The absurdity of believing there is Sach Khand (heaven)

Hi, Your video spoils what you have said, in my opinion. It would have been better to have left it out.
” Gone, gone, gone altogether beyond, oh what an awakening!” “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.”
Nothing arises by its own side or “self”. Everything has dependent origination and cannot arise independently. All matter and probably antimatter too depends on various aggregates to become or to manifest or not. These aggregates when broken down further become quantum particles. Therefore nothing can in reality exist by its own self, so is therefore nothing but an illusion. This does not mean that objects do not exist though, but without a subject, do they? Without an object can a subject arise? Once again is it not a matter of non reality and illusion?
For that which does not arise independently has an illusion of being real, but cannot be because its arising is totally dependent upon many factors, which without them, could not arise. So therefore nothing exists by its own self or side. So it stands to reason too, in the unseen world, the unmanifest, the uncreate formlessness, the same principles occur. If this is the case then there cannot possibly be a self.
Therefore logically there is nothing that exists on its own. If nothing can’t exist on its own, then there just has to be NO THING!
In regards to karma, every action does have a reaction. Surely this is the true meaning of karma? I don’t know. But I do know, no God created the man made religions on the planet! Perhaps it all started with a benign dictator mind controlling the masses and it all went haywire as we humans bred and bred and bred!
I also know, that nobody knows what happens to awareness when we die. NOBODY AT ALL. And anyway, who cares. We can’t do anything about it. I am not sure if meditation and Buddhist or Sant Mat practices of conscious dying actually work when the time comes or whether it will just be a falling into oblivion as when an anesthetic is administered. One thing for sure is, I will find out!
However, as we progress more and more into understanding the science of quantum physics and quantum mechanics, all religions will fall by the wayside, when the artificial intelligence deletes its computer game and ceases to be! ( For the time being) There is a season for everything and it does appear NOTHING is cyclic.

These are concepts of divine energy/atomic energy which atheists want people should consider as Sachkhand. These atheists are very cunning people, they have zero contribution in modern inventions of Physics. On top of that they be fool innocent people by twisting concepts of atomic energy to Sach khand. Their days are numbered, good riddance. When I ask these atheists why energy in atom is not exhausting since zillions of years they become rabid atheists.

Vinny, you write in riddles. What exactly are you trying to say?
In normal English please.
Which atheist wants you to consider that a concept of atomic energy is sach kkand?
How are atheists cunning?
When did an atheist claim to be a physicist?
Why would you ask an atheist about the energy of an atom exhausting?
You need to ask a scientist, not an atheist. An atheist is only refuting the claim of a theist that there is a God.
That is the topic you can discuss with an atheist.

@ Vinny – some of the greatest scientists have been atheists. Don’t get your point about athiests not contributing anything to modern physics.

@ Osho Robbins – hello brother – trust you are well?
May I ask as to what made you leave the path?
Ps I’m on the fence at this moment in my
Life.

When I ask these cunning atheists why energy in atom is not exhausting since zillions of years these cunning atheists say I should ask these questions to Physicist while these cunning atheists keep citing from scientific texts to support their trash atheism

@Vinny
“When I ask these cunning atheists why energy in atom is not exhausting since zillions of years these cunning atheists say I should ask these questions to Physicist while these cunning atheists keep citing from scientific texts to support their trash atheism”
What are you talking about?
If you really want the answer: a 30 sec google search reveals the answer.
In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, it is said to be conserved over time. This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.
So there you have it: your answer. It has nothing to do with God or Shabd or anything else.
and by the way, what are YOU contributing to modern science?
and why is it important for you that a person contributes?
A politician contributes nothing to modern science, so do you have a problem with him too?
Your logic has a lot to be desired, I am afraid.
If you have a real point to make, please make it clearly, instead of referring to atoms or energy

@Arjuna
You are asking the wrong person, as I have never left.
It all depends on which path you are referring to.
The current head of RSSB does not follow the traditional sant mat teachings
as shown many times.
He has said many times: No master will come at death;
There are no regions; they are not literal; just a device to explain.
The path is about REALIZATION, not about getting anywhere as there is nowhere to get, hence why he says he is not coming at death.
Yet most followers are not on the same page as their current master is.
So there is a huge amount of confusion. The disciples are on a different path.
So when you go to satsang on sunday and some speaker is giving a talk – they are giving you THEIR version, which is full of the concepts they adhere to.
There are as many paths as there are followers. Each has their own little take on the meaning of the path.
It’s more like “do you own thing – create and follow your own path”
because nobody is going to correct you.
If you believe the master comes at death – you will continue to believe that
and you will justify the gurus statements to the contrary in your own way. You will have your own explanation.

The cunning atheist says total energy is constant, constant is not unlimited, constant energy will exhaust in few hundred years but the energy in atom has not exhausted since zillions of years. Look audience, now a Non Christian atheist will become rabid atheist after I busted his argument.
This cunning Non Christian atheist should look at the video below, the title says ” Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs are all bastards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jtRDQDCOPY

@Vinny:
you write: “constant is not unlimited, constant energy will exhaust in few hundred years”
No it will not. Which version of reality do you live in?
I repeat the statement below:
In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, it is said to be conserved over time. This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.
do you see the “conserved over time” statement? It does not say (as you do) that it will disappear over a few hundred years.
Where do you get your statements from? Can you show me a definition of “constant” that says “constant means it will exhaust over a few hundred years unless it is also unlimited”
What you have just done above, is exactly what followers of RSSB do with what they hear. They hear something then interpret it and come out with a completely different statement, and they think they have it all figured out.
You think that this one statement you keep on making somehow shows you are right and everyone else is wrong.
You have not yet even shared why it’s important in your version of reality that the energy of an atom gets exhausted over time unless…….
and then you have your answer as to why it really doesn;t get exhausted.
I am afraid that is flawed logic. seriously flawed

@Fairy
I couldn’t do that because I created the video first then wrote the narrative.
The video is a comical and absurd look at the idea that we go to Sach Khand after death, and a scenario of what might happen once we get there. I purposely depicted Anami as a personality that swears a lot. I guess most people will say He has good manners and is holy and doesn’t swear.
The real point I am making is that there cannot be a Anami purush at all. Which means we don’t meet anyone and the whole notion of a Sach Khand and a ruler of the region is absurd.
These are all concepts that were created as a work of fiction, not literal.

To describe Sant Mat or any faith or spiritual practice from the outside, as an Anti-theist, can’t be done objectively. The Anti-theist may see several aspects of faith which the believer cannot see from their position, steeped in the experience of their belief, blinded by that experience. Yet, there are truths of that experience which can only be understood within that faith by those who have experienced those things, and who actively have that experience.
Whenever anyone criticises those who hold other views, they actually describe the holes in their own.
In this way the Anti-theist demonstrates that their position of being against has no positive foundation or benefit.
Having no wealth they accuse the world of being in poverty. That is a truthful expression of their own experience. But it is limited to themselves.
The whole world may be fools, but it is more likely that the foolishness resides within ourselves. But God is there too, within.
So the anti – theist may shout that the believer lives in poverty, as the believer walks hand in hand with God upon a beautiful tapistry to the bank to make their daily deposits.

@ Osho – hello!
I don’t go to satsang! But thanks for your explanation – however you are an ex preacher of RSSB so what do you advocate now and yes I know what the current master says in that he ain’t coming at death etc etc etc.
I’m asking you questions if you haven’t left what did you believe in before and what are your beliefs now??? I liked your video but that’s just a projection of Your mind – and I don’t know what lies beyond this. Before you ask me!

0 * 1. =. 0, ( not 1 )
repeat
Zero for ONE time stays Zero
or
I give a party
Nobody comes
Still empty
btw
I do nothing for ONE TIME
or
My party did ONE TIME. not happen
or
I did NOT a Big Bang
and
Ridiculous
That atheist are not deeply ashamed with their no-grade Math of 1Q 13
777
So there must have been a trigger
Please stop thinking – ten seconds already does it
which throws the moron OUT
and U see answers, you might call it SK or anything else
It’s LOVE
and it cannot come without some compassion
777
PS
Go out off the box

@ Osho – yes I get the path is about Realisation.
What do you expect to realise???

@ Osho – your physics explanation is poor – shows a layman.
Energy going into a black hole- the black hole evaporated taking all that energy and information some where.
Explain that – energy does not convert into something else – all the time.
The greatest scientific minds are struggling with black holes – where Einstein’s laws cease to apply. So please as you state so eloquently that followers have their own version of what the master says – you and many others do the same with science. Fact is no one knows. Sorry but that is you to realise on your own.
No one knows 🤘🏽

Hi Osho
Your remarks to Vinny about energy jump to conclusions that are false.
While energy, or information, can be transformed and not destroyed, you ignore the fact of entropy and dissipation.
If the potential energy of a single electron is constantly being burned in light, heat and movement, why don’t electrons wear out?
Of course chemistry has a partial answer in that the state of that electron changes as part of chemical interactions.
But this doesn’t address Vinny ‘s point. The electron may change states, but why don’t they ever wear out? Where do they get their energy from?
The answer is that we don’t have all the answers.
Osho and Brian, let me humbly suggest that moving from the dogma of religion to the dogma of anti-theism is only a small change in consciousness and not the answer to any of the significant questions about life.

This cunning crooked atheist tells me constant energy is infinite. If say constant in any system is 100 units it will remain 100 units, this crooked atheist is telling a person who has dedicated his life to Energy Physics. Constant will remain constant if energy is not used. If energy is used for any activity even for the movement of electrons in atom it will exhaust in few days, forget few years or zillions of years. This crooked man should again watch the video titled ” Hindus, Moslems and Sikhs are all bastards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jtRDQDCOPY
My personal experience with these three breeds is the same, they behave like bastards when anyone logically busts their argument

This crooked atheist osho robbins doesn’t know there are some Churches in America and Britain who don’t take any energy from government energy grid or Solar cell or Wind energy. Still they run on electricity transformed from unlimited Divine Energy. This crooked Non Christian atheist osho robbins doesn’t know Jesus has already manifested himself by giving the secrets of unlimited Divine Energy to the believers of Jesus. As Jesus promised he has already manifested in Second Coming of Christ by revealing the secrets of infinite energy in the hearts of believers.
This crooked man should again watch the video titled ” Hindus,Moslems and Sikhs are all bastards” and weep after that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jtRDQDCOPY

@Vinny / Arjuna / Spence
I am not a physicist, and I don’t claim to be one. I know nothing more than a layman. I just did a 30 second google search and wrote the answer it gave addressing ONE specific point that vinny raised.
Vinny has some very strange ideas considering he claims to be some kind of expert.
For one – atoms are a MODEL – not an actual fact. There is no such thing as an ATOM or an electron or a neutron. They are not actual things. It is just a theory to explain the phenomena we observe. As long as the theory enables us to understand matter better, we use it. Later theories were the wave theory of matter – stating that matter behaves like waves. And they both are useful theories.
I found this on a google search:
“Do matter and energy behave as particles or as waves? A curious irregularity exists in Physics, one which has confounded even the greatest minds and to this day seems a most bizarre paradox. The debate as to whether matter and energy behave as particles or as waves has a long and often quarrelsome history”
read it all here http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~zcape84/pdf/500essay.pdf
I am no expert – and don’t claim to be – so it doesn’t matter what I say – I am a novice in this field.
So, Arjuna, yes – I am creating concepts that are meaningless and wrong – but I am aware of this – and I openly state I am no expert in this field. I am just saying that Vinny’s argument has major flaws in it because he appears to think the electron requires energy to move around. But there is no friction and it’s not accelerating – so no energy is required. See below.
Again I am no expert – but a quick google search gives an answer
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18473/where-do-electrons-get-their-ever-lasting-circulating-energy
So Spence and Vinny:
this is what it says
There is a basic misunderstanding of elementary classical physics in your question.
The first law of Newtonian mechanics says”
The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.
So there is no need to spend energy to keep on moving, unless external forces are acting on the body.
Electrons around a nucleus are not a classical problem, but conservation of energy holds also in the quantum states.

@Vinny:
you wrote:
This cunning crooked atheist tells me constant energy is infinite. If say constant in any system is 100 units it will remain 100 units, this crooked atheist is telling a person who has dedicated his life to Energy Physics. Constant will remain constant if energy is not used. If energy is used for any activity even for the movement of electrons in atom it will exhaust in few days, forget few years or zillions of years
Firstly I don’t get why you need to keep using the phrase “This cunning crooked Athiest” – it’s pointless.
Secondly for an expert who has devoted his life to energy physics, you seem to miss a really basic point, which has been addressed in this article I quoted above: that is that it does NOT require any energy because (1) there is no friction (2) it’s not accelerating. So no friction means that no energy is required to KEEP it in motion.
So that’s the answer you say nobody has ever been able to give you. You have your answer and it’s right there on google. So now what? Whats was your point in saying that nobody can answer the question?

The lure of “oneness” is yet another ruse of religion. We are exhorted to “become one” while simultaneously being told that we are already one and always have been.
I remember having discussion with a Franiciscan monk who, in the midst of our discussion, realized that “being one with God” wouldn’t evaporate suffering and evil because, as he said, everyone already is one with God.
The following is an excerpt of a book review that I wrote that deals with the subject of the “oneness” experience and the necessity of separation:
The author describes the mystical experiences of two individuals- one’s experience gave him the impression that “[his] consciousness was all consciousness, universal consciousness” and the other had the feeling of being “everywhere and everything, indivisible and beyond measure.”
While I don’t doubt that each had these impressions during their respective experiences, I would contend that they quite obviously didn’t actually become everything. For instance, experiencing “all consciousness” would entail simultaneously experiencing the private flow-of-events of all 7 billion human beings on earth, not to mention all other sentient creatures.
In addition, actually becoming all other beings would seemingly entail a collapse of all of the private flow-of-events being experienced at that moment by all beings into one singular experience. In other words, if he actually became all other beings in that moment, then it would necessarily follow that all other beings also became him. Thus, all of the beings in existence would be having the same identical experience in that moment.
But we obviously know that this didn’t happen, as this mystical experience, like all experiences, was individuated and discreet, happening to only one person. It was experienced by one particular individual, at one particular time and place. And that is the irony: experiences in which all individuality and separateness seem to dissolve away still occur as private (i.e., separate) experiences occurring to distinct individuals. The experience of seemingly becoming everything is still an entirely private experience, and can’t be anything other than this.
The author repeats the tired, cliché exhortation that we must let go of our “separateness”. I presume he means the notion of our total separateness, as it should be clear that some degree of separateness is needed for consciousness (and therefore, experience) to arise at all.
He supplies a quote from the neuroscientists Gerald M. Edelman and Guilio Tononi that deftly illustrates this point: “We emphatically do not identify consciousness in its full range as arising solely in the brain, since we believe that higher brain functions require interactions both with the world and with other persons”. As indicated, the arising of the full range of consciousness is dependent upon interactions.
Some manner of separateness is exactly what allows for consciousness (and therefore, experience) to arise at all. Everyone clamors for “oneness”, ostensibly not realizing that an actual oneness would involve the total obliteration of consciousness/experience. Non-separation is unconsciousness, non-experience, and nonexistence. This is why God, as an infinite yet conscious and experiencing being, is an abject impossibility. That which is indivisibly one with everything, would be entirely devoid of consciousness and experience. The author is convicted that humanity is immersed in the “illusion of separateness”, but as indicated, separateness is required for the experience of anything. Referring to separateness as an “illusion” is, in my estimation, as profitable as saying that the world is an illusion, and equally as misguided and untrue.

@Spence
you wrote

Osho and Brian, let me humbly suggest that moving from the dogma of religion to the dogma of anti-theism is only a small change in consciousness and not the answer to any of the significant questions about life.

You specifically use the term anti-theism, rather than atheism. Have to confirmed that Brian and I are actually taking the position of an anti-theist? Certainly I don’t take that position.
Atheism is not a dogma and also does not claim to give any answers

@ Osho – fair play .
Please ask the master when you next speak to him – did Kal visit beas in human form during great masters time – asking to see him???😀
That should put an end to most of the debate on here .
All the very best

This cunning and crooked atheist osho robbins, wants to learn the atomic Physics from google, after that this cunning and crooked man will say he exploded atomic bomb by google doodle and it destroyed the cunning breeds mentioned in the video title. “Hindus,Muslims and Sikhs are all bastards” This crooked man doesn’t know even ABCs of Quantum Friction. Now this crooked man Osho Robbins will again google the term Quantum Friction and vomit something on this blog.
This crooked man should watch the video titled “Hindus,Muslims and Sikhs are all bastards”
and weep after that. I told you audience people from these three breeds act and behave like bastards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jtRDQDCOPY

The photo of the train to sachkhand reminds me of that great Love And Rockets song Kundalini Express
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gjBJCbH0zbw

This cunning crooked man osho robbins, his cunningness prompts him to do google search like every tom dick and harry does. But this crooked osho robbins had no idea about quantum friction. he should again watch the video titled ” Hindus,Moslems and Sikhs are all bastards” and weep after that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jtRDQDCOPY
I bet this crooked man osho robbins will not be able to understand the unlimited Divine Energy of Jesus, how some Churches in America and England convert that divine energy into electricity even in next 1000 years. Now look at the idiotic behavior of this man, he does some google search and starts jumping like monkey after getting half baked answers. He should again watch the video Hindus,Moslems and Sikhs are all bastards” and weep after that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jtRDQDCOPY

I told you audience about the video titled “Hindus,Moslems and Sikhs are all bastards” Look at the behavior of this idiotic man osho robbins, he started jumping like monkey at me after some google search. This monkey osho robbins stopped jumping after I introduced the term quantum friction. Now he will again do google search and jump like monkey again. This half baked man osho robbins wants to teach me Physics through google search. This monkey osho robbins doesn’t know even google was founded by a Christian not by anyone from his breed

Crooked osho robbins why you are not jumping like monkey again? I bet you will again jump like monkey after your google search. Mentally unstable crooked man osho robbins he wants teach me Physics through google search. You need serious introspection you behave like idiotic moron like the people from three cunning breeds ” Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs” do.

Why this monkey osho robbins has become dumb now??? Is he doing a google search again??? He is behaving like a typical Hindu /Moslem /Sikh bastards do. Jump like monkeys after reading the leftovers knowledge of Christian Innovators. He hasn’t done anything to prove he is different from the breed of Hindu/Moslem/Sikh bastards

@ Vinny – steady on dude !!! No need for abuse on here!!!!

Hi Osho
You quoted from classical physics but wrongly applied that
“The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.”
Electrons are accelerating in an arc, not moving at a constant velocity.

This monkey osho robbins had the audacity to utter nonsense in bashing Sachkhand/ Divine Energy. Now this idiotic monkey osho robbins has become dumb after I busted his argument. I warn this monkey not to go the blasphemy way. He doesn’t even know what nonsense he talks about. He is half baked idiot who wants to become Physicist by google search. Now suddenly his love for Physics has arisen. Was this idiot osho robbins sleeping before posting blasphemous content without having expertise in Physics? Such idiots are commonplace now

Hi Osho
Anti-theism is negative views of beliefs about God.
That’s what this post is all about.
Whether you are or are not an Atheist is entirely a separate and unrelated issue.
Here, in your criticism, you and Brian have taken the position of anti – theists.

This idiot monkey osho robbins has no idea about something called angular acceleration. Now he will do google search and again jump like monkey. This idiot has audacity to talk about Sachkhand/Divine Energy when doesn’t even know the basics of Physics

@ Spencer – hope you are well brother!
These athiests are getting on my nerves now ha. Prove God doesn’t exist and I will become one of you! Let’s see science work that magic – like the gravitational waves which turned out to be spuds 🥔 baked and served with beans and a bit of Indian ghee with masala😀
Sorry just adding some mindless humour! Stay well bro

I guess the author of this piece doesn’t really understand non-duality or formlessness, since there are levels of non-duality, one of which is non-separation from the formless spirit that is the essence of everything.

Hi Joe
You wrote
“I guess the author of this piece doesn’t really understand non-duality or formlessness, since there are levels of non-duality, one of which is non-separation from the formless spirit that is the essence of everything.”
Yes. Different understanding from different levels of understanding.
Anyone can see that we are all part of the same creation. We are all made of atoms, we are all present at the same time. Here in earth we all share this fragile planet, and among all sentient beings, this fragile creation ; we are all products of our culture and genetics, etc…. To seek that singular experience is a wonderful and uniquely human capacity.
In Oneness there is no conflict. Only harmony. From the concept leads to the practice. From the practice comes the reward of the experience : peace that transcends understanding.

Religiously-minded commenters should do some Googling before blathering on about atoms losing energy, and implying that something divine keeps them in motion.
Here’s some links to educate these people. Basically the message is…
Energy is conserved. It can’t be gained or lost. The universe started off with all the energy it would ever have in the Big Bang. Since, that energy keeps things in motion. This motion is guided by the laws of quantum physics.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/perpetualmotion.html
https://education.jlab.org/qa/atomicstructure_08.html
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1195

@Vinny
Not sure what is wrong with you but you are actually living proof of the damage religious beliefs can do.
Anyone can see from your rantings that you are mentally unstable in that you cannot have a reasonable debate.
you wrote:

This monkey osho robbins had the audacity to utter nonsense in bashing Sachkhand/ Divine Energy. Now this idiotic monkey osho robbins has become dumb after I busted his argument.

First of all there is no need for calling me a monkey. Is that what your religion / faith teaches you?
And for your information I have not bashed Sach Khand or divine energy – except in your mind.
I merely showed the absurdity of holding a belief in a literal Sach Khand. That’s all, and its not offensive to anyone except you. If you are offended, I apologise as that was not my intention.
Please explain exactly which argument of mine you “busted”.

I warn this monkey not to go the blasphemy way. He doesn’t even know what nonsense he talks about. He is half baked idiot who wants to become Physicist by google search. Now suddenly his love for Physics has arisen.

Wow really? You warn me? Far out!
And please explain what is the so called “blasphemy” charge against me and will I get crucified for it? Like Jesus?
Where do you get the idea that I want to be a physicist? I specifically pointed out that I am NOT a physicist, or an expert in quantum physics and I explained I did a simple google search which actually answered your question.
You have not addressed this at all. Very strange for an expert physicist, yet to claim to have “won” some argument and “bashed” my position.
Please explain calmly without pointless name-calling. If you notice I have not called you any names. Please extend me the same courtesy if you want to have a debate, and please address the points instead of name calling.

Was this idiot osho robbins sleeping before posting blasphemous content without having expertise in Physics? Such idiots are commonplace now

Was I sleeping? No. And why do I need expertise in Physics? What has physics got to do with my posting? Please explain.
And I don’t see anything ‘blasphemous’ in what I posted. I merely pointed out the absurdity or holding certain beliefs.
In response – You started ranting on, but you have not addressed any of the points raised
Please address the points I have raised if you can do so without using abusive language or losing your balance.
Otherwise, it might be better to leave this matter here unless you can have a civilized discussion.

@spence
“Here, in your criticism, you have taken the position of anti – theists.”
I have deleted Brian as you can address that to him.
I have not taken that position at all. I am merely exploring the notion of an actual ‘personal’ God. I am exploring the absurdity of it. That is all. The video simply explores what a believer might think or imagine happens. I am merely asking, does this seem reasonable? and if not, then what do you think will happen when you get to Sach Khand?
I am merely playing around with those ideas. I have not taken a position on anything here. Merely exploring the absurdity of it. So no, I am not an Anti-theist.

Universe started with energy of big bang, but that energy has been getting utilized in so many activities that are done through energy like formation of stars, galaxies, planets etc
To think that big bang means unlimited energy only a monkey like osho robbins or his friends would believe that blatant lie. Big bang doesn’t mean unlimited energy you idiot, wake up, don’t do blasphemy, you will not be spared

@ Brian – athiests should also question their Sciences Gods – they are flawed just as you and I are!
I didn’t say atoms losing energy -I just said I want you or any scientist to tell me what happens when matter goes into a black hole and all Einstein’s laws mean zilch ! Yep that’s correct zilch!
Keep it real bro😀

@Arjuna
Let me address the several points you have raised.
Firstly I am not a follower of RSSB. I used to be a speaker at one time. I also used to believe in the teachings in my early years, I was actively trying to get to Sach Khand as I thought it was a place (a spiritual place not a physical place – but a place nevertheless).
I also had ideas about meeting the radiant form of the master and then going with him (in my soul-body) to the higher regions until he finally presents me to Sat Purush.
Now I can see these are all concepts. But understand that back in the 80’s nobody used words like “these are concepts and not literal”
It is only GSD who made this clear. Back then, just about everyone was actively trying to get to Sach Khand.
The satsangs also described how your will leave your body and arrive in the first region, where you will meet the radiant form of the master.
There was no question of the master not coming at death.
Rather the total opposite.
Sawan Singh was even famous for saying “I will just wave from a distance to the guru who is not coming at my death”
So the teachings have gone through a clear change.
For some strange reason, believers seem to think I am against the RSSB teachings or against RSSB when I am simply pointing out the obvious.
I am not against either.
Just as in this article I am not against anything.
Vinny is acting like I have attacked him personally.
I have merely shared some ideas. I don’t understand why anyone would go mental over this? and call me a blasphemer.
I actually still go to RSSB satsangs when I want to, I enjoy conversing with GSD on the mic. I find it interesting that he makes such clear statements and the
disciples don’t get it.
I am not against him. There are obviously some difficult times ahead with possible financial dealings. But I take him as a human being, and these things happen. People fall out. Happens with all humans.
I think he is doing his best. I do have admiration for him for making a stand against the old teachings and introducing the new. It’s risky. It’s easier to carry on as before.
Some people are actively against him, but I see a man doing his best. He teaches people to do the best they can.

@ Osho – hello
That’s a good response and I do like your mindset.
We all use our own mind and concepts to think what happens after death but I don’t harbour any thoughts that master will come.
I just hope Kal doesn’t come ha.

@ Osho – I agree – no one should be attacked by anyone on here .
Christians are not gods who came up with physics – even Guru Nanak stated that there are planets beyond planets etc. Before the western scientists and remind me ?? Did not the crusaders try and destroy algebra and advanced maths in the crusades against Moslems.

Let this be very clear I am a believer in God and his Saints of every religion. I have no special affinity with RSSB. There was a time when I used to go to RSSB satsangs but the people there were behaving like idiots. They had no empathy for poor people and were not showing even a single sign of believer in their behavior or manners. I think they were not even vegetarians but they were pretending to be vegetarians. Then I started studying religious texts of Swamiji Mahraj, Jesus, Christian saints and due to my intense love for Physics I was living like a monk in a seminary by doing vigorous research in Physics and love for God in my heart. Then the secrets of advanced Physics became obvious after years of studying things and living life as believer. My conclusion after observing the world after living ascetic life is that three breeds have become very cunning hindus/moslems/sikhs. There are internal contradictions in their beliefs and actions, they are bastards. These cunning breeds will never be able to understand the secrets of divine energy. They will remain slaves of Christian dominance in world. Their fate is sealed. They don’t have the intellect to understand those secrets even in next 1000 years. As a believer in Christ, I will not reveal any secret to people from three breeds hindus/moslems and sikhs. They will remain as slaves of Christ conscious people, that fate is sealed by Second Coming of Jesus. Hazur Baba Sawan Singh also told Ishwar Puri that America will become axis of spirituality and that is manifesting with every passing day

These cunning breeds of hindus/moslems and sikhs think that by making few missiles they have become equal to Christians. They are living in fool’s paradise. Advanced weapons of Christian Innovators are so dangerous these missiles of asian bastards will explode in their own land killing their own people. Because these advanced weapons utilize the matrix of higher mind / Divine mind of energy governing this Physical Universe.

Hi Osho
You wrote
“Many religions believe that the ‘soul’ (or some equivalent) goes to a certain ‘place’ after death; either a heaven or a hell. They also believe in the concept of a ‘being’ that is in charge of that place (God or the Devil, respectively).
However, they cannot see the absurdity of all this, until an actual example is put before them – then they will laugh and say something like, “Oh, it’s not a place and God is not a person.”
This is a critical commentary. Your questions are rhetorical and start with an assertion that spiritual tenets are absurd. That’s not exploratory, but accusatory.
Yes you have assumed a critical position. And your comments preoccupied the basis for your critique.
Own it. You and Brian have taken the position of Anti-theist.
There is nothing to be ashamed of, except lack of intellectual honesty.
If you don’t believe in the regions of heaven you are certainly not alone. Many don’t hold such beliefs.
But if you elect to call such beliefs absurd and wrong, please own the critical views you are stating: Anti-theism.

So tired of the ‘God’ word, also ‘devil’, but having said that why bother with getting upset at people and their beliefs, which probably help a lot for those who have very difficult lives to contend with. Its easy to sit back as an armchair critic for those who have comfortable life styles.
I like to believe in spirituality, inner regions, where one day my soul will fly and have wondrous experiences. Keeps me going in this boring painful earthly life.
Sure, life can be illusionary, but try a little compassion guys, life can also be extremely difficult for some.

Vinny
Big Bang is just a little bit
Innumeral are floating in the astral time_space
Myriads of astrals float in the causal
as snow flocks in Alaska
The number of causals is colossal
. . and that is not even the beginning
all is of your making

To rub salt on the wounds of Asian monkeys. I’m giving them a clue there are few Churches in America and England which use Divine Energy,even taking the work of electricity from it without taking any electricity from government grid or solar cell or wind mill. I know that these Asian monkeys will never be able to find out even in next 1000 years how Divine Energy can replace electricity

@Spence
My position is not critical. I am not against. I am simply exploring the possibility of what happens when a soul goes to Sach Khand, and the concepts people have.
Yes, I am stating that in my opinion, my account is absurd. But then what account would not be absurd.
I would invite anyone to give me the correct version of what actually happens.
For example, maybe Sat Purush doesn’t drink lemon tea.
Maybe he doesn’t swear.
I have just given a fictional account of one version. I am not criticizing any position. I am not against any position.
I would have thought that some person who goes there regularly would have corrected me and said “there are no mansions there” or whatever.
Have you been there, for example? If so, maybe you can give an account of what actually happens as mine is fictional

We all use our own mind and concepts to think what happens after death but I don’t harbour any thoughts that master will come.
I just hope Kal doesn’t come ha.

Hi Arjuna,
Are you referring to GSD’s alleged remark that the master
doesn’t come for the disciple after death? (Osho might
have first reported it to support a thesis of RSSB Version 2/3.)
That bit of reporting bothered me at first. But, as with all
shocking departures from “true dogma”, I think a GIHF’s
response targets the individual and can’t be generalized.
It certainly can’t be posited as the “new RSSB, version 2/3”.
It occurs to me too if we don’t progress within, then we’re
just clinging to blind faith/notions that GIHF will appear at
death and whisk us away to live happily ever after in
Sach Khand. That’s the fairy tale of religion.
Sometimes a shakeup is needed. The goal is to realize the
truth before death… not after. Besides, even if GIHF isn’t
manifest at death , GIHF never tells a disciple that he
won’t be guided/protected within at all times.
RSSB revisionist theories won’t change that.

@Vinny

“My conclusion after observing the world after living ascetic life is that three breeds have become very cunning hindus/moslems/sikhs. There are internal contradictions in their beliefs and actions, they are bastards. These cunning breeds will never be able to understand the secrets of divine energy.”

Are you saying that ALL moslems, hindus and Sikhs have become “Cunning”?
Has anyone else had this same observation?
Have you met them all?
If I could show you just ONE Sikh who was not cunning, your statement would become invalid.
and what do you mean by “cunning” – does it have some special meaning for you?
There are contradictions in the actions and beliefs of many people. Doesn’t make them “cunning” or bastards
That is a very dangerous beliefs to hold about others. It will alienate you from a lot of people.

Arjuna, read Stephen Hawking’s last book. I’ve read the chapter dealing with what happens inside black holes. Science has some good understandings, based on quantum mechanics and relativity theory, about what occurs there. Naturally these are based on mathematics and the known laws of nature, since nothing escapes from black holes, except, likely, some short-lived virtual particles called “Hawking radiation,” since he was the first to recognize that they would be emitted from black holes.

Spence, you’ve become fond of using the term anti-theist. But this makes no sense. Everyone who is pro-something is anti-not-that-something.
I like coffee. I just ordered a latte, and am about to drink it in a coffee shop. If somehow lattes weren’t available, as happened for a while last summer when the City of Salem water system was infected with toxic algae, I was disappointed. I wanted coffee, and I was disappointed when I couldn’t get it.
Or take global warming. I believe it is happening, and I believe we humans need to do something about it, because it threatens the habitability of our planet for our species.
I often criticize deniers of global warming for their failure to recognize scientific facts, and their political implications. So my positive belief in global warming leads me to a negative reaction when global warming deniers spew lies and falsehoods.
Likewise, Osho Robbins has a positive view of spirituality: oneness. He is adept at pointing out the falsities, or at least logical contradictions, as people who believe in Sach Khand/Heaven, a personal God, and such. This flows naturally from his positive view. Robbins didn’t start out saying “I’ll bash those stupid satsangis.”
For one thing, he was one, and it appears that he still considers himself to be one.
In the same vein, I’m still deeply committed to understanding the truth about the cosmos. I still meditate every day. I’m still a vegetarian. I’m still “spiritual,” albeit in a non-religious sense. I’m only anti-religion in so far as I see religion spreading falsehoods about the cosmos, in the same way I’m only anti-global-warming-deniers in so far as they spread falsehoods about the Earth’s climate.
I’ll also point out that by your logic, you aren’t a believer in God but rather an anti-atheist, because you like to challenge atheists like me. Does this really describe you? If not, then acknowledge that just like you, I and Osho Robbins also are motivated by positive views of reality.

Brian, have you ever put yourself in someone else’s shoes, for example imagining what it is like to be a homeless person, or a very poor ‘untouchable’ in India. Its easy to be critical when living a relatively easy lifestyle even though we all have suffering but some people have a lot more suffering than others. My way of dealing with suffering is the Zen way but its still difficult to be at peace in a chaotic world.
If there is no such thing as reincarnation and karma, the inequality in this world does not make sense. If there is no creator God or malevolent god (Kal) and no such thing as karma, why is this world so divisive and unjust.

Hi Brian
Please re read my comment. Whether Osho or you are Atheists or not has little to do with your post and his comments, which take issue with the tenets of other beliefs including belief in heaven and a personal God.
That is anti-theist.
Nothing wrong with it. But let’s not pretend it is benign atheism.

Jen, I do this all the time. I have a chronic health condition that came on suddenly. It caused me to become seriously depressed about a year ago. My mother struggled with alcoholism for much of her life. I’m active in my town’s politics, and also with state and national politics.
I’m very familiar with suffering. I relate to those who suffer. But I strongly disagree with your belief that the suffering of people is due to their past lives/karma. This strikes me as uncompassionate.
The Buddha spoke of those who, if I recall somewhat correctly, wanted to know the cause of someone’s injury before helping with the problem. This was viewed by the Buddha as absurd. What we should do is try to help others as much as we can, not judge them because of an absurd belief in past lives and bad karma.

Spence, please read my comment again. What I said is quite different from what you wrongly believe I said.
What I said is that Robbins and I have positive views of the cosmos. Those views lead us to criticize those who hold illogical and seemingly demonstrably false views of the cosmos, because those false views aren’t benign (American politics is full of examples of the dangers of Christian fundamentalism, as is Indian politics).
Don’t you see that every time you criticize me and Robbins you are supporting my point of view? I could say you are anti-atheist, but I don’t do this. Rather, I recognize that your fervently held religious beliefs lead you to defend them, which comes across as anti-atheist, but really isn’t, since I consider that your comments flow from a positive motivation.
So why can’t you believe that Robbins and i are motivated in the same fashion, by positive motivations, not negative ones?

I’m not sure of what value the concept of “oneness” has for humanity. Oneness (nonseparation, non-duality) cannot be experienced. Anything that cannot be experienced directly will have limited impact, as it will always remain conceptual.
Not to say that it isn’t true from a cosmological perspective. Theoretically, we are all that one singular “point” that became the universe. But we don’t live at the level, just as we don’t live at the quantum mechanical level.
Furthermore, being “One” doesn’t confer any special benefits, as the purveyors of oneness admit that you already are one. It doesn’t end or even ease suffering. It doesn’t change anything. You cannot become what you already are.
In terms of utility, I find it to be just another empty religious concept.

Hi Brian
The remarks that Osho wrote in the post you created, and which you support, are decidedly negative to theistic views that involve God and Heaven.
Osho wrote
“It’s fantasy land. You cannot become the ONE and remain separate. There cannot be more than one ONE!”
And he called belief in a heavenly region “absurd.”
It’s one thing to offer your system of belief. That is, your form of theism, or philosophical version of Atheism, or alternate theology or spiritual beliefs or practices.
But what we have here are critical statements about beliefs that differ from your own.
That’s anti – theism. Anti – theism does not require you to believe in God or not.
Anti – theism is the view that beliefs in God, or their practice are either false, or if not false, then they are simply bad.
The content of your post consists of remarks about other faiths and the conclusion these are false.
As for oneness, it cannot be defined by what is wrong with some other belief.
Why not make a purely positive expose about just what oneness is, in your eyes?
Or continue to hold negative views about other people’s beliefs. There isn’t anything wrong with that either so long as you leave off derogatory names. And if you feel the logic is wrong, understand that all logic rests upon accepted premeses, and can go no further except by conjecture. So what was once considered fantastic and absurd is actually now part of our daily life and very much a reality, like flying tens of thousands of feet in the air over thousands of miles to get to work, or using my GPS to guide me to my destination, or my cell phone to speak to colleagues live over thousands of miles away.
All these things would have been considered absurd two hundred years ago because even the notion of the physics involved was not understood.
Today at hardly understand the mind and the brain. We know some things, but so much we don’t.
We know a few things about matter, but science admits it knows less than half of what can be known because it can obit conjecture about dark matter.

Oneness is an abstraction. Anything can be one, depending on how far you cast the net of inclusion: one planet, one universe, one multiverse?
It is likely that the concept was originally seized upon by those that found security in its premise. People want to identify with “oneness” because that oneness is thought to be more resilient than they are.
“Oneness” is just another version of God.
Its abstractness, poetic vagueness and non-anthropomorphism just make it seem more respectable.

Osho: “The path is about REALIZATION, not about getting anywhere as there is nowhere to get…”
Realizing what?

@Spence:

Whether Osho or you are Atheists or not has little to do with your post and his comments, which take issue with the tenets of other beliefs including belief in heaven and a personal God.
That is anti-theist.

I don’t take issue with anyone’s beliefs. I am not saying anything about their beliefs. I am not saying their beliefs are “wrong”
I am inviting people who hold such beliefs to see where they lead. If they are happy with where they lead – it’s cool. All I have done is create a fictional account of what might happen if I meditate and get to Sach Khand. I a not saying there is no Sach Khand. Maybe there is. I am having a comical look at the whole thing.
Thats why in my fictional account Anami swears a lot. Just for laughs. I am playing around with ideas.
You are welcome to make of it what you want. However, I know my position, which is “each to their own”. I am not a crusader of “there is no god”
I don’t hold any particular beliefs about God. I even joked about God being an Athiest in the video.
The question is: is my account absurd? If it is, then what is the true version of what happens when you get to Sach Khand? That is the point.
Does Sat Purush have a form?
Is there a Sach Khand? Is it divided into three sections?
What happens there?
If you don’t buy into the idea of oneness, then clearly there must be some such scenario going on there. My question is: what is it.
I am not making any statements, I clearly stated that this is pure fiction that I have created and fiction should not offend anyone.
While you might think you know my position, you are only assuming, and I am making it clear that I am not saying there is no God. I am most certainly not against anyone who chooses to believe in a God.
However, II am exploring the meaning of that God. The conclusions are for each to make for themselves.

@Spence
I have made an “absurd” fictional account of what happens when a soul gets to Sach Khand and all is not as it seems. I have created mansions there, even cars, and women too.
Of course all this is absurd. I am making it absurd on purpose.
So you can counter this with a non-absurd version. If you can please do so.
Maybe you don’t think the fiction I created was actually absurd. Maybe I can order a 70 bedroom mansion there.
I am simply playing with the ideas. If anyone on this blog (777 or yourself) claim to have personal experience of going to those regions, you are welcome to shed light on the matter.
But nobody has come forward so far.

@JB
the path is about realization. but what is there to realize?
Ask GSD if you follow his path. He may say to “REALIZE THE ONE” or he may say something else
For me personally it’s about the realization that there is nothing except the ONE, and everything else is duality, including you and me and the world we see.
But this is my personal view, I don’t care to make it into a religion

“Oneness” is just another version of God. – JB
yes – oneness can be another version of God, but it would be a different god, a useless god, and a pointless god, and a God who does nothing all day long (and all night)
The ONENESS god has no commandments, and is no all knowing a there is nothing to know.
The ONENESS god has no form so effectively doesn’t exist.
So I guess he is an athiest!

Osho: “For me personally it’s about the realization that there is nothing except the ONE”
How is “the ONE” that you speak of not, as you say, useless and pointless?
And how is “realizing that there is nothing except the ONE” also not useless and pointless?

F’n A Osho – great story! Maybe it could be used as a warm up video prior to satsangs? (change the fuck to feck and add a bit of heavy metal?) As the dialogue progressed I found myself thinking that the aspirant who’d ‘arrived’ had a Scottish accent and on meeting Anami Purush said ‘Hey its you Jimmy!’ (Maybe its the bagpipe connection). Likewise I envisioned the Supreme Lord having a voice like Ali G – ‘Okidoki my man I’ll send you one of ma Julies along wiv da rolla .. innit’.:-)
Hail wise Fairy – I like your Buddhist infused comment. That nobody knows what happens to awareness when we die cuts to the core of a lot of this debate and is probably one of the main reasons I continue to meditate – to find out. I remain of the view that its not a lost cause. Maybe a sufficiently evolved AI would be able to completely assess whats happening to consciousness/awareness if it (the AI) had the opportunity to be present and monitoring as a Hi Lama progressed into Thukdam.
JB in regard to some of your comments of late – I find them challenging and clearly stating your point of view. Previously you mentioned that you meditated for 10 years – did you follow any particular path/method? If so what was it?
You say ‘non-separation is unconsciousness, non-experience, and nonexistence’. I see what you are getting at here yet I will pick up on your previous point regarding shall we say degrees of ‘non-separation’? I can certainly attest to the experience of a ‘much reduced’ sense of self, and at the same time interconnection of consciousness. I’ve always viewed this as a ‘non-separation’ experience (quite likely just a wee taste of the ‘what is’) yet this certainly was not ‘unconsciousness’ such as when under anaesthesia.
Further you said in an earlier post ‘no ceasing of thinking (as if that were possible)’. Well I can also attest to the fact that thinking can cease, though admittedly my mind is often more active than still. What happens when thoughts cease? To me that’s what meditation is ultimately about.
Best wishes

Everything is dependent upon various parts ( particles) to arise or to exist. To come into being. Everything has a dependent orgination. No thing is independent. Quantum entanglement, scientific discoveries, Higgs boson, and so forth, along with the constant new discoveries about existence and non existence better explain The Theory of Everthing than what most religions do. We have better language and understanding now, in modern times. There is no longer a need to speak in parables. The theory of “Emptiness” proves, in my mind if I am understanding correctly, that because ALL that IS in any time, universe, dimension or anywhere else for that matter is dependent upon other factors to arise, there cannot possibly be an independent God. It’s probably all just pretending anyway and I still believe in fairies! Oh and love and compassion. These too, are totally dependent states. By the way, it is good that Gurinder is finally telling it how it is. YOU ARE YOUR MASTER. Humans have reached a level in awareness to stop believing in “fairy stories” no matter how satisfying and enjoyable they may be. Read up about quantum entanglement. It is fascinating. I can’t begin to understand quantum mechanics, but reading and studying and trying to fathom out what is happening, is far more satisfying than constricting religious dogma. But I do still love a good story. Fairy dust!

Brian: “if everything was really One, there wouldn’t be anybody who could stand outside of the oneness and say, “This One is absolutely wonderful!”
Osho: “it’s about the realization that there is nothing except the ONE, and everything else is duality, including you and me and the world we see.”
And this is how it seems to me:
If everything was really One, there wouldn’t be anybody who could stand outside of that oneness and say, “it’s all about realizing that there is nothing except the One” much less realization or anybody who could go about realizing it.
You seem to see the absurdity of the concept of “Heaven” but don’t see the absurdity of the concept of “the ONE” and “Realization”.

OK Osho
When Gurinder answers U, I will too
You hv still a wrong consideration of the ” one-ness”
Think totally outside the actual time box
You can be there while participating the rush on next Black Friday
When making love even
and of course in meditation
Meditation is together with learning some habits – It is to save your life !
It’s just training to continue to be a human that lives
while the Shabd kills you with its LOVE
Next you are that love and for each person in a different way
That Love will manifest like seeds
A satsangi will not do miracles if not ordered
but I knew a lady who said : “Master if it’s good , please when I’m not allowed anymore, Please You do it
and it happened
Meditation is also for recognizing, to get rid of false ideas
to let crash and crush the Ego , a hyper dangerous guy, able to corrupt U again
For learning the necessary patience,
an endless patience
All to prepare for those first 3 seconds, later 3 minutes etc of thoughtless-ness
When there is that, . . ; the Sound can really enter
the Big Sound
before it was sweet – Now it is a Tornado of Love
and you know it was a nanogram
Also the processs of Simran is Mega giga super super important
You or a certain mike placed once the 5 words here with 3 mistakes
Of course for me : a blasphemy even while knowing
that those words given by an ignorant have no power at all
When the RSSB Ultimate happens, It’s a gigantic thing
like trillions of orgasmes above the eyes
but
by many exercises it’s all so smooth that indeed you can
participate @ Black Friday or be in the brothel
to instruct a Lady
Before, . . . nobody can have a slightest idea
and apart from those who were ment to describe
it’s like St Paul Said : No Eye have seen, No Ear has heard
what is already prepared
in fact for every quark in so many Universes
Rssb is only for those who can’t resist
who love HIM ( eventual Her ) so much
are in hurry, or designated to hurry
Who are able to let the puppet-Master do his thing
It’s really all about Love and Compassion
No cars there but it might come haha. when not polluting
you name it
It’s ever changing
All imaginatoiric stuff is UNDER that region that STATE-OF-MIND
there is no Static Purusha, Please forget it
There is only dynamics and it will ever grow and thus change
It “always” did if there was time
Not speaking about disciples even , but if
per Galaxy, One Super Saint was produced,
each astronomer can tell you that that would be colossal in SK
The One November Community of The Saints is . . WAS. THAT
One Saint who really sees and it is GOD in his Master
that Master in His Master and so on and on Up to Abraham’s Master Melchisadek
and further on
on
God’s Chosen People are those who participate
Nothing to do with politics
Sant Mat is so Immense, be glad to have heard about it
And a Lover will greet His Master at death – be sure
A hater a “little” later
It’s all semantics
Nothing has changed since Melchisadek
Radha Soami
777
not corrected

@JB
let me re-write the previous comment as it had a few letters missed off by mistake
“Oneness” is just another version of God. – JB
yes – oneness can be another version of God, but it would be a different god, a useless god, and a pointless god, and a God who does nothing all day long (and all night)
The ONENESS god has no commandments, and is not all knowing as there is nothing to know.
The ONENESS god has no form so effectively doesn’t exist.
So I guess he is an athiest!
let me now carry on:
The reason that a disciple seeks God or truth or oneness or whatever is this:
He wants a personal benefit. For example he wants to go beyond his fear of death. So when a disciples says to his guru, “Will you come at my death?”
he wants to hear the answer “YES” because then he can rest assured that when he dies, the guru will come and take care of his soul.
That’s a persona benefit.
The present RSSB master has taken this away. I have ever heard him say
“It is very easy for me to say that the master will come at death, but I don’t want to give you false consolation.”
He is right.
he can tell you want you want to hear and you are happy.
misguided, but happy in your delusion.
Instead he says “no master can come because there is only the ONE!”
What does “Only the ONE mean?”
It means that there was, is and always will be only the ONE.
So here are some illusions that get shattered if you realize and accept the ONE:
1. That one day you will merge into the ONE
2. That you can meditate and reach the state of ONENESS
3. That reaching the ONE is a great achievement
4. That once I attain the ONE, it’s all done and I am at peace
5. That once I attain the ONE, I will no longer be reborn
6. It will be blissful to attain the ONE
7. Once I attain, I will merge into and become the ONE
so here’s the reason behind each of the above
1. it will not “happen” and it will not happen “one day” because it is not a happening. It is not an event. It is not that you are separate today and then you will merge one day in the future.
2. meditation cannot take you there because the “YOU” that is meditating is not the one that will attain. The “YOU” that you are aware of cannot attain no matter how much meditation (or anything else) it does, because it is illusory
3. Reaching the ONE is not an attainment because it is already the case. You cannot reach what you already are.
4. WHO is trying to attain peace? That one trying to attain is false so cannot attain. The real has already attained, and doesn’t need to strive to attain.
5. the ONE is never reborn. Only the illusory self is born and dies. The illusory self is doomed anyway and cannot be saved. It cannot merge.
6. There is no bliss because WHO will experience the bliss? the illusory self? but it’s illusory so the bliss is also illusory
7. You will never attain and you will never merge. The one who will merge is already merged, and that is not the self you know.
ONENESS is not an achievement – not something to attain, not something that requires effort. it is a moment of realizing what is already the case.
Like the Buddha realized nirvana when he stopped trying. Then he say what already was.
He then spent the rest of his life trying to explain the inexplicable utterly failed as all will fail, because there is nothing to explain.
It is pointless because there is no benefit and what has no benefit is what we call useless and pointless. We are always concerned with benefit. Our whole life is about one central theme “What benefit will I get?”
The ONENESS has no benefits. No medals. Enlightenment cannot become a decoration for your ego. You will not attain, so you cannot get the medal.
Confused? of course! because there is nothing to understand about it.
ONENESS is an abstraction if you want to understand it.
If you get that ONENESS simply IS! that is not an abstraction.
ONENESS is not attained. It simply IS. nothing to achieve or attain or reach.
Only issue is that if I write or talk about it – it makes no sense, and it appears like I have been spending too much time in the company of 777 (no offence intended 777)

Tim: “I can certainly attest to the experience of a ‘much reduced’ sense of self, and at the same time interconnection of consciousness. I’ve always viewed this as a ‘non-separation’ experience (quite likely just a wee taste of the ‘what is’) yet this certainly was not ‘unconsciousness’ such as when under anaesthesia.”
A reduced sense of self, but obviously occuring to an intact and distinct human being with an intact and distinct brain. It represents an anomolous psychological experience not an ontological shift or “peek behind the veil”.
Actual non-separation would entail no defined “point-of-perception” as a channel for discrete expedience. There would be no distinction of the “locus” from which perception occurs and what is perceived. In other words, there would be nothing of which to be conscious, and therefore no conscious activity.
Tim: Further you said in an earlier post ‘no ceasing of thinking (as if that were possible)’. Well I can also attest to the fact that thinking can cease, though admittedly my mind is often more active than still. What happens when thoughts cease? To me that’s what meditation is ultimately about.”
Thinking is only quieted temporarily.

Well, If I may say, “Oneness” and “the One” is just as absurd as all other religious concepts. And I know you’ll tell me that it is not a concept.

The real absurdity is harping on about something you can neither prove or disprove. Because you can not prove the existence of sachkhand does not mean it does not exist.
That’s the first problem. The second is the frame of reference you use for understanding the meaning of the term is usually sant mat heresay.
Guru Nanak said this:
In the realm of Truth, the Formless Lord abides.
Having created the creation, He watches over it. By His Glance of
Grace, He bestows happiness.
There are planets, solar systems and galaxies.
If one speaks of them, there is no limit, no end.
There are worlds upon worlds of His Creation.
Based on this, sachkhand is a state of union with the formless spirit. But is it also a place? Of course it is also a place; a place where your form is absent but you still are. You have to reside somewhere. Is it a place that is everywhere? Perhaps, as a sub-stratum of the whole kosmos, but that still means your address is not here, as we typically understand a “place” to be.

Here is a non-sant mat explanation of the same thing referred to with the term “sachkhand.” Yogis and shamans all talk about the same thing, just differently:
Death happens when the breath stops. The physical body no longer has any power to move or to grow, and it begins to decay. The subtle consciousness of the soul begins to separate from the physical body. But for the first 3-4 days, the consciousness can “hang out” around the body. It may have some kind of attachment still – to the body and to the life.
In either event, the subtle consciousness maintains a connection to the physical body in those first few days. This is why, in the Sikh tradition, we cremate the body and chant Akal. To help the soul let go of its attachment to the physical life it had and to be willing to move on.
The next part of the 17 days, the soul has to cross the electromagnetic field of the earth and begin its journey into the realm of the Blue Ethers. There are four levels of the blue ethers before one experiences absolute and perfect Union with the Divine. Those who have a spiritual teacher or guide get help at this point.
The first blue ether is where the assessment takes place. What were you sent for? How did you do? We all judge ourselves instantly at the time of death. The first blue ether allows a soul a chance to really sit and re-evaluate. In fact, if there are lessons that did not get finished during life, the soul has a chance, during the 17 days, to complete those lessons under his or her spiritual guide. This completion of the lessons takes place either in the first or second blue ether, depending on the ripeness of the soul. In the first blue ether, the soul can purify itself. In the second blue ether, it can continue to get deeper learning.
If the soul graduates to the second blue ether, it also has a chance to become a guide for other souls. It can reach out from that place and help others.
The third blue ether is the most refined ether that the human being can access while alive. Deep meditation can open us up to the third blue ether. The third blue ether is the realm of the master and the angel. So while alive, people who develop the consciousness of a master or an angel have penetrated through to the third blue ether with their meditative mind.
In the process of death, such a soul could navigate those first two ethers fairly easily during the 17 days, and may end up at the third blue ether if it has truly completed all its lessons. The third blue ether is the realm of the realized, enlightened soul. A soul who can reach out and touch other souls to guide them in the past, present or future. A soul that graduates to the third blue ether has a choice to make. That soul can decide to reincarnate again – for the purpose of serving humanity. Or it can chose to go onto the fourth blue ether and just be Pure Radiance. But such a soul will never reincarnate on earth again once it enters the fourth blue ether.
The fourth blue ether is reserved for those incredible amazing Lights that guide humanity with their pure radiance. These souls will never take form again. But their consciousness is so clear and so realized, that they radiate from the fourth blue ether across the centuries giving guidance, hope and love to humanity.
After the fourth blue ether, there is just Pure Union. No separation. Absolute Oneness. And that is the end of the soul’s journey across time and space.

As long as we are destroying religious illusions:
If there is just “the ONE”, there would be nothing. In fact, “the ONE” would be a literal NOTHING.
There would be no experience at all, not even “illusory” experiences, as there would be nothing to generate illusion and nothing to experience the illusion.
There would be no illusory selves, no illusory experiences, no illusory selves with illusory concepts of an illusory “the ONE” or anything else.
There would be nothing.
And there would be nothing to comment on the nothing.

Rupert Spira is really good on You Tube. Short discourses and to the point. Vedic stuff I think, and thought provoking. Professor Puri discourses, in my opinion, are far too long. Also, His Holiness the Dalai Lama visited the Dera some years back. Watch his discussion on Quantum Physics with the world’s foremost scientists. Meditation is a beautiful thing to do. Changes in awareness do happen and can occur. I must do more, rather than sitting in the sun for hours and gazing and just blissing out doing absolutely nothing. How lucky am I? Here are some very apt quotes, ” Do not think about the thinkable. Do not think about the unthinkable. By
thinking about neither the thinkable nor the unthinkable you will see voidness”. Je Gampopa, 1079-1153 ce.
“You shalt not separate your being from the rest, but merge the ocean within the drop, the drop within the ocean”. Tibetan Buddhist Teaching (My take on this is interdependence and/ or a hologram).
“But if there is no other world, no fruit and ripening of actions, then here, now, in this life, I shall be free from hostility, affliction and anxiety, and shall live happily.” “There is no path to happiness, hapiness is the path.”Shakyamuni Buddha, c563-483 BCE.
Fairy Dust!

Hi Osho
In order to promote your views you have chosen to characterize in an exaggerated and negative way the beliefs of others. That’s a negative critique of other’s beliefs.
Your understanding of what you think GSD said and meant is repeatedly cited by you to support your criticism of the past writings of the mystics.
The very fact that you cannot see the negativity in your comments towards Sant Mat, including what is written in its texts, and insist you are not disparaging towards those beliefs is very telling.
Yes, you have taken an anti – theist perspective and as a result your argument in favor of Oneness is fatally undermined.
You will have to decide what you want to do first, criticize Sant Mat, or promote Oneness. You can’t do both very well. That isn’t, actually oneness. But it is anti – theism.
And let me repeat for the third time, Anti-Theism has a lot of credibility. But it demands intellectual honesty.
As for experience within, several posters have, including yours truly, shared some of their experiences to confirm the existence, at least in experience, of the regions. Your unwillingness to acknowledge those reports does not support your claims of open minded and balanced thinking.
Maharaji said that God is not a personality but a power. You have failed to depict this teaching.
Alak, Agam and Anami are beyond description. This was discussed earlier.
So long as your mind has its own impressions, it will not be “one” with anything but itself.
Burn the impressions and all that is left is One. That’s Sant Mat.
You missed that teaching somewhere.
Of course you can’t to understand what you haven’t experienced. No one expects that. But you are most able to acknowledge the mystery of what you don’t know.
For me, that has been the first step. And I find I must take it again several times a day. Try it. You might be pleasantly surprised.

@JB

If everything was really One, there wouldn’t be anybody who could stand outside of that oneness and say, “it’s all about realizing that there is nothing except the One” much less realization or anybody who could go about realizing it.
You seem to see the absurdity of the concept of “Heaven” but don’t see the absurdity of the concept of “the ONE” and “Realization”. – – JB

You are correct – and there isn’t anyone. Nobody can stand outside and nobody can realize.
The person claiming to stand outside and the one claiming to realize is the illusion.
No PERSON can realise the one – that is what I mean when I say it cannot be attained.
hence the famous saying
“Those who claim to have attained have not attained”
The “I” who claims is part of the delusion. Only the ONE is true and it has no attributes and cannot be seen or attained as a separate thing.
Of course I see the absurdity of the ONE – the ONE is the root of absurdity.
In fact you have to embrace absurdity to realize the ONE.

No, you aren’t getting it.
There wouldn’t even be the illusion of someone. There wouldn’t even be the illusion of someone typing in messages on a blog comments section.
Even illusion and delusion are something.
Absolute Oneness would be and must be NOTHING.

@JB

As long as we are destroying religious illusions:
If there is just “the ONE”, there would be nothing. In fact, “the ONE” would be a literal NOTHING.
There would be no experience at all, not even “illusory” experiences, as there would be nothing to generate illusion and nothing to experience the illusion.
There would be no illusory selves, no illusory experiences, no illusory selves with illusory concepts of an illusory “the ONE” or anything else.
There would be nothing.
And there would be nothing to comment on the nothing. – JB

ONE means that nothing else except the one exists. Only the ONE exists.
So if you and I appear to exist – it is just appearance, not REAL.
So REAL can only be defined as the ONE, all else is UNREAL.
So what you see – all phenomena, and all you experience, and what you see in meditation etc ALL OF IT is all part of the UNREAL.
So then what is REAL? REAL is what you CANNOT SEE or experience – that which is OUTSIDE of time and space. This really means NOTHING.
The UNREAL cannot experience the REAL – as they are different paradigms. So the idea of trying to reach the ONE is absurd.
So instead it is a REALIZATION. An awakening. A moment of suddenly seeing the obvious.
Once you realize – all the questions disappear and the answers are obvious. But not to anyone else.

There would be no experience at all, not even “illusory” experiences, as there would be nothing to generate illusion and nothing to experience the illusion. – JB

illusion will continue as it is part of the unreal. But it is not part of the REAL.

There would be no illusory selves, no illusory experiences, no illusory selves with illusory concepts of an illusory “the ONE” or anything else.

The illusory self would continue.
When you go to sleep – and dream, what happens? You enter a world of illusion. It has nothing to do with reality. The reality is – you are sleeping on the bed.
Yet the UNREAL (the dream) appears to be real. You are completely immersed in the dream and consider it to be real. But really nothing is happening. It doesnt matter what happens in the dream state as it’s unreal.
Then you awaken and now you realize it was all UNREAL. and the unreal has no effect on the real.
Once you awaken, only then you understand it was all a dream.
It is the same analogy as the ONE. The two are mutually exclusive.
In the ONENESS – nothing happens – there is no phenomena, no time and no space.
but here there is time and space. everything within time and space is unreal.
everything that changes (within time and space) is the unreal. It will end, just as it began.
But the REAL has no beginning and no end. it is changeless. it is the ONE.
that is what guru nanak is describing in the Japji, nothing more.
Aad Sach, jugaad Sach etc. Sach is used an a Synonym for the REAL.
WAS, IS and ALWAYS WILL BE is the same as saying beyond TIME.
It cannot be a place and there cannot be anything else there except the ONE.
rantings of a mad man? maybe.
That is all the spiritual journey is – to realize the ONE.
but it’s not an experience because an experience is within time and space.

Osho: “rantings of a mad man?”
Holy shit, yes.

@ Dungeness- hello . Hope you are well.
Ref master not coming at death above – I agree with the concept (love that word) that sometimes the master will respond to the individual.
Oh dear – for that unfortunate soul. A guy at Haynes once was getting very hairy with master – about some topic.
Master I think replied “be careful before He (pointing up) sends his dogs after you”. Dogs don’t necessarily mean demons (even though they do come for some) and being an athiest doesn’t protect you from them. Dogs could be bad karma manifesting. Just my take on it.
@ JB – have you been out with friends recently? For a meal or a movie. Don’t delive too deep into questions no one can answer for you on here. It’s not healthy 😀. You sound like a nice person – sometimes it’s best to give the mind a rest. Have a good day

There was no question of the master not coming at death.
Rather the total opposite.
Sawan Singh was even famous for saying “I will just wave from a distance to the guru who is not coming at my death”
So the teachings have gone through a clear change

Hello Osho,
As mentioned in another comment, in my opinion,
there’s been no drift in Sant Mat teachings. Many
have noted contradictory answers/advice given
by all Masters.
If GSD said “Master is not coming at death”, his
answer was intended for the questioner. It was
targeting him/her specifically. It didn’t and
doesn’t signal some change in the teachings.
It can’t be generalized. It’s not the “new RSSB,
version 2/3”.
GSD’s answer obviously was meant to shake us
up. If we don’t progress within, then we’re just
clinging to blind faith or notions that GIHF will
appear at death like clockwork and whisk us
away to live happily ever. That’s the fairy tale
of religion. Your Sach Khand Express Train.
Besides, there’s another reality to stabilize the
shock and awe of GSD’s bombshell. Even if
GIHF isn’t manifest at death, the Master guides
and protects a disciple within at all times. That
will never change. No revisionist spin can make
me doubt it.

JB: “There would be nothing.
And there would be nothing to comment on the nothing.”
LOL
I’m so happy to have dropped all my beliefs and all that striving to be perfect and wanting to find Sach Khand and the inner regions and all that crapola.
I absolutely loved Osho’s Sach Khand video. Made me question why are satsangis so serious and all this talk about Oneness. Heck, I am so over that, a tiny drop merging in the ocean. Nope, its another life for me, that ocean stuff sounds so very boring 🙂

Master I think replied “be careful before He (pointing up) sends his dogs after you”. Dogs don’t necessarily mean demons (even though they do come for some) and being an athiest doesn’t protect you from them. Dogs could be bad karma manifesting. Just my take on it.

Hi Arjuna,
Every time my thinking gets tangled up, I find myself
thinking about dogs now 🙂
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=who+let+the+dogs+out&atb=v95-6_f&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=Qkuu0Lwb5EM

Sufi Poetry for crooked atheists to rub salt on their wounds
Rind jo mujhko samjhtey hein unhey hosh nahin
Mehkada saaz hoon mein mehkada bardosh nahin
Connotation: The atheists in their intoxication of atheism started thinking that they are owners and theists are waiters of tavern. But these atheists were living in illusion as the theists were constantly expanding their horizons of secret knowledge of Physics/ Divine Energy/ Atomic energy which can even be used for destruction of this earth by even more innovative ways by using matrix of higher mind made up of energy. So these crooked atheists who were full of takabbur/arrogance have been reduced to waiters of the tavern. Today they have kind of knowledge which even the waiters of any tavern spit on. These atheists today are not even worthy of becoming waiters of tavern ruled by Christ Conscious Innovators

Hi Dungeness
I will take your comments one at a time.
You wrote:

“As mentioned in another comment, in my opinion, there’s been no drift in Sant Mat teachings. Many have noted contradictory answers/advice given by all Masters.If GSD said “Master is not coming at death”, his answer was intended for the questioner. It was targeting him/her specifically. It didn’t and doesn’t signal some change in the teachings. It can’t be generalized. It’s not the “new RSSB, version 2/3”.

Nice idea but it simply does not hold water for a number of reasons.
Firstly the question is not, “Hey master, will you come at MY death?”
The question has been asked by many. One person asked in this way
“Master, Please do not break our heart by saying you are not coming at the time of death.”
GSD’s Answer: “Please try to understand what I am saying. There is only the ONE! So how can the ONE come to get the ONE and where will he take him?”
This is a very clear answer that the notion of coming at death is a duality notion, and not true.
Another person asked: “Sawan Singh said that the guru who will not come at death, I will not honour such a guru and will just wave to him from a distance…”
GSD: “Then wave to me from a distance…”
Again very clear.
He has also stated very clearly that “There are no regions. It was just a way of explaining and people have taken it literally. The story of Kal standing on one leg was just a story, and not literally true.”
I also asked him on a few occasions, “So there is not KAL?” his answer: “No”
“and also no Dayal?” his reply: “No Dayal”
I think that is pretty clear. and these are not replies reserved only for me.
your next comment:

GSD’s answer obviously was meant to shake us up. If we don’t progress within, then we’re just
clinging to blind faith or notions that GIHF will appear at death like clockwork and whisk us away to live happily ever. That’s the fairy tale of religion. Your Sach Khand Express Train.

You have to actually listen to what he is saying, only then will you hear his message.
One person asked him about the inner stars and inner sky.
His reply: “If someone hits you on the head very hard, it is said that you will see stars. Those are the same stars you will see in meditation”
Last time when I had that 15 minute dialogue with him, he pretty much agreed with everything I was saying. I mentioned that I used to think Sach khand was a place and used to think what it would be like to meet Sat Purush and now I find he doesn;t even exist!
His reply was very clear: “I could have told you that there are no regions and there is no Sat Purush. I have never even read Sar Bachan. It is just a story”
Like I have mentioned quite a few times, this is not a one off.
If he was just trying to shake us, he could say, “The master will only come if you do a lot of meditation.”

Besides, there’s another reality to stabilize the shock and awe of GSD’s bombshell. Even if
GIHF isn’t manifest at death, the Master guides and protects a disciple within at all times. That
will never change. No revisionist spin can make me doubt it.”

Sorry but that also does not hold water as it goes directly against the first statement. It’s just another way of saying the master will come at death, because if he is with you at ALL TIMES, that obviously includes death (and most likely especially death as that is the one time you really need him!)
That would make his statement, “I’m not coming at death, but I am with you always”
He often quotes Paltu
“Paltu Ikoi Ikk hai, dusar nahin koi” which translates to
“Oh Paltu, there is only the ONE. There is no other.”
It cannot be any clearer.
He has also said many times “I can easily say that the master comes at the time of death, but I will not give you false consolation.”
Very very clear. The new version of sant mat is NOT my investion and I have no reason to invest a new version. That would be very irresponsible and dishonest of me to invent a new version and then attribute it to him. Why the heck would I do that? For what reason would I lead so many people astray? Am I a secret agent for Kal? (who incidently does not exist)

Jen,
wouldn’t it be cool if there were two doors after death.
Door 1: Back to earth as a human to try again
Door 2: Into the ONENESS – disappear forever into the oneness and into oblivion.
and you get 10 seconds o choose – or you get thrown overboard into the sea of nothingness
Just relax – you’ve got the right idea

@Osho,……
Here is my take on Advaita Vedanta Oneness Teachings. ( with out the profanity,) . Advaita Vedanta Teachers who follow Ramana, Niz, etc., teachings of “ I AM THAT” , have decided that they were GOD. Of course, no one has ever been able to exactly WHO, or WHAT God is, other than ultimately beginnig and ending in Awareness or Consciousness. God has been described as the Ocean, Fire, Light, by Mystics , who claim to be One and the Same. I have never subscribed to such and egotistic belief system, because,………
“i” am NOT God! I never was, am not now, and never will be!
“i” am not a drop of the Ocean, WHO IS God. “i” am a creation of God, The Ocean, that unlike God, Who had no beginning, Alpha, nor will have no end, Omega, HAS had a beginning, when God, the Ocean , created “me”, the Soul that now temporarily manifests as the identity of Jim Sutherland.
That created Soul, had a beginning, but it has no end. It is now Eternal since creation, but has, and will continue to manifest through unending multitudes of impermanent, changing, Vehicles of Consciousness , using Containers, manifesting in The Wheel of 84, or The Hindu Charausi, i.e. 8,400,000 possible physical Species in the Universe.
The Created Soul that has manifested and lived in The Wheel of 84 since being created by God, from Amoebas to the present Container Temple of Jim Sutherland, and will continue to manifest in future unknown Containers, for Eternity, is unknown by “me”, the soul , and is only known by The Creator, Who is Christ, Who is also known by other Names and Identities, such as Anami Purush,
Radhasoami, God, The Holy Spirit, Source, Universe, etc, with a List that is unending, depending on individual imagination.
“i”, the Soul presently manifesting as Jim, will NEVER completely merge with God, or become a completely dissolved drop merging back to the Ocean, as Vedanta Advaitist teachers mistakingly teach, because “i” was never the Ocean, or God. “i” was only an individual creation by God, that became a drop in the Mind of God, as Kal was also created by God, to become Universal Mind, or the Hindu Brahm, the Agent of ALL minds, including not only mine, but every mind in The Wheel of 84, Charausi! Kal is the Prison Warden that has been created by GOD to incarcerate all souls created that have been Projected to the Matrix of TIME.
Any Drop that completely merges in to the Ocean, is annihilated, as far as individual Duality is concerned, and commits Spiritual suicide by claiming to be God in human form!
No doubt, God is in all of us, as Christ, and We are in Him, but will always remain in Duality for Eternity as created Individual souls have lived in Charausi , progressing to present, with out ever being sentenced to Annihilation by God , as drops merging completely back to the Ocean.
God has a Chain of Command He uses to draw his created souls back to the Cradle of Creation, where they may enjoy His Ocean of Glory, with out annihilating their Duality.
Spiritual Seekers are those created souls who have tired of experiencing the adventures in the Play of Consciousness, and are becoming detached from the impermanent enticements of the Sensory pleasures of the material world of Duality.
But, escaping the world of Duality, permanently, with out being annihilated, as taught by Vedanta Advaitists, is impossible, because according to the Bible, only God Alone knows all the secrets, and the Prophets, Masters, Avatars, only know the secrets God reveals to each of them, in Duality, as individuals.
If this is not so, there would be no secrets, and we would all know each other’s thoughts and desires, actions, histories, since bring created, and we don’t, NONE of us, including Masters, Teachers, Avatars, Saviors or Mediums.
I consider “my” self, as the present culmination of all of the same Soul that has lived numerous past lives in Charausi since being created by God , a projection of my Higher Soul Self, that is now a Multidimensional Consciousness, with the present identity of Jim Sutherland, now in Duality, as having started in Duality at the time “i” was created by Christ, The WORD made flesh of John 1:1, i.e. God.
“I” will Eternally remain in Duality, as long as Consciousness of awareness is retained, but have been given the Keys of Knowledge , which is the Technique of The Science of The Soul, which may be used to escape the horrors and suffering of Charausi , when ever “i” choose to use the Prescription administered by Master to temporarily rest in the Glory of Bliss of Samadhi in Anami.
Drops never completely merge in to the Ocean with out becoming annihilated.
But, Drops may sail on The Ocean , enjoying the Sights, Sounds, Lights, Bliss, by taking refuge on various Cruise ships, which are Masters of various Lineages , or Cruise lines.
The Masters are the Cruise Ships escorting Spiritual Seekers on Adventures enjoyed and experienced ON, the Ocean, but not IN the Ocean, unless those souls manifesting in human forms desire to become souls in Aquatic Sea living forms.
Individual Saints, or Spiritual Seekers, on individual Paths of Duality, seek God by sailing the God Ocean only by sailing on the Surface , in various mixtures of Material/Spiritual Life Support Vehicles such ad Kayaks, Canoes, Rafts, Yachts, etc.
But Masters, are the Cruise Ships, that escort and ferry Seeker Souls through the Multidimensional Planes of Consciousness on the Ocean of Christ.
I consider my self, the soul that is acting as Jim, to be a Booking Agent, for all Spiritual Masters escorting and ferrying Spiritual Seekers to experience the adventures on the Ocean of Christ, i.e. The Hope of GLORY!
My Booking Fees are FREE, as my payment and rewards from Christ are held in Trust for me, in The Book of Life, Archived in the Highest Pinocle of Causal Mind, where the Avatars of Christ all reside together and Eternally remain to carry out the Plans of God.
Kal, i.e. Satan, is God’s created Agent of Time, in Duality, who is the Annihilatior of all souls who seek to venture in to the Ocean , as drops are obviously, timeless, individual creations that sail and ride the Ocean of Christ . Kal’s Agents are human Battle Ships, Submarines, loaded with poisonous demolition propaganda, used to annihilate Souls in Duality , that have ventured from Heaven/ Paradis/Sach Khand to enjoy the Play of Consciousness with out loosing Awareness or Individuality.
Kal’s Agents are Vedanta Adventist Oneness Preachers.
Booking Agents for Christ know who they are, and recognize them right away, so are enemies of Kal.
Caveat Emptor! ( let the Seeker Beware )
Jim Sutherland
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

Hi Jim,
Welcome back.
I haven’t seen you comment on here for a while, but great to see you back.
I will comment on your reply later, this is just a welcome message

Dungeness:
Even if GIHF isn’t manifest at death, the Master guides and protects a disciple within at all times. That will never change.
No revisionist spin can make me doubt it.”
Osho:
Sorry but that also does not hold water as it goes directly against the first statement. It’s just another way of saying the master will come at death, because if he is with you at ALL TIMES, that obviously includes death…

Hi again,
Here’s a possible explanation.
The Master places his inner form within the disciple at
the time of initiation. That’s the form that protects and
guides at all times including death. We fantasize that
the physical form that we’ve projected will come for us
at death. That’s not the case.
We forget the Master is within us and at a higher level
of awareness we’ll understand we’re identical with him.
Instead we externalize and worship a form outside.
Similarly we fantasize about journeys we’ll take and
different regions we’ll see. They’re stories. Metaphors.
Everything is within. Our path is inside. The journey is
just raising our awareness of what’s inside and can
only be found there. Answers are not outside in the
books or cosmologies or stories of Kal and Dayal.
They’re hints only. They have to be experienced inside.

Hi Jim,
Can I have the version WITH the profanity, so it matches mine.
Just kidding, without the profanity is as good as with the profanity.
I am not a great fan of the word GOD because of all the baggage attached to it
like “all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent”, so if you replace God with the word
THE ONENESS, we can move forward.
So there are two states.
1. MAYA
The illusion, also known as MAYA. It is defined in hindu and sikh scriptures. It is that which you SEE and EXPERIENCE, but it is not REAL because it CHANGES and is within TIME and SPACE.
Everything that you see and experience is MAYA be definition. Anything that has form and is separate from the ONE is maya.
2. ONENESS (not MAYA)
This is beyond TIME and BEYOND SPACE. There are no FORMS, There is no individuality. There are no separate beings or souls. There is no DEVIL or KAL. There are no regions, no levels, no mind, no thought, no concepts. Quite simply it is the ONE.
It never changes. It cannot, because there is no TIME.
It cannot be described because it has NO attributes. Everything you say about it will be a LIE.
This state cannot be attained or achieved, and nobody can experience it. It simply IS.
I cannot say where or when – as those are irrelevant to it.
Past present future are meaningless terms, so you cannot arrive or leave.
So right now we are in the first state. MAYA.
How do you realize the second state? You drop all your ideas and listen. And then something might happen or might not. If it happens, you never did it. It happened all on it’s own.
If you manage to drop your ideas, it will happen. If you don’t, it won’t.
You ideas, your identity, you “I” is what keeps you where you are.
If this drops then there is no longer a YOU. That is the state of ONENESS.
Kabir: When I WAS (a separate ME) I looked for YOU (GOD, or the ONE)
but could not find you, but then…..
I lost the “I”
and now YOU ARE (The ONENESS) and I AM NOT.
The ONENESS is the only permanent thing (well not really a thing as such)
and there cannot be TWO or MORE of them!
if there is more than ONE in the ONENESS – it’s not oneness – it’s duality.
Hence there cannot be regions, Anami, beings, souls, mansions, cruise ships, Roses, sexy women, 69 bedroom apartments, Rolls Royces etc.
If those are present – you are in DUALITY and MAYA and it will change, as everything within MAYA changes.

The bonkers nonsense people believe will never cease to amaze me. Yikes. This is my exit cue.

Even nothingness can be called as oneness, it would be a blatant lie, it is atomic energy pervading the universe. There are cunning atheists who would hair split the phrase atomic energy. For these cunning atheists I am introducing the term sub atom energy. Now they will google these terms and become rabid at me.

Masters do a very good job in hiding for
those who would instantly die because of the Light ( and Sound )
and
and the excell in revelations to the needy
sometimes daily and hourly serendipities included
Simran as a Checker not to underestimate !
How would a layman even start to approach?
or understand
All starts with compassion
Serious statement
If a certain aspect of the physical universe is hindering a disciple
HE will change quanta in an instant including the Big Bang
777

So long as the mind has impressions, it can only be one with itself. Burn away the impressions, and all that is left is the One.
Pure Sant Mat 1.0
What is absurd and fantastic is there.

@JIM
Charausi , when ever “i” choose to use the Prescription administered by Master to temporarily rest in the Glory of Bliss of Samadhi in Anami.
My favorite is :
“One need TWO to dance the tango”
It is a Delight
What has death to do with all this?
It’s just beautiful, gorgeous. . . . Out or In Chaurasi
Women normally feel this more than men ( I guess )

@Osho,……
No one that is Nothing,…No thing,…can obviously have any opinion about any thing that exists.
Oneness discussions border on insanity.
I believe I offered a sane interpretation of the only sane way to even imagine that Oneness swallows up Duality, because I am here, accross the Pond from where you are, and we are both in Duality, posting.
But, I don’t know what’s in your Oneness mind, nor do you know what’s in mine, because we are NOT One,we are two, in Duality. And surely, the Voyeurs reading this are in Duality with us, but all in different physical locstions and material containers.
Trying to have any intellegent discussion about God, Regions, Heavens, Sant Mat, Masters, are impossible to understand , with out quoting some thing a real human said, or wrote, in the past, that were, or are still in Duality.
No Nothingless Nonesss Non entity from Oneness ever wrote, or said, any thing.
Humans wrote ALL Scriptures, that Zealots later referred to as Holy Writings.
The writings some times contained historical events, but were mostly written as Allegories, designed to teach lessons of Progression of souls in Duality, after have been created.
Eastern Scriptures are only parts of the massive Puzzle. The Puzzle can never reveal the completion of the Image with out also containing the Western Scriptures such as the Hebrew Old Testament and Christian New Testament.
Radhasoami, Anami Purush, Khristna, Siva, etc. etc. are not the only Names humans of the past have assigned to their Deities.
But, how could any past blood, flesh, and bone human operating in Duality correctly describe and unwrap any Non-Dual NoThing in Oneness that can not only, never been seen, nor can ever be seen, by any Creation in Duality?
They can’t, unless they are manifested in some other Planet, Universe, Multverse, or Galaxy.
Then, if any of those Entities interferred in Earth affairs, then they would not have to be Supernatural Entities, that are worshipped by Earth creatures on Duality, but these non earth Entities could just as well be thought of as Extra Terrestrials, ETs, or Aliens. But they are ALL still creations in Duality by some Ultimate Creator, that as far as any one that has ever been created , knows very little, if any thing about, including naming Him/Her/It God.
Nearly all religeons, except Buddhism and Metaphysics came from .ET.s.
JHWH and Jehovah are not the same being in the Old Testament.
Was Jehovah God, or an ET?
I firmly believe, and have been “ quietly” saying the same for at least, the last 25 years, that humans were manipulated and controlled by E.T.s posing as “gods.”
But does any Sant Mat Master, or any other Teacher, or any one here, know if there is, a True God Who created all of those imposter “gods”?
I have said for many years, that if there really was a historical man called Jesus, that was not an Allegory, then he was a Hybrid, i.e. half human, half Alien. If he was historical, and born of a Virgin, Mary, when she was impregnated by a “ Holy Ghost”, than Jesus was definitely a Hybrid.
Jehovah was NOT the father of Jesus, because the Bible states that Jesus was sent to nullify Jehovah, “ the Father of Lies.”
Jesus taught his Desciples to bypass the controlling Priesthoods by going directly to “ the Kingdom Within”. ( sound familiar? Swamiji never invented the technique of accessing the Kingdom within.)
Animal sacrifices were for the purpose of feeding the imposter “ gods”, i.e. the Aliens who ruled their created numan slaves, which of, some were pure human, while other were hybrids.
Jesus said his “ kingdom” is not of this world. Then if not here, where?
It was , according to the Nrw Testament, the Angel ( Messanger) Gabriel, who appeared to the Virgin Mary when she was about 14, and told her that “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” ( Luke 1:35) Artificial insemination, or abducted by an E.T. and inseminated the human way, then memory deleted.
The “Star of Bethlehem” that the Three Wise men followed , that hoovered over the barn that Jesus was born in, was no doubt a Space Ship, monitoring the birth of Jesus.
The Father of Jesus was “The Holy Spirit” , and Jesus was called the son of Joseph, of the royal lineage of King David, but he spoke of the “ Father Within” when he started preaching.
Could that loving father he spoke of have been Jehovah? I don’t think so, as Jehovah was the jealous god of the Hebrews who said not to put any other god before him,
Any way, for any Basketball players here, it is not a Slam Dunk , from Duality to Oneness. It requires more manipulation and play on words than our friend Osho has in his archives to convince any one who’s evelevator still goes to the top floor and is not a hypnotised Zombie.
Cheers,
Jim
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

Hi Dungeness:
You wrote eloquently:
“The Master places his inner form within the disciple at
the time of initiation…..”
This is the answer. When we turn to Him, and through our practice grow beyond mind, there He is!
But to leave mind is for many, as it was for me, several decades of work. I knew He was there. But now I get to see Him, not as I knew him in the flesh, but as He presents Himself in His radiant form…it’s the same being, but one is memory and construction, the other is direct perception!
There is the dian of the Master, our memory and imagined construction. And that helps a great deal. And THEN there is the actual radiant form. It was always there. Even before Initiation (since that is His connection, not our taking vows..) and that can happen at birth, before birth, even in a prior life.
He is there! So the only thing that would prevent our seeing Him at death is if WE aren’t there.
If WE aren’t at the eye center. If we go to the eye center, He is waiting for us asking with mock frustration …”What took you so long??!”

Hi JB:
You wrote very beautifully:
“Some manner of separateness is exactly what allows for consciousness (and therefore, experience) to arise at all. Everyone clamors for “oneness”, ostensibly not realizing that an actual oneness would involve the total obliteration of consciousness/experience. Non-separation is unconsciousness, non-experience, and nonexistence. This is why God, as an infinite yet conscious and experiencing being, is an abject impossibility. That which is indivisibly one with everything, would be entirely devoid of consciousness and experience. The author is convicted that humanity is immersed in the “illusion of separateness”, but as indicated, separateness is required for the experience of anything. Referring to separateness as an “illusion” is, in my estimation, as profitable as saying that the world is an illusion, and equally as misguided and untrue.”
This is a fine and clear argument. How can we see if I am One…Who is looking, and from what position? Your argument from a physical sense is perfect: To perceive there must be viewer and object, separately. Without that duality, nothing can be perceived, at least by the physical senses.
However, consider the thinking mind. That mind can think about object, and the qualities of that object without being a sensory observer at all. Such is the power of conceptual thinking. We can define, argue, conjecture and build conceptual models of reality all from any perspective we choose to think about it from.
In theoretical physics, any conjecture that mathematically matches the evidence is viable for consideration. Gravity was a theory that met all the measurements. Quantum Mechanics is understood to the extent it meets the measurable evidence, though these things cannot generally be measured directly.
And coming up with those models is a mental exercise, not a matter of perception (though evidence can be added by science, the model in the heads of the scientists is nothing more than a very disciplined exercise in mental imagery and construction). So, since that model is inside us, we can become “one” with it. There was no distance between quantum mechanics and Einstein. He was one with his creation.
In the realm of thought, yes, you can become one with your idea, Not two.
So, that is a metaphor for something even more abstract.

Well written Spence
and of course well done
I respect so much the Gurmukhis under us
you showed your example for us all
@Jim
Well documented as always
and I wondered
this renaming of Jehovah to Satan
where can we find it?
Not that it has any importance to a rssb satsangi
since initiation They don’t even see us
except on our special request . . . ouch
777

Well written Spence
and of course well done
I respect so much the Gurmukhis under us
you showed your example for us all.

Ditto your sentiment, 777. Spence is a treasure.
P.S. Jim too. Loved his humor today.

@dungeness
Clearly we are not expecting the physical master to appear at death.
We are taking about the inner radiant form.
If the radiant form is planted in the disciple at the time of initiation, there would be no question of the guru coming at death as he is already there.
Doesn’t explain why the current master says the master will not come at death and his explanation that there is only ONE.
You have now tried all explanations except the one that actually accepts what GSD said.
Either He is a liar, or I and many others are liars or the ONE is the truth.
Choose one.

The answer is simple.
Forget what I say.
Go ask GSD the question. Let him answer.
I have done it many times. I have heard the answer direct from him.
But unless you hear it direct you will doubt

Hi Jim,
Glad to see you back. Wish more people were interested in ETs.
Elon Musk answers “Where are the Aliens?” in Dubai at the World Gov Summit (2017) (2:30 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrimtKnbNWA
…………
Hi Osho,
Has anyone ever asked GSD about aliens visiting this planet?

Hi Osho.
I think Dungeness gave you the answer, though it may not be the one you like.
The Master is within each of His initiates (and many others) . So it isn’t a matter of Him showing up upon our death. It’s a matter of the student doing their part to meet their Master at the eye center in this life. So no, He doesn’t come to us upon death. That is the literal truth. Because He is already inside us.
As Sawan Singh and Maharahi taught so clearly, what happens at our death is up to the Master. If we haven’t reached Him within during life, then it depends upon where He thinks the best place to work off our Karma is. That could be returning here, or staying in one of the spiritual regions in meditation.
This is all Sant Mat 1.0.
But so long as we can’t accept it, we fight for our own version.. Sant Mat x^n. All those are bad photocopies.
A photo copy of a contract has no authority, which the original, signed version has: Signed by all parties, including the lords of all the heavens, the Master and the initiate.
And if you run the contract through the copier, print it out using cheap copier stationary (not the official bond of heaven), then use white out on the parts you don’t like, and a crayon to scrawl things you want, to make things look easier it has even less veracity, because then it’s no longer even a decent copy of the original.
No one should look at that adulterated copy and think “this is Sant Mat.” That’s misleading.
And any initiate who has even begun to do their part of the contract wouldn’t trade their legitimate contract for the fake. That’s absurd. Because they are in the middle of the project working with management and all the resources.
Though it is true people do some foolish things. I have so I get it. Yes we can fall.
If you compromise with the vows, smoke pot, drink alcohol, you can still be a wonderful person. But you can’t make any spiritual progress. There is a biochemical part of the work.
If you compromise your ethics, indulge in anger, greed, lust, attachment, or pride in your superior thinking, progress is zip. Zed. Zero.
But getting up again. No comparison.

@Spence
If that is the case then I must be hearing things that GSD has not said.
The 15 minute conversation I had with him in the presence of 3000 people must be fiction.
All the other people who heard him saying the same things must also all be deluded.
Or maybe GSD doesn’t know the truth and his disciples know better.

Doesn’t explain why the current master says the master will not come at death and his explanation that there is only ONE

Osho, in my opinion, GSD is impressing on the disciple
to look to the inner master whom most never see.
They may not expect the physical master to show
up. But they’re still constructing some kind of mental
image of him. One’s that external. Cobbled together
from impressions they’ve formed of who and what he
since they haven’t seen the inner master.
The whole goal of the path is to see the inner master
while alive and not wait for death. Not rely on some
miraculous visage/rescue when the ship is circling
the drain. Then, RSSB’s another religious fantasy.
Maybe, the Master appears visually anyway in some
of those cases. But, I see GSD’s denial of coming at
death as a reminder you’ve gone religious instead of
striving to find the inner form. You’ve forgotten that
answers outside won’t improve your vision inside. You
need experience within. You need to see him every
day there instead of through the mind’s prism.

Have you watched the movie “LUCY” with Scarlett Johansson? It is a really good “take” on things especially the end. I like the comment about ETs and aliens posing as gods. Nirabu (?) and the Annukai(?) In the past, Prometheus was outcast for creating humans from clay and then giving them fire. Olympus was home to those naughty god folk. Hollywood is now their new home! Another home for the current true gods of our planet is the digital world, the snaring web, and so it goes on and on and on. Creation expanding into infinity and really not giving a dam about anything. For what it IS just IS and it is all too HUGE for any of us to ever be able to understand. We all know ants can’t comprehend or perceive the entire picture of their expansive habitat. Impossible. Not even worth trying to! (Analagy). However of course humans are at a different level of awareness or consciousness and naturally curious about origins. You can persuade anyone into a belief system if you have the right convincing language. That does not mean the system is actually true. Anyhow, it is my belief once an item or object materialises it is immediately somewhat diminished in its perfection. I do not have the language or equations to explain explicitly what I actually mean however. We could be very low on a food chain in the greater scheme of things. For everything on Earth is cyclic and part of a food chain. On the greater scale planetary systems have their seasons too. Black holes (very hungry) dark matter, whatever, it stands to reason, must therefore be “seasonal” as well. Take the word “creation”. Cr EAT ion. Eating its way into infinity. Food for thought?
Sparkles of dust
Fairy

Hey JB – hope you are still around.
You write ‘A reduced sense of self, but obviously occuring to an intact and distinct human being with an intact and distinct brain. It represents an anomolous psychological experience not an ontological shift or “peek behind the veil”.’
Anomolous yes in that it was ‘out of the ordinary’, but of course not dissimilar to that of many other folk. Ontologically speaking 🙂 the experience completely upended my worldview at the time. To perceive everything as connected and was affecting everything else was quite mind-blowing. In particular, a realisation that my thinking was integral to all this. The long and the short of it was that shortly thereafter I became committed to vegetarianism, environmental activism and yoga. Anything that helps to reduce one’s ecological/environmental footprint and its potential to cause suffering is a good thing, wouldn’t you say?
Your reply in regard to my comment on meditation/thinking ‘Thinking is only quieted temporarily.’
Agreed, yet quietened enough to gain insight into the nature of thought (like how thoughts just ‘appear’) and yet how intrinsic to this, is how a thinker of thought is generated strengthening the notion of an I, that identifies with the thoughts.
This is how my ‘I’ sees it. I remain of the view that the resulting belief in ‘separation’ (i.e. that this I is a separate entity) is the ultimate cause of the suffering we see/identify with.
Finally I’d still appreciate a response to my previous question in regard to your own experience of meditation and the degree in which this has contributed to your current stance.
@ Jim
Good to see you back here. I thought you may have been kidnapped by bandits on one of your travels or worse the snappers gotya (temporarily of course).
Your recent comment re the Old Testament is most interesting and a real can of worms imo. The whole business of past history on this planet seems increasingly open to re-interpretation. Fascinating, interesting and a bit disturbing.

@ Jen,…..
Skeptics are not even able to accept the concept of Living Masters, let alone Aliens, E.T.s or shape shifting hybrid Human/ET every day beings , living among us that we would never suspect.
How do you know I am not a hybrid Human/ET, or an AIHF? ( Alien in human Form)
My wife has always told me she has never llived on earth before this life, and she is an Alien who has forgotten where she came from. Her Blood type is the rare A Negative. ( RH Negative. ) .
But she has absolutely no interest in any of the subjects we discuss here. She isn’t even curious.
As for me,….My curiosity is on going, and I get up every day with my “ Eyes Wide Open”, as my email signifies, ….isydopen.
I have tried to share a little of some of what I have seen and experienced while in deep meditation, but why bother? Material skeptics who have not walked the Path In my shoes nor studied enough to show them selves approved, as worthy Servants will never know.
But who are the Masters, and who are their servants?
We, who have been initiated by various Masters who have been called GIHF by their desciples, very well could have actually been Aliens in Human Forms, mistaken for gods.
I have only shared a little of what I have experienced in deep meditation, and have been scorned by both believers and skeptics alike.
ALL those who have gone in, deep inside, and basked in the Bliss of Samadhi, are like Gorillas spending a day in Paris, or New York City, than returning to the Jungle trying to describe what they saw and experienced in those cities!
Who do the skeptics and unbelievers think those of us who contiune our daily Meditation Practice still after sitting in meditation for the last 10, 20, 30, and even 40 years, as some of us do, continue wasting the rest of our lives, if we don’t expect some thing Awesome, Magnificent, and MIND BLOWING to KEEP happening, yet different, and new unexpectedly?
In order to put a little more Icing on the Sach Khand Cake that Sant Mat Masters have described, perhaps a Rejuvenation of the dying, or already dead Sant Mat1,2,3,4 , a switch of the terminologies we have been fed might be changed to accept ETology 1,2,3,4.
I have been a UFO Buff longer than being interested, or invloved with any of the Religions and Sects I have spoke about.
I just have never discussed UFOlogy with those outside of other believers, as the RSSBers are birds of the same feathers flocking here.
Any one interested in UFOs at all, have already, no doubt, encountered the big names, making their living off speaking at UFO Work Shops, writing books, and hawking their stories.
With out naming names, here is a Link to a Youtube Video Interview of an unknown, rarely interviewed, an Abductee much different than the average Abductees we hear about, any one that has gotten a hook in to the God Father of Conspiracies, John Lear Jr., is surely worth spending an hour away from this Church to listen and digest!
The Abductee’s Name is Lou Baldin, who mesmorized the Members of the forum called ATS, i.e. Above Top Secret, for years, and is where I encounted John Lear, who is greatly respected among tne UFO Community.
https://youtu.be/VxQ5cAlH8oE
Enjoy,….while taki png deep breaths!
Cheers,
Jim

@JIM
beside my former question about Jehovah
another bible riddle . . .
I wrote it already one time but perhaps is was not placed
I forgot
It’s about Eve
If the apple was a stake
the whole story makes perfect sense
then we witness the first murder changing everything , specially innocence
and the closure AND the Cherubines
AND our Path
Have a good time Jim

@777,…..I “ Could” go very deep in to the Bible and How it really is a Manual of human and ET intervention. But I won’t, as I stated prior, this Atheist materialist “ church” is not even able to accept the idea of souls being in Duality, let alone Aliens using humans as Cattle, i.e. Goyam.
The Jews are accussed of being the Chosen people of Jehovah, and I have already stated that my belief is that Jehovah was, is, an E.T., The Alien god of the ancient Hebrew people. But if that is so, than who are the Overseers of the Alien god, Jehovah, other than the existing Jews, that continue reincarnating back here to earth to use, herd, sacrifice and eat their “ Goyam”, i.e. Cattle?
If I have aroused any curiosity, a quick search of the pdf “ Protocols of the Elders” might unwrap the mystery, and answer a few questions as to what we are witnessing happening in the world presently . Its ongoing, and time less, in Jehovah’s Realm, but is being progressivily carried out by Jehovah’s Servants, applied to Goyam.
@Jen, ….and any one else that remembers my sharing when I encountered the Alien head, that had pulsating, flashing eyes. I tried to describe what the head appeared like, but really never did it justice. But the Alien sitting in tne chair in the Lou Baldin Interview is the closest to any drawing or photo I ever saw on the Internet, as the head was almost exactly what appeared to me, slightly to the left of my face, 6 inches away, then started pulsing silver white light from its eyes in to mine! Of course, I have imagined all sorts of possibilities of who, or what that Alien wanted of me, but so far, I have yet to get my answers, because I am still using tne 5 or 6 Name Radhasoami Mantra in my Meditation, which we have been taught that shields and protects us from evil entities. Also, remember, Charan appeared to me on my right side, so Initiates will understand that significance.
Cheers,
Jim

Hi Osho
You wrote
“If that is the case then I must be hearing things that GSD has not said.”
Yes that’s possible. Or that you have misunderstood what he said.
As Dungeness and I have pointed out, Master can comes inside you even before initiation, before you know you want to be initiated. That is all His pull.
So the notion that He comes to you at death is wrong. Because He is already with you. This is standard Sant Mat 1.0 teachings.
The fact that some report seeing the radiant form as their life comes to an end is not surprising. Many of those Satsangis had already seen His Radiant forum within, so they could recognize Him as their good friend who was waiting for them inside.
The fact that you have a different notion of the core teachings suggests you may be filtering them.
Not a problem, unless you get too attached to the wrong teachings, even teachings you agree are wrong. Why do that? What purpose does it serve to create duality when your are trying to approach oneness?
The true teachings, as they reflect inner experience and inner reality, do not change. The metaphors change, the packaging changes for each culture and tone. But the teachings are universal and eternal. Because the inner geography is eternal.
Journey within. This is the best verification.
As for being wrong or misunderstanding, join the club. Every serious initiate sees their own flawed thinking all the time. In fact, when you get to the third region, you realize the mind you have left behind temporarily is a hopelessly flawed instrument, only suited to the script of a flawed life that must continue to make flawed choices and judgments as part of getting through the destiny.
There really is no hope in reasoning it through. The only hope is to rise entirely above it.
Why crawl on the ground when you can fly?

Hi Jim,
Thanks so much for the link. I did subscribe to Veritas Radio many years ago and haven’t watched for quite some time now. Started watching and really enjoying the video. I also think that I am being protected. There are the good and bad entities as per usual. I have some memories of telepathic communication but unfortunately we do have our memories mostly wiped after contact.
Cheers bro 🙂

Hi, From my perspective only and not necessarily the truth:
Tim Rimmer – good reads.
Spence Tepper – good reads
Osho – you started all of this!
Jim Sutherland – Veritas = Fairytas! What a load of bullshit! Could only listen to a portion. Dr Steven Greer and Dr Michael Salla have more credibility in their cash collection ventures. However, I do believe in Ets and alien life and past intervention. Could be still going on. Probably is at certain levels and degrees. Only real direct experiences can give any encounters credibility. The pilots who saw the UFOs in Ireland a week or so ago, add credibility to any facts and not to any fiction. It is my belief true things in their true state will never be, and are not, how anyone can ever imagine or think them to be. But from my private and personal experiences, SIMRAN does work. It is always the mantra that I revert back to in my subconscious state and when in fear of something. It ALWAYS wakes me up! So I sincerely thank Master Charan Singh for that.

Hi Fairy,
You say “Only real direct experiences can give any encounters credibility.”
Exactly, which is why I don’t go into the details of my own personal encounters. There is much more to life than what meets the eye. I also don’t believe everything that other people experience and talk about even if I find it interesting. Why is it necessary to ‘believe’?
You say “It is always the mantra that I revert back to in my subconscious state and when in fear of something.” Try not to fear, we have to be spiritual warriors and find our own spiritual strength.

One very last thing, in hindsight (pun intended) GOOGLE( a relatively newly manifested god without an actual human form) “GOD” on Wikipedia. Expains it all better than any of us for it is the most powerful source of information on the planet is it not? It has form yet it is formless. It contains intelligence yet cannot exist on its own. It is forever expanding. But is it a separate entity? However in this case we can exist without it, but it can’t exist without us. Or can it?

Hi Jen
Kind words. Thanks.
Fairy dust.

Hi Fairy,
Don’t even get me started on Artificial Intelligence !!
We’ve been way off topic on this thread, but anyway its been nice talking to you.
Cheers

JEN
Only real direct experiences can give any encounters credibility.
Only real direct experiences can give any encounters credibility.
TOTALLY SO
So , each is on his own, but …..
I must say
I enjoyed very much the enjoyments of my brothers and sisters. – Woooow
777
Next question Osho to Gurinder
How is your meditation, Sir ?

@ Jim – a huge hello and I’m glad you are back.
Good news I’m a civilian now – took your advice

@Arjuna,….
Glad your out of the killing field! Now, you can catch up on guilt free meditation.
Cheers,
Jim

@Arjuna,…..Osho said that Gurinder Singh’s Mansion at the Dera has too many bedrooms to take care of.
Maybe Osho can put a good word in for you, next time he is at the Mic at Haynes, and get you a Job in Security, guarding Gurinder’s Dera Mansion.
No doubt, the Pay will not exist, so you’ll have to work for free, but 3 Bland Veggie meals a day and all the filtered water you can drink, with an occassional Cup O Tea should be sufficient, for a hardened Ex Military Soldier like you!
On that Job, you will be able to get all the real inside info on what’s going on in Sach Khand Dera, and post it all here to your friends.
Maybe You could even becomevGurinder’s private Body Guard, and fly in his Jetbwith him, and travel the world visiting all of the foreign Sanghats.
Cheers,
Jim

@Jim
No, no no; the job is for guarding the 69 bedroom one in Anami Desh
and he will get a wage. $1500 Sach Khand Dollars per month.
Its an easy job, because there are no thieves around.
but he has to create a joke a day, featuring ’69’ in some form

Hello, Osho Robbins, old friend, you crooked, cunning, godless, ignorant wretch of a simian heathen, you! :–)

Vinny, thank you for the laughs! Reading your comments on this thread was like having those dear old friends of mine, The Three Stooges, suddenly perform in front of me in the city square in broad daylight. Except they seemed to be picking on random passers-by, rather than one another.
I kept on waiting for Act 2, you know, the part where the equal and opposite reaction meets up with the original action … but what a damp squib, no Act 2 at all.
I know Osho Robbins has graciously brushed off your comments, in fact he will probably not have even felt it overly much, given his uniquely detached perspective on life : but you know, anyone else, anyone else at all other than this one very remarkable person, would have responded to your compliments by clearing up the mystery surrounding the male side of your parentage, and by writing essays on the promiscuousness of the other.
I call Poe, Vinny. Absolutely, I call Poe.
No way can all this have been written in earnest. Not even by a stark staring lunatic, not even if this lunatic were hopped through and through and floating up above the world so high, fueled by every drug known to man, not even then. Poe it is.


Brian, I wish you wouldn’t allow this sort of thing here.
Free speech is all good and fine: But can you imagine what the commenting here in this thread would have devolved to, if the person towards whom these psychotic comments were directed were someone other than the supremely calm and collected and detached Osho Robbins? Would you feel comfortable having that resultant cascade of filth sitting on your blog?
I’m sorry, I know, it’s not really my place to police this space: but I’m afraid my sense of empathy tends to go on overdrive when I see this sort of thing. Perhaps not necessarily very rational, given that I am not personally involved; on the other hand, perhaps it is too, given that the empathic instinct is inbuilt into us by random evolutionary forces, and cannot really be wished away.

@ Jim
Hello – great to read your post – it made me smile 😀
Trust you are well ?
I’m taking a few months out before I jump on on the oceans protecting huge cargo ships from pirates ha. Always fancied myself as a Peter Pan.
In the meantime must get my weight down to 16 stone and eat healthy and mediate and occasionally work out.
Seen too much Jim ! Need to see my creator ha
All the best
A.

Hi Appreciative Reader,
Great to hear from you
and I love your welcome comment.

Hello, Osho Robbins, old friend, you crooked, cunning, godless, ignorant wretch of a simian heathen, you! :–)

Thank you for your comments regarding the standard of language used by some on here. I guess I started it by creating Anami as a person who enjoys swearing, in my fictional account. But of course his swearing was not personal, just entertaining, and not directed to anyone.
Anyways, would love to hear your detailed comments on all this nonsense I created in my spare time.
The whole point of all this was to make it obvious that the account I made up was an impossibility because there cannot be anything happening in the state of ONENESS, which is actually the real meaning of Sach Khand.
But it looks like not only have we made God in our image, with human traits, but we have also made Sach Khand in the image of our world, with cars, houses, people (souls) and an Anami wandering around the place.
What should have become obvious to the intellligent reader is that in stark contrast to my fictional account, the truth can only be the opposite:
ONENESS, which means
No Time; No Space.
No separateness (i.e. no individuality; no souls; no Anami, No mansions, no Rolls Royces (damn, I really wanted a Silver Shadow))
And nothing changes; no movement; no thought; no mind; no anything.
If any of those things exist, it doesn’t qualify as a Sach Khand.
Sach (true) means changeless which by definition means timeless.
The fictional account I made up was all happening within time. Hence events, conversations, and thinking is happening in this absurd fictional account.
I stated that this account is ABSURD because it is literally absurd and cannot possibly be true.
Why? because everything within MAYA has movement, events, things, individuality,
basically everything we associate with life as we know it.

It is ridiculous
SomeOne going around the world all his life, almost forever, . .
searching for himself, herself
777
Very clever of the Creator
the all time best hiding place
but only for the NON compassionate

continued from previous comment…….
And everything outside of MAYA has none of these – as it is simply oneness.
You cannot conceptualize oneness, because it is outside the domain of the mind.
The mind can only understand and conceptualize that which is within maya, within time and space. It is trying to think about “nothing” – all you can do is make the nothing into a “something” and think about that. “Nothing” is the absence of the thing you can think about. Hence in the hindu scriptures they call it “Neti Neti” meaning “not this and not that”. Anything you can point to is not it. It is that which you cannot point to.
Oneness can only be referred to vaguely. that is why I called it the rantings of a mad man.
Osho (the real one, not me!) wrote over 1000 books and still was unable to point to it. Incidentally, one of the books was called “Diary of a madman”
When measured against that which you can see and experience (this world)
the oneness can only be called non-existent. After all you cannot prove the existence of something that is timeless and invisible.
However that is exactly what Nanak refers to in Japji
He says the “IT” (he calls it IK Onkar) is TIMELESS, CHANGELESS.
He is referring to the state outside of MAYA, which is the state of ONENESS.
Nanak and sikh scriptures call it the ONE, besides which there is no other.
Paltu says the same:
“Paltu Ikoi Ikk hai – dusar nahin koi”
Paltu there is only the ONENESS – there is none else except the ONE.
GSD quotes this often also.
What it means is: only the ONE is! period.
That explains why no master can come at death. That makes two.

Appreciative Reader in your comment you complain about “psychotic comments” and “cascade of filth sitting on your blog”.
Oh Mr High and Mighty, sitting in your High Tower observing the riffraff below with your condescending attitude, nose in the air, clearing your throat with a dissatisfied harrumph.
Gotta laugh.
I know Brian likes intellectuals like yourself but he is also patient in allowing most comments through which makes me very grateful because if everyone was uppity like you, this would be a kinda boring blog.

@Osho,…..After looking at your Skit about Gurinder’s bedrooms in Anami, and seeing your generous use of the “ F – – K word,….You almost hypnotized me in to believing you.
I had a dream that you really were a Hypnotist, and you were at the Haynes Q & A session asking Gurinder loaded Advaita questions. You had the entire Arena of Satsangis mesmorized, waiting with baited breath for your next remark, they were ALL hypnotised by you, and were in Trance.
Then, all of a sudden, the heavy Mic slipped out of your hand and fell down on your bare toes exposed from the Flip Flops you were wearing.
In pain, you screamed,….” F – – K Me!!!
I’ll let the Readers use their imagination to wonder what the crowd stampeding and stepping on each other trying to get to you first were going to do to you!!
Aren’t you glad it was only a dream?
Cheers,
Jim

@Jim Sutherland
Hillarious and entertaining.
I guess they would all be running to me to ask how the fuck I got so enlightened, that I don’t give a FUCK about swearing on the mic!
I am actually trained in NLP and hypnosis by the co-creator of it, Richard Bandler himself who incidentally uses the FUCK word in almost every sentence.
Some of the audience get offended, to which he says to them
“How the fuck are you going to help others through their issues when you have an issue with a word! It’s just a word like any other word”
And I don’t need to ask Him loaded Advaita questions because the new teachings are a hybrid of advaita and the traditional sant mat teachings.
Also – I don’t wear flip flops and sevadars don’t allow anyone to hold the mic – that would be giving away far too much control to the questioner.
I would be unlikely to say fuck me in that situation – in case anyone took it literally as they already take Sach Khand literally. Most likely I would say “Holy Shit”
On a lighter note…..
Let me ask you a serious question:
Do you really believe that Sat Purush / Anami etc is a actual person? I mean that he has some form of shape and a voice and DOES things?
Because if you do: then that means you believe there is TIME and SPACE in Sach khand – in which case it can’t be Sach Khand because it will end one day – just as everything within time and space changes and ends.
If you don’t: then the only alternative is ONENESS.

Test

@Osho,…..
I am, and will remain a Space & Time created soul progressing in Duality.
Charan said souls recognise each other in Sach Khand, so what ever realm he imagined his experience of Sach Khand was, must have been still some where in Duality.
His Duality and my Duality are in different realms of Oneness, if there is such a Realm of so called Oneness.
No, I do not believe Sat Purush or Anami Purush is a He/She or It, or such a realm even exists.
Those 3 Realms said to be above Sat Nam are only further Sub Planes of Sat Nam, which is what Charan Singh also said.
Those 3 Planes above Sat Nam are only Planes used by Gurus to One Up each other.
The Void I experience that I call Samadhi is either above Sat Nam, because it can’t be Sach Khand, because there is no Sound, or Visuals thete, nor any other soul there to recognise.
So when in Samadhi, I am either in Oneness, or I am in the Void Mahasun, but I don’t care where it is. For me, it is a safe place to temporarily hide from pain, thoughts, and To Do Lists.
I will have to wait until I die before I find out much more than I know presently,…which actually, is not much.
I am surrendered to what ever will be for me will be.
Cheers,
Jim

@ Jim – when I do my simran – as I was this morning whilst walking to get the morning papers in the dark – I sense an entity following me but when I turn around it is there and then goes. Rather huge fellow all in black – what do you think it is?

Arjuna, my guess is… your over-active imagination.

@ Brian – you don’t know me so a bit unfair you to make that unscientific remark – I’m ex military and without saying too much I see more than the average joe and have been in situations where I have had my mind as my trusting friend.
With all due respect it took you 35 years to leave the path – some procrastination my friend!

Arjuna, it sounded to me like you thought the “guy” following you was something supernatural. That’s why I said you have an overactive imagination, because there is no such thing as the supernatural.
But if it was just a large regular man, then why did you mention it? Are you that afraid of men you don’t know?
Guess you have some explaining to do, if you want to be taken seriously. Bullshit is called for what it is on this blog. I respect truth.

@Arguna,…..you asked what I thought the man in Black following you in the dark is?
Well, as long as it didn’t get out of a Helicopter, I don’t think it was one of the real men in Black!
If it happened to me, as you describe, I would think it was my Higher Soul Self, or my Guide, which really is my Inner Master who projected the Missionary now called “Jim” in to this body to further work on balancing Karma from all the past lives lived by that soul who is Jim, the Missionary for Jim’s Higher Soul Self.
Hope that makes sense. If so, apply it to your self. It was Black, and seemd to be following you, because you have not yet balanced enough Karma in this present life to be seen as White Light, as you will be able to see your Higher Soul Self at your Third Eye in Meditation, once you totally repent from the negative activies you have been involved in.
Even then, your Higher Soul Self will only appear as Light inside, not outside, especially in the dark.
If you have any concern or fear , if you see it following you again, just stay in Simran, and if it stays, you know it has your best interest in mind.
Cheers,
Jim

Dear Osho Robbins,
No, I’m sorry, I haven’t actually watched this vid you’ve posted. I’m afraid it’s not convenient to check out (non-onsite) AV presentations on my (work-issued) computer. While I can always check it out on some other machine, it’s a bit of a hassle. (That’s why the last time we’d had a somewhat protracted discussion on your Oneness, I’d given your uploaded AV presentations/ links a miss.)
I’ve listened to some vids of yours, that you’d linked to on this blog, at one time, a couple years or so back (out of curiosity, after having had that discussion on Oneness with you). Your vids are generally witty and nice — although sorry, no comments about this particular presentation you’ve prepared.
I realize what you’re trying to do here, and here’s a general comment (that has nothing to do with your presentation per se):
I find this soft-atheism/hard-atheism dichotomy to be of great interest because it guides you about how to view this whole religion thing, as it applies to oneself as well as it applies to others (that is, specific others).
Myself, I’m happy with soft atheism. Show me the evidence, else your claims I’ll politely but firmly keep aside. (And when claims of subjective evidence are made, sometimes I’ll take the trouble to check them out through protracted application.) That’s simple enough, far as I myself am concerned.
However, I realize that at times a “hard” approach may be called for. Someone who is hooked on to the fantastic claims of Religion-X may sometimes need to be clearly shown how those specific claims are wrong. At such times, a “hard” debunking of individual claims may be useful.
I suppose that is what you’re trying here, with this video you’ve prepared?

@Arjuna
Fuck me, man, but if I’m not mistaken, its the big guy himself, Kal.
Did he have bloodshot eyes?
And disappear the moment you said
“Jot Nir…..”
Sorry Arjuna, just kidding.
I ain’t got no clue as to who the fuck it could be, especially that early in the morning.
Keep you bloody doors locked in future
Was it once only is happens regularly?

Dear Jen,
I’m kind of surprised that you found my comments “high and mighty” and “condescending”. Are you, then, comfortable with online abuse?
I was wondering if we may not have crossed lines, that is, if we might not be speaking of different things here?
I was referring to the blatantly abusive (including racially abusive) comments that Vinny has posted here on this thread against Osho Robbins. Yes, they do appear crazy to me, literally so, and yes, I’d have liked Brian not to have put allowed that sort of thing here (although, of course, that’s just me).
You seem a decent and good person, Jen. I’m surprised the concept of abuse doesn’t directly repel you.
(You know what they say about freedom. Your freedom to move your fist around ends at the point of my nose. Freedom is not unlimited, it can never be unlimited, else it ceases to be freedom.)
If this does not directly repel you, then think of it as an application of the Golden Rule. Would you like it if, because some individual disagreed with your general views and ideas as expressed here, they started posting abusive comments against you personally? Abuses that extended to unrelated things like your personal life, and your family, and your race, and your gender, and you profession — or whatever?
If you wouldn’t be okay with that, then how can you possibly be okay with someone else being subjected to abuse? It is this abuse I was protesting, and I’m very surprised indeed that you found my comments “high and mighty” and “condescending”?!
Nothing personal about what I’d said. I’d have felt the same if this had been the other way round, with Osho Robbins making abusive posts about Vinny (except he never would, I know!) And I often do feel the same way when the crazies pile up their personal attacks against Brian (despite the fact that Brian himself is always polite and courteous to everyone here).
Yeah, I know, given that I’m not the owner of this site, nor a moderator here, you may object to my being a bit of a busybody in trying to impose my standards on others. That criticism might have been valid. My only defense to that is that latter (admitted valid) criticism would be that my sense of empathy — like I said in my original comment — happened to run away with me when I saw Vinny’s repeated attacks on Osho Robbins, especially when contrasted with Osho Robbins’s courteous replies to Vinny despite this repeated provocation.

@Jim
So the soul is perishable?
As everything in time and space is.
Is that your belief?
Can you give me a reference where charan says souls recognize each other?

Nice video @Oshorobbins ! Is there a YouTube link for it?

Brain I wrote above that it’s “goes” in that it vanishes- right before my eyes. I did not mean a man ! It looked like a large man – I ain’t no small man my self so why would I be afraid of strangers lol.
With regard to your opinion that there is nothing supernatural – that is “your “. Opinion and based on no fact and no before you start science hasn’t proved that either. They are struggling like mad to find particles that may not even exist . But let’s not talk about science – I am not a Nobel prize winning scientist and you certainly ain’t one.

@ Osho – hello – I’m so scared I shit my pants every time and I need a help! Please help I’m scared . Not !!!!
I’m a borderline psychopath – why the hell would I be afraid ! I don’t operate that way – I was curious that why I asked Jim that question and his response made sense to me .
It’s happened a few times

@osho….I am on a Trip and won’t be back home for a week, so don’t have Charan’s Reference in front of me. But it is in one of his 3 Vol. Set of Books that RSSB sells ,of his Q & As over the years. He definitely stated that souls recognise other souls in Sach Khand. No, I do not believe individual souls ever expire, once created. They just keep on keeping on, until they graduate from no longer needing to reincarnate back to earth. Every thing does not have to fit 100% in the Sant Mat Paradine. There ARE other paths, that each have portions of the Truth, but not ALL of the Truth, including Sant Mat.

https://youtu.be/q3Kd_EAogCo
Link to the video directly on YouTube

Hi Appreciative
My step mom, whom I was very close to, used to say
“your right to swing, ends where my nose begins..”
Small world…
🙂

Appreciative Reader,
I obviously reacted to what you said about “psychotic comments” and “cascade of filth sitting on your blog”. I also seem to have a problem with “posh” people, sorry if I hurt your feelings 🙁
Luckily I know myself well enough to not follow Face Book and other similar type forums because I am far too sensitive and also very reactive at times.
I seem to take sides with the vulnerable in this mad world we live in and yes, I know I will have to be more careful and stop reacting when I’m triggered !!

@ Jen – I try and do my best to view this world and life like a theatre show – it helps the immune system by not being reactionary and to some extent disease free.
Don’t always feel sorry for the vulnerable use your gut feeling before helping as many who are vulnerable but the hardest.
Take care

Hi Arjuna
Ghost of fallen colleague.. Nothing to mind.

@Arjuna
Company is influenced
Also on blogs
Just read the up-lifting ones
Go first to the signature
Like Spence, . . . I feel light around U
Must be “brave” or stupid guys approaching U
while U are in Love
777

@Jim
He definitely stated that souls recognise other souls in Sach Khand
Yes I have that on tape
They recognize if the have nothing better to do. 🙂
777
See my piece about orgasmes

Arjuna, nice comment, thanks…
Spence: “Ghost of fallen colleague.. Nothing to mind”
Could be a fallen angel, rebelling against a fake God…

Could be a fallen angel, rebelling against a fake God…

Or a fallen angel, trying to tailgate his way back home.

Dear Jen,
No no, you did not in the least hurt my feelings! :–)
In any case, why would you not speak your views just because they might possibly offend me? Given that I myself say things that the faithful might find uncomfortable, that kind of expectation would be unacceptable double standards on my part. Not that my feelings bled even slightest bit, I assure you!
It’s just, I was wholly confused about your POV, wholly unable to understand where you’re coming from, that’s all.
I appreciate your siding with the underdog. That bespeaks an admirable sense of empathy on your part.
Except: I don’t see how, when A directs repeated posts against B that personally denigrate B just because A happens to disagree with B’s views, and what is more when A, wholly without justification, casts aspersions on B’s personality integrity, denigrates his ethnicity — and even actually changes his genus and even his species! — I don’t see how you can possibly, in this series of interactions, end up seeing A as the underdog! Seriously, can you explain that to me?
I mean, if anyone is the underdog here, isn’t it the one who is the target of these personal slights, the one who with dignity and grace refrains from returning insult for insult?
Sorry, not to beat this to death, Jen, but I simply don’t get where you’re coming from at all, in this case?
In any case — while I remain curious about how you may have worked out that “A” is the underdog here, and not “B”, and would appreciate your explaining — there’s no issues at all, it’s all cool! :–)
Cheers!

Dear Spence,
Your step-mom sounds like a wise soul! :–)
It’s true, unvarnished libertarianism, as well as untempered laissez faire policies, while they may be economical in terms of effort, rarely work out in practice (except occasionally, and purely by happenstance). This relates to governance, as well as economics. Adam Smith was kind of naive, I believe — although of course, I haven’t read all of his works, and he may well have qualified, himself, elsewhere, his observations about the invisible hand.
This very blog presents a lovely example of how unfettered “freedom” results in egregious externalities, with the respectful and the polite and the diffident invariably coming up short — unfairly so — against the intemperate and the discourteous and the inconsiderate.
And nor is this necessarily pleasant for the unfortunate victim in these cases. In fact, almost always just the opposite, even if they don’t actually speak out. (Although Osho Robbins may be something of an exception in this respect. His Oneness experience seems to have given him a certain detachedness, a certain sloughing off of the everyday ego — as I’ve seen in the course of past interactions — that lets him brush off these things as wholly inconsequential, and without getting ruffled. Very admirable, that. It would be a shame if people ended up taking advantage of his gentleness and his good nature.)

@ 777
Thank you for your comments above which I have copied and posted below – so beauty
@Arjuna
Company is influenced
Also on blogs
Just read the up-lifting ones
Go first to the signature
Like Spence, . . . I feel light around U
Must be “brave” or stupid guys approaching U
while U are in Love

@ Dungeness- interesting – a fallen angel who can see my light 💡- without being big headed . Yet I am in darkness

@ Spencer – not to sure about what it is – but I don’t feel fear

#SK
No luggage allowed 🙂

Hi Appreciative Reader,
You say: “Sorry, not to beat this to death, Jen, but I simply don’t get where you’re coming from at all, in this case?”
These are my thoughts about how and why I have been over-reactive recently. Its not you and I am sincerely sorry that my nasty side showed itself. I have tried to figure it out but all I can think is that its that nasty shadow self of mine (and we all have a dark shadow self). Some people would call it ego but for me I think its about feeling inadequate around people who have had a better education than I have. So, its a bit of jealousy as well because you know how to describe everything so much easier than I can. My whole life I have tried to understand myself and realise a lot of my childhood experiences have had a negative effect.
There is quite a lot of information about the Shadow (psychology): “In Jungian psychology, the “shadow”, “Id”, or “shadow aspect/archetype” may refer to (1) an unconscious aspect of the personality which the conscious ego does not identify in itself, or (2) the entirety of the unconscious, i.e., everything of which a person is not fully conscious. In short, the shadow is the “dark side”.”
I’m not making excuses here and I am practising being more aware and more conscious about my thoughts, words and actions. So I have to smile at what you say because sometimes I don’t know where I’m coming from! Gotta laugh and have a sense of humour also!

Hi Appreciative
You wrote
“This very blog presents a lovely example of how unfettered “freedom” results in egregious externalities, with the respectful and the polite and the diffident invariably coming up short — unfairly so — against the intemperate and the discourteous and the inconsiderate.”
When you post a blog insulting the sacred beliefs of others as ‘absurd’ and claim their ‘heaven’ is false and further depict those beliefs in sarcastic terms that are not an accurate reflection I think you establish a level of unfettered insult hurling from the start. Then you are bound by the rough contents of your declaration to the very broad boundaries which you give to yourself.
If you dish out insult, why be surprised when it is then served up to you at the very table where you yourself chose to sit?
However if anyone is insulted by the response, I suggest they take a frank look at the original post.
You wrote
“It would be a shame if people ended up taking advantage of his gentleness and his good nature.”
Gentleness and good nature, if they are genuine, take the form of respectful questions, and reflective listening, acknowledging the answers even when they dismantle your original complaint by pointing out inaccuracies. In short, the highest example of gentleness is respect, and learning. Sarcasm and ridicule are not part of that, but in fact invite the same.
When the chickens come home to the roost no one should be offended. They are simply returning to their source.
When you through a ball of mud into a pond you get ripples and muddy water. Nothing wrong with that.
If I step on your toes I can’t honestly complain if you cry out.
If you want clarity, start with questions, and take extra effort to reflect and acknowledge the truth, whatever that is, in those reactions.

@Spence:
You wrote (in response to AR) :
When you post a blog insulting the sacred beliefs of others as ‘absurd’ and claim their ‘heaven’ is false and further depict those beliefs in sarcastic terms that are not an accurate reflection I think you establish a level of unfettered insult hurling from the start. Then you are bound by the rough contents of your declaration to the very broad boundaries which you give to yourself.
If you dish out insult, why be surprised when it is then served up to you at the very table where you yourself chose to sit?
my reply:
Holy Shit! are you serious?
Is the above offensive to you?
No?
Well, okay, try this one on of size:
I warn the Crooked Monkey Spence, not to make such idiotic comments. If this monkey Spence sides with an idiot, then he is also an idiotic monkey with half baked ideas about manners on blogs. Now that I have bashed your argument, you will become dumb as you have no intelligent reply. You have no idea what utter nonsense you are talking about. Was the idiotic Spence Tepper sleeping, when he wrote such idiotic comments? Such idiots are commonplace these days.
How’s that Spence?
Better? Hit the nerve a little more?
That was the level of the comments that AR was referring to.
Now look at the so-called offensiveness of my article and the video.
Go through it and show me where I have been offensive to anyone?
Sure I used some four letter words, but not as an attack on anyone. I used them for entertainment only.
It’s okay to question someone’s beliefs. That is the whole point of Church of the Churchless. And the person who is offended, can reply back with the reasons for his beliefs, like for example Jim and Arjuna and even you did. There is no issue with that.
However calling a person a MONKEY or IDIOTIC or DUMB is baseless and is not in line with the nature and purpose of this blog.
Intelligent arguments are welcomed by everyone. pointless name-calling is not.
That was AR’s point, and correct me if I am wrong, but you most likely agree with it.

Dear Jen,
No further comment from me about this. Only — if you’ll permit me! — a hug, and my very best wishes to you!

Spence, I’ll grant you one quibble. You rightly point out that a truly “gentle” soul would not sneer at another’s deeply held faith, no matter how apparently outlandish that faith. He’d only probe respectfully, and know when not to push further. If he does, perhaps he isn’t really “gentle”. I grant you that, absolutely.
That said, you’re so very spectacularly wrong about the larger point I’d made, and that you expressed you disagreement with, that perhaps you yourself realize this in retrospect? If you don’t, I invite you to read back on both my comment and yours once, and see if you don’t find yourself changing your mind?
It may be argued that it is never “gentle” to refer to Trump as a moron and a nut job, or to HRC as a calculating, manipulative, cynical hypocrite. Given that there are — amazingly enough! — people who actually respect and approve of these two individuals, it might indeed be “gentle” to be circumspect in one’s criticism of these two.
But surely you see the difference between not being “gentle”, in that sense, and in actually flinging personal insults at the “messenger” who does express their frank criticism of some public figure, or some idea, or some practice? The subject under discussion is a whole different category than the individuals participating in that discussion. On does not stoop to personally denigrating one’s opponent in a debate or discussion: that is simply not done!
Like I said: It often happens that the victim of this kind of uncouth commenting tends to be too gentle, or else too courteous, or else simply too diffident, to return insult for insult. That is what lets people like Vinny here, or — to take another concrete example — the commenter who called himself “Jesse”, to get away with this sort of thing. But if every time an insult were thrown in, if it were returned with interest, then one would end with a whole cascade of personal insults. That kind of an environment would hardly be conducive to any kind of reasonable and civil discussion, would it now? I doubt you (or I) would care to waste our time in that kind of a dump.
And the answer to this is not restraint in the face of others’ obnoxiousness. The answer is to hold the original offender responsible, and to take them to task. The answer is to unequivocally discourage discourtesy aimed at the person of one’s interlocutor.
Think about this one more time, if you would, Spence. Do you really disagree with me?

@Jim
You say that souls were created but they don’t perish. That means they had a beginning but not an end.
That is not possible.
What has a beginning MUST have an end.
That which has NO END also CANNOT have a beginning and we call it “Eternal”
Either something is part of MAYA (has a beginning and an end)
Or it is part of the ONENESS, in which case it is timeless and has no beginning and no end.
It cannot be both.
Our universe will end one day, and it also had a beginning.
Our body will end one day and it had a beginning.
God will not end and he had no beginning.
So god is called eternal.
The soul being of the same essence of god, must therefore also be eternal.
The attributes of an ETERNAL thing are:
No beginning, no end. Timeless. Doesn’t change. No movement.
No ‘thinking’; no mind; no good/bad notions etc (as these are mind related)
The attributes of a non-eternal thing are
Has a beginning
Has an end.
Changes.
This is the reason why the idea of a Sach Khand is absurd.
The only real Sach Khand has to have the attributes I listed above for ‘eternal’
The idea of ‘recognizing’ is impossible for many reasons:
There is no mind, there cannot be anyone to recognize. ‘Recognize’ only happens in duality not in oneness

@Osho,……God only , has tried to explain Eternity, Beginning and end , Alpha and Omega thru humans, to other other humans.
In the Bible, John said that the Word, did have a beginning. That Word is the Light. So, even that Light had a beginning, but Its Creator must have been Eternal in order to create The Word, that DID have a beginning,
John 1:1-10 New International Version (NIV)
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.“
So, that invisible Formless, Soundless God, must be that Anami Purush described by Samt Mat Mystics, that is the Eternal Creator of the Word, which is Shabd, and Christ, which has been Gifted to every created soul in some past Eons of Space Time.
The only Way Anami Purush is able to explain His/Her/Its Spiritual/Material Merits is by using Shabd, Christ The Word as The Channel to humanity.
Souls had beginnings, but not the Spirit that gave abd gives created souls life, and sustenance of Duality,
YOU and I, and ALL created souls will remain in Duality for Eternity, some where in Charausi.
You can never permanently escape, even if you commit suicide. You will either be reincarnated or Transmigrated right back to earth to pick up right where you left off, but in a different material Container.
Sach Khand , most likely, is the Ultimate Kingdom Within, that Jesus advised his Desciples to seek, as Masters still do to their Desciples today.
Cheers,
Jim
,

@ Osho,,,,
“Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”
So, WHO is the” Former”?
And Who are those formed Prophets today?
Jim

@Osho,
“ The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.“ (2nd Cor. 2:4 )
So, Who is the god of this age, Osho?
Who are blind and can’t see the Light, Osho?
WHO IS ,….” the image of Christ?
The Apostle Paul wrote these Verses in Corinthians, after he saw the Light and was knocked off his horse.
Jim

Hi Appreciative
No I don’t disagree with you. I point out that if the nature of the response is in kind we should accept it. Vinny saying “these crooked Atheists…” and then going on to his point about the source of energy is mild and indirect. And the discussion of the perpetual energy of sub atomic particles is actually a solid point. It remains a mystery.
When Jesse makes personal criticisms as a joke, even when he is hurling his insult at me, the joke is so clever I can’t help but laugh. So I’ll take scathing criticism when it comes in such a brilliant form. And his points are valid.
When I called brain EMF signals “radio waves” (inadvertently) and Brian created a post specifically to call me “a liar”, and on several occasions calls people he disagees with “dishonest” I don’t mind.
Because the points he makes are valid, from his perspective, and worthy of consideration.
When Jen tells me to “stop preaching at me”, I already know this is a weakness of mine (Jen has not been the first…maybe, if I go all the way back to college days, probably the 50th to ask me to stop preaching. Sadly the feedback has only had modest effect).
The only question for me is, is the comment truly insincere?
And I would have to say that these were all sincere comments, and worthy of posting, reflection and digestion, salty language and all.
My Master said that our harshest critics are our best friends.
By that definition we are all bosom buddies here.

Hi Osho
How can a created being become eternal?
How can an eternal being become flesh and blood?
It’s easy to understand substantial misunderstanding about the inner regions until you go there.
Like trying to explain color to the blind.
The Master’s encourage us to do the practice and see these things for ourselves.
Until then, it’s just a matter of endless debate.
But let me suggest some practical examples to loosen up the encrusted thinking.
The creation is changing, but energy is eternal.
When energy changes its signature, carries impressions, it becomes more like matter. And the deeper you look into matter, the more you find energy, in one form or another.
We are mostly empty space, energy and the tiniest amount of what could be defined at matter… All patterned.
How can a being in time and space reach eternity?
That’s incredibly elementary. Step outside time. Everthing beyond the tenth gate is outside time.

@ Osho – I love your seeking to understand attributes – I see you quote the Sikh holy book. Read it with an impartial heart to see what attributes you need yourself before you seek to understand the creators attributes 😀

@Arjuna
the wisest of us all
@Jim
Y’r right – how else a Saint could come back from SK ?
but I can so very well imagine the reluctance to reflect on other things than the nectar
amrisar /ambrosia
even earthly ‘lovers’ have that, I say un-scientificly
777

@Spencer
Like trying to explain color to the blind.
Like seeing temperatures but your partner refuses to use the special spectacles
laser or so

@Arjuna
I was born into rssb. I was reading spiritual link at the age of 10. I would take it to school and when others were playing, I was reading how to meet god.
At 18 when I went to university, I joined a spiritual movement and would meditate 3 hours a day. I later got initiated by thakar Singh and went to India to meet various gurus.
God was all I was interested in.
After thirty years of this journey I met a person who told me I had it all wrong.
That was the opening of the real journey, as he had already been on it and explained things to me I previously never understood. For the first time I realised I had wasted all my life because god did not live in some distant land.
Only then could I even decipher what GSD was really saying when he quoted paltu “there is only the ONE”
Up until then the filter of “I have to attain and DO” kept me deluded.
He showed me the actual scriptures and what they really meant, not the projected meaning that RSSB was putting onto them.
He showed me that it was nonsense to believe there is some external god with human like attributes.
Instead he showed me from the granth sahib what the attributes of god were.
And what the attributes of a human were.
The japji summarises the whole spiritual journey and was the first words uttered by Nanak after his first taste of enlightenment
He disappeared for three days and everyone thought he had drowned in the river.
When he came back he spoke the japji.
It wasn’t designed to be repeated parrot fashion. It was written in order to understand the nature of god who has no attributes

@All
I leave SK to you all
I need TWO to dance the Tango
next dive in it once in a while
A Granth (paraphrasing)
“See Myriads of Warriors, Great and Mighty,, dancing on the breath of the Almighty”
You like that Arjuna ?

@Spence

It’s easy to understand substantial misunderstanding about the inner regions until you go there

I presume from your statement that you have been to the inner regions.
Please tell me from your inner journey to the regions what you have understood.
Have you arrived at truth?
Or are you still deluded and searching?
I don’t want theory like “when I get to the higher regions then…..”
I am talking only about where you are now, not in the future.
Which region have you reached and have you met the lord of those regions?
Please explain.

@Jim
You shouldn’t do that
First you take the Bible as a fairy tale and mock the persons therein
Next you try to convince us ; . . . . “BECAUSE the Bible SAIS SO”
compared a clear profound BUTT_69 repetition is more honest
77

@Osho
your : “” I. was born into rssb.””
Thakar is not RSSB at all
777

@Spence
You wrote:
No I don’t disagree with you. I point out that if the nature of the response is in kind we should accept it. Vinny saying “these crooked Atheists…” and then going on to his point about the source of energy is mild and indirect. And the discussion of the perpetual energy of sub atomic particles is actually a solid point. It remains a mystery.
I refer you to my comment of Nov 26 above.
There was nothing either mild or indirect there. Please go back and reread. Either you mis-read or are just being dishonest.
Nobody can call the comments of Vinny either mild or indirect.
Obviously if they were this current discussion would not even be taking place, would it?

Hi Osho
Whatever can be said about a place that can’t be explained?
If you believe me, what does that accomplish? Belief counts for nothing. But if you don’t believe the practice of meditation and engage in it with full dedication, the cost is immeasurable.
And what is keeping you from full practice? Doubt? Disbelief? Your own notions about what God is supposed to be?
I’ll tell you something you won’t believe.
In that place every belief is absolutely wrong. They are all forgotten.
And every moment only joy.
So there is the cost : practice must replace conjecture.
Be wrong, Osho, let go and fall into truth.
I am wrong every morning and it’s wonderful.
Practice completely in the dark with no expectations at all. Just be in the dark. It’s very pleasant. The rocket ship within you is already prepped and the time clock is set. If you are in the elevator at the appointed time, everthing is taken care of for you. But you must do your part and be there.
If I tell you all this, then what is the point?
The end of the story is practice.

I didn’t answer your question, sorry.
The highest region I have been taken to is one without a name.

Quote Spence:
“No I don’t disagree with you.”
Heh, you express agreement (or at least, lack of disagreement) with me, only to better express, in your comment, your actual disagreement. Fair enough: that kind of faux agreement is an accepted gambit in “debates”, and I acknowledge and appreciate it for what it is.
I respect your disagreement, Spence, but I’m afraid I disagree strongly with the reasons you put forward for your disagreement.
Your comment is essentially a kedgeree of three distinct and separate arguments. Allow me to unravel those three strands, and to respond to them separately:
Quote Spence again:
“Vinny saying “these crooked Atheists…” and then going on to his point about the source of energy is mild and indirect.”
And that, Spence, is a blatant straw man.
Yes, Vinny has long been saying things like this, in a general way as part of his long-standing campaign against atheists: but no, that is not what I protested against, at all!
This long-standing refrain of Vinny’s is merely an eccentricity, nothing more, and in fact I personally find his whole eccentric style of commenting rather endearing in an odd kind of way. That is the spirit in which I’ve generally taken his comments, and that is the spirit in which I have engaged with him myself — wholly cordially, generally speaking — in the past.
No, what I objected to were these specific gems, these specific instances of direct personalizations, all quoted verbatim, and all of them buried within this thread itself:

1. Vinny saying: “This crooked atheist osho robbins” , and “This crooked Non Christian atheist osho robbins” .
2. Vinny’s charming description of Osho Robbins as “This cunning and crooked atheist osho robbins” and “this cunning and crooked man” .
3. His further continuing in the same vein in another comment: “This cunning crooked man osho robbins” , and “this crooked osho robbins” , and “this crooked man osho robbins” , and, further, “the idiotic behavior of this man” and “he … starts jumping like monkey” .
4. It goes on like this: “this idiotic man osho robbins, he started jumping like monkey” , and “This monkey osho robbins” , and “This half baked man osho robbins” , and yet again, “This monkey osho robbins … his breed” . Notice, especially, that particularly charming segue from a merely personal attack on to an all-out racist offensive against Osho Robbin’s “breed”.
5. Vinny goes on and on his wondrous invectives to record, saying “Crooked osho robbins” , and “jumping like a monkey” , and — oh yes, this one’s really good! — “Mentally unstable crooked man osho robbins” .
6. Ah, now we go from a combination of purely personal as well as racist attacks, on to a more general invectives based on (allegedly) religious grounds, when our sweet protagonist goes on to say: “this monkey osho robbins … is behaving like a typical Hindu/ Moslem /Sikh bastards do. Jump like monkeys after reading the leftovers knowledge of Christian Innovators. … He hasn’t done anything to prove he is different from the breed of Hindu/Moslem/Sikh bastards”.
   Nice, no?
7. Wait, it isn’t ended yet, this lovely tirade. Our friend next Vinny goes on to say: “this idiotic monkey osho robbins” , and, further, “I warn this monkey”.

Yeah, I stopped looking at that point. More than enough examples already presented, and no doubt many more still left unvisited.
Is this — this — what you’re trying to defend, Spence? Is this the hill — this stinking pile of garbage — the one you wish to make your stand on, and go down defending?
Irrespective of anything else that has been said on either side as far as actual argument on actual issues, is this rancid heap of personalized and racially tinged invective, really something you wish to make common cause with, Spence?


Quote Spence further:
“When I called brain EMF signals “radio waves” (inadvertently) and Brian created a post specifically to call me “a liar”, and on several occasions calls people he disagees with “dishonest” I don’t mind.”
Yes, I suppose Brian could have been more politic and less outspoken, but you know what, I don’t mind either, not really, because he wasn’t really off the mark there.
Hell, right here in this comment of mine, I’ve clearly shown you, with evidence clearly presented, how you’ve been blatantly strawmanning away. That line of argument on your part was clearly disingenuous. And that (saying that you were“strawmanning”, and were “disingenuous”) is basically another way — a more circuitous and circumspect and, well, polite way — of saying just that, of saying you’re “lying”.
Why you cannot take issue with this in good conscience, Spence, is because it happens to be the truth. Because it happens to have been clearly backed up with incontrovertible evidence.
While it isn’t very respectful, nor particularly “gentle”, nevertheless it is okay to call GSD a “crook”, because that is a reasonable explanation of the evidence presented. But it is NOT okay to call Osho Robbins a crook, first, because this would be personalization, and second, because this is purely unfounded and wholly unsupported, and no more than invective.
You try to draw a false equivalence between Brian calling you a “liar”, and Vinny calling Osho Robbins a “crook”. Brian was clearly showing how you were literally “lying” — now I don’t want to take sides in that argument, but his calling you a “liar” was simply an extension of his argument, and indeed had to do with your specific argument — as such, no, it was NOT personalization, merely a reflection on your argument itself (albeit made in less than politic terms). The same can be said of my describing your argument as “a straw man”, or as my describing your argument in that specific instance as “disingenuous” — and indeed the same could have been said had I simply (and discourteously) called you a “liar”, in as much as that specific argument of yours.
That is very different from what Vinny had said to Osho Robbins, because surely Vinny has no argument at all that might prove that Osho Robbins is a “crook”, or “mentally unstable”, or, for that matter, that he is a monkey!!! Nor is Osho Robbins’s personal honesty (or dishonesty), or the state of his mental health, or for that matter his genus and his species, at all relevant to this discussion, so that that was personalization plain and simple, and invective plain and simple.
Nope, Spence, you’re trying to draw a spurious equivalence between these very distinct, very different, and very dissimilar cases. There is no such equivalence at all, as I hope I’ve been able to show you here.
You’re merely seeking to muddy the issue by conflating Brian’s comments directed at you (as well as Jen’s perfectly innocent comments made to you about your “preaching)), with Vinny’s racially and religiously tinged personal invectives directed at Osho Robbins.


Quote Spence again, from within that same comment:
“When Jesse makes personal criticisms as a joke, even when he is hurling his insult at me, the joke is so clever I can’t help but laugh. So I’ll take scathing criticism when it comes in such a brilliant form.”
Ah, now we move to a whole different argument, a whole different line of thought. Here what you’re saying is, essentially, that the only thing that matters to you is the point being sought to be made, and not the language in which it is expressed. In other words, you’re saying that you’re okay with personal vilification, and seek to concentrate instead on the actual points being made.
Fair enough. If that is the standard of discourse you find acceptable, so be it.
But in that case, you cannot be selectively critical on those very grounds, can you? If you find it acceptable when Jesse tells Manjit that he will gladly go to Manjit’s funeral to laugh at his relatives, then I’m sure you find it perfectly acceptable when I tell Jesse — deliberately, and only in order to make my point — that I’ll go to Jesse’s funeral to commiserate with his relatives at their misfortune and their disgrace in having spawned a monstrosity like Jesse within their family, and also when I say that Jesse’s death will leave me entirely unmoved because I don’t care for him at all, not even the smallest slightest bit, so that I wouldn’t even bother to trumpet out a fart in celebration of his death. How witty of me, right?! How perfectly brilliant is my razor wit, with which I unerringly make my point, eh?
Like I’d said to you once, some weeks back, this blogsite of Brian’s is an anomaly, in that it is peopled with a bunch of uncommonly well-mannered and decent and generally courteous bunch of commenters. That’s all good and fine, but somehow people here seem unable, or unwilling, to shift gears, not even when the situation clearly cries out for it. Probably this has something to do with the common thread of this RSSB faith running across here, which makes people — including those who’d followed this religion in the past but have now given up, but still carry the sensibilities fostered by that gentle faith — loath to return insult for insult.
Therefore, you have the nauseating spectacle, here, of, for instance, this “Jesse” repeatedly insulting “One Initiated”, calling him all kinds of foul names, and One Initiated expressing, in return, his love for him, while clearly discomfited and hurt by this blatant abuse. I mention One Initiated, but I’ve seen this happen not just with him, in connection with Jesse I mean to say, but also, to differing degrees, with people like 777, and Dungeness, and even you, Spence, as well plenty of individual commenters who are not regulars here.
Well, I am differently constituted than that. As you’ve seen, I am, in general, scrupulously — and instinctively — courteous and considerate of others’ sensibilities. However, I’m no votary of the “turning the other cheek” line of thought. No sir! Someone tries fooling around with me, and I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt once, and twice, and even thrice, but after that I’ll pay them back in their own coin, and with interest to boot. After a point, and given enough provocation, I’m perfectly happy not just taking “an eye for an eye”, but with — figuratively — pulping-up-their-whole-fucking-face-for-them for an eye. I have no compunctions in being foul-mouthed, against people who are themselves given to unprovoked vile foul-mouthing.
And what is more, I reserve the right to do the same even when I may not be personally involved. I reserve the right to do the same simply because I’m pissed off when I see some hapless person attacked and heckled in this manner. If someone is free with their own fists — figuratively speaking — then they have no fucking business protesting when others land their (figurative) fists on their precious face.


And my point is this: Sure, I can understand that you personally might find this kind of invective acceptable. Frankly, knowing you as I do through your comments, Spence, and knowing you for a decent and fair and scrupulously courteous person, I doubt that very much, and suspect that you’re simply saying this to somehow make your point and somehow carry your argument: still, what the hell, if you say this yourself, I’ll grant you this, why not, I’ll grant that you personally do not find these personally-directed insults disconcerting.
But that also means that you have no grounds, at all, to object when others respond to this kind of invective with a scathing flow of invective of their own. Right?
If A makes their points in language clothed in personalizations and insults, and you say you don’t mind; then you cannot possibly object when B and C and D all respond to A with similarly insulting language, or when B and C and D subsequently start making their point to A in language that is even more foul and vile. Correct?
And should that happen — and yes, there are lots and lots and lots of forums online where this kind of thing does happen regularly, where foul personalized name-calling is indeed the norm — then it is easy to picture the commenting on this blogsite devolving to a whole cascade of foul vile name-calling and personalizations, as well as all kinds of racist and identity-based insults galore.
I personally would not care to spend time in that kind of a dump.
And, given that I cherish this blog of Brian’s, and enjoy spending time here — even when I don’t necessarily always comment here myself — therefore I’d like to prevent this place from degenerating to that state.
Call me an officious busybody if you will — given that it is I who am saying all of this, and not Brian, whose blog this actually is, and whose place it is to actually take a stand on this — but that is the reason why I find myself speaking up on issues of this nature, that do not directly and personally involve me. That and, like I said, an instinctive sense of empathy that cries out in protest when I see some hapless person — people like One Initiated, and Osho Robbins, and Dungeness, and 777, and nameless others, and even you, Spence, and for that matter even Brian himself — attacked by ill-bred, ill-mannered and foul-mouthed bullies, even when the victim has nothing to do with me personally.

Quote OshoRobbins :
You say that souls were created but they don’t perish. That means they had a beginning but not an end. —- That is not possible. —- What has a beginning MUST have an end. —- That which has NO END also CANNOT have a beginning …

Why not, Osho Robbins? I don’t see that what you’re saying necessarily holds.
It is perfectly possible to conceive of all four kind of ‘things’:

1. Something that has existed from eternity, and will continue on eternally.
2. Something that came into being at some specific time, will exist for some finite period, and will cease to be at some specific time.
3. Something that has existed eternally, but will be nevertheless come to be snuffed out at some specific time.
4. Something that came into being at some specific time, but will continue to exist eternally.

I mean, why on earth not? At least logically, and in theory, I see no difficulty picturing any of these four categories of things.
And if your objection is based on evidence, well, we don’t have evidence for any of this, except for #2 above, that is, for things that are finite at both ends of time. Your “One”, that is infinite at both ends of time, has no evidence supporting it either, does it?
In fact — not that I myself take any of these fairy tales at all seriously, other than as myth, but still — there are many religious/philosophical schools of thought that support Jim’s view. (Yeah, I know, that support amounts to nothing at all, given that they themselves are fairy tales. Still, nevertheless.)
It’s been years since I read that stuff, but I remember there are some schools within Sankhya that actually hold that souls were created, but will continue forever. (There are other schools within Sankhya that hold that souls are eternal, like you say.) Then you have the two main Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam, whose mainstream interpretation does hold that souls were created by God, but will continue to exist eternally. (I’m not very clear, TBH, about what the original Abrahamic faith, Judaism, has to say about this. Spence, if you’re reading this, would you be able to weigh in on this, about what Judaism has to say about “souls”, and when they were created, and whether they are eternal, and so forth?)
And take what physics says. Of course, my understanding is that cosmological theories are iffy at best at this grand scale, but cosmologists are more or less agreed that the universe originated in a Big Bang. But there is no unanimous consensus — to my (limited) knowledge — of all of this ending in some kind of Big Crunch. Apparently we may, for all we know, keep on expanding forever. So that would belong to #4 above, that is, to the category of things that does have a beginning but has (or might have) no end.


This brings me back to my original objection, made many months back, against your particular line of argument here. It is one thing to say that all of these things that, say, a Jim believes in, are lacking in objective evidence, and therefore to reject them. But to bring in your eternal One as some kind of argument against the theology of the Bible or of RSSB, that makes no sense at all, given that there is zero objective evidence for your eternal everlasting One.
Not that I’m doubting your personal experiences and realization of this One — not for a minute, I fully respect your personal insights, Osho Robbins! — but many here apparently have had equally convincing experiences about RSSB theology, people like Jim, and Spence, and 777, and One Initiated. It is one thing to be skeptical of their beliefs and even their alleged visions in the absence of evidence, but surely this attempt to show up the paucity in their worldview by juxtaposing it against your own eternal One, is a bit like trying to show the fallacy of belief in invisible unicorns by positing invisible dragons instead?

Quote 777 :
“@Jim —- You shouldn’t do that —- First you take the Bible as a fairy tale and mock the persons therein —- Next you try to convince us ; . . . . “BECAUSE the Bible SAIS SO””
Agreed, 777.
This is a common failing of (some) people who’ve spent an inordinate amount of time and effort in reading these fairy tales. Having already invested so much of effort on them, they seem unable to shake off their reliance on these fairy tales, even when they clearly realize they are indeed fairy tales.
I remember, one time, these people had come up to my house, and invited me to one of their meetings. These were proselytizing types, and we got to discussing their worldview. They had some pretty weird ideas, something about some exact number of people (I don’t remember how many, exactly, perhaps a million or so, no more) making it when the Trumpets sound out — and yes, the sounding of Trumpets is apparently close at hand — and they tried their best to show me how theirs is the correct interpretation of the Good Book. And yes, the idea was to enlist me so that I could strive to be one of that one million or so souls who’d be saved. Exclusive one-time deal! Yep, nutty indeed!
So anyhow: They’d come all prepared to have me challenge their interpretation of the Bible, they’d come prepared to argue against alternative (and more mainstream) interpretations of the words of the Bible; but they were literally at a loss for words when I asked them what difference it did make even if they could prove that theirs was indeed the correct interpretation of the Bible; what did it matter, after all, what some ancient ignorant goatherds thought and wrote in some book? Who cares two pins what the Bible means to say? When I asked them that, they simply kept quiet, fidgeted a bit, finished their coffee and cookies, and politely took their leave.


Jim, you keep on trotting out these quotations from the Bible, but what do you imagine they prove?
John 1.1 says “Parum pa rum pa pum”; and Luke 2.2 says “Humpty lumpty dumpty doo”; and Mathew 3.3 says “Yada yada yaddayaddayadda yada”; don’t you see that the best you can show, with all of these quotes, is that the Bible is saying something-or-the-other about something? So bloody what, if that the Bible says that? What difference does that make to anything?
Sure, if the discussion happens to be about some scholarly academic question about what the Bible has to say about something — which is a very valid question, but essentially of the same category as what Tolkien may have said about something, or JK Rowling, in their celebrated works — then sure, all of what you say would matter. But when it comes to discussing reality, actual reality, then what do you imagine you’re out to prove, Jim?
Not that your quotes are themselves particularly authoritative, as Spence has often shown here with other alternative quotes and alternative interpretations from that same book of fairy tales, in other contexts: but even if one were to grant you that your personal interpretation is sound, even then, do you really not see that the contents of the Bible mean nothing, nothing at all, so far as the real world? It only contains, at best, mythology, and fiction, and some moving poetry, and some random bits of everyday folk wisdom, and that’s all.
And that goes for all other “sacred” literature; quoting them proves nothing about the world at large. Proofs about the world must be drawn from within the world. In the absence of such proof, what the Bible says about something is entirely inconsequential; and even if one is able to actually present that proof, even then the words in these books become redundant in any case.

@777, …..I never said the Bible was a “ Fairy Tale.”
I said it was written by Humans to some times be taken Historically, while ofher times, as Alligories to teach humans various lessons of life.
In your case considering your faciniation with Gurinder’s 69 Joke,…or thought,……….
Here is a possible Allegory in the Bible for you to take a lesson from”
Revelation 6:9 says,….” Revelation 6:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held”
Jim

@Appreciative Reader,….
As I previously said, I don’t waste my energy of Pseudo Trolls, especially long winded wordy Trolls like you, that have very little constructive to say, other than to ask unending meaningless questions from those think you can One Up, like me, Jessie, Jen, and a host of others who you first sucked up to, asking stupid questions, acting like a little Puppie Dog humping their legs and getting all excited that you pee on their pant legs, as you do to Manjit’s when he comes out of his hole on Full Moons. HaHa
Before I accept ANY critique from the likes of a Troll like you, I’d rather eat a can of worms, drink Nine Gallons of Buzzard Puke, and die with the drizzling shits.
Hope you aren’t offended!
But if you aren’t then please BE, cuz you need to learn your A B Cs before you enter in to a forum like this church thinking your able to critique just about ANY other one that has ever posted in the Churchless Church,
Your posts read like some thing written by Grade School Students practicing Penmanship.
Jim Sutherland, B.Min., M Min., Th.D.

Quote OshoRobbins :
That which has NO END also CANNOT have a beginning …
Before Abraham, . . . I AM. !
or
Nothing happens, . . it’s all illusion
of an energy that just IS )
so
Both. Are
How can the layman seeing all the code_lines in hex or binair
see the holodeckx
777
I like the x

Hi Appreciative:
Yes, I see the unkind words Vinny used. Vinny has made racist comments, but so have others looking at the Indian culture and presuming Satsangis are just an ignorant group of gullible and delusional people. There is plenty of racism all around.
But calling anyone a “liar” is also a false exaggeration. The fact that you would defend this, when there is no defense for it, demonstrates, Appreciative, that you and I will have to agree to disagree on this very point, as well as the point above.
A liar tells something they know to be untrue on purpose. I merely conflated EMF signals with Radio signals, without regard to the much more limited definition of radio signals (which are a subset of EMF signals, as I discovered reading the definitions of both). To then create a post detailing the difference without acknowledging my intention as innocent is going to an extreme, not an objective reflection.
Generally, when a whole group of people are being accused, that is a form of racism, ethnocentrism, gingoism, call it anything you like. Vinny has made such accusations, as has Brian and others.
My point is to ignore the hyperbole and the insults and extract the objective basis for the complaint or argument.
To do that we can’t get caught up in the verbiage. I dismiss it entirely.
Because you can’t have a fight if only one person is hurling knives. You have an attack that draws attention to your response. And a simple but direct fact-based response that has no boundary, that is not limited to one group or another, can turn that into a discussion. At least to a point of education. You are not speaking as the victim. You are speaking as the principle or the point of information.
So please consider that when you do not react to these things, and focus your prodigious intellect on the argument at hand and only that, providing factual information, or simple and clear reason, your words carry much more power to the very person you are trying to educate.
Just a suggestion….

Hi Appreciative:
You asked me to weigh in on the Bible’s definition of soul as eternal or created.
The Bible has two terms it uses for soul. The indestructible Spirit (Pneuma) and the Psyche (Mind) and both of these are found in both testaments.
Mind has been translated as individual soul, and that is created and destructible. There is the Soma Psyche (the body of the mind) which is transformed into Spirit (Logos and Pneuma in the New Testament), indestructible.
Or raised in the Word of the Old Testament, (the Memra (the Holy Spirit)).
We are raised from one to the other. So what is that “we”?
That is the “I” that Saint Paul says was taken up to the third heaven. The “I” that has a heavenly body as well as a physical body. Leaving one, St. Paul spends time with Christ in the other. And then returns here. “They shall enter and return”.
That indestructible “I” is spoken of but never defined in the Bible.

When St. Paul says the body is raised from perishible body to imperishible, the Greek does not always say flesh into Spirit.
In one of the most famous bible citations Paul says we are sown into a body of mind that is perishible (Soma Psyche) and raised into a body of Spirit (Soma Pneuma)
“It is sown a natural body (body of mind…soma Psyche) and raised a spiritual body (soma Pneuma)”
1 Corinthians 15:44
And Paul goes on to write that we have both of these. They both exist.

Note this specific point:
“”It is sown a natural body (body of mind…soma Psyche) and raised a spiritual body (soma Pneuma)”
1 Corinthians 15:44
What is that one thing that is common to both…the seed that is sown?
We are sown into a body of mind, and that into a body of flesh.
We are raised into a body of spirit.
But what is that “we” that exists in all three?
That is indestructible, from God, and never fully defined in the Bible.
It was always there…it will always be, but it is clothed in different robes. one of flesh, another layer of mind, and one of spirit.

Trolls can throw Poop Balls and hide behind their pseudo Avatars thinking they have a free Licence to do so.
I don’t mind getting critiqued or insulted, or called all of the names I have received here, but don’t expect me to engage Trolls, unless I have their Name, or at the very least, know they are even Satsangis or Ex Satsangis.
Other wise, don’t waste your time on me.
Jessie was one of the most aggressive Trolls ( not to me), but we knew who he was . He never hid, and haven paid his Dues as an Initiated Satsangi, plus being married to an Indian Wife surely allowed his comments to be considered on a forum of Exsatsagus and Atheists.
Jim

@ Spencer – i agree with what you say above , however Brian must stamp out racism on here. I won’t say anything more on this matter!

Hi Arjuna
I’ve been telling myself not to comment anymore on this blog but what you have just said “Brian must stamp out racism on here” has triggered me once again! And then I think oh what the hell, I’m getting old now and probably not far from total senility or even death, so here goes…
Your comment is highly provocative and then you say that you won’t say anything more on this matter… so you just felt like dropping a shite bomb stirring things up a bit about a very sensitive issue ?!
Please give some examples of what people have said on this blog that you call “racism”.

Jen asked Arjuna,…..Please give some examples of what people have said on this blog that you call “racism”.
Me: Jessie was the most Racist Poster, especially against our Indian Brothrts and Sisters.
Vinny is Brutal.
We need to call a Spade s Spade.
But truthfully, we are ALL Racists, we are just bias to our own.

Hi Jim,
I started out not liking Jesse and then after awhile got to know and understand him. It always takes some time and communication with another to see who and what they really are. He was a straight talker and spoke his truth which is good in my opinion.
People who haven’t been targeted as being racist don’t realise how difficult it is. Its almost like sometimes I think well I might as bloody well be a racist if I am going to be accused of such just because of the country I was born in.
You guys have no idea what its like to be judged as a racist simply because I have a white skin and was born in South Africa. When I first came in contact with New Zealanders and Australians I was stunned when I was confronted with “if I knew were a South African I would not have spoken to you”, even “I hate South Africans” to my face.
Judging someone by the country they were born in is a good example of racism. Its a fucked up world and I’m so over it.

Vinny:
I actually took the time to look back at what our Church brothers and sisters were referring to in your comments. And I must admit I didn’t read these until now.
You wrote:
“Why this monkey osho robbins has become dumb now??? Is he doing a google search again??? He is behaving like a typical Hindu /Moslem /Sikh bastards do. Jump like monkeys after reading the leftovers knowledge of Christian Innovators. He hasn’t done anything to prove he is different from the breed of …”
“Now look at the idiotic behavior of this man, he does some google search and starts jumping like monkey after getting half baked answers. He should again watch the video Hindus,Moslems and Sikhs are all bastards” and weep after that.”
..
I’ve counted approximately a dozen such comments.
The point you were trying to make about energy, I supported. But you lost it all in this vitriol.
So that is very sad. Because bigotry is a huge turn off.
OK, I admit it, the first time I saw you write this I laughed. It was so ridiculous. Just like Donald Trump. I thought you were going the the extreme without actually believing it yourself. Just to get a reaction.
But when he became President, I was shocked and am still in grief.
So, the first time, I get it, you were being sarcastic, and we could forgive your racism.
But after the tenth time it gets old and actually hateful. When you repeat these hateful comments that is purposefully being unkind to Osho, and not particularly nice to the rest of the world either.
What you wrote won’t bring the world together.
Adolph Hitler tried the same tactic: A few words that had some merit buried in hate. Well, hate buried the world.
So in the future, instead of copying and pasting the vitriol over and over, just please leave it out.
And to my Church colleagues, I will point out that Vinny’s first comment had no vitriol at all. But apparently this sort of language got your attention.
So if you attend to it, you reinforce it. Take a look at the sequence of Vinny’s comments for yourself. The more you attended to Vinny’s racist remarks, the more racist they became.
There’s a lesson there. One that Mr. Trump apparently has learned.
Let’s teach Vinny another lesson, by agreeing never to reactively comment on his comments when they include personal attacks.
Do we need Brian to do this? Or can each of us exercise a modicum of self control?
Vinny, you will be speaking to air in the future, dismissed as irrelevant, if you continue in this way.
If you are trying to provide a mature comment, then please act like a fucking adult!

Quote Jim:
“@Appreciative Reader,…. (…) acting like a little Puppie Dog humping their legs and getting all excited that you pee on their pant legs (…) Hope you aren’t offended! ”
Not in the least, Jim. Your comment had me ROFLing away in mirth, as I pictured you earnestly sitting at your computer or your phone, typing this out. It was truly entertaining, reading that would-be repartee of yours.
There are those who spend their life seeking the elixir of youth, either literally or figuratively. You know better. Instead of youth, what you do is make the best of your God-given talents, and aim for infantilism instead.
Instead of ranting against an unheeding providence for having made you stupid, you’ve embraced your stupidity. You’ve been cursed with the intellect of a ten-year-old, but instead of moaning about it and letting it make you feel inadequate, you own it, and lustily celebrate it. I admire that.
I remember the last time I’d clearly shown up your idiocy here, with clear cogent argument, what you’d done is to respond to my arguments by calling me “cat’s poop”. This time it is, let’s see, “ Puppie Dog humping their legs and getting all excited that you pee on their pant legs”.
That’s the spirit, Jim! Many is the time people will have called you stupid, because stupid is what you are. And many is the time, going forward, that they’ll call you a fool and an imbecile, because a fool and an imbecile is what you are. Never ever let them get you down. So you’re stupid, so what? Show the same spirit that you do here, and stand up straight like a man, straighten your spine, and look them in the eye, and then go ahead and thumb your nose at them, and cross your eyes, and screw up your face into funny grimaces at them.
Yeah, that’ll show ’em! That’ll learn ’em to mess with Jim!
“ (…) B.Min., M Min., Th.D.”
That’s simply hilarious, how you earnestly parade your string of Mickey Mouse “degrees”.
In the course of your illustrious academic career, did they never teach you how to spell ‘puppy’, or teach you when to use capital letters and when not?
I love how you’ve taken your “Puppie Dog” comment to a whole meta level, even if unintentionally. These amazing would-be insults, I simply love how you couch them in not only the mentality and the vocabulary of a ten-year-old, but actually the spelling of a ten-year-old, as well as the kind of capitalization that a ten-year-old might employ, provided they were slow for their age.
God bless you, Jim, you of the illustrious “degrees”.
Oh yes, you even have a “Th.D”, don’t you? Do you call yourself “Dr. Jim”, then? Do people laugh at you when you do that?
I have taken the time in the past to clearly and cogently respond to you. I’d best not do that with this particular comment of yours, right? Instead, allow me to match wavelengths with you, and, in addition to these delightful pleasantries already exchanged, let me thumb my nose right back at you, and stick my tongue out at you, and say to you: “Yaaah, you’re stupid, Jimmy, and you’re ugly! And you speak funny too! And what’s more, your Mommy picked you up from the garbage can when you were little, and that’s why you stink so! Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah! ”

Quote Jim:
“Jessie was the most Racist Poster, especially against our Indian Brothrts and Sisters. —- Vinny is Brutal. —- We need to call a Spade s Spade.”
Thank you for that clear and unequivocal admission. Thank you for, as you say, calling a spade a spade.


But that isn’t quite the full story, is it?
You have yourself clearly denigrated Osho Robbins — not contested his views and arguments, but actually thrown unprovoked insults at his person based on information about his personal life, that you’d managed to get your paws on.
In fact, this kind of personalization is a recurring habit of yours. You do the same right here, in your previous comment addressed to me, and I’ve seen you do this plenty of times before this. Your earlier personal insults against Osho Robbins, that I referred to, were merely an egregious example of a clear pattern of behavior.
All of this is clearly documented here, and I have clearly produced this evidence in my comments about this at that time.
Your present admission and acknowledgement of another’s personalization and racism does not absolve you of that past guilt. Especially when your admission and acknowledgement is very clearly more of the weather-vane variety, than an unalloyed act of conscience.


You know what this weather vane is, that I refer to here, don’t you, in this context, I mean? Let me explain:
A weather vane is an entity that notes that Jesse has made distinctly racist comments, but does not speak out in protest. This entity, it subsequently sees Appreciative Reader protest Jesse’s racism, but no, it doesn’t speak out in support, why on earth should it? Then, some months later, the weather vane notes that Vinny is posting a series of unmistakably racist comments, but no, it still does not speak out in protest. After that, this entity, this weather vane, sees Appreciative Reader speak out again, this time against this racism of Vinny’s, but again it keeps mum, our weather vane.
Finally, it sees other members on this board gradually start taking note of this blatant racism. It sees Arjuna chime in clearly against racism, not once but twice. Then it sees Spence, hitherto unresponsive and even defensive, now starting to be swayed by Appreciative Reader’s arguments. That’s two people already who are starting to side with Appreciative Reader’s POV, and three people in all who are now taking a stand against racism. Now our protagonist, this weather vane, sees these changes starting to happen right in front of its eyes: it notes that the weather has started changing, because that is what a weather vane does, it takes note of the changing weather.
At this point, the weather vane realizes that this may be an opportune moment to free its poor little conscience, muzzled up all this while, and to set it loose to do its job. The weather vane decides that now might be a great time to try to position as some kind of apparently proactive ethical stance what is, in fact, no more than some wholly opportunistic virtue-signaling. And so, at that point, this entity, this weather vane, sits up straight and, in ringing tones, announces that a spade must be called a spade; and finally, at long last, it ends up speaking up in against the racism of Jesse and of Vinny.
And that’s the weather vane for you! Nice, no?
Oh yes, Jim, it is transparently clear exactly how it ticks, what passes for a mind with you.


Nevertheless, and for all that, I do appreciate your having made this unequivocal admission and acknowledgement, and thrown in your weight — such as it is — behind my own comments and my own views about this unprovoked personalization and racism here on this blog, as expressed in the comments of both Jesse and Vinny. Thank you: better late, and with mixed motives, than never.

Quote Spence:
“Hi Appreciative: —- You asked me to weigh in on the Bible’s definition of soul as eternal or created. (…)”
Spence, thanks for those three comments of yours.
But actually what I’d requested you to weigh in on there was specifically the Jewish idea of the soul, as opposed to the Christian one.
My impression is that it is Christianity that brought into focus all of this emphasis around what happens to the soul after death, and in the herefter. Jewish tradition, as far as I am aware, does not make much of a song and dance about this: I think it simply takes for granted that one is to obey the Yahweh-God’s wishes and orders, without clearly spelling out why one is to do that (other than some nebulous promises about a passingly happy life here on earth). On the other hand, I suppose it does promise all kinds of misery if God isn’t obeyed, so well, I suppose that would be motivation enough, not to get on God’s wrong side. But anyway, all of that, the nebulous carrot and the more ominously threatening stick, is to do firmly with the here and now, not the hereafter, and is not really dependent on the concept of some “soul”.
What does Judaic tradition actually say about the hereafter? I’m afraid I’m yet to read any of the actual holy books of Judaism (except, obviously, bits and pieces of the Old Testament). As such I speak from ignorance, and my views on this are no more than vague impressions that may be wrong.
I understand that Judaism also has a distinct mystic tradition that is somewhat at odds with mainstream Judaism — much like Sufism and mainstream Islam, or, for that matter, in earlier times, Gnosticism and mystical Christian traditions vis-a-vis what ended up becoming mainstream Catholic Christian doctrine. At least that is my somewhat vague impression.
Given your Jewish heritage, that you’ve spoken of here, and given your general interest in things spiritual/religious, I was wondering if you might know this: whether you might know what, per Jewish beliefs, happens to the soul after one passes on; what happens to it one is obedient to God, and what if not; when God created this soul, and whether the soul exists till the end of eternity. That sort of thing. The Judaic version (as actually taught and believed), not the Christian one.

Dear Osho Robbins,
I notice you haven’t responded to my comment addressed to you, posted yesterday.
One can hardly blame you for exiting this noxious environment, given these blatant personalizations and name-calling, but I hope my own comment did not contribute towards your exiting this discussion?
I did express clear disagreement with your line of argument, but that was because I simply could not fathom why you weren’t able to see what was so clear to me. And while I referred to some specific arguments you’d forwarded against another poster, this applies to many other things you’ve said here as well. Hence my question/objection.
It could be that the error is mine, and that I’m the one missing something. Perhaps it might be that you were speaking from some specific RSSB perspective that I’m missing.
Anyhoo: I know from experience that you’re not one to be fazed by objections and arguments, not even when those go against you.
As such, any response you may wish to make to the specific objections I’d expressed, I’d be happy to read.
My best wishes to you!


This is the comment of mine that I was referring to, in case you’ve simply missed it in this whole flurry of comments :
“>https://churchofthechurchless.com/2018/11/the-absurdity-of-believing-there-is-sach-khand-heaven?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e2022ad3a35c1f200d#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e2022ad3a35c1f200d

Hi Appreciative
The Jewish tradition actually mirrors the Christian one. There is a spiritual tradition underneath the legal and cultural overlay.
While St John and Jesus talk of the Logos, the Greek word for the divine Word, which at that time had mystical connotations for holy spirit, in the Jewish tradition is the divine Name of God, or the Word the Lord uttered that created this creation. The Lord breathed the breath of life into Adam (which just means Man /Woman in ancient Hebrew) Listening to that Name brings spiritual bliss:
“O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together.”
PS 34:3
Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the light of thy countenance.
In thy name shall they rejoice all the day: and in thy righteousness shall they be exalted.”
PS 89:15

Also in the old testament beliefs about life after death range from atheism (Job and to some degree Ecclesiastes) all the way to the mystic experience of being brought home to the heavenly regions to marry God (the Song of Songs).
Job and Ecclesiastes actually contain some of the finest and most beautiful arguments for Atheism in recorded literature.

Hi Appreciative
You might find it interesting to know that Philo, the Greek Jewish Rabbi who lived around the time of Christ (but did not know him) also taught at length about the divine Logos that takes the form of a human being to stand as the intermediary and guide between humanity and God.

@ Jen – hello.
I think Jim reads me better than anyone on here – he summed up exactly what and who I meant to have made racist remarks.
I merely commented that Vinny made remarks that Brian should have censured – that is all.
@ Jim – thank you. I genuinely like you. You make sense on here and have wrote things which have made me think

@ Arjuna,
Originally you said: “@ Spencer – i agree with what you say above , however Brian must stamp out racism on here. I won’t say anything more on this matter!”
…..
Jim replied: “Jen asked Arjuna,…..Please give some examples of what people have said on this blog that you call “racism”.
Jim continues: Me: Jessie was the most Racist Poster, especially against our Indian Brothrts and Sisters.
Vinny is Brutal.
We need to call a Spade s Spade.
But truthfully, we are ALL Racists, we are just bias to our own.”
…..
You now say in your latest post: “I merely commented that Vinny made remarks that Brian should have censured – that is all.”
If you feel the need to call out racism on this blog it would have been better to be more honest and direct, like Jim says “call a spade a spade”, and mentioned Vinny’s name in the first post and then leave it up to Brian.

Hi Appreciative:
You asked about the hereafter in the OT.
“What does Judaic tradition actually say about the hereafter?”
Here are some citations referring to both everlasting life and the kingdom of heaven, as witnessed by the Saints.
“10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
11 Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.”
PS 16:10-11
“23 Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by my right hand.
24 Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.
26 My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.”
PS 73: 23-26
“15 As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth.
16 For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more.
17 But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children’s children;
18 To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.”
PS 103: 11-18
“7 The Lord shall preserve thee from all evil: he shall preserve thy soul.
8 The Lord shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even for evermore.”
PS 121:7-8
“10 All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord; and thy saints shall bless thee.
11 They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power;
12 To make known to the sons of men his mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of his kingdom.
13 Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
14 The Lord upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down.
15 The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their meat in due season.
16 Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.
17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.
18 The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.
19 He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.
20 The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.
21 My mouth shall speak the praise of the Lord: and let all flesh bless his holy name for ever and ever.
Psalm 145:10-21

@ Jen – when I wrote my posts I was tied very- I am still recovering from my adventures so yes I should have been more clear!
Now that I am clear let me be direct ! Yes Brian has allowed some idiots (and there are millions of such souls) to express their “racist” viewpoints via making mind based or so called scientific points and Brian shouldn’t have that. He even accused me of bullshit in one post or bullshit being called out etc. But said not a word about the people who made unsavoury remarks!
If atheism means lack of love and compassion to all regardless of race and creed – then I leave such souls to their own energy points to punish them! And no astheist beliefs don’t make you more in tune with nature and the universe – that’s bullshit – love does!
Say no more – be polite and nice – doesn’t cost anything. Some of us believe in God !!! End off!! And not in some Dead Poets type of intellectual clap trap as to what may exist or may not exist!!
Much respect as always
Vijay

@ Jen that was my middle name Vijay “it means victory” even though I have not won anything ha .
I just want people to love each other that’s all. And I meant no offence to you or Brian. Just stressed my view that people should be nice to each – there is anough grief in this world.
Take care

Hi Arjuna
You wrote
“If atheism means lack of love and compassion to all regardless of race and creed – then I leave such souls to their own energy points to punish them!”
LOL! OMG that is clever and hilarious!

@ Spencer – is not God love?
Anything which denies God cannot be an embodiment of Love but a mere a fake shadow – what say you?

Hi Arjuna
Yes, God is love. That is all God is. But so much love, so totally love, that it can take some time for these dried out sponge minds of ours to be brought back to life.

Hello Spencer – beautiful that was 😀

Well, all I see here on this blog is the opposite of “love”, just people spewing about the “lack of love”. Its a crazy world guys and no-one is ever going to change it from hating to love.
Its the way its been designed, different races of people fighting with each other, animals eating animals, people eating animals, life living off life, nature is cruel, so get it together and stop preaching about “love”. It ain’t going to happen.
This “God” stuff is just a belief people cling to. This God that people speak of seems more like a “Devil” to me, its Kal (the negative power) who created this mad and crazy place, get over it peeps.

I always seem to manage to stop the comments on a thread, like people are gobsmacked into silence because of that Jen person ranting away again!
Although I don’t see myself as a satsangi any more, for over 50 years now, I have been a strict vegetarian and teetotaller and don’t take mind altering drugs and live such a moral life I might even be almost perfect lol. I live this way because I wan’t to escape this nasty world and not have to reincarnate here again. Even though there are doubts in an afterlife there is always hope that my spirit will continue to evolve in other life forms in other dimensions, if they exist. So, I guess, we all have our beliefs and live in hope for something better.

Hi Jen
It’s good for your memory of you don’t smoke pot (unless you have pain, nausea or seizure disorders, then you should consider it)
http://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/young-peoples-memory-imp
And Arjuna, also one of the most effective methods in treating PTSD is meditation for some people.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-ptsd/meditation-may-help-ease-veterans-ptsd-symptoms-idUSKCN1NW2GB
It’s all a path and we are each traveling where we need to be.

Hi Spence,
OMG or probably in my case, OMnotG, I’m experiencing an awakening moment. As always been trying to figure myself out and thinking that maybe I am an existentialist, just been reading about the philosophy of Existentialism and found a youtube about “Being and Nothingness”. Its only taken me 73 years to find something that makes sense and works for me!
Introduction to the existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, with an emphasis on Being & Nothingness
Sartre in Ten Minutes (9:59)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ba3kvofvyg
Thanks Spence, I do appreciate your friendliness and kindness 🙂

Jen,
In that video Sartre surprisingly often (not always) sounds very Buddhistic.. not the kind that is religious with karma, reincarnation and all that, but zen-like without the robes, koans, incense, rice, shaved heads and sutras.
Existence.. just this, now. That’s it. The rest is abstraction and interpretation.
I like a zen cartoon book called “The Upside Down Circle” by Zen Master Gilbert

@Jim
You say that souls were created but they don’t perish. That means they had a beginning but not an end.
That is not possible.
What has a beginning MUST have an end.
That which has NO END also CANNOT have a beginning and we call it “Eternal”
Either something is part of MAYA (has a beginning and an end)
Or it is part of the ONENESS, in which case it is timeless and has no beginning and no end.
It cannot be both.
Our universe will end one day, and it also had a beginning.
Our body will end one day and it had a beginning.
God will not end and he had no beginning.
So god is called eternal.
The soul being of the same essence of god, must therefore also be eternal.
The attributes of an ETERNAL thing are:
No beginning, no end. Timeless. Doesn’t change. No movement.
No ‘thinking’; no mind; no good/bad notions etc (as these are mind related)
@AR
Here is the basis of my statements about eternity / end / endless etc
And why that which has a beginning MUST have an end, and also why
That which has no end also has no beginning. .
My main classifications are:
(1) Everything WITHIN time and space
(2) Everything OUTSIDE of time and space
So, (1) refers to everything that exists in the world. It is objective and can be examined.
(2) Is non-objective. It is conceptual. It is abstract. We understand it only through abstraction. You cannot study it because it cannot be seen or experienced. It is not “real” by our standards in the objective world. But it is also not taken on faith. It is in a different category. It is an abstraction.
Everything in category (1) has FORM, a beginning and an end.
It has a beginning and an end.
It Changes. Can you point to anything that has a beginning but no end? No
Can you point to anything that has no beginning and has an end? Again no.
Everything, no exceptions, has a beginning and an end.
Everything in the second category is an abstraction. It is the oneness.
No time, no space. Because it is beyond time and space, it makes no sense to talk about a beginning or an end. Neither exists. It makes no sense to talk about a form, or individuality, or things, or beings etc. It makes no sense to talk about past , present or future.
This is the reason why the idea of a Sach Khand is absurd.
The only real Sach Khand has to have the attributes I listed above for in category 2.
The idea of ‘recognizing’ is impossible for many reasons:
There is no mind, there cannot be anyone to recognize. ‘Recognize’ only happens in duality not in oneness

Hi tucson,
You say: “Sartre surprisingly often (not always) sounds very Buddhistic”.
Yes, thats exactly what I thought as well and like you say without the religious type conditioning.
He talks about: Human existence is about being in a fundamentally free and responsible predicament. Also, when we run away from freedom because of the belief that we are not free to choose. Instead of freedom and responsibility we make excuses.
Exact opposite of religious beliefs including Sant Mat which keep us restricted.

Hi Osho:
You wrote:
“No time, no space. Because it is beyond time and space, it makes no sense to talk about a beginning or an end. Neither exists. It makes no sense to talk about a form, or individuality, or things, or beings etc. It makes no sense to talk about past , present or future.”
Beyond time and space may not be “no time, no space” could be the complete whole of all of it.
And there may be several layers or regions of that. Your sense that the two are independent of one another entirely is false. Brian makes the same mistake all the time, so you are in good company.
Every triangle built in this world has its pattern in an abstract world, the world of concept.
No equilateral triangles actually exist here. Only in that abstract world. But to understand it, we make models here. And those models do take up space and exist in time. The conceptual ones don’t actually exist in this space or this time as we know it, but there are laws that exist there in that world, and equilateral triangles take up dimensional space there and their consideration may take up time as well. However, in that space infinite things can exist in a single space, and the size can grow to infinity or shrink to infinitesimally small parameters; and the entire space, including this creation, all our past and future, can be seen in a single point that shrinks to non-existence of time, or where a single tiny moment can be held eternally present.
And understanding that, just like the lows of mathematics, we use that abstract world to understand a flawed version in this one. Most of the artificial creations of this world start there. And who can say if the natural creations in this world also don’t have their model their? Fractals are such an example.
Einstein flew upon a beam of light, in that conceptual world as a youth, to understand how light functions in this one. He could move as if he had no matter, at the speed of light, and view things around him, and discover the detailed operations of light from that place. He could stop a moment of time as long as he wished to consider what was going on where.
The conceptual world is eternal. Triangles will always be there.
This world is ephemeral. Triangles are being built and are wearing out and being destroyed here all the time (though they are not true triangles). Many of the triangles in nature actually are more perfect approximations of the ones humans have made, but in our greatest efforts we have occasionally exceeded that mark.
The two are intimately connected. Within every beam of light in this world is the reflection of what Einstein rode upon in that other conceptual world. All mathematics was created spending time there studying that place. Mathematics itself is a model of a perfect ideal that IS that place, and which we use to describe the imperfect functioning of this place.
Now consider worlds so abstract we are not normally aware of them, but through meditation we can become aware of them. Those worlds are eternal. They function strictly upon laws, and our ability to focus on those, know those inside and out, are what opens the doors to those worlds.
Imagination was a gateway drug for Einstein as a youth, into that conceptual realm. And he discovered truths there first, then expressed them mathematically. His mathematics described THAT perfect abstract world, but applies also to this flawed one.
And we can go there also.
So, what is eternal can birth a reflected version in this world that is temporary.
The conceptual world has all of time and space, as much or as little as we wish, and time can move in any number of ways. But if we wish to do as Einstein did, we intimately respect the laws we know that can also work in that place, in order to then discover the actual laws we do not understand that also effect this world. So there is imagination and mental focus as a gateway to a place that runs more perfectly upon fixed laws than this place.
Finally, let me point to the basic foundational teaching of Sant Mat on this subject, which Sawan Singh wrote about so often: Self realization before God realization.
No one can understand higher regions even at the conceptual level, until they have made some progress within, and that requires a perfect self-examination, self-contemplation from the objectivity of a fully awake and detached view. Meditation is the means to develop that view.
When you understand who and what you really are by direct experience, what is really within you, then you have the foundation to see what else is beyond you.
And then you will find going within yourself, into that tiny self, in that tiny brain of ours, that actually this world is just a fragment within that much larger place, both in time and space.
Time and space here are just imperfect expressions of a complete whole there. A complete whole that is both eternal and outside time. Time itself, as Saint Paul eloquently wrote, was made for us, for this place.
Even here time doesn’t actually exist, if you understand it correctly. We are living through a sequence of fixed moments and falsly perceive it is in motion.
Our movement creates the illusion of time.
As I wrote earlier, while you are on the train moving on a single dimension of time (a sub-atomic string of your singular point of attention…that’s all consciousness is..one tiny tiny point) the world outside your sensory window appears moving. But when the train comes to a rest stop the world appears to have stopped. And stepping off the train the entire diorama appears fixed and in place. Movement was always just an illusion. Or more precisely, your movement though thousands of thousands of points of fixed reality in every tiny moment.

Finally, Osho, let me comment on the good news of our escape!
When you realize you are just a single infinitesimally small one-dimensional point of attention, that this is all the consciousness you are or will ever be here, and that you are moving through experiences, then you will discover that you aren’t actually attached to any of it. In that moment you will start the path of spreading apart those millions of versions of reality you are moving through and find that pure energy that fuels them all. You are going to see the light of the projector in the instant your eyes are off that screen. For that, heightened attention is necessary. Meditation practice can give you that.
Then there are other surprises. You create the next moment. When your mind is on a path, that determines which of the millions of realities you move through. The train is moving in one direction, but should that direction change even the slightest, the entire train track rebuilds itself instantly and you are moving with equal speed down an entirely different track into a different life, and every second is taking you through millions of different realities again, than the set you were moving through before.
You go where your attention goes, and you are the driver, once you realize this. Once you can view it from a separate position. And that happens when you wake up and realize that actually you are much more than that one point of attention. You are watching yourself from a different point, as if you were two people. And in an instant you see that actually you are an infinite number of “Osho’s” moving through thousands of different, similar versions of Osho moment by moment.
But being that one point while you are here, in this dimension, actually means you aren’t attached to anything. “You” aren’t Osho. You are wearing Osho. You get there by attachment to Shabd, and Shabd practice.

@ Jen – seen some crazy things in this world – all I can do is try and become love.
@ Spencer – thank you

@Arjuna
Anything which denies God cannot be an embodiment of Love but a mere a fake shadow – what say you?
They can
because they are not serious in denial
777

777, your theory is demolished by this indisputable fact. I know many atheists, and I also know many believers in God. Both groups are composed of loving people, by and large.
Some of the most compassionate, loving, caring, and charitable people I know are ardent atheists who love deeply. For example, one couple in their 80s, one of whom has significant health problems, spend countless hours helping homeless people in my town, Salem, Oregon.
So you are completely wrong when you and Arjuna claim that atheists can’t be loving people, or that atheists are not serious in their denial. You two are living on a planet that doesn’t exist, because here on Earth, both atheists and believers in God are loving people.

@Spence
I wrote
“No time, no space. Because it is beyond time and space, it makes no sense to talk about a beginning or an end. Neither exists. It makes no sense to talk about a form, or individuality, or things, or beings etc. It makes no sense to talk about past , present or future.”
you wrote:
Beyond time and space may not be “no time, no space” could be the complete whole of all of it.
And there may be several layers or regions of that. Your sense that the two are independent of one another entirely is false. Brian makes the same mistake all the time, so you are in good company.
my reply:
Your whole theory makes no sense, and is full of dogma and beliefs about shabd, regions and meditation.
On what basis do you assert that my assertion about them being independent is false?

Hi Osho
My only basis is experience.
When the flashes of light change into flurries, then lightening bolts attendant with sound, and then all time stops Amidst such a lightening bolt just long enough for you (your attention, whatever you want to call it) to pass between stationary moments, then that’s not theory. To see the light between distinct moments of time, and as it becomes more constant, as the duration of binding light lengthens, and the moments of time slow down, these are experiences, not theory. Then you see that these discrete moments of time are all static. It’s only when you attend to them with focus that the movie starts up again and the flood of light moves into the background.
This is why I advocate practice. Then you and I can share and compare experiences under different circumstances,different choices of focus, etc…

Hi Brian
You wrote
“777, your theory is demolished by this indisputable fact. I know many atheists, and I also know many believers in God. Both groups are composed of loving people, by and large.”
Brian you need to read what 777 wrote more carefully please. He was not agreeing with Arjuna. He was gently disagreeing
Here is the exchange again
” @Arjuna
Anything which denies God cannot be an embodiment of Love but a mere a fake shadow – what say you?
They can
because they are not serious in denial
777″
They CAN embody love because they are not seriously in denial. They judge going on the basis of their experience. That’not denial. So yes the(Atheists) CAN be an embodiment of love.
This is what 777 was writing.

@ Spencer – In way there is no such thing as an asthiest! As they have a soul – which is an embodiment of God who is Love.
Therefore an asthiest can show Love by default – even though their mind via the huge humongous karma or sin – deny them that acknowledgement! Ego – Brian proved that by stating that 777 and I are from a different planet! Brian’s planet must be further than mine than lol. Sorry couldn’t resist
This post is getting wicked and cool.

@ Spencer – think I will practice as I want to see this with my souls own eye (or whatever facility I have to see).
Fascinating – this post may have tipped me into practicing more 😀
Thank you

Spence, I heartily disagree. You’re misreading the comment to defend 777’s and Arjuna’s insult to atheists. You quoted the interchange, but you didn’t correctly describe it. Arjuna said “Anything which denies God cannot be an emodiment of love.” So someone who denies God, an atheist, cannot be an embodiment of love — which is totally wrong.
777 then claimed that those who deny God aren’t serious in their denial. So he added to the insult by saying that atheists really believe in God, not being serous about their denial. Which is also totally wrong.
” @Arjuna
Anything which denies God cannot be an embodiment of Love but a mere a fake shadow – what say you?
They can
because they are not serious in denial
777″

@ Brain – how have I insulted asthiests! Bit strong don’t you think??? I display nothing but kindness to people who meet me!
And stop picking on 777 all the time!!!
Get over yourself man!!!
Have a good day

777 then claimed that those who deny God aren’t serious in their denial. So he added to the insult by saying that atheists really believe in God, not being serous about their denial. Which is also totally wrong.

Hi Brian,
I thought there was a sub-genre (hard?, soft?… nuance escapes
me) of atheism which doesn’t deny God, just declares there’s no
evidence to support a deity and so remains at least somewhat
agnostic about it.
That flavor at least would coincide with 777’s “not being serious
about their denial”, wouldn’t it… and insult-free?

Quote Spence:
“Hi Appreciative —- The Jewish tradition actually mirrors the Christian one (…) ”
Spence, thanks very much for those further four posts of yours!
Like I’d said to you earlier, I wasn’t really aware of the spiritual traditions within Judaism. It appears from your comments that that tradition is rich in theological/philosophical speculation and discussions, including, I was surprised to see, even an atheistic tradition. That’s very interesting!
Two observations, if I may:

1. First, I see that you’ve concentrated here on the Old Testament. Would you be aware of the contents of other mystical works down the ages, other than the Bible (OT) itself, works whose focus is on mysticism, but which are nevertheless firmly part of the Judaic tradition? I know there are these traditions, and whole schools of books and treatises, but I’ve never read them myself, nor even reviews on them, not yet.
2. And second: You show in your citations how the “Name” or “Word” is very close in meaning and application to the RSSB “Shabd”. But no doubt this is only your personal interpretation, that is, not an interpretation that people, observant Jews and rabbis and scholars, actually believe? Or would you say this is generally accepted/believed?
   (You do mention Philo. That might be worth checking up a bit myself. Thanks for bringing up that reference point!)

Quote Jen:
“People who haven’t been targeted as being racist don’t realise how difficult it is. Its almost like sometimes I think well I might as bloody well be a racist if I am going to be accused of such just because of the country I was born in.
You guys have no idea what its like to be judged as a racist simply because I have a white skin and was born in South Africa. When I first came in contact with New Zealanders and Australians I was stunned when I was confronted with “if I knew were a South African I would not have spoken to you”, even “I hate South Africans” to my face.
Judging someone by the country they were born in is a good example of racism”
Dear Jen,
Will you permit me to clear up some misconceptions and misunderstandings here?
No one is accusing you of racism, Jen, not even remotely so. To my knowledge no one ever has, here on this blog. Certainly never ever me.
I have always found your comments gentle and kind and courteous and considerate, and often very informative too, with interesting links to actual research. I’m sure most other regulars here would concur.


You’re right, no one can understand the plight you describe, of being falsely accused of racism, who hasn’t themselves experienced this. Nevertheless, we can at least appreciate that this has distressed you, and further we can and do appreciate the unfairness of it.


That said, Jen, racism is really a thing. Here’s how you may perhaps find it useful to look at this:
You know, it is very unfair for someone to be unfairly accused of being a murderer (or for that matter a thief), and to be so maligned all their life, for no fault of their own: but nevertheless, that does not mean murder itself is a myth, nor theft, right? While there are people who’ve been unfairly accused of murder (and theft) — which is very unfair, and very unfortunate — nevertheless there also are actual murderers (and actual thieves)! Correct?
Just because some innocent people may have been falsely implicated in accusations of murder and theft, surely that does not mean that every person who is being called out for their crimes of murder and theft are necessarily innocent, right?! You cannot possibly extrapolate the actual innocence of a few falsely indicted victims into concluding that all murderers and all thieves are actually innocent, can you now?!
Likewise, racism is really a thing, absolutely. (Again, no one is accusing you personally of this, not for a single moment.)
The two people who’ve been accused of racism here, we’re not pointing fingers at them on account of the country they’re from, or the color of their skin, or any of these incidentals. No, we’re calling them racist because the comments they have themselves posted are very clearly racist in nature. There’s incontrovertible evidence here, against one in this thread itself, and against the other in other threads, and both clearly documented.
I don’t see why you’re identifying with those two. They’re actual racists — in so far as their comments here, at any rate (beyond their comments here obviously I don’t know about them) — not unfortunate victims falsely maligned, like you have been.


So, Jen, please, don’t you feel bad about this! I assure you, this isn’t about you at all, in any way or form!!

Quote Arjuna/Vijay:
If atheism means lack of love and compassion to all regardless of race and creed – then I leave such souls to their own energy points to punish them!
Hello, Arjuna.
That’s a surprising thing to say, apropos of all that has gone on here in this thread.
One person has been shown to be clearly racist here, in this thread itself, and another’s racism (documented on a different thread) has been referenced. Neither of these are atheists. Both are actually theists, one openly so, the other a closet theist whose closet theism has been clearly exposed here.
Further: Three posters’ abusive behavior here — that is, in posting comments that do not address others’ arguments but attack their person — has been referenced here. Two of them are the same as the two above, while the third (none other than our Jim) also is clearly a theist.
From a discussion about the racism of two theists, and the abusive posting of three theists, how on earth do you go to speaking of the “lack of love and compassion”, not of theists but of atheists?!
That makes no sense at all!

Quote OshoRobbins:
>@AR
Here is the basis of my statements about eternity / end / endless etc
And why that which has a beginning MUST have an end, and also why
That which has no end also has no beginning.
Hey, Osho Robbins! Glad you’re back here! :–)
.
My main classifications are:
(1) Everything WITHIN time and space
(2) Everything OUTSIDE of time and space
So, (1) refers to everything that exists in the world. It is objective and can be examined.
(2) Is non-objective. It is conceptual. It is abstract. We understand it only through abstraction. You cannot study it because it cannot be seen or experienced. It is not “real” by our standards in the objective world. But it is also not taken on faith. It is in a different category. It is an abstraction.
Okay. Your categorization seems internally consistent, I agree.
Everything in category (1) has FORM, a beginning and an end.
It has a beginning and an end.
It Changes.
No, not necessarily.
Yes, everything changes, but that is a non sequitur. I don’t think it necessarily holds that everything in category 1 necessarily has to have a beginning and an end.
Can you point to anything that has a beginning but no end? No
Yes, actually. Our universe itself! (Like I said in my original comment.)
Apparently our universe originated in a Big Bang, and will likely go on forever, expanding at an ever accelerating rate. (Of course, no one can possibly be sure of this. But this seems to be the consensus amongst cosmologists.
So yes, we do have something here that — probably — does have a beginning but no end.
Can you point to anything that has no beginning and has an end? Again no.
Agreed. No such thing IRL, to my knowledge.
Everything, no exceptions, has a beginning and an end.
Well, there’s the universe itself.
So I’d re-word that as “Everything, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF THE UNIVERSE ITSELF, has a beginning and an end.”
Everything in the second category is an abstraction. It is the oneness.
No time, no space. Because it is beyond time and space, it makes no sense to talk about a beginning or an end. Neither exists. It makes no sense to talk about a form, or individuality, or things, or beings etc. It makes no sense to talk about past , present or future.
Yes, but that does not mean it is eternal! We don’t know “it” even exists at all!
In fact, we can think of an “abstraction” as a construct of human thought, an artefact of human consciousness and intelligence: and, as such, this abstraction can be thought to “exist” only as long as human thought itself exists.
And, in as much as we humans ourselves have a beginning and an end, so do our thoughts also: as such, all “abstractions” we’ve thought up do have a beginning and an end.
We can imagine something eternal: that does not mean that thing, that ONE, actually exists. If it doesn’t exist, it cannot possibly be anything, and not eternal either.


And if you’re thinking merely of existence-in-abstraction, then sure, I can conceive of a universe (either a separate universe, or an alternative speculation about our own universe) that existed forever, had no origin, but which will end in a Big Crunch singularity — you know, the exact obverse of actually beginning in a Big Bang and expanding forever, which is the current consensus. So, in as much as I can conceive of this abstraction, this abstraction does exist.
True, my abstraction of this alternative universe has no evidence, nor even consensus in terms theoretical likelihood. But then nor does your One.
Which takes me back to my original objection/argument in that comment of mine.

@ Osho,…….
You might consider educating yourself some what, on how John Calvin taught the existence of God. I owned his 22 Volume Set of Commantaries until 2011 when I had to leave them in California before I moved East. They are massive, and form the Platform for Reformed Theology, in the Christian Churches. John Calvin’s Teaching of Predestination, Election, and Reprobation coincides very well with Sant Mat Karma and Reincarnation being Marked after birth to return to Heaven ( Sach Khand), or to be damned to reincarnste back to earth as a Reprobate , or unmarked to feturn Home as a Prodical Son.
I read all of the New Testiment Commentaries, when I was in the Ministry, and these Commantaries were responsible for sealing my Faith in Eternal Security of the soul. My Seminary Master’s Degree Thesis on Eternal Security is on my Blog, in case you still need a lttle more convincing whether you are one of the Marked Elect, as Osho, or are Osho The Reprobate , who will never be allowed to come to the Knowledge of The Truth, as Osho, and are destined to reincsrnste back here again as either an Elect soul, or a Reprobate again.
Here is a Link to the 22 ol. Set of Calvin’s Commantaries.
https://www.amazon.com/Calvins-Commentaries-Set-John-Calvin/dp/0801024404?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-ipad-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0801024404
Jim

On racism and ant semitism
the most damaging to
the victims
and even more than his Kampf
is the “Protocols of the elders of Zion” already mentioned by Jim
In Egypt It was transformed in a kind of tv-documentary Storie ( 12 weeks / series )
and totally broadcasted 3 times ( that was before SISI )
It is indeed vitriol in pastery,
Myself, . . I like good statement, doctors, lawyers bankers
and Jazz players , ( never heard one that was not jewish )
like btw so many classical artists
I think (lets be racist) they have the perseverance
to do the 20 000 hours study
I appreciate jewish people minus & greedy 5% and this is 15% with other groups
but of course also in greed these 5% are more successful
When I see a beautiful or very good performance on TV
I ask my wife ( who is good in ‘faces’ ) is she/he jewish
and her answer is often YES
btw : We are not ourselves, I am glad because I m not so harsh drilled
by my parents
B)
Yes pure atheists don’t exist . . is was I wrote and ment and I’m convinced
5 years ago karma did put me in a hospital
and they gave me a room with a man , about 75 yrs old
who was told he had less then a day to live
He was crying all the time
He couldn’t withhold to me that , telling me that he had done nothing then
wrong and selfish and nasty stuff all his life
and atheist ( not that I am associating that combination here)
and thought he was going to hell
One visit hour to come for him
I told him about Love that multiplies itself in the giver exponentially
and that even a love_sucker_ignoramous
by giving it away can became a Love_billy_gates , . . . very fast
and he understood it,
and that he could use that visit repair some wit Love
At least he could try
Then they replaced me with excuse to have put me in that room
( after all I wasn’t sick at all, just broke a little – but I was grateful about that night overthere)
He understood immediately – faster than lot of guys and dolls overhere
Yes, Brian “”atheists””. do a lot of good works, especially at the end
see the hospitals with names on top
777
ps and again
averse from all these sophisticated high celestial definitions
I like :
Love is the Desire to DO good to another living. . . .

@JIM wrote
“or unmarked to return Home as a Prodigal Son”
I LOVE THAT ONE
( while dancing the tango all the time , . . . on HIS Tune )
777

Hi Brian
You are mistaken.
You wrote
“Spence, I heartily disagree. You’re misreading the comment to defend 777’s and Arjuna’s insult to atheists. You quoted the interchange, but you didn’t correctly describe it. Arjuna said “Anything which denies God cannot be an emodiment of love.” So someone who denies God, an atheist, cannot be an embodiment of love — which is totally wrong.”
I was not defending Arjuna’s question. You accused 777 of agreeing with it and that was in error. Here you make the mistake of thinking that I read in agreement with Arjuna ‘s question and as I had indicated I’ m not.
Then you proceed to make another misinterpretation of a very simple statement.
“777 then claimed that those who deny God aren’t serious in their denial. So he added to the insult by saying that atheists really believe in God, not being serous about their denial. Which is also totally wrong.”
Brian, denial as in subconscious denial. Denial as in a defense mechanism.
777 was stating that these atheists who are making an honest claim that they really have no evidence of God are not in denial of their experience. This is their honest self-disclosure. Such people can be as loving as anyone else.
And this is what I’d written.
“They CAN embody love because they are not seriously in denial. They judge going on the basis of their experience. That’not denial. So yes the(Atheists) CAN be an embodiment of love.
This is what 777 was writing.”
Furthermore, if you read Arjuna’s statements before and after this exchange you see that he is all about equality and brother / sister hood. His question was innocent.
Your effort to vilify those who hold different views substantially limits the veracity of your statements.
Otherwise, Atheism itself has a lot going for it, not the least of which among sincere atheists, the desire to irradiacate all the false beliefs that stands in the way of true brotherhood / sister hood and loving kindness to all.
As I’d written earlier, the books of Job and Ecclesiastes are largely Atheist manifestos. And they are beautifully written.
In the book of Job, we learn that Job is actually a good man. But in a series of arguments with the clergy he dismantles every popular argument for God, including the one you liked, that this is a fair world. It is a stunning rebuke of religion in a whole series of arguments by a man even “God” acknowledges is a very good person.

Appreciative Reader,
Thank you so much for this: “So, Jen, please, don’t you feel bad about this! I assure you, this isn’t about you at all, in any way or form!!”
I’ve learned a lot from everyone on this forum, so many different points of view, and I’ve still got so much more to learn 🙂

Hi Appreciative!
You wrote
“And second: You show in your citations how the “Name” or “Word” is very close in meaning and application to the RSSB “Shabd”. But no doubt this is only your personal interpretation, that is, not an interpretation that people, observant Jews and rabbis and scholars, actually believe? Or would you say this is generally accepted/believed?
(You do mention Philo. That might be worth checking up a bit myself. Thanks for bringing up that reference point!)”
Philo.” On Husbandry ” is a good start to learn about the Judaic mystic teachings about the Logos.
https://www.loebclassics.com/view/philo_judaeus-husbandry/1930/pb_LCL247.109.xml
Also the Jewish Encylopedia comments on the Logos and the Memra nicely
“In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God’s messenger in place of God Himself”
Note the Targum is the Aramaic Translation of the scriptures..
And…
“Thy word, O Lord, healeth all things” (Wisdom xvi. 12); “Thy word preserveth them that put their trust in Thee” (l.c. xvi. 26″
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/search?utf8=✓&keywords=Memra&commit=search
Whereas the Memra is the word of God, much like the Logos, which is the local presence of an infinite God, and dwells with humanity, the Shekinah is the light of God’s that dwells with humanity…
“The term “Shekinah,” which is Hebrew, whereas “Memra” and “Yeḳara” are Aramaic, took the place of the latter two in Talmudand Midrash, and thus absorbed the meaning which they have in the Targum, where they almost exclusively occur. Nevertheless the word “Shekinah” occurs most frequently in the Aramaic versions, since they were intended for the people and were actually read to them, and since precautions had therefore to be taken against possible misunderstandings in regard to the conception of God. The word “dwell” in the Hebrew text is accordingly rendered in the Targumim by the phrase “let the Shekinah rest” (e.g., Ex. xxv. 8; xxix. 45, 46; Num. v. 3, xxxv. 34; Deut. xxxii. 10 [R. V. “he compassed him about”]; Ps. lxxiv. 2). Onḳelos translates “Elohim” in Gen. ix. 27 by “Shekinah”; and wherever the person, the dwelling, or the remoteness of God is mentioned, he paraphrases by the same word.. ”
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13537-shekinah

More on the divine name from the Jewish Encyclopedia…
“the name of God is more than a mere distinguishing title. It represents the Hebrew conception of the divine …Yhwh’s angel will lead and give victory to His people, who must yield reverent obedience, for, the Lord says, “my name is in him.” The devout Israelite will not take the name of a false god upon his lips …God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there” (Deut. xii. 5; comp. I Kings viii. 16, 29; ix. 3; Jer. vii. 12). The Temple is “the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the mount Zion””
From the Jewish Encyclopedia
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11305-names-of-god
“8 Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The Lord is his name:”
Amos 5:8
” 2 The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him.
3 The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.”
Exodus 15:3
Note in Exodus 15 :2 the Lord is described as a song.
From the above
” His name is the Lord. ”
“The Lord is His name”
The word “lord” in Hebrew is a title, not a name and not Yaweh (which is also used to refer to God, but actually means “I am that I am” and is also not a formal name.)
These OT passages equate God with His Name, as if the Name, the Memra, is in fact God.

@ Spence,……..
You might consider starting your own Blog and save all of your past detailed Posts in Brian’s Church so you can access the material Archievies for future debates among Skeptics, etc.
You obviously must KNOW that Spence Tepper never thought up all those Posts! Most of them surely were Channeled from a Higher Source!
I am not suggesting you quit posting here. I am just suggesting you keep your own Blog as an Archieve so you have a Library to retrieve certain information in the future, so you don’t have to keep writing the same information over and over, as you encounter new seekers,
Cheers,
Jim

Thank you for those references, Spence!
I enjoyed reading your posts, but the links you supplied were kind of heavy going. (I’m not complaining, reading the original — even in translation — is always heavy going, generally speaking.)
Wikipedia seems to hold that first, Philo seemed to subscribe to some kind of a Platonic idea of Forms, and that his Logos was apparently one of the many “intermediary beings” (albeit the “leading” one) that bridge the ideal world with our world; and second, that Philo himself apparently did not receive mainstream acclaim by the rabbinic orthodoxy, not during his time, nor later.
Incidentally, I was not aware that Yahweh literally means “I am who I am”, which is your interpretation, and which interpretation is indeed borne out in that link you supplied. Although I note that Wikepedia describes Yahweh as probably an ancient warrior deity, which idea only later evolved to a more metaphorical and abstract interpretation.
But that’s just by the bye, what I’ve said, no more than interesting alternative interpretations that I’ve no more than glimpsed now, and don’t really hold any views on yet — after all, a Wikipedia-fueled browse cannot compare with the more detailed reading of the originals that you’ve obviously gone through.
Like I said, my reading is woefully inadequate — more like non-existent — when it comes to the Judaic texts (as opposed to Christian interpretations), and my understanding is that Judaism abounds in interesting speculations and analyses, outside of the actual OT, that is. Note to self: Must remedy that lack, one of these days.


But yeah, absolutely, it is interesting that you find references to Shabd even in those very ancient Judaic texts. Even if that interpretation isn’t mainstream, nevertheless that is still very interesting.
Thanks for sharing!

Hi Everybody
Wikipedia can be adapted
Would be such a blessing
if the APPLE was replaced with a STEAK
Jews : a chosen people ?
YES
I’m told and kind have seen
that Melchizadek initiated Abraham
into the Shabd
Also Solomon is a Saint
Yes some where chosen but a minority
as Moses found that out particularly
Often these chosen people do disappoint
Now hundreds of orthodox guys try to find out
what was the point
Imaging one of them being initiated by a Saint
THAT would be much more risky than with the Khalsa Sikhs
So the exers here, do some Bajan, . . . Dhyan will be difficult actually
do it all the time
Every time you shoot a Simran Round , IT will bless
And when you hear the sweet LOGOS , you day ( life ) is made
You will be fine and without death ( who_so_ever will assist there )
777

@ Spencer – I am nothing but about brotherhood and sisterhood.
I did not insult atheists – if I did I apologise as they have the divine essence of the lord within them. That’s essence makes them do good things in this world.
Denial of god just leaves us barren – the mind is dangerous especially when followed unguarded.
All the best

Hi Appreciative!
Thanks for taking a look. Judaism has existed for such a long time that it’s almost like shopping on Amazon with the broad variety of different spiritual, cultural, ethical and legal notions.
When you look at the midrash, the commentaries, you will see debates that were never resolved about God and right conduct. Atheism included. Because in the Jewish faith human beings cannot know God directly.
Maimonedes, the 12th century Jewish scholar who wrote
“Give a man a fish, fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, fed him for a lifetime”
also said famously
“learn physics before attempting to learn metaphysics. Until you do, discussing it is a waste of time.”
If there were one book I’d recommend from the Bible it’s the book of Job. It’s breathtakingly beautiful, and establishes for all time legitimacy of many of the tenants of Atheism.

As for God calling himself “I am who I am” that is in the old testament, when Moses speaks with God.
If you understand it correctly, it’s a blisteringly sardonic comment on human stupidity wrapped in a zen teacher like comment.
God had just given Moses the commandments, including such basics as don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, and then, as if these weren’t self – evident, Moses asks God, “OK, so whom do I say gave me these commandments, so they will believe me? When people want to call out to God, what name shall I give them.”
God (easily irritated) replies, “Just tell them I am who I am!”

And Moses asks again, something to the effect..
” Huh? How do I say that?”
And God says, “Just say” I am ” gave me these for you all to follow!”
Yah, the OT presents not so much an angry God, but a frustrated parent given to hyperbole trying to get his kids to take responsibility for themselves. And this is why mastering Atheism is a crucial step to spirituality, because it is first establishing our personal responsibility to own our actions and our duty to decide right from wrong as best we can for ourselves, and take responsibility for those decisions.

Hi Jim
Thank you for the complement.
I’m not a great conduit for these things. There is something fine about expressing something I learned long ago and letting it go. I live on the earth, half in the mud. So I live honestly and in anonymity. And without responsibility for others, except my son and my sisters. I can hardly manage my own.
As for what I’ve written here, well, it’s all Brian’s property to do with as he pleases.
Besides I change positions all the time and enjoy the freedom to do so.

Hi Arjuna
We may not be able to argue with God, to take our frustrations with life to God.
But we can argue with Brian. Almost as good.

@ Spencer – yes and may God give us strength and grace to argue with Brian.
With the creator on our side – Brian has zilch chance and I know in my heart of hearts he will come though this crazy faze he is going through and be a greater a disciple than me 😀
But in the meantime – he gets as good as he gives lol 😀

Hi Arjuna
This may sound strange, but when I argue with Brian, I feel I am arguing directly with Master, and that Brian is my chess oponant, with Master standing behind him, His hand gently upon Brian’s shoulder. Brian and I have absolutely nothing to learn from each other, but here we can practice for will in the midst of these man – made positions and opinions.
When Brian decries Sant Mat, or what RSSB has become, I cannot help but hear Majaraji expressing an important side of things.
And Master is giving me a means directly to argue with Him, to confront God directly on the wonderful and terrible conditions here.

“practice good will in the midst of these man – made positions…” auto spell.

@ Spencer – don’t confront God – not a smart move my brother!
We have been here many time before and let’s practice and get the hell outta Dodge!
I have seen war and what men do to each other – we are base animals! The Lord has given us some insight into how to go home! Let’s go! We can discuss these things if they are off interest on the way home ! I don’t want to come back here! Ever

Hi Arjuna
You wrote
“let’s practice and get the hell outta Dodge!”
God that’s clever! I’m with you bro!

@ Spencer – I meant it – let’s go beyond mind!

Thank You Spence
That was really interesting & confirming Melchizadek
Now, . . the idea is that a new temple will do it . . . No way
Meditation via a Saint will do it , even on/in your toilet ( bathroom)
Sekinah
The emperor (Hadrian) said to Rabbi Joshua b. Hananiah, “I desire greatly to see thy God.” Joshua requested him to stand facing the brilliant summer sun, and said, “Gaze upon it.” The emperor said, “I can not.” “Then,” said Joshua, “if thou art not able to look upon a servant of God, how much less mayest thou gaze upon the Shekinah?”(Ḥul. 60a). Rab Sheshet (c. 300) was blind, and could not perceive when the Shekinah appeared in the Shaf we-Yatib synagogue of Nehardea, where it rested when it was not in the synagogue at Huzal. In the former synagogue Samuel and Levi heard the sound of its approach and fled (Meg. 29a). The Shekinah tinkled like a bell (Soṭah 9b), while the Holy Spirit also manifested itself to human senses in light and sound
———————
Amazing and much more there. – Most is about the proctor Brahma/Yahweh
777

@Arjuna I don’t want to come back here! Ever
I have to. . , . . I was asked and said Yes, . . whole heartily
I was so spoiled in this life, can’t say No
You come too. ?
Will be FUN and hard, both
777

@ 777. Hello and trust you are well.
I’ve had a tough life and am boxing my way out of this domain. Where life is but a fleeting spark of love and then pain.
The way out is in! Let’s go home -I don’t care what the athiests say or people who want to know God’s attributes demand to know ! Let’s go back from whence we came.
All the very best as always

So far, . . so Good

Quote Spence:
Hi Appreciative!
Thanks for taking a look. Judaism has existed for such a long time that it’s almost like shopping on Amazon with the broad variety of different spiritual, cultural, ethical and legal notions.
Apparently, yes. I wasn’t aware of this, really, that Judaic tradition is this eclectic and wide-ranging. I’d imagined — wrongly, it seems — that it is all monolithic-ish, with some offbeat non-mainstream “spirituality” thrown in for variety.
As for God calling himself “I am who I am” that is in the old testament, when Moses speaks with God.
If you understand it correctly, it’s a blisteringly sardonic comment on human stupidity wrapped in a zen teacher like comment.
God had just given Moses the commandments, including such basics as don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, and then, as if these weren’t self – evident, Moses asks God, “OK, so whom do I say gave me these commandments, so they will believe me? When people want to call out to God, what name shall I give them.”
God (easily irritated) replies, “Just tell them I am who I am!”
Heh, nice!
I was aware of that “I am who I am” story, obviously, but did not know that Yahweh literally means just that. At least per one interpretation (wiki presents alternative views).
And that humorous touch you inject here, that is well appreciated!
Yah, the OT presents not so much an angry God, but a frustrated parent given to hyperbole trying to get his kids to take responsibility for themselves.
In this case, yes. But in general, NO! I can think of many, MANY instances — and so can you, I’m sure, they’re so commonplace — where the OT presents God as some nasty, horrible, sadistic, mean ogre, who has one and only one thing going for him, the fact that he is kind of powerful. So the OT, in sum, paints God in the colors of a bully, an ogre, in fact a monster!
But that said, I take your point, as far as this particular instance. I like the humorous picture you draw of an irritated God put off by Moses’s denseness.

Hello, Osho Robbins:
I wonder if you’ve read my comment, linked here?
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2018/11/the-absurdity-of-believing-there-is-sach-khand-heaven?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e2022ad37e1ea2200c#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e2022ad37e1ea2200c
I do hope you don’t mind my keeping on arguing against your POV, or now in bringing this up again!!
Look, I come here primarily to learn from others — Brian as well as other commenters — and to exchange views. As such I view disagreements on ideas not as conflict, but simply discussion. Unlike many others I’ve seen, both here and IRL, I personally welcome being proved wrong, in fact I’d actually prefer it, as that means I’m learning something new. More bang for my buck (that is, for my time spent here) that way.
I’ve got the feeling — from your past comments — that you’re a kindred soul, as far as this willingness to be proved wrong, and this welcoming of disagreement and willingness to discuss all sides of an issue. Hence this particular post of mine, bumping up my previous comments.
My apologies if bringing this up again was in any way unwelcome to you. My intention was not to embarrass you.

Hi AR
I asked:
Can you point to anything that has a beginning but no end?
you replied:
Yes, actually. Our universe itself! (Like I said in my original comment.)
Apparently our universe originated in a Big Bang, and will likely go on forever, expanding at an ever accelerating rate. (Of course, no one can possibly be sure of this. But this seems to be the consensus amongst cosmologists.
So yes, we do have something here that — probably — does have a beginning but no end.
My reply:
It is in the nature of everything in the physical universe that it changes and eventually expires or ends. This applies to every individual thing you can point to.
It might take a long TIME, but everything that is within time is necessarily changing.
You might point to a rock in your back garden – and say quite rightly that it’s been exactly the same over the last 50 years, and even say it doesn’t appear to be changing.
However, we’re not talking about 50 years or even 50 million years. Eventually it too will deteriorate and change. Nothing remains the same.
You say the universe itself will never end. Put that aside for a moment, there is no single object you can point to that had a beginning but no end, because that is the nature of everything that is in time and space.
Now to answer the question of the universe, you cannot make the statement that it will NEVER end because never is a long long time.
Imagine you dive down into the atlantic ocean, looking for the end of the ocean. You go down for 10 metres and come back up.
“WOW – it’s endless” you say. Then you go again and this time you go down for 100 metres and still don’t find the end.
Now you say “Well it’s definitely endless”
And so on.
However, the end of the ocean might be a 10 metres further than any distance you might travel. So you can never say with certainty that the ocean is endless. If you DO get to the bottom of the ocean, then you can certainly say “Yes, it is finite as I have reached the bottom of the ocean” However, you can never say the opposite with certainly. The best you can say is “I’ve looked and gone for X metres and have not yet found the bottom of the ocean.”
Like the rock example, all you can say is that “I’ve been looking at the rock for 50 years and it is still there in exactly the same form in 50 years” You cannot say it will remain there forever, because forever is a long time.
You cannot say with any degree of certainty that the universe will stay around forever for the same reason.
So I am asking about certainty not a theory of cosmology.
The premise is this:
Everything that changes, eventually ends (expires). And the corollary which is that only that which never changes will never end.
I then wrote:
“Everything in the second category is an abstraction. It is the oneness.
No time, no space. Because it is beyond time and space, it makes no sense to talk about a beginning or an end. Neither exists. It makes no sense to talk about a form, or individuality, or things, or beings etc. It makes no sense to talk about past , present or future.”
You replied: Yes, but that does not mean it is eternal! We don’t know “it” even exists at all!
In fact, we can think of an “abstraction” as a construct of human thought, an artefact of human consciousness and intelligence: and, as such, this abstraction can be thought to “exist” only as long as human thought itself exists.
My response:
Yes, we don’t know if it exists. That is true. I would go even further, and say we know it does NOT exist.
Because the meaning of “Existence” refers to things we see and experience in the physical universe.
The ONENESS clearly does not exist in our definition. And this is as expected as it does not exist physically. In fact you cannot know or experience the oneness. If you could, it would not be oneness, there are already two for experience to happen.
You can have a realization of Oneness but you cannot experience it.
What is the difference between realization and experience?
Imagine a world in which there are no reflective surfaces. No mirrors. In this world, I ask you “do you have eyes? How do you know?”
Clearly you cannot see your own eyes. So how do you know you have eyes?
You know you have hands as you can see them. You know you have feet as you can see them. How do you know you have eyes?
The answer is: You know because you can see.
The faculty of seeing is the proof. You know you have eyes, without seeing your own eyes, because you have the ability to see.
In the same way, you don’t see or experience oneness. It’s not an attainment. It is an insight.
this is getting long so i will stop here.

@AR
I apologize for not giving a complete reply and for the delay in replying. Time spent on here is a bit limited at the moment. And yes, your comments are always welcome, and I am happy to reply and have an honest exchange of ideas regardless without any addiction to being right.

@AR
I came across a paper by Hawkins “the beginning of time”
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
The last four paragraphs:
What does the no boundary proposal predict for the future of the universe? Because it requires that the universe is finite in space, as well as in imaginary time, it implies that the universe will re-collapse eventually. However, it will not re-collapse for a very long time, much longer than the 15 billion years it has already been expanding. So, you will have time to sell your government bonds, before the end of the universe is nigh. Quite what you invest in then, I don’t know.
Originally, I thought that the collapse, would be the time reverse of the expansion. This would have meant that the arrow of time would have pointed the other way in the contracting phase. People would have gotten younger, as the universe got smaller. Eventually, they would have disappeared back into the womb.
However, I now realise I was wrong, as these solutions show. The collapse is not the time reverse of the expansion. The expansion will start with an inflationary phase, but the collapse will not in general end with an anti inflationary phase. Moreover, the small departures from uniform density will continue to grow in the contracting phase. The universe will get more and more lumpy and irregular, as it gets smaller, and disorder will increase. This means that the arrow of time will not reverse. People will continue to get older, even after the universe has begun to contract. So it is no good waiting until the universe re-collapses, to return to your youth. You would be a bit past it, anyway, by then.
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn’t have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won’t return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.
So the universe being eternal is questionable.

@AR
does oneness really exist?
Imagine you are a magician.
you have a coin in your right hand and nothing in your left.
You show the audience both hands.
the coin is a thing but the “nothing” is not a thing, but it is distinct from the coin.
does “nothing” exist?
Well, no, because it’s not there.
Yet everyone will agree that the left hand has nothing in it
and the right hand doesn’t have nothing – it has a coin.
The oneness is like the nothingness. You could even say it is the same.
Obviously “nothing” does not exist as a thing in the objective world, as it is the absence of all “things” – by definition.
So it would be quite accurate to say “God does not exist”
just as it is accurate to say “nothing does not exist”
because “nothing” or “oneness” does not have the attributes of a “thing” that exists.
In fact it has no attributes.
So in effect I am saying that you come from nothing and you will go back to nothing, and you ARE nothing even now, although right now you appear to be a “thing” merely because you have a body and you have created an “I” that has identified with the body.
In the above, replace the “nothing” with SHABD and you have the sant mat and advaita teachings.
here, I’ll do it for you
So in effect I am saying that you come from SHABD and you will go back to SHABD, and you ARE SHABD even now, although right now you appear to be a “thing” merely because you have a body and you have created an “I” that has identified with the body.
The only issue with using a word like shabd or God is that the mind immediately thinks of it as a thing that has to be attained. The mind gives it attributes.
hindu scriptures call it “neti neti” or “nether this nor that” to emphasize that it is not a thing, but he absence of all things, which really means nothing.
Enlightenment is the realization that you are nothing and there cannot be two nothings, so you can also call it the ONE. You don’t attain or achieve it or experience it. You just an insight into the fact that you are nothing. That’s the end of everything. You can’t be greedy anymore and ask for a 69 bedroom mansion in Sach Khand, because what you will get is nothing. You won’t even has a “Yourself” which is required in order to possess. You cannot possess as there is no “You” to possess.
The Ego or the “YOU” is needed to hang things on. You can hang your religion, your family, your guru, your god, your money, your accomplishments, in fact everything you are trying to achieve can be hanged on it.
All your life you are hanging and hanging things on it. Now you get extra greedy and want to hang enlightenment on it too.
But it can’t be done, because enlightenment means the hook you were hanging all these things on has suddenly disappeared. And it ain’t coming back. You can’t fix the disappearance.
That is why I said enlightenment has no benefits as it is the ultimate “non-benefit”
Of course and you make it into a benefit by saying you get peace of mind etc, but what good is that when the one to enjoy the peace of mind has disappeared,
By the way I don’t mean a literal disappearance. Everything outside remains the same. The body, the mind, etc still remains. Just something profound has happened and you cannot explain it – and any attempt to explain it has to fail.
Osho wrote 1000 books to explain it and utterly failed, as everyone does.
So what is the point of getting this enlightenment?
Firstly you don’t “get it” as such and secondly there is no “point”
“points” got left behind long ago.

Dear Osho Robbins,
Thanks much for those three comments. And apologies for what does, on re-reading, qualify as borderline hustling!
Nice article from Stephen Hawking. Great man, that, at more than one level. I enjoyed reading that article: as much as the mind-bending ideas discussed, one enjoys his characteristic sense of humor!
Actually my understanding is that the universe-running-out-of-steam idea, presented here, is dated. (Stephen Hawking has himself, famously, totally reversed his own earlier position more than once, and on more than one issue — this flexibility is, after all, one of the hallmarks of science). It is my understanding that the dark-matter-and-dark-energy hypothesis has, in the past few years, laid to rest that particular scenario that that quoted article describes.
Here’s another article — a more ‘popular’ article — that discusses some of these ideas: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/stephen-hawking-s-almost-last-paper-putting-end-beginning-universe.
But what the hey, let me not pretend to an expertise in cosmology and physics that I do not in fact possess! You’ve made your point wonderfully well, complete with evidence from one the most respected names in science. :–)
Absolutely, that lecture of Hawking’s clearly speaks of the Universe coming to an end, and even discusses specifics of how that end might look like. As you say, the idea of an eternal universe does look questionable, basis this lecture.


And, more importantly, you rightly point towards an opening of faculties that subjectively allow perception of things not otherwise perceived. This portion of your comment:
“What is the difference between realization and experience?
Imagine a world in which there are no reflective surfaces. No mirrors. In this world, I ask you “do you have eyes? How do you know?”
Clearly you cannot see your own eyes. So how do you know you have eyes?
You know you have hands as you can see them. You know you have feet as you can see them. How do you know you have eyes?
The answer is: You know because you can see.
The faculty of seeing is the proof. You know you have eyes, without seeing your own eyes, because you have the ability to see.
In the same way, you don’t see or experience oneness. It’s not an attainment. It is an insight.”
Lovely comment, that. Thank you.
That “insight” that you speak of can only be subjective, and therefore not claimed objectively; but then you’re not doing that, at least not now in your discussion with me, so I myself have no grounds to complain! :–)
I fully accede to your point, Osho Robbins, except that it is ultimately a subjective point. Subjective points do not sit well in arguments and proofs, those latter are properly the domain of objective evidence; and subjective points of this nature are perhaps better suited to gentle instruction to receptive seekers, not logic-studded argument forced down unwilling throats (given that subjectivity is ultimately personal). That may have been what led me to interject in that discussion of yours with the others here.
Anyway, nice talking. Apologies for dragging you off from your RL preoccupations with my compulsive argumentation!

@AR
Great response from you. Your comments are always appreciated.
even if I dont reply immediately.
This is how an interaction should be; with the focus on the issues raised.
And with no addiction to being right.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the latest view of cosmologists as to the end of the universe?
My view (not as a cosmologist, but just as me) is that if something is changing it will one day be destroyed or change form.
By its nature, enlightenment is subjective. It happened to me as I was a receptive seeker.
And in the objective world no such thing can exist.
Many things we value are also subjective; Love; Peace; friendship to name a few.
We all have our feet in both worlds: objective and subjective. Each has their place

Hi Osho
You wrote
“The oneness is like the nothingness. You could even say it is the same.
Obviously “nothing” does not exist as a thing in the objective world, as it is the absence of all “things” – by definition.”
Let me offer a different definition.
Nothing really is nothing.
But Oneness is everything : the space, the object, the empty space and the non – space.
The empty space isn’t the space, isn’t the object. It is just one part of the whole.
The whole thing is the One.
At any time someone claims “it’s this… It’s not that” they are in dualism. Not Oneness.
And when someone claims “I can’t describe the oneness, I can’t say specifically what it is or isn’t. It is all of what is, and all of what isn’t. And I’m not sure what is or isn’t, only what I can see is or isn’t, and what I can see isn’t the whole.. But maybe once in a while, like hiking to a mountain top, I see what appears to be the whole world under me…. But I know I’m just seeing from my perspective, though it is higher than my normal view… And generaly whatever is our isn’t is laid out for my view.
Or, the person who understands Oneness might ask “what isn’t oneness?” that’s oneness.

Hi Osho
You asked
“Just as a matter of interest, what is the latest view of cosmologists as to the end of the universe?”
Oscillation. Think of a sine wave. What is above the median is visible matter. What is below is anti-matter. The sine wave races back and forth but the total volume is the same. Just oscillating. And our current creation, just one lap of the sine wave. Creation is the wave cresting. Dissolution is the wave reaching back to the median, and the alternate dark matter universe is the mirror opposite.
Now imagine that this sine wave is a great bungi cord in a great game of hop scotch, or a guitar string being plucked in a lively song. Whipped to its extreme zenith, the potential energy stored pulls the creation back to its beginning state and further, into its dark matter parallel. And so the cycle continues.
The string of bungee cord is all of spacetime and stars and planets of the creation, above the line. At the median it is infinitesimally small, infinitely hot pure mass. As it moves out from the median all timespace is expanding.
While it may appear the big bang staryed as a single point, the trajectories suggest several points of origin.

Spence, actually, what you said in the comment above isn’t true. The prevailing opinion among cosmologists and astronomers is that the universe is not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating. This means that in the far distant future the universe will experience a death of sorts (assuming a universe can “die”).
You presented an outmoded view in your comment. Suggestion: do some Googling before expressing an opinion on something you’re not an expert in, An oscillating universe is in tune with ancient Hindu myths, but not with a moderns understanding of the universe.
Wikipedia puts it this way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe
Observations suggest that the expansion of the universe will continue forever. If so, then a popular theory is that the universe will cool as it expands, eventually becoming too cold to sustain life. For this reason, this future scenario once popularly called “heat death” is now known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze.
————————-
Space.com says:
https://www.space.com/3746-dark-future-predicted-universe.html
Over the next 100 billion years, dark energy is expected to accelerate the most distant galaxies and stars in the universe beyond the speed of light, meaning that they will be invisible to future observers. Some objects once visible at half the universe’s current age of about 13.7 billion years are already invisible from the farthest vantage points, and in about 10 trillion years, only the local cluster of galaxies, including our own Milky Way, will be visible, researchers said.
“The future is bad,” Krauss told SPACE.com. “A universe with dark energy is the worst of all possible universes for the long-term future of life.”
——————————
And an astronomer writes on Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/08/29/astroquizzical-accelerating-universe/#7fe4064d6cb5
Over a long enough period of time, this increasing speed of expansion means that the density of objects within the Universe will decrease. If every galaxy is increasingly distant from every other galaxy, images of galaxies outside our own Milky Way will also become increasingly out of date, as the light travel time also increases. If we pursue the increasing isolation of galaxies to its logical extreme, we arrive at an end-of-Universe scenario called “heat death”.
Heat death arrives when a galaxy runs out of gas to form new stars, and the stars which remain are overwhelmingly either very faint red, brown, and black dwarf stars, black holes, or neutron stars. With no new gas able to arrive into the galaxy, the galaxy must end its star formation. Once the remaining red dwarfs and other stellar objects radiate away the last of their heat, and the entire Universe has reached a single, even temperature, we have arrived at the death of heat in our Universe. This is currently our Universe’s forecast for its eventual end state – and a direct consequence of having such a large amount of Dark Energy, pressing our Universe outwards into an ever-faster expansion.

Hi Brian:
Thanks for you comments. Actually the cyclic theories do match all available data and are among the most current theories being considered.
Your comment that oscillation is outmoded is not actually indicated in the citations you provided.
Here is some current description of this
“Although the cyclic model differs radically from the conventional big bang–inflationary picture in terms of the physical processes that shape the universe and the whole outlook on cosmic history, both theories match all current observations with the same degree of precision. However, the two pictures differ in their predictions of primordial gravitational waves and the fine-scale statistical distribution of matter; experiments over the next decade will test these predictions and determine which picture survives.”
https://www.accessscience.com/content/cyclic-universe-theory/YB090037
Here Princeton cosmologists explain why the cyclic theory is more parsimonious / occam’s razor like because the big bang, with the necessary additions for inflation, freezing, etc has become too much of a patchwork.
And the Cyclic theory corresponds to and reinforces string theory:
“What led you to consider a new theory?
“Answer:
“We were motivated by the fact that, over the last few decades, more and more elements have had to be added to the Big Bang Theory to make it consistent with what we observe. To explain why the universe is so uniform, we had to a new feature called inflation. To explain the formation of structure, we had to add dark matter. The recent discovery that the expansion of the universe has begun to speed up has required the addition of something called dark energy. Each of these elements have been added one by one to make today’s Big Bang Theory a kind of patchwork of disconnected ideas. Furthermore, in the background, there has been the disturbing notion that the big bang is the beginning of everything – something that has never been successfully explained by fundamental physics.
“We wanted to see if a completely different history of the universe is possible in which all the elements fit together in a tight and natural way. Furthermore, we saw recent developments in fundamental physics – namely, string theory – offered a radically new view of the big bang itself – not as a beginning but rather as a collision of two parallel worlds along an extra invisible dimension. Much to our surprise, we found we could use this picture to reformulate the history of the universe – recovering all the successful predictions of the conventional Big Bang Theory.”
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/endlessuniverse/askauthors.html
Most recent evidence appears to actually favors this cyclic model, though that evidence is very initial, still it is compelling:
“A paper by Roger Penrose, Daniel An, and Krzysztof A. Meissner presents powerful observational evidence of anomalous individual points in the very early universe that appear to be sources of vast amounts of energy, revealed as specific signals found in the CMB sky. Though seemingly problematic for cosmic inflation, the existence of such anomalous points is an implication of conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC), as what could be the Hawking points of the theory, these being the effects of the final Hawking evaporation of supermassive black holes in the aeon prior to ours. Although of extremely low temperature at emission, in CCC this radiation is enormously concentrated by the conformal compression of the entire future of the black hole, resulting in a single point at the crossover into our current aeon, with the emission of vast numbers of particles, whose effects we appear to be seeing as the observed anomalous points. Remarkably, the B-mode location found by BICEP 2 is at one of these anomalous points.”
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/08/evidence-that-universe-has-infinite-cycle-of-big-bangs-from-very-early-black-holes.html

Hi Brian!
Just to help bring you up to speed, Paul Steinhardt, one of the contributors to the Inflation theory, is one of the principle authors of the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) model cited in my prior post. Here he expresses in detail his initial concerns, and his rejection of cosmic Inflation, even though he himself helped develop it.
“But my concerns really grew when I discovered that, due to quantum fluctuation effects, inflation is generically eternal and (as others soon emphasized) this would lead to a multiverse. Inflation was introduced to produce a universe that looks smooth and flat everywhere and that has features everywhere that agree with what we observe. Instead, it turns out that, due to quantum effects, inflation produces a multitude of patches (universes) that span every physically conceivable outcome (flat and curved, smooth and not smooth, isotropic and not isotropic, scale-invariant spectra and not, etc.). Our observable universe would be just one possibility out of a continuous spectrum of outcomes. So, we have not explained any feature of the universe by introducing inflation after all. We have just shifted the problem of the original big bang model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?) to the inflationary model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities could emerge in a multiverse?).
I have to admit that I did not take the multiverse problem seriously at first even though I had been involved in uncovering it. I thought someone would figure out a resolution once the problem was revealed. That was 1983. I was wrong. Unfortunately, what has happened since is that all attempts to resolve the multiverse problem have failed and, in the process, it has become clear that the problem is much stickier than originally imagined. In fact, at this point, some proponents of inflation have suggested that there can be no solution. We should cease bothering to look for one. Instead, we should simply take inflation and the multiverse as fact and accept the notion that the features of the observable universe are accidental: consequences of living in this particular region of the multiverse rather than another.
To me, the accidental universe idea is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales. In order to explain the one simple universe we can see, the inflationary multiverse and accidental universe hypotheses posit an infinite variety of universes with arbitrary amounts of complexity that we cannot see. Variations on the accidental universe, such as those employing the anthropic principle, do nothing to help the situation.
Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties.”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/

Spence, the cyclic theory is definitely not the mainstream view of modern cosmology. Sure, it is a possibility, but the evidence argues against it being true. Here’s a link to the Hubble telescope public site, along with an excerpt from the page “Fate of the Universe.” The cyclic theory relies on a Big Crunch followed by another Big Bang, but as you’ll read, the scientists on this site say the crunch theory is ruled out by current evidence.
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-fate_of_the_universe.php
——————–
These same concepts apply to the expansion of space. That expansion was launched in the Big Bang, and ever since then, each bit of matter in the universe has been attracted to every other bit by the force of gravity. This should have been slowing down the expansion.
Before the discovery of dark energy, scientists had two models of how the universe’s expansion would work. In one scenario, there would be enough matter in the universe to slow the expansion to the point where, like the baseball, it would come to a halt and start to retract, everything crashing back together in a “Big Crunch.”
In the other scenario, there would be too little matter to stop the expansion and everything would drift on forever, always slowing and slowing but never stopping — like the spaceship. The galaxies would drift apart from each other until they were out of view. The universe would continue growing larger as countless generations of stars faded and died out. It would end in a vast, dark, and cold state: a “Big Chill,” if you will.
…With dark energy, the fate of the universe might go well beyond the Big Chill. In the strangest and most speculative scenario, as the universe expands ever faster, all of gravity’s work will be undone. Clusters of galaxies will disband and separate. Then galaxies themselves will be torn apart. The solar system, stars, planets, and even molecules and atoms could be shredded by the ever-faster expansion. The universe that was born in a violent expansion could end with an even more violent expansion called the Big Rip.
So out of the three scenarios for the fate of the universe — re-collapse to a Big Crunch, expand ever more slowly to a Big Chill, or expand ever faster to a Big Rip — we have managed to narrow the possibilities down somewhat.
Evidence has ruled out the Big Crunch. The Big Chill is probably the least that will happen. Whether or not the universe goes all the way to a Big Rip depends on what dark energy really is, and whether it will stay constant forever or fade away as suddenly as it appears to have arisen. And that we do not yet know.
No matter which scenario is right, the universe still has at least a few tens of billions of years left — which leaves us plenty of time to look for the answers.

Also Brian, there is recent doubt about the evidence of cosmic accelerating expansion.
https://m.phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-rateor.html
The fact that it was decelerating and then began accelerating points to the problems with an over simplistic linear model.
Also, problems with heat death include assumptions that the universe behaves like a uniform noble gas, that energy can only dissipate, and both of those pre-1930s Lord Kelvin thermodynamic laws have been proven to have limits by the subsequent reverse evidence of the birth of new stars.
Also assumptions about theoretical dark matter, more recently dark energy, do not have enough observational data to explain the acceleration. And these theories are beginning to fall apart.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2018/09/21/the-dark-matter-crisis/#.XAdDEx5ME0M
However, it is just as likely that as the universe expands and the gravitational pull from the center weakens over the greater distances, the net pull of local gravitational pockets on the edge may then form new star clusters and a series of black holes and dark matter at the edge of the Galexy that will then pull matter from the old center only to be pulled into a series of new gravitational centers that will have the mass to coalesce and crunch around that new center. The current evidence of acceleration could be the product of this pull to the edge taking place.
And that sypports CCC.

And just to show that occasionally the creation lends a hand when you are trying to make a point, this article reports a discovery, published yesterday, that supports what I wrote above
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-discovery-complicates-efforts-universe-expansion.amp
Basically, one of the key measures used to prove the universe is accelerating actually shows the accretion (absorption) of matter as well.
What has been claimed as evidence of a universe moving towards entropy / heat death, could just as readily be the accretion of matter into new stars instead.
Thank you universe!
Good timing!

What has been claimed as evidence of a universe moving towards entropy / heat death, could just as readily be the accretion of matter into new stars instead.

Could you just chalk it up to the cyclical play of
Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva? A simple church-y
metaphor for the “cosmology challenged” 🙂
(Uh oh, I suppose this may not make it past
moderation)

Hi Dungeness
I have to agree with Brian on this point: If seeing the earth is round and merely one planet among many circling the sun ; if seeing the earth as one star among many ; of seeing this universe expand, contract and expand again, all from the inner vision of spiritual travel were in fact truth, it would be useless compared to the objectivity of science.
With no more than a moment’s Google search I can find verified fact representing the work of thousands of keen minds who dedicated themselves to confirming the details in an objective way anyone can see, and subjecting themselves to the withering criticism of their peers. These scientists are rock stars.
As for inner experience, that is just for us, to confirm our connection and progress. All the science in the creation can’t replace our inner experience. But it isn’t science for anyone else but ourselves. And while it is a sheer pleasure to enjoy (gas clouds from deep space remains one of my favorites), it is valueless to humanity or discussion.
Considering what these scientists dare to imagine and work tirelessly to test, and their struggle with the requirements of complete transparency and honesty, I say again, Rock Stars!
The cost of objective science is expensive, but it is human mind’s best example that we are no longer merely imaginative beasts telling stories to each other.

The cost of objective science is expensive, but it is human mind’s best example that we are no longer merely imaginative beasts telling stories to each other.

Hi Spence,
Yes, bravo. In so many ways, science represents the
brightest and best of our efforts to find truth. Far from
being dismissive, I was just laughing at myself because
my feeble intellect can’t keep up.
But, in some ways, I suspect the imagery of Brahma,
Vishnu, and Shiva may depict remarkably well the
picture of our universe that is emerging. Imagination
is often the gateway to the profound.

@Spence
you wrote:
As for inner experience, that is just for us, to confirm our connection and progress. All the science in the creation can’t replace our inner experience. But it isn’t science for anyone else but ourselves.
my reply:
Exactly how does your inner experience confirm your connection and progress?
Maybe you see light. Or have inner visions.
Read what faqir chand says

It was at this point when Faqir asked himself: “What about the visions that appear to me? Are they a creation of my own mind

Reference :
http://www.integralworld.net/lane46.html
Plenty of people have inner experiences. They prove nothing.
1. The RSSB initiate sees his own guru inside
2. The Ajaib singh follower sees Ajaib
3. The Darshan singh followers sees Darshan
4. The faqir chand follower sees faqir
Which one is following the true path? Or are they all right?

Hi Osho
You wrote
“Plenty of people have inner experiences. They prove nothing.
1. The RSSB initiate sees his own guru inside
2. The Ajaib singh follower sees Ajaib
3. The Darshan singh followers sees Darshan
4. The faqir chand follower sees faqir
Which one is following the true path? Or are they all right?”
You are attempting to use objective criteria to evaluate someone else’s report of their internal subjective experience..
But I had written
” As for inner experience, that is just for us, to confirm our connection and progress. ”
You will have to apply that criteria to your own experiences and make that determination for yourself.
It isn’t transferable.
That’s what subjective experience is.
When Einstein imagined what it would be like to travel on a beam of light, that imaginary experience turned out to be highly accurate, and actually revealed to him a few of the secrets of the universe. A revelation of reality that came from inner experience. His entering that realm, through disciplined focus, actually was the source of his brilliant insight.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/sunday/the-light-beam-rider.html
The entire history of the development of mathematics took place in that inner realm.
So even subjective experience, disciplined, can take us to a very deep and accurate understanding of a portion of reality.
When is imagination illusion? And when are we actually witnessing an accurate model of reality, reflected in subjective experiences?
I suggest that only the individual themselves has the possibility to know the answer.
And I would further argue that every great design or creation we have in this world, that arose from a mastery of the laws of art and science, came first through that inner place.
We should all go there and make great art, find great inspiration, rather than depending upon some one else’s report. Or dismissing that place as irrelevant.

Hi Osho
I tried to answer your question a couple of hours ago but it must be in editorial Pergatory. I imagine Brian does need to eat and sleep and do other stuff occasionally than just get notifications that folks have entered comments.
Brian, if you are going to moderate comments can you also clean up my typos? My auto spell is a train wren.
Thank you…
OK Osho, let’s try again. I think I can do this more economically.
You wrote and asked me
“Exactly how does your inner experience confirm your connection and progress?”
Glad you are interested in internal experience.
Test it under different conditions for reliable repeatability, journal and read the journal a week later, six months later and years later.
Lay out the conditions you think led to the vision or experience and try it again.
Try to find verification in science or the writings of others for what you see, hear and feel. If you find it, that’s a good step. If you have the experience more deeply with practice, that suggests progress in the experience.
Control over the experience reflects connection to it.
What did it prove? That what you did generated that result.
No repeatability? No independent verification in literature?
A nice vision, a lovely subjective experience, your subconscious mind encouraging you to keep trying, keep giving, keep listening, keep working.
You wrote
“Maybe you see light. Or have inner visions.
Read what faqir chand says”
I don’t want to judge anyone else’s experience. I like his humility. If he knows other people’s illusions what about their insight?
How can anyone know what is actually going on inside someone else’s head?
Do you believe him? Why?
Einstein also had imaginary visions that turned out to be more acurate than even he understood at the time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/sunday/the-light-beam-rider.html
So it can go both ways. Your Mileage May Vary.
You wrote
“Plenty of people have inner experiences. They prove nothing.
1. The RSSB initiate sees his own guru inside
2. The Ajaib singh follower sees Ajaib
3. The Darshan singh followers sees Darshan
4. The faqir chand follower sees faqir
Which one is following the true path? Or are they all right?”
Whichever one you can prove for yourself.

@Spence
You are confusing and intermixing two distinct processes.
1. Using the IMAGINATION to get insight.
2. Doing mantra meditation or shabd meditation to try to still the mind and get a vision of the inner regions
These are two completely different processes.
The first is what Einstein was doing in order to play around with the concepts of time and space, in order to get new insights.
The second is what the disciple does, hoping to make “spiritual progress.” If he has a vision of his guru (whoever it is), he takes it as confirmation that his guru is true and his path is correct.
Let me quote what you wrote

Test it under different conditions for reliable repeatability, journal and read the journal a week later, six months later and years later.
Lay out the conditions you think led to the vision or experience and try it again.
Try to find verification in science or the writings of others for what you see, hear and feel. If you find it, that’s a good step. If you have the experience more deeply with practice, that suggests progress in the experience.
Control over the experience reflects connection to it.

What you are describing has nothing to do with the process Einstein was engaging in.
Let me quote faqir again

Faqir asked himself: “What about the visions that appear to me? Are they a creation of my own mind?

The disciple is meditating and giving meaning to the inner visions. That is why he is so happy when he eventually gets one. He feels the vision confirms his path.
When you wrote at the end “Whichever one you can prove for yourself” what are you really saying?
That all the gurus are true? Then why do they fight? Why are Kirpal initiates saying he is the true master and RSSB is fake, and vice versa?
Everyone feels their path is the true path. You do too, which is why you will argue your point of view.

@Spence
You wrote:
You are attempting to use objective criteria to evaluate someone else’s report of their internal subjective experience..
But I had written
” As for inner experience, that is just for us, to confirm our connection and progress. ”
You will have to apply that criteria to your own experiences and make that determination for yourself.
It isn’t transferable.
That’s what subjective experience is.
My reply:
No. The disciple is having a subjective self-created experience, and giving it an objective meaning.
The objective meaning is “my experience proves that my path is true”
If an RSSB initiate goes to a kirpal satsang, others will ask him why he is going there, the assumption being that RSSB is the true path, not kirpal’s.
So again, what exactly does your inner experience confirm for you?
And connection to what?
If you accept it’s created by your own mind, then you also accept it doesn’t objectively prove your path is true.
You are saying that every religion is true for that person because they feel it is so from their experience.
This IS delusion.

Following on from my previous comment
Religious Delusion is when you give your inner experience credence.
Here’s a quote:

There is an amusing story from the 1980s of two patients meeting for the first time on a psychiatric ward who, after telling each other their story immediately fell into an altercation with one patient accusing the other of being an imposter: “how can you be Jesus Christ?” he said, I am Christ.2

Sant mat version:
How can your vision be true, when I just saw the radiant form of my master? Did you check yours with simran, to see if it remains? No? Ha! I knew it, your vision is from kal.
This blog is full of believers who all say “My guru is the real one, my path is true”

when people are delusional, they believe things that are not true
but they appear to be true to them.
2 min video showing this:
https://youtu.be/AuFXyuH1voM
When you feel the some inner experience proves or confirms you are right, that is delusional

Hi Osho
You wrote
“You are confusing and intermixing two distinct processes.
1. Using the IMAGINATION to get insight.
2. Doing mantra meditation or shabd meditation to try to still the mind and get a vision of the inner regions”
The two processes are actually related. Both require prolonged focused attention on an object of interest.
Experienced meditators, artists, athletes and scientists all have similar experiences of calming, peace and joy as their process of focus gradually eliminates other thoughts and takes them into the subject of their focus and a deeper experience of that object of focus.
I learned this when conducting my thesis experiments with autogenic training fourty years ago, and comparing it to other methods of deep relaxation including meditating. Some of these methods involve guided imagery, and some involve focusing on a part of the body.
Similar results accrued across methods. And this has been replicated since then in many published studies over the last four decades.
What you focus on takes the conscious mind deeper into the object of focus. Athletes use imaginary objects to help gain very fine motor control over their body. Levels of control impossible without using an imaginary point of focus. Repetition also assists and is usually a part of many techniques. The Harvard Meditation has been tested for decades with similar results.
Focusing on the remembered image of the Master is the same mental process as fourty on any image or subject. The brain forms such images as a result of focus because the brain is a symbol making machine. This is how we process thoughts and how memory works.
Take some time and Google meditation research, guided imagery and performance and you will find much information that can help you understand the similar brain processes involved.

This blog is full of believers who all say “My guru is the real one, my path is true”

Hi Osho,
I don’t think fanatics jump on the soapbox as
much as we might imagine. At least not the
ones who hang out in a classy place like this
blog.
“My guru is the real one”
I’ve never heard that here at least not so overtly.
But, if they’re harboring that falsehood, then In
my opinion, they’re only exposing their own hubris.
Ishwar Puri anwers “what’s the right path?” (or the
real guru) with “the one that says answers are found
inside you, not somewhere outside”.
My path is true
What’s “true”? If you become more mindful,
calmer, emotionally balanced, with reduced
BP, etc., then a path will generate its own
“truth”. Who cares if no one can establish its
truth objectively.

Osho
Making claims about the internal experiences of people you don’t know is unscientific. There is no such hard proof of what your argument claims.
And every discovery that came through inner revelation such as Einstein ‘s stands firmly as proof.
Yes peoole have illusions. But they also have insight.