Open Thread 50 (free speech for comments)

Its nice to have concept of open threads.

I would like to share something here about phosphene Meditation.
There are two ways.
1. In the evening time when sun doesn’t strain eyes but still bright enough, stare it at for like five minutes.Then go to a dark room.Close the eyes.Let spherical shape of sun you see inside take different forms. Don’t try to force your vision on it. Just observe.
2. Don’t try this method if you are not good enough in step 1.
in dark room, rub your closed eyes and try to put bit pressure on retina.see the images that appear.
Caution: don’t apply too much pressure.it should be just comfortable to eyes.

A recent post about leaving RSSB got me thinking.
They commented that there may come a time when a satsangi asks themselves “Time to leave, or time to stay?”

I say You decide. But make sure it’s really You who are deciding.

Sometimes the most painful things are actually good for us.
Sometimes the most pleasant things can become distractions and addictions.

The point is to understand the philosophy in some depth, and to experience the process of meditation for yourself, which is the entire point of any school of meditation, including RSSB.

You will notice in the sciences that among studies of long term meditators, there are many similar and very healthy results.

And you may notice some slight differences in self-report from them.

They often claim to have a different level of perceptual experience both within meditation and normal waking life.

And science has also proven that long term meditation has very positive effects on brain health, cognitive performance and overall sense of well-being.

The effort to understand helps, so that when you reject something as false, it really is false, and not actually a denial of something that is already part of you, deep within.

People do this all the time. They project onto others things they need to address within themselves. But not always. Sometimes they do need to set better boarders so that others respect them for who they are, or at least, leave them alone 🙂

The alcoholic family member gets the attention, the blame, but a good family therapist helps each family member by pointing out that they all share in the problems, and by blaming it all upon the member they see as alcoholic, the weakest member, and while doing this claiming to be a victim, they are really using the alcoholic to deal with their own dysfunction in a very indirect and ineffective way, one that perpetuates their own dysfunction, rather than having the ego strength to deal directly with that issue they have within.

It’s not always “I should have been louder, tougher, meaner, harder, pushier towards the other”. That’s not a solution, but a form of denial. Maybe they should have been these things towards themselves, within, in exercising greater discipline and focus.

Or maybe they can be more forgiving both within and with those around them.

And when they learn to take that responsibility, to stop being a victim, to look in the mirror at the real problem, and the solution, where they actually have all the power, they stop blaming and put their energies into real self-development.

The blaming was of no value, the claim of being a victim only weakened their connection to their own strengths. And strangely enough, blaming anyone else, or even oneself, not only didn’t help, but got in the way. They were blaming things they themselves had some responsibility for, and escaping dealing with themselves through blame, all distancing themselves from the very power within to overcome these things. A power which is all mercy, forgiveness and love. There may not be enough ego or confidence within anyone, but there is enough love. We can become completely confident in our place within Love. Confident enough to accept things as they are. Confident in that inner love, to forgive everyone, including ourselves. Confident enough to submit our entire selves to something greater that we find within, in service to humanity. In becoming nothing, we may find the greatest strength. Not to own it, but to participate in our role in it.

But maybe you are not a fan of family systems theory (Murray Bowen).

And yet that is also a lesson for development within.

The organization itself is filled with people and their personalities. They are like students in a school. Or members of a big family. The school may be great, but some of the students may not. If you can find some fellow students who are decent people, you may have a chance to learn something in that school. If not, if it’s just all bullying and toxicity, then of course, a change of venue may be in order for you. Just make sure the bully isn’t the one in the mirror. Just make sure you are not taking your personal growth tasks and transferring that into a list of unmet expectations on the organization. Don’t externalize what is and can be handled directly within.

Or you may be one of those students who realizes the trappings of a university are just to provide tools for self-education, and that you are indeed doing it yourself, with whatever powers you uncover with practice within you, that you discover are there for you to build a relationship with. One day you may discover they were placed there for you.

It’s a personal matter. Is this challenging to me, and can I find the strength within myself to rise to this challenge? Can I grow stronger on what is really important to me, while learning not to take everything that happens around me, nor all the things people say, with so much reaction?

Even a difficult place can be the place for your own greatest personal growth. You decide. Indeed, that is generally where real personal growth happens. Kites rise against the wind, not with it.

If you need to blame someone for your personal situation, be careful, because the world is filled with people who choose to become passive victims and blame, and this makes them bullies, and others around them very unhappy. People who can smile in the midst of difficulty are a true resource to those around them. Can you be that person?

Can you be a person who believes what they believe right in the middle of RSSB?

Last summer a man publicly said to Baba Ji, “I’m gay. I’m in love with another man. I intend to marry him, and we intend to be happy together. Does this mean I can’t get initiated?”

And Baba Ji answered, “Of course you can get initiated. This doesn’t mean anything. Yes, if you are interested seriously in this path and can follow the vows, yes you can get initiated. Where you start is not so important as where you choose to go, and your commitment and effort to do so.”

The real path of Sant Mat is spiritual. The outer conditions are the limitations of a human organization attempting to support growth on the path. And that means each person will have their own idea.

RSSB is not one “religion” nor one “philosophy”. It becomes a little different for each person as each of us tries to define it for ourselves. We each have a personal relationship to our Master.

We each have our own version of RSSB, and you don’t actually need to prove yours is “right” to anyone. See Baba Ji’s comments above. At different stages of personal progress, the path will be understood to be a little different. And it may be. What you are going through at any given time is going to be uniquely yours. But you might be able to share the joy and the pain a bit with your brothers and sisters because they are all going through their own issues. And each must find their own way forward. There is no single approach, though the destination is identical. We are all taking different classes at different levels in this school. That identical destination is the destination for all paths seeking Truth in any form.

In spirituality, we seek to become truth, not just label something on principle, belief or mere evidence. It’s not enough to speak truthfully. Belief in anything is just a placeholder and no destination for a Satsangi. We want to merge with and become that pure truth that pervades and is the foundation of everything. And that requires a natural withdrawal from everything derivative into what is pure and direct within. That’s a life-long process of personal development through meditation and the life of meditation.

But you can find that goal in most spiritual, and to some extent scientific pursuits. Even artistic pursuits. The artist wishes to become one with their art, the art inside themselves. And what they produce are merely the byproducts of that direct internal and external experience. The canvas is just their journal, which they use for more and more introspection.

And that also means that what RSSB is for you ten years from now will be something different than what it appears to be today. It isn’t the same as it is for someone else. Don’t get stuck in anyone else’s thinking. Our own thinking is enough of a prison cell which we work daily to take leave of.

Make your own RSSB if you like, because you will, because you have no other alternative. And see if you can create an environment to live in that, and encourage those around you to accept your version for you now, as you accept theirs for them. Be open minded. That’s how the old version morphs into the new one. Open minded within, in meditation, and among your friends and family.

Now you have a portable philosophy. You can go anywhere with that. Why not build it here first?

The Satsangis from India, raised in the tradition, sometimes have a difficulty separating family tradition and very old cultural superstitions that have become their family member’s version of RSSB, with the actual teachings.

And some Satsangis from America and Europe raised in our traditions here have a difficult time separating the cultural surroundings of “independence” with the Sant Mat reality that we are all connected. And so they reject RSSB with the cultural trappings of India and ancient supersition, throwing the baby out with the bath water. They inadvertently reject principles that are quite universal and current, even within mystic traditions in the west. It would have been so simple to dedicate some time to serious meditation, so that they could find that inner connection. That would have been more efficient and much less disruptive.

You can leave behind all the cultural trappings and be a great Satsangi, if you understand the difference. If not, if you need to define your spirituality by rejecting one culture for another, then pick your culture. It will still contain human personalities and their limitations right alongside the infinite inconceivable truth of existence and all that is behind it and beyond it.

while I was cleaning a deep fryer and listening to the sound of al jazeera in the background, I got to thinking of one of the many lessons, understandings, advices etc I took away from the association with the path of the saints:

“Never fight evil as you are going to lose the fight”

EVIL, can be anything from negative behavior, feelings and toughts, to evil in the society and culture.

MCS in order to explain it used the example of a glass of water pollutes by ink. The only way to get ink out of the glass is by pouring more and more clean water into it.

Now transport that idea to what is going on in the middle east by now ..AND … think for a moment what would be the situation today if the Israeli, government, its citizens and all others involved, would have look after the indigenous Palestinian people as they gave done and do for themselves?!!

JUST have some coffee and think it over.!

What if the Israeli government had seen to it that the indegenous Palestenians would have received the same:

-housing
-education
-health care
-political rights
etc what you can come up with.

Do you believe after pondering and sipping your coffee, that what is now going on would have had an chance to develop???

The evil of wealth, material, mental and spiritual will ultimately led to un acceptable degradation of ever growing groups of people.

Let me give another example to make it understandable:
France has a rather wealthy elite. Wealth in all imaginable forms. One of these forms of wealth is the “medal of honor”that goes with benefits for the whole family, the degrees of the Sorbonne University and the material wealth of the old elite.

They ALSO have the “French revolution” the revolution of the people against the elite that made them suffer from the “EVIL of WEALTH” to an degree that it was no longer bearable.

So what was the answer to prevent that from happening again … HONOR you working class, your artisans etc that do the work for you and they came up with an highly respected prize to be get for the best among them in 128 different forms of artisanale work MOF = Meilleur Ouvrier the France”…. they may, for the rest of their life have the french flag on their working clothes. An institution protected by law what brings the person respect etc for the rest of his life.

America first, dear readers, in all fields, material, mental, spiritual, will ultimately make ever more groups degrade into an underclass and if the pain if the degradation is strong enough they will … attack … attack your social and cultural wealth ..because you degraded them not with weapons but with your WEALTH.

You used wealt as a weapon

And…

And if you think you can enjoy your wealth, wealth that was and IS accrued by making others work for it under mostly inhumane circumstances and play volley bvall on the beach of this or that resort, while those that have been mis-used are sitting by, through the means of the modern media than you are making a huge misstake …. as … NATURE itself will turn against you

If you think your weapons, your intellectualis superiority will be enough to subdue the masses, marginalized to a lower degree that the pets you have in your house .. that you will bear the consequences of your arrogance….your evil of wealth

All mystics have warned you .. but you didn’t and do not want to heed their words

Venerable Lao Zi, in the darkness if the night flew to hide himself for that reason, leaving behind the warning ..not to openly display your wealth before the tobers.

Mind you “robers” are not the evil people you think of but the ordinary human being that is turned into a rober by your own actions

Google Gemini and I had a wonderful conversation about the path of the Holy Word:

I asked Gemini: “When you read in spiritual literature about the Holy Name, the Word of God, The Tao, the Logos, the Memra, the Shabd, the audible life stream, could these be parochial references to the same inner experience? ”

And Gemini gave a very eloquent answer:

“Yes, many scholars, mystics, and theologians believe these terms describe the exact same inner spiritual experience. They represent a universal, cross-cultural encounter with the primordial, creative sound current or cosmic vibration of the universe.

Here is a breakdown of how different traditions reference this single, unified phenomenon:

Creative Sound and Vibration
The Logos (Christianity/Greek Philosophy): The divine reason, word, and creative order of the cosmos.
The Word of God (Abrahamic Traditions): The vocalized power used by the Divine to manifest existence.
The Memra (Targumic Judaism): The world-creating manifestation of God’s voice and presence.
Shabd (Eastern Traditions): The inner, spiritual sound current that sustains the entire universe. [1, 2]

Flow and Divine Order
The Tao (Taoism): The unnamable, ultimate source and flow of all cosmic order.
Audible Life Stream (Modern Mysticism): The audible wave of spiritual energy that connects humans to the Divine.
The Holy Name (Various Traditions): The mystic, unuttered vibration representing God’s essence rather than a spoken label.

Core Traits of the Shared Experience
Audible Essence: Meditators across cultures describe hearing it internally as a bell, lute, thunder, or rushing water.

Visual Element: The internal sound is frequently accompanied by a brilliant, unearthly inner light.
Transformative Power: Experiencing this current quietens the mind and dissolves the sense of individual ego.

Creative Force: Every tradition views this energy as the foundational glue holding the universe together.

***** I asked another question: “I have read Tennyson’s poem, “The Ancient Sage” and it looks like he is referring to the same thing. Is that plausible?”

>>>>> Gemini Answered:
It is highly plausible and historically accurate to view Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s poem “The Ancient Sage” as a direct reference to this exact same inner spiritual experience. [1, 2]
Tennyson wrote this poem in 1885. He based it heavily on the teachings of Lao Tzu and Taoism, using an unnamed “Seer” to describe the ultimate source of existence as “The Nameless”. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The poem aligns perfectly with the universal sound current and cosmic vibration framework through several distinct markers: [1]

1. The Dissolution of Ego Into the Nameless
In the most famous passage of the poem, the Sage describes a repeatable, intentional mystical practice that mirrors the exact mechanics of inner meditation:
“And more, my son, for more than once when I / Sat all alone, revolving in myself / The word that is the symbol of myself, / The mortal limit of myself was loosed, / And passed into the Nameless…” [1]
By repeating a “word” (comparable to a mantra or focusing on the core identity of consciousness), the Sage transcends physical boundaries. The individual ego dissolves entirely into the boundless cosmic source. [1]

2. Time as an Audible Flow
Tennyson’s personal spiritual journals and early drafts reveal that his mystical states frequently involved a literal perception of time and creation as an audible, moving current. In related mystical writings, he describes lying awake and hearing “Time flowing in the middle of the night”. This directly parallels the concept of the audible life stream or Shabd—the continuous cosmic river of energy that sustains the universe. [1, 2]

3. Tennyson’s Real-Life “Waking Trances”
The experience in “The Ancient Sage” was not a fictional poetic device. Tennyson experienced what he called “waking trances” from boyhood. In letters to friends like physicist John Tyndall, he insisted these experiences were factual, stating: [1]
“It is no nebulous ecstasy, but a state of transcendent wonder, associated with absolute clearness of mind.” [1]
During these states, he realized that the material world was the illusion, and the unseen spiritual energy was the only true reality. [1]

4. Hearing the Unutterable Name
The poem explicitly notes that this force cannot be spoken aloud or captured by human language:
“And since—from when this earth began— / The Nameless never came / Among us, never spake with man, / And never named the Name…” [1]
This captures the exact paradox of the Logos, Shabd, or The Tao: it is a “Name” or “Word” that is not made of letters or physical language, but is an intrinsic vibration. [1, 2]
Tennyson used Victorian scholarship on Asian religions to step outside traditional Western frameworks. In doing so, he captured the exact same core experience found in Eastern mysticism: the merging of the individual soul into a nameless, flowing, eternal consciousness. [1, 2, 3]

Godel, Hawking and the End of Physics (or at least it’s open-end)

AR and I have been debating recently a principle I have promoted:
The forces that made this creation are independent of it, outside of it, and therefore cannot be measured by the dependent, internal forces within this creation.

AR and others have argued, including some in the physics community, that since the Big Bang starts at Time = 0, there was no time before for any other forces to exist. This has been roundly debated and it is flawed on a couple of grounds. First, it presumes that the time of our creation is the only time that exists, and that, as in a cyclical model, there is an external timeline also.

Second, the theory of quantum mechanics is a complete, closed system. Even Stephen Hawking, who is an atheist, acknowledges that relativity and quantum mechanics have not yet been resolved in a “Theory of Everything” (ToE).

https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/godel-and-the-end-of-physics

He acknowledges, along with most physicists today, Godel’s mathematical argument that any mathematical system cannot fully predict nor account for the foundational principles upon which it is constructed. Just like an argument, the foundational premises must be presumed and accepted for any other argument to be made. At best you can show how the presumed premises are internally consistent or at least do not conflict with one another.

Hawking agrees with Godel and concludes there isn’t going to be a closed system any time soon, if ever. This is from his lecture in 2002, “Godel and the End of Physics”.
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/godel-and-the-end-of-physics

“Up to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory that we will eventually discover. Indeed, I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon. However, M-theory has made me wonder if this is true. Maybe it is not possible to formulate the theory of the universe in a finite number of statements. This is very reminiscent of Godel’s theorem. This says that any finite system of axioms is not sufficient to prove every result in mathematics.

Godel’s theorem is proved using statements that refer to themselves. Such statements can lead to paradoxes. An example is, this statement is false. If the statement is true, it is false. And if the statement is false, it is true. Another example is, the barber of Corfu shaves every man who does not shave himself. Who shaves the barber? If he shaves himself, then he doesn’t, and if he doesn’t, then he does. Godel went to great lengths to avoid such paradoxes by carefully distinguishing between mathematics, like 2+2 =4, and meta mathematics, or statements about mathematics, such as mathematics is cool, or mathematics is consistent. That is why his paper is so difficult to read. But the idea is quite simple. First Godel showed that each mathematical formula, like 2+2=4, can be given a unique number, the Godel number. The Godel number of 2+2=4, is *. Second, the meta mathematical statement, the sequence of formulas A, is a proof of the formula B, can be expressed as an arithmetical relation between the Godel numbers for A- and B. Thus meta mathematics can be mapped into arithmetic, though I’m not sure how you translate the meta mathematical statement, ‘mathematics is cool’. Third and last, consider the self referring Godel statement, G. This is, the statement G can not be demonstrated from the axioms of mathematics. Suppose that G could be demonstrated. Then the axioms must be inconsistent because one could both demonstrate G and show that it can not be demonstrated. On the other hand, if G can’t be demonstrated, then G is true. By the mapping into numbers, it corresponds to a true relation between numbers, but one which can not be deduced from the axioms. Thus mathematics is either inconsistent or incomplete. The smart money is on incomplete.

What is the relation between Godel’s theorem and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe in terms of a finite number of principles? One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted. One example might be the Goldbach conjecture. Given an even number of wood blocks, can you always divide them into two piles, each of which can not be arranged in a rectangle? That is, it contains a prime number of blocks.

Although this is incompleteness of sort, it is not the kind of unpredictability I mean. Given a specific number of blocks, one can determine with a finite number of trials whether they can be divided into two primes. But I think that quantum theory and gravity together, introduces a new element into the discussion that wasn’t present with classical Newtonian theory. In the standard positivist approach to the philosophy of science, physical theories live rent free in a Platonic heaven of ideal mathematical models. That is, a model can be arbitrarily detailed and can contain an arbitrary amount of information without affecting the universes they describe. But we are not angels, who view the universe from the outside. Instead, we and our models are both part of the universe we are describing. Thus a physical theory is self referencing, like in Godel’s theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent or incomplete. The theories we have so far are both inconsistent and incomplete.

Quantum gravity is essential to the argument. The information in the model can be represented by an arrangement of particles. According to quantum theory, a particle in a region of a given size has a certain minimum amount of energy. Thus, as I said earlier, models don’t live rent free. They cost energy. By Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc squared, energy is equivalent to mass. And mass causes systems to collapse under gravity. It is like getting too many books together in a library. The floor would give way and create a black hole that would swallow the information. Remarkably enough, Jacob Bekenstein and I found that the amount of information in a black hole is proportional to the area of the boundary of the hole, rather than the volume of the hole, as one might have expected. The black hole limit on the concentration of information is fundamental, but it has not been properly incorporated into any of the formulations of M theory that we have so far. They all assume that one can define the wave function at each point of space. But that would be an infinite density of information which is not allowed. On the other hand, if one can’t define the wave function point wise, one can’t predict the future to arbitrary accuracy, even in the reduced determinism of quantum theory. What we need is a formulation of M theory that takes account of the black hole information limit. But then our experience with supergravity and string theory, and the analogy of Godel’s theorem, suggest that even this formulation will be incomplete.

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I’m now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without it, we would stagnate. Godel’s theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do the same for physicists. I’m sure Dirac would have approved.

Thank you for listening.'”

https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/godel-and-the-end-of-physics

Oops, Typo. The fifth sentence from above should read “First, it presumes that the time of our creation is the only time that exists, and NOT that, as in a cyclical model, there is an external timeline also.

A third flaw in the argument that no physical laws existed, nor anything else, before the big bang is as follows:

The presumption that all time started with the big bang is a scientific calculation working backwards from observation. It leads to the argument that neither God nor any forces could exist before the big bang since there would be no time, matter or energy to act.

But this argument confuses matter, time and energy with the very laws by which they work. This argument claims even the laws could not exist before T=0. The argument is that even the laws of physics simply appeared from nothing when time began. I believe this is false and support a different argument. A quantum void is not empty, just as an empty room may not contain anything but exists. If you look into an empty room you see nothing. If you walk in holding a tennis ball and then drop the tennis ball, it falls to the floor. The law of gravity was always present. It was not non-existent before you walked into that empty room. The law of gravity doesn’t require the presence of matter, energy or time to exist, only to act. And analogously, any sort of principle or information, intelligence or attribute may exist outside of time, outside of physical space, outside of matter, though its measurable action only takes place in the condition of these things.