address these remarks one last time:
George wrote:
“Even if you did only join for the meditation (as if i can mindread that),
the objective fact (as you have said) is that you were voluntarily initiated into RS. Therefore, you did join this movement and were into it.”
— Well the first part of that is one-half correct… I did volutarily apply for and I was given initiation of or in the SHABD-YOGA MEDITATION. However, George said “initiated into RS”. That is not correct. I have made that clear. George assumes that the initiation is “into RS” meaning into RSSB. However, I have very clearly indicated that I myself was not interested in the RSSB. I was only interested in the SHABD-YOGA MEDITATION. For ME, my initiation was only “into” the SHABD-YOGA MEDITATION, not “into” the RSSB cult. I have made that absolutely clear numerous times now. Yet George insists that my initiation was “into RS” meaning into the RSSB. But that is NOT what it meant for ME. And ONLY I am the one who determinse what that initiaon meant for ME. Is that clear? It does not matter WHAT George says. George is NOT ME. And George is also NOT an initiate. George has no authority to determine WHAT MY initiation meant to me, or how that related to the RS or RSSB. ONLY I get to determine that.
So it is pretty clear here that GEORGE has a serious problem in that he thinks that his personal view and opinion determines what MY initiation meant, and that my getting initiated meant that I was “into RS” and that I “join(ed) this movement and were into it.”
But I have already repeatedly said over and ove and over: NO… I did NOT, I repeat NOT “join this movement”… and NO, I was NOT “into it”. PERIOD.
George has absolutley NO right or authority whatsoever to speak for me, or fto say what I did, or what I intended, or what was implied, by my initiation. George has no say whatsoever in this. The same goes for The Elephat or anyone else who thinks they have business determining what my initiation meant or implied or how it relates to the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult.
One more thing, George claims:
“Tao said he has been initiated into RS.”
NO, I have already made this very clear, I did not get “initiated into RS” (meaning into the RSSB). I simply got initied “into” the SANT MAT SHABD-YOGA MEDITATION, not “into” the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult.
INITIATION is concerned ONLY with the spiritual path of shadd yoga meditation, and NOT with the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult. Initiation is all about meditation, and not about the RSSB organization & sangat/society, & guru-cult.
If any of you don’t believe me, then simply go ask the RSSB yourselves. I assure you that they WILL tell you exactly what I have told you…. That RS initiation is initiation into the Sant Mat shabd-yoga MEDITATION PATH, and NOT “into the RSSB organization & sangat/society/cult.
It is absolutely ABSURD for this debate to go on this long, centered around someone like George, who is NOT an initiate. It is ridiculous. George is quite obviously here to disrupt productive discussion with his personal vendetta against me. Its time for this nonsense to stop. I have spoken to Brian, and he agrees with me on all accounts. And he wants this ridiculous bullshit that George (and now also the elephant) is perpetuating to stop as well. George’s arguement has no foundation or legitimate basis to it whatsoever. Why? Because of one central and crucial fact: George has no authority or right to say what my inition means or implies or how it relates to the RSSB. ONLY I have that right and authority. Not George, not The Elephant, not Catherine, not Manish, and not even Osho or Tucson or Brian has that authority. ONLY I am the one who gets to say and determine what MY initiation meant to ME, and what MY relationship is with the RSSB (if any at all).
End of story.
It doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks or says. They have no authority to speak for me or to say what the nature of my relationship to the RSSB is.
You can all go on debating this forever if you want, and I am sure that some like George and others will. BUT… nothing any of you say, can or will ever change or determine the TRUTH about MY initiation and MY relationship to the RSSB.
So all this entire ridiculous debate has really shown here, is to reveal how and what people think, how honest and rational they are, waht their agenda is, and where each person stands in relation to other people. In that sense it has been very revealing.
But as far as anyone (like George) having any say-so whatsoever in determining what RS initiation means and/or implies in MY case… well I have already made that quite clear that in MY case, they absolutely DO NOT.
You all can go on debating this forever if you like, but I don’t think Brian is going to appreciate it, or tolerate it. There has been enough said already, and in the end, I am the ONLY one who can speak for me… not George or anyone else.

One last thing, relative to some other folks and comments that they have made:
I would like to thank Osho for a very clear and acurrate analysis of this, and for clearly explaining to Geoerge where I stand. Osho has articulated my postion perfectly, and he has also clearly shown the error of George’s thinking and conclusions and supposed (but totally faulty) “logic”.
So Osho, I sincerely thank you my friend for your honesty and for expressing and clarifying my position so well and so simply. Well done.
I would also like to thank Amaranth for his honesty and clear-sightedness in undertanding me and my position.
If anyone wishes to understand in a simple way where I am at and where I stand in regards to this issue, and especially about George’s insistent but faulty reasoning and faulty conclusions, then I would direct them to go read Osho’s comment posted on September 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM.
Beyond that, everything that I have said in my own previous comment posted on September 13, 2009 at 02:50 PM about this issue and about myself still applies. And that is where it ends as far as I am concerned.
Any further discussion or further hair-splitting, or opinions by other parties (other than Brian) on this matter, is totally irrelevant.
Lastly, The Elephant has (quite wrongly) stated:
“Tao does not have the monopoly of deciding what ‘in’ means and can be interpreted or any other words for that matter (although he usurpates that power quite often).”
— Sorry The Elephant, but unfortunately YOU are terribly and fundamentally wrong here.
I in fact DO have the so-called “monopoly of deciding what ‘in’ means”… in my own case. You don’t. You have absolutely no say whatsoever about the meaning of my initiation or the nature of my relationship to the RSSB. Only I have that say.
And THIS is the real issue here, not what The Elephant may think, or or what anyone else may think about MY own initiation and about what MY own relationship is, or is not, relative to the RSSB
Elephant, YOU don’t have that say-so, that authority, that so-called ‘monopoly”… only I do. So you really need to understand that, because you have no right or businees to assume that you determine what is what in MY case.
All you have is a right to YOUR own opionions about what initiation means TO YOU, and about how initiation relates to being “in” the RSSB, or not being “in” the RSSB for YOURSELF. In this case, your opinion only applies to YOU, not to ME.
I am the ONLY one who gets to determine what this all (my own initiation and its relation to RSSB) means for ME.
So don’t think and presume (like George does) that YOU have ANY right oor say whatsoever about what MY initiation means or how it relates to the RSSB.
Because YOU DO NOT have any say in reagrds to ME. Only I do for myself. You can only speak for YOURSELF, not for ME.
Your opinions only apply to YOU, not to me. So you obviously need to get this straight. You have the same problem that George does. You seem think (quite wrongly) that you get to say what my initiation means for me, and how it may relate to being “in” or not “in” the RSSB.
This critical problem in thinking and reasoning and authority, which George and The Elephant obviously have, is the real actual “madness” here, and not what Brian or Osho says, or what I say about myself and my position relative to my initiation and my relationship to the RSSB.

Well, the hair-splitting and nit-picking continues, so when in Rome, do as the Romans do…
George wrote:
” I still find it bizarre someone who feels an organisation is an evil poisonous cult would actually go to the trouble of being initiated in it at all, for any aspect.”
–You are assuming tAo believed that RSSB was an “evil poisonous cult” AT THE TIME he was initiated into the meditation practice of RSSB which, again, does not imply acceptance of RS cult activity.
Furthermore, are you certain tAo used the terms “evil” and “poisonous” in regard to RSSB? You have a way of putting words in people’s mouths.

George says:
“Tao has left me frustrated because i assumed we were engaging in open honest discussion rather than semantic obfuscations and inconsisent rhetoric.”
— I believe that it is clearly George who is the one who is engaging in “semantic obfuscations and inconsisent rhetoric.” He keeps shifing his angle and argument as was shown above.
George also says:
“I understand Tao views RS as an evil poisonous cult, fine, but then wondered why any sane person would still be initiated into such a movement?”
— I did not say that it is an “evil cult”, I simply said that the RSSB is a guru-cult, which it is.
Also, and actually even more importantly, George says: “[I] then wondered why any sane person would still be initiated into such a movement?”
— This statement indicates that George thinks that initiation is something that one (an initiate) can somehow drop or leave behind or dispense with. THat is incorrect. This assumption is indicated by the part where he says “still initiated” within his statement: “why any sane person would still be initiated”.
Fyi George, initiation is not some thing that one acquires, but then they can later drop or dispense with. Initiation is not a matter of something that one has, but later on gives up.
Also, again, initiation is spirtual and is not about being”into” “a momovemet”. In this specific case, the RS initiation is an actual instruction in the shabd meditiation practice and the four vows, and it has nothing to do with any “movement”. Its not ablout a “movenet” at all. It is about the Sant Mat meditation. If you were more familiar with Sant Mat and RS than you would know and understand that. So clearly George, you still do not understand the nature of RS initiation.
You can ask almost any person in India what ‘spiritual initiation’ means, and they will tell you pretty much the same thing. Initiation is a spiritual thing, and is not about being “into” or a part of any “movement”.
Of course there are different and others forms of spiritual initiation, such as the traditional Hindu initiations of brahmachaya and sannyasa, or the Buddhist tantric initiations, or various sorts of meditation initiations. But the point here is that initiation is entirely a spiritual thing, and not a political thing or a being “into” a so-called “movement”. Initiation is a spiritual matter, and it has nothing to do with any sort of “movement”.
George then goes on to say:
“Instead of acknowledging statement 3 is also correct, i am getting fancy footwork about meditative aspects and such like, which were never mentioned.”
— That is not so. I have always maintained that initiation is about the shabd yoga meditation. I have never said otherwise. This is simply another evasive or shifting manuever by George. He keeps dodging the central issue that INITIATION is spiritual and is about the shabd yoga meditation, and it has nothing to do with joining or being part of a cult or a “movement”.
George started this entire thing by initially calling me a “liar”… because he (falsely) claimed that I had supposedly said (a few months ago) that I was “never initiated”. So he asserted that I was not an RS initiate.
I then told him (again) that I was indeed an initiate, and that I had never ever at any time that I was not initiated.
Then, upon examining those comments of mine in question, that George had referred to, it was quite clear there was no evidence therein where I had ever said that I was not or “never initiated”.
So then, since George’s claim of me being a ‘liar”had been proven to be unfounded, George then switched his ange of approach to this:
George claimed these three things about what I (supposedly) have “said”:
George asserted:
1. Tao said RS is a cult (not me)
2. Tao said he has never been in a cult.
3. Tao said he has been initiated into RS.
This was Posted by: George | September 12, 2009 at 11:19 AM
And then this was my subsequent response to those three claims that George made about what I (supposedly) had “said”:
Here is what I (tAo) said about George’s three statements/assertions:
# 1. is correct, because yes, I have indeed said that the RSSB is a cult. RSSB satnds for the Radha Soami Satsang Beas. It is an organization and a society, and it also a actual spiritual colony which is located near Beas in the Punjab, in India. That is what “RS” and “RSSB” stands for. The RSSB is a spiritual guru-cult organization if you will, and it is also a large colony and the headquarters of the RSSB. However, the receiving of the initiation, which is simply the instruction regarding the shabd yoga meditation and the vows, does not mean nor imply nor require that one “must join” or be a part of or particpate in the RSSB, in the RSSB cult. It does not mean that the initiate has joined the RSSB cult. Initiation is simply an instruction about the mantra and the meditation. Participation in the actual RS cult organization or satsangs is totally voluntary. So being initiated, being instructed in the meditation, does not mean that one must necessarily go on and be part of or participate in the RS guru-cult.
# 2. is also correct, I have indeed said that I have never been in ‘a cult’, or in the RS cult. As I clearly explained (but which you continue to ignore and deny), I simply applied for, and I was then given the initiation of the Sant Mat shabd yoga meditation procedure. That meditation initiation does not constitute any “joining” of, or being “into” the RS cult. It is simply a receiving of instructions on how to do the shabd yoga meditation, and the four vows (which have been listed elsewhere). Neither the meditation instruction, nor the four vows, constitutes being in or being a part of the RS guru-cult. That is entirely separate and voluntary. A person could receive the initiation into the meditation but never have anything to do with the RSSB cult, RSSB organization, RSSB satsangs, RSSB master, or any other aspect of the RSSB society and guru-cult.
# 3. Yes, I have indeed said that I was initiated in the RS MEDITATION, but I did NOT say that I was initiated “into RS”, meaning into the RS cult. There is a difference, and that is the crux of your misunderstanding. Even though you are not an initate (as far as I know), and so therfore you don’t really understand this difference, you still refuse to accept the fact when other initiates tell you. The simple act of getting initiated in the Sant Mat meditation procedure does not constitute any being in, or joining, or being part of the RSSB guru-cult. That side of it is entirely voluntary and is not required [or implied] in the initiation.
THis was Posted by: tAo | September 12, 2009 at 09:25 PM
George now says:
“Tao has acknowledged statements 1 and 2 as being correct and has wavered on statement 3.
— No I have not “wavered” on statement 3. I said “yes” that I was indeed initiated, that I received the initiation, and then I went on clarify what initiation is and that it is all about the meditation, and not about the RSSB organization, the RSSB cult, the RSSB sangat, etc.
“However, there should be no wavering on statement 3 either”
— I did NOT waver on statement 3. I clearly said that I had been initiated. Period. However, George had said “initiated into RS” in his statement 3. I was indeed initiated, but I was not initiated “into RS”, which means into the RSSB. I clearly explained that I was initiated into the MEDITATION, not into the “RS” or the RSSB, the RSSB organization, cult, or what have you. That is the difference. George stated: “initiated into RS”. But I was not initiated “into RS”.I was initiated into the Sant Mat shabd yoga path of meditation, not into any organization. This is the difference. George is trying to impose HIS version of initioan upon me, which I do NOT accept.
Again, I was only initiated into the Sant Mat shabd yoga path of meditaion, and not into the RS or the RSSB. George has absolutley no position to be able to say or determine what my initiation meant. And if he doesn;t believe me, then he can go ask the RSSB who will tell him exactly waht I have told him.
“Tao has clearly said that he’s been formally initiated into RS.”
— That means into the Sant Mat path of shabd yoga and meditation, not into the RSSB organization or cult. Go ask the RSSB and they will tell you the very same thing I am telling you George. Initiation is entirely a spiritual thing, not an admistrative or political thing.
“There was no mention of a meditative aspect”
— That is not so. I have been maintaining this exact same position ever since I first came to this blog back in 2005. I have also maintained this same position ever since I was initiated 30 years ago.
“an indefensible position.”
— No George, your position is clearly the “indefensible position”. You are not an initiate, and so you have no authority whatsoever to say or determine what initiation is about or how it realtes to the RSSB. The best you can do is to admit that you made a mistake because you did not UNDERSTAND what RS initiation is about, and what it implies, and what it does not imply.
So to be very clear here:
There has been NO such “inconsistency” in anything that I have ever said that is related to this matter of initiation and/or how it may or may not relate to the actual RSSB organization and guru-cult.

George has been twisting and distorting and misrepresenting and confusing this matter from day one.
He has no intention of acknowledging the facts in this matter.
He shifts his focus and the angle of his argument when cornered.
He is not an initiate, and yet he refuses to accept the facts about Sant Mat, initiation, and the RSSB when they are told to him by initiates.
He says and admits that he has very little understanding of Sant Mat and Radha Soami Mat and the RSSB, and yet he asserts and claims that initiation means that one who gets initiated has joined a cult.
He does not understand initiation, and he refuses to accept the explanations and facts about it given by other initiates like myself, and yet he claims that I am a liar and that I am “inconsistent”.
Therefore, it is quite obvious that George is not here to discuss and/or to learn about Sant Mat or the RSSB, or to respect the knowledge and experience and explanations of others. He is here only to incite and perpetuate needless confusion, needless arguement, and needless disturbance and discord.
Every comment that he has posted on this thread regarding this matter, or in his responses to others, continuing to argue and defend his faulty logic and his mistaken presumptions about me and this entire subject in spite of the fact that I and others have tried at length to resolve his misunderstanding and errors, is clear and obvious evidence of his negative agenda.

Tao,
“I did not say that it is an “evil cult”, I simply said that the RSSB is a guru-cult, which it is.”
— Wrong again, you did say that.
Here’s your full quote: “Watch this video and perhaps you may start to understand why RS (just like the cult described in the video) is so poisonous and destructive and evil.”
Posted by: +@o | July 11, 2009 at 02:26 AM
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2009/07/tai-chi-doesnt-have-much-to-do-with-qi?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e2011570ff1101970c#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e2011570ff1101970c
Tucson,
I don’t put words into people mouths or distort the meaning, the exact wording Tao used is in the link above. Helluva thing hey.
By and large its all just lies, but the thing with lies and inconcistency is that they eventually catch up.

Tao said:
“3. Yes. I have indeed said that I was initiated in the RS MEDITATION, but I did NOT say that I was initiated ‘into RS’…”
— Wrong, here is your quote:
“And that is the simple fact of my own formal initiation into shadd yoga and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas…”
Posted by: tAo | September 09, 2009 at 09:59 PM (posted on this thread above)
So you state you were initiated into RS AND shabd yoga, there is nothing about only being initiated into “RS MEDITATION”. That is your belated skewed intepretation.
Tao also said: “I was initiated into the Sant Mat shabd yoga path of meditation, not into any organization.”
— Wrong. You original statement makes clear that you were initiated into shabd yogo AND Radha Soami Satsang Beas (i.e. the RS organisation).
This is actually a joke, i am done.

OK, he said “poisonous and evil” but what you don’t get is that initiation into the spiritual practice is not initiation into the RSSB organization. There is no such initiation.
The initiation has only to do with the spiritual practice and vowing to avoid meat, intoxicants and to live a moral lifestyle.
Anyone can participate in RSSB activities without initiation or doing meditation or regarding the guru as GIHF.

He he – Hey Osho, how’s it going dude? Give me a call sometime…
Let me settle this for you.
This issue of initiation or not into a cult – is one very, very small drop in an ocean of Tao’s lies, dishonesty, exxagerations etc.
WHat’s the big deal?
Trust me Osho – this guy has made numerous bare faced lies to me, in private email on this & another forum. 100% unmitigated falsity & deception. It’s actually very interesting that several have lept to his defense in the face of this glaringly obvious truth – I guess when we’re taking sides in this war of RS Vs I’m-so-beyond-RS-coz-I’m-really-wise, any issues with integrity, honesty, nobility etc are thrown out the window? Tao can talk whatever lies & non-sense he wants, *as long as it’s pro-Brian & anti-Beas*. Simples. As my meerkat friend would say.
Lasltly – you included Brian & Tao in your list of people who no longer desire ‘sachkhand’. – I would have to disagree. Sachkhand is the supreme OBJECT of desire. Unless one is utterly desireless (liberation), then sachkhand is the highest object of that desire.
Unless you are desireless, then you have not transcended the form of sach khand. (now THAT’S the contra to the pseudo-advaitic position/criticism of RS)
I thing it ridiculous to suggest Tao or Brian even understand what I’m discussing here, let alone have attainment of it. I wager they would trade everything they own or understand for a permanent shift into the energetic matrix of Shabd or Kundalini….wager everything *I* own on it (which isn’t much, granted). If there was a heirarchy of bliss/profundity, I would place psuedo-advaita at the bottom, followed by Shabd Yoga, THEN followed by the *genuine* advaita realisation.
I strongly suggest people re-address which one is being parroted by Tao on this site?
Hey Osho – WOuld love to talk, give us a call – did you know this forum now gets moderated and censored against anybody who can pose a more coherent and cogent argument at all critical than Tao or Brian?
Bizarre isn’t it! SO afraid of the appearance of weakness……
So this will be deleted soon – hope you see it, I lost my mobile phone with your number.
Cheerio!

Don’t mistake someone who listens to someone else opinion’s for someone who is subservient or a fool or wants to be taught or acknowledges you guys as experts of any kind whatsoever.
you have been kind enough to share your honest views, it does not make them facts or right, it only makes them your own.

Hey Tucson – I find this argument incredibly funny.
In the desperation to get Tao of the hook with one of his many inconsistent statements (believe me, there are hundreds!), playing rather wonderful games of semantic jugglerly and other general clowning around – you guys have missed the rather wonderful UPSHOT of this.
I know how difficult this is for some here, but take a moment to ponder over this (until it get’s deleted)
.
Yes, Tao got initiation by the RSSB group into SHabd Yoga. But he DIDN’T get initiated into the ‘CULT’. Right?
He he – isn’t that precisely what you guys have been arguing for the last 5 years? That RS is a cult?
So – why not allow ALL the millions of RS initiates continue going on their merry way, with their (now what you guys are also calling it! :-o) ‘SPIRITUAL’ practice and non-cultic associations.
Actually – isn’t that what all the RS groups have been saying all along?
So – doesn’t that make the vast majority of criticisms that you guys make, errrm, irrelevant?
What if ALL RS initiates (not cult members, of course) considered themselves as if individual spiritual practitioners, rather than members of a cult? Or is it only Tao’s decision of when you’re in a cult, or when you’re a ‘spiritual practitioner’ count – based on it’s convenience to whatever fiction he is promoting at that time? He he.
What HAVE you guys been banging on about for the last 5 years then, if you can be initiated into RS, and not be a ‘cult’ member?
That settles it then, we’ll hear no more of the ‘evil’ & ‘poisonous’ cult (unlike the wonderful Hare Krishnas) that is RS, right?
No – that just wouldn’t be convenient for our soap box, and our grand internet personas, would it?
😉

George – never mind.
This is the human condistion.
Don’t expect honesty, integrity, openness, freedom of thought, nobility, self-deprecation etc here.
ANYTHING goes – for the cause.
Even if, as in this case, it wraps everone up into a deeply inconsistent position with all the semantic juggelry.
You have just found yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And in the desperation for the illusion of integrity, a whole new semantic beast has been created.
For several years RS has been a cult, with goon-gurus, fools and moron initiates. A cult par excellence – and as you rightly observed, ‘evil’ and ‘poisonous’.
Until, however, Tao’s creative, but never honest, use of language got them into a twist. Rather than just call it a misunderstanding – they’ve sought to explain it – probably because this is *one* of Tao’s claims that has *some* truth to it – by golly, if he’s not gonna defend THIS one, he’ll never defend anything! (because a lot of the other stuff is just plain lies with NO truth whatsoever to them).
And in this desperate rush to uphold Tao’s integrity (whislt simulatenously deeply questioing the integrity and honesty of other posters here) – we find outselves in this rather wonderful position.
Where it seems everyone – Amarnath, Tao, Tucson, Brian & Osho – is now agreeing 100% with the official RS line – that it is not a cult, and that it’s all about the individual and their spiritual practice. The organisation is a neccessary evil, but irrelevant to the individual’s spiritual growth.
So – what has all the loud noise for the last 5 years been all about?
What’s with all the meaningless, irrelevant & often profane criticisms of the cult RS all about?
Nothing, it now appears.
Because the ‘cult’ apparently has nothing whatsoever ever to do with the individual. And it’s only the individuals who matter, right?
Such delicious irony.
Who can understand it?
🙂

manjitd, you’re wrong again: I only delete comments that are outrageous personal attacks, and either commercial or religious spam.
As I often say to critics of me and my blog, if you dislike it so much, why do you spend so much time here? It must appeal to you, resonate in some churchless fashion with you, or you wouldn’t be drawn here.
So thanks for giving the Church of the Churchless your “thumbs-up” by your active participation. This blog’s tag line is “preaching the gospel of spiritual independence.” Debate and discussion are always welcome. I just wish you and others wouldn’t feel such a need to engage in personal attacks, and would stick to substantive discussions.

George wrote:
“So – why not allow ALL the millions of RS initiates continue going on their merry way, with their (now what you guys are also calling it! :-o) ‘SPIRITUAL’ practice and non-cultic associations.”
–The cult aspects of RS have never been my main concern here. You throw Brian, tAo, me and others into the same box, but while we share common views we also diverge in certain areas. I tend to challenge the basic spiritual premise of Sant Mat more than the organizational and cult mentality aspects.
RS followers ARE free to go their merry way as far as I’m concerned. I don’t initiate these discussions regarding RS, but if RS devotees make certain dogmatic assertions on this blog then I might ask a few challenging questions in return.
“Actually – isn’t that what all the RS groups have been saying all along?”
–No, because most RS followers are brainwashed cult followers basing their lives on what, in my opinion, is an illusory premise. Certain fanatical followers that come here will not accept or tolerate critical or contrary views of RS and prolonged debate ensues.
“So – doesn’t that make the vast majority of criticisms that you guys make, errrm, irrelevant?”
–No. because RSSB IS a quasi-religio-guru worship cult by any objective definition. My current point, irrespective of that or how tAo fits into all this, is simply that it is possible to get initiated and do the meditation practice without being in cult worship mentality. However, this is not to say that the spiritual premise upon which this path is based is valid.
You do not have sufficient experience with the RS movement and philosophy to understand this.
Again, it is possible for someone to recognise that RSSB is a cult but at the same time want to give the meditation practice a try. That may have been tAo’s position. Only tAo knows that and I can’t speak for him.

Ararnath,
I refer to your comment 13 sept 1:59pm
You wrote:
“This is where I give credit to RSSB as in my experience people who do get initiated are not obliged to actually accept the belief system behind it, except for the four vows where from my experience of hearing Gurinder speak, are not to be taken as absolute but rather as general practical things to do in life, as ethical and practical ideals.”
Hmmm.. interesting that you make that comment. That is not how I would view RSSB. Rather they say “Take your time to decide BEFORE you join to make sure you agree with it all – and once you are in – don’t question it.”
Charan Singh would say “It is time gained not lost when you first research to make sure this is for you.” This means that they want you to be sure you agree with the ideas presented. In other words – do you believe what they are offering you. If not – then it means they don’t want you to join. That is why they used to (still do?) insist that you have read several books before you can even apply for initiation.
Also you say the vows are not absolute but just general ideals. If that is the case – why call them vows. My understanding is that the vows are absolute. You are expected to take them seriously and not just have them as an ideal. I would be interested in what you have heard that makes you think they are not required and are just ideals.
I know Gurinder has made a quite few changes – but has he said the vows are just ideals to aim for? In which case why call them vows anymore?

erm Tucson, stop putting Manjit’s words into George’s mouth – LOL, this is surreal.

George,
Yes this is getting surreal. Correction.
Manjit wrote….
see my comment above at 9:55 AM with the exception of possibly leaving out the part about lacking experience with RSSB.

[tAo had previously said]: “I did not say that it is an “evil cult”, I simply said that the RSSB is a guru-cult, which it is.”
George now responds: “Wrong again, you did say that. Here’s your full quote:”
[where tAo had previously said]: “Watch this video and perhaps you may start to understand why RS (just like the cult described in the video) is so poisonous and destructive and evil.” Posted by: +@o | July 11, 2009 at 02:26 AM
George now says: “I don’t put words into people mouths or distort the meaning. By and large its all just lies, but the thing with lies and inconcistency is that they eventually catch up.” Posted by: George | September 14, 2009 at 02:21 AM
— Yes you do George, and if you are going to call people liars, then you had better present clear and solid evidence to suppost that. But you haven’t.
—————————————-
[Tao had previously said]: “3. Yes. I have indeed said that I was initiated in the RS MEDITATION, but I did NOT say that I was initiated ‘into RS’…”
George now says: “Wrong, here is your quote”
[where tAo had previously said]: “And that is the simple fact of my own formal initiation into shadd yoga and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas…” Posted by: tAo | September 09, 2009 at 09:59 PM
George now says: “So you state you were initiated into RS AND shabd yoga, there is nothing about only being initiated into “RS MEDITATION”. That is your belated skewed intepretation.”
— Wrong. “RS” can mean either one of two things: RS can mean the RSSB organization and guru-cult …OR… it can mean the Sant Mat & Radha Soami TEACHINGS of shabd yoga. All initiates are aware of these two meanings to the term “RS”. In the quote that you referred to above I was referring to the teachings of Sant Mat, namely shabd yoga, not to the RSSB organization. Its not my problem that you have interpreted “RS” to mean the RSSB. I usually and generally always write RSSB when I am referring to RSSB. And I write “RS” (which is an abbreviation for Radha Soami) when I am referring to the Sant Mat and Radha Saomi teachings…. unless I am speaking to an initiate who I know is awae of the difference. You were not aware, so hence your confusion and misunderstanding. But you are still refusing to accept the primary point, which is that I did not take inition into the RSSB organization, I took initiation in the Sant Mat practice of shabd yoga meditation. Period.
Therefor you are still wrogn George, so why don’t admit that you made a mistake in interpretation. It’s not my job to clarify my initiation down to the very last detail. You called me a liar, and you continue to do so, but your claim is bogus and wrong. You are clearly out to discredit me, but you have nothing to support that.
You have no right or authority to say or determine what mmy initiation meant to me, or what my retionshipt to the RSSB organization and guru-cult may or may not be.
So therfore, give it up George, you are wasting eveyone’s time and energy for no legitimate reason.
[Tao had previously said]: “I was initiated into the Sant Mat shabd yoga path of meditation, not into any organization.”
George now says: “Wrong. You original statement makes clear that you were initiated into shabd yogo AND Radha Soami Satsang Beas (i.e. the RS organisation).” Posted by: George | September 14, 2009 at 02:50 AM
— NO George, it does not. My original statement as you ahve quoted above, says:
“And that is the simple fact of my own formal initiation into shadd yoga and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas…”
That was meant to say ‘my own formal initiation into shadd yoga BY the Radha Soami Satsang Beas.’ You are simply quibbling over two small words: “and the”.
That was in fact, my own mistake, because I should have said “BY the Radha Soami Satsang Beas”, not “and the”.
So you are correct as far as my use of those two words goes, but as I have explained at great length, I did NOT get initiated into the RSSB, I got initiated in the Sant Mat meditation. I tend to type fast, as as everyone knows, I tend to make a fair amount of typos and grammatical and syntax errors. But that does not change the truth of my initiation or my relationship to the RSSB, or my position.
If this is the crux of this entire debate, then you should have said so in the beginning, as I would have been glad to clarify my actual position for you. Instead you call me a “liar” and waste everuones time and energy over virtually nothing, and because YOU are not an in itiate and therefore you are not very familar or knowledgeable about Sant Mat, Radha Soami, shabd yoga initiation, and the RSSB organization and guru-cult.
George, its time for you to accept the reality of this, and stop trying to bogusly and wrongly discredit me.
—————————————–
Manjit says:
“This issue of initiation […] is one very, very small drop in an ocean of Tao’s lies, dishonesty, exxagerations etc.”
— If you are going to say that I lie and am dishonest, then you must show the eveidence. Otherwise, you are the one who is making false and unsupported claims.
Trust me […] this guy has made numerous bare faced lies to me, in private email on this & another forum. 100% unmitigated falsity & deception.”
— Why should anyone “trust” you manjit?? You have no credibilty. None whatsoever. Present your evidence Manjit for that. Otherwise, you are are the liar. You don’t get to call people liars if you don’t have evidence to support your claim. And in your case, there is no such evidence, its nothing more than your ususal phony antagonistic bullshit.
“It’s […] very interesting that several have lept to his defense in the face of this glaringly obvious truth”
— Then what is that “truth” Manjit? Put it up for all to see, or shut-up. You have nothing on me Manjit. Nothing. You are just a bag of hot-air. Your attack to undermine my integrity and character and truth is baseless and hollow and deceiptful. Your reputation for doing this sort of thing is well known.
“Tao can talk whatever lies & non-sense he wants, *as long as it’s pro-Brian & anti-Beas*.”
— Produce your evidence Manjit, or go away. I am sure that Brian does not appreciate or want your kind of derisive crap and false insinuations here. You are not welcome to make derogatory attacks on other people and call them liars without some solid legitimate evidence to prove it.
“I thing it ridiculous to suggest Tao or Brian even understand what I’m discussing here” “I strongly suggest people re-address which one is being parroted by Tao on this site”
— And WHAT exactly is that, which you say I am ‘parroting’ Manjit?? Again, either be specific, or expect to be laughed at and then ignored.
“did you know this forum now gets moderated and censored against anybody who can pose a more coherent and cogent argument at all critical than Tao or Brian?”
— That is absolutely not true. It only happens to people (like you Manjit) when they post derogatory personal attacks and insults against other commenters or the author, or attack the purpose and spirit of this blog. You should go back to RSStudies where you can do that sort of thing as much as you like. Commenters (like you) who do that are not welcome here.
“So this will be deleted soon”
— This statement clearly shows that you are quite aware that the nature and content and vibe of your comments is disrespectful and unwelcome and in violation of Brian’s wishes and policy, and yet you choose spit in his face anyway.
—————————————-
George says: “you have been kind enough to share your honest views, it does not make them facts or right, it only makes them your own.”
— But that applies to you as well George, even more so since you are not an initiate and have far less understandin and experience with Sant Mat.
—————————————–
Manjit says:
“to get Tao of the hook with one of his many inconsistent statements (believe me”
— I have made no inconsistent statements. So again Manjit, present some clear and solid evidence, or prepare to be ignored. Why should anyone “believe” you, since you have produced nothing whatsoever to substantiate your claims against me??
“take a moment to ponder over this (until it get’s deleted)
“Tao got initiation by the RSSB group into SHabd Yoga. But he DIDN’T get initiated into the ‘CULT’. Right?”
— I was only initiated in the shabd yoga meditation, not initiated in the RSSB organization. The initiation is only about shabd yoga meditation, not about a “group” or an organization or cult.
“isn’t that precisely what you guys have been arguing for the last 5 years? That RS is a cult?”
— Yes, “RS” (which in this case and sense means the RSSB, not the shabd yoga teachings of Sant Mat) is an organization and a guru-cult.
“So – why not allow ALL the millions of RS initiates continue going on their merry way, with their now what you guys are also calling it! ‘SPIRITUAL’ practice and non-cultic associations.”
— Huh? Neither myself nor anyone else here has said that the RS initiates aren’t ‘allowed’ or shouldn’t be ‘allowed’ continue their spiritual practices.
“isn’t that what all the RS groups have been saying all along?”
— I don’t what they have been “saying”. I only know what I say and have said. And I never said that initiates should not do their spiritual practice, their meditation.
“So – doesn’t that make the vast majority of criticisms that you guys make, errrm, irrelevant?”
— No, why should it? The criticisms were primarily about the cult aspect of RS, meaning the RSSB.
“What if ALL RS initiates (not cult members, of course) considered themselves as if individual spiritual practitioners, rather than members of a cult?”
— Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. Some do, some don’t. Some definitely and obviously have a cultish mentality, yet a few others may not. So what? Your arguement doesn’t really make any sense.
“is it only Tao’s decision of when you’re in a cult, or when you’re a ‘spiritual practitioner’ […] – based on it’s convenience to whatever fiction he is promoting at that time?”
— Your ridicule is baseless and pointless. I have promoted no such “fiction”. I have simply stated the situation of MY OWN personal case, and not anyone else’s. My “decision” as you call it, was only about myself, and no one else. I got into Sant mat for the meditation only, not to join the RSSB or for its guru, or its cultness. I did not get initiated in an RSSB organization. I got initiated in the Sant Mat shabd yoga path of meditation. I have already made that clear numerous times, yet like George, you continue to try and distort and misrepresent and deny that. But you have no authority to speak for me and for my initiation and my reletionshipt to the RSSB. Nor do you have any right to say that have spoken for others. I have not spoken for others. Your attempts at undermining me will always fail, because what you (and George) say and/or imply about me and about my initiation and/or my relationship to RSSB is is a deliberate distortion and falsehood.
“What HAVE you guys been banging on about for the last 5 years then, if you can be initiated into RS, and not be a ‘cult’ member?”
— The difference is in what you reagrd as “RS”. “RS” can mean the teachings of Sant Mat (shabd yoga and meditation), or “RS” can mean the RSSB organization and guru-cult. We are referring to the latter meaning of “RS” when we say that RS is a cult… meaning that the RSSB organization is a cult, not the initiation or the meditation. Thats is the difference that you and George are delibberately trying to blur. But it just doesn’t fly Manjit.
“That settles it then, we’ll hear no more of the ‘evil’ & ‘poisonous’ cult {…] that is RS, right?”
— Wrong. The “RS” that I and others have referred to as being a cult is only the RSSB organization, NOT the Sant Mat teachings, initiation, and meditation.
“No – that just wouldn’t be convenient for our soap box, and our grand internet personas, would it?”
— You are the one with the “grand persona” Manjit. You are the one who is constantly posing as an egotistical spiritual know-it-all, but yet is admittedly not even initiated. I find it pretty laughable that people like you, who are not initiates, pretend to be such experts and critics of those who have been long-time Sant Mat initiates. The term “fool” comes to mind.
————————————-
Manjit says:
“Don’t expect honesty, integrity, openness, freedom of thought, nobility, self-deprecation etc here.”
— Thats a pretty apt description of YOU Manjit. Its time you stop attacking and trying to undermine this blog and the other commenters here. That isn’t welcome.
“For several years RS has been a cult, with goon-gurus, fools and moron initiates. A cult par excellence – and as you rightly observed, ‘evil’ and ‘poisonous’.”
— In some ways some of that may be true to some extent, but you have definitley missed the real point by instead merely focusing on language.
“Tao’s creative, but never honest, use of language got them into a twist.”
— No it hasn’t. There is no “twist” Manjit. Its just a matter of different views. But you aren’t here to participate and share your views about the various subjects, you are here to ridicule and attack and try to undermine this blog as well as some of the other folks here.
“probably because this is *one* of Tao’s claims […] (because a lot of the other stuff is just plain lies with NO truth whatsoever to them).
— If you are going to call people liars, then you need to show the evidence. Otherwise you are attacking the messenger, not the message. But thats why you are here in the first place… to attack and ridicule me and Brian and anyone else that you fancy. To put it to you bluntly, your shit isn’t welcome here anymore Manjit.
“it seems everyone – Amarnath, Tao, Tucson, Brian & Osho – is now agreeing 100% with the official RS line – that it is not a cult, and that it’s all about the individual and their spiritual practice.’
— No, that is a total distortion of what is being said. RS, meaning the RSSB, IS a cult. The “spiritual practice” is not. That is what I an others are saying. So agin, you are attempting to distort and misrepresent and fabricate falsehood about us and what we have said. Thats not just a misunderstanding, thats downright dishonest.
“The organisation is a neccessary evil, but irrelevant to the individual’s spiritual growth.”
— Sorry, I don’t agree with that.
“So – what has all the loud noise for the last 5 years been all about?’
— About the RSSB religion and guru-cult.
“What’s with all the […] profane criticisms of the cult RS all about?”
— I just told you.
“Because the ‘cult’ apparently has nothing whatsoever ever to do with the individual. And it’s only the individuals who matter, right?”
— Wrong. Most of the “individuals” (the satsangis) ARE definitely influenced by, and part of, the RSSB “cult”.
“Who can understand it?”
— Well obviously not YOU Manjit.

I accidently overlooked responding to one of George’s comments regarding the phrase “poisonous and destructive and evil”. First the prior comments, and then at the bottom is my current response:
[tAo had previously said]: “I did not say that it is an “evil cult”, I simply said that the RSSB is a guru-cult, which it is.”
George now responds: “Wrong again, you did say that. Here’s your full quote:”
[where tAo had previously said]: “Watch this video and perhaps you may start to understand why RS (just like the cult described in the video) is so poisonous and destructive and evil.” Posted by: +@o | July 11, 2009 at 02:26 AM
— Yes, I did say that “RS” (meaning the RSSB organization) is “poisonous and destructive and evil”, similar to what was shown in the video. So what?
I do not generally call RSSB an “evil cult” or “”poisonous and destructive and evil”. I usually always simply say that the RSSB a “guru-cult”, which it is. But in that one comment of mine awile back, that was quoted above, I did say “poisonous and destructive and evil”. I did not remeber saying that, but George has brought that to my attention. So George is correct that I did say that on at least one occasion. However, as I said I usually refer to RSSB simply as a “guru-cult”. If you check the entre range of my comments over the years, you will find that I ususally always say “guru-cult”. But yes, in this one case I did say “poisonous and destructive and evil”. So George is correct on that point.
However, I still do feel that some aspects of the RSSB are indeed “poisonous and destructive and evil”, as well as also no doubt being a guru-cult.
But in general, I am so not inclined to debate on those “poisonous and destructive and evil” aspects. That is my personal opinion, and so that is not productive to a unbiased critique of the RSSB.
Nevertheless, as I said, George is correct that I did in fact say that on that previous occasion. I just did not remeber that when he broungt it up recently, and so having forgotten that, I simply told George that I call the RSSB a “guru-cult” and not “evil”.
So I hope that this clarifies any confusion or doubts about my views and opinions and statements about the RSSB. And I am sorry for my unintended mistake and my faulty memory in this particular instance.

There seems to be some confusion that there is initiation into Sant Mat (RS) meditation and also RSSB, the organization.
No initiation into RSSB (the organization) exists.
There is only initiation into Sant Mat meditation.
RSSB is simply the administrative organization.
One can be initiated and have absolutely no involvement or obligation to the RSSB organization.
Nor is involvement with the RSSB organization expected or implied by taking the initiation in the meditation practice.
Participation in RSSB organizational activities such as satsangs and seva (service, work, donations) is entirely voluntary and not a requirement for initiation into the meditation practice.

Tucson, thank you for putting that so concisely and accurately. That’s exactly what I have been trying to say to these guys all along.

I very much agree with Osho Robbins where he says:
“My understanding is that the vows are absolute. You are expected to take them seriously and not just have them as an ideal.”
From the very beginning of my involvement in Sant Mat, it was well known that the fore vows were not something, an ideal merely to strive for, or to be taken casually. Initiated satsangis were expected to follow and strictly adhere to the for vows. There was no maybe or sometimes or perhaps. There was no leeway. Sure, some satsangis did not always adhere t the no sex before marriage vow, but almost everyone followed the other three religiously. I knew of one woman satsangi who got into drinking for awhile, but she eventually stopped. I never heard of anybody eating meat at all. I am sure no doubt sometimes some satsangis would fail to meet the daily 2 and 1/2 hour meditation period, but most people tried.
The point is that back in the day when I was involved, the vows were not at all regarded casually, or as merely an ideal to try to reach ‘someday’, as Amaranth seems to interpret it. You had to follow the vows even prior to initiation.
I don’t know how it is now, but I doubt that the vows have been loosened, as Amaranth seems to imply. So I would have to doubt that the current master has made following the vows more liberal. But then I haven’t kept up with the current RS policies. I just can’t imagine that the requirement to follow the vows hash been changed. I did hear awhile back that the time period for preparation before initiation had possibly been either shortened orlenghtened. But I can’t remember which.
Its hard for me to believe that the vows are not required and are just ideals. So unless I find out otherwise, I have to think that Amaranth has a mistken interpretation. Perhaps Amaranth can elaborate on this more.
I have heard that Gurinder has made some changes, but at this point I have to doubt that he said the vows are just ideals to aim for, that the vows are not absolute but just proposed ideals. That just doesn’t seem plausible to me.

Sorry I don’t have time right now to read through all these comments but regarding the vows I have to say from my limited experience ( of attending some satsangs where Gurinder spoke ) is that when there were questions about following them strictly he said it depends on the situation. I think that the specific example was that if you were a guest somewhere and they happily prepared a delicious meal for you which contained meat in it because they did not know that you are a vegetarian, it could be better to just eat it if you knew that it would insult or hurt them if you refused to eat it. And when I say that one does not have to absolutely obey the vows I have never felt from Gurinder’s words in satsangs that they are to be meant as absolute rules but are to be followed in spirit. But I have to emphasize, this is only my understanding of the matter, it has been a long time since I have been to a satsang with Gurinder speaking, so I cannot comment objectively but purely from memory. The one thing that I can comment on is the situation of RSSB in my country. There is quite a bit of initiates here but they seem to be set into two camps, there is one that goes the really dogmatic way where everyone has to agree on everything the speaker or the representatives say, and there is ( I believe a larger ) group that is not dogmatic, that freely talks about anything regarding RSSB, criticizes the cultish aspects of RSSB… I was at one satsang a few months ago and it was quite uncomfortable as the questions and answers part of the meeting was stopped right in the middle of it because the speaker did not agree ( or rather did not wish to hear ) with what somebody said and then tried to stop him from speaking, even being very rude which lead to the point that I told them that this kind of behaviour is cultish and simply wrong. So if I judge by the followers I would say that RSSB has elements of a cult but also elements that are not cultish. But I have to say that I am more of an outsider, because I am not initiated nor do I wish to be. Therefore I do not have a clear view of the whole situation. I am interested in the RSSB teachings but this has more to do with the fact that I am interested in just about all the views on life and in each I try to find something good but also seek the bad stuff.

Far too much hearsay goes on around here by people that think they know something about some things yet actually know nothing at all about that which they proposedly believe themselves to be authorities on. Anyone need to know anything substantial and true about anything rather go to the source of the knowledge than continue to protractedly beat about this non knowing, nonsensical, non enlightened, non open minded, derogatory, and subjectively inaccurate, foolish, idiotic bush.

tucson, wanting to give the RSSB meditation a try, means in the deepest sense, becoming a part of the cult. Think of what the meditation entails; repeating 5 names of regions that will be travelled through, listening for the sound current, visualising the initiating masters face. All this occurs every day for long periods of time. It is not just a process of trying out; it is a process of believing and immersing oneself in the doctrine.
Tao may believe that because he did no seva, didn’t go to satsangs and never attended Bhandaras, that he was not part of a cult. The meditation immerses one far more than the outer connections.
Incidentally the outer connections such as seva are valuable in teaching humility and community.
Tao, like many of us, fools himself believing that he has never been in a cult. He has in fact.
George, you have over-reacted. It is difficult to realise that something got through the intelligent defence system.

Catherine wrote:
“tucson, wanting to give the RSSB meditation a try, means in the deepest sense, becoming a part of the cult.”
—I think you are correct in most cases, but don’t you think it is possible for someone to take initiation simply as an experiment or out of curiosity to see if it will work? After all, doesn’t RSSB also call itself “The Science of the Soul”? (Which, by the way, is simply PR as far as I’m concerned.)
“Think of what the meditation entails; repeating 5 names of regions that will be travelled through, listening for the sound current, visualising the initiating masters face.”
—Many people are initiated by proxy, i.e. a representative. While visualization of the master’s form is advised, this is only for those who have actually seen the physical form of the master or the radiant form within. Visualization of photos or what you imagine the master to look like is not advised. Saying the names, listening for sound, etc. can be viewed as part of the “scientific” experiment.
“All this occurs every day for long periods of time. It is not just a process of trying out; it is a process of believing and immersing oneself in the doctrine.”
—Belief, while assumed, is not a requirement for initiation or to do the meditation.
I’m not saying what you said is untrue, but there may be some who take a clinical approach to this path.
Only they know for sure.

Catherine said:
“wanting to give the RSSB meditation a try, means in the deepest sense, becoming a part of the cult.”
— No it does not. It is simply a meditation. Shabd-yoga meditation has nothing to do with participation in a CULT.
“Think of what the meditation entails; repeating 5 names of regions that will be travelled through, listening for the sound current, visualising the initiating masters face. All this occurs every day for long periods of time. It is not just a process of trying out; it is a process of believing and immersing oneself in the doctrine.”
— No. Maybe for you, but it wasn’t that way for me, in my case. Sitting alone in meditation has nothing whatsoever to do with “believing” or with immersion in a “docrine”. That is not what meditation is… at least it was not for me anyway. So don;t presume that your ideas and concepts about meditation apply to me. The cult is all about the organization, the satsangs, the darshan, the sangat, and the seva. Doing meditation has no connection to the RSSB cult. It is simply private individual meditation. The meditation has nothing to do with the cult. Not for me, and thats what this debate is all about. Maybe meditation for YOU is about being part of a cult, but it wasn’t for me…. not in my case. I guess you don’t undertand that, and thats the problem here. Apparently your concept and experience of doing shabd meditation is very different than mine was.
Also… internal repetition the 5 names is simply an internal repetition of a mantra composed of basic and well known sankrit words or syllables, and it doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with participation in the RSSB cult.
Also… listening to the sound current (shabd or nam or nada) is one form of traditional yoga pratice, and it doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with participation in the RSSB cult.
Also… visualization of the initiating masters face is not absolutely required (according to what Charan Singh himself told me), and I did not engage in that practice. Dhyan can simply be a receptivity to or a seeing of the internal light (in the same way as hearing the sound current), and it does not have to be specifically in the form of the masters face. The sound and the light are both aspects of the one shabd. Visualization is not essential or required. And that is what Charan Singh told me personally in private conversation with him. I think I may have heard/read that elsewhere as well. Perhaps in Spiritual Gems or somewhere else, I don’t remember where.
So your arguement that meditation automatically implies participation in the RSSB cult, is unfounded…. and especially in my own case.
“It is not just a process of trying out; it is a process of believing”
— No, one does NOT have to believe, simply in order to meditate. So that is not true.
The thing here catherine, is that you obviously have your view of meditation and all the rest, but that only applies to you. It doesn’t necessarly and automatically apply to other people. Thats what you fail to understand and acknowledge. So what makes you assume that you can say what it is for other people? You have no position to determine that.

Catherine, I feel that you are terribly wrong here.
You do not know me, and you also do not know what MY motives were when I got initiated, what MY meditation meant, nor about MY relationship to the RSSB.
But actually, I have elaborated at great length on all of that, so in this case you have obviously chosen to deny what was true for me in my own personal situation, relative to my meditation and the cult side of RSSB.
Which actually says a lot about you, and very little or nothing about me.
It says that you think and assume that you know all about me and my life, when in fact you do not.
It shows that you think and assume that your opinion, your concept and version of what initiation and meditation means to YOU, somehow also applies to me as well. But it doesn’t.
It says that you assume that MY practicing of shabd meditation somehow automatically immersed me and made me part of The RSSB cult. It doesn’t.
Even Tucson explained that very well awhile back.
Catherine said: “Tao may believe that because he did no seva, didn’t go to satsangs and never attended Bhandaras, that he was not part of a cult. The meditation immerses one far more than the outer connections.”
— Catherine, this is nothing more than your own personal opinion again, it is your own particular view and concept about the implications of the RS meditation and how that applies to the RSSB cult.
It does not at all refect nor determine what MY initiation, MY meditation, or MY relationship was to the RSSB.
And the meditation does NOT “immerse one far more” into the RSSB cult. Not at all imo. Not for me anyway. Maybe for you though.
But your situation and view was/is clearly not the same as mine. Thats what you seem to not be able to recognize or understand.
And imo, it is rather odd that you actually think and believe and then presume to know and to say and determine what MY meditation practice implied for ME, and what the nature of MY relationship was to the RSSB, in the way that you are doing.
In fact, its actually quite weird (imo) and highly presumptious of you, and a rather unbalanced view, that you would go so far as to assume that YOU could ever possibly determine what MY relationship was to the RSSB cult, and what MY initition meant, and what MY meditation practice implied.
It’s actually extremely odd and absurd that you even think this way.
Which then makes me have to wonder, how you could ever think or presume that you are able to know or to determine what someone else’s life and what their spiritual path was all about for them?
All you have really done here is to show what your own ideas and views are, relative to the RS initiation, the shabd meditation practice, and the RSSB organization, and the sangat or cult.
You can never know what my views and reality was, unless I tell you, but then actually, I have told that.
So now, for you to have the nerve to go and deny MY own personal reality and MY own truth relative to meditation and the RSSB, and then go so far as to assume and say what someone else’s initiation and meditation means and implies, only shows how denying and incredibly presumptious YOU are.
You clearly have some sort of problem here Catherine. Otherwise you would never assume, much less claim to know or determine, what someone else’s (such as myself) spiritual life and meditation practice was like or about.
You can only determine that for yourself, not for anyone else.
So it is wrong for you to presume to determine what you have about someone else’s initiation, someone else’s meditation, or what someone else’s relationship was to the RSSB cult.
Think about it Catherine. Think about how incredibly foolish and absurd, and what nonsense it is for you to presume to determine what someone else’s meditation or relationship to the RSSB was in their own life.
No offense, but I guess I had mistakenly thought that you had a bit more common sense and intelligence than that, but you obviously don’t in this particular case.
Because how is it that you presume to know or determine what my meditation practice implied for ME, in relation to the RSSB ???
You are only saying what it was or is for you.

Oooh tAo, you do go on and on. Let’s take you out of the picture then.
I like Wikepedia’s many definitions of ‘cult.’ and this variety may be the cause of the confusion here.
Would meditating in a darkened room in the quiet, early hours of the morning, repeating the names of 5 rulers ( names which all correspond to well know sanskrit sounds) of 5 regions ( all unique to Sant Mat and in this case even to RSSB) for two hours or more, with or without darshan, constitute immersion in a cult?
Remember that there is also a vegetarianism and tea-totaling requirement. The seva, socialising and attending of satsang is in fact advisable but not a requirement of the cult.
In deciding, take note that the initiate choses ( or is chosen) to repeat those names which are supposed to be given power by the initiating guru. The meditation is given presidence over all others.
The meditation has to be practised with considerable dedication even if the initate is only curious. The initiate understands also that there may be no result in a lifetime’s dedication.

Catherine, you said:
“tAo, […] Let’s take you out of the picture then.”
— But you can’t, because I am the one that you were, and are, directing your comment to, and the one you have been making your false assumptions about.
“Would meditating in a darkened room in the quiet, early hours of the morning,”
— But you see Catherine, what you don’t know and understand about me… is that I did lots of meditation “in the quiet, early hours of the morning” when I lived in the Himalayas of northern India and Nepal, and in south India and Sri Lanka, more than a decade before I ever had any contact whatsoever with Sant Mat and RS.
“repeating the names of 5 rulers ( names which all correspond to well know sanskrit sounds) of 5 regions ( all unique to Sant Mat and in this case even to RSSB)”
— Well, what you don’t know and understand about me, is that I had already known and was quite familiar with all those sanskrit syllables, sounds, and mantras, many many years before I ever had anything whatsoever to do with Sant Mat. And btw, they are NOT at all “unique” to Sant Mat. Where do yoi get that idea? From the RSSB CULT? Most likely.
“Would meditating […] for two hours or more, with or without darshan, constitute immersion in a cult?”
— As I said before… NO, for me, simply meditating did not “constitute immersion in a cult”… not for me. I did meditation long before I came across RS. Simply doing editation never equated with a cult for me, in my experience. Why should it? Meditation iself has nothing to do with a cult.
“Remember that there is also a vegetarianism and tea-totaling requirement.”
— Well again fyi, (I don’t know about YOU but…) I was a vegetarian since 1966. I didn’t come into contact with RS until about 1976. I also didn’t drink alcohol at all from about 1967 onward. So for me, being that I was already a vegetarianism and non-alcoholic on my own, more than at least 10 years before I ever came in contact with RS, it did not cause me to be part of, or “into” any RS cultism.
You see, all this is precisely why you are so foolish to assume something about someone, such as you have about me, without knowing anything about who you are judging. You knew nothing about me, or about my lifenow or in the past.
What you don’t understand is that I was doing all those things that you mentioned above (including meditation), a very long time before I had anything to do with the RS shabd yoga initiation & meditation.
If you had simply asked me, I would have explained that to you. But instead, you jumped to a false and erroneous conclusion.
“The seva, socialising and attending of satsang is in fact advisable but not a requirement of the cult.”
— I rarely, if ever went to any RS satsangs, I did no seva, and no socializing with RS satsangis. I did not participate in the RS sangat.
“In deciding, take note that the initiate choses ( or is chosen) to repeat those names which are supposed to be given power by the initiating guru.”
— That is YOUR belief Catherine, not mine. I never believed any of that. I never needed to believe that kind of nonsense. And the internal mantra is nothing more than common sanskrit syllables/sounds. Those are not exclusive to RS. But apparently you are not aware of all that. The mantras was not unfamiliar to me, nor is it some mysterious or holy or sacred thing. Its just a mantra, used to fixate the attention. Nothing more. Anything other than that is a load of spiritual and mystical hype.
“The meditation is given presidence over all others.”
— The RS meditation is one form of shabd yoga. Nothing more. Yes, RS gives meditation great importance. So what? That does not make meditation itself, cultish. Cultish is all related to the RSSB organization, the sangat, and the dogma… not meditation. I don’t know where or how you got this ridiculous idea that simple shabd yoga meditation equals cultism. There are other forms of shabd yoga meditation. Fyi, RS doesn’t have any exclusive monopoly on shabda yoga or meditation. Are you not aware of that?
“The meditation has to be practised with considerable dedication even if the initate is only curious.”
— Again, I had practiced meditation with great dedication years and years before ever contacting RS. So for me, meditation had and has absolutley nothing to do with any cult, including RSSB.
“The initiate understands also that there may be no result in a lifetime’s dedication.”
— That is noyhing more than RSSB dogma. I don’t follow or accept that notion. I never have. In fact, telling people that they may have to wait until a furture life=timer is misleading and is a type of manipulative tactic used by cults to keep people in bondage to the cult.
Whatever you are going to do, you had better damn well do it in THIS HERE AND NOW life-time. There may be no other, no future lifetime. Don’t bank on furure lifetimes. Thats bullshit of the worst kind.
Anyway… I think you need to wake up and realize that other people (like me) are not always going to be the same as you. That is the mistake you have made here… thinking that you can say what someone elses reality is. I am very different from whatever you seem to think I am. So I hope this has opened your eyes and your mind a little. Try not to make assumpotions about other people that you don’t know.

If I may come in here, and reading both Catherine and tAo comments, it is clear that different people have different view of what is and what is not a cult. Catherine is not assuming tAo did or did not act or believe in any particular way, in fact she is very careful to use the words ‘if’ and ‘may’, but falling back to Brians rules and guidelines, at least one non-personal aspect of this discussion is whether quiet meditation every day, according to the instructions given by an RSSB guru, constitutes being a cult member?
If this is considered to be a cult member, then is it that time spent in meditation falls into cult category, or is it that the type of meditation justifies cult status.
When we use words, we should all be clear about the intended meaning. It is perfectly valid to be cautious of cults in the sense that they can be destructive, so it is therefore important to recognise what behaviour constitutes cult classification.
tAo, do you consider sitting in a quiet room alone, repeating names, as being cult like behaviour? If so, then how many names would relinquish cult status, because sitting alone reading a book might also be a cult, if the words in the book were repetitive.
If you dont consider quiet regular meditation as being of cult status, then I think you have misunderstood Catherine, because I suspect this is what she is saying.

Naresh, thanks for the objectivity. I am, however, not saying that all forms of meditating make a meditator a cult member.
Sant Mat meditation is loaded with belief in dogma and this makes a person practising it a cult member. The dogma can be seen in the following- initiate; 5 regions, silent repetition, secret sanskrit words, 2,5 hrs solitary meditation, the mudra, initiation by a perfect living guru, the guru’s power behind the words, the light and sounds that might be heard on the journey, only a vegetarian or seeing person can be initiated; the royal highway etc.
There are however many types of meditation that do not connect people to cults.
Anyway, what’s wrong with being a cult member for a while at least? Some of my best friends are bl… er, cult members.
As an aside,and almost completely off the track, but refering to previous posts, I have never met a haughty Sant Mat sevadar- they’ve always been genuinely helpful and they have been good for themselves and me.
If anyone has any information on the sanskrit words, where they first originated from, what their track has been and anything else, I would be interested.
Brian I would also be interested to read the post that you were intending to write on how religious people use metaphor fairly prolifically.

It would be interesting to note what exactly these haughty churchless cult members classify exactly as a ‘cult’ I mean where does ‘religion’, ‘sect’, ‘cult’, ‘group’, ‘church’, ‘following’, ‘association’, ‘gathering’, ‘congregation’, etc. begin or end?
far as I can make out, this little sect, cult, gathering, church, thingy majiggy you got going here is far more cultish than say RSSB, or any system of self evaluation or internal meditation.
I mean there are members here who brazenly decree they follow tenets and doctrines of Taoism, Advaita, Yoga, Tai Chi, Dogzchen, etc. etc. etc., what makes such cultish behaviour any better or any worse than someone following the precepts of a sytem as designated by a line of living teachers rather than dead ones. Far as I make out, its the reverse situation these drums are being banged about around here, its these Taoist, Dogzchen, Tai Chi, Buddhist, Yoga, Hari Krishna disciples here that are cult followers, not those that follow the precepts and teachings of living teachers who are still alive today.

I say Catherine is incorrect, where is the dogma in repeating say 5 sanskrit words as a mode of meditative concentration by which to attune your wayward mind towards centripital concentrated elevated energetic force of nature as is designated by a living teacher?
Explain which set of principles denoted by any one of the great teachings of yesteryear, whether Taoism, Buddhism, Hare Krishna – Hinduism, Sikhism, Sufism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, or for that matter modern Science, defers to ‘truth’, or where do you now align your set of dogmatic and personal affiliations or principles to?
If you have no affiliation to anything whatsoever, which leaves you entirely in a void of no being, no understanding, or no realization, well and good, but it still does not leave you in any position whatsoever whereby to judge and determine the spiritual or for that matter ‘cult’ status of any other following you have yet to understand or realize within yourself.

“If you have no affiliation to anything whatsoever, which leaves you entirely in a void of no being, no understanding, or no realization, well and good, but it still does not leave you in any position whatsoever whereby to judge and determine the spiritual or for that matter ‘cult’ status of any other following you have yet to understand or realize within yourself.”
—Positions of judgement can exist in a Blog. Determining the spiritual status of a following (imo) is totally groovy. So what’s wrong with understanding and realizing something on the outside of me?

Catherine, you ask for origins of the sanskrit words used in RSSB meditation, what are these words?
Brian, you have been initiate for many years, would you please publish these 5 words used in RSSB meditation, it would be most informative

I found the 5 words, a few years back, thru an Internet search. These words, my understanding are to be kept confidential. A no-no to reveal. Do a search and find yourself.

Its not always possible to believe what is on the internet. I thought, given Brians knowledge, he would be willing to divulge this information here on this blog, I am sure he is no longer supporting RSSB and in interests of discussion, we could call upon the wider knowledge of this blog members to perhaps find origins, even perhaps why these words have been chosen?

Catherine, thanks for reminding me about my intention to write a post about metaphors in religiosity and spirituality. My intent is to do that later today.
Naresh-D, I wrote a blog post about the Five Holy Names a few years ago:
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2007/08/sant-mats-five-
This will give you a good start toward your own research in this subject, as Roger suggested.

“…..we could call upon the wider knowledge of this blog members to perhaps find origins, even perhaps why these words have been chosen?”
—As a narrower knowledge type, I am insulted. Damn to you wider types. Damn you all.

Roger, sometimes “wide knowledge” can be like modeling. A size zero is more attractive than someone who has a lot of bulk on her (if she still has curves in the right places, of course). So strut your skinniness with pride.

To all:
“…the 5 holy names, jot niranjan, onkar [or “Omkar”], rarankar, sohung [or “Sohang”], sat nam…” are cited thereby.
Robert Paul Howard

Robert,
Will you be requesting an Internet search fee?

Dear Roger,
No.
But I fail to see the desirability for all the pussyfooting about facts that has been shown with regard to these mere words.
Robert Paul Howard

LOL
Robert, good point.
True, there is much “pussy” footing with the facts and words.

Naresh-D said:
“at least one non-personal aspect of this discussion is whether quiet meditation every day, according to the instructions given by an RSSB guru, constitutes being a cult member?”
— Naresh, that WAS Catherine’s main contention. That is what she has been claiming. But as I have said several times now, I myself DO NOT at all agree with that… especially NOT in my own case. I can not speak for other people, but I can speak for myself. MY meditation pratice had nothing to do with “being a cult member”. No one can say that that claim applies to me. It doesn’t, and it didn’t. So you guys can keep on debating this and mincing words, but none of it applies to me. I have already said wher I was at with my meditation reltive to the RSSB cult. And in my case, there was no connection. Period. So please take me out of this debate. You guys are talking about the majority of RS satsangis. I was never part of the majority. And this IS my point, in my own case. So go on discussing it if you like, but please don’t stick this claim of Catherine’s upon me. Catheine’s contention that meditation somehow equals cult involvement, has nothing to with me.
“If this is considered to be a cult member, then is it that time spent in meditation falls into cult category, or is it that the type of meditation justifies cult status.”
— Like I said, that is Catheine’s contention, but it doesn’t apply to me. It could very well apply to others though. I have already made my position in this very clear.
“tAo, do you consider sitting in a quiet room alone, repeating names, as being cult like behaviour?”
— No. Many people use all sorts of mantras in spiritual practices and meditation. Very little if any of it has anything to do with cults. People have been using mantras and doing meditation for thousands of years. Meditation and mantras are not a cult phenomenon.
“If so, then how many names would relinquish cult status, because sitting alone reading a book might also be a cult, if the words in the book were repetitive.”
— Why do you say “If so”, when I have already clearly stated my position on this in a number of my posted comments? Have you not read what I have said over the past week or two? Also, I don’t think reading a book, any book or books, equals being in a cult. Readin is simply reading. This sort oof thinking that I see going on here lately regarding meditation as eveidence of being in a cult is absolute nonsense, imo.
“If you dont consider quiet regular meditation as being of cult status, then I think you have misunderstood Catherine, because I suspect this is what she is saying.”
— No I don’t. Nor have I misunderstood Catherine. You have misunderstood. You say: “this is what she is saying”. Saying what?
Catherine has clearly stated that she considers the activity of doing shabd yoga meditation as being indicative and equal to being entrenched in the RSSB cult. I do not, and definitely not in my own case. However, it may be that way for Catherine or for other people, but I can’t say. I only know for myself. Doing meditation never, in any way, had anything to do with being in the RSSB cult. I was never a believer or a follower or involved in the cult side of RS. My own meditation had nothing to do with the RSSB organization, sangat, or guru-cult. And I have already said this many times.
And other people have their own individual relationships to the RSSB, but their situations have nothing to do with mine.
============================================
Catherine said:
“If anyone has any information on the sanskrit words, where they first originated from, what their track has been and anything else, I would be interested.”
— The Sanskrit language has been around a very very very long time. It has nothing to do with cults. You can research Sanskrit on your own. The point here is that using Sanskrit words and syllables and mantras, does not in any way equal participation and involvement in a cult. So it is absurd and ignorant to assume that it does, imo.
============================================
kukuri ki dayal (aka Ashy) said:
“these haughty churchless cult members”
— This blog is NOT any cult. It is is simply a blog, which btw, YOU are posting comments on too, not just other people. Its just an internet blog-site. Nothing more.
“this little sect, cult, gathering, church, thingy majiggy you got going here is far more cultish than say RSSB”
— Wrong…. see my comment above.
“there are members here who brazenly decree they follow tenets and doctrines of Taoism, Advaita, Yoga, Tai Chi, Dogzchen, etc.”
— I can not speak for others, but I myself do NOT “follow” any such “tenets” or “doctrines” of any of those. I do not “follow tenets” or “doctrines” of any sort.
“what makes such cultish behaviour any better or any worse than someone following the precepts of a sytem as designated by a line of living teachers rather than dead ones.”
— Well that is somewhat incorrect. Because those that you mentioned (Taoism, Advaita, Yoga, Tai Chi, and Dzogchen) DO have living teachers. That is well known. So I don;t know where you get this erroneous idea that the teachers of those paths are all “dead”. You are obviously not informed.
“its these Taoist, Dogzchen, Tai Chi, Buddhist, Yoga, Hari Krishna disciples here that are cult followers”
— Again, I simply can not speak for others, I can only speak for myself… and I myself am NOT a “disciple” nor any sort of “cult follower” of any of those. I am NOT a “disciple” of anyone, nor a “follower” of anything.
“not those that follow the precepts and teachings of living teachers who are still alive today”
— I wouldn’t know what “precepts and teachings of living teachers” other people follow. I am sure that some do, but that doesn’t concern me.
“Explain which set of principles denoted by any one of the great teachings of yesteryear, whether Taoism, Buddhism, Hare Krishna – Hinduism, Sikhism, Sufism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, or for that matter modern Science, defers to ‘truth'”
— What? They all have attempted to point towards some so-called “truth” in their various ways and fashions. But what is this supposed “truth” that YOU speak of??
“If you have no affiliation to anything whatsoever, which leaves you entirely in a void of no being, no understanding, or no realization,”
— Huh? What? I don’t have any “affiliation”, and yet I am certainly not in any such “void of no being”. And what do you mean by “realization”??
Conclusion: It appears that you have a lot of erroneous ideas about other people, that have abslutley no basis in fact or reality.

Catherine,
17 sept 06:51; You wrote:
“As an aside,and almost completely off the track, but refering to previous posts, I have never met a haughty Sant Mat sevadar- they’ve always been genuinely helpful and they have been good for themselves and me.”
All I can say is, Are you kidding me? We are not living in the same world at all.
I have in RSSB since childhood. The changes I have seen are so extreme that I cannot recognise it as the same movement.
Back then all satsangs were tape recordings of Charan Singh – no live speakers. Satsangis were actually real friends with each other and there was very little politics, unlike today.
However, my real point is this. You say “no haughty sevadars…” ? In my personal experience nothing could be further from the truth.
In my experience most of them are on a power trip. Their normal logic goes out the window because they think they are sevadars of the living God.
One example: I went to Haynes Park (UK) are a national bhandara. I was simply walking and did not realise that I was on the wrong side of a ‘rope’. The sevadar said “can you please go back and come back on the other side of the rope?
At first I thought he was joking. Then I realised he was serious. I was going to just start laughing. “How will it help you?” I asked. “I am already here now. If I go back 12 feet and walk the other side of this rope – why is that important?”
“Which centre are you from?” was his response. “Centre? – I have no centre!” I replied. “I am my own centre!” I added just to confuse the heck out of him. I then walked on. He stopped me. “Please come back and walk on the other side.” He said.
“If I walk on the other side – it is not going to make any difference to anything.” I said and walked on. This is one example of the “Do as I say” mentality without any logic. I could give many other examples.
It all happens it the name of discipline. Sevadars in my opinion are mostly cult members who think that they are serving the master i.e. their God and will go to great lengths to do their so-called duty. Most of them also have no compassion – they are RSSB machines. You can replace them with a robot and nobody would know the difference.

Robert Paul Howard,
I hereby serve notice on you that by revealing the words here you have now taken on the karma of all the blog members and anyone else who may hear the words from them at any time in the future….
Just kidding. But it would be an interesting notice to serve on someone – maybe Sat Purush would serve the notice personally. At least you get to see the legendary dude – the highest being in creation.
Catherine wrote: “Take note that the initiate choses to repeat those names which are supposed to be given power by the initiating guru. The meditation is given presidence over all others. The meditation has to be practised with considerable dedication even if the initate is only curious. The initiate understands also that there may be no result in a lifetime’s dedication.”
When one first comes across RSSB or Sant Mat – the intention is clear – the seeker is seeking God / Enlightenment etc. RSSB appears to promise to get you there through the vehicle of the Living Master. It all seems really simple.
So – you join and sign on the dotted line. congratulation on being a member of RSSB. Welcome to the cult. You are now granted full cult-status but it would be helpful to your spiritual progress if you become a sevadar. So – again you sign up. After all – it’s best to do every that helps.
This is how members get sucked in to spend decades of their life in service. And for what? They have even forgotten the original reason the joined! Then the are told that even after a lifetime there is no guarantee of a result.
Hello? I thought this was sold as a science. Now suddenly everything changes. And then – you realise that it is so difficult to follow that nobody actually succeeds. I mean you have to be beyond lust, anger, greed, attachment and pride.
Well – guess what? If you were beyond those – you would no longer be a member of the human race. You would be some kind of emotionless robot.
The words – are SUPPOSED to have some great power – because they are given by the Master. And that is why it takes over a lifetime to get to Sach Khand? What kind of amazing power do these words hold? Surely quite a few people would have arrived at the destination by now.
Oh yes – I forgot – they HAVE arrived – but they are not allowed to TELL. Hmmm… so you know that person that you spoke to who appeared to be so humble and said he had made no progress after a three decades of intense meditation. Guess what? He’s probably Sat Purush’s right hand man. Better go and keep his company and get a few tips from him.
I have a whole new slant on Sant Mat. The words don’t have any power. It is all nonsense. Sant Mat has missed the point. The words of a REALIZED person DO carry power – meaning that they are spoken from his truth. This is what it really means when it says that the words carry power.
When a REALIZED person speaks – it is not the same as someone speaking who has just read books and knows lots of theory. This is what it is supposed to mean when sant mat says the words of the master/guru are charged with his power.
Sant mat – has taken many principles of spirituality and given them a different meaning and they is why there are no results.
For example – in my opinion NAAM is not some sound you hear. NAAM is actually REALIZATION of truth. You can hear the words (varnatmik) or you can realize (dhunatmik).
A completely different way to view what the real teachings behind sant mat are! Take a look at http://www.Tinyurl.com/SantMat (links to the blog)
Sant Mat has taken many ideas from other religions and then created a new belief system – which judging from results – does not work very well. You know a tree by looking at the fruit it produces. What does sant mat produce? What kind of people?

Osho, I really have to agree with you.
Santmat/RS has now become all about worshiping the outer form, not the spirit.
A true sage’s speech has wisdom and power. Mere parroted words, mantras, etc have no power. They are hollow and empty. If people follow empty words and books and gurus who are not sages, they remain asleep, following mere empty form and pseudo gurus.
This is the case with RS. The followers of RS are merely going through the motions. Thats why their efforts of enre lives achieve nothing. They are caught up in an empty facade. Their master has no realization or true wisdom, so his words have no power. The mantra and its repetition has no power. The dogma has no power. Even in the meditation, they are not aware or awake. It’s all for naught. They are lost in a dream.
Their master cannot awaken them because the perpetuation of the cult depends on their continued belief and participation. The cult is a trap. So they are all trapped, including the master. There is nothing in RS that will awaken them. It all has to leave them for awakening to occur. And then finally… after all that… there is only THIS. Tat Tvam Asi

“When a REALIZED person speaks – it is not the same as someone speaking who has just read books and knows lots of theory.”
hmmm, see that is where i disagree with all of you, i don’t believe such perfected ppl actually exist, regardless of belief system, i don’t believe any single human being has all the answers, or know the Truth or knows reality.
It is possible that such a ‘realized’ person exists, the same as it is possible that god exists, but there is no evidence for it at all.
No person is my master. I will listen to the viewpoint of any person, and they may indeed know more or less on a particular topic, regardless of that, what they say is not fact or truth, merely their own opinion

Robert Ornstein provides some compelling arguments as to why certain mystical experiences might exist.
Ornstein argued that our consciousness is merely a model of reality, an imperfect one, which i agree with. He then distingsuished between a ‘normal’ consciousness (learnt or experienced through the physical senses) and a more raw basic instinctual consciousness.
He believed our ‘normal’ consciousness was learned and hence could be unlearned and the mind trained or program to focus more on experiencing reality through our more basic instictual consiousness. The latter presumably being the self-realized state of nonduality or oneness that most mystic traditions aspire to.
Perhaps rather than a dinstinction between a learned and instictual consciousness, we all have varying and complex combinations of a spectrum of these. Perhaps our most basic emotions, insticts and intuitions developed first, like our animal brethren, but as man evolved so did his consciousness towards a more intellectual or learned approach. Its the intellect, which appears to have lifted us to the top of the food chains, despite our relatively puny bodies and weak instics. Thus, it seems unsuprising that our strongest trait appears to dominate our modern human consciousness.
I think its possible ppl (mystics) have learnt to train or still their minds to supress or pierce the intellectual consciousness, but there are probably degrees to having done so. Just as someone who has only experienced normal consciousness cannot begin to fathom the supposed ‘realized’ consiousness, so i would argue the ‘realized’ person has no reference system to understand how realized they actually are.
However, it remains speculation, since there is no evidence to confirm a person is realised or not, or how realised they are, or what being realized actually means and how accurately such realisations accurately mimcik reality OR whether it is an entirely false psychosis created by the mind.

George,
I notice you often take peoples words and put a spin on them according to your conditioning, beliefs and assumptions. I do not mean to say this unkindly. Most of us do this at times. I am just suggesting that you watch out for this tendency.
As an example:
Osho wrote: “When a REALIZED person speaks – it is not the same as someone speaking who has just read books and knows lots of theory.”
and you responded: “hmmm, see that is where i disagree with all of you, i don’t believe such perfected ppl actually exist, regardless of belief system, i don’t believe any single human being has all the answers, or know the Truth or knows reality.”
—Osho did not say a realized person is perfect or has all the answers. Knowing truth or reality does not necessarily imply perfection or omniscience. It may simply be the recogniton of who we are (or are not) in the ever unfolding present moment, and thus their words come from a personal, living perspective rather than just rote.

Tucson,
I do not misquote ppl, i take phrases exactly as they are. It might be my intepretation is different to their intended meaning or YOUR interpretation, but that can be said for anyone.
If you are looking for a return to the Tao intepretation argument, we can do so, since i am not taking a step back on that issue. That was very clear imo.
My point here was to examine exactly what a so-called ‘REALIZED’ person actually is. Its totally vague and open to interpretation you see. As such, i tried to flesh it out as to what it could mean. You will notice I purposefully did not even mention Osho’s name in reference to the comment, since its not he I wanted to attack, rather its the general point on REALIZATION i wanted to clearly understand. Do you understand?

On your point that a realised person may not have all the answers, rather he may simply be the recogniton of who we are. He may be, and he may not be. My point is what makes him any more realized than anyone else, other than him saying he is so. And more precisely, what is the mechanism by which he can claim to be be more realised as to who ‘we’ actially are? What happens if he is in fact, psychotically deluded, and has not realised anything, or indeed what has been realised is false and not a representation of reality or our true natures?
You see i have a problem with terms that cry out for a whole bunch of interpretations, where some simply assume them to be self-evidently true, i have no such conditioning, i prefer to question everything, to see exactly who has been conditioned. Indeed, reasoning and logic were the very cornerstones of western enlightement, i.e. the science and rational thinking of the 18th century to our modern day.
Perhaps, the person of reason is the ‘REALIZED’ one, not the one of faith or learning? Or perhaps there’s a bit of each which contributes to the truth, which no-one has?

George, I have to agree with tucson. You equated “realized” with “perfect.” But that was your addition to Osho’s comment. Actually Osho said:
“The words of a REALIZED person DO carry power – meaning that they are spoken from his truth. This is what it really means when it says that the words carry power. When a REALIZED person speaks – it is not the same as someone speaking who has just read books and knows lots of theory.”
When I read those words I thought of my Tai Chi teacher, or my ballroom dance instructor. Their words carry more weight because they are skilled in the activities they are talking about. Someone who has only watched videos or read books about Tai Chi/ballroom dance isn’t going to sound as convincing.

How much does a REALIZED person need words? Do words and sentences help a REALIZED person? Would silence be more in line with a REALIZED person. Maybe, maybe not.

Osho had written:
“When a REALIZED person speaks – it is not the same as someone speaking who has just read books and knows lots of theory.”
George then responded:
“that is where i disagree with all of you, i don’t believe such perfected ppl actually exist, […] i don’t believe any single human being has all the answers, or know the Truth or knows reality.”
— This is a clear and obvious example of how George typically misinterprets and confuses what other people write. And then consequently he implies that they said someting that they did not say or mean. He has chaged Osho’s point here entirely. Osho simply said ” when a realized person speaks”. Osho did NOT say anything about “perfected ppl”. George has. Osho said absolutely nothing about being “perfected”. George has tanken Oshos simpple statement and put his own spin on it, which has nothing to do with what Osho said or the meaning behind what Osho said. George does this fairly often. And it ends up creating quite a bit of resulting unnecessary argument. In the is case George has actually replaced Osho’s term “realized person” with a totally different term and idea: that of “perfected ppl”. But there was no implication here on the part of Osho about anything concerning “perfected”. This is the problem. In George’s mind, “realized” indicates “perfected”. But it does not mean that at all. The term “realized” has nothing to do with perfection or “perfected”. It means awakened
You see, this problem occurs when people (like George) do not stick to the simple facts. They do noot stick to what someone else (in this case Osho) have written. The “facts” in this case were that Osho simply said “realized”. He did NOT say “perfected”. Not even close. Osho said “realized”. Yet George went and inserted his own meaning and term (“perfected ppl”) into this, implying that that is what Osho meant, when in fact Osho neither said “perfected”, nor meant “perfected” at all.
And then as we can see, George then launched into a totally different argument based soley upon George’s own false and mistaken interpretation/assumption and his insertion of a different term and meaning, namely that of “perfected ppl”. But Osho didn’t say “perfected ppl”. Osho was simply talking about realization, not perfection. George’s argument about perfection or “perfected” may indeed be valid, BUT, in this case it has absolutley nothing to do with what Osho actually said.
And as many of us have observed over time, George does this sort of thing fairly often. George’s deviation from the facts of what other people actually say, and their actual words, has caused quite a bit of misunderstanding and conflict here for no other reason than George’s tendency of putting his own words (and ideas) into other people’s mouths, that they did NOT say or write.
That all having been pointed out, I will go on to briefly address the rest of what George has written in response to Osho and Tucson….
George went on to say:
“It is possible that such a ‘realized’ person exists, the same as it is possible that god exists, but there is no evidence for it at all.”
— This comment is obviously based upon George’s own interpretation of what a “realized person” means. Realized is not a claim that anyone has made here. All that was said (by Osho) was: “When a REALIZED person speaks – it is not the same as someone speaking who has just read books and knows lots of theory.” Osho isn’t claiming that he or anyone in particular is realized. He is simply saying that what differentiates someone who has ‘realization’ (and that can be various things such as clarity, insight, deep understanding, wisdom, awakening, self-knowledge, or what have you)… is that (the “realized person”) doesn’t derive their understanding or insight from mere books or theories or doctines. They derive their understanding from their own direct experience and insight. That was all that Osho was saying, and noot anyting about perfection or being “perfected”.
“the viewpoint of any person, and they may indeed know more or less on a particular topic, regardless of that, what they say is not fact or truth, merely their own opinion”
— But no one has argued against that. So why be so defensive?
“Robert Ornstein provides some compelling arguments as to why certain mystical experiences might exist.”
— OK fine, but lets be clear… nobody here has ever said that mystical experiences do not “exist”. No one in this discussion group has evr said or implied (to my knowledge) that people have not had mystical experiences. Brian hasn’t, Tucson hasn’t, Osho hasn’t, I haven’t, and I don’t know of anyone else here that has ever said that mystical experiences don’t exist, or that people do not have them.
“Just as someone who has only experienced normal consciousness cannot begin to fathom the supposed ‘realized’ consiousness, so i would argue the ‘realized’ person has no reference system to understand how realized they actually are.”
— Yes, that may indeed be a valid point.
“However, it remains speculation, since there is no evidence to confirm a person is realised or not, or how realised they are, or what being realized actually means”
— There is no evidence, other than perhaps the insight, understanding, or wisdom that the so-called “realized” person expresses and shares with others. But you see, evidence is not the issue here, unless of course someone says and makes a direct claim that they ARE “realized”. No eveidence is need if we are simply discussing the subject of ‘realization’. Which is all that Osho was doing.
“Tucson, I do not misquote ppl, i take phrases exactly as they are.”
— No George, you don’t “take phrases exactly as they are”. You did not do that in this case… as I have shown and explained at length above. You said “perfected ppl”. Osho said “realized”. There is a significant difference.
“It might be my intepretation is different to their intended meaning or YOUR interpretation”
— Your ‘interpretation was OBVIOUSLY “different”. But thats the problem. And it has nothing to do with Tucson’s interpretation. It has to do with what Osho actually said and WROTE. Osho wrote “REALIZED person”… NOT “perfected ppl”. So yes, your interpretation of “REALIZED” was different. But thats the whole point. Osho dis NOT say “perfected”, he said “realized”. And there’s the rub. In a sense, you put words (and meanings) into Osho’s mouth that he did not say or mean.
“If you are looking for a return to the Tao intepretation argument, we can do so, since i am not taking a step back on that issue. That was very clear imo.”
— Yes, it was and it is clear, that you choose to continue to misunderstand and misrepersent my position, even long after I have explained my position at great length. This is yet another example of how YOU deliberately misrepresent other people, and what the mean.
“My point here was to examine exactly what a so-called ‘REALIZED’ person actually is.”
–Then you should have simply said THAT, instead of going into this whole “perfected ppl” thing.
“Its totally vague and open to interpretation you see.”
— No it was NOT vague or open to interpretation. Osho clearly said: “a REALIZED person”. He did NOT say anything about: “perfected ppl”.
“i tried to flesh it out as to what it could mean.”
— Then you should have made that clear to begin with, instead of
“a realised person […] My point is what makes him any more realized than anyone else, other than him saying he is so.”
— But no one is denying that question.
“what is the mechanism by which he can claim to be be more realised”
— Who is claiming this?
“i prefer to question everything”
— Fine, but at least confine your questioning annd skepticism to what other people actually SAY and write.

George,
Here is the answer to all of your questions, and your misunderstandings, and your misinterpreations, and… and… and…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydAfgSIgU_E

George wrote: “My point is what makes him any more realized than anyone else, other than him saying he is so.”
—Nothing. You’re right. No one can know what he knows, or if he knows it, but him. Even if she shouts it from the rooftops.
“And more precisely, what is the mechanism by which he can claim to be be more realised as to who ‘we’ actially are? What happens if he is in fact, psychotically deluded, and has not realised anything, or indeed what has been realised is false and not a representation of reality or our true natures?”
—Absolutely correct. These are questions one is confronted with when considering a guru, path or religion, and there is no answer.
“Perhaps, the person of reason is the ‘REALIZED’ one, not the one of faith or learning?”
—Realization is said to be direct comprehension or understanding. It is not faith because it IS known, but only by the entity that knows it.
So, if we want to know it, to recognize it, if there is anything to be known or recognized, we are totally on our own to discover it. All we can do is follow our best instincts, and those instincts may lead us to a certain religion or teacher who APPEARS to know the truth, keeping in mind that at some point we may discover that was not the case at all.

George said: “Perhaps, the person of reason is the ‘REALIZED’ one, not the one of faith or learning?”
— I’m all for reason, always have been. So I don’t really see why you mention this. I do agree that reason is superior to faith. But that leads me to my next point: Who (on this blog) said that realization or being “realized” has anything to do with “faith or learning”. The only folks here that cme close to that are the believers who claim or imly that having faith is the way to realization or enlightenment. Namely the people that claim that having “faith” in the master or guru leads to realization. But I haven’t ever said that, nor have the other so-called non-believers here that I know of. I have never indicated that realization comes from “faith or learning”. So then yes, I would generally have to agree with you when you say: “the person of reason is the ‘REALIZED’ one, not the one of faith or learning”. Bit I would also say that realization is more than just reason. As Tucson said and pointed out, it is more along the lines of: “Realization is said to be direct comprehension or understanding. It is not faith because it IS known, but only by the entity that knows it.” And thats how I see it too.
But then this leads me to my next point, which I will address in a subsequent separately posted comment, which will proceed after this one… so stay tuned.

You guys seem intent on trying to salvage some pride after a few reputations were left in tatters, and wish to continue the old argument, so let me repeat it:
Tao made 3 statements:
1. Tao said RS is a cult
2. Tao said he has never been in a cult.
3. Tao said he has been initiated into RS.
If you dispute any of these statements, let me know which one and i will provide Tao’s exact wording as support thereof.
These statements are logically inconsistent, they cannot all be correct. One must be incorrect, if thay incorrectness was deliberately intended, then that is what is known as lying.
The only interpretations imported were by you guys (and they were also inconcistent), who decided on what initiated ‘actually’ meant, i.e. meditation only, which is a total and utter distortion.
Then Tucson decided that i was putting words into Tao’s mouths, i then showed him the relevant Tao quote which made him look slightly foolish, but he compounded matters by then putting Manjit’s words into my mouth. LOL.
You guys just will not leave well enough alone. You are dogmatic and you are wrong for the simple reasons i have set out above. By all means lets thrash this horse to oblivion and back.

Osho says: “So – you join and sign on the dotted line. congratulation on being a member of RSSB. Welcome to the cult. You are now granted full cult-status but it would be helpful to your spiritual progress if you become a sevadar. So – again you sign up. After all – it’s best to do every that helps.
This is how members get sucked in to spend decades of their life in service. And for what? They have even forgotten the original reason the joined! Then the are told that even after a lifetime there is no guarantee of a result.”
–This is a very one-sided viewpoint Osho. I didn’t join “a cult” and I don’t feel the need to be involved in the organization or feel pressured in to doing seva.
–I don’t agree that I was “sucked in” to any thing. I don’t think I have wasted my life and in fact my life has been greatly enriched by being a satsangi. I have not “forgotten the original reason I joined” also “that even after a lifetime there is no guarantee of a result”… I always thought if it takes many lifetimes then so be it.
You say: “you realise that it is so difficult to follow that nobody actually succeeds. I mean you have to be beyond lust, anger, greed, attachment and pride.”
–It seems that this is the problem for a lot of people – that its too difficult to follow. Its not that difficult and I’m not “some kind of emotionless robot”.
You say: “I have a whole new slant on Sant Mat. The words don’t have any power. It is all nonsense. Sant Mat has missed the point”.
–Wow, Osho, you sound like a wannabe guru, do you really think you have all the answers?!
“When a REALIZED person speaks – it is not the same as someone speaking who has just read books and knows lots of theory”.
–Osho, I’d like to know what exactly do YOU mean by “REALIZED” and also do you know anyone who is “REALIZED”?

“Realization is said to be direct comprehension or understanding.”
–I like this, however, what does “understanding” mean? Tucson or Tao write a comment on such, if you desire.
I’m not searching for something. I just like the flow of this discussion.

Is it really that simple to have faith in a phenomenon or person? Be it your friend, neighbour or even your life partner. It is a life long exercise. You continue to have faith in a person so long as things are in accordance with your expectations. If they do not, you tend to loose faith.
Faith leads to realization but it can never be a part of realization. e.g. I realize that my journey would be fine if I have faith in my driver. Any explanation would be inadequate here that those who have the capacity to reason are the ones who can develop unshakable faith in a person/phenomen etc.,

I wrote: “Realization is said to be direct comprehension or understanding.”
and roger said: “I like this, however, what does “understanding” mean?”
–The word “understanding” is not very satisfactory in the context I was using it.
To me, realization is more like “getting it”. It is sort of like suddenly getting a riddle or joke. But it is not exactly like getting a riddle or joke because that is accomplished via reasoning.
Realization is not a result of reasoning. It is a ‘seeing’ how things are when reasoning stops. It just dawns on you and you see from a perspective that sheds light in a different way. Somebody called it a paradigm shift. It is a shift in the perception of subject-object relation. It is a shift from:
“I am an entity and things are other or separate from me.”
to:
“I am those things (everything) but ‘I’ am not.”
The actual experiential recognition of this, however, does not contain any ‘I’ at all. There actually is no ‘I’ seeing or being seen. There is just This..an immediate presence with no center. The word ‘I’ is inserted in order to make a sentence and convey an idea, but the idea is never the realization. It is only an indicator, a pointing to what really is meant but can never be said or intellectually grasped.
A good intellectual attempt at explaining this is by Alan Watts in his book “The Book-on the taboo against knowing who you really are”. But even after reading this and understanding it intellectually the understanding has to come alive in your own awareness. It’s a flip of the switch and the light comes on. Ah-ha! But don’t try to grasp it or own it, just let it be as it is.
So, when someone says something like what Jen said above regarding spiritual progress: “I always thought if it takes many lifetimes then so be it.”… I always wonder who it is going to happen to.
‘I’ never was in the first place so how could ‘I’ die and have another life? ‘I’ am not even having this one!
Where is this object ‘I’ that was born and will be born again? Dig deep and try to find it.

Jen,
this is in answer to the questions you pose.
You wrote “I don’t agree that I was “sucked in” to any thing. I don’t think I have wasted my life and in fact my life has been greatly enriched by being a satsangi. I have not “forgotten the original reason I joined” also “that even after a lifetime there is no guarantee of a result”… I always thought if it takes many lifetimes then so be it.”
Hmm… maybe so. May I ask, what was the original reason you joined? Was it for mere entertainment (in which case – I think RSSB can be pretty entertaining – so that is fine), or was it to get to Self-realization or God-Realization.
If after a lifetime there is no guarantee of a result – then why would you join? Just curious.
How is your life enriched by being a satsangi. I am not denying it – just asking how.
You wrote: It seems that this is the problem for a lot of people – that its too difficult to follow. Its not that difficult and I’m not “some kind of emotionless robot”.
So you have overcome lust anger greed attachment and pride? Well done. I’ll send you a medal.
You wrote “Wow, Osho, you sound like a wannabe guru, do you really think you have all the answers?!”
Maybe I am a guru – you want to be my first disciple? I have pondered over sant mat for many years and I can see how the teachings can easily be interpreted differently and then they make sense. I am simply sharing this. Does that make me a guru? Not in the sense you take the word.
I followed many sant mat gurus in the past. After that, I went to some realized people and they turned all the concepts upside down and helped me to see that everything I used to believe was all nonsense.
I now laugh at myself and how I used to follow sant mat. I was serious – I wanted to get to Sach Khand and sit with Sat Purush and have a cup of tea with Him and talk about old times. I was so full of concepts.
So now what is different? Now it has all become clear – I have dropped the idiotic concepts that I used to hold so dear. I have no faith and belief because they keep you blind. Truth does not require faith or belief. Rather it requires you to be bold enough to drop your faith.
George DOUBTS. Manish BELIEVES. Both are in the range of the mind. Belief and doubt are both two sides of the same coin. When you realize the coin is counterfeit – they both drop. Now you NEITHER believe NOR doubt. Truth is NOT a belief. So I don’t care if someone DOUBTS me or BELIEVES me. Both are blind.
Truth requires you to be OPEN (which is not the same as believing – which is a closed state).
What do I mean by REALIZED? Suppose you are CONFUSED then someone says something and the penny drops and you say “Ohhh… now I get it – I just realised what you have been saying all this time….”
That is realisation. In self-realization – it means you realize who you really are – that as a THEORY – not as something you read or something that the Guru taught you – not as Advaita because you self sant mat and became an Advaita follower. That is just another trap.
I am saying – come out of the trap totally – come out of the mind. Never mind the mind. I am not even saying use reason. Even forget reason and logic. What makes you think reason works in the world of ONE? Truth is beyond reason. Someone who wants logic will never find truth because he is looking with the mind and the mind cannot find truth.
Why? because mind is unable to grasp truth – it thrives on doubt and belief. Mind always looks from a distance. Truth requires you to take a leap and jump in the water. Mind just wants to stand and watch and question forever. What if… what if… what if….
Maybe I am psychotic and disfunctional and deluded and have not reached the HIGHEST state of enlightenment. So frigging what? Maybe… and maybe not… Whose the judge and jury? There is none. How will I ever know for sure? I am no interested in knowing for sure because that is the mind seeking certainly. There is none and I have embraced uncertainty.
By the way – I also say there is no such thing as enlightenment. Now – all you logicians – have a field day with this post and find all the hundreds of contradictions the prove A and B and C. I also embrace contradiction.
I am just a person and something has CLICKED for me. I am on a journey. Do I have all the answers? No – but I have stopped seeking answers because all questions are absurd. No questions – no answers. Maybe that is silence.
at http://www.tinyurl.com/SantMat – I have just presented a new way to understand some of the concepts of sant mat. maybe they had a different meaning in the early days.
Just another way of looking at sant mat.

Jen,
“Osho, I’d like to know what exactly do YOU mean by “REALIZED” and also do you know anyone who is “REALIZED”?”
Spot on, exactly, right to the heart of it. That is exactly what i would like to know, but in addition i also want to know based on what evidence is a person REALIZED and just how realized is such a person?
i understand a person who is REALIZED thinks he/she gets it, or thinks they’ve had a paradigm shift, or thinks something has dawned on them – but what is the evidence for this?
There was an article on blind faith recently, but this is precisely what you require for anyone else to accept the claim of a ‘REALIZED’ person.
Osho,
“George DOUBTS. Manish BELIEVES.”
– and you forgot to add ‘Osho REALIZES’, which is also in the mind.
Moreover, i don’t solely doubt, i also believe, the difference is that i doubt or believe based on reason and evidence. Blind faith and the REALIZED are all based on conditioning, reason is not, it follows the evidence, previously held views are overturned, that is what the western enlightenment was all about.

Osho
“So I don’t care if someone DOUBTS me or BELIEVES me. Both are blind.”
– LOL, Good, because i don’t believe you.
But i am happy for you to believe what you want, but the issue arises when you argue that a ‘REALISED’ person knows more than someone else, because i will want to know what that means and what the evidence is for this to see if there is any validity to the statement, other than your personal belief. There is none, and in fact it is this sort of thinking which is blind.
There’s a difference between being open-minded and being so open minded that your brain falls out and you believe in every self-proclaimed guru or messiah bounding naked down the street with microphone announcer in hand.
Besides, I don’t believe anyone know the Truth, or what the truth is, and moreover it seems to me there are varying degrees of truth.

Just as the rational scientific view is used to expose these so-called cults like RS, so it must be applied to the realized nondualists.
After all, Brian posted that whole article on the dangers of blind faith, and now you want us to accept your claims are valid based purely on that, blind faith.
Something is very rotten in the state of Denmark.

George wrote: “i understand a person who is REALIZED thinks he/she gets it, or thinks they’ve had a paradigm shift, or thinks something has dawned on them – but what is the evidence for this?”
–There is no evidence of it except to one who realizes it. There is nothing to demonstrate. Yet it is obvious to them.
All we know is that there are individuals who deliberately teach or convey tacitly via their attitude, words and actions that there is realization, awakening or whatever you want to call something that has no description or name.
We may or may not be attracted to what they have to offer. They may be deluded or not. We may think they are on to something but we have no way of knowing for sure. Outwardly, objectively it’s a crap shoot.
The reason for this is that realization is not an objective thing. For instance, a person can’t show you their ACTUAL feeling of happiness or sadness. They can only indicate that via behaviour, outward proclamations and descriptions which could be a ruse or delusion.
We are alone and absolutely helpless in this regard. Go into that aloneness and helplessness which is really a plenum of infinite possibility, of infinity itself. Drift into the vasness of it. See what, if anything, is there.

Tucson
Sure, there are many ppl capable of commanding and engaging rhetoric which attracts, indeed most of the cult leaders have precisely this ability. Adolph Hitler was magnetically captivating to his ppl, which were supposedly the most sophisticated nation in the world at the time.
It does not mean that whatever these ppl say or believe or realise is correct, there must be some criteria to judge the validity of their claims.

George,
A Realized person does not require or need your acceptance or belief. In fact if you believe – that is a barrier to your own realization.
Realization is not of the mind. Mind is in a DUAL state – yes/no right/wrong belief/doubt. You say: “I don’t solely doubt; I also believe.” Doubt and belief are both of the mind.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with that – enjoy it all. I am not even saying that anyone should seek enlightenment – because it is already your nature – there is nothing to seek and the act of seeking just shows and reinforces the ignorance of the seeker.
You wrote; “Blind belief and the REALIZED are all based on conditioning” Says who? Realization is the end of conditioning – it is not based on conditioning. It is a paradigm shift – something happens and you aer never the same again. Of course you continue living an ordinary life too.
In zen they say “Before enlightenment I used to go to the forest and chop wood. After enlightenment I go to the forest and chop wood.”
George wrote “But i am happy for you to believe what you want, but the issue arises when you argue that a ‘REALISED’ person knows more than someone else, because i will want to know what that means and what the evidence is for this to see if there is any validity to the statement, other than your personal belief. There is none, and in fact it is this sort of thinking which is blind.”
Who says a Realized person KNOWS more than anyone else? I never said that – A realized person KNOWS LESS. He is not interesting in KNOWING at all. I am not interested in KNOWING. It is the seeker who wants to KNOW more and more.
What evidence is there that someone has realized? There is none that you can use to SEE the enlightenment. There is no absolute proof because there cannot be any objective proof. What kind of proof could you possibly seek, when it is an ORDINARY state.
It is not like in Sant Mat – the Master can apparently do miracles and KNOWS everything and has immense power etc. Which by the way is all nonsense.
You wrote “Besides, I don’t believe anyone knows the Truth, or what the truth is, and moreover it seems to me there are varying degrees of truth.”
It does not matter what you believe. I am not even talking about belief and knowing. What are verying degrees of truth? Truth is absolute – it is the mind that creates all these varying degrees and measures it and attempts to understand.
It is not the MIND that gets enlightened – it gives up the struggle – and truth emerges – it was already always present but the mind was the barrier. Certainly you cannot think your way to enlightenment because it is not a concept to grasp.
You can easily make a theory of enlightenment – try to understand it. I cannot be understood. At most you can understand the concept.
It is like a man standing by the sea. He can wonder what the water is like. The only way to EXPERIENCE is to jump in. And if someone jumps in – what proof do YOU have that he has experienced? None – you will have to jump in yourself then you will know firsthand or you can stand and talk forever.
George Wrote “After all, Brian posted that whole article on the dangers of blind faith, and now you want us to accept your claims are valid based purely on that, blind faith.”
Who said anything about me WANTING anyone to accept my claim. First I have made no claim. Enligthenment is NOT a claim because it is NOT an achievement. I don’t HAVE anything – so what can I claim. And who am I to claim? How do you claim when the claimer has disappeared? That is why it is contradictory and your logic will not work.
Tuscon nailed it well : “We may think they are on to something but we have no way of knowing for sure. Outwardly, objectively it’s a crap shoot.”
There IS NO objective proof – because it is subjective by nature.
George – perhaps you doubt that there is any such thing. That is great – doubt and enjoy the doubting. Nothing wrong in doubting or believing – it is all the mind doing what it does best – trying to understand and grasp the ungraspable. Perhaps one day you will give up – perhaps not. It really does not matter. However, you are right in that you will never find any objective proof because it is impossible. No enlightened person can extract the enlightenment and place it on the table for you to examine but he also does not care in the slightest whether you believe – because even he himself does not believe. Why? there is nothing to believe.

Osho,
I fully agree that it is largely irrelevant as to whether i believe you are REALIZED or not. What is important though is a method for assessing various claims, otherwise how easily do we get taken in by propaganda?
Unlike you i do believe life is a journey and that it is worth seeking some answers even if they are not revealed. I believe this material world is reality and very special.
It may well be there is something unfathomable behind it all, but we don’t really know that. Some might claim to have realized or glimpsed the unfathomable, but i would say there is about as much chance of that as there is of a god.
These things may all be quite true, i will keep an openmind and probe for answers, but i’m not going to simply swallow things.
The human brain is the most complex organism in the known universe, it is capable of incredible feats, and self-delusion comes very easily.
My example of nazi germany shows how intelligent ppl were brainwashed and conditioned into accepting concepts that were totally irrational.
One sees this phenomen repeating itself in cult movements and religions too. We are all open to suggestion. I have no doubt that i am prone to the same programming, which is why we need to be ever-vigilant and why the power of reason is such a powerful tool.
How many wars have been fought in the name of science or logic?

there is little doubt in my mind, that were i too join an organisation and repeat mantras for 2 hours a day for 25 years that i would experience something, it is the validity of that experience that i question.
Your track record shows you guys are precisely the right canditates for this type of suggestive programming, since having been initiated, your mind is halfway there already whether you care to admit it or not. You want to believe.
People don’t join things they believe are total rubbish, it does not work that way, there are things which appeal and from there the programming starts.

Jen said: “I’d like to know what exactly do YOU mean by “REALIZED” and also do you know anyone who is “REALIZED”?”
George adds: “That is exactly what i would like to know, but in addition i also want to know based on what evidence is a person REALIZED and just how realized is such a person?”
— Osho and Tucson have already given you some basic explanation of what realization means. And there is no “evidence” needed or required. You can think whatever you wish. Realization is not about evidence. Its not a claim to be proven It can’t be proven, except to the one who realizes. Relaization is like direct insight, or awakening. And there is no one with who to prove it TO.
George writes:
“i understand a person who is REALIZED thinks he/she gets it, or thinks they’ve had a paradigm shift, or thinks something has dawned on them – but what is the evidence for this?”
— See my comment above.
“blind faith […] this is precisely what you require for anyone else to accept the claim of a ‘REALIZED’ person.
— Where is the claim? There is no “claim”. And no one has been asked to “accept” anything. Relization iis for the realizer alone. Its not something to be proven to others. No one asked you to believe anything. The day that realization dawns for YOU (if that ever occurs), you WILL understand. There will be no doubt. But not before.
“you forgot to add ‘Osho REALIZES’, which is also in the mind.”
— Wrong. Realization is not of the mind.
“i don’t solely doubt, i also believe, the difference is that i doubt or believe based on reason and evidence.”
— Realization has nothing to do with “reason and evidence”.
“faith and the REALIZED are all based on conditioning”
— Realization is not like “faith” at all. And realization is not “based on conditioning” at all either. Realization is devoid of, and free of, conditioning.
“reason is not, […] that is what the western enlightenment was all about.”
— Realization has nothing to do with “reason” or thinking. And “the western enlightenment” is irrelevant to realization.
Osho said: “I don’t care if someone DOUBTS me or BELIEVES me. Both are blind.”
George responded: “i don’t believe you.”
— You don’t have to believe. It’s not about believing. And no one asked you to believe anyway.
“i am happy for you to believe what you want”
— Can’t you read George? Osho did NOT say that he ‘believes’ anything. He said that doubters and believers are both blind. He didn’t say he was a believer at all. This is the big problem George, you constantly misread people. You don’t just read what they say. You put your own spin on it. This is the problem that runs through all your misunderstandings about what other people are saying here. You don’t listen to (ie: read) what others are actually saying. You misread and then replace what others have said with your own ideas and words, and then you respond that misinterpreation that YOU have made. Why don’t you just simply adhere to what others say, instead of changing and replacing their words and meanings with your own very different ideas? You really have a problem with this George, and everyone else sees it but you. Just stick to what other people actually SAY. Don’t try to change it to fit your mistaken interpretations. If you aren;t clear about what they are saying, then ask them to clarify or elaborate. But stop putting words in other people’s mouths, misrepresenting and distorting what they have said.
“but the issue arises when you argue that a ‘REALISED’ person knows more than someone else”
— This is yet another example George. You keep repeating the same mistake. Osho did NOT SAY (or even imply) that “a ‘REALISED’ person knows more than someone else”.
“because i will want to know what that means and what the evidence is for this to see if there is any validity to the statement, other than your personal belief.”
— He was NOT talking about beliefs George. And there is no evidence necessary, because he didn’t ask you to accept or believe anything. Realization isn’t about KNOWING or claiming to KNOW anything. Its about dropping all that. Again, you didn’t read (you didn’t listen) to what Osho actually said. You are stuck in the duality of your own mind. You don’t hear what other people actually say.
“There is none [evidence].”
— Of course there is no eveidence. Its not about “evidence”. Its all about realization. You should go study the teachings of some true sages so that you get a better undertanding of what this “realization” really means… because its obvious that you haven’t got a clue. But actually Osho has done a pretty good job of explaining it, and Tucson has also explained quite well, and even I explained it to you way back when… but you donlt listen. So go read the teachings of some sages so that you can get at last a basic understanding of what “realization” actually means. Because so far, you just don’t get it, and thats causing alot of needless arguement and misunderstanding here.
“it is this sort of thinking which is blind.”
— No George, you are the one who is blind, because you refuse to see and hear what other people are saying.
“There’s a difference between being open-minded and being so open minded that your brain falls out and you believe in every self-proclaimed guru or messiah”
— Here’s yet another example. No one here has said to “believe” in any such “self-proclaimed guru or messiah”. So you are talking nonsense. Nobody said to believe in a guru or a messiah. YOU are the one who is implying this.
“I don’t believe anyone know the Truth, or what the truth is”
— Again, no one ever said that they “know the Truth”. And no one said “what the truth is”. People are simply sharing their own views and understandings and insights here. Why do you take everything to be so black and white? Why do you want to piss on everything that other people offer? No one asked you to believe anything. People are simply sharing their own conclusions. And in the case of “realization” its not about providing YOU with evidence. Realization is about waking up from the duality of belief and doubt, of knowledge and ignorance, of self and not-self. But your problem is that you are closed-minded and stuck in your own duality of logic and reason, and so you don’t really hear what other people are actually trying to say.
“moreover it seems to me there are varying degrees of truth.”
— But no one has indicated otherwise.
“Just as the rational scientific view is used to expose these so-called cults like RS, so it must be applied to the realized nondualists.’
— There are no “realized nondulists”. There is only that which is always already the case. You either wake-up to it , or you don’t. But actually there really is no ‘you’. There is just IT. The waking-up is the dropping or falling away of the presumption of ‘you’. But that will never be understood by the mind.
“After all, Brian posted that whole article on the dangers of blind faith, and now you want us to accept your claims are valid based purely on that, blind faith.”
— Osho did not ask you to “accept” any “claims. He made no such “claims”. Here once again George, you are putting your own spin and distortion and mistaken notions on this, on Osho.
“It does not mean that whatever these ppl say or believe or realise is correct”
— “Correct” according to WHO? According to YOU George?? How would YOU know what is “correct”??? At best all you can do is to listen and consider what people have to say. But you can’t say what is true for them, or what is ultimately “correct”. You can only have your own single opinion, which does not, and can not ever invalidate someone else’s insight, understanding, or truth. And also, there is no certainty that whatever YOU say or whatever YOU believe is “correct” either.
“there must be some criteria to judge the validity of their claims.”
— Wrong George. He didn’t make any claims. He just shared his own personal views in insights.

George said:
“What is important though is a method for assessing various claims, otherwise how easily do we get taken in by propaganda?”
— Where are the “claims”?? … Or rather, who made “claims” you are referring to?? People have simply been discussing realization. No one made any claim. So what “claims” are there to assess??
“Unlike you […] I believe this material world is reality and very special.”
— Osho didn’t say that the material world is not real or not special.
“It may well be there is something unfathomable behind it all, but we don’t really know that.”
— He didnlt say that there is “something unfathomable behind it all” either.
“Some might claim to have realized or glimpsed the unfathomable, but i would say there is about as much chance of that as there is of a god.”
— How do you know what other people have “glimpsed”?? You don’t. So you can’t deny that they have. Only they know what they have “glimpsed” and/or realize. Realization is a direct personal insight or an awakening, its not like somebody merely having a belief in God.
“These things may all be quite true, {…]but i’m not going to simply swallow things.”
— Again, no one asked you to “swallow” anything.
“ppl were brainwashed and conditioned into accepting concepts that were totally irrational.”
— Realization has nothing to do with “accepting concepts”. None whatsover.
“One sees this phenomen repeating itself in cult movements and religions too.”
— But ‘realization’ has nothing to do with “cult movements and religions”.
“there is little doubt in my mind, that were i too join an organisation and repeat mantras for 2 hours a day for 25 years that i would experience something, it is the validity of that experience that i question.”
— Perhaps, but ‘realization’ has nothing to do with “join[ing] an organisation and repeat[ing] mantras for 2 hours a day for 25 years”.
“Your track record shows you guys are precisely the right canditates for this type of suggestive programming”
— Realization has nothing to do with “suggestive programming”… in fact, it is quite the opposite. Realization is the loss of all “programming”.
“since having been initiated, your mind is halfway there already whether you care to admit it or not.”
— That is absolute rubbish. Realization has nothing to do with the mind. And sant mat initiation is not in any way a detriment or “programming”. It is simly an instruction about shabd yoga meditation. And moreover, your (uninformed and inexperienced) opinion on on this, holds no significance or relevancy or knowledge regading initiation.
“You want to believe.”
— No, you are the one with all the beliefs. Realization has nothing to do with beliefs.
“from there the programming starts.”
— You know virtually nothing about the shabd-yoga initiation or the meditation. So your opinion on this issue is worthless. Its a joke that you would presume oitherwise.

Tao says:
“And there is no “evidence” needed or required. You can think whatever you wish. Realization is not about evidence.”
Well then if no evidence is required it is purely a subjective view and as such carries no gravitas over anyone who believes in a religion or RS.
Indeed, if a person believes the satguru is GIHF, that is perfectly acceptable since no reasoning is required. As such your criticism of this organistation are hypocritical.
If your reasoning is consistent then the satuguru is perfected and there is no-one whom he has to prove that too, which is precisely what those in RS argue.
“You don’t have to believe. It’s not about believing. And no one asked you to believe anyway.”
— I am well aware of that, but i am giving my view of your being REALIZED, which is that it is bogus. Whether you asked for it or not, is irrelevant, i have given it. You can choose to ignore it or respond to it, and its clear what you have done.
“Wrong. Realization is not of the mind.”
— Oh really. What is it of then? Have you discovered some other means human beings are able to percieve the world? Please describe it.
“Can’t you read George?”
— I can read perfectly well. While Osho and yourself might claim to have had some sort of etheral ‘REALIZATION’, i believe it remains a belief of deluded minds.
“Why do you want to piss on everything that other people offer?”
— LOL, that is bloody rich coming from you.
“You either wake-up to it , or you don’t.”
— i am already fully awake.
“But actually there really is no ‘you’.”
— That is what the realized nondualists claim and believe. I do not. The evidence is that there is this material world and there is an I, self and you.
“Osho did not ask you to accept any claims. He made no such claims.”
— Statements were made about so-called REALIZED ppl, this is a claim, however you care to spin it. The claim is that there are some who are REALIZED and others are not. I for example am not realised, because i have not recognised nondual selflessness.
“Wrong George. He didn’t make any claims. He just shared his own personal views in insights.”
— Wrong Tao, you are all making claims when you assume terms like being being ‘REALIZED’ actually mean something. Moreover, your nondual beliefs itself are claims, statement if you will – but all totally unsupported without a shred of evidence – the same as any religion however benign.

“Why do you want to piss on everything that other people offer?”
— LOL, that is bloody rich coming from you.
Actually this one really does take the cake.
Can Brian not frame this one, so we can refer to it as Exhibit A in any future correspondence when ppl care to offer their RS experiences?

Tao said:
“How do you know what other people have “glimpsed”?? You don’t. So you can’t deny that they have.”
— I never did. How do you? Ask yourself the same question about RS experiences and insights.
“Realization has nothing to do with “accepting concepts”. None whatsover.”
— In that case why bring it up, since it cannot be discussed? Yet you’ve said ppl are discussing it. Another etheral untouchable. Oh look, how convenient, another self-realized master. Of what? Nothing. Why do they discuss it then? ermmm…tough one.
“But ‘realization’ has nothing to do with cult movements and religions”.
— Says you. I believe it does. Rather than simply believe implying some doubt, you KNOW or have REALIZED.
“That is absolute rubbish. Realization has nothing to do with the mind.”
— Says you. I would say everything has to do with a mind and am still waiting for your explanation of an alternative means of perception. In fact, its you who is talking absolure rubbish by evidentiary standards.

Dear Osho,
You say: “May I ask, what was the original reason you joined?”
–I have always lived with the feeling that there is more than ‘this’ and that we live in a world of illusion and I want to see through this illusion. I think of the Master as an inner guide and have not closed myself off to this eventuality… I will know from my experiences ‘within’.
–Definitely not for “mere entertainment” lol, my path is my life and I readily admit that I am still a ‘seeker’.
“If after a lifetime there is no guarantee of a result – then why would you join? Just curious”.
–Maharaj Ji used to quote: “Many are called and few are chosen”… it depends on one’s commitment and unwavering intent.
“How is your life enriched by being a satsangi.”
–If one looks at the way people live and sees their urgent need to acquire material possessions, to fulfill all their worldly desires and then when they die they leave it all behind.
–I have been enriched by the knowledge and inner growth I feel within myself.
“So you have overcome lust anger greed attachment and pride?”
–Yep, send your medal, I’m almost perfect (yeh, yeh, I’m only joking!)
You say: “Maybe I am a guru”.
–Well now Osho, where is the PROOF?
–I’ve also dropped many of my old concepts, my mind is more open and I have had many realizations and more importantly I don’t feel the need to go to the extreme and ridicule and deny the path of Sant Mat. I really would not change anything in my life and am extremely grateful for what I have learned from Sant Mat, it has been the whole basis of my life and I am a better person for it.
Osho, you say you have: “Just another way of looking at sant mat.”
–I see where you’re coming from and don’t disagree entirely with everything you say. I also have found another way of looking at Sant Mat.
Love and peace

You know what? I think George is clever and understands what we are saying quite well, but deliberately distorts statements and creates unnecessary arguments because he enjoys being contrary, pushing people’s buttons and getting reactions. It is a power play game, a competition for him and I guarantee that he will not concede anything to anyone unless it serves his purposes, especially to tAo, no matter how clear the logic and explanations are. I don’t think George is here for constructive reasons, otherwise these discussions would not have gone in the direction they have.

Tucson,
You speak of changing from: “I am an entity and things are other or separate from me.”
to:
“I am those things (everything) but ‘I’ am not.”
–I can understand non-duality with my intellect but I can’t pretend to be at one with everything.
Also: “So, when someone says something like what Jen said above regarding spiritual progress: ‘I always thought if it takes many lifetimes then so be it.’… I always wonder who it is going to happen to.”
You continue: “’I’ never was in the first place so how could ‘I’ die and have another life? ‘I’ am not even having this one!”
–This ‘I’ is probably the ego, but the real ‘I’ is what continues on from life to life, it may be just a wave of consciousness, it may be a ball of energy and light that is the life force within every living thing on this planet… I don’t know.
You say: “Where is this object ‘I’ that was born and will be born again? Dig deep and try to find it.”
–Precisely what I am doing, digging deep to find this part of me that will continue.
You say: “I don’t think George is here for constructive reasons, otherwise these discussions would not have gone in the direction they have.”
–I think George understands how to have a proper debate, not just supporting others who agree with you, but also giving alternative views to the subjects being discussed.

Jen says: “I can understand non-duality with my intellect but I can’t pretend to be at one with everything.”
–But on your current path you are pretending as well. Are you not? Until you know it is real you pretend it is real if you act as if it is. But it was not suggested that you pretend anything.
Jen says: “This ‘I’ is probably the ego, but the real ‘I’ is what continues on from life to life, it may be just a wave of consciousness, it may be a ball of energy and light that is the life force within every living thing on this planet… I don’t know.”
–All these are just concepts of what might be, but “I don’t know” frees you from the cage of concepts into the freedom of what is. Go with that. There is no pretention there.
Jen says: “Precisely what I am doing, digging deep to find this part of me that will continue.”
–Good. One respected sage encouraged self inquiry… Who am ‘I’?
Jen says: “I think George understands how to have a proper debate, not just supporting others who agree with you, but also giving alternative views to the subjects being discussed.”
–I disagree. George probably understands how to have a proper debate but he does not demonstrate that here. I don’t think he wants to. George does not just offer alternate views. He also deliberately distorts others statements and then creates a challenge to the distortion. This way he maintains his position in the game of one-upmanship which I think is his real agenda here.

George responds to tAo:
“Well then if no evidence is required it is purely a subjective view and as such carries no gravitas over anyone who believes in a religion or RS.”
— But nobody ever said that it is not subjective, or that it “carries” more “gravitas over anyone who believes in a religion or RS”. The difference is that religion and RS is composed of beliefs and dogam, and realization does not. Realization is not a theology, or beliefs, or a practice, or a cult. That is the point, and not whether realization is subjective or not. Again, this seems to be another one of George’s deliberate diversions and digressions away from the point that was being discussed. The issue was NOT about the subjective nature of realization. No one here has claimed that realization is not subjective. George is simply trying to crate a diversion.
“Indeed, if a person believes the satguru is GIHF, that is perfectly acceptable since no reasoning is required.”
— But I never said that someone cannot believe that “the satguru is GIHF”. People can and do believe what they want, and some satsangis do believe that “the satguru is GIHF”. However, I have never said that their believing “the satguru is GIHF” is unacceptable. My point, as well as Brian and others has simply been that there is no evidence that that BELIEF is true. Because the RS “satguru” exhibits no evidence or proof of any Godly powers whatsoever. Thats all.
So again, this is just another example of George implying that I don’t accept that some people believe that “the satguru is GIHF”. But of course they believe that. I myself don’t believe that, but some people DO believe that.
So what is George trying to say here? He is apparently stating that myself and others find the fact that some people believe “the satguru is GIHF” to be unacceptable. But I and others have never denied that some people DO believe “the “satguru is GIHF”, and yes they do that without any “reasoning”. So whats the point? The point is that George is agin diverting the discussion into things that other people (like myself) have never said. I never said that its not “acceptable” that satsangis believe in a GIHF. Some satsangis obviously apparently do believe that. All I and a few others have said, is that there is no proof nor evidence that the RS master is indeed GOD incarnate. Period.
“As such your criticism of this organistation are hypocritical.”
— How is that? The organization is quite a different matter from the GIHF issue. And there is some valid criticism regarding the organization. So again, George is clearly attempting to divert from the issue at at hand. He is mixing two entirely separate issues together. Frankly, that’s blatant bullshit.
“If your reasoning is consistent then the satuguru is perfected and there is no-one whom he has to prove that too, which is precisely what those in RS argue.”
— I said nothing about anyone, especially including the “satguru”, being either “perfected” or not perfected. “Perfected” is entirely George’s term which he is inserting here.
As to whether the RS master is “perfected” (George’s term, meaning I suppose a “GIHF”), then NO, there is NO evidence for that whatsoever.
But the all-important big difference is, that RS and RS satsangis DO CLAIM that the RS master is “perfected” AND “realized”… whereas no one here in this discussion is claiming to have realization or that they are “realized” (except of course those RS satsangi believers who DO CLAIM that the RS master is supposedly “realized”). So once again, George is bluring and distorting and diverting from the issue, by creating a false and bogus and unfounded arguement.
“i am giving my view of your being REALIZED”
— Whooooa there, hold on there George, not so fast. I NEVER EVER SAID that I am “REALIZED”. So this is clearly another outright distortion and misrepresentation on YOUR part. I never said anything whatsoever about MY “being REALIZED”. So you see, this is yet ANOTHER example of YOU GEORGE, putting words in other peoples mouths. Its apparently compulsive with you. Or as Tucson pointed out, more like quite intentional and deliberate on your part. I’ve had enough of your shit George, and so have others. Its time to cut the crap and quit misrepresenting other people and claiming that they said things, that they did NOT say. Its bullshit George, and its dishonest. And you are still doing it. And this right here is a good example.
Right here George, YOU yourself just said it, quote:
“i am giving my view of your being REALIZED”
— Wrong…. YOU said that George. Nobody else said that. I never said anything about me, or about my [“your”] “being REALIZED”. Nothing at all. So here’s the proof that YOU twist and misrepresent the facts and what other people say or dont say George.
tAo said: “Wrong. Realization is not of the mind.”
George replied: “Oh really. What is it of then?”
— Realization is not a matter of the duality of the mind. Realization is like direct insight. It is not a matter of thinking or reasoning or concepts or beliefs. It is direct apprehension. It does not occur in the mind. But the problem you fail to understand what this means is likely due to your notion, your definition of the mind. This seems to occur fairly frequently with you in these discussions. So again, realization is not a matter of thinking, or concepts, or the ego/ahamkara, or the duality of the mind.
“Have you discovered some other means human beings are able to percieve the world? Please describe it.”
— Realization is not a matter of perception, or of “perceiv(ing) the world”. It is like direct insight, non-conceptual.
“I can read perfectly well. While Osho and yourself might claim to have had some sort of etheral ‘REALIZATION'”
— Well you obviously DO NOT read George. Neither Osho nor I calimed to “have had some sort of etheral ‘REALIZATION'”. Go back and read the previous comments George. You are again falsely putting worfds in other people’s mouths. This is now very obvious to me as well as to other folks here. So after finishing this post, I have nothing more to say to you. You are dishonest and you misrepresent what other people say. Tucson is quite right. You do this on purpose. You know very well what people are saying. But you deliberately disrort and misinterpret and misrepresent what other people say. Its a game. You do it to push peoples buttons and to make false staemts about them and to aggaravate them. You are a TROLL. Thats now quite obvious. So after this post, I will not engage with you anymore. You are dishonest, and you are here to cause confusion and aggaravation and distortion. Thats what trolls do.
“i believe it remains a belief of deluded minds.”
— Again, realization is not a “belief”.
“i am already fully awake.”
— No, not in terms of realization, you aren’t.
“That is what the realized nondualists claim and believe.”
— Nobody here is claiming anything George, except for the believers and the dogmatists.
“The evidence is that there is this material world and there is an I, self and you.”
— There is indeed a material world. I never said there wasn’t. So quit falsely implying that I and others have said otherwise. But as for an “I, self, and you”… well that remains to be seen. If there is (an “I, self, and you”)… then show it, prove it.
“Statements were made about so-called REALIZED ppl, this is a claim”
— No it isn’t Nobody claimed anyting. Osho simply offered his views. He made no “claims”. So you’re wrong again George.
“The claim is that there are some who are REALIZED and others are not.”
— Thats not what he said.
“you are all making claims when you assume terms like being being ‘REALIZED’ actually mean something.”
— That is NOT a “claim”. It is just a way of explaining something.
“Moreover, your nondual beliefs itself are claims, statement if you will”
— Wrong again George. I don’t have any such “nondual beliefs”. You don’t know what I believ, if anything. You simply do NOT know what I believe. And fyi, I do NOT have nondual BELIEFS. Period. I don’t have any such beliefs. So again, you are, in a sense, putting words in my mouth, or ideas in my mind that I do not say or think or believe. Thats bullshit George. But thats exactly the stuff that trolls do.
tAo had said previously: “How do you know what other people have “glimpsed”?? You don’t.”
George replied: “Ask yourself the same question about RS experiences and insights.”
— But I never said that I Do know what other people, RS people, have “glimpsed”. I don’t know what other people experience. I don’t claim to. I also don’t even care. So what’s your point? Your argument has no basis because I have never denied that other people have had experiences. I’ve had experiences too. But experiences don’t prove anything. And I never said that they do. You are grossly distorting me, as well as other people George. In fact, you do it a lot. Its time that you stop. People are getting sick and tired of your bullshit George.
tAo said: “Realization has nothing to do with “accepting concepts”. None whatsover.”
George replied: “In that case why bring it up, since it cannot be discussed?”
— I didn’t say that it couldn’t be discussed. I merely said that realization is not about concepts. And furthermore, I didn’t bring it up… YOU DID.
“Oh look, how convenient, another self-realized master. Of what?”
— What are you talking about George? Sarcasm will get you nowhere. No one claimed to be a “self-realized master”… except for the RS believers who cailm that nthe RS master is self-realized… which btw is an absolute joke imo.
tAo said: “‘realization’ has nothing to do with cult movements and religions”.
George replied: “Says you. I believe it does. Rather than simply believe implying some doubt, you KNOW or have REALIZED.”
— WRONG George. AGAIN… nobody, I repeat, NOBODY said or claimed that they ‘KNOW” or “have REALIZED”. THis is all your own bullshit distortion and misrepresentation. Show us where anyone (besides you) said that? You are a total bullshiter George. You lie and distort and misquote, or rather misrepresent, what other people say. You claim and imply that they said things they have NOT ever said. That is dishonest and deceptive.
tAo said: “That is absolute rubbish. Realization has nothing to do with the mind.”
George replied: “Says you. I would say everything has to do with a mind”
— Again, realization is not a matter of thinking. or concepts, or the duality of the mind. It is direct non-ceptual insight, aka ‘self-knowledge’ or atma-jnana. One problem apperas to be your apparent significant lack of education regarding terminology and defitions, and eastern philosophy. But that’s not why you play this game that you do. You do it because you are a troll. You are here to cause disruption and confusion and argument and conflict, and to distort and misrepresent others, and to give sarcasm and ridicule. Its written all over you George. I will be glad when you leave here. This forum will be better without trolls like you. Until then I’m done with this discussion.
Have a nice life George, but please take your trollish ways somehere else.
And in conclusion, I do agree 101 percent with Tucson, who said:
“You know what? I think George is clever and understands what we are saying quite well, but deliberately distorts statements and creates unnecessary arguments because he enjoys being contrary, pushing people’s buttons and getting reactions. It is a power play game, a competition for him and I guarantee that he will not concede anything to anyone unless it serves his purposes, especially to tAo, no matter how clear the logic and explanations are. I don’t think George is here for constructive reasons, otherwise these discussions would not have gone in the direction they have.”
And btw Jen, I do NOT agree with you at all. George is NOT engaging in “proper debate” here. His disorting and misrepresenting what other people say, and constanly diverting from the issue, is not a “proper” way to debate. Its dishonest and devious and deceptive, and its what trolls do. Regadless of whether you want to defend RS, look at the evidence Jen. George’s game is to create conflict.

Jen,
I too also completely agree with tucson with regard to George, where tucson says:
“George probably understands how to have a proper debate but he does not demonstrate that here. I don’t think he wants to. George does not just offer alternate views. He also deliberately distorts others statements and then creates a challenge to the distortion. This way he maintains his position in the game of one-upmanship which I think is his real agenda here.”
— This is very right on target. I have suspected this for quite sometime, but its taken other folks a little bit longer to finally see it. But its pretty evident if you notice how George typically distorts and misportrays other people’s statements and meanings, and then he fashions a challenge to that perveted distortion that he has substituted for the real issue or what other people have really said. He creates a false straw-man, a bogus misrepresentation of other people and what they do or do not say, and then he tries to either falisfy that, or ridicle it. Its extemely dishonest and devious to do this repeatedly. This isn’t jast a case of an occasional misunderstanding, George knows exacrly what he is doing. George is not stupid. George does this to maintain his position in a trollish game of one-upmanship and creating conflict, which is his real agenda here. Tucson knows it, I know it, and so do a few others whom I will not mention. They will come forth when they feel ready. But there is no doubt in my mind that George is up to no good here. My last post in response to George shows it and proves it unquestionbly. Thats also whay George would not give up his calling me a liar about my initiation, even after was proven to be wrong. George is a devious fraud and a troll, and has been so from the get-go. The truth always comes out eventually. I hope George leaves because he causes too much deliberate distortion wich results in unnecessary bad vibes here.
You can think whatever you like Jen, but if you look deeper, you will find out sooner or later. George’s game is a no-brainer to me.

Religions REQUIRE your belief. If you DOUBT – that is considered a BAD thing. Jesus is meant to SAVE mankind. Muslims BELIEVE in Muhammad. Sikhs believe in Guru Nanak and the ten gurus. Radha Soamis believe their guru is God Incarnate.
This is how the mind continues to seek. It is looking for answers and in the meantime it believes. The mind is always WAITING for Realization to happen – for God to come – for the heavens to open up etc. Always waiting…
Enlightenment means the end of waiting – which happens once you recognize your true nature. This recognition is NOT a theory. It is not matter of dropping one belief and taking on another. Enlightenment is not a belief system. It is a recognition. Once you RECOGNIZE something – it changes your life. Why? Because now you are no longer living in illusion and beliefs – which is all the mind ever creates. Belief/Doubt are both mind-games. Recognition is not. It is the difference between SEEING and BELIEVING. In sant mat – the promise is made that you will SEE – but you never do – and it the meantime you are waiting and waiting. Enlightenment is not WAITING. It is not an achievement – it is not something you attain to or arrive at. You recognise what ALWAYS was. It is immediate – not tomorrow. You are no longer trapped by concepts and the mind. Does that mean that you have no mind and no concepts? No. Of course you still have a mind and you can still conceptualize – but you are not living in the mind or in thw world of concepts anymore. You have dropped them because you see through the mind-trap. Mind always keeps you running after one thing or another – with the promise of a paradise that never manifests. Enlightenment means the end of all seeking because seeking is a mind-game. Once you recognise HERE and NOW (again – don’t make a concept of here and now) the journey ends. There was no journey in the first place – you were always at home – you just thought you were somewhere else.
Enlightenment is a journey – the destination of which is the realization that there was no journey to make and nobody to make the journey.
The journey is to yourself. Sant Mat and other religions tempt you to seek and the promise is in the future. You never get to the future because you are always in the now. Tomorrow is always a distant dream. All you ever have is NOW. Enlightenment makes no such promise. It is NOW or NEVER.
None of this is meant to make sense to you – it is not designed to satifsy your mind so that you believe. The purpose is to frustrate your logical mind because logic cannot operate in the sphere of oneness. Logic only works well in duality. If you try logic to understand ONENESS – all you will get is confused.

tucson,
A quick question, when you say: “But on your current path you are pretending as well. Are you not? Until you know it is real you pretend it is real if you act as if it is.”
–What you say is confusing. I don’t think I am “pretending” my path is real. Surely my search IS for that which is real… whatever that is. I don’t get it, could you please explain – thanks.
tAo,
Such a pity, I like George, can’t we all just get along… 🙂

Quote from Tao Post 19 sept 04:13PM
“i am happy for you to believe what you want”
— Can’t you read George? Osho did NOT say that he ‘believes’ anything.
This is how truth is communicated. Tao is straight to the POINT. He says “Can’t you read George?”
If George is open – he will see his own pattern of projecting his own ideas onto everything he hears and reads.
He is not alone – almost everyone does this.
Tao is very clear and very direct. He uses language very precisely while at the same time recogmising that language has inherent limitations.
George does not understand that MIND and LOGIC cannot (by their very nature) enter the world of Enlightenment/Truth/Nirvana etc.
Enlightenment has nothing to do with any words – but does that mean an enlightened person cannot use words? He uses them – but only to play with. He knows that words are just pointers. In Zen they say “The Master is a FINGER – pointing to the moon.” Most people grab hold of the finger and think they have the moon.
Tao is very clear and articulate but in order to benefit you have to bing a quality called READING and BEING OPEN – otherwise it is all words and more words – never ending.

To Jen,
Osho asked Jen: “If after a lifetime there is no guarantee of a result – then why would you join? Just curious.”
Jen replied: “Maharaj Ji used to quote: “Many are called and few are chosen”… it depends on one’s commitment and unwavering intent.”
— Osho had asked you, if the goal of Sant Mat cannot be achieved in one lifetime, then why did you join? But you really did not give answer. All you said was: “it depends on one’s commitment and unwavering intent.” But what does “commitment and unwavering intent” have to do with why you joined? And if the goal cannot be achieved in one life, then what does commitment or intent matter anyway?? That was Osho’s poit. Your response to that doesn’t make any sense, and it doesn’t answer the question “why would you join?”. Also, what does “many are called and few are chosen” have to do with this? Are you saying that you joined because you were “called” or were “chosen”?? If so, then WHO called you to join? Or WHO chose you to join? You didn’t just apply on your own? Someone “called” you? If that’s the case, please explain.
Osho also asked Jen: “How is your life enriched by being a satsangi.”
Jen replied: I have been enriched by the knowledge and inner growth I feel within myself.
— Alright. Could you relate something more specific about this “knowledge” that you “feel within” yourself, and also about the “inner growth” that you say has occured within yourself?
Osho remarked: “Maybe I am a guru”.
Jen responded: “Well now Osho, where is the PROOF?”
— What proof Jen? What proof is needed for being guru? However, Osho didn’t claim to be guru, he just say “maybe”. Also, a guru is simply a teacher, so what is there to prove as far as being a teacher? If someone has even one single disciple or one student, then that person is guru. Also, are you aware that the actual meaning of guru is: ‘to bring light to the darkness’?? So if Osho is bringing any light, shining light into the darkness (of ignorance and/or illusion), then he is guru as well. In that case, he doesn’t even need any disciples to be guru. Anyone who brings light, who dispels ignorance or illusion, is considered guru. Also, guru is actually one’s own true nature, so guru is in everyone. And therefore, anyone who knows this or who embodies this, is also guru.
Jen also said: “I don’t feel the need to go to the extreme and ridicule and deny the path of Sant Mat.”
— Please explain, who is ridiculing and denying San Mat??

Tucson,
Of course i’ve understood whats been said, its not complex.
As for being contrary, maybe, but its not intentional, and in any event even if it was, what harm is there in that? If a person’s views cannot be tested, just how strong are they?
You also miss something, which is you guys are all highly skeptical when it comes to RS and apply one heullva magnifying glass to this tradition AND as soon as someone provides some RS insights they are automatically ridiculed for speaking ‘dogma’.
So I figure, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and i apply the same magnifying glass to your beliefs or REALIZATIONS.

Dear jen,
This is in reply to your posting 19 sept 06:21pm
You wrote: “I think of the Master as an inner guide and have not closed myself off to this eventuality… I will know from my experiences ‘within’. ”
Jen, you are living in the future – in ONE DAY – which never happens because all you have is today.
Yes – you are still a seeker – which is fine – but truth never dawns until you go beyond seeking and get serious about what you are really looking for.
Commitment does not help when the road leads to a dead end. Nothing against RSSB personally – but all duality paths keep you seeking forever.
The man of the world seek wealth, relationships etc. The so-called spiritual man just changes direction slightly – he seeks God/Enlightenment/Sach Khand. But he is still seeking. It is the same mind that continues to seek – only it has become greedier now. Before it was enough to get wealth – now it is after ther BIG prize – it is after the big man himself – God or Sat Purush.
Just as the material man seeks wealth – the RSSB follower seeks Sach Khand. The same greed – the same mind is just as greedy as ever. Only the prize is now God.
Jen: “I have been enriched by the knowledge and inner growth I feel within myself.”
What knowledge? It is a nice theory – not knowledge. The inner growth you speak of is a trap – you always seem to be getting closer and closer – but you never arrive.
I’ll send you your medal – I will sign it personally and you can show it to others at the satsangs.
I said “Maybe I am a guru.” Well I am not – I don’t have a certificate and proof of being the successor to any well-known gaddi – but I’m working on it.
Maybe Tao is a Guru as is Tuscon. Anyone who helps you to truth – could be called a guru. Only if you want to use that terminology. Where is the proof that Gurinder Singh Ji (may as well show some respect) is a true Guru? Is it the successorship? What if someone else had been appoined successor – who would Guringer be today? Would anyone listen to him at all?
Jen: –I’ve also dropped many of my old concepts, my mind is more open and I have had many realizations and more importantly I don’t feel the need to go to the extreme and ridicule and deny the path of Sant Mat. I really would not change anything in my life and am extremely grateful for what I have learned from Sant Mat, it has been the whole basis of my life and I am a better person for it.
You have missed again. It is not a matter of dropping SOME concepts – but to recognise that all concepts are mind-creations and are not going to help you in the quest for truth. “More” open is not enough – it has to be totally open – otherwise you will never lot go of the ‘old’ that keeps you in the mind, and the ‘new’ cannot enter as long as the ‘old’ remains.
There is not NEED to ridicule sant mat. But also have the freedom to do so if you wish. Sant mat is a good beginners class. It has it’s benefits – it prepares the way but it cannot take you to the end – because it is a duality path. Just as a exercise – ridicule sant mat – just to see if you can do it and still feel good.
go to http://www.tinyurl.com/SantMat and see what you think of the ‘new slant’ on sant mat.
Love and Peace to you too Jen.

Jen,
“I think George understands how to have a proper debate, not just supporting others who agree with you, but also giving alternative views to the subjects being discussed.”
— Thank you Jen, imo you have understood my intentions far better than these so-called REALIZED folk. Also, from what i’ve noticed on this board, it is the devoted RS satsangis who are the most honest and nicest of ppl, and actually i would also say the most openminded.
Your personal account of what RS means to you above is actually very moving and i cannot see what harm at all there is in you continuing to follow such a path, which brings only personal benefit and enrichment.
Tao says:
“I too also completely agree with tucson with regard to George”
— How suprising, of course you do, your guys default position is simply to join ranks to boulster yourselves.
On the RS issue, you guys clearly are againt it. The agenda and criticism on here is widespread, so please don’t talk BS to me. That is real distortion, just like your three statements above, totally inconsist. I will happily sift through the archives for some of your quotes on RS, to prove just how inconsistent you are.
“Its time to cut the crap and quit misrepresenting other people and claiming that they said things, that they did NOT say”
— You are a hyprocrite and are still sore that i picked out your 3 statements which brazenly exposed your hyprocracy for what it is. I believe you will say anything to save face, and as such, i will adopt the same policy of rhetoric, until such time as more honesty is forthcoming. You accuse ppl of the very things that you are most guilty of and you actually cannot even see what is blatantly obvious to others.
“You are a total bullshiter George.”
— I believe you are the total bullshitter Tao, which is really why you are so upset.
“Have a nice life George, but please take your trollish ways somehere else.”
— ah yes, everyone else is a troll who gives an alternative viewpoint, you so predicatable its laughable. You are about as openminded as a frothing evangelist.
“George’s game is to create conflict.”
— LOL, this and that other classic about me pissing on everyone else’s insights, must surely rank as the most brazen hypocracy in the history of mankind. In fact, I actually did laugh out loud when reading these two comments. You are absolutely barking mad insane, do you know that?

Tao
Just how many ppl over the years have you actually called a ‘troll’?
Do you not find it kinda strange that over the years there have been so many trolls out to try YOUR patience?
Let us say you are right and my sole intention is to cause conflict, do i swear at ppl? Do I preach dogma? Do I abuse ppl (self-defense excluded)?
You will of course, answer yes to all of these things, but your view is all just overblown ego who cannot stand getting a taste of his own medicine.
In fact, the strange thing is i seem to get on fine with the majority of folk on here and am still scratching my head why you dumbos have chased off others with genuinely openminded propositions, including Ashy, Phil and Barry. You sit back and spew bile at someone’s most cherished beliefs, and then wonder why the most sincere of people like Manish get upset.
But the piece de resistance is the sheer gall of accusing others of creating conflict and pissing on insights. Mad mad mad!

Keep going, George.
A person cannot be initiated into a cult and not be a member of it. If the initiate does not believe that there is power behind the words, does not believe that the guru is anything special and does not involve himself in the seva or satsangs of the cult, then why get initiated? Why not just find out what the words are along with any other techniques, and repeat them outside of initiation.
As far as Realisation is concerned, it is possible i.m.o.that virtually every person alive, just through life experience, becomes realised to some extent ie: experiences a realisation regarding the inherent nature of anything and then has the will to change or is changed for the better as a result.
Cultists may actually be the most daring free thinking experimenters of all; able to think out of the conventional box and willing to put in the hours to use their own bodies and minds in the experiment.
Maybe, a charismatic leader could eclipse all the bright intelligent free thinkers and bind them to an experiment until they are reduced to the opposite.

Precisely Catherine.
I also agree with your far more sensible description of what a realized person might be, through experience.
I also agree that cultist may indeed be the most daring experimenters of all, since they are actually putting their very mind at risk.

Osho,
It is you guys who are not clear. You continually refer to someone who is REALIZED as someone who apparently has ‘got it’. What have you actually got? Nothing.
I read your website, some of your views on RS are interesting enough, but when you started banging on about a REAL dialogue being between a REALIZED person and someone who wants to ‘get it’, i REALIZED its just more religious parochial brainwashed nonsense.
what we are having is a debate, it is when ppl agree and disagree and question – what you call a real dialogue is a sermon or lecure which is one way.

Jen asked: “What you say is confusing. I don’t think I am “pretending” my path is real. Surely my search IS for that which is real… whatever that is. I don’t get it, could you please explain – thanks.”
—It was in response to your saying, “I can understand non-duality with my intellect but I can’t pretend to be at one with everything.”
So, I took that to mean that since you do not directly apprehend non-duality it doesn’t help just to intellectually understand it. You are saying, I think, that you need a “way” to get TO the actual experience of whatever truth is.
I understand your position. I was only indicating that by accepting and acting upon RS teachings you are in a sense pretending they are true until you directly apprehend the truth of those teachings, if you ever do.
All of these teachings and paths are just concepts, at best mere ideas of what our inherrent true nature MIGHT be.
These ideas and concepts (realization, Sach Khand, non-duality, satguru) can be pictured as electrons buzzing around the nucleus of what you are which is a steady, non-objective presence. You don’t need a path to get to what you are, you just need to recognize it by dropping the electron concepts and being fully present as the nucleus.
George wrote: “Thank you Jen, imo you have understood my intentions far better than these so-called REALIZED folk.”
–Here, one last time, is an example of what you do, George. No one has “called” themselves ‘realized’. That is you putting your spin on what others have said in order to create your sarcastic remark, and you have welcomed Jen’s naivite’ regarding your motives to support your trollish behavior.
Then you say: “It is you guys who are not clear. You continually refer to someone who is REALIZED as someone who apparently has ‘got it’. What have you actually got? Nothing.”
–First of all, Osho didn’t say ‘got it’. That was me. He may have no such concept. Then you make an antagonistic remark rather than a constructive one by saying we have ‘got’ nothing. How do you know what anyone has…really has? You say we have nothing but then you imply you do because you say you know we know nothing!!
I am not playing your game anymore either George. It is intellectully dishonest.
But inadvertantly you have stated the truth of what there is “to get”…nothing. But you have ‘to get’ that there is nothing to get.
All these paths and religions and philosophies. It is like an apple straining to be an apple and having all these ideas of what it might be like to be an apple. God-damn it! It IS an apple!

Tucson,
Go and read Osho’s blog, the one which lectures about REAL dialogue between those who are REALIZED and those who want to ‘get it’.
Stop talking crap. It is you who is distorting things. i have in fact listened and read all of the utter shite you have posted, and now am also losing patience.

i think you guys fancy yourselves as some sort of grand master jedi or something, but of the american fastfood variety as opposed to the ancient eastern veggie lineage.
this is what is going to happen, you will die at some stage, your prescnece, cosnciousness and realization will all cease at that point in time, over the next few decades all memory by others and trace of your existence will also eventually dissapear, there will be nothing, no electrons buzzing around a conitinual prescence, nothing, it will be as if you were never here.
why not get on with living your own life in the time you have left rather than worrying about passing your pearls onto others, cause your realizations are utter delusion. in fact, you might as well take a whole shedload of drugs and get out of your mind, cause you are presently living in neverneverland.

I don’t know what Osho writes on his blog, only what he has said here.
And now I am losing my patience. You have again failed to offer anything constructive.
Game over.

An observation from a Libran (who, however, doesn’t believe in astrology) — in an attempt to depersonalize the debates on this blog thread by reconciling or balancing opposites:
This morning I starting re-reading a book by Don Cupitt, “After God.” I’ve written several posts citing the book, including:
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2006/09/the_joy_of_nihi
What strikes me is how Cupitt’s central theme nicely mirrors the contrasting positions of, say, George vs. Tucson. We could call them Georgian and Tucsonian views of reality. But if we personalize the debate, it (obviously) becomes personal.
I’ll probably write about this in a blog post tomorrow. Just wanted to point out that what seems to be underlying the passionate recent discussions on this comment thread are two contrasting ways of looking at the world:
(1) Objective truth about what we can call “ultimate reality” exists, we can know it, and human language is marvelously capable of reflecting what this truth is.
(2) Human language is how we construct our view of reality, and we shouldn’t mistake the words and concepts in our heads for something objectively real — especially when it comes to metaphysics.
This is a simplification, of course. I’ll try to do a better job of describing Cupitt’s take on religion in my blog post.
My main message is that while commenters on this thread aren’t purely in the objectivist vs. subjectivist camps, people tend to lean one way or the other. Then, when they see an argument founded on the other philosophical foundation, they think “Wrong! Bullshit!”
However, the “Wrong!” comes from choosing a certain Truth Target criterion, seeing whether an argument hits it, registering the “score” on the target, and then triumphantly proclaiming the falsity of the argument.
We take discussions, on a blog or elsewhere, more lightly if we can see that we’re the one who has set up the Truth Target — that it doesn’t exist out there in the world like the sun does.
More, in Cupitt’s words, like Donald Duck does. There is no “real” Donald Duck. Every image of Donald Duck is the real one, because there is no real one — no Platonic Form of Donald Duck. He argues, the same is true of God. Or Ultimate Truth. These are human concepts, our inventions, and we should feel free to have fun playing around with these notions, just as Donald Duck is fun.
But to take this all super-seriously… not justified. Cupitt advises that we lighten up on our view of reality, because we don’t know, none of us. It’s all Donald Duck’ing.

George said:
“you guys are all highly skeptical when it comes to RS […] AND as soon as someone provides some RS insights they are automatically ridiculed for speaking ‘dogma’.”
— NO George, people have not been “ridiculed” for providing their “insights”, they have been critcised for preaching and parroting RS dogma. There is a big difference between preaching and parroting RS DOGMA, and sharing personal insights about RS. Personal “RS insights” are quite welcome here, but preaching and parroting DOGMA is not. Brian has made that clear on numerous occasions. So here again George, YOU are attempting to distort and misrepresent what the facts are in regards to criticism of RS here in this forum. You are trying to make it look as if personal insights are not welcome and are ridiculed. But that is absolutley wrong. What is criticised and ridiculed here is when believers come and preach and parrot RS dogma. Personal “RS insights” are always welcome and Brian has made it a point to empahsize that many times. And sdo have I and others. So YOU are WRONG again George, and YOU are trying to make others here look bad with no legitimate reason or basis.
George said: “I figure, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and i apply the same magnifying glass to your beliefs or REALIZATIONS.”
— No one here claimed to have any “REALIZATIONS”. You are implying a false premise George. That’s incorreect and misleading. Nobody claimed “REALIZATIONS”. The issue was simply a discusion of what the nature of ‘realization’ is, or is not, and the difference between ‘realization’ and ‘belief’. You are impplying that people have claimed “REALIZATIONS”. YOU said: “apply the same magnifying glass to your beliefs or REALIZATIONS.” The key word here being “your”.
George said: “Jen, imo you have understood my intentions far better than these so-called REALIZED folk.’
— Fyi, NOBODY in this forum has said that they were “REALIZED”. So here again George, YOU are twisting the facts by implying that people have claimed to be “REALIZED folk”. That’s bullshit George, because no one here said they were “REALIZED folk”. YOU are the only one saying this… about other people.
Also, from what i’ve noticed on this board, it is the devoted RS satsangis who are the most honest and nicest of ppl, and actually i would also say the most openminded.
tAo said: “I too also completely agree with tucson with regard to George”
George responded: “How suprising, of course you do, your guys default position is simply to join ranks to boulster yourselves.”
— No George, you are twisting and distorting what I said again. I agreed with tucson, only because he is right… not simply to “join ranks to boulster”. I made that very very clear in my comment. So this is yet another example of YOUR deliberate intent to make false and erroneous accuations against other people, even when those other people (in this case myself) have stated their reasons behind their very clearly. You are foling anyone George, except one or two people who haven’t yet realized and understood what it is that you are really doing here underneth your phony facade of “reason”.
George said: “On the RS issue, you guys clearly are againt it.”
— Wrong. I am not “against” RS. I simply criticise RS for the things about it that I feel deserve criticism, like the dogma, the theology, the hype and myth about the master, and the over-all dualism of its approach. So again, you are deliberately misrepresenting myself and others. I am not “against” RS or Sant Mat at all. I am merely critical of various aspects of its philosophy and the cult of it.
George said: “You are a hyprocrite and are still sore that i picked out your 3 statements which brazenly exposed your hyprocracy for what it is.”
— No you did not expose anything. It was shown in the record that I nnever said I have “never been initiated” as you claimed I had said. So it was proven that your accusation that I was “a liar” was totally wrong. And now YOU are lying… becuse I did NOT make those so-called “three statements” George, YOU MADE THOSE THREE STATEMENTS. Its on the record George. I can only conclude that you are either extremely unaware of what you yourself actually say, or you are an outright deliberate deceiver and twister of the facts… and most likely the latter. Almost everyone sees your dishonest game George. And every time you try to pull off another devious misrepresentation and distortion of the facts, you only reveal yourself more. Anyone who does this sort of deceiptful thing as much as you do, IS definitely a troll.
George said: “I believe you will say anything to save face”
— Thats exactly what YOU do George, as Tucson already pointed out. Eveyone can see this about you George. And they can see the truth and facts about me as well. You have hung yourself George with all your distortions and deliberate misrepresentations and your attempt at putting words into other peoples mouths. You are basically a very dishonest and hostile individual. You don’t belog here. You create way too much trouble here and lie about other people.
“You accuse ppl of the very things that you are most guilty of and you actually cannot even see what is blatantly obvious to others.”
— This exaclty YOU position George. Almost everyone can now see what you are up to. It is “blatantly obvious to others”, including Brian. You so obvious that you are a bad apple George, bad news.
George said: “I believe you are the total bullshitter Tao, which is really why you are so upset.”
— You keep trying to discredit me George with your stupid little flame war, but the truth is all on my side. And fyi, I am not “upset” at all. You are a joke George, a pathetic joke. And you are the one who has proven that all by yourself. You do it every time you try to twist and distort the facts and other people. You have been doing this since day one. You try and hide behind your fake facade, but its all catching up with you now. You can’t fool everyone forever. I think you are a real sick dude. Anyone who intentionally and repeatedly tries to distort facts and put words into other people’s mouths that they did not say like you do, is a very sick individual imo.
George said: “yes, everyone else is a troll who gives an alternative viewpoint”
— You don’t give “alternative viewpoint” George… you create deceipt and distortion by making false claims and misrepresenting other people and what they say. You haven’t presented any “alternative viewpoint”. All you do is twist and make false assertions about other people and their words.
George said: “You are absolutely barking mad insane”
— Take a real good look in the mirror George. I am sure glad I am not you.
George said: “find it kinda strange that over the years there have been so many trolls”
— Most all of the so-called “trolls” that have come here bent on harassing Brian and this blog and other ex-satsangis, have been people who are RSSB cult believers… with one or two exceptions (such as you George, and a couple others). If you don’t beleive me, just ask Brian.
George said: “Let us say you are right and my sole intention is to cause conflict, do i swear at ppl? Do I preach dogma? Do I abuse ppl (self-defense excluded)?”
— You lie about what other people have said, you misrepresent others people’s position and meanings, you put words in their mouths that they didn’t say, you twist and distort issues, you attack other people’s characters, you ridicule other people, and you make false claims that have no basis in fact.
Those are far more trollish and detrimental and create far more conflict than any mere “swearing” at people (which btw I no longer engage in for some time now). Practically everything you say and do here George, is what trolls, who are out to create conflict and disruption, say and do.
George said: “your view is all just overblown ego who cannot stand getting a taste of his own medicine.”
— The “overblown ego” is your own George. Its totally obvious to those of us who are hip to your game.
George said: “In fact, the strange thing is i seem to get on fine with the majority of folk on here”
— I am sure you’d like to think that, but you’re mistaken George. Quite a few folks can see what you are up to, and especially in regards to your little war against me. You’re not fooling everyone, on a few, and they are slowly waking up too.
George said: “[I] am still scratching my head why you dumbos have chased off others with genuinely openminded propositions, including Ashy, Phil and Barry.”
— LOL!!! You just proved without any shadow of a doubt, where you are really at George. Defending blatant trolls like Ashy, Phil and Barry/Obscre/JAP. Heh Heh Heh! There’s no doubt about it now. Case closed.
George said: “You sit back and spew bile at someone’s most cherished beliefs, and then wonder why the most sincere of people like Manish get upset.”
— That’s total bullshit. Fyi George, I DO NOT “spew bile”. I simply make fair and reasonable criticisms of people’s so-called “cherished beliefs”. And so what? Anyone who comes here and preaches their dogma or their religious beliefs, well then those beliefs are fair game to be questioned and/or criticised by me or anyone else. If they don’t want their beliefs to be questioned, then they shouldn’t be posting and preaching them here.

Catherine said:
“A person cannot be initiated into a cult and not be a member of it.”
— WRONG Catherine. Absolutely wrong. As I said, in my case, I DID NOT get “initiated into a cult”. i got initiated into a type or path of MEDITATION. I DID NOT get initiated into a CULT. Thats not what I did. I did not JOIN a CULT. I got INITATED in a particular type of MEDIATION, namely shadbd yoga meditation.
You can go on thinking and believing whatever you wish about YOURSELF and YOUR OWN initiation, but your opinion is only aboout YOU, and has nothing whatsoever to do with ME. You don’t determine what MY shabd yoga initiation meant. And it had NOTHING to do with being “initiated into a cult”. Even RSSB itself does not regard RS initiation as anything to do with being “initiated into a cult”. It is initiation into the SPIRITUAL PATH of Sant Mat, which is ALL about the practice of SHABD YOGA MEDITATION… and NOT joining any cult.
It doesn’t matter what YOU may think. You can only speak for YOURSELF alone. You cannot speak for ME. So quit trying to. All you are doing is to show what a cult mentality YOU are.
Catherine said: “”If the initiate does not believe that there is power behind the words, does not believe that the guru is anything special and does not involve himself in the seva or satsangs of the cult, then why get initiated?’
— Why? Simply to learn the MEDITATION. I have already made that very clear in reagrd to my own case. Other people no doubt may have different reasons.
“Why not just find out what the words are along with any other techniques, and repeat them outside of initiation.”
— Because… at that time over 30 years ago, it was virtually impossible to learn the precise meditation procedure without getting initiated. And whats the bif deal about getting initiated? You act as if it required some big effort. It didn’t require hardly any effort on my part to get initiated. I simply applied and then waited a few months. Big friggin deal. Whats your problemm Catherine? I don’t get what you issue with this is? I mean, whats it to YOU what my reasons were for getting initoated? Its really none of your damn business. But I have been kind enought to explain my reasons and my situation to you. So what do you think you are trying to prove? You aren;t proving anyting other than how YOU view initiation. But your views have nothing to do with me. So why do you have so much difficulty understanding this? Its actually really simple. I got intited only for the meditation, nothing else. Period, end of story.
Catherine said; “Cultists may actually be the most daring free thinking experimenters of all; able to think out of the conventional box and willing to put in the hours to use their own bodies and minds in the experiment.”
— LOL! That’s quite absurd and ridiculous thinking imo. Simply in order to “think out of the conventional box”, definitely does NOT require joining or being part of any cult, or being “cultists”. And the most “daring free thinking” people have no interest in or use for cults, for cult leaders or for cult-gurus.

Catherine please email me at manishfantastic(at)gmail.com i want to discuss personally with you.If you wish to.
thanks

SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE
George is arging as follows :-
1. RSSB is a cult. (A is equiv to B)
2. Tao took initiation and therefore joined RSSB (C joined A)
3. Therefore C joined a cult (therefore this is equiv to C joined B)
This is OBJECTIVE – hence logic can be used. However, the situation is not
about logic. It is SUBJECTIVE. How? Tao is saying that they WAY in which HE
PERSONALLY took the initiation was different – he did not join a cult.
George is arguing logically. Tao is explaining his OWN PERSONAL INTERNAL STATE.
The two are different.
This is also why George cannot understand Realization. It is SUBJECTIVE and he deals only with the OBJECTIVE. George wants PROOF for everything – objective proof. Some things like Realization cannot be objectively proven because they are subjective. The very act of asking for proof is foolish as proof is impossible.

Osho,
I disagee with some of your reasoning. Here is why:
You said, that “George is arging as follows” — Yes, YOUR description, of what GEORGE’S reasoning is, seems correct.
However, not all of these premises are correct:
“1. RSSB is a cult. (A is equiv to B)”
— YES. It is reasonable to assume that the RSSB organization, RSSB leader, and RSSB sangat, constitutes a cult.
“2. Tao took initiation and therefore joined RSSB (C joined A)”
— NO. I DID take initiation, but taking initiation is NOT “therefore” joining the RSSB. I did not take initiation INTO the RSSB. I only took initiation in the sant mat spiritual teaching and practice of SHABDA YOGA. I did NOT take “initiation” into any organization. When I took initiation, I was NOT told that I was taking initiation into the RSSB ORGANIZATION. I was simply told that I was only taking initiation in SHABDA YOGA, aka Sant Mat (‘the path of the saints’). The initiation I took was not represented or given as being initiation ‘into the RSSB organization’. When I received my initiation in shabda yoga from Charan Singh, via his formal representative Mr. H. Weekley, Mr Weekley specifically advised me that the initiation was into the practice of shabda yoga as prescribed in the ‘Sant Mat’ (the path of the saints). He did NOT say that initiation (nor my initiation) was “into the RSSB”. He made it very clear that my initiation was only into the spiritual path and practice of shabda yoga. So yes, I “took initiation”… but NO, I did NOT “therefore joined RSSB”. I did not JOIN anything. I only receeved initiaon in shabda yoga. Shabda Yoga is NOT the RSSB. The RSSB is an actual organization and a colony. Shabda Yoga is simply a type of meditation practice. They are totally different things. So #2. is incorrect.
“3. Therefore C joined a cult (therefore this is equiv to C joined B)”
— NO. Wrong again. As I already explained, I (tAo) did NOT ‘join the RSSB’. I took initiation in Sant Mat Shabda Yoga only. And so therfore, since I did NOT “join the RSSB”… also neither did I “join a cult”. The (false) premise, that supposedly I had “joined the RSSB”, is the critical error here. I DID NOT “join” the RSSB. Initiation is NOT at all a ‘joining of an organization’. Initiation is only concerned with the instruction in the practice of Shabda Yoga, nothing more. So #3. is also incorrect.
“This is OBJECTIVE – hence logic can be used.”
— As I have indicated, the supposed “logic” is totally faulty. It is based upon a false premise, therfore it is faulty and incorrect.
“However, the situation is not
about logic. It is SUBJECTIVE.”
— No, it is not subjective. It is objective. I was not given initiation into the RSSB. I was given initiation in Shabda Yoga. That is what I was told at the time of my initiation. I have already made this clear numerous times.
“Tao is saying that they WAY in which HE
PERSONALLY took the initiation was different – he did not join a cult.”
— No, not exactly. Its not about me personally, its about the difference between Shabda Yoga, and the RSSB organization. They are two very different and separate things. This is an undeniable fact, and it was also one which was made clear to me at the time of my formal initiation in Shabda Yoga by Charan Singh’s direct representative, Mr. Hank Weekley (who btw, was very close to Charan Singh) in St. Petersburg.
“George is arguing logically.”
— No George is not logical, George’s logic is faulty, because George’s premises are fundamentally incorrect.
“Tao is explaining his OWN PERSONAL INTERNAL STATE.”
— No Osho, that is definitely incorrect. This has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with MY own “PERSONAL INTERNAL STATE”. It is all to do with the fact that Sant Mat initiation is initiation in Shabda Yoga, NOT the RSSB organization. Initiation and Shabda Yoga has nothing to do with the RSSB organization, or ‘joining” that organization. I did NOT “join” and organization. I simply took initiation in the spiritiual practice of Shabda Yoga (sant mat). So it is these two, which are “totally different”.
“This is also why George cannot understand Realization. It is SUBJECTIVE and he deals only with the OBJECTIVE.”
— I would probably agree with that. That seems to be the case, and the problem here. No one can understand realization, until realization occurs for them. It is just like you can not ever know what a strawberry tastes like, until you have actually eaten a strawberry.
“George wants PROOF for everything – objective proof. Some things like Realization cannot be objectively proven because they are subjective.”
— Yes, that is more or less correct. Realization is not a matter of something that requires proof to others. It doesn;t matter what anyone else beleives or thinks. Realization is for the Realizer alone. Realization is something known or experienced by the Realizer alone. So it does noot matter what George thinks, or what George believes or doesn’t believe. Its an absolutely ridiculous thing to argue about. George asked for an explanation of what rwalization was, and he was given one as best as can be explained. But he wasn’t ever really interested in understanding what realization is anyway. George was only interested in arguing with, and then laughing at those folks who had sincerely tried to offer the explanation about realization that he had asked for. It would be much like George arguing about or against realization, with Sri Ramana Maharshi. But in that case, it would George who would be the only one doing the arguing. LOL George isn’t interested in understanding realization. He is only interested in the ‘bait and switch’ game.
“The very act of asking for proof is foolish as proof is impossible.”
— Yes, in the case of realization, proof is impossible to see or to know from an outside viewpoint. But its not any outside viewpoints that count anyway.

It does not matter what anyone THINKS about ‘realization’. Or what they think about what other people think.
Realization is not a belief, nor it is a matter of the holding of or subscribing to some belief. It is more like a direct insight.
As such, it (realzation) need not be proven to anyone. It cannot be proven. There is nothing to prove. And there is no one to prove it.
Who is the realizer? Who would be the prover of that realization? And who would it be proven to? Who are you?
That, is the question. Not whether it can be proven or not.
To an outside point of view, realization is never understood, it can not be understood from an objective point of view.
Realization is not an object. It is not an idea or a concept, or holding an idea or concept. It is not a thought or a thinking process. It is not reasoning.
Realization is like a seeing or perceiving or knowing, but without thinking. But in realization there is no seer or perceiver or knower. In realization, the seer and the seen are one, the pereceiver and the perceived are one, the knower and the known are one.
Realization is simply BEING… not thinking or perceiving or knowing.
In realization, there is no thinker or perceiver or knower.
In realization, there is only that which always already is the case… that which always already and only IS. It is neither subjective, nor objective.
That is why realization makes no sense from an objective pint of view, no sense whatsoever until realization actually occurs.
Non-duality can never be understood from the point of view of duality.
There is no ‘one’ who realizes, and there is no ‘thing’ which is realized.
Please note: The above is simply an offering if you will, of an explanation as best and as clearly as words are able to convey (which is poor at best), and not any claim nor any belief nor any kind of position to argue for or against. It is only simply something consider and to contemplate. It is only mere words, and therfore does not equal actual realization in any sense whatsoever. Realization occurs spontaneously and not as a result of any actions or strategies. It can happen in less than an instant, or may take a hundred years. There is no telling or knowing when. Nor is there is any guarantee that it will happen. And if, and when, it ever does happen, it will simply be like silently awakening from a dream. There won’t be any fireworks or heavenly rainbows or the sounding of angel’s trumpets.
There won’t be anything different than what always already IS.

I don’t know how tAo could explain either point in his last two comments above any clearer. I hope this lays certain issues to rest.

Actually, I may be able to add a little bit more:
Another was of putting all this is…
This so-called ‘realization’ is really nothing more than a dropping or falling away of the duality of subjective vs objective.
It is a spontaneous cessation of the dualistic viewpoint which includes both the objective and the subjective.
Realization is neither objective nor subjective. It’s not an subjective experience, nor an objective perception.
Realization is when the sense of subjectivity and the sense of objectivity ceases or vanishes.
It has really nothing to do with having any concepts or beliefs… in fact, its quite the opposite.
It’s the ceasing or the dropping away of all concepts and beliefs, leaving only beingness.
Its not a matter of thinking. It is not a matter of thoughts or ideas at all.
Thoughts and ideas appear and then vanish again. Realization cannot be understood in terms of thoughts or ideas, or words. That is why it is difficult to say anything truly meaningful about it in words.
Realization is not something that an individual achieves. A person does not become “realized”. Realization is not an attainment of something, like a state of mind, or a knowledge about something.
Realization is the opposite. Realization is the loss of duality.
But also, non-duality is not simply “oneness”. That is a common assumption and it is a mistake.
Realization is the loss of all duality, in which non-duality is that which remains.
However, non-duality is not merely a ‘state’ of “oneness”. Non-duality is what remains when all concepts and all dualistic points of view dissolve and vanish.
Nothing changes other than there is no longer any sense of the objective or subjective, or one versus the other.
Non-duality is simply an absence of dualistic concepts. It’s not nothing-ness, nor is it something-ness.
It is simply that which is always already the case. It is not oblivion, nor is it heaven. It is simply that which IS, without any tint of duality.
So realization is said to be like awakening from a dsream, but there is nobody who actually wakes up.
The waking-up is simply the spontaneous falling away of the sense of the duality of subjective versus objective.
There is nobody who ever ‘becomes’ “realized”. In a sense, it’s just the loss of that entire notion.
It not like there is an individual, and then that individual wakes up and becomes “realized”. No. No one beomes realized.
Realization is simply the loss of the sense of duality that there is a someone who is un-realized, who then has or achieves realization, and then beomes realized. Thats not it at all. Not even close.
Realization does not happen to anyone. It is not an attaining or an achieving of anything or any state. It is the opposite.
Realization is the end of all that. It is the total dropping away of all such dualistic notions of ‘un-realized’ versus ‘realized’, or a subjective “me” versus an objective “world”.
And the last thing I think needs to be mentioned here about all this is… that inevitably someone will say:
“Who says that this is the way it is?”
Well, I am only offering the above for consideration and contemplation, and not as something written in stone.
People can think whatever they like, they can agree or disagree. The point is that whatever can be said is only words and ideas, which in terms of realization, is all irrelevant anyway, including what I say.
Wnen realization actually does occur, then thoughts and interpretations and conclusions, and agreeing or disagreeing, and son and so forth… will all end.
I am not asking anyone to believe what I have offered. I am only presenting this as a way of coming to some understanding about it.
Realization is simply whatever it is. And if, and when, realization ever does occurs, then it will become quite clear what that means.
No one has to take my word for it. Go find out for yourself. I don’t care whether anyone believes me. It’s not about believing me or disbelieving me.
This matter of “realization’ is, in a sense, it’s own proof. Becasue there is nobody who can prove it. And anyone who desires proof, simply does not understand it at all.
Realization requires no proof, as there is actually nothing to prove. And when realization finally occurs, proof is irrelevant.
There is nothing to prove, and there no one who is “realized” to be able to prove it.
Realization is neither a subjective experience nor a state of mind, nor something objective that is reached or attained by some individual.
At best it can only be described as like an awakening from a dream… but there is no dreamer nor is there anyone who awakens or who becomes ‘awakened’ or ‘realized’.

That not only laid certain issues to rest. I think it put them sound to sleep. Now what are we going to talk about?

Don’t worry Bro… eventually somebody will come along in their big karma with their frisky pet dogma.
They will park their karma in the comment parking lot, and then their dogma will jump out and it will either wag its tail and bark a bit, or it will piss on the sign at the entrance to the Church, or else sometimes it will take to biting somebody in their philosophical butt.
Then the Reverend Brian will come down from his pulpit and tell the driver of the karma to put their dogma on a leash, or else possibly have their karma towed away (ie deleted).
But, as we all know, by then the dogma will have already pooped all around the Church grounds, to the dismay of the Churchless brethren.
And so it goes…

Tao,
Thanks for the two comments on Realization. I shall copy and read on my pc tonight at home.
The issue of initiation, or non-initiation, RSSB cults, and RSSB membership is not an important topic for me. Hopefully, this debate can end, and other topics can be reviewed.
Again, thanks for the info. As stated before, I am not searching for anything. However, there are times for clarification of what is being discussed.
Roger

I liked tAo’s two comments above about realization and sent them to a friend who replied:
“perhaps you know the Jewish Koan:
‘If there is no self, then whose arthritis pain is this?'”
I provided an answer of sorts, but I’ll save it for some other time.

RSSB does a specific type of Shabd Yoga which is considered inferior by some S.Y. schools. Initiation into RSSB shabd yoga is initiation by a specific guru guardian into his style of S.Y.
Logic is neither subjective or objective- it stands on it’s own.
For instance; a man joins the army; he trains, he holds a gun, he fires. Say he goes into the army either because it’s compulsory or because he wishes to learn discipline. In his heart he doesn’t believe in war only in army-style discipline – but he’s joined the army, he’s part of it.
Another example would be: In an art class, a teacher has a painting of a bicycle and asks the students to copy the painting. The students do so and some of the paintings look very different to the original. Students have brought their subjective interpretation to their paintings, however the bicycles are still bicycles.

I can’t believe this is continuing.
How about someone who wants to learn to swim and gets lessons from someone who belongs to a swim club. Does that make them a member of the club?

“Initiation into RSSB shabd yoga is initiation by a specific guru guardian into his style of S.Y.”
is that right? well then i’ll just have a regular cheese pizza without any of that guru style topping, please.
actually, make mine a ZZ Top, with no RSSB please.

Btw in case anyone is curious, “S.Y.” is one of those secret abbreviations used by mystics which means Sanctimonious Yodeling.

Tucson, there’s more. Initiation would be the swimming club membership, otherwise no swimming lessons. Now, I rest my case.
I am still considering what tAo means by Realisation. If Realisation is the awakening to non-duality or the spontaneous cessation of duality, then is it possible or necessary to consciously and successfully work at building up to a state where such spontaneity best occurs through, say, specific meditation, study, discussion? But then what exactly is meant by non-duality? It is such an abstract concept. When we’re familiar with these terms, we take for granted that non-duality can be experienced.

tucson stated to catherine:
“How about someone who wants to learn to swim and gets lessons from someone who belongs to a swim club. Does that make them a member of the club?”
catherine responded:
“Initiation would be the swimming club membership, otherwise no swimming lessons.”
no, its plain to see that catherine is wrong. just because someone got swim lessons from another person, it does not make the person getting the lessons a member of any swim club. because the person who got the lessons, only got them from “someone” else who simply happened to also belong to a swim club.
the person who got the lessons did not get the lessons from a “swim club”, but only from another person who also just happened to belong to a swim club.
the one giving the lessons is the one who happens to belong to the swim club, not the one who simply received some private lessons. nothing was said about a person getting lessons from any swim club, but only received lessons from someone else who just happened to be a member of some swim club.
so just because the person who gave the lessons happened to also belong to a swim club, does not mean that the person that received the lessons, must also now belong to the same swim club.
in tucson’s story, the person giving the lessons is the only one who has the swim club membership, and it was not indicated that the person was give lesson for the swim club. so just because the swimming instructor also happened to belong to some swim club, that does not automatically mean that the person who was receiving the lessons, also must now belong to that same swim club.
in tucson’s example, nothing was said about the student getting lessons from any swim club, but only lessons from someone who also just happened to belong to a swim club themselves.
nothing was said about the swim instructor representing any swim club, or that the they were giving lessons for the swim club.
the idea that was conveyed was simply that the person getting the lessons was getting some private lessons, not lessons that were from, or under the auspices of, the swim club. so therfore it does not make the person receiving some private swim lessons, automatically a member of some swim club.
this is an example of how some people try to blur the lines and ignore or change the facts, just to suit their own personal agendas.

Ah zz, all I can say is zzzzzz! In RSSB Sant Mat a person does have to belong to the ‘swim club’ through initiation. That’s the point. Now I not only rest my case but put it completely to zzzzz sleep.
I go along with George’s 18 September entries (barring the equation with realised being perfect part).

“In RSSB Sant Mat a person does have to belong […] through initiation. That’s the point.”
— That may be YOUR point, but that doesn’t mean that it’s valid. Initiation does NOT make the one who receives the initiation “have to belong” to anything. There was, and there is no “HAVE to belong” to the RSSB, no matter how you cut it.
Initiation is not into the RSSB. Initiation is for a path of spiritual meditation, not an organization.
Belonging to anything (whether it be RSSB or anything else) is an entirely VOLUNTARY affair. Also, the RSSB does not force people to “belong” to the RSSB.
So there is obviously a very serious flaw in your thinking. It’s akin to a type of dictatorial fundamentalism. It denies that people have any freedom of choice. Its pretty sick imo.
“I go along with George’s 18 September entries”
George is not an initiate, so in regards to the initiation into sant mat meditation or the RSSB, whatever he may think is totally irrelevant.
It’s no wonder you are not awake.

catherine email me at manishfantastic(at)gmail.com

Last three lines from awake zz: The producer is not part of a documentary usually, but has a clear, unique perspective.

first, Catherine was the one who said that she had “rested” her case, and had also put her case “completely to zzzzz sleep”.
second, George is not a producer of any documentary about initiation or the RSSB.
third, George also has had no experience with initiation, and no first-hand knowledge about the RSSB organization. thus George is completely unqualified, and he has NO such “clear, unique perspective” at all compared to someone who HAS initiation and who HAS first-hand knowledge regarding the RSSB organization.

The analogy, as well as you and tAo imply through your previous posts that initiation into and first hand knowledge of the RSSB org are not pre-requisites for clarity, realisation(s), insights, vision, wisdom and so on. An outsider can have a very good insight into a tribe for instance.
This talk about realised persons… My impression is that anyone can have realisations, but that there are absolutely no realised people. I understand how realised can be interpreted as perfect because a constantly realised person who acts constantly on such permanent realisation could be considered to have perfect knowledge caused by the realisation. With perfect knowledge and realisation, the body and environment for example, could be mainpulated at will- to perfection as such.
The realised ( possibly also called enlightened) person is something we may hope, strive for or hope, strive to be. In this context, it implies a perfect living master (constantly realised) is possible.
I have no such hopes. In my opinion all people whether they’ve meditated, tried, not tried etc have realisations and we all project in our refined or unrefined selves- a vast mixture of variations. This approach should help us to accept one another but our survival skills based on insecurity automatically place us in a position where we think we’ll best survive.

Catherine wrote: “there are absolutely no realised people.”
–This is an important point, I think. For all practical purposes no one has ever been realized because ordinarily it is impossible know the actual state of anothers perception. Someone can say Joe Blow is realized, or Mrs. Blow can say she is realized, but so what? How is the actuality of that determined? Do they say wise things and are patient with fools and idiots? They sit surrounded by flowers and adoring throngs of devotees? That proves they are realized? WTF is realization? Really. WHAT is it?
Catherine wrote: “I understand how realised can be interpreted as perfect because a constantly realised person who acts constantly on such permanent realisation could be considered to have perfect knowledge caused by the realisation. With perfect knowledge and realisation, the body and environment for example, could be mainpulated at will- to perfection as such.”
–With all due respect, this statement is based on so many assumptions. How do we know that any of that applies to whatever realization is? That is just our concept of realization. We figure realization must be a big deal that confers all these powers and such. We think it is some sort of thing that happens to someone without actually having the slightest idea of what it really is, if anything at all!
I have this book sitting on the shelf called “Awakening TO the Dream” by Leo Hartong. I am not telling anyone to read it or not. I don’t remember it very well because I read it years ago. I thought it was good at the time.
Anyway, the title reminds me of waking up IN a dream. Maybe that is all realization is. You just wake up and the show goes on. Rather than being caught up in it you observe it from a point that can’t be found.

zz top,
Catherine can see nonsense spin from a mile away, its as simple as that.
You just don’t get it, because your ego is too big. You will never be REALIZED for precisely this reason, rather DELUDED.

George,
first, you are the one who with the “nonsense spin”. an you are the one who doesn’t “get it” imo.
second, contrary to your implication, I have never claimed to be “REALIZED” or said that I am seeking relization. in fact, I don’t even believe in realization at all. realization is complete a myth imo.
so it would be more respectful of other people if you would try to refrain from your often attempted distortions of what other people do say, and, your manufacturing false implications about what other people believe or do not believe.

Catherine,
“you and tAo imply through your previous posts that initiation into and first hand knowledge of the RSSB org”
— Again, just to make my own position clear, I have not ever said that ‘initiation’ was “into” “the RSSB org”. This may be YOUR contention, but it is not mine. If you were possibly referring to me in this instance, then I would have say please stop trying to put your words into my mouth. It may be YOUR belief that initiation is “into” the RSSB organization. But I do not hold that view at all. For myself, I do not regard spiritual initiation as being INTO an organization in any way whatsoever.
“An outsider can have a very good insight into a tribe for instance.”
— Perhaps… but as far as this issue goes, I did not join, or belong to, or get initiated into, any “tribe”
“My impression is that […] that there are absolutely no realised people.”
— I agree. Realization is a myth imo, and so I don’t believe in “realised” people.
“realised can be interpreted as perfect because a constantly realised person who acts constantly on such permanent realisation could be considered to have perfect knowledge caused by the realisation.”
— There are several assumptions in this that I do not reagrd as valid. I don’t believe in “perfect”. I don’t believe in the notion of a “realised person”. I don’t believe in the notion of “permanent realisation”. And I don’t believe in the notion of “perfect knowledge”. Maybe you do, but I don’t regard any of those as being real. Those are all conceptual myths imo.
“With perfect knowledge and realisation, the body and environment for example, could be mainpulated at will- to perfection as such.”
— I don’t believe in any “perfect knowledge and realisation”, and I also don’t believe that “the body and environment for example, could be mainpulated at will”… other than by the normal physical and material means.
“The realised ( possibly also called enlightened) person is something we may hope, strive for or hope, strive to be.”
— I ppersonallly do not believe in “realised person” or in “enlightened person”. “Enlightenment” is a complete myth imo.
“a perfect living master (constantly realised) is possible.”
— I do not believe in the existence of “perfect living master”s, nor in anything such as “constantly realised”. I do not regard any human being as having any ‘constant’ attibute.
“our survival skills […] place us in a position where we think we’ll best survive.’
— That’s a reasonable assumption.

Osho, I can’t agree less with you.
The Master may know all about it (been there, done that) but seeing the produce, it is very clear that what needs to be attained is repeatedly taught but the self-realisation that one needs to achieve to attain what is being taught – is not being pushed. If my actions (karmas) are limited & stuck in this material world, how much ever I may try, I will not reach the other side.
Constant (successful) meditation will help in mind control which in turn helps in self-realisation. Once I attain self-realisation I easily become an observer to the countless stimuli created by this world thus not being affected to respond in a likely (worldly) manner.
With so less time with each one of us, it becomes more important to spend more time on Simran and less on Seva. As long as each one of us is going on with our worldly responsibilities and duties, we are doing our bit of seva. Once one achieves the self-realisation our Seva priorities will automatically change for the bettterment of human life.
tucson – Sorry to have responded so late. I’ll surely share my questions (and answers) when I find all the answers to my questions. I am yet digging (positively) daily.
P.S – There is another ‘Naresh-D’ here. I humbly request we all use proper un-identical names on Forums. This will help the non-administrators know who-is-who.
Naresh.

Tao,
(1) “Again, just to make my own position clear, I have not ever said that ‘initiation’ was “into” “the RSSB org”.
— That is totally false and contraictory to what you have said before (see quote below), where you have made it unwaveringly clear (sic) that you were intitiated into both shadbd yoga AND Radha Soami Sant Mat.
(2) “Let me be very pointed and very clear about this: There is one thing …that I have never ever wavered on … And that is the simple fact of my own formal initiation into shadd yoga and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (the Radha Soami Mat) by the previous RS master Huzur Charan Singh.”
— Lies to suit the particular argument being had with the person at that time to make out that the other person knows nothing. Well thats the thing about lies and spin, they catch up eventually.