Open Thread 38 (free speech for comments)

I know I’ve been posting a lot this week but that’s because I have the week off. Next week it’s back to the daily grind…
Anyway, here are a few things that I find helpful with regards to understanding the difference between knowledge and perception. I think the general idea is that knowing is “complete” whereas perception is very limited.
*******
“The confusion between your real self and what you have made of yourself is so profound that it has become literally impossible for you to know anything. Knowledge is always stable, and it is quite evident that you are not. Nevertheless, you are perfectly stable as God created you. In this sense, when your behaviour is unstable, you are disagreeing with God’s idea of you. You can do this if you choose, but you would hardly want to do it if you were in your right mind.”
“Knowing is not open to interpretation. You may try to ’interpret’ meaning, but this is always open to error because it refers to the perception of meaning. Such incongruities are the result of attempts to regard yourself as separated and unseparated at the same time. It is impossible to make so fundamental a confusion without increasing your overall confusion still further. Your mind may have become very ingenious, but as always happens when method and content are separated, it is utilised in a futile attempt to escape from an inescapable impasse.”
“The word ’image’ is always perception-related, and not a part of knowledge. Images are symbolic and stand for something else. The idea of ’changing your image’ recognises the power of perception, but also implies that there is nothing stable to know. Knowing is not open to interpretation. You may try to ’interpret’ meaning, but this is always open to error because it refers to the perception of meaning. Such incongruities are the result of attempts to regard yourself as separated and unseparated at the same time. It is impossible to make so fundamental a confusion without increasing your overall confusion still further. Your mind may have become very ingenious, but as always happens when method and content are separated, it is utilized in a futile attempt to escape from an inescapable impasse.”

Unfortunately very last minute.

We traveled to a relative’s funeral today. It was a good funeral as far as funerals go. He died at 84 after having lived a wonderful life. Family and friends were there. Oddly enough, my mother kept saying to me, I wonder what killed him. I was like, I’m pretty sure old age killed him.
How long do we really expect to live?

I see a strange commonality between the very young and the very old—even a small amount of time seems to be a good amount of time in their eyes.
Being middle aged it’s a bit different…

https://youtu.be/0-7IHOXkiV8
S

How much more €vid€nc€ do you need to blatantly see the Obvious??
https://youtu.be/SF6Ev_EXg9w

The cataly$t of con$piracy in plain $ight
https://youtu.be/e0zAJfbP3gg
And the brainwa$hing m€chani$m for making it $o €a$y to r€$€t the $y$t€m
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158814871326091&id=543191090

Sure
😂 🤪 🤪 😂😂 🤪 🤪 😂
Because I m in Love with the Sweet Sound Currenr 18/7 but also while sleeping
further I don(t be/do much good, . . . but
Sure; I’ m in Love with the Sweet Sound Currenr 18/7 but also while sleeping
😂 🤪 🤪 😂😂 🤪 🤪 😂
777

Hoo ho,
Why would Gates care so much about vaccines if he wasn’t interested in saving lives. And doesn’t the desire to save lives go against your conspiracy theory that he’s trying to curb population growth?

777,
At your age, whatever makes you happy…

Hoo ho,
India is suffering the worst from the Coronavirus. Do you believe that’s part of some big first world whit billionaire to curb population control?
Or could it perhaps be the result of a Hindu radicalism leader’s mindset. Religious fanaticism ultimately always destroys lives. India is proof of that.

2 days to go for being 84
This explains it Sonia:
JAP JI :
By the Grace of the One Supreme Being,
The Eternal,
The All-pervading Purusha,
The Creator, Without Hate, Without Fear,
The Being Beyond Time, Self-existent, The Enlightener, Incarnated.
True at the Beginning, True in the Primeval age
True is He and True He shall be.
Thinking avails not, how so hard one thinks;
Nor silence avails, howsoever one shrinks Into oneself.
Nor hunger goes With the loads of the worlds.
Of a myriad cleverness, not one works.
How then to be True ?
How rend the Veil of shame, untruth?
His Will forsooth
Inborn in us, ingrained°°° in us,
Thou follow.
Thus is Truth attained
The Mighty sing of His Might, and the Blessed of His Light,
some sing that He is distant Far, . .
some sing that He see-eth , watcheth All
Oh Countless sing of countless things, . . He fills them all to overflowing.
True is the Master, True is His Name, . . what offer to make to see His Court,
What words to utter for His support?
meditate thou in the Ambrosial morn on the true Name.
THEY WHO HEARKEN TO THE WORD OF THE LORD,
KNOW THE SKY THE EARTHS, THE BULL, THE ISLANDS,
THE SPHERES AND UNDERWORLDS,
Deathless become they who who hearken to the word, . .
A devotee is foreever joyed and his pain and sin are destroyed.
THEY WHO HEARKEN TO THE WORD OF THE LORD,
fathom the deeps of virtue all,
are Glorious like a King, a SHEIKH , a PIR Divine, . .
even the Blind will see the Path Sublime.
They who hear the Word , are the creations Cream, . .
The are the ones approved suprime, . .
are honoured in the court of God, -such beings-,
look beautious in the Counsels of Kings
they fix their minds on the one Master only
they say and do what’s thoughtful, Holy . .
And know that Gods doings are beyond the count of us beings, –
Who is it that supports them, . . ‘t is God,
Whose eternal finger has writ the features, . . and color , kind and form of
all creatures . .
Oh, would one dare to write the account, . . How staggering the count
How Great is His Power, . . How striking His Beauty, . . and of his gifts ,
Oh, who could tell with surity
One Word and the whole Universe throbbed into being,
and myriads rivers of Life came gushing, . .
Powerless am I , Oh Lord , to describe what thy excellence be, . .
sacrifice am I a myriad times unto thee, . .
that what pleaseth Thee is the only good done, . . O THOU the Eternal The
Formless One
Countless the ways of Recitation, . . Countless the ways of Devotion,
Countless the ways of worship, . . countless the aussterities, their
hardships, . .
Countless the books, . . countless the reciters, . .Countless the yogis, .
Countless the men of piety, . .countless the men of merci
Countless the devotees on Thee ruminate, . . in Silence meditate . .
Countless the Heroes who face the steel, . . how powerless I feel Oh Lord, .
..
To tell what Thy Excellence be, . . sacrifice I am a myriad times unto Thee.
That what pleaseth thee is the only good done, . . Oh Thou
The Eternal, The formless One .
Countless the Unwise in black ignorance reel, . .
Countless the usurpers and those that steel, . .
Countless the Rulers who force their way, . . .
countless the cut-throats whom violence sways, . .
Countless the sinners whom sin engages, . .
countless the liars who wander in Mazes, . .
Countless the wretches , . . have filth as fill, . .
countless the slanderers, carrying loads of evil, . . Himself much is vain, . . and will look small in God’s
Domain
A King who’s dominion is like an Ocean and
has a Mind like a Mountain equals not a worm in whom dwells The Lord
Limitless his praise, . .Limitless its ways, . . Limetless His workings, .
..
Limitless his givings
Limitless the Sounds, . . Limitless the sights, . .
Limitless the mysteries of His Mind . .
Limitless the Creation, . . Limitless the expanse, . .
Oh countless struggle to find , Who can?
The more one says , the more is Yet to say, . .
Great is The Lord , . . High , High is His Mansion
To know the Highest of the High one may try, . .
If one be as high as He, . . HE alone knows How Great He be.
It’s GRACE that brings us Merci.
THE MAN WHO KNOWS GOD, . . HE REALLY CREATED THE UNIVERSES.
Priceless the virtues, . . priceless the Trade, . .
priceless the customers, . . priceless the purchase,
priceless the dealers, priceless the Treasures,
priceless the weight, priceless the Measures,
priceless the devotion, priceless the absorbtion,
priceless the Law Divine, priceless the Masters Court ,
His Shrine,
Priceless , beyond word, beyont thought,
They who seek to tell, knowing it Not, . .
The Vedas say, the Bibles say,
and the Learned they read, . .
interpreting as they may.
Say the Brahmas, say the Indras, say the Gopis, say the Krishnas,
say the Shivas, say the Siddhas,
say the many many Buddhas, . . . say the Demons, say the Gods,
the Seeers and the Sages,
some have said, . .some may say more, . .
others have said and left the shores, . . . .
How Great He is, . . only the the True One knows,
and he who presumes and says he knows , . .is a fool
among fools and as such he goes.
How does a human merge in the great peace of The Eternal Lord ?
Oh, . . He who has the Masters Nectar Name in his Mind and
Dwells on it, becomes invaluable
and all vegetation seemeth in blossom and bloom to Him
For Nanak, This is the Highest State of Bliss, . . that His Mind
remains imbued with Thy Name
Oh Tongue, utter thou the Lord’s Praise, . . Night and Day, .
By the Lord’s Grace do we dwell upon the Name
777
You are Young
You have that too
As you said: It’s the attention

‘S’ go check what Vandana Shiva (amongst quite a few others – including BG’s (ex) wife) thinks about Bill Gates
That should give you some kind of hint as to his modus of operandi’s, if you still think he’s such a great evangelical philanthropist, then there’s probably something slightly off que with the factual input.
(as to who was instrumental in developing the ‘so called “deadly” virus’ after tweaking and juicing up gain and function virology manipulations in laboratories both in the USA and in Wuhan China since 2015 – or perhaps earlier – well the jury’s still half way out on that one – almost)

1) https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-bill-gates-fake-3-billion-q-idUSKBN29Y20D
“Gates has long been a proponent of slowing unsustainable population growth ( here ) by targeting the root causes of poverty and unrest, and told Forbes magazine in 2011 that when he first entered public health, it was to focus on contraception ( here ). When he later saw data suggesting that when mortality rates fall, so, too, do birth rates, Gates shifted his focus from contraception to saving people already alive. He told Forbes: ‘We moved pretty heavily into vaccines once we understood that.’”
2) https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9917566788
“Gates was talking about reducing the rate of population growth, not the population, by 10 or 15%.
“In past interviews, Gates has argued that improving vaccines and health care can paradoxically slow the rate of population growth in poor countries, because it lowers the child mortality rate. With more children making it to adulthood, Gates has said, parents may choose to have a smaller family size.
“’Amazingly, as children survive, parents feel like they’ll have enough kids to support them in their old age, so they choose to have less children,’ Gates said in a 2012 interview.”

Hoolahans Honor,
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to slow unstable population growth when the intention is to improve quality of life. Yes, I believe in birth control/family planning. Not a proponent of abortion but I’m not going to go around preaching about it. People have to make those hard decisions for themselves.
Also, I think we have to be real here—security in old age to a certain requires different things in different cultures. I’m using the word cultures instead of 1st world and developing world purely out of respect. I don’t view first world cultures as superior to 2nd or 3rd. But I do recognize that quality of life is greatly exacerbated by weak governments and lack of resources.
The real issue here is quality of life.
unami’s last quote highlights a very real concern among parents in third world countries:
“’Amazingly, as children survive, parents feel like they’ll have enough kids to support them in their old age, so they choose to have less children,’ Gates said in a 2012 interview.”
Posted by: umami | May 17, 2021 at 07:57 AM

And, yeah, Bill’s a bit paranoid and eccentric but how many billionaires out there are known for being really grounded and “in touch”. They try.

777,
Most of that very beautiful. 🙂
I would like to add that the Lord/God/higher peer is not exclusive. There’s no difference between a master or a murderer in his book. That’s a hard pill for many to swallow. I’m not saying that our behavior isn’t important—of course it is. But not one of us is more holy than the other. Some just try harder to see God in everyone which naturally results in better behavior.
Self righteousness is hard to stomach. We are all equal and if you want to truly experience peace in this world then look upon a murderer the same way you look upon a Master—they are each a part of God. People behave according to your expectations of them. Projection makes perception.

I think humankind’s greatest flaw is the need to feel superior in one way or another.

Billy boy and his vaccine philanthropic philosophy while philandering on his population curbing crusades, along with his monopolistic Monsanto maneuvers, has got a bad wrap in a lot of 3rd world countries especially central and east Africa and India, they don’t want him back.
https://nypost.com/2021/05/13/ron-desantis-to-pardon-anyone-charged-for-defying-covid-rules/
Here’s a real champion for you, make this guy president he’ll fix your floundering country in no time. Get rid of the paranoid pandemonium pretentiousness, and breathe some fresh freedom back into your lungs.

It is the translation by Gopal Sing
I bought the 4 heavy volumes
in Delhi long ago
I placed 5 or 10 pages on the link
that is at rightf /above of
my ANKHATONmusic site
It’s also on books.google.com
but difficuly to read there
Yes all souls are the same
but Jeevas have different timespan
Can t imaging how a galaxy enjoys his existence yet
Nice is that there is this emergency exit
out of chaurasi which is sweet_ly decorated
777

777,
I wonder about the timespan difference. I think the idea is that we experience time differently in this realm. Right?
A day is like a 100 years… anyway, if you’ve ever done shrooms you know what I mean. 😉

@Hoolahans honor.
Okay.

If you’re trying to come across as a new age messiah for the overpopulated masses then you should keep your smoking gun firmly tucked away in your pants. Double jeopardy philanthropy don’t make for a good story anymore, after all nature designed the sexual urge for the explicit purpose of procreation of the species.
Just because modern ‘scientific’ man has learned how to manipulate these urges to beat about the procreation bush does not let him off the hook when it comes to face the facts of karmic retribution.
From Clinton to Cuomo to Billy boy Gates, hailed heroes for the masses, trying to fix the world population paradigm when you can’t even deal with your own unscientific naturally ordained urges shows how little control over the world population growth you actually have.
https://nypost.com/2021/05/16/bill-gates-allegedly-had-affair-with-microsoft-employee/?utm_source=NYPInstagram&utm_campaign=Native&utm_medium=Native
Try fact checking that.

And people still think this ‘charitably benevolent humanitarian’ is (was) all about magnanimous altruism when base of the matter is a megalithic and monopolistic accumulating of extreme wealth, whether it gets done via selling AI generation software or manipulating genetic modification of organic seeds, or through amassing enormous swathes of farmers land, or by creating modified virus combinations through genome meddling to ‘inoculate’ against the very same virus your meddling inadvertently created, just shows that you think that you are big and bold enough to fiddle and fck with nature.
https://nypost.com/2021/05/17/jeffrey-epstein-gave-advice-to-bill-gates-about-ending-his-marriage/?utm_source=NYPInstagram&utm_campaign=Native&utm_medium=Native

Hoolihans honor,
Ron DeSantis? No thank you. That hurt.
Take it easy, I get where you’re coming from contrasting Vadana Shiva and Bill Gates.
At 12:05 in your own youtube link Edward Snowden says, “Often we often talk about conspiracy theories in order to avoid talking about proven conspiracies.” Okay? Don’t fall into that trap.

Hoolahans honor,
OK, this conversation has gone way beyond whether Bill Gates is a benevolent human being or not. I’m not going to argue that point with you. Besides, how do you know that Melinda didn’t fall in love with someone else as well? Who knows what really goes on behind closed doors.
As far as sexual urges only existing for the sake of procreation, I’ll have to disagree with you there. And we certainly don’t have to agree or even agree to disagree but I don’t think this is worth getting upset over.
I think something else is bothering you—not Gates or Monsanto.
It seems to me that you’re very proud of yourself for being chaste. Good for you. Can’t fault that.

Hooho,
So, I’m your book to married couples have more sex when they get older after the likelihood of having kids has passed?
Maybe couples in your culture who have a difficult time conceiving are actually luckier because they get to have more sec trying.

There are a lot of ways to avoid having kids without using modern day birth control. Practices that men have been using for thousands of years.

Hh,
I can’t believe I’m posting this many comments about this subject… thank god I’m going back to work tomorrow.
So here’s the thing—I now understand exactly what your round about point is. I do. I totally get it and I appreciate it. Let’s just leave it at that.

““““ * ` ` * ` ` *
‘““““ 0 ` ` 0 ` ` 0
““““ ||___||___||
““ * ` {,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,} ` *
““ 0 ` {/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\} ` 0
‘“`_||_{_______”_____}_||_
“`{/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\}
“`{,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,}
“`{/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\}
“`{_____________”________}

Hello, 777. Your birthday, is it?
I wish you many happy returns, old friend!

@Appreciative Reader and the Chrismas Tree Painter
Thank You Both Very much
&nd Dank je wel
but perhap it came from Kentucky
let s joke : Thank U Mitch OMG

Happy Birthday, 🎰❗
🎂🎂🎂🎂🎂🎂🎂

@umami
Sukria
7

Information resistance
As you resist the idea that YOU from Salem are The Allpervading Creator
Would you believe when I “take out” f.i. let vaporize a known Star
f.i Alpha Centauri together with her planets
Tell us
Would that chance yr mind set?
777

What leads to radicalism?
When you think about it, the context of a message composed of a string of words from any language gets lost in translation over time. Language is organic—constantly evolving and changing with time.
We can’t treat passages from “Holy Books” like scientific or mathematical formulas. Words only mean what a particular group of people agree that they mean at a given time. Which makes language itself seem somewhat abstract. Always open to interpretation.
Logic is “left brain” and language is “right brain”. Sometimes they meet in the middle but far too often they do not.

Although I start having great doubts on the IQ level
here on this blog (with some rare exemptions)
my Master tells me to go on
When I wrote what everybody can see on Google Earth : the two awesome pyramides
before the NY coast, bigger tha Cheops , deep on the atlantic bottom
nobody is asking the Google Earth coordinates to have a look
Now I doubt the next link will be interesting
with these rare exemptions, I mentioned
A report from almost a bataljon F-18 pilots, . . if not all of them
and footage of UFO s diving in the Ocean on a daily basis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8Fc24G73iI&t=337s
These 200 IQ Androids were always there
This is ALL about searching a way to acquire a Crown Chakra
without the need to incarnate
The whole universe ( since our “forefathers disappeared” way before the Sun )
is FULL of this question

Why wait for Heaven? Those who seek the light are merely covering their eyes. Enlightenment is but a recognition, not a change at all. Why wait to find it in the future, or believe it has been lost already, or was never there? It can so easily be looked upon that arguments to prove it is not there become ridiculous. Who can deny the presence of what he beholds in him? It is not difficult to look within, for there all vision starts. There is no sight, be it of dreams or from a truer Source, that is not but a shadow of the seen through inward vision.
A world in which forgiveness shines on everything, and peace offers its gentle light to everyone, is inconceivable to those who see a world of hatred rising from attack, poised to avenge, murder and destroy.
Yet is the world of hatred equally unseen and inconceivable to those who feel “God’s” Love in them. Their world reflects the quietness and peace that shines in them; the gentleness and innocence they see surrounding them; the joy with which they look out from the endless wells of joy within. What they have felt in them they look upon, and see it’s sure reflection everywhere.
Perception is projection. How we see the world is how we see ourselves.

Well, aliens (if they exist) would be a form of incarnation.

777,
I googled for the pyramids the other day but was confused because you also wrote “Boston.” I looked again and found this. Same coordinates?
http://worldtripandtravel.blogspot.com/2016/08/two-large-underwater-pyramids.html?m=1

“We have a love language problem.”
This article is entertaining and thought provoking. It’s a short read.
https://www.theminimalists.com/loveismore/
One paragraph from the article reminded me how very limiting language is.
“The Inuit dialect spoken in Canada’s Nunavik region has at least 53 words to describe snow. Imagine if we had even half that for love. Instead, in our culture, we stretch love to apply to people and pick-up trucks, friends and fried chicken, lovers and Louis Vuitton bags. But when you extend anything beyond its natural limits, it loses its strength. This is especially true with love.”

@umami,
OK, I just read the article you posted a link to above. That is super duper freaky. Truly bizarre. How in the world did ancient man build those? Or did 👽 👽 👽 build them? I wonder how old they are and what they’re composed of.

@
Love is More
Yes a good semantic would be great
I like
“Love is the desire to do good to someone”
Charan said
“to become One with someone”
Today in the RSSB Quote ” To be consumed like fire” ( a Moth ) . . I understand but it goes way to far these days and only from 4th &UP region descended Souls understand
I might be wrong in the midst of hyper bad karma < they might understand - don't know!

@Umami
Yes it’s that
I had it from another source : SECURE10 or sp
and found it on Google Earth
I placed the coordinates here on the blog but nobody reacted
The Boston ref is like an american saying milano is in Holland? aah
not so bad yet
@S
Yes awesome but when the moon was brought here from from another star
the buildings are peanuts
It places even the A/theist questions in another perspective – Many of us
did live indeed 5 Billion years ago in chaurasi
You told me your revelation <> That was way longer ago – So were mine but we can’t tell
But we know the magnificances
777
PS
It seems that even today certain civilizations are taking a STAR
bring it elsewere

Go and use Streetview to go down
39°00’03.95″ N 71°50’54.21″ W
777

I’ve given up fighting aging. Time to embrace it. Sort of liberating. 🙂

S,
Titanium would be my choice for a deep sea pyramid. It’s the ninth most abundant mineral in the Earth’s crust and saltwater doesn’t corrode it. It would last until swallowed by plate tectonics. The Atlantic Ocean began to form about 200 million years ago as Pangea broke up. In another 250 million New York will smash into Africa.
Past…
https://youtu.be/ADsjdu27WaM
Future…
https://youtu.be/hos7w8xrcEs

@umami,
Those videos are pretty cool.
Yeah, titanium is a good choice. I’m dying to know what’s inside those titanium pyramids. 🙃

BTW, pretty sure the tunnel of light people see when they die is the inside of the black hole in the center of our universe. 🙂
S

It’s funny that we go “inside” to travel through the astral and realms beyond.
S

Correction, I wrote ‘mineral’ but meant ‘element’ in the Earth’s crust. Oxygen 46%, silicon 27.7%, aluminum 8.2%, iron 4.1%, calcium 3.6%, sodium 2.8%, potassium 2.5%, magnesium 2.0%, titanium 0.4%, hydrogen 0.1%, phosphorus 0.1%, manganese 0.1%.

My idea is ; like the Ant artica, structure our moon, Iapetus,The South pole of Saturnus
there are Tetrahaedron Anti Gravity mechanism in place, still active after 5 Billion Years
Like AntArctica holds people off with fear of death radiation
all these items are protected that way and also against the androids
They established no half work
Here is also : Only One who masters his mind can approach
remember : remnants of the Silver Yuga
777
I don t buy everything of Linda s aproaches
but on Reincarnation she is correct

Correction, I wrote ‘mineral’ but meant ‘element’ in the Earth’s crust. Oxygen 46%, silicon 27.7%, aluminum 8.2%, iron 4.1%, calcium 3.6%, sodium 2.8%, potassium 2.5%, magnesium 2.0%, titanium 0.4%, hydrogen 0.1%, phosphorus 0.1%, manganese 0.1%.
Posted by: umami | May 24, 2021 at 11:31 AM
Thanks, I needed to know that. 😉
Actually I’m a total nerd at heart.

About UFO’s…
LEAKED PENTAGON UFO FOOTAGE EXPOSED? .. (12:58)
The mysteries of UFO’s – May 26, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVgcPBKbHVM

Jen,
I like that video because they debunked a lot of UFO hysteria in a gentle way. Although, you always have those crazy eye witness accounts. Who knows.
I’ve never had an interest in aliens for some reason. Occasionally something like the giant triangle UFO over Phoenix catches my attention but I think for the most part ufology is not terribly exciting.
Maybe these debunkers are actually aliens and trying to blend in and divert our attention away from what they’re doing. 😅

One of the biggest issues people have with Surat Shabd Yoga meditation is anticipation. When you have books like ‘Path of the Masters’ and all these stories of inner experiences, people who practice SSY sit with anticipation. They believe that they are supposed to have “experiences” which kind of counters the effects of true meditation where you sit without any expectations.
Here’s an excerpt from Mindworks’ article, ‘How Meditation Changes the Brain’:
“Two of the vitally important effects that meditation has on the mind are the ability to remain attuned to the present moment without judgment, regret or anticipation; and the ability to observe sensations and emotions that arise in the mindstream without necessarily identifying with them. Meditation seems to increase the density of the posterior cingulate.”
Here’s the link to the article: https://mindworks.org/blog/how-meditation-changes-the-brain/
Maybe that’s why so many satsangis in the Q&A’s complain about feeling anxiety when they try to sit.

Posterior Cingulate
“The posterior cingulate is connected with wandering thoughts and self-relevance – that is, the degree of subjectivity and referral to oneself when processing information. It seems that the larger and stronger the posterior cingulate, the less the mind wanders and the more realistic the sense of self can be.”
Here’s article explaining the role that the posterior cingulate plays in anxiety disorders:
‘Altered default mode network activity in patient with anxiety disorders: an fMRI study’
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17400412/

I don’t see much difference at all between Kundalini Yoga and Surat Shabd Yoga. Both aim at pulling your energy upwards to the crown chakra. Satsangis should just say practice your yoga.

‘Dangers of Kundalini Yoga’
https://yoga.lovetoknow.com/Dangers_of_Kundalini_Yoga

–
https://www.space.com/china-far-side-moon-rover-strange-substance.html
–
Does anybody heard about their spectographics
because the gel is said to be harder than diamand . .
7

There Are 6 ‘Strongest Materials’ On Earth That Are Harder Than Diamonds
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/18/there-are-6-strongest-materials-on-earth-that-are-harder-than-diamonds/

@S Thank U
Typically You : Sonya Sophia 🙂
This was SOO impressive as almost never
and always make me think
about my next birth in the UK and what Science then have to offer
Thank U very much
After all . . what they found on the moon
comes closest to graphene spiders diamond gel
or God knows what they invented , these Satsangis of 5 Billion years ago
Imagine that stuff being like 20 / 50 KM thickness
Would that be enough to make it resistant
BTW
It was reported that several Stars vanished, as if they never were
like some android race taking them to another vector of this tiny Pinda
PS
Sant Mat is rather impressive being sooo far above all these wonders
and U and I have seen that for a fact
777

God doesn’t judge because he is light. Light illuminates. Darkness is illusion. Light is love. Illusion is fear.
Judgement belongs to the fearful. Courage belongs to the fearless.

The weights of all things establish themselves in the process of finding balance. Unincumbered, all things float down or up to their specific gravity. There is no external scale needed, no judge’s pronouncements of size or weight needed. You can see just by understanding the properties of what you are looking at.

Spence said:
There is no external scale needed, no judge’s pronouncements of size or weight needed.
me:
Right – only compassion we acted withh, will go go with us!
A friend of mine, satsangi was with a ( he declared ) competant
yogi in the Surinama Bush_Bush around 1948
One evening they visited a totally “wild” tribune in the forest
and people were enthousaiastically dancing around a fire
The yogi said : You see that little bit paler guy dancing
He was a brilliant Scientist, and a Lord
during queen Victoria
He had little compassion – He ‘s really good off
What I mean : Let’s use the last remaining actually years/months
for compassion which is a tiny Love°thing
Stopping thoughts once in a while helps
777

Lucifer part 2 of season 5 just released today 🙌
I’ll be binge watching for the rest of the evening.
It’s a beautiful story. Entertaining and full of universal truths—you’re perfect just as you are.

Mortality is a gift. It makes you appreciate life.

@ 🍎
Correcting History:
Is this Eve’s fake apple that was a Steak
. . . an the Boss was so right closing the paradise premises
to make them find out about compassion
I don’t believe it was EVE, . . another faker to denigrate women
777

In that story, the apple 🍎 symbolizes judgement. Judgement become the illusion of the loss of innocence.
It’s just a story, but it’s a story that we play out day after day because we’ve lost true vision.
“Mortality” in this form is a gift. No one should suffer forever. No one should suffer at all. There is no justification for suffering. But the soul lives on and will eventually reach it’s true home along with every other soul that has ever been created.

Osho Robbins,
I can’t recall. In your understanding is Baba Ji realised? Please discuss.

Not sure if this is just what happens when you get to a certain age or when your mind gets tired, but I appreciate nature so much more now. Like an old person, the sound of the birds chirping in the morning sounds like music. The colors of the trees and flowers are more vivid. The warmth of the sun and the gentle breeze are comforters. There’s a stillness in the air that is peaceful. It’s so simple and so beautiful. One of the gifts of age I guess. 🙂

@ S
>> The colors of the trees and flowers are more vivid.<< The color of the buttercups is certainly more brilliant than in other years and so is the smell of the hawthorn more sweet. If it is age ... than we have a shining future before us ... 🙂

Okay, Osho Robbins. I was thinking of a more structured, more conceptually oriented discussion. But absolutely, let’s do this your way.

“@Appreciative Reader
On my previous post to you, I started with “There is only ONE and no other”
From there it’s simple because if there is only ONE, there cannot be individual souls and selves. There can only be the illusion of many.
So this is how we get to oneness.
1. Everything you see around you appears to be real. But it is only for a certain time. It is within time. Everything within time ends and dies eventually. Hence we could define this as temporary or unreal. Do you agree?”
——-
Sorry, but no. I don’t think I can agree.
We’d been through this already last time, hadn’t we?
Transient ≠ Unreal.
Temporary ≠ Unreal.
(But purely as definitions, which you clarify later, I agree, sure. Not as conclusion, but as [re-]definition. I mean, if it’s a definition, then there’s hardly a question of “agreement” as such.)
—————————————————————————————-
“It’s a definition, not an opinion. I am creating the definition that real = that which remains forever. Unreal = that which ends.”
——-
Okay, I’ll play.
For now I’ll abide by your definition.
But if I find you conflating this new definition of “real” (where “real” is defined as transient) with the everyday definition of “real” (where “real” would be something that does have substance, for something that does exist, whether eternal or otherwise), then I’ll point that out to you. Because this conflation, and indeed this kind of unnecessary redefinition, seems to me a sure recipe for confusion.
But still, I’ll play. Hopefully this will lead us to where you’re trying to guide this towards, let’s see.
—————————————————————————————-
“So then everything here is maya, illusion and unreal. It is here for the moment but not forever. It is as real as a dream while the dream is happening.”
——-
Disagreed, sorry.
Like I said, you’re conflating your re-defined sense of “real” with the everyday meaning of “real” here.
That which is temporary and transient, isn’t necessary illusory. Not unless you redefine the meaning of “illusion”, just like you’ve already redefined the meaning of “real”.
I’ll play along, I’ll continue to follow this as you direct me. But this redefinition business looks dodgy to me, just like it looked dodgy to me the last time we did this.
—————————————————————————————-
“ I am not denying that this is the only reality we know. I am accepting that but defining it as unreal.
To move forward you have to choose to accept my definition.
So, from here, the next step is to go into what real means. So real means eternal, forever, unchanging. Outside of time.
Within time = unreal
Outside time = real”
——-
Okay, done.
But again, if I find you conflating the two senses of your redefined words, I’ll point that out.
—————————————————————————————-
“Within time there is no ONENESS. There is many. We perceive ourselves as separate. We also have the concept of a separate soul. We believe we need to unite with the separate god. We believe it will take time and effort and it’s a journey from separation to unity.
This is the trap. We are stuck in concepts and cannot see outside the trap because of the beliefs and because we think this is real.”
——-
I’m not sure I’m able to agree with your reasoning.
You’re saying our erroneous concepts and beliefs are the cause of our perceptions.
To me that sounds wholly topsy-turvy. I’d say it is the other way around. It is our perceptions that are the cause of our concepts and our beliefs.
Sure, sometimes are perceptions are a distortion of reality. And sometimes our concepts and beliefs are flawed. But that is not to say that all of our concepts and beliefs are necessarily flawed. And, while it’s true, sometimes erroneous beliefs do cause us to perceive things in accordance with our beliefs, but generally speaking the causality is the opposite of what you indicate here.
—————————————————————————————-
“So ONENESS seems to be bulkshit from this viewpoint. And actually I agree – it is bullshit – because there is no ONENESS here. To just say “we are all one” is nonsense because clearly we are not one.
So now examine “outside of time”
By the way at this point – it’s all conceptual – that is all it can be. But this leads to realisation only once you examine these concepts and get clear.
Outside of time means: no change (because change only happens in time).
Outside of time means no separation, hence only one thing everywhere that encompasses all time and all space. It cannot be otherwise. Two cannot exist outside of time and space.
So this means there is only ONE and no other.”
——-
This assumes there is something outside of time.
And as far as the ONE, we’ve only arrived back at our starting point here, you do realize that, right?
I’ll play on, absolutely. But I have to point out that this is only what had been your assumption all along. Not a conclusion that you’ve reasoned out.
—————————————————————————————-
“So this is where you arrive:
There are two states:
1. Maya
2. ONENESS
The first is what you see with your eyes.
Hence scriptures say “what you see – it is not. What IT is – we cannot say”
It’s referring to the ONENESS. You cannot meet it. You cannot experience it. You cannot see it. You cannot know it.
Why?
Because it’s not an “it”. It’s not a thing. It’s not perceivable.
Why? Because to perceive, TWO are needed. And there is only ONE.
So what happens is a deep insight that suddenly dawns on you. It’s can’t be called an experience.
That is the realisation.”
——-
Hang it all, Osho Robbins. I don’t mean to be rude or dismissive, at all, but NO! This is not what you “arrive” at, this is what you’d assumed all along! You’ve only drawn a huge circuit and walked right back to your starting block here!
This is textbook question-begging!
I think you’re getting misled here. You’ve just arbitrarily assumed your Oneness. And taken a long circuitous walk, and “arrived” right back to your starting point of Oneness, that’s all.
But pardon me! Having voiced my reservations, and my objection, I’ll (continue to) play along.
—————————————————————————————-
“Once it happens you cannot explain it to anyone. What I have done is the best that can be done. I have described “about it”
Once you allow these ideas in – you get first a vague idea of what ONENESS might be. Then it grows and eventually becomes clear.
Now you can see that the two things co-exist.
The maya is like the dream state
and the ONENESS is the real state.
So your true form is the ONENESS.
But also that can be misunderstood so easily because I am not referring to the self that you consider to be “you” – that is illusory. I am referring to the ONENESS in which there are no individual souls.”
——-
Osho Robbins, thanks very much for taking this trouble, explaining this to me! But I’ve played along as best I could, but I could see nothing more here than question-begging. Nothing more than a somewhat convoluted buying-in into an arbitrary premise.
But again, sincere thanks for taking the effort to guide me, really! I’ll continue to follow your lead, whichever way you want to take this.
After which, if you’re willing, I’d like to try some more of the structured discussion that we’d left off from, some months back.

@Appreciative Reader
I have read your responses.
Here’s the issue.
The process of taking someone to realisation requires them to be open to examine these ideas.
If you are bot open to them, then nothing happens.
If this was being done in person, it would be very different because concepts can be challenged.
I will go though this in detail shortly.
So from the start, I started with the ONENESS like I explained.
Then I went into how I arrive at the idea of oneness.
I am not making any statement about what IS here in maya.
You and I – nether of us can know oneness. I wasn’t making that assumption. I was taking you on an imaginary journey.
I will go into detail in my next message

Hey, sorry if my comments appeared dismissive, Osho Robbins. Absolutely, there’s no point in talking unless one is open to a contrary idea. And I am, indeed, open to this business, absolutely.
But “open” only in terms of *considering* this with an open mind. You mustn’t mind it if I plainly point out when something does not make sense to me, or if I do not unquestioningly accept your conclusions, because there’s no way I’m doing that, not for Oneness and not for anything under the sun.
——-
I know this is getting involved. Take your time, please, and come back to this whenever you are able. As will I. Let’s both bookmark this thread.
And again, thanks for taking the trouble to walk me through this!

Let me, at this point, point out my primary objection to what you’ve said thus far.
See, in your last comment, you say, “… (then) I went into how I arrive at the idea of oneness…”.
Well, how you arrived at the idea of oneness is plain as day. You’ve arbitrarily assumed it.
That was the starting point of our experiment, remember?
You asked that I accept your premise of Oneness, for the space of the experiment. I complied. Then, via your arguments, you circled right back to your original assumption of oneness. And then talk about how you “arrive at the idea of oneness”. Which, pardon me for the plainspeak, is not right. How you arrive at your idea of oneness is, like I said, quite clearly by taking that as your (arbitrary) premise.
That’s, like, textbook begging-the-question.
You see this, right?

I am dealing here with definitions
A dream appears to be real until you wake up.
During the dream you will assume the dream is real.
But once you awaken then you know it wasn’t real.
So now I want you to widen your definition of real so that you don’t mistake the dream state for reality.
How will you widen your definitions?
You need to make a distinction now between what appears to be real
And what is really real (in the waking state, for our purposes here in this discussion)

The color of the buttercups is certainly more brilliant than in other years and so is the smell of the hawthorn more sweet.
If it is age … than we have a shining future before us … 🙂
Posted by: um | May 30, 2021 at 05:30 AM
Yes, indeed. I’m starting too see the advantages of getting older—and there are many!

>> I’m starting too see the advantages of getting older—and there are many!<< by S: There are also dis-advantages so to say. No longer involved in the many obligations that come with adult life, many things that have been lingering in one's mind can surface too, as these obligations also function as an distraction. Distraction gone many things are unearthed .. both pleasant and unpleasant.

@Appreciative Reader
Let me go into more depth.
I quote what I wrote earlier
“ Outside of time means: no change (because change only happens in time).
Outside of time means no separation, hence only one thing everywhere that encompasses all time and all space. It cannot be otherwise. Two cannot exist outside of time and space.
So this means there is only ONE and no other.”
This is the key part where we diverge.
So we know from observation that everything within time and space has certain characteristics
1. Everything is changing (with time)
2. There are separate things. Many things. Not oneness.
3. These separate things, move, interact, change, and eventually disintegrate or die.
So I am then taking the position that Outside of time and space (for now assume such a thing exists: I will deal with that assumption later) it’s the opposite: namely: no change, no separate things, no movement.
That makes sense. You cannot have separation and movement and birth/ death because the element of time is missing.
That is where the Oneness comes from. It’s not a circular argument.
If time and space contains separation and movement and birth / death and change,
Then -time and -space doesn’t have those.
Whether there is such a thing as -time and -space is another matter which we will go into next.
But for now, IF there is such a thing, then that is where the ONENESS comes from, because the no time / no space region (for want of another name) necessarily remains the same (no change, forever etc) which I have defined as real.
So I am defining that state (if it exists) as real and this one where everything ends as unreal.
The definitions are not something you can disagree with – as they are definitions.
The point I am making here is that if a no time / no space domain exists, that is where oneness would be.
Do you disagree with that point?

So now we have a different way of viewing life.
1. What I call unreal: this world
2. What I call real: changeless, eternal oneness, no separation.
I am not presenting proof that the second one exists.
Just imagine a two dimensional object. It has length and width. That is all that exists for it. Dimension no 3 doesn’t exist for this object. Because it (the object) only knows of two dimensions.
How would you prove to that object that there is a third dimension?
Just because you cannot prove it, doesn’t mean there is no third dimension.
It is just beyond the scope of the object.
If the two dimensional object could think, you might be able to explain to it that there is a third dimension and it might grasp the notion.

@um
I don’t know… I guess it depends. If you’re relatively healthy and enjoy spending time alone, then old age can be quite pleasant.

…and not afraid of death.
I think getting old could be scary and possibly even depressing for some if they are afraid of dying.

@ S
Death has no meaning for me. it never had; pain and other discomforts do however.
If the relationships with the world, the persons involved, slow down, disappear etc, things forgotten, sub conscious, suppressed, become to the foreground …
silence and being alone for prolonged periods of time, work like an mirror in which all sorts of things become visible, both positive, as the colors of the butterbuts as other things … like an shift of attention from “the other” towards “oneself”

To give and example … the shift from asking questions etc about sant mat, its teachers and teachings etc towards how did I end up on the path, how did I behave, what did I learn and understand etc etc.

Or .. how did I became a seeker, student, disciple and finaly woke up in the theater of life.

“ You asked that I accept your premise of Oneness, for the space of the experiment. I complied. Then, via your arguments, you circled right back to your original assumption of oneness. And then talk about how you “arrive at the idea of oneness”. Which, pardon me for the plainspeak, is not right. How you arrive at your idea of oneness is, like I said, quite clearly by taking that as your (arbitrary) premise.” – Appreciative Reader
That is not what happened. Like I explain in my last comment, I did not assume oneness in my argument. Not sure how you concluded that.
I took the view of a “no time, no space” existence and showed that such an existence would have no change and would be oneness (not an assumption).
Now I address the point of existence:
Does a state of “no space, no time” exist?
The problem here is with the word ‘existence’
In our world, existence means “within time and space”
Anything outside of that is beyond our scope, beyond our senses, so we would say non-existent.
Any sound that is beyond the range of our ears, we would call non-existent because we cannot hear it. However, we may develop tools that show it exists.
Beyond time and space we cannot develop any tools either because it would be a different dimension.
Just as someone who is dreaming cannot make a qualified judgement about the non-dream world, so we cannot make a qualified judgement about existence outside of time and space.
If it does exist, it doesn’t exist bad we define existence, so our opinion about this is meaningless.
If such a state exists then from that state – we would be non-existent because we are so temporary – here for a short while only.
If a dream character says the physical universe does not exist, how valid is it?
So how valid is our view that the no-time no-space reality doesn’t exist?

Lots of food for thought in your comments, Osho Robbins.
I don’t want to hurry through those comments. I’ve read them once, and I’ll re-read them later again, for a more detailed understanding and critique, and further comments if such seem apposite. Meanwhile, though, some quick responses to some portions of your comments that kind of stand out:
——-
“The definitions are not something you can disagree with – as they are definitions.
The point I am making here is that if a no time / no space domain exists, that is where oneness would be.
Do you disagree with that point?”
……….I do disagree, actually.
Like you say, if you’re simply defining them that way, then, as you say, that’s not something I can disagree with. But why ask me, then, if I disagree?
Yes, if I critique your argument, qua argument (as opposed to definitions that I must take on faith), then I do disagree.
Here’s why. Let’s assume, like you say, that there’s something beyond time and space. Why would that imply Oneness, at all?
Here, let me give you two concrete examples, how you can have Duality, and for that matter Multiplicity, outside of time and space.
Example 1 : Let’s accept your solipsistic principle. Let’s agree that all of this is nothing more than a dream. But how do you know that there is just one person dreaming? Think literally of dreams. Let’s assume that this present universe is just my dream, okay. I’m asleep in my bed, dreaming that we’re having this online exchange. So fair enough, Awake-Me is the Oneness that is the source of all of this. But that does not imply that, when I awaken, I will not find an Awake-Osho-Robbins there as well, and an Awake-Spence-Tepper, and an Awake-Brian, and so on. In fact that is what happens IRL. We all dream, but then we all awaken as well. So who knows, maybe we’re all dreams of the some Dreamer, except there is not just One Dreamer, but Many Dreamers? That Awake dimension is outside of time and space as we know it and understand it. Yet, like I have shown, there might still be Multiplicity there.
Example 2 : Time and space as we know it started with the Big Bang. I’m relying on imperfect memory here, and might be mistaken about some of the finer details here, but I think it was Stephen Hawking who had formulated these “pocket universes”. Multiple Big Bangs, and multiple universes. Within these universes, time and space would start with their respective Big Bangs. But outside of it, there are still many universes, not just one. That’s another example of Multiplicity, not Oneness, outside of time and space.
——-
“A dream appears to be real until you wake up.
During the dream you will assume the dream is real.
But once you awaken then you know it wasn’t real.”
……….But how the eff does one “wake up”, then? What you’re describing here is simply convincing oneself, while still dreaming, that one is dreaming. Which would be fine if one were actually dreaming; but then, as you say, we cannot know that until we’re actually awake, we cannot know that as long as we’re still dreaming. Which leaves us in essentially a circularity.
I repeat, your process seems to be simply convincing oneself, while still dreaming, that one is dreaming. That crucial factor, waking up, which is an entirely different matter, that seems missing from your process.
——-
” I am then taking the position that Outside of time and space (for now assume such a thing exists: I will deal with that assumption later) it’s the opposite: namely: no change, no separate things, no movement”
……….Okay, we’ll come back to a defense of your assumption later. For now we’ll simply take it on faith that there is such a thing as “beyond time and space”.
But how are we saying that there is” no change, no separate things, no movement” beyond time and space? We know nothing at all of that condition. Do we? If we don’t, then how do we know even this much, that there is none of those things there?
I take your point, that those things are associated with time and space in the here and now. But it does not follow, at all, that the absence of time and space necessarily implies an absence of those things as well? It may, or it may not; we simply don’t know, at all.
——-
“Just imagine a two dimensional object. It has length and width. That is all that exists for it. Dimension no 3 doesn’t exist for this object. Because it (the object) only knows of two dimensions.
How would you prove to that object that there is a third dimension?”
……….I think there’s two ways to answer that question of yours. And neither of those ways agrees with your position.
The first is to refer to string theory. As you know, string theory postulates many more dimensions than our usual three (or four, if you include time). Some speak of 10 dimensions, some of 11, some I think actually go more than 20 dimensions. Now while we don’t directly observe these extra dimensions via our direct senses, nevertheless they do have impact on the math, on the results they give us concerning our everyday world. To the extent that they help us make predictions that are borne out, to that extent we accept them as provisionally true, same as anything else in science. Similarly, in your 2-D world, we’d accept your formulations of a 3-D world if and only if those formulations would let us make predictions that we could test in our 2-D world, and if those tests did prove those predictions correct. Otherwise we don’t accept the 3-D world. (That is, we may continue research on them, but we don’t take it as given.)
And the second answer is to simply point out that one cannot prove a negative claim. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, one does not accept such claim: insisting for proof of the opposite is fallacious. If we live in a 2-D world, and if you come and tell us that there actually are three dimensions, not two: then how that works is not that you demand that we prove that a third dimension does not exist; how one goes about it, is to accept your claim about the third dimension only if there is evidence to support such a claim. This is pretty much straightforward.
——-
“That is not what happened. Like I explain in my last comment, I did not assume oneness in my argument. Not sure how you concluded that.”
……….Sorry, but that was exactly what you did assume. That was the starting point of your experiment. Here, I’ll quote, below, your exact words from that first comment of yours (the first, that is, in this exchange, and that I’ve quoted in my first comment in this thread):
“It’s simple.
“There is only ONE – there is no other”
Fully accept that statement.”
——-
“If a dream character says the physical universe does not exist, how valid is it?
So how valid is our view that the no-time no-space reality doesn’t exist?”
……….Agreed, absolutely. But that agreement is subject to accepting, for the sake of argument, that we are dream characters, and that there is a no-time-no-space that is analogous to our waking state. Not otherwise.
—————————————
Osho Robbins, if we’re dreaming, I’d love to wake up. Believe you me, there’s nothing I’d wish for more than that. But if only wishes were horses! As it is, this whole Oneness argument seems riddled with holes all through.
See if you can deal with the objections I’ve raised in this comment, and show me where I’m mistaken. Believe me, nothing would give me greater pleasure than if you were able to do that, because that would indicate to me that “awakening” is truly a thing, and therefore a thing that I might one day arrive at. But it would be intellectually dishonest of me to let my wishes guide my conclusion, or to let my goodwill for you color my thinking. I’m sorry, but the argument, as you’ve presented thus far, seems full of …let’s say, places where it simply doesn’t hold.

@Osho To be One
To Know HIM, you must BE HIM
777

Hello, 777, old friend.
And how do you suggest we “be Him”, then?
I guess you’ll say via RSSB-style meditation, am I right? The whole Charan-GSD deal? Fair enough, if you do. I mean, if it works for you, great!
Or have you something different than that in mind?

@Appreciative Reader
You wrote
“ But how are we saying that there is” no change, no separate things, no movement” beyond time and space? We know nothing at all of that condition. Do we? If we don’t, then how do we know even this much, that there is none of those things there?”
Here is how:
Change needs the dimension of time to happen. Change cannot possibly happen if you remove the dimension of time.
Movement cannot happen if you remove time. All movement takes time to happen.
A little time or a lot of time.
If a thing moves we determine how fast it moves as distance (space covered) / time taken.
So both space and time are part of the equation.
So if I remove the dimension of TIME then movement is impossible.
If a thing moves, TIME must be present.
Any and every change necessarily needs time to happen. Hence no time means change and movement are both impossible.
If you remove space, there can be no objects. All objects need space.
For two objects to exist, each object needs space around it. The space creates the boundary for it,
No space means no boundary.
So no boundary means only one thing can exist, but it has no boundary. Or you can say that zero objects exist.
In both cases, there cannot be multiple objects.
This is the part you are ignoring

No time and no space necessarily means no separate objects because there are no boundaries. And no change.
This state I am defining as REAL – an arbitrary definition.
Now you might understand the reason for these new definitions.
Real means unchanging, eternal, forever, and ONE.
By the new definitions – you and I are unreal. We end, we die. We are not permanent.
But the ONE is permanent.
The only objection you can have is: does it (ONE) really exist?
But you are not qualified to ask because the definition of “existence” is inadequate since it only applies within time and space.
By our definition it’s doesn’t exist because everything that exists has to be within time and space.
It is beyond the scope of our definition

We all know that our existence here is going to end. We are getting older and one day, we will die. Our life is over. Finished. Ended. Just like every dream.
Every dream is doomed to end.
This life is also doomed to end.
We consider the dream unreal only because it ended. If it was real, it would NOT have ended.
But we have come out of the dream state into a bigger dream.
That dream lasted only minutes. This dream lasts a number of decades. But this dream also ends.
Then what happens?
Then you exit this dream and enter the ONENESS I spoke about. But in that state, you never exit, because that one is forever and never ends.
I cannot prove this to you. Why not? Because it’s a different level of reality. If I was a dream character in your dream, I could not prove to you that the real you is sleeping in the bed and dreaming and that I too (the one in your dream) am just as unreal as you. It is impossible to prove from within the dream.
The method is different from logical proof. The method is to ask you who you think you are. No matter what answer you give, all you can point to is something that you are not. Your body, your personality, your mind; they all change. You don’t know who you are. Your sense of “I” is illusory. You cannot find yourself.
You can find your personality, your mind, your body, your name, your parents name, your job, your address, your car, etc. But who are you? Who is the one who owns all these?
All you can say is that you cannot find the real you. Because there is no real you.
There is only the unreal.

Now let’s take YOUR definition of real.
You say that all this is real. You, your life, your personality, your things, are all real.
Why? Because you can experience them.
You can feel the room you are in. You can watch the television. You can drive the car. So they are all real. Right?
But, you did all this in the dream state also.
There is no way that you would ever accept that the dream is unreal. You feel it’s real. It appears to be as real as the waking state.
You don’t know you are dreaming.
You think you are awake. So you are not a reliable witness.
You were deluded in the dream. What makes you think that you are not deluded now?
You cannot prove it because every answer you give was also true in the dream state.
You thought the dream was real.
You think this is real.
In the first case you were wrong.
Maybe you’re also wrong now.
If you were wrong about the dream state, why can’t you be wrong about this state?
You know for a fact that this will end.
Once it ends, where will you go?
You too will end.
All unreal things end.
Only real things are forever.
You are unreal, temporary and just a passing phase. There is nothing real about you at all.
Will you remain forever? No!
You only exist for a short while.
Just like your dream.
You are as real as the dream.
The only difference between our definitions is that you call this temporary existence real. I call it unreal.
By your logic, you would have to call the dream real also. Are you willing to do that?

Osho, You are in the UK, . . go MooJi
who pretends The Maharshi and U will have a great time
Everything consciousness adventuresis real and unreal
It depends all from which perspective you look at it
Only the Love, even a tine bit will survive
that is
when we (in Him) reflect on what happened with us long “ago”
in the endless presence
But U have to BE Him
Stop yr Thoughts a minute by meditation
777

Osho Robbins, my response to your last set of four comments:
.
“Here is how:
Change needs the dimension of time to happen. Change cannot possibly happen if you remove the dimension of time.
Movement cannot happen if you remove time. All movement takes time to happen.
A little time or a lot of time.
If a thing moves we determine how fast it moves as distance (space covered) / time taken.
So both space and time are part of the equation.
So if I remove the dimension of TIME then movement is impossible.
If a thing moves, TIME must be present.
Any and every change necessarily needs time to happen. Hence no time means change and movement are both impossible.
If you remove space, there can be no objects. All objects need space.
For two objects to exist, each object needs space around it. The space creates the boundary for it,
No space means no boundary.
So no boundary means only one thing can exist, but it has no boundary. Or you can say that zero objects exist.
In both cases, there cannot be multiple objects.
This is the part you are ignoring”
“No time and no space necessarily means no separate objects because there are no boundaries. And no change.”
.
…………..I’ve quoted all of your first comment here from your last four comments, above, as well as the first part of your second comment (that you further expand on in that comment).
You keep saying this, Osho Robbins, but I’m not sure this is as self-evident as you make it out to be.
Sure, change, as well as transience, are an inevitable part of our world. And our world is one of space and time. But it does not follow that space and time are what cause change and transience, or that space and time are necessary for change and transience. To reason thus is to conflate correlation with causation.
The state beyond time and space, assuming such exists, is, to repeat what I’d said earlier, is one that is simply beyond our understanding and indeed our conception. It doesn’t really make sense to say either that change and transience are features of that state, or that there can be no change or transience in that state. The fact is we simply don’t know. I don’t see how you can keep making these unsupported statements about something that we know nothing about.
And the same can be said about Oneness as well. In this world of space and time we encounter multiplicity. To therefore conclude that an absence of space and time necessarily implies an absence of multiplicity is again something that simply doesn’t follow, given that we know nothing of such a state, should such exist.
.
———————
“But the ONE is permanent.”
.
…………..Yes, but only because you’ve assumed its existence, and, further, defined it to be permanent. All of this is simply tautological.
.
———————
“The only objection you can have is: does it (ONE) really exist?”
But you are not qualified to ask because the definition of “existence” is inadequate since it only applies within time and space.
By our definition it’s doesn’t exist because everything that exists has to be within time and space.
It is beyond the scope of our definition”
.
…………..Well, like I said, that’s not my only objection. I’ve already presented my other objection already, above, just now in this comment.
The rest does seem reasonable. If I define existence as predicated within space and time, then a state that is beyond space and time is indeed beyond the scope of our definition.
.
———————
“I cannot prove this to you. Why not? Because it’s a different level of reality. If I was a dream character in your dream, I could not prove to you that the real you is sleeping in the bed and dreaming and that I too (the one in your dream) am just as unreal as you. It is impossible to prove from within the dream.”
.
…………..You cannot, and haven’t, proved it to me. Nor can you have proved it to yourself. Therefore, I don’t see you have any rational basis for arriving at this conclusion at all.
(The part about the other kind of proof, that you discuss after this, follows right after this.)
.
———————
“The method is different from logical proof. The method is to ask you who you think you are. No matter what answer you give, all you can point to is something that you are not. Your body, your personality, your mind; they all change. You don’t know who you are. Your sense of “I” is illusory. You cannot find yourself.
You can find your personality, your mind, your body, your name, your parents name, your job, your address, your car, etc. But who are you? Who is the one who owns all these?
All you can say is that you cannot find the real you. Because there is no real you.
There is only the unreal.”
.
…………..Actually I do have a fairly clear idea of who and what I am. Our entire body, our brain, our nervous system, the bacteria that dwell within our body, all of these is what we are. Our consciousness, as well as our sentience, is an emergent property of all of this. That seems a pretty clear answer to that question.
.
———————
“Now let’s take YOUR definition of real.
You say that all this is real. You, your life, your personality, your things, are all real.
Why? Because you can experience them.
You can feel the room you are in. You can watch the television. You can drive the car. So they are all real. Right?
But, you did all this in the dream state also.
There is no way that you would ever accept that the dream is unreal. You feel it’s real. It appears to be as real as the waking state.
You don’t know you are dreaming.
You think you are awake. So you are not a reliable witness.
You were deluded in the dream. What makes you think that you are not deluded now?
You cannot prove it because every answer you give was also true in the dream state.
You thought the dream was real.
You think this is real.
In the first case you were wrong.
Maybe you’re also wrong now.
If you were wrong about the dream state, why can’t you be wrong about this state?”
.
…………..Sure, I could be wrong about this as well, it’s possible. I agree, cent per cent.
Thing is, all of what we know is provisional. The scientific method has uncovered for us a sliver of knowledge, amidst a vast mass of not knowing. And even that little sliver of knowledge is entirely provisional, and susceptible to being overturned at any minute as we update our knowledge. Therefore, to claim that nothing beyond this little sliver that we have within our grasp is possible, is both arrogant and essentially fallacious.
However, this little sliver of knowledge is all we do have. Because this sliver is small, and because this little sliver of knowledge is provisional in nature, does not mean that we should assume random unevidenced things.
Translated into our specific discussion, this principle would translate as: Sure, it is possible that this world is a dream, that we will one day awaken from. By all means let us keep ourselves open to that possibility. And by all means let us conduct research and gather evidence, both subjective and objective, towards this end. But rationally speaking, we can accept this world-is-a-dream proposition only when we are presented with conclusive evidence, and not until then.
.
———————
“The only difference between our definitions is that you call this temporary existence real. I call it unreal.
By your logic, you would have to call the dream real also. Are you willing to do that?”
.
…………..Not quite, Osho Robbins. You’re defining as “real” that which is permanent, eternal, changeless. While our everyday definition of “real” is that which has substantial existence, that which can be perceived and objectively evidenced. It isn’t as if we’re saying that anything that is temporary and transient is real. I’m saying that reality has to do with substantial existence; it has nothing to do with whether the thing that exists is transient or not.
Therefore, when we dream in our sleep, or for that matter hallucinate while awake, then that dream, and that hallucination, they are fact, sure, obviously. But the CONTENT of the dream, and the CONTENT of the hallucination, that is what is not real. Not because they are short-lived and impermanent, but because they lack substantial existence.
By my logic, by my definition of reality, which is the general everyday logic and definition, absolutely, the dream state is real; but no, the content of the dream, the things within the dream, they are not real, because they have no objective, substantial existence.
We do have evidence of our wakeful state. Therefore, from within that wakeful state, we do look on dreams as chimerical. I agree, should we ever have evidence of some Permanance, then from within that Permanence we might then look on our everyday life as equally chimerical. But in the absence of evidence, and in the absence of having directly accessed that Permanence, all of this no more than fanciful speculation, and, at most, the subject of further research, no more. (And what is more, to further stipulate specifics to that unevidenced Permanance, such as Oneness and Eternal-ness, is to compound the fallacy, and to pile on more and more layers of implausibility.)
.
———————
.
In conclusion, then: might we be dreams, might our world be a dream? It is possible, sure. That can be subject of speculation, and of research, sure. But we will accept that our world is a dream only when we have evidence to support this claim. Not until then. That holds for any and every thing, including this Oneness.
Now assuming that we are a dream, what are we dreams of? We don’t know! We don’t know if there is state beyond this dream. If there were, then we don’t know anything about that state. We do not know whether such a state, should it exist, might be susceptible to change or not. We do not know if such a state might be wholly homogeneous, that is to say, One, or if it might admit of multiplicity. We don’t know, we simply don’t know. Hell, we don’t even know if it exists.
And until we do know, that is to say, until we do have sufficient to say that such a beyond-state exists, we will, obviously, not accept, not believe, that such a state exists. And until we do know, until we have evidence, about specifics of such a state, until such time we will not believe random formulations about that state, such as Oneness and Changelessness and Permanance.
Sure, it is *possible*. Anything is *possible*. But because it is possible, doesn’t mean that is what *is*. Carl Sagan’s garage dragon thought experiment might be apposite at this point: It is *possible* that there is an invisible dragon in my garage that is undetectable by any means we have at our command, sure. But while such a thing is possible, and while I am free to speculate about it and to conduct research and (try to) collect evidence, until such time as I find actual evidence to support this claim, I have no reason to accept, I have no reason to believe, that there is indeed an invisible dragon inside my garage. Ditto this Oneness.

Hello Osho Robbins
I have been following your recent posts and find them very interesting.
You wrote-
” You are unreal, temporary and just a passing phase. There is nothing real about you at all. Will you remain forever? No! You only exist for a short while.”
Please explain how “karmas and the numerous births or lives that the consciousness or soul takes” fit into all of this.

Karma is the guilt trap that keeps us coming back lifetime after lifetime. Do you think that’s really God’s will. No, it’s our will and when we finally understand what Love truly is we stop returning to this illusion.
Why do we attribute such horrible attributes such as judgement to God? Even the negative power has been deceived by this. The negative power believes he’s relegated to Trikuti and fears God’s judgement. He fears being alone if all souls return home. But even he is not trapped here. And, no, judgement was never part of God’s plan. God never created that role for an entity to carry out. Again, why do you attribute such terrible qualities to Love? Love would have all souls return home today.

I remembered many dreams but MORE:
I dreamed many dreams knowing I was dreaming
Gurinder recently said that karma can be dealed with in dreams
and yes GOOD Karma TOOO
Dreaming is the same trick of conciousness as life
there is also hypnose to discuss if you want so
DON ‘T
Do just stop thinking 2/5 seconds via the contemplation processus called meditation
Easy to do by LOVE
Come’on guys : It’s your deepest Self you must Love, . . cannot be to difficult
That will be clarifying
777

You can also contemplate on any other human than yourself , you see God in,
like in yourself
to love and stop the thinking, . . even many seconds, . . minutes
combined with the 5 words_energy it’s a win_win_winner and so much fun
Nest you will fall in this state seeing any_thing were God’ is IN
which is everything
I said it before :
This Path is crazy_like_fun_pleasure_God_Given Pleasure
Don’t be so serious, . . . seek the Sweety
777

“ …………..Actually I do have a fairly clear idea of who and what I am. Our entire body, our brain, our nervous system, the bacteria that dwell within our body, all of these is what we are. Our consciousness, as well as our sentience, is an emergent property of all of this. That seems a pretty clear answer to that question.”
– Appreciative Reader
So you are your consciousness and sentience?
But what are they? Do they continue after your physical death?
Coming to the point about no time:
Time IS related to movement.
Speed = distance covered / time taken
All movement can only happen in time.
And if there is no time then movement cannot happen.
Time and space are both needed

@Osho
You are the Sound Current that energizing all that
BE IT
777

For some reason I get the feeling that the world is going to be drastically different a year from now…

“ Please explain how “karmas and the numerous births or lives that the consciousness or soul takes” fit into all of this.”. -Solomon
Karmas only exist as part of the illusion of the false I.
The false identity carries the karmas. Once you realise that your identity is false, all karmas disappear because there is nobody left to link them to.
As long as you don’t realise the truth – the karmas continue.
It’s like dream. The moment you realise it’s a dream you awaken and the dream ends.
Or you continue the dream knowing it is a dream (lucid dreaming)

Quote of the Day
“We meditate because we want to go back to the Father and escape from birth and death. That is the purpose of meditation. ”
— Maharaj Charan Singh Ji —

Dear Osho Robbins,
My response to the two questions/points in your recent comment, first. After that, some observations that I find myself constrained to make.
——-Your first question :
——-“So you are your consciousness and sentience?
——-But what are they? Do they continue after your physical death?”
Well, that’s what science overall, including recent findings from neuroscience, seems to be telling us.
Our consciousness, our sentience, and indeed our sense of self, these all seem to be an emergent property of our body (including our neural system, and our brain, as well as all the external symbiotes that populate our body).
Who am I? Well, this “I”, which is to say my sense of self, seems to be an artifact of the above, and something that evolution seems to have thrown up. Like all things evolution, it serves a purpose, and helps propagation of genes; but equally, like all things evolution, it comes with both pros and cons for the organism, that is to say, for me, for us.
And, you further ask, would my consciousness, and my sentience, and my sense of self, continue after death? There seems to be no reason to think it would, and every reason to think it wouldn’t.
That’s what seems to be the most likely case, and that’s what I provisionally believe. Provisionally being the key qualifier, and absolutely, subject to correction if fresh evidence (whether subjective or objective) so warrants.
——-Your second point :
——- Coming to the point about no time:
——- Time IS related to movement.
——- Speed = distance covered / time taken
——- All movement can only happen in time.
——- And if there is no time then movement cannot happen.
——- Time and space are both needed
That only speaks to “movement” as we know it in this universe, Osho Robbins. As I keep pointing out, when you’re speaking of a state that is beyond time and space, that is something basically neither you nor I, nor anyone else, knows anything at all about. While it is true, movement as we know it here, change as we know it here, would naturally not occur there, I don’t see how we can say anything at all about what might be the equivalent of movement and change in such an environment, should such exist.
To take your mathematical example, Speed = Distance / Time.
Because distance = 0, since there is no distance to cover, therefore you’re saying there’s no movement.
But on the other hand, time = 0 as well, and anything divided by 0 is infinity.
So that another way to view this is to say that movement is infinite, that is to say, change is infinitely more pronounced in that state beyond time and space, than it is here.
Actually all of these mathematical operations above, mine as well as yours, are entirely nonsensical. The relation between distance and time and velocity is something that we’ve observed and formulated in and for this universe. When we’re speculating about a state beyond time and space, that’s something we know NOTHING about. We can’t just go about attaching random qualities to that kind of a total unknown (whose very existence is highly doubtful, and that we’re merely assuming).
———————————-
Here’s a general observation about the burden of proof, Osho Robbins.
I know we’re on the same page as far as the burden of proof (or, more precisely, the burden of evidence). We’ve both discussed with each other as well as others on this very subject, some months back, in the thread about soft atheism and hard atheism. So I know we’re in agreement about the principle of the burden of proof, of when and how it might apply.
Well, you seem to be making a fundamental error as far as this, when it comes to Oneness.
You keep saying, at different times, that the Oneness is beyond time and space, and therefore it is not possible to prove it. And you’re right. Where you’re clearly wrong, is where you imply that because that proof is not possible, therefore that proof is not required. You’re basically using the impossibility of proof (or disproof) to claim a free pass on your Oneness. That isn’t how this works.
The burden of proof gives out no get-out-jail-free cards. If you cannot prove a claim (or, more precisely, if you cannot back up a claim with evidence), then you have no rational reason to accept that claim, and are constrained to reject that claim. At least if you are to be guided by rationality. It does not matter why you cannot produce your proof. It could be that proof is theoretically possible, but in practice you haven’t produced it. Or it could be that proof is simply impossible, even in theory. No proof (or, more precisely, no evidence) equals no acceptance of claim. Period.
Just think back to all of the arguments we’d made about God in that soft-atheism-hard-atheism thread. We were on the same “side” there. What are the arguments we’d presented? We’d said, both you and I, that some Gods we reject directly, a la hard atheism. Others we don’t or can’t directly disprove, but still, do not find any proof for, that is, any evidence in support of; and this latter is the case with soft atheism. In either case, we reject the God proposition, equally firmly.
Why should it be any different for your Oneness? We don’t have direct disproof of Oneness, so we can’t be Hard A-Oneness-ists. But then we don’t have any proof of it, we don’t have any evidence in support of it. We don’t, because, as you have said more than once, such evidence is simply not possible. Well fine, in that case Soft A-Oneness-Ism would seem to be the reasonable position.
And I’ve already, in an earlier comment in this thread, responded to your point about proving a 3D reality to someone who lives in a 2D world, by referring to the correct scientific approach to that kind of a problem (which, like I’d pointed out, has a direct parallel with string theory).
———————————-
Two more observations, Osho Robbins.
The first is this: Previous occasions, when we’d discussed this, I’d been very struck with your openness. That open-mindedness I strive to cultivate myself, as best I can, and that is a quality I greatly appreciate and respect in others. I’d found you fully possessed of this quality, and that is what had struck me so very positively, regardless of our actual discussion itself.
Well, this time that openness seems to be conspicuously missing, and I find that disconcerting.
In this very thread, and in direct response to the points you yourself had raised, I’ve presented entirely on-topic and direct responses to you. An open-minded engagement with ideas would have meant that you’d have tackled ALL of my responses, in all of my comments, including those that seemingly left your answer-less. In fact especially those, because that is the kind of thing that is the very point of these discussions. At least that is my approach, and that is what I’d expected would be yours as well.
And yet, what you do is, you simply ignore (or at least, don’t actually respond to) all of those points — points which, remember, you yourself had raised, and I’d only presented my own response to them — to which you found you had no answer, and in your response to me only cherry-picked out those one or two things that you believed you had a fighting chance of making a case for.
That recent series of posts of Brian’s seems apposite here, about Julia Galef’s analogy of soldier mentality vis-à-vis scout mentality. You’ve been going about this in soldierly fashion, totally ignoring every point that seems to have gone against you, and jumping into those points where you believe you have a fighting chance of defending your Oneness. Why, for what reason? A scout mentality would have seen you engage with each and every point, and especially those points which seemed to go against your position, because those latter are the very points which might admit of real learning.
Pardon me, Osho Robbins, I’m going out of my way and saying this to you, because in you I had found one rare individual who was so atypically open to being shown wrong. (And that is the model I myself try to follow, as best I can — although no doubt there are times I trip up too, and don’t realize it.)
Why don’t you just go back to the beginning of our discussion here, and, starting with the first comment of mine in this thread, go through each and every point that I’ve spoken on (which, after all, are your own points, that you’d yourself raised here, and that I’ve only responded to)? And present your own thoughts on what I’ve said? And freely admit it if and when your own position is shown up short? That may be beyond most people, but you at least I do have that expectation from.
———————————-
And finally, Osho Robbins, I’m going to confess to you, that I found our recent exchanges profoundly depressing.
Last time we’d left off at an impasse, where I found that I simply wasn’t able to follow you beyond a point. That is why, this time, I’d thought of repeating the process I’d followed last time, and prepare a structured discussion, a structured Q&A, via which to tease out the different elements of your realization of Oneness, and thereby try to understand, as best I could, the content of that realization.
But then you chose to follow your own process. And this is perfectly fine, I was happy enough to follow along. But thing is, following on the discussion in this thread, I now think I do understand, perfectly, the nature of your realization of Oneness.
I was thinking it is, at bottom, some kind of direct perception. That, after all, is how you yourself keep describing it as. I realize I’m mistaken in thinking that.
All you’ve done is reasoned your way into convincing yourself that Oneness is what the whole thing is about. And, I’m sorry to say this, but I’m afraid that that reasoning itself is fallacious, as I’ve clearly seen and shown here.
You keep insisting this is direct perception, but I’m sorry, it’s nothing of the kind. Not unless you simply redefine away the very meaning of the word “Perception” itself, just as you’ve conveniently tried to redefine away words like “Real” and “Unreal” and so forth.
And I find this whole thing very deeply depressing. Most religious ideas I’ve found myself constrained to reject, because no matter how rosy, they turned out, on close examination, to be untrue, false. I had hopes that this Oneness might be different. I find now it isn’t. I find it difficult to express to you the depth of my …disappointment, at coming to this conclusion.
———————————-
Nevertheless, Osho Robbins, if your belief keeps you happy, by all means keep it. Not my place to attempt to change someone else’s belief system. That goes for any kind and stripe of theist, including deists like you. In fact you guys are lucky: theistic nihilism, stark atheism, can be a very lonely place. It is not a place one chooses willingly, it is something one is constrained to accept when and only when reality inexorably points there.
———————————-
I hope you will not have taken offense at my plainspeak. I wish you well, old friend, always.
With my good wishes,
–Appreciative Reader.

@ it’s like dream. The moment you realise it’s a dream you awaken and the dream ends.
@ Or you continue the dream knowing it is a dream (lucid dreaming)
The mystic would argue that realisation is often a chimera. Just
an unraveling of one layer of the dream. A child triumphantly
declaring he understands when he clearly doesn’t. Ishwar Puri
cited the case of the lucid dreamer who says to his co-dreamers
“This is all a dream”.
But his “aha” realisation is counterfeit.. He was like an exited child
talking with phantoms in his dream world. The dream hadn’t ended
at all. The very next moment he is beguiled by deeper layers of the
dream and doesn’t understand his short-lived awakening or what
it really meant. When he really awakes though, he realises his
co-dreamers were only phantoms who had disappeared along with
the dream itself.

@ AR
>> That goes for any kind and stripe of theist, including deists like you. In fact you guys are lucky: theistic nihilism, stark atheism, can be a very lonely place. It is not a place one chooses willingly, it is something one is constrained to accept when and only when reality inexorably points there.<< As long as you put the burden of proof and finding an end to that loneliness on the shoulders of others and certainly those who are less gifted and trained in rationalism, that feeling of loneliness will only aggravate. And ... THAT wil in the end show you the way out. .... that is to say ...IN. Good luck

@ S
>.For some reason I get the feeling that the world is going to be drastically different a year from now…<< It lifts up that feeling of being alone with that feeling ever since 2012, a feeling that gets stronger and stronger. Not knowing what it is, I can't say it is a comfortable feeling. It is said that: We human beings are so bound by karmas, past and present, that there is very little freewill left to is. We are pushed and jostled into a situation where we cannot but act in a particular way. Once the bolder is pushed, it will roll down the slope of the hill. Most of the structures humanity had developed and that bound them together in groups, societies, cultures, structures that gave meaning and direction to human life, have lost their meaning and their are no new authorities, caharismatic people and ideas, to replace them. There is the solace ... of a shinny day, lovely colours and the taste of a cup of coffe.

“That’s what seems to be the most likely case, and that’s what I provisionally believe. Provisionally being the key qualifier, and absolutely, subject to correction if fresh evidence (whether subjective or objective) so warrants.” – Appreciative Reader
The atheist (which I presume you label yourself as) doesn’t accept the validity of subjective evidence – because in your mind you can create any reality you choose, and indeed people do.
An RSSB follower may have many “mystical experiences” that make him believe that after death he or she will go to some other region.
Subjective experience is prone to error. You could be and are even likely to be deluded.
Now, coming onto our dialogue here – you have missed the entire point.
I am not saying this is my proof, which is what you have apparently concluded.
All this is just setting the stage. It’s getting to the point of loosening our conviction that we know, that other possibilities exist, that perhaps there is a “no time – no space” state os being and perhaps that is our true form.
The reason I say perhaps – is because I am not attempting to prove it – only put it forward as a possibility.
Realization cannot happen as long as you hold onto beliefs that will specifically stop realization from happening.
Realization happens when the soil is fertile. Soil becomes fertile when you are open to possibilities.
When you think you know that the physical is all there is – then realisation is not possible because you have closed that door and locked it.
Clearly other possibilities DO exist. The very fact that we dream and that in the dream world – our perceptions are very different from the waking state, show us that a different perception is possible. That was the whole purpose of the dialogue, not to convince you through logic that a state beyond time and space exists.
Science cannot help in this regard.
Why? Because it deals only with the physical.
If you only want to deal with the physical universe – then your conclusions will be that you are this body, this mind and your perceptions and thot those will end and you will also end.
Science stops there. Science does not deal with the metaphysical.
According to science – I am just deluded, and there is no “enlightenment” simply because it is a subjective experience.
Science is based on proof and evidence – not on beliefs and subjective experiences.
Awakening or realization is a whole different topic. When it happens to you – it’s overwhelmingly real – but this is also what a deluded person will tell you.
What I was showing you was this:
That if you remove time and space – even by physical laws – movement is not possible simply because time is a needed element for movement and change.
In the same way – separate objects cannot exist if there is no space.
Of course “no space and no time” are nonsensical notions for us – simply because we exist within time and space.
Even the question: does a “no time, no space” regions exist – cannot be answered because of the problem of “existence”
Our definition is based on the reality we perceive – and according to that – anything outside of time and space cannot exist.
I was playing with the notions to get to the conclusion that “eternity would necessarily require a no-time and no-space world.”
Maybe you can’t see this – so I was attempting to show you using the physical laws.
Time is necessary for change to take place – so if there was NO TIME it would mean that change cannot happen. That is all I am saying. I am not trying to prove anything.
So I am presenting the possibility of a different reality.
In that reality – there is no space and no time. There are no separate being and nothing happens (because all happening is within space and time)
Now it appears that you don’t even accept this possibility, perhaps because you are focussed on proof and thought that I was attempting to prove something.
You responses appear to come from that viewpoint.
You are expecting me to prove a “no time and no space” universe.
I was only proposing it as a possibility in order to explore other possibilities.
From our perspective -our existence ends with death.

“You keep insisting this is direct perception, but I’m sorry, it’s nothing of the kind. ” – Appreciative Reader
Of course this is not direct perception or realisation.
This is simply a play on words and opening up the possibility of more. This is laying the foundation that something else might be possible.
realization or direct perception is a moment where it all suddenly becomes crystal clear. It’t not a belief you qcquire through thinking. It’s more like dropping all those ideas and beliefs and then you being to see something that was shielded by those beliefs.
for instance – trying to get to this direct perception – is itself a barrier to it because – you conceptualize it and make it a future goal – it never happens that way.
It happens despite your efforts.
so what I was writing here has nothing to do with it – it was only to set the groundwork – and you have taken this to be the whole thing.
probably because I did not start off by explaing all this – I just jumped right in – without explaining what I was doing – so you naturally thought I was presenting my proof and evidence.

Hi Osho and Appreciative
Proving that a reality exists with no actual time or space is relatively easy. Newton and Liebnitz took care of that for you.
Calculus is based on the premise that movement and change are an infinite summation of separate discrete points. That is to say each point is static. And the total set of those points comprise the entire set needed to perform the equation.
Like the images that flash on your television screen at 60 FPS. Each frame is a single static photo. The entire episode was already created and is a single whole. What you are seeing is the display, played out one single frame at a time.
The time it takes for you to watch the episode is determined by the number of static frames, but all of them already exist. They exist without any time at all. Movement is the same. A person walks through a series of descrete points along a path. But each point on the entire path had been traversed already, in each discreet moment of time. That is the only way to calculate the path.
This is the only way scientists can view this creation, as a summation of a static set of points, the entire set pre-determined by the equation. Hence for the equation to exist, the points of reality must all ready exist, all points of movement and all points of time. We see things watching a series of such points along a single dimension that proceeds at a set pace. But all science is based on a Mathematics that requires all such points in the series as a set, and each point entirely static.

One small point in addition to the above.
While in Calculus the “integral” represents the summation of the set of such points of change in a series, the “derivative” is the formula used to view any single point.
In the simplest terms, the integral is the total volume, but the the derivative is the slope of change.
We are living in a derivative, where each point of movement and time can be defined. But for the entire set that comprises the integral, there is no time or movement.

“You’ve been going about this in soldierly fashion, totally ignoring every point that seems to have gone against you, and jumping into those points where you believe you have a fighting chance of defending your Oneness. Why, for what reason? ” – Appreciative Reader
Why? because I am not trying to prove anything – I thought I made it clear from the start when i said that I am going by a new definition of REAL. This was not just for fun. It was because it leads somewhere.
And without that possibility to start with – you cannot see beyond the physical – hence will remain an athiest.
the atheist is very close to truth because he does not believe in any God. If as an atheist you are happy to conclude that there is nothing beyond our physical existence – that is cool. It is even true because of the word “existence”
The thing I am taking about is not even a “thing” and the God I am friends with is not even a God! ONENESS is not arrived at through logic. I was using logic to show you possibilities – not to prove anything.
If I have tasted a mango and you have never tasted one – I cannot through logic show you what it tastes like. For that – you will have to eat it yourself.
But you will only eat it if you think there is such a thing as a mango.
So I was trying to show you that there MIGHT be (not there IS) such a thing as a mango.
Clearly I cannot logic you to oneness – all i have do is present a possibility of it. Actually it doesn’t exist – because it doesn’t tick the boxes on what we call ‘exists’
that is why I was presenting another way of viewing things – as a redefinition – not as proof in itself.
This was meant to be a straightforward process – so we could move onto the process.
Nothing happens if you’re not open to ‘possibilities’.
If you have a certain view and insist it is the only one – other possibilities are closed, Enlightenment happens when you let go of the fixed view and are open to other possibilites.
then the possibilities become might open the door to something you could previously not even imagine.
like I have described before, when I was going through my own version of this – I looked at my hand and I didn’t know who’s hand it was – and I didn’t know what I was – I knew nothing. This is not possible if I ‘KNOW’ as that knowing stops all other possibilities.

Osho Robbins, apologies if that comment of mine was premature, and if as a result I ended up interrupting what was simply a planned process on your part all along. If you’re willing to continue the process, I’m more happy to continue to follow along, absolutely.
Just one or two clarifications, following from your your responses to your last post, as well as requests for clarifications from you, before we resume:
1) You rightly observe that “The atheist (which I presume you label yourself as) doesn’t accept the validity of subjective evidence “. The allowance for subjective evidence is my personal position, and that is the additional slack that I myself cut, over and above what a strictly rational outlook would require. I’m a meditator myself, and I don’t, myself, see any contradiction between rationality and meditation; and, should I encounter subjective evidence of a supra-normal reality, that wouldn’t necessarily pass muster in a strictly objective sense, then I’d still be open to considering it.
2) You say again: “I was attempting to show you using the physical laws. () Time is necessary for change to take place – so if there was NO TIME it would mean that change cannot happen”. To that I have to say, yet again, that I don’t see that, at all. As I’ve observed myself, more than once, change as we know it in this universe bounded by space and time, wouldn’t happen in a state that is beyond time and space ; but equally, changelessness as we conceive it from within this universe of time and space, wouldn’t obtain, either, in that state beyond time and space, should such exist. We just cannot go tagging random qualities to a state that we know nothing about, and whose existence we have simply assumed arbitrarily for the space of our process. There is no reason to think that that hypothetical state is either a benevolent or just situation (which qualities you don’t invoke), or that it is an evil and unjust state (which qualities also you don’t invoke), or that it is a state that is in constant flux (which you steadfastly say it isn’t), or that is in entirely changeless and eternal (which last you do claim). We simply cannot say anything about such a state, should such exist, other than simply as unsupported speculation.
3) To my telling you that I conclude that your realization is not direct perception, but simply your reasoning your way to your conclusion of Oneness, you say: “Of course this is not direct perception or realisation.” That is a bit confusing. Can we just take time out from the process, for a minute, while you tell me just what this realization of Oneness is? It isn’t some kind of mystical knowledge, of the kind that meditative and spiritual (and, for that matter, religious) traditions speak of, that you’ve said prior. Nor is it simply reasoning, you’ve assured us. What then, exactly? What is left, if you leave out these two? What other means is there of coming to some conclusion? You’ve arrived at a position of accepting Oneness, from a prior position of not accepting it: Well, *how*, exactly, did that change happen, in what exact terms? Your teacher / workshop-facilitator kept on hammering you relentlessly and telling you about Oneness in that workshop, and then, you’ve described your reactions there, but ultimately, what, exactly? What mode of understanding led to that cognitive shift, from not accepting Oneness to accepting it? It would be great if you could take a minute to clearly formulate your thoughts on this, and discuss this, because from where I stand it sure looks as if, no matter your protestations to the contrary, reasoning your way to convincing yourself of Oneness is exactly what did happen, and what you’re attempting here as well. So that a clarification on this would be great at this point.
4) You say, at one point, “Now it appears that you don’t even accept this possibility, perhaps because you are focussed on proof”. Not at all, Osho Robbins, I assure you. You must have gathered from our past exchanges, as well as from my #1 in this comment, that I’m open to this possibility, indeed, actually hopeful and desirous of this possibility. I wouldn’t do this process otherwise, after all. But I have to ask, how do you expect me to react then, for the duration of this process? When you raise all of these points and statements, which appear erroneous and/or fallacious to me, how am I supposed to react? Am I not to point those out to you clearly? These aren’t rhetorical questions, I’m asking you how and in what terms I am to participate in this process. That input would probably be important in how we carry on with this going forward.
5) “This was meant to be a straightforward process – so we could move onto the process”, you say. Again, my apologies if I’ve upset the process with that interruption. The clarifications I’ve requested now might be helpful. But that apart, if you’re willing to resume, then like I said I’m happy to go on with this.

“To my telling you that I conclude that your realization is not direct perception, but simply your reasoning your way to your conclusion of Oneness, you say: “Of course this is not direct perception or realisation.” That is a bit confusing. Can we just take time out from the process, for a minute, while you tell me just what this realization of Oneness is?” – AR
I was referring to our dialogue. This dialogue and my statements here have nothing to do with the realization of oneness.
naturally you are asking – what is it?
I don’t recall saying that it is not the state that spiritual traditions speak of – as it is! You may be confused over this because I don’t agree that the traditional methods like meditation (RSSB type meditation) facilitates this state – rather is keeps one firmly embedded in duality.
It is the same state that sikh scriptures describe. In fact Nanak specifically states that “there is no time and no space” there.
I just thought this “no time no space” idea was clear and obvious to everyone, so I have never questioned the idea. Perhaps it’s not so obvious!
I will describe what the ONENESS is later.
For now – let me say a few things.
I have, from childhood, been steeped in the RSSB teachings. I used to take the “spiritual link” magazine to school with me. It was my whole life. My sole ambition was to meet Sat Purush and I was convinced he was a real person, residing in the spiritual region called Sach Khand.
Then at age 18 I found out about John Yarr whilst at university and I got initiated into light and sound and would meditate for long periods, hoping to get enlightened.
These were my formative years. It was after that, that I met Thakar Singh – before the bad publicity about him. I left before all that because I was looking for someone who could give me personal guidance and he wasn’t that helpful. Darshan Singh became my first serious sant mat guru and I got initiated and would meditate on light and sound.
However it wasn’t until the year 2000 that my life started falling apart.
I never even heard of ONENESS and had no idea what enlightenment was. I was certainly not seeking it. I had zero understanding of it.
What happened was that I became suicidal and was almost going to kill myself and began to ask questions. I wondered if the guru would come just before or after I slit my wrists.
Asking these questions – I had a moment in which it became clear that I was following a belief system and that no guru was going to come.
My firm beliefs began to drop off. All of a sudden – my whole life became clear to me. I started writing a book and it was like it was writing itself. Answers came thick and fast to even unformulated questions. I didn’t know what was happening – only that things were becoming clearer.
This was not enlightenment – but it was preparation of the soil.
I met my first enlightenment guru in Wolverhampton and he said things that seemed crazy – but now they made perfect sense.
The process with the spiritual guru (Mikaire) was a short while after this. It was all happening all together. In the same weekend I came across the Osho tapes about the Japji Sahib and Mikaire.
During the 5 day with Mikaire – I questioned all my assumptions and my whole view of life changed. I was no longer a seeker of a God. I disappeared and a new me emerged. This “new me” was enlightened, but it wasn’t “me”. It was at that time that I started asking GSD questions on the mic.

As long as you put the burden of proof and finding an end to that loneliness on the shoulders of others and certainly those who are less gifted and trained in rationalism, that feeling of loneliness will only aggravate.
And … THAT wil in the end show you the way out. …. that is to say …IN.
Good luck
Posted by: um | June 02, 2021 at 01:02 AM
—————
Hello, um.
I agree, the “burden”, in that sense, is clearly mine, should I wish to take it on, that is. That burden can be lightened by guidance from others, and also, perhaps, by Divine Grace — should such exist, and also, should such be forthcoming — but beyond that, the burden per se is one’s own, absolutely.
What I was referring to is the philosophical burden of proof, that no doubt you’re aware of, where the burden of evidence vests not so much with any particular person as with the claim itself, whose acceptance or rejection is a function of the fulfillment or otherwise of that “burden”.

“(…) The time it takes for you to watch the episode is determined by the number of static frames, but all of them already exist. They exist without any time at all. (…)”
——-
Hello, Spence.
As ever, some well-reasoned, informative posts you.
Not to to get too deeply into this at this point, because I want to focus on this thing with Osho Robbins without simultaneously getting into another involved discussion, but one small …well, I was going to say “disagreement”, but I’m not sure we do disagree, so let me just say, instead, one small nuance.
Math is simply formalized logic. Math does not necessarily represent reality, at all, any more than English grammar does. Many things, both real, as well as entirely unreal, as well as entirely nonsensical, can be spoken of in words, as well as expressed mathematically. Math per se is not evidence of anything at all.
But absolutely — and, I forget who it was, it may have been Roger Penrose but I may be mistaken, as this whoever-it-was put it — math is indeed the language in which nature speaks to us. Except math says a great deal of things, says it better than any other means we have of saying or understanding anything, but whether to accept what has been said is up to us, and is, properly, a function of what the evidence supports.
——-
That was the short context of that particular portion of that exchange of ours, between Osho Robbins and me, that you commented on. The formula for velocity is mathematically expressed, but that math isn’t sacrosanct. We take it to be true because it happens to be true, as borne by actual evidence.
And it is in our universe, with space and time, that we have found it borne out by evidence. To extrapolate that to imagine that that formula would remain inviolate in any and every situation, including a wholly alien situation where time and space do not obtain, is fallacious. Because while that mathematical formula would remain the same, no matter what, nevertheless its validity or otherwise would be a function of the nature of the reality that obtains in that space-less and time-less environment.
Therefore, to attempt to reason mathematically in that manner is to implicitly assume that the conditions that obtain in a world that includes space and time, would continue to obtain in a state without space and time. And there is no reason at all to make that kind of an assumption. So that any conclusion derived via that line of reasoning is ultimately fallacious.
That was the context of those comments of mine in response to Osho Robbins’s math.

@um
I don’t view karma in the traditional Sant Mat way. Of course I believe in karma and reincarnation but I think karmas can be erased through forgiveness if we can forgive others and I think reincarnation ends once we realize how useless guilt and judgement are. But to truly believe these things you have to act on them with every encounter you have with every person you meet. Meditation doesn’t remove karmas but it can help you realize your true nature—that you are not this body or personality.
No need to worry about the past or past lives. Just forgive yourself and others and always show love. Judgement was never part of God’s plan. Kal was never part of God’s plan which is counter to what RSSB and most other paths teach. I’m not saying Kal doesn’t exist, I’m simply saying that he is not a servant of God. He only serves himself. He is essentially the source of the ego and he believes he is God, which is why the 5 names invoke the ego/“devil” and not something I practice. It’s a very, very dangerous path to follow.
Don’t mean to come across as argumentative, I’m just simply explaining my beliefs.

Hello, Osho Robbins, back to you!
——-
“I was referring to our dialogue. This dialogue and my statements here have nothing to do with the realization of oneness.”
Oh, ok. I misunderstood your meaning there, in that case.
——-
“I don’t recall saying that it is not the state that spiritual traditions speak of – as it is! ”
That isn’t quite what I was asking, though. This realization may or may not coincide with what X, Y or Z turbaned or bearded gentlemen living in times past may have said, but that wasn’t what I was getting at. What I was wondering is what might be the *mode* of your realization.
Let me clarify:
How does one know anything at all? As far as I can think it through, in one of four ways: The first is through direct perception. The second is via reasoning (based no doubt on past perceptions, but still, not direct perception but by adding mental constructs based on reason on to those perceptions). A third might be simply blind faith in things one is told, by religious traditions for example. And a fourth, hypothetical mode of knowledge, that may or may not in fact actually exist at all, is direct mystical perception.
I was wondering where, in that framework, your realization of Oneness might fit, Osho Robbins. You’ve already ruled out religious dogma. You’d also ruled out reasoning. That leaves direct perception, whether mundane or mystical (should the last exist). Now mundane perception can be ruled out, because naturally that will not point to something exotic like that. Which leaves mystical perception, and I’d imagined, assumed, that that is what your Realization of Oneness amounted to. It was basis that assumption that I had tried in the past to try to tease out the elements of your realization in the past, and the basis on which I was attempted my structured Q&A this time as well, before you started with this process of yours.
Well, while going through this process, it occurred to me, basis what you were saying, that you’d simply reasoned your way to Realization of Oneness. (And what is more, reasoned fallaciously, so that your conclusion itself was fallacious as well.)
Now you clarify that that reasoning, that you’d presented, was not how you’d got to Realization at all.
Well, fair enough. But in that case, my question was, by what mode did you end up getting this realization of Oneness?
You get me, right? Let’s say for the sake of argument that you’re right, that the beyond-space-and-time Oneness does obtain. The question is, by what mode did knowledge of that state and the Oneness get to you, and for that matter to Mikaire? You say it wasn’t reasoning. What then? What was the nature, the mode, of your direct perception, what was it exactly, per this framework?
Mystical perception, would you call it that? Because there is nothing else left to attribute it to, other than mystical perception (should such exist).
That is what I wanted you to clarify, if you would, before we proceed.
——-
” will describe what the ONENESS is later.
For now – let me say a few things.
I have, from childhood, been steeped in the RSSB teachings. I used to take the “spiritual link” magazine to school with me. (…) (…) ”
Fair enough, we’ll get to the Oneness part when you will, later on.
Meanwhile, I find your own account of your early spiritual leanings and your subsequent journey to Oneness — that you’d touched on in bits and pieces in the past — to be absolutely riveting.
Do carry on, please, at your own pace and in your own way.

@um
I really appreciate and agree with what you said about enjoying the little things each day.
In a year I believe things will start to improve. Slowly but surely.

They say Sant Mat is the teachings of the Saints. But in case you haven’t noticed, not all the Saints agree with each other. So, it’s a very confused-pick-and-choose path.

@ S.
Hahaha …before becoming argumentive one has first to understand a point of view, an I don’t. I read your answer several times but did not come up with an understanding of it .. certainly not the last sentence about the 5 names and the dangers of the path.

@ AR
As far as I understand what you wrote, the burden of proof is indeed related to the claim itself …. as far and as long as a claim is part of the philosophical domain.
Of course if a scientist, a scholar comes up with an hypothesis, a theory etc in his field and they are accepted by the academic players in that field as such, everybody in that field can work on it.
But not all things that pertain to the universe are or can be incorporated in that particular field, to advance understanding of it.
Was that maybe the reason why the philosopher Wittgenstein wrote at the end of one of his tractates .. one should not speak or write about things that can not be spoken of.
and fyi …. I did not study all of his writings and it is doubtful i understood what I did read. Consider me as a kid walking the streets picking up pebbles and all sorts of small things that are to be found laying around on his way home, not even knowing why he picks one thing and not the other.
You have chosen another way home and set other conditions for your self to move forwards. Having done so you have to obey your own rules.
Sooner or later we all have to face our motivations, the causes that drives us forward.
As the parable goes that a friend was looking for his keys in the streets and the markets of life, while he had lost them at home, because on the streets an markets of the world there is more light.
That is what I suggest is the “fate” for all.

https://youtu.be/aUtdLfdnpzs
Dark matter findings suggest Einstein’s Theory of Relativity “may be wrong”

Appreciative Reader,
What caused the ONENESS / non-duality?
Well in my case – conversations with a man who I met in Wolverhampton.
One of my friends introduced me to him. He said “I don’t know if he is enlightened, but he is worth meeting.”
This was the first step of the beginning of my journey. I met him and would meet him every Friday after work. He was ex-RSSB and openly claimed to be enlightened, but made no big deal of it. He was the first loosening of my beliefs in RSSB. He showed me that the scriptures were saying something different from what RSSB teaches. I had great difficulty accepting it because I had bought into the RSSB ideas and the ideas about SHABD etc.
So what happens is a Paradigm Shift. All of a sudden – everything changes. It’s not a logical process. It’s more like all the pieces of the puzzle suddenly coming together. Not a piece by piece process of putting the puzzle together.
It was at this time that I met Mikaire. The very first meeting – I went with a friend, (Barry) who told me about him. It was in London. You have to arrive by 1.45 or they close the doors. Mikaire arrives at 2pm.
I arrived, with Barry at 2.15 and someone came to the door and told me to go away. I said I had come from Wales and I wasn’t leaving until I met Mikaire. Mikaire noticed someone had come and shouted “Let him in.” So I sat down.
In front of me was a man like I had never seen. He was wearing shorts and talking spontaneously. He would say whatever came to mind. He looked at Barry. “Do you think I am enlightened?”
“No” replied Barry.
“And how the fuck would you know anyways?” he shouted back.
“do you even know what the fuck it is?”
“Enlightenment is the biggest fucking nightmare….” he continues…..
“You have to face all your fucking damn demons – you don’t just sit there blissed off your face.”
I ask a question about Arjuna and Krishna and the Gita.
“Enlightenment is the biggest fucking contradiction. It totally destroys you. Can’t you see I am fucking possessed? I would like to think I am possessed by Osho – but I’m not – I am possessed by God – I’m a fucking mad man. Don’t you get it? You’re not going to get enlightened and then life will be great. It doesn’t happen that way. You’re going to go though the fucking same nightmare – you’re going to fucking lose everything and especially your fucking mind.”
Whoever this guy was – I had to go further into this. Barry got scared and never went back. I went to one more meeting and then asked about the “intensive” they spoke about. It was £400 and five days of madness with Mikaire. Only thing was – I was not allowed to attend because you have to attend the weekly meetings for six months before you can attend.
I asked the guy and he gave me Mikaire’s email. “Email him – if he says you can go – then you can go”
I did and he gave me a one sentence reply “Yes – you can attend the next intensive”
That intensive was the turning point of my life.
I understood what it means when they say “spirituality is caught – not taught”
The company of the enlightened is what does it.
The first day after lunch – he looks at me and talks directly to me
“So you think it’s a fucking joke? Look at these letters! People are pouring their hearts out to me and I have to answer all of these.”
“You need commitment – don’t you get it – nothing happens without commitment. and I’ve got people giving me commitment – written on fucking toilet paper. You get me? toilet paper! Today they are committed and tomorrow they go to some other fucking enlightened guru and leave.”
“You see – I don’t give a fuck about you – any of you! Until you give me commitment – then I’ll work on you – then I’ll turn your fucking world upside down. But until you’re committed – I am not interested in your stupid intellectual questions.”
Very few people stayed – most got scared because he would start shouting and get you to deal with your fears.
The five day intensive was where the real deep stuff happened. Because those five days – there was no teaching – because there is nothing to teach. It was all intense confrontational conversations that would bring out whatever was inside you.
You would deal with your demons – the things you hide away from everyone and never talk about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWRsgZuwf_8

@ Osho
Searching the internet on that name, I came across this site:
http://www.n0by.de/2/rst/mikaire_e.htm
The translation from german into english is not that well i feel but anaway; it describes the reaction of an seeker and his opinion on the man.
Osho attracted many psychiatrists and psychotherapists for example the dutch Psychiatrist Amrito: https://www.oshonews.com/2016/03/01/amrito-jan-foudraine/
It is strange how these movements are intertwined. The idea’s of psychotherapists in the 70ties, with the philosofical ideas coming from india in those days. In those days there was the “primal scream” movement born in the USA and related to the newly developed drug LSD as means to free people from mental obstacles. and in the work sessions in Poona.
Reading what you have gone through reminds me of those forms of psycho therapy.

Quote of the Day
“Love is the life force of the entire universe – those who lack it are already dead.”
— Awhad al-Din Kirmani —
me:
So, Just help an granny to cross the road
or safe an ant
what follows is automatic
if there were no second thoughts
like discussion_turmoilling
777

@ Osho
What you described in the last message offers for me the context for whatever you wrote earlier on … thank you.
What remains a question for me is why you, after having gone through that experience, instead of being happy with it, went to haynes park to question GSD caused frustration in the audience that resulted finaly in you being thrown out.

“As far as I understand what you wrote, the burden of proof is indeed related to the claim itself …. as far and as long as a claim is part of the philosophical domain. (…) Was that maybe the reason why the philosopher Wittgenstein wrote at the end of one of his tractates .. one should not speak or write about things that can not be spoken of.”
……………..I’m afraid I haven’t read Wittgenstein, um, at all. I’m aware of that famous aphorism of his, but beyond that I’m quite ignorant of his work.
Burden of proof, in the sense that I’d used the term earlier, hasn’t much to do with philosophy per se. That is, it is a philosophical construct, but what it is is a straightforward heuristic that guides critical thinking. It’s simply that any claim carries the burden of proof (or, to be more precise, the burden of evidence). To the extent that evidence is forthcoming, and the burden fulfilled, to that extent it is rational to accept the claim.
It’s not as if this only applies to the philosophical domain. It is part of the scientific method, and will apply to science, obviously. But it finds equally valid application in any and every aspect of our daily life.
It’s common sense, if you think about it. I claim to be a Nigerian prince who, if only you’ll furnish me your bank account details, will be happy to send you large sums of money. Makes sense to accept that claim if and only if satisfactory evidence is provided to back up my claim. That’s an extreme, bizarre claim, but the same general principle applies for any and every claim. (For that matter, when you think about it, people claiming that there is life after death, and/or further claiming that they will look after you after death, and/or put you in touch with some supra-normal reality, are probably a far more extreme and bizarre kind of claim than Nigerian princes!)
Of course, what kind of evidence is satisfactory, that is kind of key, obviously. While generally evidence is thought of as objective evidence, nevertheless I myself, in matters spiritual, do admit of (the possibility of) valid subjective evidence as well. Subject to lots of ifs and buts, but it isn’t that I rule out subjectivity altogether. Like I said, I speak only for myself, as far as that last.
——-
“You have chosen another way home and set other conditions for your self to move forwards.”
……………..We all choose our own paths, sure. But rationalism doesn’t really represent some specific path, I should think, so much as a general way to look at and evaluate all paths.
Yes, I’m looking for a way home. In fact, I’m already walking the path. But I like to keep my eyes open. Does the path actually lead home? Is there even such a thing as a path home? Is there even such a thing as home? We do our due diligence when we invest in stock, we do our due diligence when we’re looking at real estate. When we’re careful with due diligence when it comes to such mundane decisions, why should that due diligence be absent from matters spiritual? After all, if some specific path is in fact true, then there is no reason for its adherents to shy away from a test that is bound to validate its authenticity. And if it isn’t true, then so much the better that one realizes it, rather than continue wasting one’s time and energy at it.
——-
“As the parable goes that a friend was looking for his keys in the streets and the markets of life, while he had lost them at home, because on the streets an markets of the world there is more light.
That is what I suggest is the “fate” for all.”
……………..Heh, that’s deep. I’ve heard that related as a joke about a drunk, and it’s funny, but at the same time it’s deep. I take your point (I think!).

Osho Robbins, your account of your experiences with Mikaire made for very interesting reading. Carry on, please, these accounts are both interesting and instructive.
——-
And at your own pace, and in your own way, do go on with the process as well, please.
——-
Although, before you start with the process itself, I have to say, you didn’t actually answer my question about what you think is the mode of your Oneness perception. I think I’d made my meaning clear enough and specific enough in my last post. Would you like to have a go at doing that?
That’s okay, I won’t insist on this if you don’t want to get into this. But this I have to say, Osho Robbins, as gently as I know how, and without in any way taking away from what you’ve gone through, that it seems more and more clear to me that, although you don’t seem to realize it yourself, that paradigm shift you’re talking of, was a function of reasoning, if only implicitly. If you’d like it I could show you clearly why I’m saying this. But I’m not here to disturb your worldview against your wishes, and I’ll go into that only if you yourself want to, and ask me to.
So, if you’d like me to, just ask. I’ll be happy to tell you, at some length. And we could then, after that, continue with the process. Or else we could just move on to the process without going into this, if you don’t want me to. (In either case, do continue with your account of your personal journey. I find myself very drawn to it, and in fact find myself empathizing with it to an extent.)

Spence, you’d been following this discussion, and made some insightful comments the other day. If you’d like to add anything to this, at any point, and especially if you find me making any errors in my reasoning (that I’m myself not able to catch), do please step in, will you?
I hadn’t wanted to get into a separate discussion with you over the math thing at this point, or indeed about any other unrelated subject, given this ongoing thing with Osho Robbins, and given time constraints, but I value your well informed and reasoned comments, and we all have our blind spots, and I wouldn’t like to march on through this thing with blind spots of my own, if I can help it.

@AR
Two earlier messages were not seen in here. So to be sure I will copy this one first.
Whatever you write about science, its use, its rules etc is correct and well versed but it doesn’t address the scientist.
Science is a functional tool, After formulating its proper use, the fields where it can be adopted etc the question arise “WHY” why does this person for “WHAT” reason uses that tool.
If there is a claim, the man that makes the claim needs not always to come up with evidence or proof, sometimes it is even impossible. In those instances all comes down whether the person hearing of the claim is willing to research the truth of it himself.
If somebody visits me and asks something to drink. The answer could be: “it is in the frige”. Now suppose he would react saying: “How do I know you are not telling nonsense? and I guess I would say “look YOU are thirsty, I told you were to find it, do you want me to get it for you and drink it myself to proof it??? All mystic claims are in fact THAT SIMPLE.
And reading the last part … If you are indeed a seeker as I do understand from what you wrote and you will use rational thinking as a tool to guide you, one day you will certainly succeed…. but … probably it will be different from what you previous helt for possible.

@ The five day intensive was where the real deep stuff happened. Because those five days – there was no
@ teaching – because there is nothing to teach. It was all intense confrontational conversations that would
@ bring out whatever was inside you.
I’m sure that an intensive may well facilitate insights. Even deep stuff as
you say. But will those shouting confrontations peppered with F-bombs
empower you to uncover fears and doubts tomorrow or next week or years
later…or will it require 400 quid more to drill down to even deeper layers.
Even if you believe some magical incantation sets you free, what’s its
shelf life. Permanent? Or will a refresher seminar be needed after the
mind continues 24×7 to gin up a fresh layers of angst and dysfunction?
Insights that help you live in peace with heightened awareness are
great gifts but, no mystic practice I know of will promise eternal
enlightenment after a 5 day intensive. No matter how committed or
willing to confront fear the participant is. We’ve spent eons creating
mental baggage. Their deconstruction will take considerable time too.

Hi Dungeness
You wrote
“Even if you believe some magical incantation sets you free, what’s its
shelf life. Permanent? Or will a refresher seminar be needed after the
mind continues 24×7 to gin up a fresh layers of angst and dysfunction?”
Perfect.
Hence the necessity of a daily cleansing.. Meditation.

Hi Appreciative
Nothing new from my end.
All is good.
As my Master Tells me within, so I say to you….” Proceed.”..
On a side note I began to think of what Brian Ji is doing here after all this time. He is tireless and relentless. He sets a high watermark for Truth that is extremely hard to live up to.
We are fortunate to opine in his shadow.

“Insights that help you live in peace with heightened awareness are
great gifts but, no mystic practice I know of will promise eternal
enlightenment after a 5 day intensive.”
——-
Dungeness, as you see, while I’m going through this with an entirely open mind, nevertheless at heart I’m extremely skeptical about this. Besides, there’s one flaw in the process, that I’ve already commented on earlier, and that I’ll expand on further should Osho Robbins want me to (but not otherwise).
But my skepticism notwithstanding, and that one flaw apart — and I’m kind of playing devil’s advocate here, absolutely — but as far as the above: Isn’t that something of a fallacious argument from incredulity? That you or I do not know of any such intensive process that might produce such instant enlightenment, does not mean such might not exist. We can leave this sort of thing aside if we want, but if we are to engage with it at all, shouldn’t we evaluate it on its actual merits, rather than dismiss it without actually understanding it fully?
Besides, as far as instant results from quick intensives, there is at least one instance of this sort of thing that I myself am aware of. I’m referring to Ashtravakra. That apparently was something of an intensive, although I doubt there were F-bombs involved. And instead of 400 “quid”, Ashtavakra went home with cows, I think.
(Like I said, I’m playing devil’s advocate here. As you know, I don’t myself lay much store by hoary old scriptural stories, at least not in the sense of treating them as authoritative references, although I do enjoy them as mythology.)

“(Brian) is tireless and relentless. He sets a high watermark for Truth that is extremely hard to live up to.
We are fortunate to opine in his shadow.”
——-
Amen to that, Spence.
(Not to mention tireless. Yes, you did say tireless. I read a great deal myself, I should think, but nowhere at all close to what what he seems to go through. The rate at which the man reads and consumes tome and tome after tome — and presents their essence here for our benefit —- and what’s more, does that day after day after day, leaves me …very impressed.)

“He is tireless and relentless.”
——-
Yeah, *that’s* what how you phrased that reminded me of, Spence:
“The terminator is out there, it cant be bargained with, it cant be reasoned with, it doesn’t feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not stop… EVER, Until you are dead!”
:—)

@ Isn’t that something of a fallacious argument from incredulity? That you or I do not know of any such
@ intensive process that might produce such instant enlightenment, does not mean such might not exist.
Quite! My brain was unconsciously filtering the improbable… driven no doubt
by the relentless low rumble of the Terminator’s footsteps in exploring the far
nooks and crannies of possibility. Actually, maybe direct perception is just such
a case of instant enlightenment although I suspect the “instant” is misleading if
there’s vast unseen preparation for that insightful moment. There usually is.
Then there’s always the danger of pursuing shortcuts too. Some of the most
enduring scams promise “instant” gratification. We gravitate to them, um,
instantly.

” We’ve spent eons creating
mental baggage. Their deconstruction will take considerable time too.”
– Dungeness
Simply not true. It only takes an instant of insight to break free from a false belief you have held all your life.
Proof of this is available with the “EST” seminars that Werner Erhand was famous for in the 70’s. The successor, Landmark is not quite so effective as it’s watered down too much.
Werner’s methods were extreme – it was no sunday walk in the park.
In his sixty hours of training – he got more results than most people get in 10 years of therapy. Why? because he left you nowhere to run. You have to deal with your “Goddam Bullshit” as he called it. He didn’t have a spiritual angle – he simply dealt with what works in life.
As a side note: Ashtavakra’s fee was Janak’s entire kingdom – that was the price he demanded and was paid. He gave it back – but that was hios choice. Mikaire also gave me back the £400 when he kicked me out on the morning of Day 5.

@Appreciative Reader
Let me first get some clarification on what you are asking,.
You quote four possible ‘modes’ of knowing
1. Direct perception
2. Reasoning – mental constructs
3. Blind faith
4. Direct mystical perception (if it exists)
Direct perception I presume you mean – like if I eat an apple – I know the taste. No mental process is needed.
Reasoning I would say you mean if I use reason to arrive at a certain conclusion. For instance the discussion we had about no space and no time – and whether change was possible in such a state (if indeed such existed). I used reason and thinking to say that change would be impossible and you used reason to say such a conclusion was fallacious and that no conclusion was possible.
Blind faith – I would argue is not a mode of knowing as it is just a mode of acquiring a belief – and we are talking about knowing – not beliefs.
Finally – DMP (Direct Mystical Perception) – I am not sure how you would define this and determine it even existed or what it was like.
How does “insight” figure into these categories?
The zen koan: What is the sound of one hand clapping? Cannot be solved rationally. So when a disciple gets an insight – what mode is that? Do you consider that to be reasoning or DMP?
When Isaac Newton discovered gravity from the falling apple – which mode is that?
Nobody had considered there could be a force called gravity.

“no mystic practice I know of will promise eternal
enlightenment after a 5 day intensive.”
I got That after a <2 minutes, perhaps a few seconds intensive which was GRATITUDE
If you are in the right position , even in the middle of nothing than failures and arrogancies ,
it's
Worth trying !!
777
honest gratitude is Love is cut thoughts

“@Appreciative Reader
Let me first get some clarification on what you are asking”
……….Hey, Osho Robbins. Sure.
————————-
“You quote four possible ‘modes’ of knowing
1. Direct perception
2. Reasoning – mental constructs
3. Blind faith
4. Direct mystical perception (if it exists)
Direct perception I presume you mean – like if I eat an apple – I know the taste. No mental process is needed.
Reasoning I would say you mean if I use reason to arrive at a certain conclusion. For instance the discussion we had about no space and no time – and whether change was possible in such a state (if indeed such existed). I used reason and thinking to say that change would be impossible and you used reason to say such a conclusion was fallacious and that no conclusion was possible.
Blind faith – I would argue is not a mode of knowing as it is just a mode of acquiring a belief – and we are talking about knowing – not beliefs.”
.
……….Actually, let me introduce a small digression here, as far as the above. That part about blind faith, and what you have to say about it.
This part isn’t really essential to this discussion, not quite central to what we’re actually talking about, and we may well have moved directly to the next part, where you ask about intuition, which is really what concerns us here. But still, this clarification:
I think we don’t directly know anything. We usually know things at a remove, so to say. When we say “I know such and such”, it is usually more precise to say, “I believe I know such and such”. To that extent, all of the above are, equally, ways of knowing, that is to say, ways of arriving at what one believes is knowledge.
For instance: I hear you, Osho Robbins, tell me that you’re mad at your boss, and are going to kill him. I see that you are really furious. Then I see you pick up a gun, load it, and put it in your pocket. Then, later on, I see you confront your boss, and point your gun at him, and shoot him dead. And then when the police arrive, you surrender, and reconcile yourself to years locked away behind bars.
And I’ve been a direct observer throughout. I “know”, at first hand, that you have killed your boss. And what’s more, I’ve both seen you and heard you admit it yourself. That’s apparently direct knowledge, of your guilt, arrived at via direct perception on my part, right?
And yet, in the customary denouement in the last chapter, all of us who’re aware of the murder sit together, and Sherlock Holmes (or Hercule Poirot, or Miss Marple, or Adam Dalgliesh) describes to us how, in fact, you never ever intended to actually kill your boss, how you only wanted to scare him as well as vent your anger, and shot a whole foot away from your boss, as evidenced by the bullet hole there. There was someone else who, at the same moment, shot your boss, and had been cleverly trying to pass off the crime on to you, and had even gaslighted you into imagining that it was you who did after all kill your boss whom you hate so much.
My point is, what we think of as “knowledge”, is essentially belief. Sometimes that belief corresponds directly with reality, something it is close to reality but with some distortion, and sometimes it is wholly removed from reality. But, as I see it, all of these “modes” describe how we arrive at our “knowledge”, or what we believe is knowledge.
Let me go through the first three modes again:
1. Direct perception : Something directly impacts my senses. I see something, or hear something, or touch something. And basis that perception, arrive at some knowledge (or what I believe is knowledge).
2. Reasoning : As you say, mental constructs. I perceive something, and over and above that perception, I add my own reasoning, to create a mental construct. That is, knowledge (or what I believe is knowledge), based on perception, but at one remove from the perception. Not direct perception, but perception (or memory of perception), plus reasoning.
3. Blind faith : I called it “blind faith” in my last post, but I suppose what I really mean to convey is, “cultural constructs”. That sounds like a better descriptor. Religious beliefs would be a subset of this. This category would include the hundred and one things we simply take for granted, that we take as knowledge (or what we believe is knowledge). Certainly religious “facts” (or so-called facts), but even, I guess, scientific facts. For instance, the speed of light. I “know” that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. But I haven’t actually directly perceived that myself, personally, have I? For me personally that factoid is simply a cultural construct, that I take on faith. (Although for the experimental physicist who actually understands and himself uses the equipment that lets us arrive at that measure, that factoid might belong to category #1, direct perception. (And incidentally, now I think about this, I’d say “direct perception” would include direct perception using equipment as well, so that something seen through binoculars would qualify as direct perception.)
————————-
I’d say that everything that we know, or believe we know, derives from one or more of these three modes.
How closely does what we know, or what we think we know, correspond to actual reality? That is a separate question, and needs to be evaluated on case to case basis. It would be erroneous to assume that all direct perception is true knowledge, or that all cultural constructs are false. I myself furnished one example of how direct perception can lead to knowledge that does not comport with reality (the part where I see you kill your boss), and one example of how cultural construct or blind faith can sometimes lead to knowledge that does comport with reality (my knowledge/belief that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second).
————————-
As far as the question you raise, about intuition, I’ll address that in the next comment, so as to clearly demarcate that, set it aside. Because, like I said, the clarification in this post, while it seemed apposite to present it here, but probably this isn’t necessary to our discussion. While the next portion, about your question about intuition, as well as the subsequent point about mystical perception, are clearly absolutely central to our discussion. So I’ll go into those two in my next, separate post.
(Warning: Another huge post coming up!)

“How does “insight” figure into these categories? (…)
(…) When Isaac Newton discovered gravity from the falling apple – which mode is that?
Nobody had considered there could be a force called gravity.”
.
……….I would suggest that intuition is a combination of the above three modes of arriving at knowledge, that is, a subconscious and serendipitous coming together of the knowledge (or belief of knowledge) acquired through the above three modes.
I would propose that intuition isn’t a separate mode of arriving at knowledge, but merely an amalgam of the above three types. But of course, I can see how a case might be made for treating intuition, and for that matter dreams, as well as hallucinations, as a whole separate category. Regardless of whether we treat intuition as a separate, fourth mode of arriving at knowledge, or else merely treat is an amalgam of the first three modes of arriving at knowledge, the fact is the intuition essentially derives from the first three categories.
So what is intuition? It clearly isn’t conscious, clearly isn’t deliberate. I’d suggest our subconscious processes the inputs received via these three modes, acts on our existing stock of knowledge (or what we believe is knowledge), and produces what we come to see as intuition.
And you know what? I’d say that intuition is very important to new ideas and paradigms, but by itself it amounts to a big fat nothing. It is no more than a possible starting point, that’s all.
You bring up Newton’s insights on gravity, and I think that example might serve as an excellent basis for expanding on this.
——————–
Of course, that story of the apple is probably apocryphal, but regardless, it is a fact that Newton did have that insight of his about gravity.
Now while that intuition was important, indeed essential, nevertheless it seems to me that by itself it amounts to nothing at all. It takes at least two more steps, for that intuition to actually contribute meaningfully to knowledge.
The first step was the intuition itself. The next step is clear formulation of that intuition. In Newton’s case, that would be all of the work that he actually put into his Principia Mathematica. All of that painstakingly developed math, and the fine-tuning of this actual theory, all of that.
Without this second step, that intuition itself is meaningless, no more than speculation. It is this detailed formulation, that stands up to scrutiny by other mathematicians and physicists and the overall knowledge base then extant, that elevates that intuition into something that’s coming close to becoming knowledge.
The third step would be the all-important evidence. Even with satisfactory formulation, Newton’s theory is no more than a well-fleshed-out fairy tale that is consistent with the knowledge then current. I guess people would take it seriously enough, but still not elevate it to the status of actual established knowledge. For that evidence is necessary.
And that evidence was fully forthcoming, as far as Newton. His theories clearly explained the planetary movements, and what is more did this better than Kepler’s model was able to. His proposals and its formulation threw up predictions that were validated by actual observations.
Therefore, after satisfying all of those steps, his intuition became knowledge. Otherwise his intuition, by itself, amounts to diddly squat.
————————-
Now let’s bring this back to our discussion, Osho Robbins.
You’ve saying that all of what you’ve said here, that I found *not* quite reasonable, and posted detailed objections to, you haven’t engaged with all of those objections because your statements aren’t the proof by which you arrived at your Realization of Oneness, they’re only part of the process via which you’re guiding me on.
Let’s just clarify one thing here. The difference between proof and evidence. This may sound like semantics, but it isn’t, it’s very important to getting to the core of what I think is the flaw in the Oneness proposition, as you present it, and as I see this whole thing.
Proof is what you get in closed abstract systems like logic and mathematics. Not in real life. Nothing can be “proved” in real life. In real life, whether in formal science or in our everyday life, what you get are observations ; and hypotheses to explain those observations ; and further observations that serve as evidence to either bear out or to invalidate these hypotheses. To the extent that evidence bears out some hypothesis, we accept it, and it becomes a theory, and part of our knowledge. (Of course, since there is no “proof” as such, therefore this is only provisional acceptance, and provisional knowledge. Should new evidence come up and invalidate today’s theory, or should some future theories improve on our current theories, we readily discard them and accept the new theories.)
I’ve gone into this, because on this basis let us look at your intuition of Oneness.
Everything that you’ve said here about Oneness, in this post, all of those things that I’ve presented somewhat detailed objections to, all of those follow from your Oneness intuition, presumably? That is, I’m sure they’re not random observations plucked out of nowhere and having nothing to do with the subject at hand, right? To that extent they are formulations of your intuition.
It doesn’t matter that they are, as you say, not the proof of your Realization. Because no realization, no real-life knowledge, actually carries “proof”. Newton’s intuition on gravity had no proof. What it did have was detailed formulation, details that follow from that intuition.
Well, all of what you’ve said in this thread, they’re what follow from your intuition of Oneness. To that extent, they are, in effect, the de facto formulation of your Oneness Realization.
Had Newton’s formulations not held up to scrutiny, then his intuition would have been tossed out of hand right at that stage. (Not necessarily entirely discarded, he may at that point have either binned the intuition outright, or else re-worked his formulation all over again. The point is, it is whether those formulations ultimately stand up to scrutiny, that decides whether his intuition itself is ultimately accepted or rejected.)
Therefore, when all of what you say following on your Oneness realization, I raise objections to, you cannot simply brush those objections aside saying they’re not the “proof” of your realization. You need to squarely address each and every one of them, but a single valid objection ends up invalidating your formulation, and by extension your intuition itself. Regardless of the nature of your intuition itself, it is those formulations that decide whether your intuition itself is to be accepted or not. (Accepted or rejected not just by others, but by you yourself, as well, if your approach is rational.)
————————-
And it doesn’t stop there. Your Oneness intuition has not passed the formulation stage, and therefore was rejected at that point.
But even had it passed that stage, it must yet pass one more test, that of evidence. It needs to explain actual observations better than a worldview without Oneness. And it needs to throw up predictions that a reality without this Oneness would not throw up, and those predictions need to be borne out. Pass the test of evidence.
Newton’s intuition, once its detailed formulations passed muster, people took it seriously, sure. But it was only when it actually passed the test of evidence, and clearly explained planetary motions better than Kepler’s formulations, and also threw up predictions that were borne out by subsequent observations, that his intuition, his work, became actual bona fide knowledge. (Provisional knowledge, sure, but actual knowledge.)
————————-
Whew, this post also, like its predecessor, has become absolutely huge.
I’ll address your question about direct mystical perception (that you abbreviate to “DMP” in your comment, and it’s a cool term and we can continue to use that henceforth) in the next post.
That part also will have direct bearing on our discussion, on what I think is the fatal flaw in your Oneness, as you present it, and on the part where I ask you what mode of knowledge your Realization can be best described as.

@ AR
Having read your last message I was reminded of what happened when i first came to know of the possibilities of living masters the like of those of the past.
It evoked many, many questions and one answer gave birth to more questions. After a while it dawned upon me that there would never be a person that could come up with answers that would satisfy my mind and calm it down.
Those who are not on a path are not suited, nor those on a path who had no experiences or were not allow to speak about them and finally the only one really qualified, I soon realized, do speak but remain silent in their speaking. These days I would say, they never speak, they have nothing to say … but …. find out yourself, I have told you where to look and how to do it. They cannot answer the real questions and if they could they certainly would refrain from doing it.
I gave up asking, writing letters but the questions still remain unanswered. Most of them I left behind realizing that the answer or the desire of my mind to have them answered is just an trick of the mind to do what should be done….become a silent witness.
The mind is an instrument coupled to the senses, in a survival mode. It is not in its interest to have you do other things than process sensoric information and the cultural overlay related to it.
There is no way to satisfy it, or to conquer it … mystics have found ways to trick it.
Those with a strong mind and well trained will experience higher amplitudes.

“Finally – DMP (Direct Mystical Perception) – I am not sure how you would define this and determine it even existed or what it was like.”
.
……….DMP (as you called it, and cool abbreviation by the way!), as I’d define it, is intuition, that is different from the kind of intuition that we discussed in the preceding post. It’s a direct perception of some supra-normal reality, and/or by some supra-normal means.
Would DMPs exist at all? I don’t know! Very likely not. And if anyone proposed that they do exist, then they’d need to provide convincing evidence in support of their claim.
I include this mode, because it seemed apposite, given the subject and nature of our discussion.
Some examples of this kind of perception, DMP, would be: Bushes bursting into flames and speaking with Moses. Moses getting visions of God. God speaking with Jesus. For that matter, the Devil speaking with Jesus in that desert. Or Jesus, or God Himself, appearing and/or speaking with the devout. The mystic’s visions and mystical knowledge. The knowledge of people and places and entire cosmologies, that are allegedly revealed spontaneously to the RSSB meditator. Kundalini rushing up the Yogi’s Sushumna, and flooding him with inexplicable-in-mundane-terms knowledge of future events, or of present events at distant places. Something something something impacting on the meditator’s pineal gland, and resulting in direct intuitive knowledge of a whole breadth of things (or perhaps some focused subject). That sort of thing.
As far as I know, this “mode of knowledge” is just a hypothetical. It isn’t real. But religious and spiritual traditions do claim it. So there’s no harm in rounding off the picture to include this in our list of “modes of arriving at knowledge”, with the clear understanding that this is only a hypothetical, and we will accept this as real if and only if we find sound evidence for it.
————————-
Thing is, last time, when we left off our discussion at that impasse, and for the time agreed to disagree? Well, I’d imagined that your Realization was tantamount to some kind of a DMP, some kind of a supra-normal intuition triggered by your overall distress/trauma at your crisis at that time and especially by that workshop you’d attended (much like how Kundalini episodes sometimes allegedly follow on a period of deep distress and trauma ; much like how satoris sometimes follow on deep distress and trauma, as in the story of Ananda’s final enlightenment after the Buddha’s passing).
Naturally I am entirely skeptical of this whole idea. On the other hand, I don’t toss it out the window because I’m interested in it. Although I’ll accept it as true only if I find satisfactory evidence. Although, I have to say, I’m kind of hopeful, in the sense that I’d be very happy if I did find myself able to admit this as real. (Much like your Oneness itself. I’m skeptical, but I’m genuinely interested, and I’d be genuinely happy if this turned out to be true — but that doesn’t mean I’m cutting it any slack in terms of how I evaluate whether it is real.)
So. Like I was saying, I’d imagined your Realization was some kind of DMP. And this time I’d wanted to explore some of the aspects of the content of your realization, the content of what I imagined was your alleged DMP — not accepting any of this as true, obviously, but keeping an open mind for the present.
Well, in the course of this “process” that you yourself initiated this time (with me following your lead, and discussing the specific issues that you were raising), the nature of your Realization became clearer to me. It seemed to be simply an everyday intuition, not a DMP. (And I’m not trivializing it by calling it “an everyday intuition”, I only mean that it is the regular kind of intuition that we’ve been discussion in the post prior.)
To make double sure, I thought to cross-check this by directly asking you, at that point, which of these modes of knowledge you’d yourself class your Realization as.
————————-
Why was I so sure, this time, that your Realization isn’t a DMP? And why did that make me doubly skeptical of your Realization itself? Here’s why:
Your Oneness is a Deist God. That is, it does not, in any shape of form, actually interact with its creation, right? As such, as you’ve yourself pointed out so many times, from our perspective it does not exist at all.
Well then, if it does not correspond with our universe, then how is it that it is able to make itself known to you? How exactly does knowledge of this One occur to you? This Direct Perception of Oneness, this intuition of Oneness, call it what you will, what is its exact mechanism?
You see what I’m saying? HOW, by what mode, does Oneness reveal itself to you, Osho Robbins, or to your teacher Mikaire, or to Nanak, or to Paltu (whom you keep quoting here), or to Ashtavakra?
A Oneness that does not interact with the universe, is also a Oneness that does not interact with people or provide any DMP (even should DMPs be a thing, which itself is highly unlikely in the first place). Therefore, the intuition that led you to your Oneness realization, cannot in substance have been any different than any other intuition that anyone else has, including Newton’s intuition, or for that matter Einstein’s (to take dramatic examples), as well as the whole gamut of more mundane and humble instances of people having intuitions.
In which case, there is no reason to treat your intuition of Oneness any differently than any other intuition. No need to put in on a pedestal. Hell, if at the end of this process I had an intuition similar to yours, that would be no reason to put it on a pedestal either, or to treat it as special.
We’d still need to clearly formulate it ; and to accept it only if that formulation passed muster. (Which in your case it hasn’t, in this discussion of ours. Not unless you can go back and satisfactorily tackle every objection I’ve raised.) And what’s more, even if passed the test of formulation, we’d still need to gather and to produce evidence in support of it.
And if none of this can be done, then you can’t evade the burden of proof (or burden of evidence) by saying no proof is possible, no evidence is possible. Because if no evidence is possible, then we are constrained to simply reject this intuition. No reason at all not to.
————————-
You’ve brought out 2D-3D analogy more than once. In a 2D world, how do you produce evidence of a 3D reality? Let me end this post by revisiting that analogy.
We’re living in a 2D world, say. And in that world, I suddenly get this intuition, that the world is actually 3D. Well, I can go ahead and formulate the consequences of that intuition. Build up a detailed model, and see at every stage if that formulation holds up. If it doesn’t hold up, then I go back and refine my formulation further, until it does hold up. Or else I bin my intuition at that stage itself, discard it myself. That would be the rational thing to do.
Even if the formulation stage held up, even then I’d need evidence. I present to you, one more time, the analogy of research into string theory. I’d need to work out how a 3D reality would be different, to a 2D world, than a 2D reality. What kind of changes it might mean for a 2D reality. And see if the evidence supports it.
And if this 3D reality simply has no way of producing any evidence in the 2D reality, then, even if the formulation did hold up—and note, your intuition of Oneness has not even crossed the formulation stage—I was saying, even if the 3D intuition passed the formulation stage, even then, if I find that my reality remains identical whether the ultimate reality is 2D or 3D, that is, evidence is simply not possible, then the only rational thing to do is to reject the intuition.
One can continue to research it, sure. One can treat is as some kind of fun speculation, sure. But beyond that? It simply isn’t rational to accept that intuition as true, because that way lies madness. That way lies accepting any and every cock and bull intuition anyone ever had, that withstood the formulation stage (and note again, your intuition did not even pass the formulation stage even). One more time, I refer you to Carl Sagan’s garage dragon thought experiment, as a perfect analogy for this sort of thing.
————————-
And as for Mikaire’s crazy demeanor? Again, it is conceivable that a bona fide DMP might induce that kind of craziness. (Assuming purely for the sake of argument that DMPs might be a thing.) You know, Moses sees God and comes back with hair turned white and whole demeanor changed. Some mystic sees visions of a deeper reality and goes apparently crazy, but in fact internally connected with that higher reality. (Again, only hypotheticals, I’m not saying for a minute that this kind of thing is real.)
Well, in your Mikaire’s case, even that hypothetical does not hold. Because we aren’t dealing with a DMP at all, right, but just a normal intuition, as we’ve established already, right? So that his craziness accrues from something else altogether, something more mundane, more everyday. That immediately makes his craziness far less impressive than your account made it appear, in fact it makes it likely that he’d simply hallucinated his Oneness. And even if not, even if it was a genuine intuition, then his craziness adds nothing to it. He’d still need to formulate it, and then have that formulation pass the test of scrutiny, and then do the whole evidence thing. As would you yourself. As would Nanak. As would Ashtavakra.
—————————
Osho Robbins, this is not to take away from your experience in any way. It is not my intention to denigrate what has clearly been a very meaningful experience for you. And I understand how this thing helped you at a time when you were in a deep crisis, and when you yourself were in a very vulnerable state of mind. Plus I see how this helped you break free from some hocus-pocus belief system that had kept you under its thrall for years and years, and that also is all good.
But you do see now the point of my objection, right? Which I’ve detailed, at some length—in fact, at GREAT length, I’m afraid!—in this post and the last post?
Also, you see now, I hope, why it was important to get this clarification in before proceeding with the process. Because even if the process did end up giving me the intuition of Oneness, what would that amount to after all?
(Contrast that with RSSB meditation. If I did RSSB meditation, and found whole cosmologies within, and found those cosmologies comport with such of the outer reality as we do know, then that would be evidence, right there. Not that I’m batting for RSSB theology here, I hope you see that, but merely pointing out that while RSSB theology is potentially falsifiable, and therefore verifiable, your Oneness isn’t even that.)
————————
It was in that context that I’d asked you what was your mode of arriving at the knowledge of Oneness. And this is my larger objection to your whole Oneness thing, and why I was insisting that your intuition probably derives from reason, even if you’re not aware of it. And why I was insisting that the objections I’d raised you cannot simply brush away as inconsequential because you’ve arrived at your intuition not via those reasons but via your intuition. And why the first step (but by no means the final step) of your rationally defending your Oneness (to yourself, first and foremost, as much as to anyone else) would be to go back and satisfactorily address every objection I’ve posted to the points you’d raised here.

“Mikaire also gave me back the £400 when he kicked me out on the morning of Day 5.”
Kicked out? Don’t tell me, violation of his no cell phone policy?

@AR @U @Osho
I think U are all right as far as it’s to behold in your own cranium
I like AP’s comparison:1. Direct perception : Something directly impacts my senses. I see something, or hear something, or touch something. And basis that perception, arrive at some knowledge (or what I believe is knowledge).
2. Reasoning : As you say, mental constructs. I perceive something, and over and above that perception, I add my own reasoning, to create a mental construct. That is, knowledge (or what I believe is knowledge), based on perception, but at one remove from the perception. Not direct perception, but perception (or memory of perception), plus reasoning.
3. Blind faith : I called it “blind faith” in my last post, but I suppose what I really mean to convey is, “cultural constructs”. That sounds like a better descriptor.
My say “BEST” Direct Perception was to be Charan First,
next to be the 5 Words, Next to be The Shabd “entirely , that is : The Creator like descrbed in the first paragraph of Jap Ji and of course “Before Abraham, . . I AM”
It lasted less than an hour, . . I couldn’t survive physically any longer
2
Then years later One revelation concerned a person at a “low end”
of society
My revelation was this individu just under PINDA at work : creating Creations – There are no words than Gorgeous Splendor
Then I was ordered to give assistance and after 5 years initiation followed
3
If you think this created Blind Faith in me, . . yes but then years later another revelation followed, . . this time a jeeva
of even lower “standing” without education
but it’s hardly to believe ABOVE the Sunna Blackness , doing unbelievable things
It is the Region of which Adi Granth sais :
“There are thousands upon thousants of Warriors, all dancing on the Breath of The Almighty”
I cannot explain better
Next Charan MaharJI who showed me that , slowly changed
in Gurinder who said := “Do Help” . . . and I did!
This is only 5 years ago
Now AR , I smile at the expression of Bind Faith , burting in tears almost, . . a lot of reasoning ( to remember in grey cells ) occurs but the Faith is what it does
At all occasions Simran & Shabd ( they form a bastion together with “The Son of Men” were swelling ( highlighted )
Please understand that absolutely nothing is steady
enlighting is a sinusoide accumulating LOVE , an ever swelling wave form a la Fibunacci
never touching The Center
777
PS
Swami JI was absolutely decribing things magnifficiently
even using for that time comprehensive poetics
masterly translated by Prof.Lekh Puri, . . Ishwars Father

“Kicked out? Don’t tell me, violation of his no cell phone policy?” – umami
No – he didn’t have that policy.
He told me to “Get out” because I was sitting in his chair and teaching in hos absence. Which was according to this instructions because he said
“If I am not here – someone better be in my char teaching.”
It was done on purpose to push me to a cetain point. It was a crucial and necessary part of the process.

Appreciative Reader
I read your comments yesterday. My head hurts just reading it. So I went to bed after replying to umami as that was an easy reply. Apparently my claim to fame is centred around breaking rules to do with phones.
But actually it’s just around breaking rules as I am not a great fan of rules. I am a great fan of sitting on the chair of the guru just to see what happens next. In Mikaire’s case, he was overjoyed that some idiot had dared to cross the line and invited further idiots, but none were forthcoming.
Another incident. We were in a park and everyone was standing around Mikaire and listening – including me. Then I sat down. Everyone looked at me as of to say “WTF are you doing?” Except Mikaire. He looked at me “is the grass dry?” I said it was. “Everyone sit down”’ he commands.
Then I take over again. Just like when I sat on his chair. Except it wasn’t me, that was talking. The owner of the talking had gone away and the talking was just happening.
Without going into detail just now, let me just say. The enlightenment falls into none of the categories you elucidated. Because in the first place it never happened and in the second place it never happens to anyone because it is not an event.
I don’t claim to be enlightened – but sometimes just for a laugh I will say I am just to engage you because you believe there is such a thing.
There is no such thing because to seek it is to miss it.
The seeker ready considers himself separate. Then to add insult to injury (metaphorically speaking), he tries to unite with the Oneness.
How can the idiot possibly unite?
He is not separate in the first place. And in the second place he doesn’t even exist.
Only the ONE exists. But he claims to be separate from the ONE. Already he has created two and now he is trying to get to the ONE, as if the ONE is some distant destination he has to arrive at.
“Absurder and absurder” as Alice might say in wonderland.
And now he is trying to get there. An impossible task because he is already that which he seeks. The seeking is doomed to fail. The assumptions are incorrect.
From duality there is no pathway into ONENESS. It is absolutely impossible because you have to begin with the truth – not seek it from untruth.
So what is the enlightenment and what type of knowing is it?
Which category?
None.
It has no category.
I tried to put it into a category but every category failed to fit.
In the first place “I don’t know it” because there is nothing to know. Enlightenment is not knowledge. I never “got enlightened”
And I deny there is such a thing as “enlightenment”
The Buddha also denied it. So he coined a new term “nirvana” but all to no avail because now people seek that instead.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
He changed the name but it’s still there as a goal in the seekers mind.
The seeker seeks – there is nothing to seek. The seeker himself is an illusion.
I made up a statement which is also nonsense like all other statements about enlightenment – but at least it’s my nonsense. At least I can claim something just for laughs.
This is it.
Enlightenment is a journey ………
( even the first four words are nonsense because there is no journey and no enlightenment – but I have started so I’ll finish like in “university challenge”)
Enlightenment is a journey, the destination of which is ………. the absolute realisation that there was no journey, there is no destination and there was nobody to undertake the journey.

Typo corrections
“ The seeker ready considers himself separate.”
Replace “ready” with “already”.

There was a time when ……..
I was not enlightened and I was seeking it……….
Now I am enlightened and I have found what I was seeking.
I have succeeded, please congratulate me and put me on a pedestal. I will get you there too, for £1000. No refunds.
The above is the illusion.
The seeker thinks there is an unenlightened state and an enlightened state. And he is trying to go from the former into the latter.
Using various methods like “seva”
“Meditation” or “intellectual dialogue”
All will fail.
The Buddha failed.
Osho failed.
Mikaire failed
And I failed
Nothing fails so magnificently as enlightenment.
It is the ultimate failure from which there is no recovery. No hope.
Above the huge gigantic gates that lead to enlightenment world, are written these words.
I know because not only have I seen them, but I wrote them ……..
“Give up all hope, if you choose to enter herein ……. Nobody has ever survived …… nobody has ever come back ……
And nobody has ever lived to tell the tale……. Good Luck…..
And good riddance. xxx”

@um
Sorry, really busy the last few days so just now responding (not like you were waiting around for me to, just saying…).
It’s funny, ACIM talks about how critical meditation is and describes the inner regions in an extremely brief way but the discretion is very similar to RS’s description. However, it approaches it a little differently. The focus with ACIM is not on the inner regions but the final destination. And it does warn against the dangers of merging with the ego which is called by other names such as Kal, negative power, “devil”, whatever. But it says not to be afraid of anything or to consider anyone or anything your enemy. At the same time it warns against merging with the ego. If a master has merged with the ego he will never believe there is anything higher and he will truly believe that he is “God” deep down. And if you are following a master/guru/guide like that then you’re compromised. Of course “God” is simply the energy of pure love and oneness. But the ego… the ego in all its “glory” is separation. A guru merged with the ego is the opposite of enlightenment (like the ones who never go beyond what RS calls Trikuti). And it should be pretty easy to spot those types of gurus. Buddhism is much closer to oneness.

The first three names that satsangis repeat in simran are names of rulers of the lower realms. They shouldn’t be given any focus whatsoever. There’s no need for a mantra from a spiritual perspective but if someone has a mantra that is truly uplifting that’s good. But focusing on the astral and causal realms and all the silly experiences that go with them is a waste of time and slows your progress quite considerably—to the point of preventing a soul from ascending. Satsangis travel the meandering backroads which are dangerous. Not saying it’s impossible to make progress that way but it can easily take lifetimes and centuries. It’s not the only way. But it’s definitely the slow way and suffers all the perils of the ego much more than the straight road.
It would be irresponsible for me not to point this out.

@ Enlightenment is a journey, the destination of which is ………. the absolute realisation that there was no
@ journey, there is no destination and there was nobody to undertake the journey.
Villager: I’m terribly sorry, Mr. Frog, but you’ve fallen in our well.
Be still or you’ll sink deeper. Grab this rope.
Frog: What makes you think I’ve fallen? I ‘spose you’ll next claim
I need to recognise my predicament and need to take a long,
arduous journey to get out. Hah, I’ll have you know there
was no fall. No journey is needed. There’s no destination.
Nowhere to get to at all. Ah, there’s no “Mr. Frog” or “Villager”
either. All is Oneness in reality, by Jove. Once you realise
that, then you’ll see–
Villager: –Oh dear, another one in the well has lost the way.
Call for help if you realise a little is needed. I’ll leave the
rope just in case.
Frog: Rubbish. But, if you could lower down a spot of tea,
I’d be grateful all the same.

@ s
Now I am even more puzzled. What is Acim?
And … I lost track because the 4 last reactions never appeared here.

@ Osho
>> Enlightenment is a journey, the destination of which is ………. the absolute realisation that there was no journey, there is no destination and there was nobody to undertake the journey.>MIDWAY upon the journey of our life I found myself within a forest dark,
For the straightforward pathway had been lost.
Ah me! how hard a thing it is to say what was this forest savage, rough, and stern,
which in the very thought renews the fear. So bitter is it, death is little more;<< If one walks in the woods of life it can so happen, that all of an sudden, the path one was following disappears in nothingness; something that happens with so called animal trails. The words of the poet can be used to describe the feelings if such a thing happens. There and then one is forcefully made to realise that one had never been on a path and that the trail was leading nowhere. Then comes the realisation that one is all alone in the situation and nobody around to help. In the beginning that is as scarry and bitter as the poet describes but slowly one settles down, and accepts what is to be accepted as an fact, there is no escape there, no solution and one cannot but make the best of the situation. "Robbed" from goal, meaning, destination etc what remains are the simple joys of life.

@ …. test
The previous message was posted on my phone and arrive here but a newer post, made on the PC didn’t again.
If this one arrives it is a matter of different browsers.

@ Osho
>> Enlightenment is a journey, the destination of which is ………. the absolute realisation that there was no journey, there is no destination and there was nobody to undertake the journey. >MIDWAY upon the journey of our life I found myself within a forest dark, For the straightforward pathway had been lost.
Ah me! how hard a thing it is to say what was this forest savage, rough, and stern, which in the very thought renews the fear. so bitter is it, death is little more;
But of the good to treat, which there I found, Speak will I of the other things I saw there.
I cannot well repeat how there I entered, So full was I of slumber at the moment In which I had abandoned the true way<< Those who walk the woods must can recognize the situation, when one is following a path, thinking it to be man-made and it turns out to be an animal-trail that all of a sudden disappears in nothingbess. THAT very moment one becomes aware of the fact that it was not an path at all, that it had no real beginning nor end, no purpose. Moreover one is lost, not knowing where to go and what to do. In the beginning it is as bitter and scary as the poets describes but little by little one starts to accept what has to be accepted and make the best of the circumstances one finds oneself in ...unwanted.

anew …
@ Osho
>> Enlightenment is a journey, the destination of which is ………. the absolute realisation that there was no journey, there is no destination and there was nobody to undertake the journey. MIDWAY upon the journey of our life I found myself within a forest dark, For the straightforward pathway had been lost.
Ah me! how hard a thing it is to say what was this forest savage, rough, and stern, which in the very thought renews the fear. so bitter is it, death is little more;
But of the good to treat, which there I found, Speak will I of the other things I saw there.
I cannot well repeat how there I entered, So full was I of slumber at the moment In which I had abandoned the true way<< Those who walk the woods must can recognize the situation, when one is following a path, thinking it to be man-made and it turns out to be an animal-trail that all of a sudden disappears in nothingness. THAT very moment one becomes aware of the fact that it was not an path at all, that it had no real beginning nor end, no purpose. Moreover one is lost, not knowing where to go and what to do. In the beginning it is as bitter and scary as the poets describes but little by little one starts to accept what has to be accepted and make the best of the circumstances one finds oneself in ...unwanted.

@Respected readers,
there seems something going wrong posting here and I do not know what and how, it makes the message partly unintelligible … I am sorry
The first sentence is a recap. from what Osho.wrote and where MIDWAY starts are the words of Dante At the beginning of his book on the hell.

–
Who desires enlightement when you can have LOVE?
777

If you hold a specific opinion, and in contrast with that opinion, others are wrong who hold a different view, then that view itself is flawed.

… As is the view you are using to measure theirs against.
You have made them wrong holding such a view.
Therefore your opinion, while perfectly true for you, must also be false applied to anyone else.
Truth is only one. There isn’t more than one truth. But everyone and everything is that truth, including the different viewpoints of all those other people, situated as they are in different times and places.
You could say that they are all ignorant of your view, or even each others’.
But they are reporting perfectly their own perspective, which is a real place in this reality.

“Appreciative Reader
I read your comments yesterday. My head hurts just reading it. “
……………..Ha ha ha! :—-) I can feel, no, “realize”, literally dozens of folks sending me their blessings, as I read that, for titting that particular tat!
Nah, kidding. Apologies for going so heavy with thins thing! I *was* taking your Oneness, this whole business, kind of seriously, you know. Not solemnly, nor particularly respectfully; but seriously, absolutely. Hence that very detailed probing.
——-
“Then I take over again. Just like when I sat on his chair. Except it wasn’t me, that was talking. The owner of the talking had gone away and the talking was just happening.”
……………..That’s kind of key to what happened to you, I realize that.
How do get from that to Oneness, though? —I have to ask again. But I ask now with little expectation of getting a cogent answer! *rueful smile*
——-
“Without going into detail just now, let me just say. The enlightenment falls into none of the categories you elucidated.
(…) So what is the enlightenment and what type of knowing is it?
Which category?
None.
It has no category.
I tried to put it into a category but every category failed to fit. “
……………..Well okay, you’ve clearly tried your best to answer that question. Thanks for that.
I don’t know if you realize it, but in claiming that your Realization does not fall into any of those four categories, you’re automatically claiming, in effect, that it does fall into category #4.
Because you’re saying that one moment you had no idea of Oneness, and next moment you did have some incontrovertible realization of it. And, unlike regular intuitions, not subject to error, and therefore, unlike regular intuitions, not dependent on validation for acceptance by the rational minded, but taken immediately as reflection of truth. At least that seems to be your implicit position, because you yourself have clearly bought into that idea, despite not having in any way been able to validate it yourself.
That’s a “DMP”, all right. Or at least, a claim of such. (That is to say, an implicit claim of such. And in any case, you’re yourself, in having bought into it, clearly treating it as such.)
——-
“Only the ONE exists. “
……………..There you go again. Why do you keep saying that? How the eff do you know this, exactly? —is what my question is, asked this time in prescribed Mikaire-speak (albeit with the eff-bomb sheathed in abbreviation).
——-
“I don’t claim to be enlightened – but sometimes just for a laugh I will say I am just to engage you because you believe there is such a thing.”
……………..But I’ve already told you, many times, that I DON’T believe there is such a thing. (I am interested in this kind of thing, and I do keep an open mind, but I decidedly don’t believe in this kind of claptrap, and nor would I actually accept such even if I came face to face with something like this, not without rigorous verification.)
Given that I don’t believe in this kind of thing, why do you keep saying that you’re saying these things simply to engage with my belief? That makes no sense at all!
And you’re literally saying here that you’re simply saying things that you know aren’t true! Why, for what reason? Why keep saying these random things that you simply cannot defend, and that you yourself say aren’t true?
——-
“It is absolutely impossible because you have to begin with the truth – not seek it from untruth..”
……………..Copybook question-begging there, Osho Robbins. You “begin with the truth”, that is to say, you begin with Oneness as your starting point, that you directly assume is the truth, just because. Then you repeat it often enough that you start believing it is self-evident, and then circle your way back to it as though it were a fait accompli.
========================================
I don’t know what to make of all of this, Osho Robbins. You genuinely don’t seem to realize the copybook fallacies you’re treading at every step here. You genuinely don’t seem to realize that your leap from whatever experience you’d had over there, to your present worldview of Oneness, is an unsupported one. That it simply isn’t rational to believe in what you believe—as far as I can make out by talking with you.
.
No matter. Let’s leave this be, we’re simply going around in circles now. And I’m done probing, I’m doing trying to figure this out. No more questions from me, no more digging for clarifications.
But if you’d like to continue to talk about your journey and your experiences, then I’m very happy to listen on (without necessarily reading into your words any deeper meanings). Your account of your journey and your experiences is interesting, and fun too, and in an odd kind of way I find myself empathizing.
.
Oh, and although you do keep insisting that you’re impervious to this kind of thing, still, if in the course of my probing, I’ve ended up pressing up any sensitive spots (for instance by openly doubting, and in fact now having come close to actually dismissing, your deepest beliefs), then my apologies! There was no other way of doing this, other than with some degree of straight talk.

@Dungeness and other interested @Disrespected readers – Hello dear ones
WooDrop #3
Dungeness poetically opined thusly: “Villager: I’m terribly sorry, Mr. Frog, but you’ve fallen in our well.
Be still or you’ll sink deeper. Grab this rope.”
Woo is confused (who, you say, that is for woo to know and you to find out….).
Woo reads your metaphor differently.
Some frog, in an apparent state of ecstatic happiness and unitary consciousness, gets hijacked by some random villager who then presumes to tell the frog it is in a dire predicament from which it needs extraction, to the villagers level of reality?
It seems to woo that what is actually going on here is that there is no well and that what the villager is actually selling to the frog is an imprisonment that didn’t exist prior to this indoctrination; in such a circumstance, then yes, “realisation”, or “escaping the well” is as instant and simple as realising you’re not actually in a well, after all.
And so it is with adherents of eastern religions and schools of metaphysical thought. Nobody is born in the “bondage” of “karma” or “reincarnation”, these are all conceptual and intellectual beliefs by which we must become conditioned and indoctrinated to give them any credence. They hold absolutely no reality on any level whatsoever if you have not been exposed to these mental viruses, or if you simply do not believe them.
Karma is the biggest crock of shit. Listening to RS gurus like Gurinder spin themselves into babbling and incoherent repeatedly self-contradictory loops trying to make sense out of the messy morass that is karma theory is, for one woo at least, highly amusing to behold. I mean for anyone not conditioned to believe he knows what he’s talking about, the obvious absurdity of his answers on questions of karma, destiny being unchanging, but meditation changing your ability to cope with it, that effort needs to me made in meditation etc etc…..I mean seriously, if he wasn’t being listened to by unquestioning sycophants you’d have to laugh!
And so it is….the villager is trying to tell a happy being that, actually, it is deeply unhappy. The villager knows best.
Woo wonders, perhaps it is the villager who is unhappy, and all this talk of falling into deep wells merely an expression or projection of their own self?
Woo knows?

Prof. Assagioli {Psych synthesis], if i remember correctly, stated that, symptoms related to the spiritual development of a person, often resemble those of problems that urge people to visit a psychotherapist.
For that reason, or the other way around, many so called spiritual developments are in fact nothing else or more than psychological problem solving. Let it be clear they too can be impressive, but they are not the same as a step forwards on a spiritual path.
It is remarkable, that the practises that passed here last days, have all their roots in those activities of the seventies and “the pioneers” of those days that travelled to the east … with central themes of being ANTI this or that .. mostly establishment and authoritative figures … ending up with practices and viewpoints that are far worse than they revolted against.
It makes me time and again think of the movie of last emperor, in which the old feudal rule and its outward show of beaty, is replaced by communist salary men in green uniforms.

>>And so it is with adherents of eastern religions and schools of metaphysical thought. Nobody is born in the “bondage” of “karma” or “reincarnation”, these are all conceptual and intellectual beliefs by which we must become conditioned and indoctrinated to give them any credence. They hold absolutely no reality on any level whatsoever if you have not been exposed to these mental viruses, or if you simply do not believe them.<< So, because the rare indigenous tribes that have not witnessed the western world the things in the western world just do not exist. Naturally for THEM the concepts of our world are not related to any content and for that reason cannot exist.

WooDrop #4
“Quote of the Day
“We meditate because we want to go back to the Father and escape from birth and death. That is the purpose of meditation. ”
— Maharaj Charan Singh Ji —
Posted by: 🙏 Charan Singh 🙏 | June 01, 2021 at 06:23 PM”
Nice to see Charan Singh posting and quoting himself on this blog.
Yes you are absolutely correct Mr Singh.
But he obvious question that arises is, why did you us tell about separation from the “Father” and that we need to “escape birth and death” in the first place? I had no feeling of separation or fear of birth and death prior to this (or, more likely, it was my fear of THIS birth and inevitable “death” that so terrifies me that it makes me lend credence to your strange, incoherent and completely unproven “realities”?).
The next question that arises is, did this “Father” not place me “here” in the first place; am I to assert my own will and try to “escape” to somewhere other than where “Mother’s” omnipotent will has placed me? Such egotism!
This is a strange situation……meditation seems to be a package deal…..it comes with fear, the feeling of separation, effort, and the sole desire to “escape birth and death”.
Woo suggests it is no great surprise or mystery why there is a seemingly infinite line of RS initiates queuing up to the microphone to state their absolute fear and failure with RS meditation.
It is joyless from it’s inception. Woo says y’all need to find real meditation masters to find real inspiration to meditate, not symbolic figureheads.
Woo out.

>>Karma is the biggest crock of shit<< For those human beings that have a desire for an explanation why things are as they are and not want to lean on the fictive stick of "chance", karma is the most beautiful theory human scientists have come up with. It carries all the attributes of a well developed scientific theory . Before things can be proved scientifically they first must exist as an theory.

>> But he obvious question that arises is, why did you us tell about separation from the “Father” and that we need to “escape birth and death” in the first place? I had no feeling of separation or fear of birth and death prior to this (or, more likely, it was my fear of THIS birth and inevitable “death” that so terrifies me that it makes me lend credence to your strange, incoherent and completely unproven “realities”?).<< You are told about birth and death, you have seen children be born and relatives seen die .. i suppose .... but for YOU both birth and death are EMPTY concepts and as such have no reality whatsoever.

Nobody needs to explain or prove to themselves and others that the food in this or that restaurant is unpalatable in order to decide not to go to that restaurant.
Or to argue about the [doubtful] expertise of the chefs in the kitchen, the behaviour of the staff in the restaurant and the products they serve to the public.
These types of decisions are only related to the visitor,his likes and dislikes and not his expertise.
Of course, if one finds pleasure in doing it ..one is free to do it, certainly in a country where “hate talk” is appreciated as the height of freedom of speech.
But if one is not a qualified chef or seasoned visitor of different restaurants of class one selves, ones comments easily become “informative” about the commenter.

WooDrop #5
Beloved Um wrote: “You are told about birth and death, you have seen children be born and relatives seen die .. i suppose …. but for YOU both birth and death are EMPTY concepts and as such have no reality whatsoever.”
“For those human beings that have a desire for an explanation why things are as they are and not want to lean on the fictive stick of “chance”, karma is the most beautiful theory human scientists have come up with. It carries all the attributes of a well developed scientific theory .
I think this is the problem, lots of people mixing apples and pears.
First of all, the theory of cause and effect is not karma theory in any way, shape or form. One of the great imprisonments of souls and minds has been the association of the cause and effect of matter and materiality to consciousness, being and the “soul”.
Listening to eastern and new-age guru types talk about “karma” is not beautiful or elegant, it is a nonsensical, sprawling, repeatedly self-contradictory and hypocritical mess of uncritical and lazy thinking. Let’s please not conflate the simplistic elegance of cause and effect applied to matter with Gurus claiming rebirth as a human being *only* due to being fed an egg whilst unconscious on a deathbed. That would just be bizarre and surreal.
As for “ME” only seeing birth and death as a concept, but others having seen relatives die etc so it being real for them, I think you may be misunderstand my point. Of course birth and death are real in the sense that is the experience we are all having. That goes without question. The issue is the “birth and death” Charan is referring to is clearly births and deaths we have no awareness of or reasonable reason to believe in. Even the most deluded on RS believers do not imagine they will “escape” THIS “birth and death”. Even RS meditation and RS gurus aren’t THAT powerful 🙂 So being afraid of relatives or oneself dying is aided by Charan’s claim, as his method cannot affect THIS birth and death…..it only affects some unseen, hypothetical cycle of “births and deaths” and about which we must be very fearful, even if one is rather enjoying the current incarnation quite immensely……apparently such a one should shun their gratitude towards reality AS IT IS, and must assert some control and effort to escape it……..but of course all our actions and completely predetermined and outside our control……..wait, isn’t that contradictory……:-/
So, first we must imagine, believe and have faith in something that, actually, doesn’t exist (at least for the vast majority of living beings, remarkably even those that completely believe and are indoctrinated by this belief-set, they have absolutely no evidence or persuasive argument for it’s existence…..all talk of juridical karma as the driving force for transmigration is simply mental masturbation with no basis in any experiential reality (including people who claim to actually experience “past life memories”, or NDes etc, as absolutely nobody mentions juridical karma as a force in the universe and their “incarnation”….why not?).
Thank goodness y’all have a saviour in these be-turbaned children and grand children of other be-turbaned saviours, they will ensure you are very aware of just how miserable reality is.
Woo

@ Wooanon
As for “ME” only seeing birth and death as a concept, but others having seen relatives die etc so it being real for them, I think you may be misunderstand my point. Of course birth and death are real in the sense that is the experience we are all having.
I did not write that only others witnessed birth and death, i wanted to put before you just the simple fact that YOU do not know whether birth and death are real or not. For you these are just empty concepts … you have seen others born and die upon which you conclude it will happen to you … is is not an experience, proved fact.
You wrote
>>So, first we must imagine, believe and have faith in something that, actually, doesn’t exist (at least for the vast majority of living beings, …..<< Yes, before you can prove an hypothesis to be true or false you have to accept it. Proof goes AFTER that acceptance ... faith goes after proof. Ofcourse most would like it to be the other way around. If you want to falsify the hypothesis the mystics of all places and times have put before humanity ... I wish you good luck in comming up with something better to explain the facts of life, the meaning of life. Nobody needs to use it ... meaning is attributed ... but if you do or not do, it changes the way of life. And Wooanon My dad, blessings be upon his soul for eternity, taught me a simple lesson on young age that facts, things, material or abstract are like tools and whether they are beneficial or not depends not upon these tools but the upond the user. One day I put before him the observation that many monks in the school had an cramped facial expression most of the times. So I asked him if he knew why that might be. He murmured ..Son, it is celibacy and sighted, the last was his prayer before the lord what he had done to deserve such ignorant son and it was often a sign that there was no further discussion. As I insisted to explain himself he said: "Look, celibacy is a problem for all men but if you have no idea what its purpose is, it becomes an millstone around one's neck. In this country there are many very strict communities of protestants. Part of these communities have the facial expression of the named monks, for them their believe has become un burden in other communities following the same doctrines, the faces are relaxed so to say. Those who come to the path bring with them the social an cultural imprints related to how to deal with religion ... no dogma tells its followers how to deal with it. They the followers...ATTRIBUTE ...the meaning. For me karma etc is just a rational and loving explanation of the facts of life

@ It seems to woo that what is actually going on here is that there is no well and that what the villager is
@ actually selling to the frog is an imprisonment that didn’t exist prior to this indoctrination; in such a
@ circumstance, then yes, “realisation”, or “escaping the well” is as instant and simple as realising
@ you’re not actually in a well, after all.
No, “Woo-Osho San” the villager is only reacting to the Frog’s evangelism
that enlightenment is as instant as reading a fortune cookie. The Villager
accepts, but just doesn’t applaud, the Frog’s choices as a matter of fact.
With the needed preparation, devotional intensity, and effort as backdrop,
enlightenment can happen instantaneously. In differing paths too.
But something in the Frog’s evangelical zeal rings uninformed and glib to
the Villager’s ear. Particularly with mention of 400 quid seminars, buckets
of F-bombs, and bullying to compel, er, disciples, to deal with “their b.s.”
The Villager wasn’t deprecating the efficacy but only offering a “rope” in
case the Frog decided on an alternative approach to get the heck out of
that well. They may well share a spot of tea on the journey or, if you like,
that “non-journey”.

WooDrop #6
I was once walking with my Master, OshoRobbins, and I happened to glance upon a dog urinating against a Church wall, and I asked my Master, “does a dog have buddha nature or not?”. Master replied, “Woo!”.
In an instant “I” disappeared and only Woo could be found.
Follow the trail little doggies, a big biscuit awaits the courageous.
@”If you want to falsify the hypothesis the mystics of all places and times have put before humanity … I wish you good luck in comming up with something better to explain the facts of life, the meaning of life.”
Who are these “mystics of all places and times”? Surely you just mean scholars, pandits and teachers from the Indian sub-continent post Buddha? This question is as misleading as asking if I want to falsify the hypothesis of “mystics of all places and times” who have stated Jesus Christ is the sole saviour of all humanity. This is is just another socio-cultural-linguistic specific phenomena in time, the notion or “reality” of this hypothesis is completely irrelevant to somebody who hasn’t heard of Jesus Christ, meaningless and irrelevant.
The question woo asks – after more than 3 decades of woo-self deeply exploring all such woo-subjects – is it *really* “mystics of all places and times” who’ve come up with this theory? Woo thinks not. But woo does deeply appreciate your sharing of your recollections with your father. I often enjoy your way of saying things, your insights, even if I very often disagree.
@”No, “Woo-Osho San” the villager is only reacting to the Frog’s evangelism
that enlightenment is as instant as reading a fortune cookie.” & “But something in the Frog’s evangelical zeal rings uninformed and glib to
the Villager’s ear. Particularly with mention of 400 quid seminars, buckets
of F-bombs, and bullying to compel, er, disciples, to deal with “their b.s.”
First of all, Woo is merely a humble and adoring servant of the Great Huzur Maharaj Baba Sant Osho Robbins Ji Maharaj. I grind myself into dust as offering to his lotus-petalled feet in contrition for having the lowly woo adjoined to His Glorious Name. Really we should show due respect and not even sully His name by uttering it from our sinful and degenerate lips.
Second-wise, Ah! I did not realise the frog was evangelising; I thought it was merely expressing it’s own experience, not imposing their reality on somebody else, like the villager imposing wells, when, well, maybe a well is where frogs are happiest?
Thirdly, “uninformed and glib” is very subjective. It can seem very “uninformed and glib” to some to believe
that extremely greedy and almost certainly fraudulent billionaire Babas from the Punjab who inherent their positions through family dynasties lasting decades have some special level of “realisation” or insight about reality, or that they embody in any way, shape or form what a “Pooran Satguru” is as defined in their very own magical-thinking dogma, satsangs and literature etc. Would you not agree it is a matter of perspective, and being open to those other perspectives rather than judging them a priori? Your man Osho was born into RS, was an official satsang speaker, met and stayed with several other RS gurus etc….he knows where you’re coming from; have you even tried the kind of intensive Osho refers to?
Yes, uninformed and glib; common characteristics of humans “debating” online.
Woo la la

@ Woo san
The proof of the transcendental, the existence of the divine and everything related to it, has been asked since antiquity and never been given, as it is as impossible to transfer water from one place to the other with a sieve.
The importance of these metaphysic theories, hypothesis and claims is not their proof but their use for those who have faith in them as it gives meaning to the facts of life.
Compare their effects with the effects placebo’s do have in those who take them in good faith.
And to bring a smile on your face:
>> I often enjoy your way of saying things, your insights, even if I very often disagree.<< In one of the strips of "Suzy and spike" as they are recently called in the VS, there is a situation wherein Jerom hits an bolder and Lambik, holding his belly from laughter because the bolder doesn't crack or react. Jerom without moving the expression in his face, says Labic better not laugh ... turning the page one sees an total cracked bolder, with in the cloud, ... the bolder needed time to realise that it was hit.

One answer 4this enceclopaedia above :
It’s like music, . . common music I mean
Can Mozart join his feel with us . . . no, not even when he plays himself
In Amsterdam they have these street organs . . could that ever make me happy ?
Crowds say Yes
Everybody has Shabd LiveStream but some don’t hear
There is nothing to explain about whatever chord of it
Karma decides if you are totally deaf or not and what to do about it
777
Also in my case:
One need two to dance the Tango, mr Osho

–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TLUouyXeI4&list=RDGMEMTmC-2iNKH_l8gQ1LHo9FeQ&index=3

@ Yes, uninformed and glib; common characteristics of humans “debating” online.
You make a good point, WooAnon. It was hasty… made on a dark night
when slipping into a well is far easier and ropes are most effective when
you use them to get yourself out of the well first.

This video made me appreciate Alan Watt’s.
https://youtu.be/dYSQ1NF1hvw

To wahiwooanonji:
An indomitable frog named Manjit
Said that ‘karma’s’ a big pile of shit.
As a result of this view
Understanding – it grew
And belief systems took quite a hit.

@Tim R & Woo,
Ahh… enlightenment at last. You’re spot on—the karma theory is fundamentally flawed and isn’t even a distant relative of cause and effect.
No one can deny cause and effect, but this so called “exact and perfectly balanced theory of karma” is utterly insane. Karma is just another way of saying mentally unbalanced.

Quote Sonia: “Ahh… enlightenment at last. You’re spot on—the karma theory is fundamentally flawed and isn’t even a distant relative of cause and effect.”
…….Huh. Fitting summing up of this thread. Project Obfuscation succeeds spectacularly. Congratulations, manjit, on your stellar service in aid of your Master.
Not to worry, my work is done. And my work consisted of nothing more of disinterested evaluation for none other than myself, so that your efforts, while they appear curious to me, and revealing as well, do not really clash with mine, at all.
Food for thought. At more levels than one. Thanks for introducing this interesting meta angle, this final and very interesting twist in the tale.

FINAL WOODROP ALERT!!!
It seems my identity may have been compromised.
I am afraid for my safety.
I have already been threatened by murky, apparently humourless anonymous online characters whose online communications I have not even read in several weeks or months accusing me of “obfuscating” their important plans, and claiming to have revelations about me.
Further, it seems some people are clocking onto this karmic theory crock of shit – and that saying “so and so happened because of karma” is no more factually evident, informative or predictive of other future events than saying “shit happens”. This is very a very dangerous situation for me, there are agents of karma everywhere. And they’re generally a pretty unhappy bunch.
So I must leave you all with my last WooDrop before heading off to my secret cave in the Himalayan mountains;
Get a bat; but treat it kindly.
Gently encourage it to listen to the following audio on loop 12 times.
https://youtu.be/LxQxY3Imj2s
Then feed the bat a very nice vegan bat-meal (errr, you know, whatever bats like to eat).
Then gently massage it’s belly to encourage it to defecate.
Then take that shit and smoke it in a pipe.
This is Woo’s last information drop.
PS – Whatever ever happened to Jesse? Woo misses that obscene fool.
May you all be blessed by a vision of Woo

And may you be blest with an anchoring in reason. Truth is unpretentious, and cleverness sometimes gets in the way of comprehension.
Instead of knowledge and wisdom, what one finds is irony. Meta-irony that leaves one …bemused, and wiser. All that glitters, and so forth.

Hey Appreciative Reader. Based on our earlier, very lengthy discussions I’ve had with yourself, I thought I would provide a more honest and straightforward reply to your recent comments.
First of all, with all your resolute “anchoring in reason”, imagine how your 2 recent comments read to me, somebody who hadn’t read more than a single line of your comments in more than several weeks and didn’t respond or (presumably, and if not it’s purely accidental) refer to, or have any concern or consideration to any of your comments in any way? Please consider it suggests your “reasoning” has lead you into imaginary motivations on my part, as well as that you consider yourself to be the centre of everyones, or at least my, attention. I have far more pressing concerns to attend to 🙂 I post about whatever I feel like posting about whenever I post, I can assure you your posts on this blog have absolutely no influence on the content.
As to why I haven’t read your posts in a while, it’s because we’ve already engaged in very lengthy discussions in the past on more than one occasion. I personally feel I understand the conceptual loops you’ve spun yourself into, and they simply do not warrant the investment of time engaging with further. Don’t take it personally; I can assure you far more people have forcefully told me they disapprove of my lengthy posts, and probably won’t read them. If you feel affronted by my lack of interest in your insistence of containing mystical experience within your so-called rational intellectual concepts, please consider the attitude I express towards those who have told me the same – who gives a shit, I post for my own pleasure and have no obligation to anyone, just as they have no obligation to read a single word of it.
Here’s a link to plenty of woo:
https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references
Of course it is not comprehensive, but there is probably a few years worth of research into the various “rational” and scientific evidence of “woo”. It should at least make one aware there is just so much mystery there.
As for the non-dual “mystical experience”, it is beyond words and concepts, and no amount of your insistence upon your intellectual rationality being able to somehow prove or demonstrate it’s “reality” will change that. Your posts read to me like somebody sidling up to the ocean with a thimble and insisting they be able to fit a whole ocean into it, otherwise the ocean doesn’t exist.
You are of course welcome to believe you and your rationality is somehow seeing into the nature of reality more clearly than those blinded by woo. It really is no concern of mine. Just don’t expect me, manjit, to pay exclusive attention to you and your concerns in my posts, as your 2 recent posts quite bizarrely suggest you imagine I should be or indeed am doing.
That’s as honestly and politely as I can respond to your 2 recent posts, which, strictly rationally speaking, were astonishingly non sequitur to anything I actually wrote. For me to comment any further almost demands that I descend into the absurdity of the afore-happenstances of WooAnon, because that is quite literally how absurd I find the whole situation.
I wish you luck on your journey.
🙂

Fair enough. I may have misjudged your comment, and your intent.
I could spell out what led me to what I’d concluded, as far as your comments. Both in terms of mine, as well as regardless of that. And also spelt out whence the jaw-dropping irony, in the unlikely case that that isn’t obvious, and already understood. But I may have wasted enough time already, others’ no less than mine, and done more than my share of spelling things out. Any more would amount to exhibitionism.
Sure, I wish you well too. But I think I’ve actually been the drunk in um’s joke — which too you may not have read, of course, so that I feel compelled to offer up a defense of my self-referential indulgence, by pointing to my probably foolish, and yes, again self-indulgent, disappointment with this thread. I know, silly of me to get so invested in murky anonymous online interactions. But I did want to find my key. And no harm done, after all.
Cheers.

P.S. I haven’t checked out your link yet, but I will. Thanks for posting it.

I’m clearly into cruelty-to-dead-equines stage now, with this whole thing here, and well past the stage when I should be moving resolutely away, but as far as this:
“As for the non-dual “mystical experience”, it is beyond words and concepts, and no amount of your insistence upon your intellectual rationality being able to somehow prove or demonstrate it’s “reality” will change that. Your posts read to me like somebody sidling up to the ocean with a thimble and insisting they be able to fit a whole ocean into it, otherwise the ocean doesn’t exist.”
If you’re still here, manjit, the above is the kind of thing that sounds, you know, deep, profound. Yet, when you think about it, it is entirely nonsensical.
The fact is, if people come over with tall tales of oceans, or of a wider reality than I see on the walls of my cave, or beyond my two-dimensional world, then it is entirely reasonable to ask for evidence. Even if one is inclined to keep an open mind — which I myself am — as far as objective evidence, even then, it is entirely reasonable to at least ask for a detailed explanation, and certainly for a clear and cogent and reasonable and internally consistent account of how exactly it is our prophet has come across said ocean, or said world beyond cave, or said three-dimensional reality beyond my own two dimensions.
If none of this is forthcoming, despite repeated attempts, and despite having taken a great deal of trouble over said attempts, then it would be foolish to continue to to be taken in.
Sure, you post for your pleasure. As do the other sundry mystics that populate these pages, and in fact every other page everywhere, and not just online. And absolutely, others can choose not to read what you post, or engage with what you say. That is merely stating the blindingly obvious. Neither of us owes the other anything at all.
What this examination amounts to are the actual reasons that someone who does choose to engage with this sort of thing would have to either accept or to reject these experiences and worldviews, that Osho Robbins and you profess. These discussions aren’t street theater, at least not where I’m concerned. They aren’t empty posturing, at least not from my side. And yet, that is exactly what the other end seems to amount to. And I say this basis what I have myself seen and heard and understood. Whether the posturing is fraudulent in nature, or merely owes to delusion and the attempt to keep up the delusion in the face of cognitive dissonance when confronted with reality, that is something I do not know. I’d like to charitably assume the latter.
And of course, it is always possible that despite every appearance to the contrary the ocean does rage on beyond the grasp of the thimble. But that can be said of every crazed claim ever heard. That would apply equally to the RSSB claims that you so love to denounce, or to psychic powers, to any and every, yes, woo, that floats around in this world. It is spectacular special pleading to hold some beliefs like the RSSB faithfuls’ to account, while invoking thimbles and oceans to in effect give a free pass to your own pet woo.
I was astonished with your performance in this thread. Because performance is what it amounts to. Far less words and far less effort and far less time invested would have sufficed to clarify questions asked here, and asked in the past, if such clarification were within your power. As for your not wanting to, sure, I respect that, but then that raises the question why someone would want to coyly hint again and again at some profound depth of experience, but every time step back when clear and cogent elucidation is requested.
I’ve tried to extend the benefit of the doubt as far as I humanly could. Not just out of personal regard (because that regard was and is fact, the murky anonymous nature of these particular interactions notwithstanding), but also because, I suppose, of hopes and wishes that are to my own account. It seems reasonable to extend it no more.
Sure, as you say you don’t give a shit either way. Understood. I could say the same, that I don’t give a shit either, to whether you give a shit, except that wouldn’t be true. I do give a shit, as evidenced by the considerable time and effort I’ve given over these exchanges.
On reflection, I don’t regret these exchanges, at all. Neither with you, nor with Osho Robbins. I’ve personally learned a great deal from both of you, both directly from what you’ve said, and also from my own cogitations around what you’ve said. Regardless of how I end up seeing your experiences now, for that I’m grateful.

@ AR
In the story of the man looking for his lost keys, I never portrayed him as a “drunk” … It is tempting to do so as it makes the character seen in another light but it changes also the atmosphere of the scenery.
In the story as i told it, the man looking for his keys, is addressed by his “friend” .. a well wisher to him. He could also have met somebody else, someone that was more than willing to search the streets with him.
The “scout” from this or that indigenous tribe, after having come to know all the gadgets of the western world, one day returns to his tribe, sharing what he came to see and experience.
The only means he has is to use the language of his people, the language that has its roots in the forests and lacks concepts for Internet, Pc and everything related to it.
He cannot make his fellow tribes people experience what he has seen. Whatever they discuss and whatever concept they use of their own language it will be for ever impossible to even create a faint idea of the reality he has seen.
What he says can only be an invitation for other tribes people, if they so wish, to go also to the west/east to see for themselves.
Or … he can try to disqualify the “scout” as an qualified reporter. … yes , there are many “storytellers” around …and yes, some of these stories are fantasies.

@Appreciative Reader
https://youtu.be/iXyLbU1GGqU
Check out at 15 mins in

I honestly wish all these posts and words were about
the vâks – just to save your physical body
We took Ivermectine ( go youtube) which harmless molecule
our gov banned november 2019
7

@AR
“I don’t claim to be enlightened – but sometimes just for a laugh I will say I am just to engage you because you believe there is such a thing.”
……………..But I’ve already told you, many times, that I DON’T believe there is such a thing. (I am interested in this kind of thing, and I do keep an open mind, but I decidedly don’t believe in this kind of claptrap, and nor would I actually accept such even if I came face to face with something like this, not without rigorous verification.)
Given that I don’t believe in this kind of thing, why do you keep saying that you’re saying these things simply to engage with my belief? That makes no sense at all!
And you’re literally saying here that you’re simply saying things that you know aren’t true! Why, for what reason? Why keep saying these random things that you simply cannot defend, and that you yourself say aren’t true?
I wasn’t referring to YOU (AR) specifically. I was saying “Just to engage YOU – (not AR – a general “you”)
This conversation would be difficult enough in person – and in writing – much more so.
Some of the points that we are both attempting to make are easily mis-understood.
For instance – I am attempting to say that “Enlightenment is not an experience”
To which you may reasonably ask “Well what the heck is it then?”
Seeing “Light” or the radiant form is an experience.
It happens at a certain time and you can explain the experience.
But…..
All experience requires TWO – The experience and the experiencer.
In enlightenment the experiencer suddenly disappears. There is no more duality. No more “ME” to evaluate the experience. Non-duality is not an experience. It cannot be explained within time and it never happened within time because it is a jump out of the timeline.
A realisation or an awakening is not at experience – so cannot fit into the categories you state.
Also – I was attempting to explain the TIME/SPACE thing to you and there was a reason for the redefinition of the real/unreal, but you cannot see it because you are too focussed on the “logical fallacy”.
I am not attempting to show you through logic. I don’t have a belief that I need to prove.
The awakening is not a belief and cannot be explained through logic or words.
If it could – I could directly transfer it to you through logic.
You would simply have to follow my logic and you would get there too.
It would be provable then through logic.

The TIME/SPACE thing I explained does make sense – but for some reason – not to you,
it is pretty obvious that the dimension of TIME is necessary for movement (change) to happen. That is not really subject to debate. hence the speed = distance/time formula.
also no time does not mean make time = 0, which would mean infinite speed. no time means time would be infinite.
if something moves VERY VERY SLOWLY – it takes say 1000 years to move an inch – that is MORE TIME than a car speeding at 60 miles per hour.
The TIME means “HOW LONG IT TAKES”
so in a no movement state – it takes an infinite number of years to move
even 1 mm.
All this was not to prove anything – but just to be open to the possibility that perhaps time / space is not as solid/known/definite as we believe it is.
Realisation cannot dawn on a mind that believes it knows.
An atheist misses it because he believes his logic is supreme. It’s not.
It (logic) only serves him when trying to show a belief has no basis.
It is useless in the arena of a subjective world.
it’s useful to prove to a christian that his belief is unfounded because logical fallacies lead to his belief.
You cannot use that here – because I don’t have a belief in the first place.
non-duality is not a belief – if you think it is – then you don’t understand what it is – and logic won’t help

The awakening is not a belief and cannot be explained through logic or words.
Osho: It can ; and more compact
Enlightened : 1 * 1 = 1
Not so much , : 0 * 1 = 1
further:
The under educated
The stubborn
Beside this math, . . . are atheists ever in Love?
777

A realisation or an awakening is not at experience – so cannot fit into the categories you state.
NOT CORRECT
You deny the sinusoide which is Life ( always )
One can very well fit in your ONE description, next be TWO & ONE at the same moment, eventually : “Eli Eli Sabakhtani”, . . . all according the The MauJ
777

Almost All, Krishnamurty included assume that God is Static
S/HE IS DYNAMIC malgré The (nice try) Purusha Concept
The WAVE can be hyper long , almost eternal à la Fibunacci_Reversed
The Golden Rule
THE SOUL
SHABD
777

Quote Osho Robbins:
“This conversation would be difficult enough in person – and in writing – much more so.
Some of the points that we are both attempting to make are easily mis-understood.”
.
…….I appreciate that, Osho Robbins. And absolutely, thanks for taking the effort to cut through what you see are these misunderstandings in order to reach out to me.
——-
“In enlightenment the experiencer suddenly disappears. There is no more duality. No more “ME” to evaluate the experience. Non-duality is not an experience. It cannot be explained within time and it never happened within time because it is a jump out of the timeline.
A realisation or an awakening is not at experience – so cannot fit into the categories you state.”
.
…….See, that’s just the thing. At one level this is fascinating to me, and I am most eager to understand, and if at all possible to replicate this …perception, I guess you’d call it.
On the other hand, and leaving apart the fascinating nature of this perception itself, here’s the thing: Just read those sentences of yours quoted just above. They represent a means of arriving at knowledge, and, specifically, a means of arriving at knowledge of Oneness.
There are three ways of looking at this. The first is deliberate misrepresentation, and the second is delusion. I’m going to ignore those two possibilities, because in those cases there’s nothing really to talk about. I’m going to assume, for now, that your Oneness understanding was bona fide. Which means, going by the above, that there is indeed some faculty within us that lets us arrive at that kind of knowledge. Do you see the enormity in this declaration? That’s in itself a fantastic, huge claim.
See, we’d discussed the means of arriving at knowledge earlier. To recap, they were, a, vanilla perception; and, b, reasoning and mental constructs; and, c, cultural constructs.
Now do you see what I’m getting at? You’re saying there is a fourth mode of arriving at knowledge, that is separate from the above three, that lets you arrive at an infallible perception of Oneness. What you have there is, clearly, a kind of direct mystical perception, our old friend the DMP (as you’d christened the fella yourself). Sure, that nature of this mystical perception is different than the divine son et lumiere claimed by the RSSB times (as well as Tantrics), but DMP is exactly what it is, though of a different, unitary type. Do you see that? It’s clear day, this much. I hope you do see this, now that I’m spelling this out like this?
This is not regular intuition, a la Newton. Because that kind of intuition is fallible. Besides all that kind of intuition is, is a coming together of the first three modes of arriving at knowledge, which you’re claiming your own Realization isn’t.
Therefore, what you’re claiming here is a DMP, no less. Are we agreed on that much?
——-
“I am not attempting to show you through logic. I don’t have a belief that I need to prove.
The awakening is not a belief and cannot be explained through logic or words.
If it could – I could directly transfer it to you through logic.
You would simply have to follow my logic and you would get there too.
It would be provable then through logic.”
.
…….Osho Robbins, I have already addressed this! Very clearly, I think. In that series of three posts that you said made your head hurt. You could just go back and read what I said there. Or … hell, rather than send you back to that earlier post, let me just repeat what I’d said.
First, you do have a belief. The belief of Oneness. Right or wrong, that is a belief. Regardless of how you arrived at that belief, you do have that belief, that there’s this Oneness thing. Regardless of whether you need to prove it to me or not, you do have that belief, that there’s this Oneness thing.
Second, I’ve already discussed proof with you. You simply cannot, ever, “prove” things outside of logic and math. You just can’t. Whether through regular intuition, or through delusion, or through DMP, you’ve arrived at this “realization” of Oneness. Just like Newton had arrived at this idea of gravity.
Now it isn’t a question of proving any of this. It is a question of what formulations follow from that intuition. And there are two stages here, that are necessary before you yourself can, if you’re a rational person, trust your own intuition. The first stage is detailed formulation. So all of what you’ve said here, everything that you’ve posted here in this exchange with me, clearly follows from your realization of Oneness. As such it is your de facto formulation of Oneness. Therefore, rationally speaking, you cannot step away from having to go back and examine every objection I’ve raised to every bit of your formulation, and tackle each and every one of them. Unless you are able to satisfactorily address every one of my objections, you must necessarily either go back and keep refining your formulations until they do pass muster, or else admit that your formulation is wanting, and that, therefore, your intuition itself is clearly erroneous. That’s the only rational thing to do. That’s what Newton, whom you yourself brought into the discussion, would have done. And that necessarily will require you to go back and squarely address every objection I’ve raised in this thread, to the things you’ve said here.
And even if you’re able to do that, and even if you do pass the stage of formulation, there’s still the stage of evidence. Without that, while your perfect forumuation — should you manage that perfect formulation — will compel us to take your intuition seriously, we’ll still not quite accept it. Thing is, any hypothesis that affects the real world not a jot, and leaves no evidence, simply doesn’t exist at all, for all practical purposes. You keep agreeing with this, and you sometimes say this yourself, and yet you keep returning to repeating again and again, “There is just the One”. Well, it is simply not rational to do that.
Understand. There’s two parts to this exercise of ours. You’ve had this Realization of Oneness, this intuition. First is, you’re trying to get me to replicate that intuition. Fair enough. But that in itself isn’t enough. Even if we both get the same intuition, that simply does not mean that that intuition, that that perception, is true. To establish the truth value of your (or our) intuition, we need to first do the formulation thing, and then the evidence thing. Otherwise at best it is a fun speculation, no more.
——-
“The TIME/SPACE thing I explained does make sense – but for some reason – not to you,
it is pretty obvious that the dimension of TIME is necessary for movement (change) to happen. That is not really subject to debate. hence the speed = distance/time formula.
also no time does not mean make time = 0, which would mean infinite speed. no time means time would be infinite.
if something moves VERY VERY SLOWLY – it takes say 1000 years to move an inch – that is MORE TIME than a car speeding at 60 miles per hour.
The TIME means “HOW LONG IT TAKES”
so in a no movement state – it takes an infinite number of years to move
even 1 mm.
All this was not to prove anything – but just to be open to the possibility that perhaps time / space is not as solid/known/definite as we believe it is.”
.
…….I have already clearly, very clearly, shown you that the time-space thing you talk about is simply NOT CORRECT. Here, let me do that again.
See, math isn’t magic. Just we can state our observations in English, similarly we can state our observations more precisely by using math. Think of math as language. Just like simply being able to say words in English in perfect grammar does not make it true, in the same way, merely expressing something mathematically does not magically make it forever inviolate.
Whether you express it mathematically or in English, the thing is, when you’re invoking a place outside of time and space, you’re merely assuming a hypothetical, and you’re invoking something we simply know nothing about. True, movement and change as we know it will probably not exist in that state. Equally, though, changelessness and permanence as we conceive it in this universe will probably not obtain either, in that state. These formulas involving time and space and distance and speed and acceleration and inertia and mass and whatnot, they’re meaningless: because those formulas have meaning in this world because we have observed them to have meaning; and in a universe where different conditions obtain, entirely different physical laws may well operate. To claim that that state is changeless is as absurd to claim that that state is in a state of constant flux. We simply cannot go around tagging these wholly random qualities to that state that we’re concocting out of whole cloth.
…….As for me being open to the possibility that time and space are not as solid as we believe it is, well, duh, that’s done, already. In assuming a hypothetical beyond time and place, I’m hypothetically already assuming that, for the sake of experience. In that hypothetical I’m myself saying that there’s no time and space, because that’s what we’ve assumed. Of course I’m open to that, in that hypothetical. I’m saying, myself, that movement and change as we know it will probably not obtain there. But you’re wrong in your claim of changeless, because changeless as we conceive of it here will also probably not obtain there. You can’t just go concocting these things out of whole cloth like this.
——-
“An atheist misses it because he believes his logic is supreme. It’s not.
It (logic) only serves him when trying to show a belief has no basis.
It is useless in the arena of a subjective world.
it’s useful to prove to a christian that his belief is unfounded because logical fallacies lead to his belief.
You cannot use that here – because I don’t have a belief in the first place.
non-duality is not a belief – if you think it is – then you don’t understand what it is – and logic won’t help”
.
…….Bloody hell. Osho Robbins, you’re simply talking nonsense here. Firstly, your simply repeating five hundred and seven times that “Oneness is not a belief” does not make it not a belief. A belief is exactly what it is. Whether that belief is correct or not, that is a separate question. But that it is a belief, is self-evidently true.
And secondly, there’s nothing, nowhere, that is out of reach of rationality. To claim that is to not understand what rationality even is. Even if we literally lived in a world of magic, as in the kind of magic Gandalf commands, or the kind that Dumbledore teaches, even in such a world there is no reason why rationality and empiricism will not apply, exactly as much as it does in this world. Subjectivity is NOT outside of the purview of rationality. Nothing at all is outside the purview of rationality, nothing at all. Not God, not the devil, not gremlins, not pixies, nothing at all.
And besides, do you see the spectacular special pleading, the spectacular double standards, that you employ here? You are willing to debunk the cherished beliefs of the Christian, and the RSSB-ite, and the Muslim, and the what-have-you; but somehow, your own pet beliefs and ideas are exempt from all of this, somehow your own cherished beliefs are not beliefs but facts. I mean, don’t you see how entirely nonsensical is your approach?
That we’re having this conversation means I’m not laughing your Realization out as nonsensical, I am indeed taking it seriously. But no Realization is outside of the bounds of rational understanding, not even something that is literally magical.
Don’t keep repeating “I don’t have a belief”. You do, Osho Robbins. Your belief of Oneness is a belief, just that. (Which is not to say it is wrong. In my earlier example, my belief that you’ve killed your boss is a belief. I arrived at that belief basis what I myself saw and heard. Whether your belief of Oneness is right or wrong, is a separate matter, and I’ve already discussed how we can show which it is.)

@Appreciative Reader
https://youtu.be/iXyLbU1GGqU
Check out at 15 mins in
Posted by: Osho Robbins | June 07, 2021 at 04:54 PM
———————————
Looks like an interesting talk!
(I’ve read a bit of UGK, but haven’t actually seen him speak, like in a vid. Man seems to affect the appearance his more famous namesake, with the hair and all, doesn’t he?)
Bit rushed now, and I’ve only just gone through less than a minute of it for the present. But I’ve bookmarked this, and have every intention of returning to it as soon as I’m able. Thanks much for the reference, Osho Robbins.

Hi Appreciative
I hope you don’t mind. Something you wrote caught my attention.
“And secondly, there’s nothing, nowhere, that is out of reach of rationality. To claim that is to not understand what rationality even is. Even if we literally lived in a world of magic, as in the kind of magic Gandalf commands, or the kind that Dumbledore teaches, even in such a world there is no reason why rationality and empiricism will not apply, exactly as much as it does in this world. ”
That’s a little bit circular. You see, if all the premeses are outside someone’s experience, rational thought based on those premeses will lead to a non-sensical conclusion, from the perspective of the person who has no connection to those premeses, and can’t agree or confirm them.
From that perspective, logic breaks down. Of course logic is still the same, but the premeses are so foreign they can’t be agreed upon, and there the machinery of rational thinking grinds to a halt. You can say “logic doesn’t work there” but it’s just the breakdown in agreed premeses. In that situation all the logic in the world won’t bridge the gap in common experience.
Having the broader exposure to those experiences that form the basis of Osho’s claims can reinstate logic and rational thinking upon premeses that are now agreeable, because we have personal evidence of them. Of course you always have the plethora of anecdotal reports, but without a basis of personal experiences they are difficult to tease out.
A second point you make about DMP. That is never fallible. Just as the sun rising every day. It happens. What happened happened. But our interpretation of it, and our communication of it can be flawed as it is filtered through our limited thinking.
Here is another way to put it, in biochemical terms.
The experience of the mystic may be a biochemical experience in another part of the brain.
You know the brain keeps track of time, right? But that is actually quite malleable. We can perceive outside that time keeper. From the individual perspective, time ceases to exist, during that experience. Everything and everyone appears static, frozen. But that may simply be the brain delivering one of its snap shots as a still photo, in full HD, for our inspection, rather than as a moving picture, as the brain normally functions. And as long as we are viewing it from that particular brain center, our moment is endless. Time is no more.
So the mystic, or anyone else for that matter, can speak to their experience. It happened. But the interpretation of that experience for anyone else can be fraught with difficulties.

“Hi Appreciative
I hope you don’t mind. Something you wrote caught my attention.”
.
…….Hey, Spence. Not at all! On the contrary, I thank you for taking the trouble to go through my thoughts as presented here, and point out any flaws or shortcomings you see there.
I’m not really debating some position, not defending some “side”. All I’m trying to do is arrive at the truth. And nor do I have some monopoly on rationality, and am as prone as anyone else to errors and flawed thinking. I’m sincerely grateful to you, and to anyone else, who might show up any blind spots and flaws in how I’m going about this.
.
——-
“That’s a little bit circular. You see, if all the premeses are outside someone’s experience, rational thought based on those premeses will lead to a non-sensical conclusion, from the perspective of the person who has no connection to those premeses, and can’t agree or confirm them.
From that perspective, logic breaks down. Of course logic is still the same, but the premeses are so foreign they can’t be agreed upon, and there the machinery of rational thinking grinds to a halt. You can say “logic doesn’t work there” but it’s just the breakdown in agreed premeses. In that situation all the logic in the world won’t bridge the gap in common experience.
Having the broader exposure to those experiences that form the basis of Osho’s claims can reinstate logic and rational thinking upon premeses that are now agreeable, because we have personal evidence of them. Of course you always have the plethora of anecdotal reports, but without a basis of personal experiences they are difficult to tease out.”
.
…….I agree, seeing that particular comment of mine stand-alone might imply what you’ve read into what I’ve said. But you’ve read my past comments here, and that wasn’t quite what I was wanting to convey.
By “rationality” I wasn’t referring to the closed logical systems that the ancient Greeks were so celebrated for, and which so many philosophers down the ages have tried to replicate and refine. (And your criticism, while entirely sound, would apply, I think to those kinds of closed systems.) I was referring specifically to the scientific method here, as the distillation of the rational process as it applies to the real world, as I’ve elaborated in my comments upthread (but not repeated in full detail in the comment you’ve quoted from).
Osho Robbins, as well as manjit, seem to think that this Oneness phenomenon is somehow outside the purview of rationality and of the scientific method. And I disagree with that thinking in the strongest possible terms.
To begin with, in their particular case, they bring to bear their own rational processes in criticism of other religious and spiritual systems and ideas, such as Christianity, and most conspicuously GSD and RSSB, while claiming their own perceptions and ideas and worldview, that encompasses this Oneness, is somehow beyond reach of those same standards that they are happy to apply to others. And that kind of special pleading and double standards is conspicuously flawed, and entirely repugnant to me.
That apart, and like I said in this comment, I can conceive of no form of reality that rationalism and empiricism, and specifically the scientific method, would not adequately address. Even in the world where Hogwarts is placed in, or Tolkien’s Middle Earth, or for that matter a world in which Osho Robbins’s Oneness obtains, there is no reason whatsoever to imagine rationality, and specifically the scientific method, will not apply, with as much rigor as it does in our own everyday world.
But of course, and as I’ve said earlier in this thread and elsewhere as well, that might necessitate a slight laxity in the standards of objectivity required of evidence, and allow in subjective evidence as well. Which I myself do, as I’ve said in the past, and said upthread as well.
But that is not to say that this subjectivity is impervious to rationality; to the contrary, such subjectivity would need to answer to rigors of the scientific method, as applied to this arena, and hold up to rational enquiry. This laxity does not amount to a free pass; and it most certainly does not amount to a selective free pass that lets through our pet ideas and beliefs while holding to account everyone else’s beliefs.
That is the context in which I’d said what I did. I hope we’re agreed? If not, do please present your further comments and criticism on what I’ve said just now.
.
——-
“A second point you make about DMP. That is never fallible. Just as the sun rising every day. It happens. What happened happened. But our interpretation of it, and our communication of it can be flawed as it is filtered through our limited thinking.
Here is another way to put it, in biochemical terms.
The experience of the mystic may be a biochemical experience in another part of the brain.
You know the brain keeps track of time, right? But that is actually quite malleable. We can perceive outside that time keeper. From the individual perspective, time ceases to exist, during that experience. Everything and everyone appears static, frozen. But that may simply be the brain delivering one of its snap shots as a still photo, in full HD, for our inspection, rather than as a moving picture, as the brain normally functions. And as long as we are viewing it from that particular brain center, our moment is endless. Time is no more.
So the mystic, or anyone else for that matter, can speak to their experience. It happened. But the interpretation of that experience for anyone else can be fraught with difficulties.”
.
…….We were talking of, and I was commenting on, not so much of experiences and perceptions per se, as the knowledge that follows on that perception. You know, those four modes of arriving at knowledge, all of that.
Sure, DMP per se, for that matter even vanilla P per se, is never fallible. One perceives what one perceives. But, like you say, the interpretation we draw from that perception, and the knowledge we end up derive from that perception, that is entirely fallible. And therefore necessarily subject to, first, the test of formulation; and, next, the test of evidence (albeit with the nature of evidence probably somewhat eased, to allow in the subjective).
No perception, whether mystical or otherwise, is either right or wrong. You’re right in saying that. It is what it is. In my earlier example, I’ve heard Osho Robbins say he hates his boss and will kill him, I’ve seen him extract his gun and load it, and I’ve subsequently seen him fire the gun while pointing at his enemy. Those are perceptions, and neither right nor wrong. But where I conclude from the above that Osho Robbins has shot and killed his boss, is an interpretation of my perception, it is knowledge derived from perception, and as such is entirely fallible, and therefore it is necessary to hold it to rigorous standards of formulation and internal consistency, as well as evidence. (Ditto my spotting what I think is water in the desert. That is perception, and is what it is. But my conclusion that therefore there is water there, that is, as you say, interpretation, and as I’d said, knowledge derived from perception, and that latter is entirely fallible, and therefore necessitates the whole formulation-and-evidence thing.)
And in fact is towards this end that I’ve been trying, with Osho Robbins, first through structural questioning some months ago, and now via this process of his. to tease out the two separately, his experience itself, whatever it was, and the worldview that he has fallen on consequent to that.
With that clarification, we’re agreed now, I hope, Spence? If not, if there’s anything you’d still like to correct or add, do please go ahead.

A nephew that loves to tease his uncle send a “bathroom saying”:
Life is complicate, but it even gets more complicated, when you start to thing you understand it.
Life is there to be lived, not to be understood, explained or whatever by a minority, a small minority, of people with IQ’s far above the majority.
If we have to believe Christ, he never spoke to the religious scholars but to the simple people, whom he later called thieves.
And .. if I would belong to that minority , probably I would not write this .. hahaha
Nothing wrong with Champagne but not all can afford it, nor can it be drunk all the time … water can.

Osho Robbins, just watched UGK’s video. Food for thought, certainly, and I’ve further bookmarked the page in order to later watch all of the other video suggestions that were thrown up at the end involving other talks by UGK, as well as some by the original K. Thanks for that reference, absolutely.
However, I was less than …well, less than blown away by UGK’s ideas. Man seemed so very full of himself, sitting there smarmily pronouncing his self-described wisdom about any and every thing under the sun. For one thing, his ideas about science, as he discusses them towards the end of this video, seem entirely uninformed. For another, that psychologist questioning him seemed to handling him with kid gloves, and the whole thing reminded me of GSD’s fawning acolytes asking GSD questions and hanging on uncritically to every soundbite of would-be wisdom leaving his hallowed lips.
In his place I’d have squarely asked UGK, in prescribed Mikaire-speak, how the effing eff he himself became world expert on enlightenment. How the eff he knows what he knows, and why the eff we must take what he says as gospel truth. Why he presumes to know exactly what every other person’s alleged enlightenment experience amounts to, and why the eff he, UGK, gets to wear that funny hairdo and those weird clothes and do his wise-Zarathustra routine and write books that others will presumably spend money to buy, and give lectures that others will presumably spend money to hear.
This sort of thing seems great for people who’re already mired in superstitions like Jesus-cultists and GSD-cultists and Mohammed-cultists and so forth, for them to break through of those belief systems. But for someone who has no superstitions to begin with, the value of these ideas seem doubtful.
Like you, UGK says he had some experience that he is not able to speak of. At least that’s all he says here, in this particular video. And if I were the one there interviewing him, I’d try to clearly tease out his experience as well as try to understand how his worldview followed from his alleged experience; but I’d also demand that he answer, and I’d ask with f-bombs in order to match his own would-be irreverent style with some irreverence of my own, why the eff he thinks his own experience, whatever it was, amounts to shit, and why the knowledge he believes he ended up with as a result amounts to shit. You know? These mystic types, who so smarmily point out others’ superstitions, seem so blithely unaware of the mote that is in their own eye.
——-
Incidentally, I just read my last comment addressed to you. Pardon me, my impatience with your repeated and unthinking insistence that your Oneness is not a belief led me to speak somewhat brusquely in that last comment of mine, which I had no right to do.
But I wish you’d read my comment, as well as the comment I’ve addressed to Spence above. This squarely addresses why your ideas about Oneness are beliefs. Maybe right belief, maybe wrong belief, but belief is what they are.
To repeat: I may not have the third eye, and I may not be given to DMPs, but vanilla Ps are accesiible to us all. I see what I think is water up ahead on the tarred road. That perception is what it is. But basis my perception I conclude there is water there on the road. That latter is a belief, that latter is knowledge derived from my perception, that latter is my interpretation of my perception. As such, it is entirely fallible. The same goes for the sun going around the earth, and my having seen you kill your boss, and your claims of Oneness. To that extent, it makes no sense at all for you to keep repeating time and time and again that “Oneness is not a belief”. Because belief is exactly what it is. Right or wrong, that’s exactly what it most assuredly is, a belief.
And nor will somehow having me replicate your own intuition — which, if we could do it, would be great, incidentally — change this. Because it is rational to be skeptical of one’s own intuitions, and I don’t think I’d give a free pass even to intuitions that were made available directly to me. And nor does it seem reasonable for you to do that, with your own perception of Oneness.

@ AR
Believes, provable or not, are tools like placebos and as such do not only have effect on the mind and body of the believers but on the whole of society as well.
History is one ongoing story of humans believing this or that.
Sometimes benevolent sometimes not.
Those searching their whole life for lost treasures, gold, precious stones etc have to believe that they exist and can be found in order to find out for themselves the very truth of what they earlier accepted as possible.
Inner experiences are the same. Those who sit in monasteries as recluse do so.
Some will be successful and others not …
Personally I was never attracted emotionally and/or intellectually to UGK and for that reason I never spend much time in understanding what he had to say but that doesn’t mean the man had nothing to say. The same holds for Osho and many a neo advaita protagonist but again that doesn’t say that there is something wrong with them or what they have to say.
Love in whatever form it comes does attract and it needs no understanding .. it is there or it is just not there.
The faces of children that believe in Santa Claus and those in churches and temples, praying for the welfare of themselves, the world etc, is also different from those who don’t. The same who loves certain music, music that brings tears of joy in their eyes, music that others hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyK4Bvj07JY

“Personally I was never attracted emotionally and/or intellectually to UGK and for that reason I never spend much time in understanding what he had to say but that doesn’t mean the man had nothing to say. The same holds for Osho and many a neo advaita protagonist but again that doesn’t say that there is something wrong with them or what they have to say.”
.
…….Oh, agreed, um, unquestionably. Not only do I not think they have nothing of importance to say, I actually do think it very likely they have something of great importance to convey.
You misunderstand me. When I said I’d ask UGK what the eff makes him world expert on enlightenment, or why the eff his experiences would amount to shit, I didn’t mean that rhetorically, to imply that he knows nothing or that his experience was meaningless. Not at all. I meant that completely literally.
Just watch that video for yourself. That psychologist guy fawningly asks him, in effect, Oh, Oh, Great UGK, everyone says your are enlightened, but you yourself say you are not, so what is the enlightenment deal? And UGK, with a shit-eating smile on his face, says, What makes you think enlightenment is even real? That whole routine.
So, I was saying, if I were in that psychologist guy’s place, I’d ask UGK, quite literally, what the fuck makes you think you know shit about enlightenment? What the fuck makes you think you know what others’ enlightenment amounts to? Why the fuck should I pay any attention to your fucking experience? Why the fuck do you yourself think it was important? Why the fuck do you think you know anything at all, and why the fuck would I waste my time and money on someone like you?
Literal questions. Just stop fawning, and just ask him what the fuck he means.
Then he’ll say what he does mean. Instead of coyly fluttering his eyelids at you and saying “Enlightenment isn’t real”, and “I am not enlightened”, he’ll then be forced to clearly spell out what exactly he means by enlightenment, what his experience exactly was, why he thinks it was important, and what makes him think he knows definitively about all of this.
It could be, as a result, he reveals himself to be a deluded fool or a charlatan. Good riddance, in that case. But I do think there is substance to the man. And I think it is likely he will then come out and clearly say what he means, instead of his endless nudge-nudge-wink-wink routine.
That was where I was coming from, there.

@ A.R.
I have seen different of his videos and if I remember well I have visited one of his discourses.
It is said that most teachings are not to be taught, caught. That is imo correct as far as the practice is concerned.
One can and it has been done, discuss the theory of Za Zen but understanding using practice as its vehicle needs no explanation.
What UGK does, has to say and with him all the others, is of no importance what soever … what matters is why do people go there, behave there as they do etc.
What matters in eating the apple pie offered by this or that cook, is whether you are interested in eating it. Who cares why he goes to the market, whether he is qualified or not. We are nor responsible for what others do with and in their lives. We are responsible how we spent the days we have and the things we give our attention too.
All things in live , the roles we have to play, are made much more easy if we love them .. nothing excluded
When youndg my dad told me to add something to the composition of an icecream. I made the mistake asking him “why”. Not amused he said …”LOOK!!” I answered that i could not see a thing … In an more severe tone he said … that is what you get son when you don’t look. Two years later I knew what it was all about..
The practice and the results thereof can not be replaced by analysis.
Over time I came to conclude that no one in this field has anything to say, they do not say a thing and they cannot as I said before these schools are just an invitation.
One can say that enlightenment exists, one can say it doesn’t it makes no difference as it can not be said what it is if it is. Nobody can change that.
In Zen they have developed these beautiful tools to bring that home .. the koans.
In the end za zen is nothing but sitting, meaningless, purposeless sitting, no effort no goal … just sit there. Sitting there , that receptive, that just being there makes certain things occur that otherwise would not

And .. A.R.
If there is something to lear from them than …
If you watch for example this or that person seen as a teacher, speak in public, especially when answering questions and even more when there are emotional and intellectual bloodsuckers and parasites around that try to go under their skin … do not listen to them, just look at them, see what they communicate non verbal.
Imagine you sitting there an ask yourself how you would manage … it will teach you things you could never have imagined.
Personally I came to understand it when I saw GSD’s uncle many a time and his secretary, a man of great erudition and character, sitting next to him and the difference in their non verbal behaviour … hahahaha

Just watch that video for yourself. That psychologist guy fawningly asks him, in effect, Oh, Oh, Great UGK, everyone says your are enlightened, but you yourself say you are not, so what is the enlightenment deal? And UGK, with a shit-eating smile on his face, says, What makes you think enlightenment is even real? That whole routine.
So, I was saying, if I were in that psychologist guy’s place, I’d ask UGK, quite literally, what the fuck makes you think you know shit about enlightenment? What the fuck makes you think you know what others’ enlightenment amounts to? Why the fuck should I pay any attention to your fucking experience? Why the fuck do you yourself think it was important? Why the fuck do you think you know anything at all, and why the fuck would I waste my time and money on someone like you?

“What matters in eating the apple pie offered by this or that cook, is whether you are interested in eating it. Who cares why he goes to the market, whether he is qualified or not. We are nor responsible for what others do with and in their lives. ”
..
……I’m afraid that approach seems flawed to me. After all, these people aren’t offering apple pies. If UGK were saying, Come sit down with me, and you’ll immediately taste what I have to offer: If he were saying that, I’d buy a plane ticket tomorrow — well not tomorrow, but after this pandemic blows over — and go sit with him. And eat his apple pie, and judge for myself what is what.
But that isn’t what is on offer. Here what we’re talking about is months, often years, of practice, with some traditions. And in the case of people like UGK, they actually say enlightenment isn’t a thing at all. Well then, the question does arise, if it isn’t a thing, then what the fuck legitimacy do you have, you with the flowing white hair and guru-like dress and guru-like mien?
Incidentally, I do get the point about actual practice. I’m not doing my analysis in a vacuum. Thing is, I’ve long been a steadfast meditator myself, for all my skepticism. I do pay my dues. More than my fair share. Have no doubt on that count.
Except I refuse to buy into the bullshit that this area of spirituality seems to abound in. Someone should call them out, the UGKs of this world who are forever fluttering their eyelashes at seekers and bilking them of their little all. Put up or shut up, they should be told. Stop hinting. Clearly say what you have to say, clearly teach what you have to teach. If you can’t do that, then get lost. Earn your own living by working at a real trade, because we won’t buy your fucking books or go to your fucking lectures, unless you give us something tangible that we know and see is useful. If you don’t do that, then we’re not buying your bullshit any more.
People should do that to the likes of GSD. People should do that to that to the likes of the Pope, strutting around in his ridiculous dress in that obscene palace of his built on the blood and tears of generations on generations of peasants. But equally, they should do that to the likes of anti-gurus like UGK and, gasp, dare I say it, old man Jiddu as well. Just cut out the bullshit, and get to the real value. If at all value there is. Because there is no reason why this should be outside the reach of evaluation.
.
…..Let’s try some argumentum ad absurdum, okay? I mean, I vouchsafe to spend time with you plebs, but I am the Divine Power incarnate myself, did you know that? You cannot ever measure the greatness of My Divinity with a thimble, because my all-encompassing greatness is greater than apple pies. So just …. just send me a thousand dollars every month, okay? What, you don’t have that kind of money to spare? Okay, a hundred then, as a special favor to you. Bow low to me, and give me your money, give me your attention, give me your adoration.
I mean, why not? I can wear funny hairdos and funny clothes too, and speak in long-winded self-contradictory nonsense as well as the next man.
You don’t go to a doctor who doesn’t actually deliver. You don’t pay a grocer who doesn’t actually give you what you went there for. Nor a fitness instructor, or a music teacher. Why should spiritual teachers not have to deliver, why should they not have to sing for their supper, same as everybody else? (If at all spirituality is a thing, which is by no means a settled question?)

@ A.R.
Yes, you had mentioned that before that you meditate.
>>Except I refuse to buy into the bullshit that this area of spirituality seems to abound in. >Someone should call them out, the UGKs of this world who are forever fluttering their eyelashes at seekers and bilking them of their little all.> Put up or shut up, they should be told. Stop hinting. Clearly say what you have to say, clearly teach what you have to teach. If you can’t do that, then get lost. Earn your own living by working at a real trade, because we won’t buy your fucking books or go to your fucking lectures, unless you give us something tangible that we know and see is useful. If you don’t do that, then we’re not buying your bullshit any more.>I mean, why not? I can wear funny hairdos and funny clothes too, and speak in long-winded self-contradictory nonsense as well as the next man.>You don’t go to a doctor who doesn’t actually deliver. You don’t pay a grocer who doesn’t actually give you what you went there for. Nor a fitness instructor, or a music teacher. Why should spiritual teachers not have to deliver, why should they not have to sing for their supper, same as everybody else? (If at all spirituality is a thing, which is by no means a settled question?)
In the end … the first things to find out are …BEFORE anything else.:
Are you a real and honest seeker?
WHAT are you seeking?
WHY do you want to find it?
For WHAT reason? etc etc.
The seeking starts and ends in the house where the keys were lost. The rest is a waste of time.
I wull see that video … but I guess I saw it.

Sorry A.R for reasons beyond my power the reaction removed all my detailed answers… and I am not going to type them again.

Are you a real and honest seeker?
WHAT are you seeking?
WHY do you want to find it?
For WHAT reason? etc etc.
…….Great questions.
I’ve asked myself those questions, often. And I do have answers.
As might be expected, the answers span many levels.
At the most stripped-down level, though, it is because one wants to find out as much of reality as one can, while one the brief fragile flame of lucidity still burns on. At the most basic level, that I guess.
And honest seeking, yes, absolutely. Because I’m quite sure I have no agenda. People often do, often unbeknownst to themselves. I’m fairly sure I don’t. (On the other hand, people who do have deep-grained vested agendas that aren’t quite deliberate, wouldn’t really know, would they? So I guess that last bit is kind of circular. And the really honest answer would be, I think not, as far as I am aware, but I’m not quite sure.)

@ A.R.
Have seen the video and realised I mixed up the two Khrisnamurtis. This was the first video on UG.
I will have to see it a couple of times to see if I can grasp what he is hinting at … but first coffee.
The questions were not asked to have you answer them, they were and are just a means to withdraw your attention from the street, from the light, from people walking that street like the Krishnamurtis.
You did answer the questions by writing that you want to know what reality is …as it is YOUR question not anybodies else’s … you have first to understand what YOUR concept of reality is, why you state that you don’t know it, while you know the content of the concept etc.
Before I get up to make coffee:
I had deep rooted intellectual and emotional allergies, that when triggered, would created averse reactions, as allergies do. I will not repeat here again what I wrote but I got over them by a friend asking me again and again the same rhetoric question… yes you are right but why does it upset you that others act the way they do. Over time i realized that it is not in my power to act upon the things outside, but I do have over myself .,..in terms of choice.
If there is a cord, by lifting it up, will cause me to enter in a tug-of-war, I need not to do so and once in my hand I can lay it down.

@ You don’t go to a doctor who doesn’t actually deliver. You don’t pay a grocer who doesn’t actually give you
@ what you went there for. Nor a fitness instructor, or a music teacher. Why should spiritual teachers not
@ have to deliver, why should they not have to sing for their supper, same as everybody else? (If at all
@ spirituality is a thing, which is by no means a settled question?)
A.R., I agree a foul mouthed, 400 quid soliciting mystic should. But the
authentic mystic in my opinion won’t. He is refreshingly brief when asked
to describe transcendence: “Neti, neti” [Not this, not this]. He adds, “It’s
unquestionably a path that often demands years, even a lifetime of rigor,
though. There’s no way to sugarcoat it. Here is one intensely devotional,
meditative practice that helped me. It can help you as well. If it doesn’t,
discard it without hesitation. Try another. Look for one that strives to
find answers within yourself.”

Hi Appreciative!
Yes I agree. All things that are real must undergo testing and verification repeatedly, whether we do this personally or through more formal, rigorous means.

“Behind the shelter in the middle of a roundabout
A pretty nurse is selling poppies from a tray
And though she feels as if she’s in a play
She is anyway”
From Penny Lane, Lennon and McCartney
As are we all.

AR: First, you do have a belief. The belief of Oneness. Right or wrong, that is a belief. Regardless of how you arrived at that belief, you do have that belief, that there’s this Oneness thing. Regardless of whether you need to prove it to me or not, you do have that belief, that there’s this Oneness thing
OR: I maintain that it is not a belief.
A believer does not know – hence he needs the belief to console himself.
A knower simply knows – no doubt – no belief – no question.
If I say I have £1000 in my pocket – you can believe or doubt. No other possibility exists.
But then I put my hand in my pocket and you can see the £1000.
Now no doubt exists and belief is not possible or needed. Now you know and it doesn’t matter if
1000 people say I don’t have the £1000. You KNOW!
ONENESS is not an opinion and not a belief. There is simply no other possibility.
As long as you continue to consider it a belief, we will not agree.
So some examples to clarify.
“I believe Jesus is the Son of God.” – clearly a belief unless you have met jesus and seen his birth certificate and it says on it “father: God”. Reciting verses in the bible are an appeal to authority. Belief in the bible is required – so this is a logical fallacy.
If you eat a banana; You KNOW the taste of a banana. The taste of a banana is not a belief.
If I describe the taste to you – you can only acquire a belief about it – not the taste itself.
If my car is going along at 60 mph, after 1 minute, I have covered exactly 1 mile. Is that a belief? Or a truth?
I haven’t seen the mile, I haven’t measured it – but I KNOW (not just believe) I have covered a mile.
Now one more. More subtle.
Assume for this that there are no reflective surfaces (mirrors, water etc)
Further I am going to not allow you to use your hands (or another part of your body) to feel.
Then I pose a question: How do you know that you have a beard (assuming you have one)
If you cannot see it (in a mirror) and you cannot feel it.
How do you know you have hair on your head?
How do you know you have eyes?
How do you know you have ears?
Is it a BELIEF or KNOWLEDGE that you have a beard, hair, eyes, ears?

spence just posted this:
“Behind the shelter in the middle of a roundabout
A pretty nurse is selling poppies from a tray
And though she feels as if she’s in a play
She is anyway”
From Penny Lane, Lennon and McCartney
As are we all.
Posted by: Spence Tepper
That we are “all in a play” is a belief.
quoting the Beatles is an “appeal to authority” (a logical fallacy)
as the Beatles saying so doesn’t make it true.
on the other hand – Spence may not be making that statement as
a statement of truth – but merely writing it as something interesting
– like poetry – not saying it is true. In which case, it’s not a logical fallacy.
So it also depends on the context of the spirit in which the statement is made.
If it was a formal debate of “Is life a play” and spence was trying to prove it was – then it would be a logical fallacy.

“The earth is flat” – is that a belief? (flat earthers believe this)
“The earth is a sphere” – is that a belief? or is it knowledge?
If you have two apples and I have you eight more – you now have ten apples – is that a belief -or knowledge?
we have to be clear first before we can say if oneness is a belief or knowledge. Otherwise we will both continue to say the same
I will say it is a knowing and you will say it’s a belief.

Hi Osho!
‘Life is a play’
You call it a belief. Perhaps for some. For others it may be knowledge. In my case, it’s just an observation.

Hi Osho
You wrote
“A believer does not know – hence he needs the belief to console himself.
A knower simply knows – no doubt – no belief – no question.
If I say I have £1000 in my pocket – you can believe or doubt. No other possibility exists.”
Actually you missed a third possibility. You may not doubt or believe. You simply may not know. I don’t know. I neither doubt nor believe. I hold no opinion. I think this is the pure definition of A-theism.
Interestingly enough, an individual may witness the power of creation in all its detail, at every level, but avoid trying to squeeze it down into a set of mental concepts. They would not label that God or No God. They would just accept it is beyond their capacity to describe with any accuracy, and worthy of experiencing, not labeling. Is that Atheism of mysticism?

@ If I say I have £1000 in my pocket – you can believe or doubt. No other possibility exists.
@ But then I put my hand in my pocket and you can see the £1000.
@ Now no doubt exists and belief is not possible or needed. Now you know and it doesn’t matter
@ if 1000 people say I don’t have the £1000. You KNOW!
What if it’s counterfeit? Suppose the speaker misstated the amount?
Or he owed you the £1000 and you misheard him out of a wish fulfill-
ment fantasy that flashed in your head?
It’s not simply argumentative. Duality toys with us. It plays a sleight
of hand game with truth. Perhaps DP/DMP Is more accurate. But
the analysis of what’s experienced in DP is fraught too as others
mentioned. In the end, the mystic only says “it’s not this, not that”
and goes silent. The journey inside has to be taken to really know
and then the mystic is at a loss for words.

@Appreciative Reader
That was just perfect – couldn’t have done it better if I had set it up on purpose.
It was as if the deck was stacked (setup).
Let me explain.
we’re on the subject of Belief / knowledge / neither (just an observation).
a simple statement like “Life is a play” creates so many possibilities.
One person may consider it a belief. Spence says it’s not a belief – to him. He says it could be knowledge for some people.
and in his case it was just an observation.
observation of a fact? or an opinion?
Do you see the point I am making?
even this simple statement – it’s not clear if it’s knowledge or a belief or neither!
one person may insist it’s a belief and another says “it is knowledge”
and it may even be subjective – “It’s knowledge TO ME”
on the “£1000 in my pocket” example, spence says
“You simply may not know”
Clearly – you don’t know – which is why it cannot be knowledge
so then he says
“I neither doubt nor believe. I hold no opinion. I think this is the pure definition of A-theism.”
This, as he correctly points out is the atheist position of
“Maybe God exists, maybe he doesn’t – I have no clue.
If you believe he does – then prove it to me”
Now in the case of the “£1000 in my pocket” – proof is easy.
In the case of God – there is no proof possible since God cannot be taken out of my pocket.
In the case of ONENESS – proof may be possible – but it will be subjective proof – your personal proof.
When Vivekananda went to Sri Ramakrishna – he asked
“Where is the proof that God exists?”
Sri Ramakrishna doesn’t give an intellectual answer.
Instead he jumps up and gets close to Vivekananda’s face and says
“I am the proof”.
That answer changed Vivekananda’s life because he now had to figure out who this madman was! No logical answer was possible.
Vivekananda had to spend many years trying to get the answer.
In that time – He himself (Vivekananda) changed and the question was
answered from within – not a logical answer.
Any logician will say Vivekananda was a fool.
But it was the only way he could find his own personal proof – go on the journey – take a leap into the unknown.
Spence goes on ……
“Interestingly enough, an individual may witness the power of creation in all its detail, at every level, but avoid trying to squeeze it down into a set of mental concepts. They would not label that God or No God. They would just accept it is beyond their capacity to describe with any accuracy, and worthy of experiencing, not labeling. Is that Atheism or mysticism?”
To some people the world itself is the proof. But it’s still a belief.
“Some would just accept it is beyond their capacity to describe with any accuracy, and worthy of experiencing, not labeling.”
Belief / doubt – don’t lead to knowing – to know – you have to go further and make a personal investigation – like I did with Mikaire, like some people do with their meditation.

Quote Osho Robbins:
“I maintain that it is not a belief.
(…)ONENESS is not an opinion and not a belief. There is simply no other possibility.
As long as you continue to consider it a belief, we will not agree.
So some examples to clarify. (…)
.
…….Hey, Osho Robbins.
All right, let’s first, and for the present, leave aside all of the other points we’ve disagreed on, and focus on this one single thing: Your Oneness worldview, is that a belief, or is it not? You’re right, this does seem to be fundamental to our discussion, and without first fully exploring this and without first coming to agreement on this, we’re likely to keep on talking past each other.
I’m rushed now. Can’t sit down and give to your posts the attention they deserve, so I’ll respond to them later on, as soon as I’m able. And discuss those very interesting examples you’ve provided, as well.
Meanwhile, though, I’d like you to answer these two questions, if you would:
(1) You keep claiming that your Oneness is not a belief. Fine, then, what would you yourself describe it as? Your considered answer, please.
and (2) Whatever you’ve answered to question #1 above, would you say that whatever-you’ve-described-it-as is fallible, that is, there is the possibility that it might be mistaken; or would you insist that it is entirely inerrant?

Clarification:
In that second question, I’m not asking if you think your Oneness worldview is inerrant. Because I already know that you do think that. I’m asking whether that whole class of whatever-it-is, that you would describe your Oneness as belonging to, do you think that whole class of whatever-it-is is inerrant, or do you think that it might be open to error?
For instance, if you describe your Oneness as a belief (which I know you don’t), then would you claim that all beliefs are necessarily inerrant? Similarly, I’d like you to first tell me what you would yourself describe your Oneness as (belief, or perception, or knowledge, or inspiration, or intuition, or whatever else you think best answers this); and to then tell me whether you think that class (that is, all beliefs, all perception, all knowledge, all whatever-you’ve-put-it-down-as) is necessarily inerrant, in your view, or if you think there is the possibility that it might, in some individual cases, turn out to be wrong.

@Apprec Reader
1) You keep claiming that your Oneness is not a belief. Fine, then, what would you yourself describe it as? Your considered answer, please.
and (2) Whatever you’ve answered to question #1 above, would you say that whatever-you’ve-described-it-as is fallible, that is, there is the possibility that it might be mistaken; or would you insist that it is entirely inerrant?
The ONENESS or NON-DUALITY is a absolute knowing – not subject to error. Just as when you taste an apple – you KNOW the taste of an apple – it is not subject to error.
If you have never tasted an apple – and have only read about it – that is a belief, no matter how convinced you are of the truth of it – a belief is still a belief.
You have compared a number of times with RSSB – which I state is a belief.
How so? Because the followers only have book knowledge – they are convinced that after X years of meditation on the five names – they WILL reach. That is a belief.
If someone claims to have reached – then it is no longer a belief – then they are claiming to KNOW.
They also claim it is not subject to error – because they have had a vision or experienced the inner regions etc.
However – and this is the important part: they could still be mistaken because the vision could be delusion. It could be a fabrication of their mind.
The NON-DUALITY / ONENESS cannot be a fabrication because :
1. It is NOT an experience
2. It is beyond the mind and cannot be fathomed or understood by the mind
3. It is beyond time and space – it is a state of NON-DUALITY
It is not a DMP (Direct Mystical Perception) either – which is why I was reluctant to label it as such also.
Why is it not an experience? Because experience happens is duality and this is non-duality.
Why is it beyond the mind? It is not a vision, or something I saw or experienced.
It is not something that gets ADDED to me(OshoRobbins) : it takes Osho Robbins away and only the ONENESS remains. Osho Robbins disappears before this comes. So there is no witness to it.
It may sound like nonsense – but that is unavoidable because what I am speaking about cannot be spoken: cannot be described.
So here is what I KNOW:
There is no Osho Robbins – so I have no concern about going to Sach Khand or the equivalent.
I do not seek salvation. I cannot say to GSD “Please shower your grace on me……” It is impossible for me to do that because I am already GONE. There is no hope at all for me. I have already accepted my non-existence; so I cannot seek salvation. I need no saviour because there is none. Obviously I cannot also be a saviour also since there is no such thing.
These are not my opinions: all this is absolute truth, not subject to error.
Big claims, you might say, but actually I am claiming nothing. My claim is that I don’t exist : it is a negative claim. I claim there is no God, no heaven, no Sach Khand, no regions, no Sat Purush, No Kal, No karma, no individual soul.
But I can be easily mis-understood, so I rarely say these things. They are reserved for those who are ready to listen. Those who acknowledge that they don’t know and who truly want to know. Most people are too proud of their knowing and thus cannot go any further. To go on this journey of discovery, they first have to admit: “I know nothing”
Osho goes so far as to say that the mystic MUST be misunderstood. If he is NOT misunderstood then he cannot be a mystic: he must be talking about a different topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nSMi0whFEA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKOI_N-nvzM
2 mins in he talks about meditation but this is not the meditation that RSSB followers practice. That is concentration: His idea of meditation is very different and he has thousands of meditation techniques.
3 mins in: communication is impossible
The master speaks from his WISDOM and you JUMP on his wisdom and reduce it to knowledge. You are looking for answers and a master knows that answers never satisfy. All questions are fake. To get the answer you have to go on a quest, not ask a question.
You cannot stand looking at the river and ask questions. You have to jump into the river (Quest) to KNOW the river. Questions give you words and words are not the river.

Read through your response, Osho Robbins. Detailed response later, but for now, and following on what I’d asked earlier and your own response:
You’re saying your Oneness is a matter of “absolute knowing”, and “not subject to error”. In your view, is there anything else, other than Oneness, that admits of this kind of “absolute knowing” that is “not subject to error”? Or is Oneness is the one and only example of this kind of absolute knowing that is not subject to error?
(Sorry about the staccato responses. Like I said, rushed. I’ll sit down later on for a more comprehensive reading of your posts, and also respond more fully.)

Hi Osho and Appreciative
I’ve been reading your dialogue with some interest, and in the interest of sharing another view let me suggest the following logical argument.
1. Osho doesn’t exist.
2. Osho can’t have an opinion or view because he doesn’t exist. He doesn’t occupy a body or a brain like the rest of us therefore….
3. Therefore whatever observation, or opinion written by the fallable physical body and brain of the person labeled Osho cannot be the Osho who doesn’t exist, who is the one writing about not existing here.
3. There might be a connection somewhere, but it could be said they are so far apart they might as well be divorced.
4. Or we fallible beings might just be having a shared hallucination about this Osho Bot, originally written to blog positive to Toaster and Deodorant reviews on Amazon, but well out of control here.

“This Toaster is perfect. Beyond perfect.”
“The scent of this deodorant is absolutely an out of body existence. This smell is beyond what this nose can smell, therefore I KNOW it is out of body.”
“I wanted a waffle maker. What i got was a life changing event!”

“Can anyone really love a Pizza oven? I can only say this oven IS love!”

Appreciative Reader replies to Osho Bot
“No Osho, the oven is just an oven.. Metal, wires and glass. You might feel love when you use it, but the oven is an oven.”
Osho Bot replies
“How can you understand this Pizza love, which transcends human love? When you realize there is no you, no me, only Pizza.”

“You’re saying your Oneness is a matter of “absolute knowing”, and “not subject to error” – Appreciative Reader
It is unique. There is nothing else in the same class as this.
There is a valid reason for this. Everything else is in duality. This is the very essence of “beyond duality”.
If anything else was in the same class, it would invalidate it.
This is what the zen koan “What is the sound of one hand clapping” finally arrives at.
If there is any true meditation – it is this – to go into the depth of ONE hand clapping. The logical mind says “One hand cannot clap”
but the zen koan is not giving you that possibility. That is a mind answer.
The zen koan is telling you with absolute authority that one hand IS clapping. That is not the question. It is asking you the sound.
ONENESS or non-duality is not something you arrive at through logic.

@Spence
You are mocking the idea simply because you have never understood what ONENESS or non-duality is. This is despite the fact that you claim to have visions of the “Inner Gurinder”
When asked – you simply say that the “Inner Gurinder” is different from the outer one. You have stated many times that the outer Gurinder has fallen from the path and needs help.
The “inner Gurinder” however is still there and gives the right guidance.
What you have is an experience within duality – in which there is a spence and an “inner Gurinder”. This is a mind fabrication as are all visions.
Everything that has two – duality – like a vision or a radiant form is within the realm of mind and error prone. What you see is a projection of your own mind.
Just to give a reference Kabir describes this same ONENESS. Kabir clearly says that “Kabir” does not exist.
“When I was (existed = in duality), God wasn’t.”
clearly kabir is saying that you cannot have a vision of God or ONENESS because YOU still are, God cannot be ADDED to Kabir. Instead it takes Kabir away then IT (ONENESS) alone remains and Kabir disappears.
“Now YOU (ONENESS) are – and I (Kabir) am not”
Kabir is saying that Kabir does not exist.
so following on from what you wrote – you would also have to say this about kabir:
1. Kabir doesn’t exist.
2. Kabir can’t have an opinion or view because he doesn’t exist. He doesn’t occupy a body or a brain like the rest of us therefore….
3. Therefore whatever observation, or opinion written by the fallable physical body and brain of the person labeled Kabir cannot be the Kabir who doesn’t exist, who is the one writing about not existing here
when he says “Now Kabir Isn’t…..”
4. There might be a connection somewhere, but it could be said they are so far apart they might as well be divorced.
5. Or we fallible beings might just be having a shared hallucination about this Kabir Bot, originally written to blog positive to Toaster and Deodorant reviews on Amazon, but well out of control here.

@spence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dWAkmCmzAc&t=5s
4:30 mins into the video – your own guru (that you see in his radiant form within) says there is no separation. He says we are ALREADY ONE.
already ONE means you are not two – meaning that there is no Spence.
If there IS a spence – then spence is separate from God and needs to merge – here he clearly says “The separation is not there” and “You are already ONE with him”
That is the same as saying that you are not separate – there is no Spence.
The very thing you are mocking is what your guru is saying.

I’m sorry Osho that’s one Toaster I won’t be buying.

Brother, I’ve seen some
Astonishing sights:
A lion keeping watch
Over pasturing cows;
A mother delivered
After her son was;
A guru prostrated
Before his disciple;
Fish spawning
On treetops;
A cat carrying away
A dog;
A gunny-sack
Driving a bullock-cart;
A buffalo going out to graze,
Sitting on a horse;
A tree with its branches in the earth,
Its roots in the sky;
A tree with flowering roots.
This verse, says Kabir,
Is your key to the universe.
If you can figure it out.

The path of Love is the answer.
Where intellect was born but can never return.
Lacking love, a good sense of humor will suffice.

Spence,
Pardon me, I realize it might be seen as presumptuous for me to act as some kind of gatekeeper for who writes what in these pages, which are not even my pages. This is just to share my views about this particular mode of “debate”.
Thing is, I am not a fan of bringing in derision and mockery in order to (attempt to) dismiss someone else’s arguments. Not even when that mockery is brought in support of my own arguments.
I know, manjit will label me as lacking in humor for saying this kind of thing. So might you —- at least, I hope you won’t, but it is possible that you may. It is not that I lack a sense of humor, at least I don’t think so, but to try to laugh someone’s sincere views out is, in my view, not quite done. Chiefly because it hinders the process of proper understanding. To begin with such attempts at derision don’t usually succeed at all ; and thing is, even if they do, then what they achieve is drive the other POV out of the discussion not by resolving the argument but simply by belittling them. That’s something none of us gains from.
Of course, an actual argumentum ad absurdum is a different matter. But let’s not try to drive out Osho Robbins by calling him a poopy head.
Once again, apologies if my comment seems presumptuous.

Osho Robbins, I was starting a somewhat involved response, starting with the examples you’ve yourself presented. But then instead of both you and me writing long posts at each other, and in effect speaking at each other rather than with each other, I thought I should first get your response to these two specific questions, which occur to me on reading your last response addressed to me:
(1) You say here: “It is unique. There is nothing else in the same class as this.
There is a valid reason for this. Everything else is in duality. This is the very essence of “beyond duality”. <> If anything else was in the same class, it would invalidate it.”
So let me ask you : What, in your view, is the actual mechanism by which knowledge of this Oneness reaches you?
.
(2) You’d presented a number of examples earlier. Examples that I’d begun to respond to, but thought better to first get in your answers to these two questions first. You know, how we “know” the earth is spheroidal, how we plebs “know” we’ve got 100 dollars in our pocket (and our more privileged brethren “know” they’re carrying 1000 pounds in their pocket), how we feel our unshaven chin and know we’ve got a stubble (or a beard, as the case may be), and so on, those examples you presented upthread.
My question is, What was the point of those examples? Given that you think that knowledge about Oneness is a stand-alone thing, that apparently has no counterpart, nothing else comparable, it now isn’t at all clear what point you were trying to make by using those examples. If you could spell that out clearly, that would be great.

@Spence
Kabir’s point is obvious. All those things are illogical. You cannot arrive through logic.
There is no reference to “Love” so you made that up.
However, love is part of the journey as long as you understand what it is.
It is just a four letter word that we use without understanding the importance or significance of it.
It cannot be defined so it’s meaning can be conveniently created to fit into any illusion you or I choose.
In the case of a master disciple connection, the love means a deep trust that enables the disciple to understand that which others dismiss.

Appreciative Reader,
Just like the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy if the argument is that “because X says it – it MUST be true”
What you have pointed out is also a logical fallacy that Spence has used.
It’s the “appeal to ridicule / appeal to mockery / the horse laugh” fallacy.
By mocking or ridiculing the viewpoint, the implication is that it cannot be true because it is so ridiculous.

@Appreciative Reader
Those specific questions had a point.
I can tell you the point.
It would be helpful if you could answer them in all honesty first.
Specifically this one. The others were just to differentiate between belief and knowing.
So let me re-iterate the question here:
Now one more. More subtle.
Assume for this that there are no reflective surfaces (mirrors, water etc)
Further I am going to not allow you to use your hands (or another part of your body) to feel.
Then I pose a question: How do you know that you have a beard (assuming you have one)
If you cannot see it (in a mirror) and you cannot feel it.
How do you know you have hair on your head?
How do you know you have eyes?
How do you know you have ears?
Is it a BELIEF or KNOWLEDGE that you have a beard, hair, eyes, ears?

“@Appreciative Reader
Those specific questions had a point.
I can tell you the point.
It would be helpful if you could answer them in all honesty first.”
.
……………..Sure, if you wish. I’ll go right back and address every example you’d raised in that earlier post of yours.
But I see that you did not answer the questions I’d asked you. Granted that you think you would be better able to explain the point of your examples AFTER I give you my response to your examples ; but would you answer the first question I’d posed you, that you did not answer? And would you do that squarely, and without moving on to other subjects, and what’s more do that before you say anything further?
Here, let me copy down that question here again:
What, in your view, is the actual mechanism by which knowledge of this Oneness reaches you?
.
I’m not asking this to trap you or anything. I’m sure why I’m asking this is clear to you. In case not, let me clarify. How do DMPs occur? Each has its own mechanism. For instance, the RSSB sound and light, that everyone here is familiar with, and that probably draws from Tantra traditions, is predicated on the idea that the human body is somehow the “microcosm” that is a micro-level replica of the “macrocosm”, and accessing the inner planes gives you access to these …regions, lokas, whatever. Or if you’re secularly minded, then you might simply believe that there are neural centers within the brain that activate these sensations. So what is the mechanism of the knowledge of Oneness having reached you, is my question.
And the point of my question is this: You claim this Oneness is outside of time and place, and does not interact with our universe. In which case, there is no way information from this Oneness gets to be conveyed into our Universe. So that there is no way for information from (and therefore about) this Oneness to reach you, who are part of this Universe.
You see the contradiction? Even if one were to somehow blindly believe you — which one doesn’t, obviously, not for a minute, although one is willing to be open-minded in *considering* this business — even then your Oneness proposition carries within it this fatal internal contradiction.
In light of the above, I ask again: What is the mechanism, exactly, by means of which information/knowledge of this Oneness has revealed itself to you?
.
And now I’ll address all of your examples, like you asked me to, in my next post.

All right, Osho Robbins, moving on now to all of your examples:
.
(1) The following is the first example you’d posted upthread :
“If I say I have £1000 in my pocket – you can believe or doubt. No other possibility exists.
But then I put my hand in my pocket and you can see the £1000.
Now no doubt exists and belief is not possible or needed. Now you know and it doesn’t matter if
1000 people say I don’t have the £1000. You KNOW!”
……………..I think Spence had discussed this very aptly. I agree with his POV, that when you put your hand in your pocket and remove the wad of notes and assure yourself that you do have a thousand pounds there, you feeling the texture of the notes is perception, you seeing them is perception, but your conclusion that you’ve got 1000 pounds is knowledge derived from that perception and via mental constructs as well as cultural constructs. what you’re left with is the knowledge that you have your money there. I guess knowledge is interchangeable with belief here, because another way of saying this would be to say that you’re left with the belief that you have that money there.
That knowledge, that belief, could be either correct or incorrect.
Most times it would be correct. The hear-hooves-think-horses-not-zebras thing. Nevertheless, “horses” is a belief, and as such is fallible. I agree with Spence’s example of how your knowledge, your belief, might be incorrect: It could be that those notes in your pocket are counterfeit, so that what you are left with is a big fat zero in terms of actual pounds in your pocket.
Potentially fallible, in other words. (Although sure, most times what you see is what you get.)
.
(2) Quote Osho Robbins again:
“So some examples to clarify.
“I believe Jesus is the Son of God.” – clearly a belief unless you have met jesus and seen his birth certificate and it says on it “father: God”. Reciting verses in the bible are an appeal to authority. Belief in the bible is required – so this is a logical fallacy.”
……………..Agreed, this would, in most cases, simply amount to belief. In fact, if you would hark back to our framework of modes of knowledge, I’d say it is knowledge, but knowledge derived from belief. And this belief, and the knowledge arrived at from this belief, happens to be wrong, as far as we can tell.
That is what it is for most folks. Yet that is not the only possible answer. You could have some mystic type, some prophet, who’s had visions that directly tell him, directly present him with the knowledge, that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. For this prophet, this would be knowledge derived directly via perception. This could be DMP (should such be real), or it could simply be hallucination, delusion. But in either case, in this second instance this is not knowledge derived from belief, but knowledge derived from DMP (or delusion, as the case may be).
Again, potentially fallible.
.
(3) Your third example, Osho Robbins:
“If you eat a banana; You KNOW the taste of a banana. The taste of a banana is not a belief.
If I describe the taste to you – you can only acquire a belief about it – not the taste itself.”
……………..This is simply perception. You’ve eaten a banana, and this is what that banana tasted like. Just perception, if you stop there and go no further.
However, if you extrapolate this to say that this is what bananas taste like, then this is extrapolation. That is, perception, plus reasoning ; in other words, perception, plus mental construct : and this leads you to knowledge, and to belief, that this is what bananas taste like.
And that knowledge, that belief, could be either right or wrong. Most times it will be correct, sure. Horses not zebras. But occasionally you might get a zebra. Once in a while you might be wrong. For instance, you might be presented with a different kind of banana, I don’t know, one that isn’t ripe on the inside and yet looks the same as the ripe fruit, and therefore tastes very different. Or you might be presented with an artificial trick item, that either contains some other artificial foodstuff, or something entirely inedible, and yet looks pretty much convincing from the outside.
Same as the earlier two examples, then, what we have is knowledge, and belief, that is potentially fallible, although in most cases likely to be correct.
.
(4) Your next example:
“If my car is going along at 60 mph, after 1 minute, I have covered exactly 1 mile. Is that a belief? Or a truth?
I haven’t seen the mile, I haven’t measured it – but I KNOW (not just believe) I have covered a mile.”
……………..On the contrary, this too is your belief. (Or, to be more precise, your knowledge derived from your perception of your reading the speedometer and your watch, and your mental construct of that calculation you’re doing in your head, and the cultural construct that informs you of the function of the speedometer.)
And no, this knowledge of yours, that is derived from perception plus mental construct plus cultural construct, isn’t inerrant truth. Most times it will be true, sure, but this isn’t inerrant truth, not by a long shot.
For instance, your speedometer might be out of whack. You may actually be driving at 55 mph, not 60 mph, even though your speedometer reads 60, so that what you’ve actually covered in that one minute would be 0.92 miles.
Another fer-instance: Could be your speedometer is fine, but it is your watch that is out of whack. That too will mean you’ve covered not 1 mile, but somewhat more (or somewhat less, as the case may be).
Once again, fallible knowledge. Most often correct, in practice, but once in a while might be wrong. Not inerrant truth.
.
(5) You final example, Osho Robbins:
“Now one more. More subtle.
Assume for this that there are no reflective surfaces (mirrors, water etc)
Further I am going to not allow you to use your hands (or another part of your body) to feel.
Then I pose a question: How do you know that you have a beard (assuming you have one)
If you cannot see it (in a mirror) and you cannot feel it.
How do you know you have hair on your head?
How do you know you have eyes?
How do you know you have ears?
Is it a BELIEF or KNOWLEDGE that you have a beard, hair, eyes, ears?”
……………..As far as beard and hair, there will be no direct perception. But there will be mental construct, in that I know that unless I’ve cut off my hair or shaved off my beard very recently, then I know I’ll have hair on my head and face. And sure, direct cultural construct as well, in terms of people telling me, that is. As such, knowledge based squarely on mental construct and cultural construct.
As far as eyes and ears, the fact that I can see and the fact that I can hear will amount to perception that these organs are present and working. But I’m also using the cultural construct and the mental construct that tell me that I see with my eyes, and hear with my ears. And also belief directly, cultural construct directly, in that people tell me that they see that I’ve got eyes and ears.
And this knowledge of mine, this belief, that I have hair, and beard (well I’m clean shaven myself, although occasionally I do affect a stubble, but whatever), and eyes, and ears, this too, like all of the earlier examples, is not infallible. Most times it will be correct. But it is possible —- unlikely, but possible — that it might be wrong (in that others may have reported wrongly to me, or my mental constructs about what organs perform what function may be wrong).
So that in this last example as well, same as the earlier four, we have a “horses not zebras” situation. Most times “horses” will be right. Most times, and most likely, my knowledge, my belief, will be correct. However, as with the other four examples, so it is with this fifth example as well: this knowledge, this belief, is fallible, it isn’t inerrant truth.
—————–
Incidentally, these examples bear out what I’d said in my earlier posts addressed to you. And indeed what Spence and I were discussing in those two or three posts that we addressed to each other, right in this thread. Which is: Perceptions are neither fallible nor infallible, neither right nor wrong, they are simply what they are. But when we go beyond perception itself, to knowledge derived from perception (and/or from mental constructs or reasoning, and/or from cultural constructs or beliefs), then that resultant knowledge is always fallible, and never inerrant.
—————–
Let me add here two more examples of my own, that I’d already presented upthread, but might bear repeating here.
Example (6) : I see you, Osho Robbins, froth at the mouth and hear you declare you hate your boss and will kill him. I see you remove your gun from your cabinet, and load it, and put it in your pocket. Later, I see you point your gun at your boss and pull the trigger, and I see your boss keel over and bleed to death right there. And I see you subsequently confess your crime. All of these are perceptions, and they are what they are, neither right nor right. And then I conclude that you’ve killed your boss, which last is knowledge bases on perception plus mental construct, and that knowledge is fallible. Most likely, and most times, this will be correct; but it could be that Adam Dalgliesh shows both you and me in the last chapter how some third person was lurking there, and shot your boss at the exact same moment, while you yourself never even intended to kill your boss but only to scare him and to vent your anger, and had shot wide, but later on were gaslighted into believing you’d killed him.
Example (7) : I see water up ahead in the desert, or in the distance on the tarred road on which I’m driving. That much is perception, and neither right nor wrong, it is simply what it is. But then I conclude that there is water up ahead. And that conclusion is a mental construct, and this knowledge is not inerrant, it is entirely fallible: it is possible that what I’ve seen is simply a mirage, and that there is no water there at all.

Pretty darn good prize!
I did nothing than that, . .
in all my comments, . . 500 of them
It is a combi of
Education,
No high IQ? stay under 200;
Real Serendipities, amap
LOVE for Subject “matter”
777

@S
Love would have all souls return home today.
It does!
777
If this was FB I would like it

Hi Appreciative!
Humor is good if we can all laugh at ourselves. Nothing derogatory in it. We are all part of the same creation, so the Oneness is very real. Osho is right. It is a matter of perspective. And Appreciative, the distinction between belief and knowledge doesn’t exist, as you claim. It is all belief, opinion, here. No one can claim higher ground in words. Everyone thinks they speak the truth, but each for different reasons.
Now, Osho, as for Kabir, he was a proponant of Bakti, not intellectualism.
Every line in his poem is true. It isn’t absurd at all from a different perspective.
The flame of the lamp of Spirit burns downwards, and we struggle to be imolated in it.
The mother born after her child is her own rebirth after the child of her own spirit has been awakened.
And the Master who lay prostrate befor His disciple sees God in everyone.
Love of the key. Love is the secret, Osho, not intellectualism. Love will take you to Oneness. In fact there isn’t a particle or wave of Oneness that isn’t love.
You cannot demonstrate Oneness with the carving knife of argument.

But you can give five stars to a great waffle iron!

“And Appreciative, the distinction between belief and knowledge doesn’t exist, as you claim. It is all belief, opinion, here. ”
…….I kind of agree, Spence.
That is, cultural constructs are purely beliefs. Whether right or not, beliefs are what they are. But thinking about this, in the course of this discussion, it did occur to me, and like I’ve said upthread, that when we say we “know” something, it’s probably more precise to actually say we “believe we know” that something. With whatever level of accuracy, in terms of how close to reality our knowledge actually is.
To that extent, belief and knowledge are probably the same.
But as far as this discussion with Osho Robbins, that is a distinction without a difference. Because the whole point of knowledge, or belief, is that it is (a), at one remove from perception; and (b), it is fallible.
*That* is where the disagreement with Osho Robbins lies. With me, and I thought with you as well, basis what we’d discussed earlier. Osho Robbins imagines his Oneness is a direct perception, and that his knowledge of it is therefore infallible. I find that …curious, for reasons already detailed.

@appreciative reader
We have a clash of definitions.
With unclear definitions there cannot be effective communication because the words I use and you use have different meanings.
I understand the argument that we don’t really know anything because our perceptions come from our senses. Our senses could be wrong.
But from that argument we cannot create any distinction between belief and knowledge. Then everything becomes a belief.
This is counterproductive for our purposes.
From this argument normal mystical experiences like inner light etc are all error prone – so the experiences Spence has with the inner guru are error prone.
Then all the followers of every path including RSSB are wasting their time because their experiences are all error prone

Hi Appreciative
You wrote
“when we say we “know” something, it’s probably more precise to actually say we “believe we know” that something. With whatever level of accuracy, in terms of how close to reality our knowledge actually is.”
I agree 1000%. 😉
Direct perception is another experience.
Think of it like this. When we have that experience we aren’t ourselves anymore.
When we are ourselves, we can only speak from memory. And that gooey memory in the brain is just another recollection that must be reconstructed by the brain in order to discuss it.
Whatever we say, we are speaking off a photocopy at best while here.
Meditation offers a direct experience. But from a cognitive view, it’s just seeing from a different part of the brain.
Still, it’s another vantage point to view from, and there things look quite different. Even objects here are seen as mostly transparent!

Um replies to Osho Bot…
” Pizza, Shmeetzah!
If it doesn’t make coffee it can’t be more than, say, three stars!”

You asked
“What, in your view, is the actual mechanism by which knowledge of this Oneness reaches you?”
The question cannot be answered because of the word “knowledge”
By your definition there is no knowledge
There are only beliefs.
Knowledge doesn’t exist so how can I even answer?
The answer I previously gave was based on the normal meaning of “knowing” not on your version. By your version there is no knowledge so then you cannot ask the question without changing knowledge to belief.
Enlightenment is outside of your model.
Oneness is not a knowledge that gets communicated to me from beyond.
The contradiction arises because you are trying to fit something that is outside of your model into your model
I don’t “see” or “perceive” ONENESS
It is not a “thing”
It is not a noun.
It does not communicate to me
The way you view ONENESS is the reason for the contradiction
Perhaps calling it Non-Duality is more appropriate because it’s clearly not a noun.
Now the reason why I asked how you know you have eyes or ears without seeing them or feeling them.
The beard example was added to distinguish it from the eyes and ears.
You cannot know you have a beard. You can guess but now know.
However the eyes – You KNOW (in the normal use of the word) you have them
And the ears also
For the reason you correctly stated:
That you can see and hear.
You don’t need to see your eyes or feel them. The fact that you can see is the proof.
The reason for the question was to show that it’s possible to know you have eyes without seeing your eyes. Not so for the beard.
Oneness is similar. The way you realise non-duality is a similar leap.
The issue is that you are seeking a mind based answer
Logically so because the mind is all you know.
But the mind doesn’t get enlightened

Any answer I give and anything I say has to appear controversial and contradictory because by its very nature it cannot make sense.
It is not an experience.
Naturally the question arises, “what is it then?” And that too cannot be answered
Hence the Scriptures say
“What you see or experience is NOT it. What it IS, cannot be said”
Even trying to attain it is nonsensical because it’s not something to attain. It is a discovery not an attainment

Any dialogue with me necessarily has to be frustrating because I cannot give the answers that satisfy your mind.
You cannot find the answers you seek, because you have to enter into the same discovery before it makes sense. Even then, you will not get the answers. The questions will drop because you will see the futility in asking those questions.
When the thing is outside of time, how can a question within time make sense? How can you ask “how or when” and even if you got the answer – how will it help? No answer can help.

Let Oneness be what it is. For now I’m not contesting that.
And for now use whatever definition of “knowledge” that you like.
But how, in what manner, by what mechanism, does knowledge of that Oneness reach you?
To put that in your own idiom, how does Oneness communicate with the duality that is the organism called Osho Robbins, no matter how imperfectly? Because the organism called Osho Robbins does speak of Oneness. How, by what mechanism, did this knowledge, no matter how distorted, reach said organism at all?

The only way to resolve this contradiction is to claim that the human organism possesses some faculty, some mode of perception, that is outside and beyond our current scientific understanding. Is that what you’re claiming?

The only way to resolve this contradiction is to claim that the human organism possesses some faculty, some mode of perception, that is outside and beyond our current scientific understanding. Is that what you’re claiming?

Sorry, double post. I’m on my phone, which makes for awkward posting.
And Osho Robbins, please do address both those questions, asked in my two posts. Don’t just answer one and ignore the other, like you sometimes do.
You too, Spence, if you’d like.

Hi Appreciative
There is who and what we are, body, brain, awareness, personality, and the entire creation… We are a drop in an ocean, connected to each other. And the more we measure this physical universe the more clearly evidence demonstrates we are all connected physically.
Our conscious awareness is separate from our subconscious parts.
Practice is about expanding our connscious awareness, largely through focus, and attentiveness.
Then whatever is we see more.
And that is Love. Or you could say there is the experience of being loved and being love and loving all things, and then seeing that all things are expressions of love, that just grows and grows as we think less and less and become still, and more aware and awake.

@appreciative reader
Not sure what the other question is
I answered from this:
“ Here, let me copy down that question here again:
What, in your view, is the actual mechanism by which knowledge of this Oneness reaches you?”
That’s the one I answered. If you want to copy the other one, I’ll have a stab at answering.
In your world view, nobody knows anything and in fact knowledge is not available since it’s all error prone.
So all scientific knowledge, all mystical knowledge, in fact everything is all delusion. With that works view, there is no point in attempting to find any answers because they will all be error prone
Spence says it’s all love but cannot define it – and even if he could – that love would be just as error prone
Whatever answer I give will also be error prone because if there was sone nee method of perception that would be just as error prone
You have convinced yourself there are no answers that are absolute.
So there is no way you can possibly accept my claim – as that is impossible in your world view

A. R. : “Perceptions are neither fallible nor infallible, neither right nor wrong, they are simply what they are. But when we go beyond perception itself, to knowledge derived from perception (and/or from mental constructs or reasoning, and/or from cultural constructs or beliefs), then that resultant knowledge is always fallible, and never inerrant.”
Unfortunately, I believe too often perception tends to impart the notion of a static
sensory experience which requires a cognitive post analysis to comprehend. We
devalue or forget the assessment of a heightened awareness driven by and from
within consciousness itself. Tapping into all of the data of the subconscious and,
using its innate power, consciousness perceives and “knows” in an instant…
leaving plodding intellect behind.
Awareness will often manifest as a hunch or a flash of intuition. Dagleish senses
that poor chum suspected of murder isn’t guilty. His faithful intellect then jumps in
and launches an investigation to “prove it”. Behind the curtain, awareness sighs
“Elementary, my dear old friend… elementary.”
So, heightened awareness (“direct perception” or DMP) within knows. But who
can explain it? It certainly won’t happen back at the crime scene with intellect’s
Keystone Cops squad running helter-skelter outside pursuing the usual suspects.
The K. Cops play an essential role though. It’s part of the play’s script. Without a
script, the audience jeers and demands its money back. Wearying, however, in
an attempt to really understand what’s really going on, the spiritual detective will
eventually turn to the prime suspect: the power of consciousness within.

A belief is something you have accepted as true. It may be true, it may not. But you now see the world through this filter. You can never prove it to be true even subjectively, but you are convinced and to you it appears to be true.
Knowing, on the other hand is absolute. It is not based on opinion or teaching or what it says in a certain book.
The problem is with the word “absolute” because you don’t consider anything absolute as your perceptions can also be wrong. By that definition there cannot ever be any absolute knowing because you have disqualified everything from your definition. Even a DMP is disqualified because all perceptions can be wrong – there is no guarantee of truth.
After all, we see the sun going around the earth. Without understanding the layout of the solar system, our perceptions tell us it is a fact that the sun goes around the earth.
Spence puts Love above all else. However that is just as error prone because it’s not even a direct perception – it is many times removed from a direct perception. And experience tells us our so-called love is very unreliable as shown by the huge number of failed relationships where we once claimed undying love and now we cannot even stand their company.
Unless Spence has a new updated definition for love. After all he claims that love is the ultimate answer

A.R.
The only way to resolve this contradiction is to claim that the human organism possesses some faculty, some mode of perception, that is outside and beyond our current scientific understanding.
me:
Nobel price winner Prof. Luc Montagnier proved
The Memory of water in the laboratory
it s on Youtube
I found impressive cool:
dillution was One drop in the atlantic ocean and
yet far away water knew the information
Is H2O a sub-god?
Satsangis don’t go there , . . maybe on special request allowed
to pause their ascend to have a look
but in general they are lifted up by love, . . up to the top ( a la Fibunacci)
777

“ Hi Appreciative
There is who and what we are, body, brain, awareness, personality, and the entire creation… We are a drop in an ocean, connected to each other. And the more we measure this physical universe the more clearly evidence demonstrates we are all connected physically.
Our conscious awareness is separate from our subconscious parts.
Practice is about expanding our connscious awareness, largely through focus, and attentiveness.
Then whatever is we see more.
And that is Love. Or you could say there is the experience of being loved and being love and loving all things, and then seeing that all things are expressions of love, that just grows and grows as we think less and less and become still, and more aware and awake.”
– Spence Tepper
Spence: how do you get to “we are a drop in the ocean And connected to each other”
Is that just something you read in a book? Or is it a random belief?
How is measuring the physical universe related to connectedness? Where is the link?
“Our conscious awareness is separate from our subconscious parts”
Do you think this is a fact? Or a belief?
What does “subconscious parts” even mean? And how is conscious awareness separate from them? In what way?
How do you “expand your conscious awareness through focus” ?
What exactly do you do?
Is that what you feel the RSSB meditation practice is?
And through this we see “more” ?
More what?
More perceptions that are error prone as you have previously stated?
And somehow this is your definition of love?
How does that even remotely relate to love?
And now you offer an alternative definition
“ Or you could say there is the experience of being loved and being love and loving all things, and then seeing that all things are expressions of love, that just grows and grows as we think less and less and become still, and more aware and awake.”
How do you see that “all things are expressions of love”
That is a sweeping statement. So large fish eating smaller fish is an expression of love? The slaughter house is an expression of love? You said “all things”
Perhaps you want to qualify that into “ few things”
And how does that love grow and grow as we think less and less?
If you become still, somehow you are now an expression of love?
I just don’t see how any of this makes any sense at all and certainly not to someone who says that all perceptions and mental constructs are error prone
For someone who says we can’t know anything and it’s all beliefs – it’s interesting that you write this as if it is all fact.
It would be far more accurate to prefix every statement with “I believe….,”

Hello again, Osho Robbins.
I’ll try to keep this focused, so as not to get mired into too many things. And in this post of mine I’ll clarify a few things about what you’d said to me in in your own recent posts, and repeat my two questions to you, that you’ve still not answered, in the next.
.
First : What I said about knowledge etc isn’t “my worldview”, in the sense that this isn’t some idiosyncratic idea I’ve come up with. It is the everyday worldview, and it is the scientific world view.
True, if you take the last two or three posts of mine addressed to you as stand-alone, then that does give the impression that I’m conflating knowledge and belief. But you’ve read all of my posts, written over our somewhat lengthy exchange, and that isn’t where I’m coming from at all. What I was trying to convey, by saying that it might be more precise to substitute “I believe I know” every time we want to say “I know”, is the fact that what we know is clearly essentially fallible. Which is not, at all, to say, that knowledge and belief are the same things.
I’ve expressed this in brief here. I hope my meaning is clear? In case it isn’t, then please ask, and I’ll be happy to clarify at greater length.
.
Secondly : You’ve misinterpreted what I’ve said about the fallibility of knowledge in a very surprising manner. To say that all knowledge is fallible is NOT to say that all knowledge is delusion. To say that none of what we know is inerrant is NOT to say that knowledge is simply not possible. That’s a very very surprising way to parse what I’d said.
Fallibility does not translate as “incapable of being correctly apprehended”. Not being inerrant is not the same as necessarily being wrong. Absolutely not.
You’d presented those examples to me earlier on. And you’d asked me, again, subsequently, to go back and address each of them. Which I did. Did you actually read my responses to your examples, all of them not just the last about eyes and ears? I’d explained my meaning very clearly there.
And nor is this my own idiosyncratic understanding of the nature of knowledge. That is exactly how science deals with the world around us.
In each of those examples, the perception part is indeed inerrant. That is to say, it is neither inerrant nor fallible, it is what it is. However, the knowledge that we derive from our perception — as well as from our mental constructs and our cultural constructs — is necessarily fallible, is necessarily never inerrant. (Which is exactly the opposite of what you were trying to show.)
And to say that is not to say that all knowledge is delusion. Absolutely not. I mean, like, that is the whole point of the scientific method! I didn’t think I’d need to spell this out like this, but clearly I’ll have to.
Because our intuition is fallible, because our first impression (and for that matter our second and third and fourth impressions) are fallible, that is why we need the scientific method. Okay, let me just explain this with Newton’s (apocryphal) apple, that you’d yourself brought up. We might just as well substitute any of your other examples as well here, that I’d discussed earlier.
Newton comes up with an intuition, and idea, a conclusion, about gravity. Now that knowledge is not infallible, it is not inerrant. But that is not to say it is necessarily delusional. It might be bang-on correct, or it might be correct in essence but flawed in some aspects (that is, partly right and partly wrong), or else it might be out and out wrong.
So what does Newton do? (And, indeed, what do every one of us need to do with all of our knowledge, at least in principle?) Newton first of all clearly formulates his intuition, his conclusion, in full detail. Refines it as small flaws here and there come to mind. In his case puts in the detailed math. Checks for internal inconsistencies, as well as inconsistencies with knowledge then extant. And finally comes up with a formulation that passes muster. And this is his hypothesis.
Had he not been able to come up with even this much, he’d have rightly flung his idea out as mistaken, absolutely. But even after having been able to properly formulate his initial idea/intuition, it is still no more than a hypothesis.
The next stage is to actually test the hypothesis. The evidence thing. Without clearing that last hurdle his perfect formulation is no more than a pretty and internally consistent fairy tale. Interesting, with potential, but not quite …accepted. It is when the evidence test is passed, that he takes his idea as “true”. (But mind, even that he does only provisionally.)
And all of the above — which I’d already discussed upthread, and which in any case is simply what is the scientific method — is what it means when I say that knowledge is fallible, that knowledge is never inerrant.
It absolutely does NOT mean that all knowledge is delustional.
.
And thirdly : This is exactly why I’d requested you to answer my two questions without changing the subject. All of this has nothing really to do with my questions, or how you might answer them.
Like I’d said, in order to answer those very clearly presented questions of mine, let’s forget all of our disagreements about the nature of Oneness. Let us also forget even the foregoing, about where I insist that all knowledge is fallible (and you claim, erroneously, that some [everyday] knowledge is inerrant).
Regardless of the above, I’m one more time going to ask you those two questions. And in order to set them out clearly, I’m going to compose another, separate post to ask them in.
Those two questions, repeated one more time, coming up in the next post.

I know that strictly speaking Brian doesn’t wish for there to be quote-bombing on this blog, but I thought that seeing as I am, in fact, quoting myself, and that the following quotes may be relevant to some aspects of the above conversation, especially in context of the misleading association between myself, Kabir, and the pandits of modern Radhasoami or “Sant Mat” doctrines, that on this occasion Brian may perhaps allow it….
“Pandit, you’ve got it wrong.
There’s no creator or creation there,
no gross or fine, no wind or fire,
no sun, moon, earth or water,
no radiant form, no time there,
no word, no flesh, no faith,
no cause and effect, nor any thought
of the Veda. No Hari or Brahma,
no Shiva or Shakti, no pilgrimage
and no rituals. No mother, father
or guru there. Is it two or one?
Kabir says, if you understand now,
you’re guru, I’m disciple.”
― Kabir, The Bijak of Kabir
“I have obtained the 10th gate as a distilling fire and the channels
of the Ida and Pingala are the funnels to suck in and spit out, and
mind as a golden vat.
In that vat, the extremely pure stream of Name Nectar trickles.
Like this I have distilled the essence of essences.
An incomparable thing has happened, my breath I have made the wine-
cup.”
Kabir, page 92 SGGS
“O brute of brawling and uncultured intellect, reversing thy breath
from the world, turn it thou towards thy God.
Intoxicate thou thy mind with the ambrosial stream that trickles
from the furnace of the 10th gate”
Kabir, page 1123 SGGS
“The snake-like coil is now pierced through & through and I have
dauntlessly met my Lord, the King…
…..Merged in the Full-pervading Lord when I locked the breath
within, then the celestial strain
spontaneously began to resound.”
Kabir, page 972 SGGS
If I say, “He is One,” it is a lie; if I say, “He is two,” I am guilty of slander. Kabir knows Him as He is, but cannot express Him. The devotee who can stay in that place where the Invisible and the manifest are one, Like a lamp in the doorway, illumines both what is within and what is without. As a piece of cloth is not different from the threads which comprise it, So Brahman is not different from the world, and the world is not different from Brahman. 0 Kabir, there is no difference between the world, the Creator, and Brahman; Brahman is in all and all is in Brahman. The fire is one, whether it bums in a lamp or a torch; so Brahman is all, and in Him exist all souls, God, and the world. Unity is the essence of the teachings of all the saints; Laugh at Kabir if you do not become perfect by living in accord with this truth!
Bijak, Shastri, 1941; pp. 42-43
There, what form or shape is there to describe? What second, what “other,” is there to see?
In the beginning, there is no Aum, or Veda. Who can trace His birth?
There, no sky exists, no moon or Sun; no father’s seed, no air, fire, water, or earth.
Who can name Him, or know His will? Who can say from whence He comes?
Remembering the Void, the simple One, a light burst forth [within me]; I offer myself to that Existence who is non-existence.
Bijak, Ramaini 6
Does [the Muslim’s God] Khuda, live only in the mosque?
Is [the Hindu’s God] Ram, only in idols and holy grounds?
Have you searched and found Him there?
You imagine that Hari [Vishnu] is in the East, and Allah is in the West;
But search for Him only in the heart-that is where Ram and Karim both live.
Which, then, is false, the Quran or the Vedas? False is the man who does not see the Truth.
It is One; It is the same One in all. How can you imagine that It is two?
Says Kabir: 0 Lord, every man and every woman are Your own forms;
I am the simple child of Allah-Ram; He is my Guru, my Pir
Brother, where did your two gods come from? Ram, Allah; Keshav, Karim; Hari, Hazrat-so many names!
There may be many golden ornaments, but there is one gold; it has no two-ness in it.
Merely for the sake of exposition, we make of the One, two.
Bijak, Sabda 97&30
O servant, where dost thou seek Me?
Lo! I am beside thee.
I am neither in temple nor in mosque: I am neither in Kaaba nor
in Kailash:
Neither am I in rites and ceremonies, nor in Yoga and
renunciation.
If thou art a true seeker, thou shalt at once see Me: thou shalt
meet Me in a moment of time.
Kabır says, “O Sadhu! God is the breath of all breath.”
Songs of Kabir, Rabindranath Tagore
From this last verse, I would like to emphasise “If thou art a true seeker, thou shalt at once see Me: thou shalt meet Me in a moment of time.”
Kabir Sahib

https://youtu.be/dBIK-VFvDhA
This is papaji. Notice what the people say about what happened.
“ I disappeared” etc
Logically it makes no sense. That is why Spence mocks the idea. Nothing wrong in mocking it. He is only being true to what he feels. It appears to be nonsense. Anyone who makes nonsensical statements we naturally question.
I just questioned what he wrote because it appears nonsensical. Perhaps I am mistaken in which case I will understand his viewpoint.
Appreciative Reader is doing the same.
He is not mocking me, but he has questions because what I am saying is impossible in his world view.
Absolute knowing doesn’t exist in his world. So naturally he will doubt. He has no other choice. My position seems untenable.
Everyone goes through the same or a similar process. Enlightenment seems impossible because we are led to believe it is hard or distant, that it takes a long time. All of those are beliefs and they are incorrect.
Enlightenment is when you see beyond the dual nature of this world and it becomes obvious that the duality is an illusion and the non-duality is the real thing. You drop the connection to the duality personality as you realise it is not the real you. You connect instead with the unchanging and eternal Self which doesn’t have and boundary.
It can be called ONENESS only because there is nothing else.
But this ONENESS does not communicate with me or anyone.
Labelling it ONENESS is the seed of misunderstanding. It cannot be labelled.
The moment you try to categorise or label or understand it, you create the illusion that it is a thing. The only method is to drop the instrument you are using – the mind.
Of course scientifically this is absurd. How can the mind be dropped? It appears nonsensical. Hence the doubt and the questions.
No question can be answered satisfactorily because the only answer is to let it happen. Then the questions stop because you now know and the knowing is beyond the mind, beyond logic.

My first question was (and pardon the all-caps, I’m employing them to to clearly set the questions out in bold, because for some reason the html squiggles for bold font and italics and so forth don’t seem to work here any more — in answering, you can just quote the two all-in-capital-letters questions, and then follow on with your answers, the rest is just my further clarifications around the two questions):
QUESTION 1 : WHAT, IN YOUR VIEW, IS THE ACTUAL MECHANISM HOW KNOWLEDGE OF THE ONENESS IS CONVEYED TO YOU ?
IN OTHER WORDS : HOW DOES ONENESS REVEAL ITSELF TO THE DUALITY THAT IS THE ORGANISM CALLED OSHO ROBBINS?
Because it is a fact that no matter how imperfectly, no matter how distortedly, no matter how incompletely, the duality that is the organism called Osho Robbins does seem to have come to know about this Oneness, and no matter how vaguely, but he does seem to speak about it.
(Not to single you out or to embarrass you by personalizing this. Substitute “Osho Robbins” with whoever you feel more comfortable with discussing in this context, like your UG Krishnamoorty, or your Nanak, or your Paltu, or Ashtavakra, or your mentor Mikaire.)
I’ve already discussed the exact context of the question. You say your Oneness is outside of time and space, and does not interact with our Universe. That necessarily implies that no information about the Oneness can possibly be conveyed into our Universe. Given that, how do you account for this necessarily-beyond-reach Oneness having somehow revealed itself to you? Specifically, what, in your view, would be the actual mechanism how this knowledge has been conveyed to you, in your own case?
(And it is to get at this that we went through all of that different-modes-of-arriving-at-knowledge rigmarole.)
.
QUESTION 2 : THE ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THE ABOVE CONTRADICTION, THAT I CAN THINK OF, IS TO CLAIM THAT THE HUMAN ORGANISM POSSESSES SOME FACULTY, SOME MODE OF PERCEPTION, SOME MODE OF ARRIVING AT KNOWLEDGE, THAT IS OUTSIDE AND BEYOND OUR CURRENT SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING. IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING?
This second question is only to help you on with the first question. Just say “No” to this second, if you don’t think that. (But you’ll still need to actually answer the first question!)
It occurred to me that one way out of the contradiction of information of an outside-of-time-and-space Oneness being made available to organisms that are very-much-within-time-and-space, by maybe introducing some …I don’t know, some faculty, that our current scientific worldview isn’t yet aware of. I’m not suggesting, myself, that that is the case. I’m merely advancing that speculation in order to help you along. Just say “No”, to the second question, if you don’t think that’s the case. (And, mind, if you say “Yes” to the second question, then that immediately raises up a whole host of other questions. And it is on you that the onus of answering those subsequent questions will fall again, if you do claim an affirmative in answer to that question, so fair warning.)

Osho Robbins, I’d intended to post these two separate posts one after the other here. In between you’ve quoted some scripture and stuff, further to your discussion with Spence.
So as to keep my two posts, addressed to you, together in one place, I’ll copy below the links of the two here (so that that mass of scripture that now sits between my first post and my second, don’t somehow result in your seeing, or at least answering to, just the first post, or just the second):
Link to my first post today, with clarifications of what you’ve said to me in your own recent posts addressed to me: https://churchofthechurchless.com/2021/05/open-thread-38-free-speech-for-comments?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e20282e1084fe9200b#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e20282e1084fe9200b
Link to my second post, the one with the two questions:
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2021/05/open-thread-38-free-speech-for-comments?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e20282e10850dc200b#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e20282e10850dc200b

Hello, Dungeness.
I take your point about intuitions, and about the subconscious. And I do agree, I think.
Agreed, our conscious rational processes aren’t the only means for us to …well, to process our perceptions. We do have another means of doing that, and that would be intuition. And intuition probably has to do with our subconscious mind processing stuff for us.
Where maybe I differ with you —- as far i understand your POV from your post, and correct me if I’m misinterpreting you here —- is where you seem to imply that the knowledge that we derive from our intuition, the knowledge that we derive as the fruits of our subconscious doing its thing, is necessarily inerrant. Where you seem to imply that the only role of rational cogitations , when dealing with intuition — and again, correct me if I’m misinterpreting you —- is to explain this intuition to the rational mind, to make it acceptable to the rational mind, and to make the intuition of one person acceptable, at a rational level, to other people.
I myself would say that knowledge arrived at through intuition, knowledge arrived at through subterranean processing by our subconscious — while a very valuable resource, absolutely! —- is entirely as fallible as knowledge derived by the conscious mind. The role of conscious, rational processing is not only to just explain and make acceptable to the conscious rational mind the results of intuition, but also — and, very importantly —- to actually evaluate that intuition. Because that intuition may either be wholly correct, or partly so, or entirely mistaken. And we do need to clearly suss out which it is, on a case to case basis.
Adam Dalgliesh may get this brilliant intuition about this case he’s working on, but that intuition isn’t inerrant. He needs to clearly formulate it (and in the process test it for internal inconsistencies), and further to put the formulation of his intuition to the test of evidence, in order to decide whether to take his intuition as true.
.
And I agree, meditation might probably represent a way to further expand the reach of the conscious, and/or to explore and make available to us more of the subconscious mind than would otherwise be accessible to us, but I don’t think there is any reason to think that the end result, that is to say the content of the intuitions that are the result, are any more inerrant, are any more infallible, than any other kind of knowledge we have access to.
.
And as for (the hypothetical) DMP? Would this above — that is, intuition on (meditational) steroids —- be what DMP amounts to (should DMP be a thing)? Could be, sure.
But, and maybe in additional to the above, DMP might also represent some entirely different mode of direct perception. That after all is what many spiritual/religious traditions actually suggest.
(In any case, this whole DMP thing is at this point hypothetical. Possible, sure. But we don’t actually know that they’re actually a thing, far less what kind of thing they are.)

https://youtu.be/dBIK-VFvDhA
This is papaji. Notice what the people say about what happened.
“ I disappeared” etc
Logically it makes no sense. That is why Spence mocks the idea. Nothing wrong in mocking it. He is only being true to what he feels. It appears to be nonsense. Anyone who makes nonsensical statements we naturally question.
I just questioned what he wrote because it appears nonsensical. Perhaps I am mistaken in which case I will understand his viewpoint.
Appreciative Reader is doing the same.
He is not mocking me, but he has questions because what I am saying is impossible in his world view.
Absolute knowing doesn’t exist in his world. So naturally he will doubt. He has no other choice. My position seems untenable.

@appreciative reader
I have already answered the question.
It was when you said “answer the second one too”
The answer to the second one is also there. In my answer I did not claim any special mechanism of receiving information
For clarity: this was the answer:
“ Enlightenment is outside of your model.
Oneness is not a knowledge that gets communicated to me from beyond.
The contradiction arises because you are trying to fit something that is outside of your model into your model
I don’t “see” or “perceive” ONENESS
It is not a “thing”
It is not a noun.
It does not communicate to me
The way you view ONENESS is the reason for the contradiction
Perhaps calling it Non-Duality is more appropriate because it’s clearly not a noun.”
You are viewing oneness as if it was a thing. In your view it is not real because everything outside time and space is mot real. So the question cannot arise because something unreal (oneness) cannot communicate with the real (me).

You are treating this like Isaac Newton discovered gravity. Intuition ; answering possible objections and then formulation of the theory.
This is not some new scientific discovery. This is like when the disciple solves the zen koan: what is the sound of one hand clapping.
In a single moment of clarity, all becomes clear. It is not knowledge in the traditional sense. The oneness did not communicate to the disciple.
It was a paradigm shift.
Suddenly the impossible becomes possible and makes sense.
But to all others it is still a mystery.
And any words the realiser uses will make no sense to the others.

Osho Robbins, you’re simply playing with words now. Whether you’re doing it intentionally, or whether you’re doing it unknowingly, that I do not know.
It’s quite simple. I’m asking you, how exactly do you know about Oneness? What is the mechanism?
Forget my model. Just forget all of that, and just tell me, if you would, clearly and to the point, without waffling on about twenty three about extraneous distractions:
WHAT IS THE ACTUAL MECHANISM BY WHICH KNOWLEDGE OF ONENESS, THAT IS OUTSIDE OF TIME AND PLACE, COMES TO YOU?
(And “I don’t know” is a valid answer, if that happens to be the case.)

“In a single moment of clarity, all becomes clear. It is not knowledge in the traditional sense. The oneness did not communicate to the disciple.
It was a paradigm shift.
Suddenly the impossible becomes possible and makes sense.
But to all others it is still a mystery.
And any words the realiser uses will make no sense to the others.”
———-
In a single moment, all became clear to you. Sure, I get that, Osho Robbins.
It was a paradigm shift for you. Sure, I get that too.
But somehow, information about Oneness communicated itself to you. How, by what mechanism, did that happen?
It is a simple question, that can be answered even without recourse to those models, and even without worrying about whether knowledge is inerrant or not.
(And, like I said, “I do not know” is a perfectly cromulent answer, should that happen to be the case.)

Hi Osho
As Papaji says, find the seer. You don’t have to look to the Master, but most certainly, find the seer. You are looking, we are all looking, but who is looking? Who is the seer? Who is the man in the mirror, really? At another place he was asked why are we here? And he answered “to find out who we are.”
Papaji is a very kindly, peaceful teacher. Quite beautiful, gentle.
If you need some help, there is the Master. There is Baba Ji, or Maharaj, Papaji, Kabir, Brian Ji. And if you do not need help, then good for you.
Many paths to the same light. If you have discovered there is no path, then you have reached your destination on your path.
And others on their path, Good for them to keep going.
One size doesn’t fit all. But finding a good fit doesn’t invalidate the other sizes. They are for others. And with whatever shoes fit, they can walk. The shoe store has its place in its entirety even though only one style and one size works for you. That doesn’t invalidate the rest of the store. And shoes aren’t the destination. But they are necessary to walk the walk, and not just talk the talk.
At some point to give up, to submit to reality is part of every path. And seeing that reality that you are submitting to, whether the Light, the Sound, your Master, the Holy Spirit, the sky, the mountains, the lake and river, the trees, even the people around trying to figure it out without hope, or the void itself, all of that makes it much easier. So submit to what you can. Give up what you can. And if you can’t find that reality, then there are teachers to help point the way.
Everyone knows that the point of the vessel is the empty space within it. The entire center of the wheel is the hollow hub at the center. The reason for the theater stage is not the stage but the space above it where the performance happens. And even every performance is trying to express something beyond movement and sound. Every painting is trying to express more than the subject of the painting.
Not this, not this…
But this and that. And all of it.

Hello A.R. : “In any case, this whole DMP thing is at this point hypothetical. Possible, sure. But we don’t actually know that they’re actually a thing, far less what kind of thing they are.”
I’m afraid religious-mystical bias permeated my response and I scarcely noticed.
As you argue, we best validate our intuitive hunches. Otherwise, dear Dagleish
might effectively have been abetting a murderer’s escape and found himself
demoted back to constable as well. We find ourselves sliding down the slippery
slope of conspiracy theories easily enough as it is.
In spite of intellect’s drumbeat of warnings, I firmly believe our intuition is perfect
and arises from that perfection within us some mystics have called the “totality of
consciousness” or god. Words fail beyond that. The intuitive voice is perfect but
our hearing is flawed, muffled and indistinct behind our mental filters. We “hear”
things of our own making.
Therefore, the way out is ultimately in until we hone a mindfulness that sharpens
our hearing to perfection. Then Dagleish could gather clues merely pro forma to
exonerate the the accused and know he was innocent from the onset. As a bonus,
he could enjoy the “show” playing out before him. All due to the clarity of improved
hearing.

Now at the age I am, I follow my intuition which guides me and makes me more aware of the intimacy of life. Love this song…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwV2YSR1OBE
Coldplay – Higher Power
“You’ve got a higher power…”
Performance of Higher Power from Glastonbury Festival’s Live At Worthy Farm livestream, 22 May 2021.

Hi Osho
You wrote
“Unless Spence has a new updated definition for love. After all he claims that love is the ultimate answer”
If you love someone more than yourself, that is the start. But for some, that is an impossible barrier.
“When I was mad with pride, the Beloved did not speak to me;
But when I put on the robe of humility, the Master opened my inner eye,
Dyeing every pore of my body in the color of love.
Drinking the elixir from the cup of my emptied heart, I slept on His bed in divine ecstasy.
The devotee meets Hari as gold meets a gold-solvent-, the pure heart melts into its Lord.”
Kabir
Bijak, Shastri, 1941;p.37
Merge into another, worship another more than yourself.
But who can explain how love works? We are the servants, not the Master, but many haven’t figured that out yet.

None shall sleep, (nessun dorma)
None shall sleep!
Even you, oh Princess,
In your cold room,
Watch the stars,
That tremble with love
And with hope.
But my secret is hidden within me,
My name no one shall know,
No… no…
On your mouth, I will tell it,
When the light shines.
And my kiss will dissolve the silence that makes you mine!
(No one will know his name and we must, alas, die.)
Vanish, o night!
Set, stars! Set, stars!
At dawn, I will win!
I will win!
I will win!
-Nessun Dorma, Turandot, by Pucini
https://youtu.be/cWc7vYjgnTs

love is the every only god
who spoke this earth so glad and big
even a thing all small and sad
man,may his mighty briefness dig
for love beginning means return
seas who could sing so deep and strong
one querying wave will whitely yearn
from each last shore and home come young
so truly perfectly the skies
by merciful love whispered were,
completes its brightness with your eyes
any illimitable star
-E. E. Cummings

“ If you love someone more than yourself, that is the start. But for some, that is an impossible barrier.” – Spence
Depends of how you define and what you mean by “Love”
Would you take a bullet for the person you love. A mother may do it for a child.
One example I know is the devotee who literally took a bullet for Darshan Das, who was shot by two Sikh lads while conducting satsang. The devotee (the paathi) had literally a few seconds to decide. He saw the men with the guns and just moved himself in front of the guru and took the first bullet. The second one killed the guru.

@A.R. asked
WHAT IS THE ACTUAL MECHANISM BY WHICH KNOWLEDGE OF ONENESS, THAT IS OUTSIDE OF TIME AND PLACE, COMES TO YOU?
1)
Find a human who’s already there
2)
Ask Her for the tangible Sound
3)
Love that Sound
4)
Love this trio : Guru, Simran & Sound
5)
Those three are ONE, . . . . DIVE in it, drink it eat it,
5b)
Be IT
Sawan Ji said it nicely about Augustinus
‘And I entered into my inner Self, THOU being my Guide”
NO ENTITY CAN GO THERE ON IT’S OWN
The Ego would shout : I did it
and fall
777
Yes
I think that the Memory of Water has a lot to do with it
It can recognise, transport the Orgasmes to the “edges” of the universes

There are a few places where the seeker of love and truth come to believe there is no path to their destination. That whatever they are and wherever they are is the totality of all and their destination. But in truth they are at the starting position and static. Having no apparent wealth, except the platform they didn’t create but which they stand upon in darkness, they feel there is no such thing as wealth. They mistake their own darkness for the great void, which is only reached by incredible inner movement, in which all creations are dwarfed, and passing through that, the light that dwarfs that void, the light that is love and consciousness.
Everyone thinks there is no path when they don’t see their next step. At the beginning, where they see the world around them and all its harshness but no pathway through it.
At first within, where they see only darkness and their mind’s distractions, their thoughts and memories that drag them down and away.
And after a little progress, after some shakey progress, like the spider, they fall back to the bottom.
When they have no teacher, when they have lost their connection and the curtain drops, and they forget what they once saw and knew. And on this path, the memories of those places is not kept in this brain. Like accessing the cloud, those memories are accessed by keeping the connection open and clean.
When they have arrived at some plane, some stage, and standing upon that precipice, see the worlds beneath them, and all around is nothing, they think their journey is complete. When all that is left on that precipice is themself, even a cleaner version of themself. And there is no path before them. And because the curtain fell, they see no one there with them. They don’t see who brought them there.
And so the curtain falls over them again, because their vision was given only for the purpose of progress.
But their next step begins when they acknowledge they know nothing. They did nothing. And then the possibility occurs that they were always at the mercy of someone else’s grace. So they learn to beg once more.
Then the fog lifts a little, the next step appears, and in a moment where tears flow uncontrollably they remember. And there is reunion and union.
In that instant both love and light illuminate their path forward.
So long as we are alive in these bags of flesh, forward movement is our only purpose and duty.
“When I was, He was not. When I am not, He Is!”

Well Spence what you wrote in the first alinea, sums it all up more or less besides ……>>They mistake their own darkness for the great void, << .... but who knows will I arrive to interpret my state that way in the future. As I wrote several times ... I woke up during the presentation of an movie and never was able or willing to find my way back in the absorption of the movie. There was a part in that movie that was certainly a pleasure and stays with me as such if I want to remember it. These days, i have divide the world in two, those who have experiences and those who have heard about them and is divided in many subgroups as can be seen in this blog. I also came to understand the meaning of language and concepts in the use by those two groups. And finaly ... the truth of the saying ... the pull must come from within and if it is not there it is just not there and nobody can do anything to change that. Those born in adverse circumstance without their knowledge and consent, an tthose born in optinal circumstances, all have to accept whatever is placed before them and deal with it. ...or ... the crow is born a crow, will live his life as such and will end so The mystic has to deal with his experiences, as has the believer with his faith, the lover with his love and those who lack these attributes do the same. As is written in Genesis ...and he saw that it was good. Not that it is up to be to say a word about that he but it is a nice way to express what nature is all about ... it is just there and we are there too, as we are. So for me there is not such a thing as the great void ... but there is a natural state of being human. Culture makes one believe things to be other than they really are

Hi Um
You wrote
“As is written in Genesis …and he saw that it was good. Not that it is up to be to say a word about that he but it is a nice way to express what nature is all about … it is just there and we are there too, as we are.”
What it is and what we are change radically upon inspection. Under the scrutiny of scientific inspection the results have been unbelievably, fantastically different than what a casual observer reports. But that starts with our attitude as investigators, quite, observant. Lifelong investigators, passionate for every new observation, keeping all things in our personal lab as stable and clean as possible. Every observation is a step forward.
Everyone has an inner experience. Very few attend to it. As with all observation, it requires putting aside distractions. And finding a mythod and assistance as needed. Love is a big part of keeping us going. Someone else’s love pulls us forward when we are dry and exhausted.
At some point we realize we aren’t alone. We are being guided. It’s a magnificent moment. The particles and waves are interacting! Nothing is isolated except by senses and mind so we can function here. But when we seek to go beyond that, this little photograph we are living on is soon understood to be a single inteferometer image we feed our brain to make decisions when reality is so much larger.

Hi Osho
You wrote
“It would be far more accurate to prefix every statement with “I believe….,””
Yes, yes. And in my case “I experienced… I experienced…” which is both experience and translation through this tiny and limited brain, which then deposits “I believe….”, or more accurately, “I recall..what I believe is….”
Still you might be more interested in “What the hell happened to this guy that he thinks that? And still seems to have a scientific perspective??”
😉

@ Spence
As I wrote … all have to eat the food that is placed on the table before them and digest it.
The food that is place before YOU is different than mine.
Those who have an talent and are aware of it, both not in their hands, and have the surroundings to develop it, are able to to so.
Just to use the use the theory … an animal, is not an human being and its soul has to wait until it is given an human birth. Given a human birth it can so happen that it never has any idea about the divine, so it has to be reborn again etc etc etc.
You could in this life not escape your inner experiences and having them you are forced to deal with them and reap the consequences therof … an ..so we all have to do the same … play the role we are given. / not that there is a giver but language wants it that way

@ Spence
If somebody shares an experience with me that makes him or her happy, i love to hear their stories, take part in the atmosphere that is created when they related it but it never does arise of an desire, to go or do what they did.
That is how I read what you write and what others want to share here…they are descriptions and no invitations.
Their stories are all “selfies”, describing what it is for them, exposing who they are.

Hi Um
You wrote
“If somebody shares an experience with me that makes him or her happy, i love to hear their stories, take part in the atmosphere that is created when they related it but it never does arise of an desire, to go or do what they did.”
Yes, you can enjoy them vicariously, or perhaps be reminded of the value of your own, which is priceless. Personally I would never want to live as the characters on detective action TV shows. I I’d be dead in a minute. But it’s fun to watch.
If it is our nature to be anxious, to struggle and to find sanctuary and the Lord’s companionship, to forget, fall, be bruised and then remember and struggle again, that’s how we are going to be. Seems to be my lot anyway.

@ Spence
Yes it is yours.
Huzur used to say sometimes, when people would bring things before him that no Indian would ever dear to discuss in public … If you would not have put it before me I would never have known about it.
Well Spence, it took me many, many years and much emotional and intellectual pain to finally understand and accept that almost everything I know, understand and strived for were all things I would never have done or thought about.
Left alone I would never have had any interest in the divine in terms of questions who made this all, what was there before death and is there an afterlife
After I woke up in the cinema of life little by little these coverings started to fall from me realising that I had put on [cultural and social] clothes that were not my own, not of my own choice and that they didn’t fit me.

Hi, 777.
That was a sweet comment. The content of it, but more so the thought behind it.
Agreed, what you discuss is, in essence if not in complete detail, the process that many traditions recommend. And agreed further, that to some extent that is exactly the kind of process that might (and often does) work, for mundane worldly pursuits, and therefore, why not, for the other, other-worldly kind as well (should that kind actually be a thing, that is).
.
But, as far as my discussion with Osho Robbins, that isn’t what I was asking him at all. My question to him, at that stage of our discussion, was a very focused inquiry about the mechanism of his Realization. The actual mechanism basis which cognizance of Oneness, hitherto absent, was at that point manifested to him. Not the broader process leading on to it, which part, with him at least, we’d discussed to death long since.

Hello again, Osho Robbins.
I’d deliberately held off responding to your response thus far — “response”, I say, because silence is sometimes amply eloquent response! — to my focused questions, repeated for the third time. Because it is better to err on the side of being overly fair and overly accommodating, rather than risk the opposite.
777, whom I’ve addressed just now, had misunderstood the nature of my query. You yourself couldn’t possibly have done that : there isn’t a shadow of a chance of that, not after that protracted exchange of ours. My question to you was not, like 777 assumed, about the overall process, that is to say the specific circumstances and events, that led to your Realization. That part we’ve discussed in full detail already.
My question, like I was saying to 777 just now, was a very focused inquiry about the mechanism of your Realization. The actual mechanism basis which cognizance of Oneness, hitherto absent, was manifested to you at the point of your Realization.
That focused question, and its focused answer (and, like I’d said, admitting you don’t know would have been an acceptable answer too), like I’d clearly pointed out repeatedly to you, did not and does not depend on, nor is its elucidation in any essential way a function of any disagreement we might have over, such abstractions as models of how knowledge is arrived at, or one’s particular worldview, and so forth.
.
Like I said, silence sometimes can be amply eloquent response. Your inability to answer that straightforward and easily answerable question (even while you find the time to go holding forth at length on voluminous scripture quotes and other irrelevancies) speaks volumes ; and your unwillingness, indeed your inability, to clearly face up to what that implies speaks actual libraries.
.
Like I’d said at one stage upthread, this was a very disappointing thread for me, at more levels than one. (You went ahead, thereafter, and continued with the process ; and I was happy to follow on, once more, with an open mind ; but the end result is no different than I’d concluded at that point, that much is amply clear now.)
Nevertheless, I don’t regret the time and effort expended. On the contrary. It was a learning experience, at more levels than one.
Thank you, very much, for taking the time to do this with me.
Cheers, and God bless, Osho Robbins.

Bruce Lee . . . Water
“For our purposes in this moment, meditation should be understood as a method of loosening the mind and letting it float a bit.”
Or imagine you had something Sweet that at your request CAN TAKE OVER
It works
Because my beautiful wife in in the process of physically dying from cancer
and when this overwhelms me from time to time
I couldn’t survive without this TAKING over
777

Quote of the Day
“Concentration of mind is the key to spiritual truth.”
— Maharaj Sawan Singh Ji —
. ; ; and do-able Life

@Winner
Who knows our present situation will understand
that me grepping my Iphone and capturing the spirit form of my wife beautiful Helga , I saw
while She did Her Meditation
I will send the copy of her form clearly in the mirror
for publication
but only, repat ONLY , Brian agreeinf letting the readers judge and promises
to place/publishe the photo un-edited together with a normal photo of Her physical form so that judging will be easy
It will prove that RSSB is REAL
777

Quote of the Day
“All this talk about equality. The only thing people really have in common is that they are all going to die.”
— Bob Dylan —
me:
That’s true also for the Sun, te Milky Way c.s, The Galaxy Clusters and so much more
but not The Saints and their incrowd
btw : the whole & only reason of this happening
777