The RSSB guru appears to be teaching Advaita

Gurinder’s revised Sant Mat Philosophy is not only teaching Advaita, but is mimicking Kashmir Shaivism. I think Gurinder must have been reading Swami Lakshmanjoo’s books, after he burned his Sant Mat books.
Jim Sutherland

Kashmir Shaivism as compared to Sant Mat as per AI,…..
Me: Was the founder of the Radha Swami Movement, Swami Dayal, considered to have been more Spiritually enlightened than Swami Lakshmanjoo?
AI: The question of who is more spiritually enlightened between Swami Dayal, the founder of the Radha Swami Movement, and Swami Lakshmanjoo, an esteemed teacher of Kashmir Shaivism, is a nuanced one. Spiritual enlightenment is deeply personal and subjective, and comparing the spiritual attainments of individuals from different traditions can be challenging.
Here are some considerations:
Swami Dayal (Shiv Dayal Singh): As the founder of the Radha Swami Movement, he emphasized the practice of Surat Shabd Yoga, which involves meditation on the inner sound current. His teachings focus on the soul’s journey to higher spiritual realms, culminating in union with the Divine.
Swami Lakshmanjoo: A revered figure in Kashmir Shaivism, Swami Lakshmanjoo was recognized for his profound understanding and realization of the non-dual teachings of Shaivism. He is celebrated for his deep insights into the nature of consciousness and the divine play of Shiva.
Both figures have made significant contributions to their respective spiritual traditions:
Swami Dayal offered a path centered on devotion and inner sound meditation, guiding followers toward experiencing higher realms and divine union.
Swami Lakshmanjoo provided deep philosophical teachings on non-duality, emphasizing the recognition of one’s inherent divinity and the unity of all existence.
Ultimately, the question of who is “more enlightened” may not be as important as understanding how each teacher’s insights and methods resonate with you personally.
Follow-up Questions You Might Consider:
What are the core teachings of the Radha Swami Movement and Kashmir Shaivism?
How do different spiritual traditions define enlightenment?
What practices can help deepen one’s own spiritual understanding?
Next Steps for Exploration:
Study the teachings and writings of both Swami Dayal and Swami Lakshmanjoo to gain a deeper understanding of their spiritual perspectives.
Reflect on how their teachings align with your own spiritual experiences and aspirations.
Engage in meditative practices from both traditions to explore the experiential aspects of their teachings.
The Radha Swami Movement and Kashmir Shaivism are distinct spiritual traditions with their own unique teachings and practices. Let’s explore the core teachings of each:
RADHA SWAMI MOVEMENT
The Radha Swami Movement, founded by Swami Dayal (Shiv Dayal Singh), is a spiritual path emphasizing inner meditation and devotion. Here are some of its core teachings:
Surat Shabd Yoga: This is the central practice of meditation on the inner sound and light, believed to connect the practitioner with higher spiritual realms and ultimately lead to union with the Divine.
The Inner Journey: The movement teaches that true spiritual progress involves an inward journey through various spiritual planes, culminating in Sach Khand, the realm of truth and eternal bliss.
Living Master: Guidance from a living spiritual master is considered essential for spiritual progress. The master is seen as a guide who can help navigate the inner path.
Universal Teachings: The movement emphasizes universal love and harmony, transcending religious boundaries and focusing on the inner spiritual experience.
KASHMIR SHAIVISM
Kashmir Shaivism is a non-dual spiritual philosophy that originated in Kashmir. It offers a unique perspective on the nature of consciousness and the universe. Key teachings include:
Non-duality (Advaita): Everything is seen as an expression of Shiva, the ultimate reality. The goal is to realize one’s own identity with Shiva, the universal consciousness.
Recognition of the Divine Within: The tradition teaches that the divine is inherent in all beings, and spiritual practices aim to awaken this recognition.
Tantric Practices: Kashmir Shaivism includes various tantric techniques and meditations designed to expand consciousness and realize one’s divine nature.
Philosophical Depth: The tradition is known for its intellectual richness, with teachings from great philosophers like Abhinavagupta, who articulated methods for realizing one’s unity with Shiva.
Balance of Knowledge and Practice: The path involves both theoretical understanding and practical sadhana (spiritual practice), emphasizing an experiential realization of the teachings.
Both traditions offer profound insights into the nature of reality and consciousness, though their approaches and practices differ. Exploring these teachings can provide a rich tapestry of spiritual understanding.
Neither Gurinder nor Swami Lak are emphasizing the CORE Teaching of Sant Mat Philosophy which is SOUND and LIGHT. Both Gurus have removed the Trees from the Forest with their Ramana blinders.

I agree with Osho R. that Gurinder’s explanations of Sant Mat seem distinctly different from those of his predecessors. Just how categorical that difference is is hard to pin down, and so I’d neither side with those who feel Gurinder has abandoned Sant Mat nor, conversely, with those who feel what he’s saying is perfectly orthodox old-school Sant Mat.
The Hindu (actually Vaishnava) teachings on the difference and relationship between atma (individual soul) and Paramatma (God’s pervasive Being) are very ancient. Gurinder touches on this theology in the video. The actual means of resolving personal being with God’s being have always been at the heart of Sant Mat, and indeed all religions.
Nevertheless, there’s no denying the a glaring difference between the starkly dualistic and imperative RSSB Sant Mat teachings of 100 years ago and Gurinder’s contemporary explanations. One can read With the Three Masters to see what I mean. The satsangis of those days lived in constant peril of making a slight mistake that would nullify their sadhana and plunge them into samsara. The RSSB Sant Mat of old was all about the dire situation of the satsangi’s need to escape karma and future births and secure salvation with the guru in the higher planes. Actually, this is not that old, for Charan Singh unambiguously referred to life after death as being with the guru. Apologists might counter Charan meant being with the shabd, as the shabd is the guru and is also God. This can be defended as theologically consistent, but then again all theological arguments can be defended as perfectly consistent and rational. Others might counter with my observation that after nearly 50 years I’ve yet to see anyone in any Sant Mat sect that’s experientially enthralled with the shabd as the gurus have billed it. Which is why I wonder at Charan, a noted advocate that listening to shabd was the greatest experience on earth, spending his free time snapping pics rather than doing bhajan.
Whatever one thinks about Gurinder’s exposition of Sant Mat, whether it’s still consistent with core Sant Mat teachings or whether it’s not Sant Mat anymore but Advaita, it can’t be denied that all Sant Mat sects, or rather their gurus, have at least the tone of their predecessors. The easy peasy Sant Mat that Rajinder Singh teaches is a very faint facsimile of the hardcore Sant Mat of his grandfather Kirpal. LIkewise, we really don’t see any “Masters” in the spiritual marketplace anymore. This is quite remarkable actually. All the great gurus from the 60s to 90s era are gone. No more Trungpas, Da Free Johns, Muktanandas. Perfect Master just isn’t in vogue anymore. Perhaps not even in RSSB.

MCS’s answer to most questions was: simran and bhajan, simran and bhajan.

Hey, Osho Robbins!
Enjoyed listening to your little talk, after quite a while!
Some thoughts:
1. GSD is saying XYZ, which is different than what his predecessor RSSB gurus said and taught. That does leave the RSSB follower in a bit of a fix, doesn’t it? You say they’re ignoring GSD by going back to what the earlier Gurus taught. But equally, if they now go by what GSD is saying, wouldn’t they then be “ignoring” the past gurus? It’s damned if you do, and damned if you don’t!
2. What do *you* think RSSB followers should do? Ignore GSD, and follow the earlier RSSB Gurus’ teachings? Or ignore the earlier RSSB Gurus, and go with what GSD is now saying?
(Specifically “RSSB followers”, while remaining “RSSB followers”. Not what is generally reasonable. Because what is generally reasonable is to completely ignore both what the earlier RSSB Gurus taught, as well as what GSD is now teaching, and also what Gurbani taught. Because all of that is nonsense.)
3. This is actually not a new thing, Osho Robbins, neither the issue, nor the resolution of it. It’s there in the Upanishads somewhere, I can’t quite remember which one, or which commentary of it, but it’s there already, resolved centuries ago. Both narratives are true — it’s just that the first narrative makes use of metaphor to bring home the matter, while the second narrative doesn’t. Yes, you and God are one, there is no separation: but the fact is you don’t realize this, and doing this that and the other are aids to help you realize this. This act of realization, this moving from a state of non-realization to a state of realization, can be metaphorically referred to as moving from point A to point B. Sure, if people get too stuck in the metaphor, and start taking it completely literally, then it makes sense to tell them that’s not literally true —- but GSD does his followers a disservice by not explaining clearly the matter of the metaphor.
(All of that, my #3 above, from the POV of the RSSB follower. From the perspective of a reasonable human being who’s not wearing religious blinkers, they’re all of them fairy tales — what the Gurbani says, and what the earlier Gurus taught, and what GSD’s teaching, all of it fantastic, imaginary, nonsense. Fair enough to believe in that back when people hadn’t a clue; but not today, not in this day and age.)
4. You’ve heard of the term Igtheism, haven’t you? It’s the idea that “God” is a meaningless idea, because it carries so many different meanings. When a single word does service for a hundred different and diverse ideas, then that word become meaningless. So that any discussion about God becomes meaningless unless you first clearly define what you mean by God. This thing about whether God and you are one, or whether you are removed from God, it would seem to be a textbook case where igtheism might apply.
(And of course, as far as my #4 above, both of those questions are nonsensical, because there’s no reason to believe there’s either kind of God — either the God that’s separate from us, or the God that we’re one with already.)
———-
But enjoyed listening to your video! It’s great that you’re trying to steer these brainwashed folks away from their superstitions with your talks, but I only wish you’d not try to replace one set of unfounded superstitions with another set of equally unfounded superstitions.

I think my old post on my blog posted Nov. 2018 is worth reposting again here on this thread. I have not become convinced that I am God, nor is Gurinder or any one else reading Brian’s Church Sermons.
Friday, November 16, 2018
Advaita Vedanta Oneness teachings mock and challenge Supreme GOD, Who is NOT Brahma or Vedanta Turiya.
Here is my take on Advaita Vedanta Oneness teachings. Advaita Vedanta Teachers who follow Ramana, Niz, etc., that presently created a host of Neo-Advaita Oneness teachings of “ I AM THAT” , who have decided that they were , and are, GOD. Of course, no one has ever been able to know exactly WHO, or WHAT God is, other than ultimately the beginninig and ending of Awareness or Consciousness. And Consciousness is not God , Who has been described as the Ocean, Fire, Light, by Mystics , who claim to be One and the Same. I have never subscribed to such an egotistic belief system, because,………
“i” am NOT God! I never was, am not now, and never will be! I do identify as Turiya, i.e. an agent of Universal Mind , but certainly not the Supreme Creator of Braham , and all forms assigned to Braham’s Dominion, which includes Turiya in Waking, Dreaming, and Deep sleep while incarnated in human forms.
“i” am not a drop of the Ocean, WHO IS God. “i” am a creation of God, The Ocean, that unlike God, Who had no beginning, Alpha, nor will have no end, Omega, HAS had a beginning, when God, the Ocean , created “me”, the Soul that now temporarily manifests as the identity of Jim Sutherland. Jim’s soul , or drop, is an OFF SPRING of Ocean Soul, ….not the ONE and only Ocean SOUL.
Shankaracharya says:
Oh Lord, although there is no difference between you and me, yet I am yours and you are not me! Why? The waves arise from the ocean but the ocean does not come out of the waves
Jim’s created soul, had a beginning, but it has no end, once created. It is now Eternal since creation, but has, and will continue to manifest through unending multitudes of impermanent, changing, Vehicles of Consciousness , using Containers, manifesting in The Wheel of 84, or The Hindu Charausi, i.e. 8,400,000 possible physical Species in the Universe.
The Created Soul that has manifested and lived in The Wheel of 84 since being created by God, from Amoebas to the present Container Temple of Jim Sutherland, and will continue to manifest in future unknown Containers, for Eternity, is unknown by “me”, the soul , and is only known by The Creator, Who is Christ, Who is also known by other Names and Identities, such as Anami Purush,
Radhasoami, God, The Holy Spirit, Source, Universe, etc, with a List that is unending, depending on individual imagination.
“i”, the Soul presently manifesting as Jim, will NEVER completely merge with God, or become a completely dissolved drop merging back to the Ocean, as Vedanta Advaitist teachers mistakingly teach, because “i” was never the Ocean, or God. “i” was only an individual creation by God, that became a drop in the Mind of God, as Kal ( Universal Mind; Time; Braham; Satan; Demiurge, was also created by God, to become Universal Mind, or the Hindu Brahm, the Agent of ALL minds, including not only mine, but every mind in The Wheel of 84, Charausi! Kal is the Prison Warden that has been created by GOD to incarcerate all souls created that have been Projected to the Matrix of TIME.
Any Drop that completely merges in to the Ocean, is annihilated, as far as individual Duality is concerned, and commits Spiritual suicide by claiming to be God in human form!
No doubt, God is in all of us, as Christ, and We are in Him, but will always remain in Duality for Eternity as created Individual souls have lived in Charausi , progressing to present, with out ever being sentenced to Annihilation by God , as drops merging completely back to the Ocean.
God has a Chain of Command He uses to draw his created souls back to the Cradle of Creation, where they may enjoy His Ocean of Glory, with out annihilating their Duality.
Spiritual Seekers are those created souls who have tired of experiencing the adventures in the Play of Consciousness, and are becoming detached from the impermanent enticements of the Sensory pleasures of the material world of Duality.
But, escaping the world of Duality, permanently, with out being annihilated, as taught by Vedanta Advaitists, is impossible, because according to the Bible, only God Alone knows all the secrets, and the Prophets, Masters, Avatars, only know the secrets God reveals to each of them, in Duality, as individuals.
If this is not so, there would be no secrets, and we would all know each other’s thoughts and desires, actions, histories, since bring created, and we don’t, NONE of us, including Masters, Teachers, Avatars, Saviors or Mediums.
I consider “my” self, as the present culmination of all of the same Soul that has lived numerous past lives in Charausi since being created by God , a projection of my Higher Soul Self, that is now a Multidimensional Consciousness, with the present identity of Jim Sutherland, now in Duality, as having started in Duality at the time “i” was created by Christ, The WORD made flesh of John 1:1, i.e. God.
“I” will Eternally remain in Duality, as long as Consciousness of awareness is retained, but have been given the Keys of Knowledge , which is the Technique of The Science of The Soul, which may be used to escape the horrors and suffering of Charausi , when ever “i” choose to use the Prescription administered by Master to temporarily rest in the Glory of Bliss of Samadhi in Anami.
Drops never completely merge in to the Ocean with out becoming annihilated.
But, Drops may sail on The Ocean , enjoying the Sights, Sounds, Lights, Bliss, by taking refuge on various Cruise ships, which are Masters of various Lineages , or Cruise lines.
The Masters are the Cruise Ships escorting Spiritual Seekers on Adventures enjoyed and experienced ON, the Ocean, but not IN the Ocean, unless those souls manifesting in human forms desire to become souls in Aquatic Sea living forms.
Individual Saints, or Spiritual Seekers, on individual Paths of Duality, seek God by sailing the God Ocean only by sailing on the Surface , in various mixtures of Material/Spiritual Life Support Vehicles such ad Kayaks, Canoes, Rafts, Yachts, etc.
But Masters, are the Cruise Ships, that escort and ferry Seeker Souls through the Multidimensional Planes of Consciousness on the Ocean of Christ.
Kal, i.e. Satan, is God’s created Agent of Time, in Duality, who is the Annihilatior of all souls who seek to venture in to the Ocean , as drops are obviously, timeless, individual creations that sail and ride the Ocean of Christ . Kal’s Agents are human Battle Ships, Submarines, loaded with poisonous demolition propaganda, used to annihilate Souls in Duality , that have ventured from Heaven/ Paradis/Sach Khand to enjoy the Play of Consciousness with out loosing Awareness or Individuality.
Caveat Emptor! ( let the Seeker Beware )
Jim Sutherland

@Appreciative Reader
nice to hear from you.
belief keeps a person blind.
truth (whatevet that is!) is not a belief.
in this video, i give the example of darkness. darkness is not an entity, a noun, a thing.
it is the absence of light.
in the fictional story, the family are trying to remove darkness.
However, they don’t understand the NATURE of darkness. in the same way, people do not understand the NATURE of ignorance. in the story they CANNOT remove thr darkness despite their immense efforts.
Then the WISE man comes. He removes the darkness INSTANTLY.
How? by lighting a candle.
the darkness just disappears without DOING anything.
THIS is why there is so much misunderstanding around spirituality.
Advaita or non-duality is not another belief.
Despite this statement, you will continue to think it is a belief. You are bound, there is no other possibility. And I am not trying to convince you, because that is impossible anyway.
this is the video
https://youtube.com/shorts/RWRTMpPh-6o?si=ThpksXKbbKedRXzi

Dear Osho Robbins,
I’d loved exchanging notes with you in the past. And I’m loving listening to your vids now, even more so! You do have a lovely flair for speaking, and it’s a pleasure to hear you talk in your vids.
———-
“Advaita or non-duality is not another belief.
Despite this statement, you will continue to think it is a belief. You are bound, there is no other possibility. And I am not trying to convince you, because that is impossible anyway.”
Osho Robbins, God is not another belief. The Original Sin is not another belief. That Jesus is the Son of God is not another belief. That Jesus is our savior is not another belief. That the only salvation of man is in turning to the Son of Man, is not another belief. Despite this statement, you will continue to think it is a belief. You are bound, there is no other possibility. And I am not trying to convince you, because that is impossible anyway.
Heh, you do realize all you’re doing is simply expressing ipse-dixitisms, don’t you? Arguments from analogies like those are fallacious, they’re merely cloaked ipse-dixitisms. Merely flat statements that, because they’re dressed up in analogies, sound more impressive than they might if stated baldly. That I’m afraid is what obscurantism is, dressing up a simple fallacy in bright clothes to make it look attractive, complex, beyond understanding, and therefore to be taken as truth.
Nope. We’ve trod this route before. Your Oneness is fiction, plain and simple. Advaita is complete, unsupported fiction. No less than is the RSSB theology fiction. There’s zero evidence supporting either.
…Don’t get me wrong, I have the deepest respect for Advaitic wisdom. Because this stuff is many, many centuries older than your Gurbani. I truly believe this represents the pinnacle of human thought, back in the day. But that was back in the day, when we knew no better. Today we do know better. Today we have no excuse to keep on believing in this nonsense. The great Upanishad sages, had they magically been transported to this day and age, then those great intellects, those brave clear-thinking souls, would have taught us some new dance steps as they danced out in joy, and embraced the clear knowledge that is available today to each and every one of us, if only we’d open our eyes, if only we’d stop insisting on turning back to old now-defunct ways of thinking.
Nope. Advaitic Oneness is a brilliant idea. But it is no more than an unevidenced flight of fancy, with no hard support holding it up. It’s untestable, unfalsifiable; and because unfalisifiable, therefore not directly debunkable. But in as much it has zero evidence holding it up, therefore it is no more real than the invisible dragon in my garage.

@AR
what you are saying is true.
there is no evidence. I am not claiming any evidence.
“Jesus is the son of God” is a claim. The christian tries to evidence it from the bible.
This is belief.
all beliefs are blind.
“One day” maybe after death or in the case of RSSB, after some years of meditation, you will reach sach khand.
that is a belief. you have to do something to attain.
Enlightenment is not a belief, not an attainment, not something to achieve.
No God is required. There is no need to use the word. in fact the word God is a hinderence. Even the word enlightenment is a barrier. hence Buddha removed God altogether and also replaced Enlightenment with “nirvana”
why? a rose by another name is still a rose.
So Buddha had to remove all connections to the past, to anything you can put in a box. That is the only way.
That is the difficulty. The Buddha is trying to do the impossible – all masters are.
watch this
https://youtu.be/-nSMi0whFEA?si=hQ7r-ozGLaUcgKHF
if we are to have an honest conversation, we both have to do it differently. we also have to be able to look beyond the surface, and go deeper than the words
Forget about being right, forget about logic, forget about evidence. There is zero evidence.
forget the talks i gave in the gurdwara. They are irrelevant. They are lies. I am speaking to brainwashed people. I have to relate to them using their beliefs. Otherwise they cannot understand.
I have to come to their level, use their language and their beliefs to go beyond and free them from their delusions.
I know full well that there is no God. God is a pure fiction. There is no possibility of a God. The very idea is childish, immature.
Plato said “I love Socrates, but I love truth more than Socrates”
What is truth? logic, rationality, science is one aspect. There is more to it. Truth is personal. Now i am no longer talking about the same truth that you are. Because the truth you are talking about is not personal.
It is impersonal, absolute and provable by logic.
I have nothing against that truth. I am a fan of it. But this is a different subject. it doesn’t fit into that box.
it is a different dimension.
imagine a two dimensional square. i draw it on a paper. next to it i place a cube.
The square welcomes the newly arrived square, but it says ” I am a cube”
The square says “you are simply stupid – i can see you are a square – just like me. prove you are different”
The cube says “I have a third dimension – I have height”
“what is height?” asks the square.
The cube goes silent. The square wins the argument.
This is similar.
No logical proof can be provided. we are dealing with an extra dimension – but don’t misunderstand – no claim is being made, nothing can be proven.
A person who has never fallen in love, asks for proof that such a thing exists. He wants logical evidence. He wants to know HOW to fall in love and experience love. It cannot be done. Love is not in the arena of logic. If anything, it is completely illogical. To the logical person, love is simply stupidity – it departs from logic. There is no logical basis for it. To complicate things further, most of what we call love is not even love, it is logic, calculated and fake.
it is easy enough to show that most relationships have no love. they are fake and the so-called love is simply calculated. the same with seva in RSSB, it is not seva, it is a calculated trick to pretend to be selfless.
I cannot logically defend my position. I have to concede. To try to defend my position is the height of stupidity. There is no proof.

“(5) He says there are no regions – that Sach Khand does not exist – neither does Sat Purush. He says they are levels of consciousness”
Hey, Osho.
Did GSD say that? I don’t know, but I’ll take your word for it.
In that case, what do you think he means by “levels of consciousness?” Has he ever elaborated?
1) Regions can be experienced in meditation but are illusory.
2) Nobody actually experiences the “regions” as places. “Region” is a metaphor. Like when one says, “I’m in seventh heaven.”
3) Something else?

Hi Umami,
That was what GSD said, and it was in direct reply to my question. The dialogue has been written above.
What does He mean when He says there are no regions?
In ONENESS there is only ONE, all else is illusion. You can experience it – but that is not evidence of it being real.
Take the example of what happens to you every night. You go lay down on a mattress. You go to sleep. Your senses shut down.
Now you enter the DREAM STATE.
You experience a whole new world. There are people, buildings, houses, roads. Events happen. It all seems very real. Not once do you doubt it is real, even when ridiculous things happen.
The dream is real -until the moment you wake up.
Then you realise it was a dream.
Instantly you say “It was a dream”
Everything you saw and experienced you will now deny. Yes, it was experienced, it APPEARED to have really happened in the physical universe, BUT you know it didn’t happen. Those people, roads, events, were all fictional. None of them REALLY took place ,they only APPEARED to.
In meditation, just as in sleep, you can experience many things (light, sound, visions, regions, Sat Purush, Jesus etc).
None of them are real.
So just because you experience something in meditation, doesn’t make it real.
Agreed?

Umami,
everything YOU and I experience is also the same. It APPEARS to be real, but is not.
Now you can use logic to deny this. You can appeal to reason. You can ask 10 other people, and they will all agree this is real.
But all this applies to the dream also.
You were convinced the dream was real until you woke up.
You are convinced this is all real, until you go to sleep, then it all disappears.
This is no more real than the dream.
EVERYTHING that you experience right now, is not real.
including this conversation here on churchless.
One day, you will die. Then everything you see will have no value. it will be like the dream. Gone.
THEN, where will you be?
Christian says “with Jesus”
Muslim says “with Allah”
RSSB says “in Sach Khand”
New RSSB says “ONENESS”
They are all beliefs, including ONENESS.
They are all lies, including ONENESS.
So what will REALLY happen when you die?
I mean REALLY -not an idea.
Not an experience (like NDE)
because we have already established that experience means nothing.
Not a belief (made up bullshit)
Not conjecture
I mean REALLY.
This is the heart of the matter.
You cannot discover the answer no matter how hard you try.
Every tool you have fails.
You have no idea who you are. You have no idea what existence is, what reality is.
All your philosophies fail.
The question cannot be answered at all.
The personal discovery of this, not through experience, not through logic, thinking, projection, conjecture etc. seems impossible
That is Nirvana.
Nothing can be said about it.
The more you debate, the more nonsensical the debate becomes.
There is no separate YOU that survives death. No soul, no entity.
ONENESS is not a thing. it doesn’t exist as you define existence.
Logic cannot be used and there is no evidence.
Buddha cannot prove he has attained Nirvana.
a number of reasons:
There is nobody to attain
There is nothing to attain
Nirvana is not an attainment
It is not a realization either
it is not nothingness
it is not somethingness
it is not emptiness
it is not real
it is not unreal
the chances of you figuring this out is exactly zero.
just like the square trying to figure out the cube. impossible.
The nature of nirvana, enlightenment etc has been misunderstood and this will continue. it cannot be understood
listen to this slowly, without trying to grasp, without the “what the fuck is he on about”
you will get a tiny glimpse
https://youtu.be/-nSMi0whFEA?si=TVahZ9WruaGPETWa
https://youtu.be/JKOI_N-nvzM?si=0rzgPuiHKRctz-2X
then re-watch the part 2 of 2 from 7 mins in.
“when he himself has disappeared”
if you ask “how can you yourself disappear..” then there is no hope.
No question can be answered. all answers are just nonsense

Umami,
The athiest gets close, closer than all believers, but no cigar. He also misses.
He sees through all the beliefs, he can see all beliefs are nonsense, but he cannot take the final step because he has too much faith in the material.
He has faith in the material universe.
He says “only this is real”
The final step “there is no real” he cannot take this, so he also misses.
everyone misses it
except the one who gets it, and he is helpless in his communication.

Umami
this is why Osho says the master MUST be misunderstood. what he is trying to communicate cannot be communicated except in deep resonance.
The reason the Satguru is emphasized is because without that deep receptivity, it is impossible. No form of doing, practice, repitition of words, rirual, meditation etc will enable you to get it. All they do is strengthen the haumi (ego).
aneek aphaav karin nahin paavi bin satgur sarnai
Countless efforts will all fail, only success is to surrender to satguru.
what does that mean? it means to become receptive and be able to listen so you can hear the message beyond the words
Everyone misses this because they are seeking a shortcut, and they think that through some action or practice they will attain. They have made it into a goal. They cannot understand the real message.
It is not a mind transaction. it is a paradigm shift that is instant – but only when you lose your false self.

I see no contradiction in the statements provided:
1. There are NO ‘REGIONS’ as such. It IS just a way of explaining. What is being referred to IS ‘levels’ of awareness.
2. The physical guru WON’T come at death.
3. This I regard as accurate: “The Guru does not come — GOD himself comes… He comes for EVERYONE — not just satsangis…and He is also here NOW”
Sant Mat teaches ultimately it is God who does everything.
4. There is nothing new in this statement: “You will not reach through meditation…”
Charan said the same. Its even recorded in the book “die to live”. Q.377, pg.349:
“Nobody’s meditation is taking him up to the Father. It’s ABSOLUTELY WRONG [to think it is].”
5.This from Osho Robbins is also wrong:
“The obvious question is “Why meditate then?” But nobody asks that question.”
🤣🤦‍♂️ That question got asked all the time of Charan.
Finally: “You will never get to God through meditation as long as you think of it as duality — I am here — God is there.”
I regard that as a statement representing totally accurate, unchanged Sant Mat 1.0. (Which is different to Advaita though similar in many ways on the surface.)
SUMMARY:
Don’t trust anyone for an accurate understanding of RS Sant Mat philosophy who has demonstrated over decades that they have not correctly understood it nor correctly applied its methodology. That includes Chandra Mohan Jain (Rajneesh) who though he was an intellectually brilliant person in his youth, gained some insight into the human condition, and was very erudite, he was also someone who ended up a cynical, morally bankrupt, depressed hedonist who was addicted to pain-killers and appears to have chosen an assisted death (euthanasia/suicide).

@RS
No contradictions? Interesting viewpoint. Tell it to the blind followers.
2. The physical guru WON’T come at death.
Are you actually serious? Who has EVER said that the physical guru will come?
What kind of ridiculous statement is that?
A disciple dies. The guru is giving a satsang. He leaves the satsang, gets in his private jet and goes to visit the dying satsangi in his house to take his soul to wherever.
Clearly nobody has ever said the physical guru comes. It’s always been the Radiant Form (astral body). Current guru, Babaji is saying “no way, Jose – I ain’t coming”.
He is talking about the Radiant Form, not physical.
The teachings are that the Radiant form of the guru will come at death. Sawan even said “if the guru won’t come at death, just wave to him from a distance” meaning don’t take him as your guru.
Someone said this to Babaji GSD and he said “go ahead, wave to me”
regarding (1) go read Sar Bachan prose
and
mystisicm volume 2
and path of the masters.
then try saying they are just levels of consciousness.
Also you have no idea what GSD is even saying. He asked the person who questioned him “if the guru comes, WHERE will he take the soul?” and there is no separate soul.
5. and what answer was given? within the context of “meditation will not take you there”
The books, satsangs all say the soul is separated and has associated with the mind
it has to meditate to become pure then merge. This is sant mat 1.0

“The Sanskrit word Advaita means “not two,” or nondual.” Can’t exactly join in this conversation re RSSB gurus etc. and what they teach but I am familiar with non-duality. In fact, you don’t have to look far as it is all around (and within) in the form of our own and the worlds interconnectedness. We could not exist in isolation: so enmeshed are we in everything that this planet, this universe consists of.
Perhaps it is this unconscious sense or feeling of interconnectedness, this desire to join and merge with what we see as something greater than ourselves, that is the driving force of all the religions, the spiritual pursuits and organisations.
But surely, it is self-evident. Perhaps the reason we live in a mental state of isolation and separateness is ultimately down to the blessing (or curse) that we confuse the simplicity of life as it is with the habit of infusing everything with conceptual and abstract thoughts.
Brian talks about “Gurinder Singh Dhillon ‘updated’ to versions 2.0 and maybe even 3.0.” Maybe serious enquirers into life and the ubiquitous enquiry of ‘who am I’, have to go through the process of seeking out authorities and teachers on their journey to realising that there is actually nothing to be found, no amazing states to experience as self-validation – and generally seeing that life is just this: just this present moment-to-moment awareness before thought intervenes with its hopes, wishes and desires to escape to some mind-made utopia.

“(5) He says there are no regions – that Sach Khand does not exist – neither does Sat Purush. He says they are levels of consciousness”
“GSD: There are NO REGIONS – it was just a way of explaining. They are levels of awareness.”
Osho,
To echo RS (really skeptical), “levels of consciousness” or “levels of awareness” could still be considered classic Sant Mat. What’s your interpretation? Does the Adi Granth make any reference?

“@AR
what you are saying is true.
there is no evidence. I am not claiming any evidence.”
Why insist on the claim itself, then, Osho Robbins, when you fully realize there’s no evidence in support of it? That’s textbook garage-dragon territory.
———-
“”Jesus is the son of God” is a claim.”
Your Oneness is a claim as well. Oneness, as opposed to either nothingness, or else a multiplicity of fundamental entities eternally.
We know what we know, as borne out by evidence. We’re in the process of finding out more. And there’s a great deal we don’t know.
Why not let it go at that? Clearly recognize what we know, and then not make any wild claims about what we don’t have evidence for and what we don’t in fact know?
———-
“Even the word enlightenment is a barrier. hence Buddha removed God altogether and also replaced Enlightenment with “nirvana””
That’s simply not true. Don’t you remember, we’d covered exactly this, back during our long extended discussion about your Oneness? You’d made this very same claim then, and I’d supplied this very same correction.
Nirvana literally means cessation, blowing out, extinguishment. It refers, quite literally, to the extinguishment of desire, and the extinguishment of mental entanglement following on desire. Nirvana has nothing to do with your Oneness.
———-
“watch this
https://youtu.be/-nSMi0whFEA?si=hQ7r-ozGLaUcgKHF”
That is Osho Rajneesh holding forth on why, necessarily, every Buddha is bound to be completely misunderstood. So much so that, should a putative Buddha not be misunderstood, then he is not a Buddha at all.
And that is complete, utter obscurantist bullshytte! Because the fact is that the Buddha himself, Sakyamuni Goutam Buddha, was NOT misunderstood. Sure, there were some, many, that did not understand what he taught, that do not understand it still, obviously. But a great many folks who were his disciples understood him, and a great many laymen as well, while he lived. Likewise today as well, in even greater numbers.
And you know what that is? That is because the Buddha was not a bullshytter. That is because the Buddha did not deal in obscurantism. That is because what the Buddha said and taught was crystal clear, exemplary in its perfect clarity and logicality — even as the “finger pointing at the moon” did point at an experiential understanding. And experiential understanding that his methods clearly provided a way of approaching, step by step by clearly explained step.
Your Osho Rajneesh, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. He’s a very clever man, very intelligent, very erudite, very articulate, and with an instinctual understanding of things spiritual. But for all that he’s a charlatan and an obscurantist, who used these teachings to dupe others and to gratify and enrich himself. His claim here, that all Buddhas are necessarily misunderstood, is complete bullshytte, as evidenced by the example of the Shakyamuni Buddha himself.
———-
“if we are to have an honest conversation, we both have to do it differently. we also have to be able to look beyond the surface, and go deeper than the words
Forget about being right, forget about logic, forget about evidence. There is zero evidence.”
Dear Osho Robbins, you really mustn’t imply that I of all people am less than honest in how I’m going about this. Nothing could be straighter than how I view these things, nothing could be straighter than how I strive to understand these matters.
With me, it’s never, ever, about “being right”, never about trying to defend some position come what may. On the contrary, with me it is always about finding out what is right, and then aligning myself with that right.
You, on the other hand, refuse to countenance the idea that you might be mistaken. Despite at every step being shown to be wrong, despite that you nevertheless keep on insisting that somehow you’re still right.
You keep admitting, again and again and again, that there is “zero evidence” in support of your claim. Why ask us to believe this claim of Oneness, then, in complete absence of evidence? Why believe this claim of Oneness yourself, then, in complete absence of evidence?
Forget about logic? Why on earth? If we must forget about logic, then why don’t you do that first, and, leaving logic completely aside, why don’t you illogically start believing in the oafish claptrap that is Christian belief, or for that matter fall in with illogical unevidenced RSSB superstitions?
Sure, there’s avenues that are separate from abstract logical thought. But those don’t require a suppression of logic. If I’m trying to build up my pecs or my biceps, then that exercise itself is one where I need to keep aside logic. Likewise when I’m playing, or appreciating, music. But those are non-factual matters, and those don’t rally require a suspension of logic, which is what you’re insisting on in order to somehow defend the indefensible. Your Oneness claim, on the other hand, is squarely a factual claim.
As for going beyond words, here’s a clear for-instance: Einstein showed us that gravity is different than what we’d understood so far, and showed us by drawing us the model of the curved space-time. We are indeed required to go beyond words in order to grok what he’s saying. But there can be no question of believing him merely on his say-so, right? We believe his going-beyond-the-words explanation because, and only because, what he’s claimed is clearly borne out by the evidence. …Well, likewise, for every factual claim. And your Oneness claim is squarely factual, Osho Robbins.
I suggest to you, Osho Robbins, that the only thing we need to do differently, you and I, if we’re to have an honest conversation, is that you remain open to the possibility that you might be mistaken — as do I, always. That when you’re clearly shown to be wrong, you admit yourself to be wrong. That you don’t try to twist yourself up in order to defend the completely indefensible. That you don’t keep insisting your claim of Oneness is somehow true, despite yourself recognizing that it is completely lacking in the smallest smidgen of evidence.
———-
“forget the talks i gave in the gurdwara. They are irrelevant. They are lies. I am speaking to brainwashed people. I have to relate to them using their beliefs. Otherwise they cannot understand.”
I understand completely. You’re doing great work, Osho Robbins, weaning people away from oafish theistic belief systems via your talks. Like I said, I appreciate that, fully.
I only wish that, in so doing, you don’t insist on trying to replace one fiction with another.
———-
“What is truth? logic, rationality, science is one aspect. There is more to it. Truth is personal. Now i am no longer talking about the same truth that you are. Because the truth you are talking about is not personal. (…) It is impersonal, absolute and provable by logic.”
All *factual* truths are subject to logic and rationality. And your Oneness is squarely a factual truth.
———-
“imagine a two dimensional square. i draw it on a paper. next to it i place a cube.
The square welcomes the newly arrived square, but it says ” I am a cube”
The square says “you are simply stupid – i can see you are a square – just like me. prove you are different”
The cube says “I have a third dimension – I have height”
“what is height?” asks the square.
The cube goes silent. The square wins the argument.
This is similar.”
Haha, that’s what I meant about arguing via analogy.
I get you, I get you completely. Where I disagree with you, is where you conclude that portion by saying “This is similar.” How is it similar? Why do I believe it is similar, just because you say so? Why do you yourself believe it is similar, just because someone told you so, or because in a flash of intuition you suddenly felt it was so, despite lacking any logical and evidentiary support?
I’ll point you back to Einstein’s model of the folding space-time. That’s similar. But the only reason we take it seriously, is because what he claimed are proved, evidenced, by hard science. Absent that, it would’ve been no more than airy fairy nonsense, and no reasonable person would have believed in it.
Osho Robbins, let me emphasize to you, this isn’t about “winning arguments”. This isn’t about doing the keyboard warrior thing, at all. It’s about arriving at the truth. It is about arriving at the closest and the most reasonable approximation to actual truth.
If you cannot defend your claim, if you cannot win that argument, then why do you expect me to cave in and believe your claim —- and, more importantly, absent any sensible reason to believe in your claim, why do you yourself believe it?
(Heh, you’ll now claim that you don’t “believe”, that Oneness is not a “belief” — but that, Sir, is exactly what it is! Simply pointing at a belief and saying again and again that it is not a belief, does not make it so!)
———-
“No logical proof can be provided. we are dealing with an extra dimension – but don’t misunderstand – no claim is being made, nothing can be proven.”
If no logical proof can be provided for this factual claim, if no evidentiary support can be provided for this factual claim, then why are you asking us to accept that claim nevertheless — and, more importantly, why on earth are you yourself accepting that claim yourself?
Absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt a claim is being made. Your simply saying “no claim is being made”, again and again, is, I’m sorry, simply nonsensical, and most emphatically does not make it so!
We’ve already, in that long-ago discussion, clearly laid out the specific claims made, remember? Very briefly, and in part, this: that there’s the claim that there’s a unity at the back of it all, a unitary entity that is fundamental to existence, as opposed to complete nothingness, and also as opposed to a multiplicity of eternal entities. Of course that’s a claim! And a squarely factual claim.
———-
“A person who has never fallen in love, asks for proof that such a thing exists. He wants logical evidence. He wants to know HOW to fall in love and experience love. It cannot be done. Love is not in the arena of logic.”
Haha, sorry, Osho Robbins, but that’s misdirection! Not apples to apples at all.
Falling in love, appreciating music, those are not factual claims. Your Oneness claim, on the other hand, is squarely a factual claim.
———-
“I cannot logically defend my position. I have to concede. To try to defend my position is the height of stupidity. There is no proof.”
Then why don’t you concede, Osho Robbins?
And I most emphatically don’t mean this only in the keyboard-warrior sense of merely winning arguments and notching up scalps. This goes to the root of how we approach truth, how we understand what is true.
If you cannot defend your position using either logic or evidence, your position which is squarely a factual claim — then why not concede that that factual claim is not valid? Concede not just to me, but more importantly to yourself? Why not say to yourself, “This factual claim that has become an article of faith for me, I concede that I cannot defend it at all: therefore, let me, provisionally, myself reject that unevidenced and illogical factual claim.”
Why keep on contorting yourself up like this in order to keep on pretending, to yourself first and foremost, that that clearly invalid factual claim of yours about Oneness is true?

I argue that there DEFINITELY ARE different regions , and sections of Consciousness, when successful Sigh Posts are experienced by practicing the Method suggested by The Great Master, Sawan Singh, in Spiritual Gems. I KNOW, because I have experienced many of them, during deep meditation over my years of practice. This Inner Regions that Consciousness travels are seen with the Eye of the soul , as flashes and points of Light, Sun, Moon, Swirling Diamond Vortex, and the Star Gate with the black hole in the center. THOSE are ALL separate Regions. But those Regions are only the Eye of the Needle that only The Marked Elect are allowed to pass through.
I have posted the Meditation Technique that Sawan Singh and his line of Masters have shared with Seekers here before, minus the actual 5 Name Mantra, but as I offered in my post, it isn’t the 5 Names that opens the Eye of the Needle, i.e. Star Gate, but the Technique.
And if there really are Zero Regions, than where was my consciousness while flying through solid walls, up through roofs, flying over buildings, very close to the roofs, as well as over Lakes , so close, that I was loosing altitude and had to keep my legs up to keep my feet out of the water!! Then, what about when I blasted so far out in to Outer Space, that I saw 2 Planets far ahead of me, then looking back, I saw tiny Planet Earth as a sphere as Astronauts have seen it.
And if no Radiant Masters ever appear during meditation, than why did Master Charan Singh appear to me, in full body, a foot away, dressed in his usual attire, and talked to me , using his recognized voice and accent, exposing to me what no one except me knew, of which I had never told any one, including him!
THOSE are the kinds of affirmations that need to be shared by MANY, MANY other Satsangis Whom have, no doubt had many of similar experiences proving that if Regions don’t exist, than where are these various levels of Consciousness exist?
And all of my Inner Journeys were, and still are, accessed by the Technique I posted here, that I have practiced daily since July 1988. ALL DRUG FREE!
Jim Sutherland

Haha, sorry, that was an ultra-loooong message, wasn’t it?!
But seriously, this isn’t an argument-for-the-sake-of-argument thing. It is emphatically not a trying-to-prove-at-any-cost-that-my-truth-is-bigger-than-your-truth thing.
Osho Robbins, that was actually seriously engaging with everything you think and say, seriously and with the utmost sincerity, and on examining it clearly, finding all of it to be wanting, and clearly showing how exactly it is wanting. I’ll request you to not gloss over it, nor read it merely in order to try to somehow deflect what is being said. I’ll request you to instead engage with my long comment, engage with the entirety of it, with as much care as I’ve put into composing it, and with as much sincere intent as I’ve myself poured into it. If you do that, you’ll then be able to actually go the very heart of your claim, via these things you’ve said to me, and via what I’ve said in response.
Unless you can defend your claim, then why not just accept, plainly and without further spinning, that you are wrong about your factual claim of Oneness? Concede this not so much to me, but to yourself first and foremost?

A while ago I wrote about an ” moving blob in the distance”, getting protrusions in the form of arms legs and head and becoming human , when the blob came closer and closer.
In that distance the meaning of that blob was the same as everything else I was aware of, the houses, the trees etc, ..just without any special meaning or value.
The face reminded me of mys self as human being and that in that BLOB a whole [subjective] universe was present.
NOTHING
NOTHING
NOTHING
of that subjective universe was available on the outside
It never was
It never will
YET
That unique, subjective universe was worth to live for
That universe was the only thing that mattered to that person
When visiting Crematoria with my dear late friend, delivering the ceramic ash-urns I came to step in those two worlds in a rather rough way. ..at one side of the door there were people that wept their heart out over the loss of someone that was near and dear to them, a child, a parent, a family member a friend and on the other side of the door it was “business as usual” ..weight of the body, temperature of the oven etc etc. setting dials etc.
Now think of the discussion that was stared here yesterday, about proof, what is real and unreal. …

And …
Last week, our government and the newly chosen secr. of Navo, the previous Dutch Prime Minister …”ASKED” …us citizens …. to prepare mentally for war…and .. see to it hat they had cash money at home and an emergency package.
Speaking about reality

@AR
A long thoroughly thought out response. I will give a detailed reply, which will take a while. Just going to reply to Jim first.
Only wrote this, so you know I have not ignored your response.
The points I am attempting to make are difficult to communicate, hence it’s challenging.
Normally an athiest is challenging a believer who believes in some flavour of God or a deity. The oneness is neither a God, a deity or anything remotely similar.
I am not making any claim, because the thing is a no-thing, an absence, The lack of an entity, pure emptiness, if you will.
I absolutely cannot prove it because there is no evidence for a no-thing.
I will nevertheless engage sincerely with the points you raise. My guess is I will simply back down, ad I have no claim.
However you have sincerely spent a lot of time and thought in your reply, so I will engage just as sincerely.

@Jim Sutherland.
clearly many people have seen light, heard sound, seen radiant forms, regions etc.
I too have experienced the same in meditation when I was with Thakar and Darshan.
People experienced in the past, and today and will in the future.
I don’t refute that.
Those visions are real in the sense that they were experienced.
They are unreal in this sense:
All experiences are duality.
Everything in duality is maya – illusion.
Everything within time and space has a beginning, a middle and an end.
It is experienced but not eternal.
The physical world, and earth will end one day.
so will everything you see inside.
only the unseen (advaita) will not end, and it’s not experienced because there is nothing to experience.
so i am not denying the experience- i am saying it is maya, illusion. it is not forever, hence not Sach Khand

@AR
I have read your reply now, from beginning to end.
I was going to go through it sentence by sentence to address each point, as you have done.
but it is much easier to deal with.
you wrote:
“Falling in love, appreciating music, those are not factual claims. Your Oneness claim, on the other hand, is squarely a factual claim”
This is where the issue is.
Oneness is not a claim. Let me explain why.
I can understand why you see it as a claim.
You are saying, it could be
a) nothingness,
b) oneness
c) manyness
and Osho Robbins is saying “no, it is definitely oneness”
I agree with your reasoning – that WOULD be a claim, because then I am asserting it is oneness, not nothing and not many.
furthermore i am not providing any evidence.
In that case, it would be a simple assertion without evidence, same as any religious claim.
I am not saying that at all.
I gave a reply to Umami, which makes things a little clearer.
for your convenience, i copy the relevant part here:
=============================
One day, you will die. Then everything you see will have no value. it will be like the dream. Gone.
THEN, where will you be?
Christian says “with Jesus”
Muslim says “with Allah”
RSSB says “in Sach Khand”
New RSSB says “ONENESS”
They are all beliefs, including ONENESS.
They are all lies, including ONENESS.
So what will REALLY happen when you die?
I mean REALLY -not an idea.
Not an experience (like NDE)
because we have already established that experience means nothing.
Not a belief (made up bullshit)
Not conjecture
I mean REALLY.
This is the heart of the matter.
You cannot discover the answer no matter how hard you try.
Every tool you have fails.
You have no idea who you are. You have no idea what existence is, what reality is.
All your philosophies fail.
The question cannot be answered at all.
The personal discovery of this, not through experience, not through logic, thinking, projection, conjecture etc. seems impossible
That is Nirvana.
Nothing can be said about it.
The more you debate, the more nonsensical the debate becomes.
There is no separate YOU that survives death. No soul, no entity.
ONENESS is not a thing. it doesn’t exist as you define existence.
Logic cannot be used and there is no evidence.
Buddha cannot prove he has attained Nirvana.
a number of reasons:
There is nobody to attain
There is nothing to attain
Nirvana is not an attainment
It is not a realization either
it is not nothingness
it is not somethingness
it is not emptiness
it is not real
it is not unreal
the chances of you figuring this out is exactly zero.
just like the square trying to figure out the cube. impossible.
The nature of nirvana, enlightenment etc has been misunderstood and this will continue. it cannot be understood
listen to this slowly, without trying to grasp, without the “what the fuck is he on about”
you will get a tiny glimpse
here i posted the osho videos on
misunderstanding
=========================
okay, so now, let me attempt to explain.
i wrote that ONENESS is not a thing. it doesn’t exist like you define existence.
then i say Buddha cannot prove he has attained Nirvana.
Nirvana cannot be proven and it cannot be defined. Oneness cannot be proven or defined.
I have simply used the word ONENESS but really i should use a different word.
I am not claiming there is a thing called
ONENESS.
I could call it nothingness.
I cannot call it manyness (why, because then space is needed, because one things has a boundary then the next thing begins)
No Time, No Space.
an eternal nothing with no end in sight.
an eternal one, with no end in sight.
these are merely words to describe
“no time, no space”
That is why I say i am not making a claim.
It is undefinable but i have to use a word. because i used ONENESS – it created a misunderstanding that i am claiming ONENESS is a real thing. I am not making that claim.

@Osho, …I don’t disagree with any Thing you just wrote above. I even watched most of your short Tic Tock Vids, where you mention “God” many times, yet also say there is No God, just You, the ONE.
I CAN’T DISAGREE that ALL CREATION, has a beginning, and an end, as assigned as Maya, by Brahm, the Kal Derourge. Or, as MCS assigns the name to that character as,…”Universal Mind”……but also CLEARLY says we are each, “Agents of Universal Mind” , which automatically implies that we are individuals.
As for Sach Khand, I agree that I don’t have a clue where, or what it is, or how to get there, other than believing that the Master will meet us in his Radiant Form, and we will merge with him, and he will escort us through all the inner realms, where he separates as individual realms having Shells, Coins, Silver, Gold, leading to Sach Khand.
He also said our soul is ULTIMATELY God, but not until we merge with him in Sach Khand. He said once we access any Region , then are taken to the next higher region by the Master, we can look back and see below, but never above, until we arrive there with the Master. So, once in Sach Khand, we can witness all creation below where we left.
So, I agree with you, that it’s all a Belief system, but I believe every thing I HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED, which replaces any thing any one else told me.
So, once I personally experience any thing some one else told me, then, I assign Credibility to that person, and am open to further communication. Such as with Charan Singh, but now, that communication can never be by physical forms.
So, …..so far, I have not experienced being ONE, GOD, or ALL, that you have been preaching, or taking from Advaita philosophy, so no offense, but I can’t refer any Spiritual Seekers to your Work Shops or Videos.
How much do you charge for your Work Shops, and have you been successful of making formally depressed Seekers Happy, after they leave your Work Shops? I hope you are not trying to make a living by your lectures, because the Tic Tock readers are very low numbers. I think Brian Hines has you beat in his Church. But I like the appearance of your Presentation, which looks Professional, and non Cultish. I only wondered about that black scarf wrapped on your head. Never saw one like that before. Is that a Brand for you, and do your Seekers who become Happy and keep following you wear black scarfs on their heads? Just curious.
Last but not least, there has to be reasons why some of us succeed in reaching the inside Lights, Sounds, Visions of People, places, and other forms. So why only a few, and the majority never experience any thing, no matter how clean a life they have lived, yet followed the same Sant Mat Path, such as our Dutch Brother, Um?
Scriptures, both East and West explain why, many are called, but few are chosen. Like you can’t make many believe they are GOD, THE ONE,….I can not make many believe they are born Elect, Chosen, and will be met at physical death and escorted to ???
I admit, I don’t know exactly WHERE I will be escorted to, but I do “Believe” I will be met by my Inner Master at death, Who is a actually my Higher Self/Causal body, not any past Physical Master/Guru/Pope/Savior,.,,.etc. My Higher Self is the only Protector I have ever had, from the womb through the Tomb, where my ashes will be buried. My Higher Self is the ONLY Spiritual Entity that is interested in the Karmas, good or bad, I have generated as Jim during this life.
The ONE might be interested in ALL Higher Selves, but until I arrive there, I won’t know.
Peace!
Jim Sutherland

Voltaire’s Parable of the Brahmin
“I wish I had never been born!” the Brahmin remarked.
“Why so?” said I.
“Because,” he replied, “I have been studying these forty years, and I find that it has been so much time lost…I believe that I am composed of matter, but I have never been able to satisfy myself what it is that produces thought. I am even ignorant whether my understanding is a simple faculty like that of walking or digesting, or if I think with my head in the same manner as I take hold of a thing with my hands…I talk a great deal, and when I have done speaking I remain confounded and ashamed of what I have said.”
The same day I had a conversation with an old woman, his neighbor. I asked her if she had ever been unhappy for not understanding how her soul was made? She did not even comprehend my question. She had not, for the briefest moment in her life, had a thought about these subjects with which the good Brahmin had so tormented himself. She believed in the bottom of her heart in the metamorphoses of Vishnu, and provided she could get some of the sacred water of the Ganges in which to make her ablutions, she thought herself the happiest of women. Struck with the happiness of this poor creature, I returned to my philosopher, whom I thus addressed:
“Are you not ashamed to be thus miserable when, not fifty yards from you, there is an old automaton who thinks of nothing and lives contented?”
“You are right,” he replied. “I have said to myself a thousand times that I should be happy if I were but as ignorant as my old neighbor; and yet it is a happiness which I do not desire.”
This reply of the Brahmin made a greater impression on me than anything that had passed.

@ Jim Sutherland
>>Last but not least, there has to be reasons why some of us succeed in reaching the inside Lights, Sounds, Visions of People, places, and other forms. So why only a few, and the majority never experience any thing, no matter how clean a life they have lived, yet followed the same Sant Mat Path, such as our Dutch Brother, Um? << Let us put first things first .... I agree only with "never experienced any thing." As far as the "why" etc .... It would not surprise me at all, that if psychologists would make a personality profile of those that have inner experiences are people that are to be found at one end of the Gauss curve related to imagination and that it started in early youth. To give en example, some children easily can transform an matchbox into a car and a show box into an garage and play the whole morning and other children are not able to mentally transform these items at all. But ... there are also other reasons given from within the narrative of sant Mat, all reasons related to karma, the interference of the Master etc ...you must have heard him refer to these reasons when people in public complained before him about the lack of experiences. How often did he not just stated that the experiences of the disciple were in HIS hands??!! As these things are his business I do not comment on them But I do believe that the pointing at the mental frame of a disciple work as reason and explanation is more then enough ...How often did not mystics point in that direction? Referring to faith and believe as explanation for the "miracles". The Honorable Faqir Chand went very far in using that explanation and what to say about the other end of the spectrum?! The analytical mind as an obstacle. These days Dr. Han de Wit, an Dutch Psychologist wrote a book about this matter ... CONTEMPLATIVE psychology. Is everything that can be found in any practice in fact not a form of psycho therapy and the whole practice not a form of "PSYCHO-SOMATIC MANIPULATION" of the subject? Read the Patanjali Sutras for example It is all related to the MIND and means to by pass it. So that is ebnough for deserving another coffe.

@Jim Sutherland.
workshops free. the scarf is a turban. i don’t know how to tie it, do one of my associates tied it very quickly just minutes before the talk started.
on to more significant things.
If it has form, if it moves, if it can be experienced – then it is maya – illusion.
The eternal is formless and timeless. You, as a separate entity cannot go to Sach Khand. If you do, it is maya. illusion, not sach khand.

@ Jim S.
AND …..
Most of not ALL books on psychotherapy and counselling start in the initial pages with a remark that the success of that therapy, that practice etc is related to the EXISTENCE of what they call an “therapeutic relationship”
That explains that not all therapies work for all and everybody and every time and are to be called successful or having reached their intended goal.
A spiritual path is in fact also a kind of therapy, counseling
AND ….
Not ALL that come and knock at the door of the therapist or counselor that say that they want to change their live are speaking the truth …most of them, without intention of blaming anybody ..do not want to change they only want the unpleasant effects of their way of life to be removed.
In that sense there are few people that are realy interested in the spiritual affair
Please do not hate me for it ..it is nobodies fault

Why aren’t we ever satisfied to remain exactly as we are, instead of always wondering what’s on the other side of our Veils?
I was a Pagan, that became a Born Again Christian, …… but it was never enough to satisfy my curiosity of what’s hidden behind the Veil that I had not seen.
So, remaining just a pew warmer in every Christian denomination I visited ,ending with the highly hyped Baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by the Speaking in Tongues, no matter how long I prayed in Tongues, I could never break through the Veil far enough to see what’s on the other side. So surely, the Ordained Ministers, called to preach the Gospel who were said to have the Keys to that mysterious Kingdom within, that the Master Jesus initiated his disciples to be able to experience. So, I spent the time, money, effort, and passed all of the Denominational Tests to become Credentialed with the highest Degrees, and Ordained to teach other Seekers how to speak in Tongues, of which I was successful to teaching many.
But, I still could not see the hidden side of the Veil. So, after seeing Ads in various magazines of Rosicrucians advertising they had the Keys to seeing behind the Veils, I spent 10 years studying with them, ( AMORC ) and was initiated in to their 9 Temple Degrees, then accepted to further study their Illuminati Degrees, through the 12th and up, which I did,..and still could not see what was behind the hidden Veal!
So, I was drawn to , and accepted by the Traditional Martinists, considered to be Esoteric Christianity, and I was initiated in to the Three Degrees they offered, and after practicing all of their Rituals,….I still was unable to see behind the hidden Veil, which by then, I considered was either not there, unknown, or forbidden to me.
So, just when I was on the border line of giving it all up, and going back to Paganism, I stumbled on to Dr. Julian Johnson’s Path of the Masters book, bought it, and kept it for a year, not interested enough to read it, until on a Vacation and read the book, cover to cover, and couldn’t put it down! I identified with it so clearly, that felt I could have been the Author of the contents from a past life! ( Julian Johnson died in 1939, and I was born in Feb. 1942. )
I became COMPELLED to find, a Perfect Living Master, and become initiated in order to be released from Transmigration from the lower species I.e., Charausi, The Hindu Wheel of possible 8,400,000 species.
So, Sant Thakar Singh was the first available I met, who first initiated me, followed 18 months later by Charan Singh’s Proxy, Western Rep., Dr. Roland de Vries.
My hidden Veil was slowly opened, a crack at a time, which has allowed me to enter as far as I have to date. At 2 months short of 83, I am not expecting to be allowed to enter much further, if the Silver Cord mentioned in the Bible is real, because it tethers the Astral body to the physical body during meditation and dreaming, only allowing the Astral body to project to the outer limits of low earth Realms, such as where I projected to Outer Space. So, until the Silver Cord is completely severed by physical death, what’s really on the hidden side of the Veil is unknown, until Joining those past incarnations archived in my Higher Self Casal Body , who, hopefully, will be my Welcoming Committee for a Mission Job well done!
Jim Sutherland

Years ago ..,I asked Babaji ,´Why can´t we be´ One´
Babajiś answer was ´BE ONE´!!
So… long ago this was a great Relieve in that period for me.
I still am ..( trying) to realise the great ´I AM´ same as ´SAT NAM´
The One _/\_ God

“It is undefinable but i have to use a word. because i used ONENESS – it created a misunderstanding that i am claiming ONENESS is a real thing. I am not making that claim.”
What?! Why?! “I don’t know” isn’t “undefinable” at all! Why on earth do you *have* to use a word — unless to pretend to have access to an intuition and a wisdom that you do not actually possess? And why use the word “Oneness” when you do not, in fact, mean Oneness at all? That’s just nonsense, from beginning to end!
———-
Osho Robbins, I call BS. I clearly, unequivocally call BS. Like so many others, you are pretending to a faux-profundity that is counterfeit. And now, when called out clearly, you are directly lying. I say this clearly, without mincing words.
You are now saying that you literally have no claim at all, quite literally. Well, back during that long protracted discussion of ours, we had clearly identified your claims, at which point you insisted that those were outside the purview of reason and science. It’ll take much too long to root back to find that discussion of ours within Brian’s archives, and within that long discussion to focus on that portion of it: so instead, let me just focus on some things that have come up in this thread itself, and that too within your comments directly addressed to me.
From within that short space — which is, your comments specifically addressed to me within this very thread — from within that very short space, I’m going to list down some questions here, and ask you to answer those, Osho Robbins. Honest, straight answers, without twisting and turning and bobbing and weaving any more. Can you do that?
Here:
1. Do you know what Advaita teaches? Advaita literally teaches Oneness — hell, “Advaita” literally *means* Oneness. Are you now saying now that what you yourself are “teaching” is not what is the core of Advaita? That you’ve merely misappropriated the term “Oneness” from that hoary tradition?
2. You’ve said to me, right there above, in so many words: “Advaita or non-duality is not another belief.” We’re not talking about your (claimed) idiosyncratic redefinition of term “Oneness”, but literally about Advaita and non-duality. And you’re claiming that’s not a belief. How do you square that circle? That’s a factual claim, right there.
3. You’ve said to me, “forget about logic, forget about evidence”. Why? Why do you want me to keep aside logic and evidence? Logic and evidence have led me to this point: that science has clearly, if provisionally, uncovered these things about us and about the universe and about our place within the universe; and that there’s a great many things we still don’t know, and are trying to find out; and that much of what religions teach is empty speculation, aka nonsense. That’s the point where clear logic and a clear adherence to the evidence has led me.
So, why are you asking me to keep aside logic and evidence now, for what reason? What have you to add, or to subtract, or to change, or to otherwise contribute, should I agree to keep aside logic and evidence specifically when it comes to you (even as we both keep using those tools when it comes to others’ “teachings”)?
4. You’ve said to me, “imagine a two dimensional square. i draw it on a paper. next to it i place a cube. (…) The square welcomes the newly arrived square, but it says ” I am a cube” (…) The square says “you are simply stupid – i can see you are a square – just like me. prove you are different” (…) The cube says “I have a third dimension – I have height” (…) “what is height?” asks the square. (…) The cube goes silent. The square wins the argument. (…) This is similar.”
What exactly do you mean by the above, then? What added dimension? What are you talking about here?
Stop bobbing and weaving, and answer me straight, Osho Robbins: That above, what does that mean? Don’t dissemble, don’t say “Anything I say will be minsconstrued”, or some such tripe. If you’ve been simply gassing away, then admit that clearly.
What added dimension, what extra aspect to the truth and to reality, than I have already uncovered, have you access to? If nothing at all, then say that, clearly, please.
5. You’ve asked me to go beyond words. Why? Staying well within the ambit of words, has led me to the clear understanding that I’ve outlined above within this very comment. Have you access to anything further at all, that might be accessed by others like me if only we agree to go beyond words?
6. You tell me, in your last comment: “The points I am attempting to make are difficult to communicate, hence it’s challenging.” …Well, what points? You’re now claiming you’ve nothing further to communicate, no claims at all. It’s clear that the points you are attempting to make are difficult not to communicate, but difficult to defend — hence your twisting and turning. What exactly *are* you saying, then, what exactly *are* you teaching, that is any different than what I am already aware of?
7. You’ve said to me, “I am not making any claim, because the thing is a no-thing, an absence, The lack of an entity, pure emptiness, if you will.”.
Well, why call it Oneness, then? And, specifically: Why claim a counterfeit connection with that “emptiness” of yours with the hoary teachings of Advaita? Because Advaita does NOT teach emptiness. …And also, you do realize that even emptiness, even absence, is a claim, don’t you? We don’t even know that, that there’s emptiness that is fundamental to existence, as opposed to eternally existing entities or fields. We simply don’t know, one way or the other. Why keep on making up these claims about things that you have no clue about?
8. This final question I’ll take from what you said within this very thread, but addressed not to me but to umami: “The athiest gets close, closer than all believers, but no cigar. He also misses. (…) He sees through all the beliefs, he can see all beliefs are nonsense, but he cannot take the final step because he has too much faith in the material. (…) He has faith in the material universe. He says “only this is real” (…) The final step “there is no real” he cannot take this, so he also misses. (…) everyone misses it (…) except the one who gets it, and he is helpless in his communication.”
Read the above. Then tell me, clearly, without bobbing and weaving: What is the atheist missing? Specifically, basis your long interactions with me, what do you think *I* am missing? Do you admit that you’re only pretending to a profundity you don’t actually possess : Or do you stand by your claim that you “get” something that others don’t, that I myself don’t?
————————-
Dear Osho Robbins, I’ll end this by saying to you what I’d said to you back during our protracted discussion some years ago: Apologies, if, in aiming for clarity, some of what I’ve said has ended up less than perfectly courteous. Specifically, the clear calling out of what I see as dissembling and faux-profundity and outright lying. It is no more than me trying to engage with you as clearly as I know how, precisely because I continue, even up till this point now, to tenuously hold on to the possibility and the hope that you, Osho Robbins, might actually possess a wisdom that might be worth exploring and accessing.
Spirituality is a fraught subject, because claims of spiritual profundity are so easy to make. Which makes spirituality particularly susceptible to obscurantism and charlatanry. Our best tool in uncovering spiritual truths is unwavering, uncompromising honesty and sincerity.
I call on you, Osho Robbins, to employ that honesty and sincerity, if only for the space of one single comment, and to clearly address these specifics.

Osho Robbins, on reading the comment I posted here, and revisiting our exchange in my mind, it occurs to me that what is confusing you is, just maybe, the exact meaning of the word “claim”. Just in case that is what is actually what’s confusing you, let me clarify that a claim that is true is nevertheless still a claim.
If I’m the only man with eyes in a land filled with people that are all blind, and I can see a vast horizon out there that is hidden from my fellow-men, and I talk about what I’ve seen, and what I’ve intimately known to be true: Even so, my saying that there’s vast lands and rivers out there beyond our cloistered valley, that is still a claim.
If I’m a 3D man wandered into Flatland, if I’m a cube speaking to a square that only knows two dimensions and knows of no other, and on that basis talk to him about things I’ve intimately seen and known and understood, that I find myself unable to clearly prove to my friend the square: well, even so, the claims I make about my world, even if perfectly true, are nevertheless claims.
“Claim” is not a pejorative term. Nor is “claim” a term to be used only when one is able to defend one’s claim.
———-
With that clarification, that I thought to put in now, maybe you could try to address the comment I’ve posted minutes ago?
———-
Mind you, the heuristics of rational thinking will not cease to apply. It makes sense to reject claims that are unevidenced and undefended. But you cannot get out with claims that you cannot defend by saying that what you’re claiming isn’t a claim.
If I’m claiming I’m a sighted man in a land of the blind, or a cube in a land of squares, then my claim, that I myself know to be true, may well be seen as no more than hallucination by my fellow men. And indeed, I myself might actually be hallucinating, if I do see visions that others don’t. Or not, maybe those visions are of things really there. But, either way: Every claim is a claim. Regardless of whether you can back it up.
———-
Right. With that clarification in place, about what exactly is a claim, you can now, if you would, address that last comment of mine.
———-
Haha, it’s physically impossible to try any harder than this! I’m going to walk away now, for good, if all my previous comment draws, even when read along with that clarification about what is a “claim”, is more dissembling and more bobbing and weaving.

@AR
“There is something which cannot be defined, cannot be experienced, cannot be known, cannot be pointed to. It is NOT even a SOMETHING. It is also not NOTHING. Any word I use just creates another conceptual idea”
clearly that is NOT a claim – because there is nothing there – no substance. It is a Non-claim because there is no item you can pint to which is the object of the claim, nit even emptiness, not even enlightenment, not even Nirvana.
Remove this notion that “I” am claiming special powers that “I” have known or experienced it in some special way.
but of course you cannot do that because that is impossible. Everything is about the ME. anything beyond, you HAVE to call bullshit.
why? because it doesn’t fit into category.
That is what advaita really is – not the idea of advaita. That is what non-dual is.
You cannot define non-dual, because you can only point to one side, and the other side is the other part of duality.
so you say “nothing” but the opposite is “something” – so “nothing” is not non-dual.
“Nirvana”, opposite is the non-nirvana state.
The closest is “neti, neti”
not this, nor this, nor this.
That which is left after removing anything that can be pointed to…..
what is that?
how is that a claim?
I am not even saying it is “real” because what you define as “real” is only an illusion.
You cannot reach “real” because YOU (AR) are not real. in 50 years time, you will not be here.
The body, the mind, the thoughts, the personality – they will all be gone.
Where to? you have no idea. You “knowing” is only for now.
And you have supreme confidence in your knowing.
It is useless. it is material, which is all you know.
what is “knowing” ?
who is the “knower”?
when you dream, all your knowing disappears – but you are still there experiencing a different reality, which you are again 100% certain that it is real.
The world you see all disappears for you. you are lying on the bed.
you don’t even know you are lying in the bed. The dream reality takes over.
All your previous knowing has gone,
You enter a new world, which you are convinced is real.
The world from your waking state has gone. You don’t say it’s real now. you can’t even see it.
Then you enter dreamless sleep.
now what?
your waking (so-called real world) has completed vanished. You don’t even know your name. You don’t know how educated you are. you don’t know which town you live in. You know NOTHING – ZERO.
Yet just hours earlier you seemed to know so much and you called it REAL.
Now even the dream world has gone. Maybe you will enter a new dream world shortly.
you might wake up and come back to the world. you might not – you may die.
What is the point? yoir knowing is momentary. It disappears every night. How is it real?
so what is REAL then?
that which REMAINS in the dream state, the waking state and the sleep state.
it witnessed all three but was not identified with any of them.
What is that? They call it Turiya – the fourth state. It’s just. another word.
Turiya means the changeless. not waking, not dreaming, not dreamless sleep.
The backdrop to all three.
Do you call that a belief? a claim?
now watch this
https://youtu.be/2s3FQE6yQDw?si=F1qi9iqJx30R9Tfi
is the “fourth” a belief? a claim?

@ Jim S.
After reading your long search to find a door opening to what is behind the veil, I wondered how such an desire did arise in you.
Before 1968, most people had no knowledge of eastern philosophy, worldviews and spirituality …so how could they long to know something they hadn’t heard about, things they could not even imagine, things they did not know to exist?
It reminds me of the late MCS stating to people bringing up a certain topic …”Sister, brother it is that you brought it before me otherwise I would not have any knowledge of it” ….Most often this remark of him was appreciated as an expression of his humility and that in fact he “knew”. Personally I just always accepted his words for what they were …being … he didn’t know.
Later in life for that reason I came to realize that IF nobody had put the concept of GOD before me I would have had no knowledge of it let alone a desire to know it..
So how can a human being, for heavens sake …hahaha …. have such an desire??
Personalty, I think these days that most of the people interested in spirituality etc do so because they face problems with living, living in the here and now and turn to these things because they HEARD others speak about it …and those that spoke had so called [spontaneous] inner experiences.,…experiences so powerful that they were not able to think of them as being the outcome of their own mind.

@ Jim S.
Let me add to what I wrote:
A while ago I wrote several times about the fact that all sorts of “spiritual authorities”, spoke to what humanity came to label as prophets, saints, mystics, shamans, medicine men etc.
I did never question the truth of what they said, I just accepted that this or that human had the experiences he or she spoke about. I have to as it is impossible to verify what they say.
These expressions, these revelationbs etc, as long as they are related to a personal life should be not problem to anybody and they certainly are not to me.
The problem arises when that person relates of a divine authority, God, angels etc delivering “commands”etc relate to OTHERS, being a group or even humanity as an whole.
In all those cases that inner authority, if it to be considered as something apart from the one that delivers the message, FAILED to inform the rest of the world, FAILED to tell the rest of the world ..in these terms …I the messenger of God, spoke to that man or woman, You now heed their words.
As an example I used the “promise” made to the tribe of abraham that the land of now Israel was given to them. I do believe that such an content can have been the inner experience of an elder of an tribe in the search for a territory to live. If I did happen as described, it must have been an impressive experience., so impressive that they Abraham was not able than to accept it as something besides himself speaking to him.
So far so good ..the problem is however that IF that authority exists BESIDES Abraham, it, he or she failed to inform the rest of humanity, then and ever since.
Why this long intro>
Well, what happens with that storry af abraham, is a mechanism and not restricted to Abraham. It also fits the narratives of this or that spiritual path telling humanity what is the purpose of this life.
We as humanity are NOT individualy informed about these so called purposes of life.
For us it is ALL ..HEARSAY …HEARSAY …HEARSAY …and…BELIEVING IT
So Jim…I have heard many a thing but there has never been an incident where something appeared to me that said you have to be christian, uslim or whatever or follow this or that spiritual practice ..IN ORDER TO ATTAIN …this or that.

Um,…if no one ever told us any thing about there being a God, and about Religeons, we would be like lower species, I.e., animals, which most humans remain, in human bodies. Every thing we have learned was every thing told to us by others,….including me.
I was born in a small town in No. Maine of only about 700 inhabitants, at that time, There were only 2 Churches in town, one Catholic, and the other, Congregational. My Mother was a devoted Catholic, whereas my Father was not interested, but converted to Catholicism in order to please my Mother. So, I was sprinkled , or Baptised as a baby, dedicated to my Mother’s God, then had my 1st Communion and Confirmation. My mother took me to Church on Sunday, and Wed. and sent me to Catachism, so Jesus, Mary and Catholicism was fed to me all during my 1st 17 years at home, until I left home to start Boot Camp in the Air Force, I had even been an Altar Boy, from age 11-16, so I was a dedicated Catholic Boy when I started as an Airman in the USAF a month after my 17th birthday. I attended Catholic Church in the Air Force for about 6 months, then quit going, and is when my deprograming from Catholicism to Paganism began, which didn’t take long to deconvert me from Catholicism to Paganism, so I lived as most Pagans live until my Born again experience at age 35 , which reconnected me to the roots I had been taught , but then started me on the search for Truth , but after my Born Again experience, my search was traveled by my own choices of where to search,
That search has been shared here, as well as on my blog, and other forums, where I have shared mostly, my Sant Mat Journey.
We are all products of haven either been groomed by many Mentors, or, have been passed by, with out any one taking enough interest is us to share any thing with us, there are many of those types of people in the Prisons, all over the world, who’s lives will never be changed from gloom and doom, to Hope, Grace, Charity, Faith and Love,…..until,………some one like you, me, Osho, Brian, and others who have found some of what we have either found, or rejected share with those in prisons.
Jim Sutherland

@ Jim S.
Lately I have stressed different times that we, we humans, attribute meaning and value and that THINGS have no value and meaning of themselves.
Like you and probably all other human beings go through that process of learning what value and what meaning to attribute to what THING, in order to make it possible to participate in the public domain of a given society and culture, however small or large.
Now let us go back to your and my early days and reflect on the very first Q&A of the RK catechism . I says
1. What is the plan of God for man?
God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. In the fullness of time, God the Father sent his Son as the Redeemer and Savior of mankind, fallen into sin, thus calling all into his Church and, through the work of the Holy Spirit, making them adopted children and heirs of his eternal happiness.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
{ by the way read with your understanding of to day the first entrances]
In my days it simply said:
[Q] What are we on earth for?
[A] We are on earth to serve God and thereby be happy here and in the hereafter..
If I open “My submission” part 1, by Mah. Sawan Singh i read:
Man came first.
Religions were instituted later for the evolution of his soul.
[ and it goes on to say …]
Man was not made for the sake of religion but the purpose was to attain bliss or to realize the lord.
Do you see the similarity between what I came to learn as a youth and the statement of Mah. Sawan Singh?
The question is ..How can a human being know that there is a good, what it is, that there is a soul and what it is?
Either he has an experience or he has heard about such an experience and tries to imagine, based upon the hearsay, what these THINGS are.
Together with my understanding that whatever exists is empowered with whatever is needed to exist, humans have no knowledge about their existence and they cannot have it. Whatever there is around is man made = made into the image of humanhood
You see the first entrances in the catechism use the concepts of god and soul in the same way as an Axioma in mathematics,, something that needs no prove and is accepted as an starting point
Religions and spiritual paths are all ..a WAY of LIFE …. and in order to derive the full profit of it, one has to have faith in it and be devoted to it.
Well … I have, in my own way, tried to acquire all these meanings an values that commonly are shared but must accept that I failed in doing so. The different concepts you pointed at in your message have no meaning and value for me .. I can write them and know how to use them in a conversation. ….
No longer forcing myself to understand and to own these concepts the misery I felt as a boy and throughout most part of my life, has gone and I accept to be alive as I am, in the world as I experience it and know how to make myself a cup of coffee …MY cup Jim, …not of expert …he need not to drink my coffee and I am not longer interested in what he does.

@um,….I have decided you don’t intend to sample the Gourmet Coffee I recommended, and give us a report here, of how it excited your taste buds, or made you feel like a Cat.
But, since you always seem to return to your Home grown Cup of Coffee, I think you might like Morgan Freeman’s wish, to have his Cremation ashes storred in a Coffee can, and placed high on a hill.
https://vimeo.com/425543512
Jim Sutherland

Well Jim … I did ask my dear cousin, dear because he addresses me in the public domain, especially when there are people around and they can hear it … as ….. honorable uncle …. to ask his Gourmet friends for enough beans to make just one coffee.
If it is may karma,. and by the grace nof God such will occur ….. I will let you know

@Osho Robbins
complete deflection, more bobbing and weaving, more incoherent twaddle
*walks away*

“walks away”, not from Osho Robbins the person. Osho Robbins the person’s a cool guy, and I’ll enjoy continuing to exchange notes with you, generally
But “walks away”, walks firmly away, from imagining, like I used to, that you actually possess some wisdom or intuition that I might learn from
(I’m sorry to say, Osho Robbins, but you know less of what you’re trying to teach, which is to say Advaita Vedanta, than I myself do, it seems to me — as far as the essence of it)
…on those terms, as no longer looking to you as someone that has anything remotely worthwhile to *teach* me, I’m happy to engage with your comment, and generally exchange notes about some of the things you raise here
(Doing something else right now, I’ll compose a message presently, an hour or so from now say)

Ok, then, here goes:
Osho Robbins, I’ll engage with some of the things you’ve brought up in your comment. But before that, let me spell out, clearly, what Advaita Vedanta actually teaches. Because you seem not to have a firm grasp of the very thing you’ve set out to teach here.
Advaita Vedanta teaches that the essence of existence is Brahm. Brahm is the only thing there is, just one consciousness. Within that consciousness, that is Brahm, arise the ripples of creation, and everything contained within. In essence only Brahm exists, nothing else.
THAT is what “Oneness” actually means, Osho Robbins, in context of Advaita Vedanta. None of all of those weasely deflections you threw at me, right in this very thread, while bobbing and weaving away.
Advaita Vedanta holds that we are all part of Brahm, that we all are actually nothing but Brahm, and that all of existence, including us, it’s all Maya, all a chimera. We all merge back into Brahm — in fact, we all are actually Brahm already, only held back by our own delusion.

“What is that? They call it Turiya – the fourth state. It’s just. another word. (…) Turiya means the changeless. not waking, not dreaming, not dreamless sleep. (…) The backdrop to all three. (…) Do you call that a belief? a claim?”
Emphatically YES, Osho Robbins.
Let me spell out, clearly, what Turiya is. There’s the wakeful state. There’s the dream state. There’s the deep sleep state. So far so good. Next come the claims.
There’s the claim that there’s a fourth stage, the Turiya, which is our essence, and in respect of which these first three stages are simply like a dream.
Of COURSE that’s a claim. A humongous whopper of a claim. How do you not see this?
And this claim is completely unevidenced.
Just because a tradition claims this, that does not make it true. Just because this is a beautifully sophisticated, sublime thought structure, does not make it true.
Both Brahm, and Turiya (as defined and discussed), are CLAIMS.
And neither Brahm, nor Turiya (as defined and discussed) are borne out by evidence. Therefore, it makes sense to reject both these claims.
Yes, you can try to deflect this by pointing out that there can be no evidence of the extra-material within the material universe. Fair enough, makes sense. But that only makes this claim untestable, unfalsifiable. Ergo, we reject the claim. (Again, I’ll take you to my garage, inside of which lives Carl Sagan’s invisible, undetectable dragon.)
———-
“now watch this (…) https://youtu.be/2s3FQE6yQDw?si=F1qi9iqJx30R9Tfi (…) is the “fourth” a belief? a claim?”
Again, yes, Osho Robbins, emphatically YES! (See discussion above.)
———-
Love this man’s talks, this Swami Sarvepriyananda. First came across him in a blog post from Brian. Pleasure to listen to him talk.
I’ve only glossed through this video now, dragging the marker forward in order to absorb the essence of it, for now. But I’ve bookmarked it to listen to fully, later when I’m free.

Dear Osho Robbins,
Please don’t take anything I’ve said amiss. No offense intended. You’re a great guy, a wonderful speaker, and I’ve long known you from your comments to be a good, gentle soul. I like you, and admire how well you speak, and admire your tenacity in trying to wean off brainwashed RSSB types and Sikh types from their gobbledygook superstitious beliefs.
Just, for the longest time, I’ve actually thought of you as possibly possessed of a genuine intuition, that I hoped to learn from and, God willing, myself absorb. Towards that end, I’d keep asking you all of those questions, culminating in that huge long discussion of ours.
Well, now’s when I’m finally pretty much sure that there’s nothing there. No intuition, no wisdom beyond merely boilerplate Advaita. Now’s when I stop looking at you as a potential teacher.
But I continue to like you, and remember with pleasure some of our past interactions. For instance, I still remember that brilliant take you’d brought in to that discussion on atheism, years ago, where you brought in that lovely analogy of the Scottish legal system, that has those three judgments: Innocent, and Guilty, and the third one Guilt Not Proven. How brilliantly you’d used that analogy to explain the atheist position.
I’m saying, although I no longer see you as even a potential teacher, but I’d love to continue to have you as a (online) friend, via Brian’s blogsite. And hopefully continue to exchange notes with you as well, except on general terms, and completely without the urgency that comes from wanting/hoping to learn something that one holds to be both important and urgent.
———
Right, enough said, more than enough words hammered out from my keyboard onto Brian’s blogsite server space!
Logging out now. Cheers, Osho Robbins, old friend.

…Watched the vid you’d linked fully, Osho Robbins. The Swami Sarvepriyananda thing. …And then YouTube algo threw up at me, and started playing on it own, this further video of his as well, that I finished watching just now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7zHy56GwB4
I just love listening to this man speak, this Swami Sarvepriyananda guy. How completely lucidly and coherently — and authoritatively — he explains the Advaitic POV. I supplied the link here, because I though you too might enjoy listening to him. The first question neatly links Yogic quietude with Advaitic self-enquiry, and spells out the fundamental difference between the two approaches.
…But of course, to admire the man, and to admire how he thinks and speaks and explains things, and also to admire the sublimity of Advaita: that is not to swallow whole the unevidenced and therefore fantastic structure of Advaita as something that actually describes reality.
…But simply in order to generally understand and explore Advaita, this guy’s very cool to listen to. Thanks for linking to his vid here. (Like I said, I’d come across him already, from an old post of Brian’s: but you know how it is, you bookmark a link, with fully sincere intentions of following up with watching more, and then it gets snowed under a whole pile of other must-watch bookmarks, and you end up forgetting all about it. So yeah, thanks for bringing him up again.)

@AR
congratulations on dropping all hope of me as a teacher. That is perfect and exactly as it needs to be. I am not a teacher. I used to be, back in the day when I thought I was enlightened.
Time to reveal a little more.
back many years ago when we exchanged notes, I was not in this space.
The journey to Truth is constantly unfolding.
It is not a simple constant path like people envision. It changes like a chameleon as one walks – but only if the disciple is true. it cannot be pinned down. it is the nature of Truth.
One has to remain authentic.
At that time, when we exchanged notes, I was naive. I still had the notion that realisation is an experience. I had not matured yet. which was fine at the time because I really thought “I” was enlightened. I owned it, and claimed it. I also thought I could communicate it to anyone easily. I used to tell people it is so easy.
so naive of me.
Then I realised all I had was an experience and a deep understanding. I had what I now call the booby prize.
The journey was just beginning to unfold. Wednesdays child has far to go.
Understanding IS the booby prize, but is still a great attainment and a major landmark on the journey. Many stay there and never advance. At this point, one is a dealer in knowledge. This is the scholar, the pundit. His knowledge is immense, but he doesn’t have the thing itself. He doesn’t have realisation. He uses the word but has no idea what it is.
Realization is not an experience, but he seeks only experience as he kbows nothing else.
This is the teacher. He can teach and give you knowledge. But that is all he has. Some teachers are fully aware that the final step has not happened. Swami Sarvipyanana is one of those and is honest enough to admit it.
Once you go to the next step, it appears to be a form of madness. Now you are a master. Your craziness is an asset. You cannot teach because there is no information to impart.
Now you know enlightenment is not what you thought it was, and it is almost impossible to communicate it. The information given by the teacher is correct, but will only lead to understanding or an experience. It cannot lead to discovery of non-dual because knowledge and experience are both duality. Going beyond is not possible without a master. No practice, no method can take you.
Now you are conversing with a different person. I now completely deny my previous claims. Why? because the deeper one goes, the crazier this shit goes. I can’t even explain it anymore. All attempts to explain are futile and naive.
It is inevitable that you don’t connect with this Osho Robbins. It is how it has to be. There is no other possibility.
I am impressed with your honesty. I am rarely impressed. You still like OR as a person, and you value the friendship. That too is impressive.
I always knew you were seeking truth underneath the athieism. But this Truth cannot be found where you seek it.
Actually the atheist is the perfect candidate because he refuses to believe.
“I love Socrates, but I love Truth more than Socrates” – Plato
Osho Robbins

@AR
the video of Swami Sarvepriyananda you linked.
3:20 “I can intuitively guess”
and he say’s perfect.
This is not it – it is information about it and intuitive guessing. it is the arena of the mind.
None of this helps.
The seeker wants an experience because he thinks that is knowing.
He talks about silencing the mind, bur admits this is putting the beloved in prison
finally at 8 mins in – the truth is revealed.
then at 10 mins you have a pure enquiry and the dilemma of the seeker.
the child is asking “where is the screen”
The screen cannot be seen because the attention is on the movie and the screen appears not to be there.

“How do most of the followers take all this? Their conclusion:
The Guru IS coming at death – he is just saying he won’t come to make me meditate – but he will definitely come anyway. So they remain in duality and cannot even understand ONENESS. ALL they have is belief and they think that ONENESS is just another belief.
Chances of getting realized: zero
Osho Robbins”
Wait a minute..
How do you know what 10,000s of satsangis are thinking?
Mind reading (non-supernaturally) perhaps?
OR
Perhaps you’ve misunderstood something, a lot of things. 1st and foremost, the spiritual regions are spelled out by Hazur Sawan Singh Ji as both regions, and/or spiritual levels of attainment; as also discribed here as ‘states of awareness’.
Same, same. Or really, same thang
(Why it WOULD be in detail in other books by old Gurus who’ve Mastered all States/Regions)
I’d love to give page #’s quotes and the whole sha-bing-bang. But, I’ve burned a lot of my books already to memory.
BBJ’s ORDERS
bubs
Yall really follow CS Maharaji Ji’s old orders?
Same game
Sant Mat, same nam different day

@AR
let me dissect.
“What is that? They call it Turiya – the fourth state. It’s just. another word. (…) Turiya means the changeless. not waking, not dreaming, not dreamless sleep. (…) The backdrop to all three. (…) Do you call that a belief? a claim?”
You said yes it’s a claim and I can understand why.
Now for a different perspective.
Time, space. That is our universe.
Is there a timeless spaceless state?
we don’t know. it cannot be said.
IF there was, then, that would be what we call ETERNAL. It means it doesn’t change, cannot change. because change requires space and time.
ETERNAL means you can never exit it because time is needed to exit the state and there is no time.
IF there was a timeless state, it would be eternal. everything else is within time and not eternal.
no claim so far – just IF…..
we live in time and are non-eternal.
now an OBSERVATION:
we are awake, and then dream and also have dreamless sleep. Each state has it’s own awareness. in the dream, this reality disappears. That is not a belief, but an observation.
The dream also is for a short while.
These three states come and go.
You call the waking state REAL – but everyday it totally disappears and may not return.
How fickle is this ‘real’?
Is there a YOU that experiences the dream and then experiences the dreamless deep sleep?
This is an inquiry, not a claim.
maybe there is, maybe there isn’t
we are not sure
if there IS a you that goes into the dream state, then into deep sleep then comes into the waking state, that is the witness of all three states.
if there is NO YOU that dreams, then WHO is dreaming? we know that SOMEONE is. call that FRED. FRED is dreaming. Then someone goes into deep dreamless sleep. might be FRED, or call him STEVE. Then someone wakes up. FRED, STEVE or AR.
Maybe three different people or the SAME person. we are not sure WHO it is.
but it is someone.
That unknown someone(s) moves through the three states.
This YOU (AR) was sleeping on the bed so doesn’t know. What AR does know is that his world ceased to exist. AR disappeared.
AR was no more. He may come back or may not – we are not sure.
So who is AR? is his reality reliable? AR, when he comes back has vague memories of the dream sometimes, so it WAS AR but he just can’t remember for sure.
There was SOMEONE who was experiencing the dream. either AR or FRED.
is that a claim? or an observation?
it can’t be a NOBODY that was dreaming.
no claim has been made.
AR disappears (loses waking awareness).
AR is unaware. Someone has a dream, i don’t care who it is.
no claim so far.
someone then enters deep sleep. He sees nothing. then enters another dream, then goes into dreamless sleep again.
eventually AR wakes up.
That OBSERVATION is called turiya. call it whatever you want. you disappear then come back.
In dream, time is distorted. speeds up. decades can go by in a single minute.
in deep sleep TIME goes away completely.
because nothing is happening, there is nothing to measure time with.
Then you re-enter time.
Another day takes place.
No claim has been made.
nobody is saying ” I have special powers…. I will disappear, then come back”
Turiya is not an experience. it is not a mystical state to be achieved. It is not attained through years of meditation.
hence no claim is made
am i mistaken? is there a claim?

Dear Osho Robbins,
Thank you so much for your kind words!
———-
Coming to the specific question you asked me in your last comment, the answer is an emphatic Yes. Yes, you are mistaken. Yes, there is a claim, in fact a whole bunch of claims. Here’s why:
The first three stages are wakefulness, and dreaming, and deep sleep. And what you say about the ego within those states, that’s approximately true. (Only approximately, because there’s sleep research that throws further color on that, knowledge that was absent during Shankara’s time. But let’s leave that nuance aside, and agree that what you say and what Advaita says about the ego during those three stages is approximately true.)
Now, unlike what you suggest in your comment above, Turiya isn’t merely this above observation. “Turiya”, in Sanskrit, literally means ‘fourth’. Advaita extrapolates from the above three states, and further posits, further claims, that there is a fourth state, the Turiya, in respect of which the above three stages are akin to dreaming. It posits, it claims, that this fourth state, this Turiya, is the one true state.
Of course that’s a claim. Not just one claim, but a whole bunch of claims, and very extravagant claims at that. Let me try to separately tease out the claims made:
1. The first claim is that there is indeed a fourth Turiya state, beyond the three stages of wakefulness, and dream, and deep sleep.
2. The second claim is that this fourth Turiya state is to the three earlier stages, what the wakeful stage is to the dream stage.
3. The third claim is that this Turiya state is somehow final, in a sense eternal.
4. And the fourth claim is of course the whole unitary Brahm Oneness claim, which is directly linked to the Turiya claim/s by further claiming that the Turiya state is the same as abiding in Brahm, as being Brahm.
And, Osho Robbins, each one of those claims is completely unevidenced. They’re all humongously extravagant claims, and have absolutely zero evidence supporting it all up.
Therefore, subtle and beautiful though that structure is; and completely internally consistent though that structure is; nevertheless, absent any evidence, it is reasonable to completely reject those claims and that structure.
———-
That answers your question completely, I think, Osho Robbins.
Nevertheless, for added color, for added emphasis, you can look back on that AR-ananda/AR-acharya-authored Quinta-Sexta-Septa-Octa idea I’d presented in one of my earlier comments to you. You can think of it as a play on my #3 above. I’d meant that only as a joke, of course; but it might also serve as an effective argumentum ad absurdum to clearly demonstrate to you both why Turiya is a claim, and also why it is reasonable to reject that claim.

“The easy peasy Sant Mat that Rajinder Singh teaches is a very faint facsimile of the hardcore Sant Mat of his grandfather Kirpal.”
This is complete nonsense and not in the least bit representative of Rajinder Singh’s teaching.

@AR
excellent answer, but no cigar.
why no cigar?
1. Did I mention ego in the question I asked? No, you had to add that in to make it a claim. Read it again.
2. I don’t care one bit about what some official “advaita philosophy” says about some “so-called Turiya state”. Why? because that is not Truth.
I am not an advocate of “advaita” or any specific school of it, Just as, I am not a sikh, or a Radha Soami, or a follower of Osho or anyone at all. All of that is your projection in an attempt to divert away from a very simple untainted experience you have every night. Stick to what I asked. The “you” that you are aware of right now, the one trying to answer my questions, disappears every night for around eight hours.
I don’t give a damn about “ego” or what advaita says. I am referring you to the simple fact that you appear to disappear.
Of course you don’t actually disappear.
your body is still there on the bed, breathing, but the senses have gone into sleep mode. Your mind is still acvtivr, but not engaging with the physical world.
Instead it is engaging with a new made up projected reality complete with people, things, events just like the outer world. WHO made this world? in the dream state you interact with it as if it was real! You experience all the emotions. you laugh, cry, experience fear, elation, you run, you enjoy. everything. WHO is doing all that? Then you disappear completely from that world that you created, and go into a nothing state.
You keep bobbing in and out of the dream state, creating and destroying it each time.
I am not a believer in advaita. I don’t fit tnto any specific school of thought, because they are all made up. I only deal with life as it is. I will change like the wind. I am not chained to any system. I also have no answers. My truth is not taken from any ideology. I have no faith in any such school of thought. You cannot box me into anything. I will escape.
I am my own truth and I don’t fit in. I don’t care about beliefs, philosophical schools of thought or what the fuck Shankara said many centuries ago. I don’t even care what I said a few years ago. That was then, this is now.
deal with now.
I am not claiming that Turiya is the “fourth state”
I can’t count that well. I am not calling it a state, let alone fourth.
I don’t even claim it is the truth. All that does is create a new belief. I am not interested in a new belief to replace those I deleted.
I delete all beliefs and let you sit alone without any beliefs to hold onto and without any meditation to help you avoid reality. Deal with what is before you.
Don’t introduce Advaita, or anything else. I don’t follow them. They can follow me if they choose. I simply refuse to follow.
so now your answer:
1. i say nothing about the ego in those three states. You have brought in theories now. remove the ego notion.
2. Turiya is exactly the observation I made. If the advaita-ists make a claim, let them. I am not an advaita follower. If they lay claim to the term Turiya, let them, I’ll call mine Tariya to separate it from them. So now deal with my Tariya, which is not a claim, because I have not claimed. And i am not a student of Advaita.
all of your claims about my claim fall apart:
1. Tariya is not the fourth, because I say so, and I am the final authority because it’s my term.
2. I am not saying that Tariya is more real or even absolute. It MAY be, but only if you discover this for yourself, not if I say so. If I say so, you may believe me, and that makes you a follower. Hence I refuse to say so, because followers are idiots and I don’t want any.
3 Tariya is somehow final, eternal. No such claim. Is there something or someone who was there in the dream state? I just want to know who that was. Is that person related to you in any way? is he your uncle? your friend? or a complete stranger? Is he even real? I am not giving answers – merely asking, so you may start thinking for yourself. So (3) is gone too
4. my Tariya has no relationship to the eternal. You can discover that if you choose, but I don’t claim.
That’s it? any other evidence that I am making a claim?
Tariya, is not a state. It is not your “true self”
it is not oneness or anything else. It is not anything. I just want to know where you go every night. I am just curious. Maybe you meet your secret girlfriend for eight hours. I just want to know where you go because you come back each morning and never disclose any details.
This AR that I am conversing with, is he even real? because there is something fishy going on. Every night for the last 40 years he goes away for 8 hours and acts like nothing has happened. surely your wife or girlfriend must be getting suspicious.
say goodbye to advaita, and answer directly. Have I made any claims? maybe i have.
Also, are You making any claims? do YOU claim to be real? and did you make those same claims during your dream? Did you think the dream was real? at that time?
if so, then that was a claim! and you were wrong each time you dreamed. Yet you still claim to know who AR is.

@Dr. Neal Tessler,….long time no see!
I was unfamiliar with “easy peasy” spiritual practice, so I asked my Mentor about it.
“Easy peasy” is a playful, informal phrase often used to describe something that is very easy to do or accomplish. It’s a way of expressing that a task or situation requires little effort or difficulty. The phrase is often extended to “easy peasy lemon squeezy” for added fun and flair, emphasizing the simplicity of the task at hand.
In a more philosophical or spiritual context, the idea of “easy peasy” can serve as a reminder of the natural ease that can be found in life when we align with our true nature, much like the metaphor of a clear blue sky effortlessly being blue. It invites us to approach life with simplicity and lightness, letting go of unnecessary complications and embracing the inherent ease of being.”
I think it fits Sant Rajinder Singh like a well worn glove, from what I’ve seen on his videos.
Dr. Jim Sutherland, Th.D.

Hello everyone, after exploring the insights shared by Osho Robbins, I’ve compiled a condensed summary of his views. Here’s my understanding of his wisdom:
“ When you are asleep and dreaming, the waking world—the reality you once believed to be solid and real—completely disappears from your awareness
Your knowledge, identity, and sense of reality dissolve, replaced by the vivid experience of the dream.
In that moment, the dream feels unquestionably real. You don’t stop to doubt it or compare it to your waking life; it completely consumes your awareness.
In the dream, you might be running, talking, or exploring a world that seems as tangible as the one you just left.
Meanwhile, your body lies motionless in bed.
You have no idea you’re lying there; you don’t even know the waking world exists. Everything you thought you knew about reality is temporarily erased, replaced by a new reality that feels just as convincing.
Then, you fall into dreamless sleep. Now even the dream world is gone. There are no thoughts, no sensations, no experiences. Your name, identity, accomplishments, and even the memory of the waking world vanish.
In this state of total emptiness, you know nothing. Everything you called “real” only hours earlier has disappeared into nothingness.
And yet, something remains.
This cycle repeats every night.
During the waking state, you are certain of the world’s reality. You cling to your identity, your knowledge, and the belief that this waking life is permanent.
Yet every night, the waking world dissolves without effort. The dream world, which seems so vivid, also comes and goes. Even the stillness of dreamless sleep is fleeting.
So, what is truly real?
The real is not what changes, appears, or disappears. The real is what remains constant through all states of being—waking, dreaming, and deep sleep.
There is something within you that is aware of all three states but is not limited by any of them.
In the waking state, it observes your thoughts, actions, and sensory experiences.
In the dream state, it witnesses the mind’s creation of an alternate reality. In the deep sleep state, it remains present, even as thoughts and sensations vanish.
This constant presence never changes.
Some call this presence Turiya, the “fourth state.” But Turiya is not another state; it is the unchanging reality that underlies all states.
It is the silent witness, the backdrop against which the waking, dreaming, and sleep states unfold.
Unlike the fleeting nature of your thoughts, experiences, and perceptions, Turiya is eternal.
It does not come and go. It is not altered by the content of your dreams or the events of your waking life.
It is simply there, unshaken and unchanging, witnessing all.
When you recognize this truth, the waking world loses its grip on you.
You begin to see that what you call “reality” is no more permanent than a dream.
Both arise within the same awareness. Both fade away, leaving behind the changeless witness.
Your true nature is not tied to the body, mind, or the fleeting events of life.
Your true nature is this awareness, this presence that remains constant.
It is the one thing that does not change, even as the waking world, the dream world, and the void of sleep come and go.
This is what is real.
Everything else—your identity, your knowledge, your experiences—is temporary, like clouds passing across the unchanging sky of your awareness.
Recognizing this can transform the way you see yourself and the world, shifting your focus from the impermanent to the eternal.“

“ Awakening to this truth is the doorway to realizing your higher self, or what some may call God.
When you shift your focus from the transient nature of the waking, dreaming, and deep sleep states to the eternal presence that underlies them, you begin to see that your true essence is not the body, the mind, or the world you perceive.
Your essence is the unchanging awareness that witnesses all of these experiences without being affected by them.
This realization is the essence of spiritual awakening.
It is the understanding that the “I” you identify with—the one bound by name, form, and circumstances—is not the real you.
Instead, the real “I” is infinite, timeless, and ever-present. This is the higher self, the pure consciousness that is never born and never dies.
In this state of awareness, the boundaries between yourself and the world dissolve.
The same presence that observes your life also permeates everything around you.
This is the realization of God—not as a separate being, but as the infinite consciousness that manifests through all existence.
The divine is not outside you; it is you, and it is everything.
Once this truth is seen, the fear of change, loss, and even death begins to dissolve.
You no longer cling to the impermanent aspects of life because you know they are not the ultimate reality.
Instead, you rest in the changeless presence that you are.
This is liberation, the freedom from the illusion of separation and the realization of unity with all that exists.
From this perspective, life becomes an expression of the divine.
Every moment, whether joyful or challenging, is seen as a play of consciousness.
The transient nature of the waking world no longer disturbs you because you recognize it as part of a greater whole.
You live with a profound sense of peace, rooted in the eternal, while fully embracing the impermanent.
This is the ultimate realization: that you are not merely a person experiencing the world, but the infinite awareness in which the world arises.
This is the essence of your higher self, the divine within, and the timeless truth that remains through all states of being. “

https://www.amazon.com/Matrix-Quest-Spirit-Ultimate-Frontier/dp/B001E9828I/ref=sr_1_2?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.kOadVYlVbWBmHGYLI8RVM3s6p5N5hAyxO8XerFiWBSYPNLfMjQxLg6MR-AT6JjvJJACaxzn3Ct2gK35O8RowRSw-HA_V_bHNBuZAvHxG_3Q.757C9zNkymLgaZvOMPDk3Occ5WtKpY2IYnbJ70g84uY&dib_tag=se&qid=1734360451&refinements=p_27%3AVal+Valerian&s=books&sr=1-2
@Solomon, WHO VIEWS the Oval Image of the Higher Self, …..in the photo of this Book Jacket? ( I have seen the outside of it, during meditation! )
Consider you are the little “I” looking up, at your Higher Self/Causal body above tethered by the Silver Cord. Then, notice all of the other individual Higher Self/Causal Bodies also, tethered to the “Big” Something above, which could very well be identified as Turiya.
But I argue that the Supreme Being is the above All, even above the Alpha, and Omega, because the Supreme Being is the ONLY ONE that is Eternal, with out a beginning or ending, therefore ALL others are still Maya.
Jim Sutherland

In the photo, if you Zoom out the Image of the Higher Self, and look at the tiny Orbs inside, on the left wall of the Higher Self Oval, those are the past lives of the Higher Self who have completed their Missionary Incarnations of both Genders, Races, Countries, Religions, etc., creating Karmas of both Positive and Negative. They are all cheering for our final success of balancing Karmas, so that our Higher Selves will be escorted by Turiya above , with all Silver Cord Tethers to be severed!
Jim Sutherland

What,….perhaps,….all of those unidentified so called “Drones”, hoovering in various sensitive areas of the U.S. and other countries are,…..multiple Higher Self Causal Bodies, beaming up , or “Rapturing” Marked Elect Souls out of physical bodies before the Christian Battle of Armeggedon that hundreds of End Times Prophets , such as the late Hal Lindsey have been warning people about for many years?
So far, hundreds of these Drones have been sighted over sensitive areas the last 17 days or more, and none of our sophisticated Military or Security Agencies have been able to identify what they are, or who is operating them!
Jim Sutherland

@Osho Robbins,
Come on, man.
This is not just even more “bobbing and weaving”, but this time it is patently, openly and unabashedly disingenuous deflection. You’re now just saying any random nonsense that pops into your head in order to somehow keep up the pretense that your beliefs make any kind of sense.
I’m writing down now, clearly delineating now, why I’m saying this. But if your comments in this thread are any indication, then you’ll simply gloss over my structured, detailed comment, and simply go on to speak of something else now after this. If you do that, well, that’s up to you: but you’ll excuse me if I don’t interminably sit here simply going through the motions of rational thought and discourse. By all means hold on to your unwarranted beliefs if you like, that’s your business not mine.
Here’s why that last comment of yours amounts to no more than bobbing and weaving, and downright disingenuous deflection:
1. Yes, you did most definitely talk about the ego. You did not use the word “ego”, but you most certainly did speak a great deal about the sense of self, about the “I”, associating with the dream world when asleep, and the waking world when awake, and so forth; and indeed you do that in your last comment as well. That’s what is the ego, that sense of self, in context of Advaita.
2. In any case, what you’d asked me, and what I replied, had nothing to do with the matter of the ego per se. The matter of the claim arises because the three states are extrapolated from, in order to posit the Turiya stage, that is to the awake stage what the awake stage itself is to the dreaming stage.
3. We’ve throughout been speaking of Advaita here. You’ve taken your term “Oneness” from Advaita (while claiming that your “Oneness” doesn’t even mean Oneness); and you keep talking about non-duality, again a term and an idea taken directly from Advaita. Further, you’ve appropriated the term Turiya from Advaita. You use the same structure that Advaita uses in your arguments. Indeed, you’ve directly referred to me the Swami Sarvepriyananda lecture, who is an Advaitin Ramakrishna monk, and whose lecture is squarely about Advaita, and you’ve directly asked me whether what the Swami speaks of, the Turiya state, is actually a claim.
After all of this, to now turn around and claim that you don’t subscribe to Advaita at all, and that your beliefs have nothing to do with Advaita, is not just disingenuous bobbing and weaving, but it is simply nonsensical. You’re just making up random shit as you go along now, saying whatever random thing comes into your head.
———-
Not playing this game, thanks.
If even now you’d like to clearly, briefly, fully, and coherently present your full belief system ; if you’d like to clearly, coherently, and briefly present exactly what it is you’re saying : well then, sure, even now we can talk about that. Otherwise, well, ciao for now, and God bless.

Gurinder Singh dhillon , the spiritual leader of they rssb cult , is the make it up as you go along path. The Rssb core message taught was about the inner journey and meditation and now gurinder is saying there’s no journey and he says burn all the rssb books. It’s like saying one guru of the Sikhs comes along and says forget about the bani, forget about the very foundations. This just shows gurinder has zero enlightenment, zero foundations, zero spirituality to teach, zero own experience- this is why he advocates not to share experiences as he has nothing to share. The rssb path is full of lies, layers of deception. It’s time to cut your self from these limiting beliefs and enjoy your life – time is precious.

“he has nothing to share. ”
Posted by: Kranvir | December 16, 2024 at 12:52 PM
Va Hi Guru brother,
I can tell you why inner experiences are Ordered not to be shared:
Because say a Christian has an inner experience and he shares with a Sikh? Two different religions, but the persons both may have the same potential -still it doesn’t mean the Sikh will understand the Christian. If the Sikh takes insult, POW maybe even bloodshed.
So, this is same with any two different religions; Muslim, Hindu, Doaist, or Hellenist. So the Gurus even Nanak, stressed for people to realize Naam, rather than to compete at warfare.

@Kranvir,
firstly he still says meditation, so for the masses nothing has changed.
The particular dialogue I send to Brian is rare, but it is still there. The exception, not the rule, and it is ignored by the masses.
It is a kind of “make it up as you go along” because the followers are doing exactly that. Every follower has his own version of sant mat. Every follower thinks he is getting closer to achieving the final destination of Sach Khand. Not the real one, but their own individual version.
What is clear is that Sach Khand is in duality, so cannot be eternal.
How do we know? Because in Sach Khand is this character called Sat Purush.
When there is more than one, that is duality and cannot be eternal, because time is there.
most followers don’t even think enough to understand this. They just follow blindly.
Some even think we live there the same as here. There are cars, flats, houses etc. And souls hanging around.
Kranvir, GSD is gettng people to think. Claiming experiences is spiritual ego. “I have seen this… please honour me… how great I am… I go to region number three, just two more to go, then I will be enlightened”
This is all nonsense, but what can be done? the followers are in duality.
All experiences happen in duality, so what the followers are seeking is duality.

Karim,
take a look at this video.
This is almost war.
nobody has expressed any inner experience, just their beliefs, based in scriptures and beliefs.
so you don’t need to speak about inner experience to create war.
https://youtu.be/VZnNHtFYwic?si=BOmTuIJPE7TmkDUi

Karim,
take a look at this video.
This is almost war.
nobody has expressed any inner experience, just their beliefs, based in scriptures and beliefs.
so you don’t need to speak about inner experience to create war.
https://youtu.be/VZnNHtFYwic?si=BOmTuIJPE7TmkDUi
Posted by: Osho Robbins | December 16, 2024 at 05:22 PM
I see the Bible bumping guy doesn’t stop talking. Yet, no physical violence in the vid.
So, not bad -no war here
Still healthy discussion, imho

The video i just linked
https://youtu.be/VZnNHtFYwic?si=BOmTuIJPE7TmkDUi
The shouting pastor.
This is a good example of how religion operates. The preacher preaches to the converted. It’s a form of brainwashing and very effective because the followers are already brainwashed and are just going for a top-up.
That is what the RSSB satsangs are. Quotes are given to convince the seeker of the RSSB teachings. This happens in every religion. So RSSB says ir’s all about shabd, regions, Sach Khand, Satguru coming at death etc. None of it is true but the follower is convinced. Once convinced, it is almost impossible to break free.
So impossible that even when the guru says he is not coming at their death, they cannot accept it for many reasons
1. they do not understand what duality means. So they cannot comprehend what He is saying when he says there are no regions. They think he is now giving a new teaching, a new belief. He is not. They are so used to being given a belief, they cannot see beyond it. They are blind and they want the guru to lead them to the promised land
2. They are desperate to be saved and GSD is their saviour. By saying he is not coming to save them at death, he is trying to get them to think, but it’s too late, they are too far gone. The brainwashing has gone so deep, they cannot even hear him.
3. They just want to continue with the previous deal: we meditate and you save us. they don’t understand it’s an impossible deal.
In this video of the pastor, they are trying to brainwash him to islam. but he is already brain washed as a christian. They are refining the meaning of “muslim” and he is calling them liars.
right there in minutes 25-30 is world war three. A fight over conflicting beliefs.

“they don’t understand it’s an impossible deal.”
Posted by: Osho Robbins | December 16, 2024 at 06:53 PM
Not sure.
I thought the video was an agreed upon debate between two different religions.
Of course, converting the other may be in mind. But I don’t like mind reading -even if I could. Bub
As for ‘an impossible deal’. Perhaps for some, who cannot follow ORDERS

Karim,
the statement is in the context of the the guru saving thr disciple.
the topic is
“So impossible that even when the guru says he is not coming at their death, they cannot accept it for many reasons”
I am referring to RSSB.
“impossible deal” refers to “being saved” because there is no such thing.
The RSSB disciple is expecting the guru to come at the time of death and take his soul to Sach Khand – this is asking to be saved. being saved is impossible

“being saved is impossible”
Posted by: Osho Robbins | December 16, 2024 at 08:48 PM
SURE.
Impossible in theory.

@ Osho R.
People can only attribute THEIR meaning and value to whatever information is ingested by the senses be it chai, scenery, works of art or the words of another person, be he seen as guru or otherwise. …they can hardly be blamed for it .. as all live in their own body, and experience the world through their own senses and mind.
As far as I know all paths, practices dual and non dual come in two forms, One the slow path for the common men, the path of the ant and the quick path of understanding, called the path of the bird in advaita and surrender in the sant traditions.
Both path will end eventualy in the same.
A couple of days ago an protestant pastor, teaching religion to young children in an English school though it to be a good idea to tell the children thhe TRUTH that Santa Claus does not exist and the cookies the children give are eaten by their parents secretly. Some children started to weep and others frankly told him he was wrong … and ..adults considered it brutal ..why take away what is so dear to children??? ..in due time they too will find the truth

@um
yes, we are meaning making machines. we love meaning even when it is clearly false.
we have our own beliefs, but we don’t know they are beliefs because we have collected so much evidence. For instance, the typical RSSB follow “KNOWS” (thinks he does) that the RSSB teachings, including shabd, regions, Sach Khand, Sat Purush are all absolute truth and cannot be refuted. This “knowing” is so deeply imbedded that even when the guru says it’s not true, it cannot be refuted. That is what my video is saying in clear terms
https://youtu.be/N8kSF8BEeks?si=eGZy-1W8pUec8BKj
from 3 mins in i described the dilemma of the disciple. he HAS to go against this statement of GSD. Why? because he is too invested in the belief system. His whole future depends on it. it is like the Santa claus for adults. BUT he is not allowed to go against the guru according to the teachings. He is stuck between a rock and a hard place, as the saying goes.
And there is no way out.
at 5:00 mins in I describe why the disciple has to deny GSD’s ideas. BUT cannot because the guru is supreme.
So GSD doesn’t make a huge deal of it, he mentions is only very rarely because very few people want to wake up and face the truth.
Ironically, the very next question on the same video 111 just happens to address this. The pissed of disciple can’t hid his frustration, so he asks “Do you masters ever tell the truth?”
GSD takes it up a notch. “You won’t be able to take it.” The disciple gets a moment of shock “ah, ah”.
but most people will just ignore him again.

um,
the slow path does not lead to truth – it only leads to “I am quite happy, I am getting closer”. That remains all the way till death.
He gets closer and closer but never arrives. He cannot arrive because he is in duality trying to attain. There is no pathway from duality to oneness. Oneness is not a feeling or a belief.
Oneness is a finger pointing to the moon. That is why the discussion with Appreciative Reader is leading nowhere. He is holding the finger, because that is all logic can do.
I tried to loosen his grip by telling him this is not advaita, nor oneness. He deals in theory and words and I am talking about the discovery beyond mind. This makes no sense to him. it cannot. The world of logic doesn’t enter that arena. Logic has to be dropped, but logic is the atheist’s god – he cannot drop it.
The slow path is one of doing (seva, meditation etc etc). absolutely doomed because the DOER remains – and it (DOER) is the barrier.
Like I explain in this video
https://youtu.be/7mvA9Js3p7I?si=pCAWd5EIpVvmTKQl
it is the EGO which is doing the actions, trying to merge – but IT (ego) is the barrier. The harder it tries, the more it gets stuck.

um, AR
this video explains that ONENESS is not a feeling, a theory, or a belief.
https://youtu.be/iPMucwl_CmA?si=f1V26ICUTYKUgfvU
you have to discover it.
it’s a bit like me saying “eat this banana, and see”
and someone says “Ah, you are claiming the banana is tasty”
I am simply saying “eat and see”
discussing the banana doesn’t help. just take a bite.
Gurbani says the task is impossible.
there is no path of doing, no slow path.
watch this based on “kin bidh mile” (how do i meet god) shabd in gurbani
efforts cannot succeed
https://youtu.be/bRMUoYY62ec?si=Wf6524QHhH-Dzey2
This delusion of the separate self has to be removed through surrender to guru.
The one doing the seva, meditation etc is the barrier. The one seeking God, realization etc – that is the separate self. it is the you – the only one you know

@ Osho R.
When a person has lost his faith, no longer able, willing or can believe what is put before him. it is time to leave.
Why argue with the one that is doing his duty, like the parent telling the children about Santa Claus?
The slow path, can be found in the books written by the predecessors of Shri Nisargadatta, as leading to the truth as well. I have no reason to doubt them.
Not all people are willing or able to enter the path of the bird. They too are entitled to guidance on their level.
Whenever I happen to slip into a church in summer days, to enjoy the atmosphere of calm silence for a short while, I generaly see there old people on their knees. I understand that they are praying for the welfare of themselves, their near and dear ones or the world.
I also remember of a nun that was asked if the Lord ever answered her prayers she smilingly said “NO” On being asked why she continued her way of live, she answered again smilingly “because I love to do it”
My point Osho
Many are called but few are chosen and do not wake up people that are lost in a book , an movie or an believe …unasked for.
In due time, they will wake up ….so Osho ….I will not approach those on their knees, tap them on their shoulder and tell them that they are wasting their time. …because … I appreciate their motivation, their inner kindness

I did send to DRUDGEREPORT
AND PLACED ON MY X ACCOUNT:
ALIENS WANT TRUMP
After ordering the kill of 3 TOP Aliens of which the Leader a KING , was wearing this type of

THE RING from Tolkien Cristal
May 12 2020,
in Mahé Brazil,
I feel Trump stole it and the FBI searched in Lar o Lago. –
But He might have hidden it at The NJ Golf. –
Thats what the Aliens are seeking. –
When u wear it; U can hypnotize the masses and and rule the world
INFO FROM earthfiles –
pls tell Paulina LUNA or publish
777
Advaita is correct
Each Soul is TOTALLY the Sweet Creator
in voluntary hyper amnesia
to accumulate LOVE

There are several Alien races on this earth
The US military associated with the ones that like evil
Now while the Tall White Aliens are seeking this Christal
the Ocean type drones fight them
but they cannot win
The White technology is way superior
All this in in Pinda , the Half Half Etheric realm of earth
using QE
The “God” is Jehovah / Brahma and is so much higher
The Cristal enforces feeling good
as opposed of what Buzz Aldrin felt in Ant Arctica
tremendous sick making fear of Death radiation

Karim,
“I see the Bible bumping guy doesn’t stop talking. Yet, no physical violence in the vid.
So, not bad -no war here
Still healthy discussion, imho
Posted by: Karim W. Rahmaan | December 16, 2024 at 06:47 PM”
well here is part 2 – the conflict escalates because he is says “That disqualifies Jesus from being God”
He has hit a nerve now because he is challenging deeply held belief. He has previously said “abraham was a muslim by redefing the term muslim to mean surrender”
The pastor shouts and continues to shout. OK it didn’t result in physical violence, but was only a step away.
This is how beliefs become our identity
I mean people even get into physical fights in the street over a football match

Oneness is Sant Mat 1.0
आपन खेलु आपि करि देखै || खेलु संकोचै तउ नानक एकै
Aapan khel aap kar dekhæ. Khel sankochæ ṫao Naanak ékæ.
Yourself create and watch your own drama.
Drama winded up, then, O Nanak, just Oneness.
~ Guru Arjan, AG. Page 292.
ਅਪਨਾ ਖੇਲੁ ਆਪਿ ਕਰਨੈਹਾਰੁ ॥ अपना खेलु आपि करनैहारु ॥
Apnaa khel aap karnæhaar.
Yourself the play, you the actor.
~ Guru Arjan, AG. Page 280, Line 19.
भणति नानकु जब खेलु उझारै तब एकै एकंकारा
Bhaṇaṫ Naanak jab khel ujhaaræ ṫab ékæ ékankaaraa.
Nanak said, when the play ends, then there is only One, the One Lord.
~ Guru Arjan, AG. Page 999, Line 19
आपे खेल खिलावै दिनु राती आपे सुणि सुणि भीजा हे
Aapé khel khilaavæ ḋin raaṫee aapé suṇ suṇ bheejaa hé.
You stage the play, day and night. You yourself listen, hear and rejoice.
~ Guru Arjan, AG. Page 1073, Line 18
आपे आपि आप ही आपे सभु आपन खेलु दिखाधा ॥
Aapé aap aap hee aapé sabʰ aapan khel ḋikhaadhaa.
You yourself, you and only you, everything is you yourself watching your own play.
~ Guru Arjan, AG. Page 1204, Line 9.
एको एकु एकु पछानै ॥ इत उत की ओहु सोझी जानै ॥
Éko ék ék pachhaanæ. Iṫ uṫ kee oh sojhe jaanæ.
Just one, one, one. Who recognises the one and only Lord as one,
understands this world and the next.
~ Guru Arjan AG. Page 281, lines 55-56.
ਨਹ ਕਿਛੁ ਜਨਮੈ ਨਹ ਕਿਛੁ ਮਰੈ ॥ ਆਪਨ ਚਲਿਤੁ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਕਰੈ ॥
Naha kichu janamai naha kichu marai. Āpana calitu āpa hī karai.
Not anything born, not anything dying.
YOUR own wondrous play only YOU are performing.
~ Guru Arjan AG. Page 281, line 18.

As always
nobody mentioned LOVE
which is the beginning and the end
and every puber understands
777

Karim,
in that part 2 video, 33.5 minutes in, there is the way that conflict escalates.
https://youtu.be/Fowq__Focq8?si=mQlhWUDudMfQA1eR
the muslim says “not shouting at people, putting them down, calling them liars” This is a direct attack on the pastor. The pastor gets angry.
The muslims tell him not to speak as it’s not his turn. he says “he has insulted me”
and “don’t subjugate me to your lies”
beliefs do this. when I have had a discussion with GSD, many RSSB followers are offended. They think I am insulting him by having a discussion.

@RS
nobody has ever said that SGGS has changed. SGGS says there in ONLY ONE.
you have quoted Guru Arjan Dev. RSSB if they had used those quotes, could never have put out the duality teachings. I.e. Sant Mat 1.0
All you have shown is that sant mat 1.0 is not in tune with SGGS

@Osho
AS all seek, if they do, they do it inside the body, and if there is something to be found, it must by necessity be the same, as all are wired in the same way.
What remains is difference in presenting it to the public …and ..THAT … is as ols as the way to methusalem. If you want somebody else to understand what you say and LISTEN to it, you hHAVE TO use their language, their concepts and as these languages, this use of concepts changes, so will the reprsentation of the SAME do.
Again IF there is something inside the human to be found, It must be the same for all and in all times.

@ Osho R.
There is more to sant mat than there is publicly discused certainly in the western community.
You must have heard of: AMOL BACHAN, written by Mah. Gharibdas, a said succesor of Swami Ji , living in Delhi Rohila.
If not try to find it and see how it fits with your theories on sant mat 0.1, ..0.xyz
It should not be difficult to find it in Hindi

um,
while searching amol bachan, i found this
https://spiritualawakeningradio.libsyn.com/website
not found amol bachan, but i can’t imagine it will have much to say that will resonate with me. Faqir Chand is the only Radha Soami guru who has openly proclaimed there are no regions.
When he, GSD or I say there are regions, it doesn’t mean nobody can experience them.
clearly people do. but it is all illusion. If i have a vision of Jesus, it’s not really Jesus.
It is a creation of my mind.
All visions are mind constructs. They may convince us, but it is false hope

“Oneness is a finger pointing to the moon. That is why the discussion with Appreciative Reader is leading nowhere. He is holding the finger, because that is all logic can do.”
Haha, NO! The discussion went nowhere because you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. You haven’t a firm grasp of that which you’re trying to teach. On top of that, you’re completely utterly disingenuous in how you keep twisting and flailing in order to keep up the pretense that your belief system isn’t nonsensical. That’s the only reason the discussion didn’t go anywhere. In this case, it’s a finger pointing to a pile of steaming horse manure.
Seriously, Osho Robbins. This isn’t a very long thread. And within this short thread, the exchange between you and I is much shorter still. Makes for easy reading, should you be inclined to revisit it. It very clearly lays out what the worth is of whatever it is you “teach”. You’re actually lying here, lying outright, again and again and again, about what you’ve yourself said. How desperate is that.
That video you linked for Karim? How ironic that you shouldn’t be able to recognize yourself in that pastor there. Like you, he keeps hectoring brainwashed religious dupes — in this case, Muslims — about their brainwashed idiocies. All the while completely oblivious to the fact that what he himself is saying is not a whit less brainwashed religious nonsense. Like that pastor, you are able to identify the flaws in the belief systems of RSSB types, and Sikhs, and the Jesus worshiping hordes, and never tire of pointing these out to them. But you’re completely blind to the exact similar flaws in your own belief system —- and so utterly complete is your brainwashing, that you keep insisting that your religious beliefs are not beliefs, and actually get down to lying left and right and center when cornered about those beliefs.
———-
Don’t worry, I won’t disturb your flow after this. Earlier I used to do that because I held on, however tenuously, to the hope of maybe, just maybe, imbibing some spiritual …something, from you. Right within this thread that went right out the window, but I thought I could at least exchange notes with you on an equal footing. I’ve given up that expectation as well now, at least not when it comes to your pet woo.
But I still reiterate my friendly intentions and goodwill towards you. It’s like… you may remember, there was this guy, he went by the handle One Initiated. We’d get on very well, he was actually a good friend (well, within online parameters of friendship), and I believe the regard was mutual. But he was a completely brainwashed RSSB-ite. So I’d carefully keep away whenever he said his piece, seeing no point in trying to disabuse him of his delusions. But we’d exchange notes whenever I wanted to explore some factual specific with him, or some topic that was removed from his pet woo. …Well, no reason why we shouldn’t be able to do that too, you and I. …I’m saying, I won’t intrude when you keep on about your pet woo from now on, Osho Robbins. (I only interjected now because your expressly spoke now about our discussion on this thread.)
Cheers, old friend. (Again, hope no hard feelings for the plainspeak.)

Um,
i found a facebook page while looking for amol bachan.
in there is described the inner regions etc.
Once a person believes this, naturally he will desire to reach it.
i copy it below. This is the sant mat 1.0
Bachan/Discourse 21, a kind of “book within the book” called Hidayat Namah (Esoteric Instructions), going into detail about the soul travel or heavenly ascents of Soami Ji Maharaj. It represents the heart of this essential holy book of the Radhasoami Faith. Here Soami Ji provides the following description (7–8):
“Beyond this, there are innumerable palaces made of crystal (sheesh mehal) and diverse spirits inhabit them and are settled there in accordance with the allotments made by the Lord, and they see the peculiar mutual display which is so blissful, and in turn they also establish their own plays and sports. In Hindi, these spirits are described as ‘circles of hamsas’ (purified spirits). The engravings and the designs carved in these spheres are to be seen in order to be believed. The entire dispensation and workshop there is purely spiritual; it is not at all gross or material.
“Spirits dwelling there are characterized by excessive delicacy, subtlety, refinedness and purity; they don’t have a trace of physical coarseness (kasaafat) and impurity. The details of this sphere are known only to the faqirs. [‘Full particulars of these regions are known only to Sants’ — Maheshwari translation.] To unfold more about it is not proper and advisable. For a long time the spirit of this faqir (i.e. Soamiji Maharaj Himself) sauntered and stayed there and then under instructions from the Teachers and Guides, moved ahead.
8. “Moving on and on, the spirit soared up about 5 arab (1 arab = 1 billion) and 75 crores (1 crore = 10 million) jojans (really incalculable height) and broke into the realm of Hahoot or Mahasunn (in Sar Bachan, Prose, Part I, para 13, the word Hahoot is used for Sunn, and not Mahasunn) and sauntered around it. How shall I describe it? For ten billion miles (again, incalculable distance) there is utter darkness. How shall I describe its depth, except to say that for one kharab (1 kharab = 100 billion, i.e. incalculable extent) jojans, the soul descended and yet its bottom could not be discovered; then again it reversed and turned upward, and following the track pointed by the sages, the spirit treaded that path and then it was deemed improper to determine and find out the depth of this dark region.
“The surat then moved on…”
(“The Quintessential Discourse Radhasoami” (Sar Bachan Radhasoami, Poetry), Volume I, Translation by M. G. Gupta, M.A., D.Litt. Former Member of the Faculty of Political Science, Allahabad University, MG Publishers, and Huma Books, Agra)
Take note of this particular sentence above by Soami Ji: “For a long time the spirit of this faqir (i.e. Soamiji Maharaj Himself) sauntered and stayed there and then under instructions from the Teachers and Guides, moved ahead.”
In the Sar Bachan words like ‘Murshida’ and ‘Guru’ are translated as “Master”, “Guide”, or “Teacher”, but here we have Teachers, Guides…. in other words, a plural form of Murshida/Mursheed/Guru — not just one Teacher or one Guide: “Having sojourned there and having enjoyed the glory thereof for a very long time, the spirit of this Faqir moved on, in accordance with the instructions of the Guides.” In a plural form is how it’s also rendered according to another translation by S.D. Maheshwari, “Sar Bachan Radhasoami Poetry”, Part 1, Agra.

@ Osho R.
https://ia801905.us.archive.org/32/items/SantGaribDasRadhsoamiBookAnmolVachan/Rare_Passages_from_Sant_Garib_Das_Radhsoami_Book_Anmol_Vachan.pdf
The books is part discussion on where to find wqhat in the Interior ..foor example the 10 stone doors.
These questions by themselves tells us that there are people that have the same inner experience and that they can discuss them etc.
Whether these experiences are to be labeled as illusions is not relevant as these experiences are important to those that have them. N
Not all have these experiences and it is not necessary even. Many a saint or mystic has explained that. Not only in the east but also in the west , see for example St John of the cross. They also state that these experiences are not the real thing.
In the end what can experienced in the body must be the same for all human beings.
Sant Mat speaks also of three regions above Sach khand ..by the name alone one can understand that these regions are “empty”

@AR
i wrote
“Oneness is a finger pointing to the moon. That is why the discussion with Appreciative Reader is leading nowhere. He is holding the finger, because that is all logic can do.”
Oneness is not it. You have taken “oneness” to be a belief. hence i said it doesn’t matter what term is used.
but logic is your God, which is a great tool, but it has no place in this arena. why? because this is beyond time, beyond space, beyond duality.
logic only functions in time/space.
we already know that even scientifically, because the normal laws of nature breakdown even in our study of astronomy.
A black hole. you can never exit it. then it must have infinite space within it. By the way, i am not speaking from studying science, just guessing from the fact that things go into it but never come out.
this is only an example.
Where there is no time or space, logic cannot help.
The position that “there is no such thing” is a reasonable position to take. based on evidence there is no such thing. so you are right.
I told you at the start, that i concede.
i can no more prove anything about this than the cube can prove to the square that it is a cube.
I am openly saying it doesn’t exist. why? because “exists” means within time/space.
so “no time. no space” means non-existent.
it cannot be seen, met, experienced, known etc. it’s even called “nirgun”
it is effectively nothing. or oneness.
it is the only reality – because it remains change less (no time)
this material universe changes – is not eternal.
the radha soami regions described in what i just posted to um, are firmly within time and space because time and space is used to describe them.
The non-duality is NOT a state, not a place, not a region, not a belief. hence the ‘neti, neti’ it is nothing you can point to,
if you point to it, it is NOT it.
when you seek EVIDENCE- you are seeking the impossibe.
because i cannot supply evidence you conclude it is delusion,
now turn it all upside down. You (AR) thr one asking for evidence – you have no evidence of even the claim that ” I am” or that you exist. your logic dies with you.
you get to be right.
every night you disappear for eight hours, completely lose this identity. one day you will disappear and not come back to this identity.
Yet, you claim you know who you are. If you knew, you would maintain consciousness during sleep. WHO are you really is the only question.
what is your true identity.
i am saying it is beyond time and space.
you cannot point to it, it is not a thing.
Oneness is used simply to denote that there are not two – subject and object.
if there were two – one could see the other.
ONE cannot see itself.
IT IS, that is all. no seeing, no experienceing, no evidence because there is no mind, nobody to gather the evidence.
you are asking for proof of non-duality from within duality.
it is impossible. All paths that have a personal God can try to meet him.
There the athiest position makes sense: give me the evidence of your personal God,
Matt Dillahunty in the Athiest Experience calls out the bullshit – he can do that because he is refuting a personal God.
you cannot, The clue is in the “i concede” because my God doesn’t exist in time/space. He is not even a God. how can i provide evidence.
but the lack of evidence doesn’t work to disprove anything, My God is outside the realm of proof, he is not even a God. He cannot be proven.
He can be known in a different way. That is what the upanishads say. that is what Buddha said. that is what shankara is saying, that is what ashtavakra is saying. that is what Nanak is saying,
That knowing is a different type of knowing. It is not just understanding – there is a stage beyond understanding. That is the non-dual realization. It cannot be put into words.
dualistic paths are not even seeking it – they have created a fictional God and made a form and concept of him and seek the form, like the radiant form and then sat purush, They have added duality and now they can enjoy so many visions etc. They have pulled god from the beyond and made him visible and now they seek the visible.
Even if they succeed – it is not god – it is an idol.
Bullah shah denounces all this because he has found the real – beyond all descriptions and evidence. how can you have objective evidence for that which cannot be seen?
I maintain my position and i also maintain no evidence can be provided. it is a personal journey. Nobody can give this to another. it is a discovery of what already IS.
I cannot find God. I dissppear and God is.
while “I” try to find, it is guaranteed i will not find.
“neti neti” means drop this, drop this, and that includes the one saying ” drop this”
drop yoirself also (disappear) them God IS.
but still you will not meet him, because you are unreal. the unreal cannot meet the real.
drop everything and the one that cannot be dropped – cannot be subtracted that is the real – it is eternal – no tine or space exists there.
i know, you perceive this as nonsebsical. You are right. from your perspective it HAS to be nonsensical.
Once you understand this, then you will understand it is not nonsense – but at that point it is still not your truth – it is still a theory. that is the teacher – the last step is missing. Take the last step – that is the end of you – the separate self.
from there ‘knowing’ is a different quality
crazy shit, right?
logic is left far behind

Not just logic, Osho Robbins. That’s a strawman. The logic + evidence combo. Always the logic + evidence combo. Logic by itself is barren.
———-
Going back to what you were saying:
In other words, Osho Robbins, you’re asking me to go with your bald ipsedixitism. You’re saying, I, Osho Robbins, am saying this, therefore believe that this is a thing, even though logically and empirically it makes no sense. I have to simply take your word for it that you’re a cube in this flatland of us squares, that you’re a sighted man in this land of us blind folks.
That’s troublesome, on two fronts:
First: Why you? Why not the Jesus worshiping pastor and preacher, or maybe the Bible writers? Why not the Mullah, or maybe Mohamed? Why not Joseph Smith? Why not L Ron Hubbard? Why not the preceptor of the RS faith, and the many masters that followed along different strands of it? Why not give those guys that same courtesy, and believe they too are cubes in flatland and sighted men among the blind, and that they too with their words point their finger towards the moon, which you can do no more than try to follow; and, should you find their teachings wanting basis logic and evidence, then you tell yourself that “logic is left behind”, and just try to follow their finger to the moon, no matter how absurd it all seems? Why not them? Why just you?
Second: This logic that you decry as inadequate, you are happy to jump on to it to merrily take pot shots at the fish in the barrel, aka other people’s imbecile belief systems. When it comes to RSSB beliefs, you’re happy to use logic and evidence to find flaws. When it comes to Jesus worshipers, you’re happy to use logic and evidence to find flaws. Even when it comes to your own pet woo, even then you are happy to keep on using logic and evidence to make your case, and you often do manage to make your case very well indeed. …But it is only when you come up against a set of arguments, like now, when your position is clearly exposed to be entirely untenable, that you suddenly realize that “logic is left behind”? …That’s …hypocritical, fallacious special pleading, patently disingenuous, transparently opportunist …I’ll leave you to pick the word from that bunch of descriptors, or maybe we use them all.
———-
Nope, man. Your shtick stands exposed.
The saddest thing is, you don’t even properly adhere to Advaita. You keep bandying around their terms like Oneness, and Turiya, and Duality, and Nonduality, and in the very sense Advaitins themselves use it; but when you find yourself in a bind, then you dishonestly claim that you use simply use these words like random names, like X and Y and Z, with no regard for what they mean in Advaita — even as you immediately use those terms in the Advaitic sense when speaking of something else to someone else.
You’ve seen my criticism of Advaita in this thread. Even so, I’d have loved to have been able to clearly examine them with someone that might be solidly grounded in Advaita. Even despite not seeing you as potential teacher material any more, but I’d imagined I might find this expert in you. But you come up short even there, because you haven’t the integrity to admit you’re wrong. …For instance, since not you, I’d love to discuss these things with someone like Swami Sarvepriyananada. (Actually I do know a Chinmaya Mission monk, and I might some day.)
———-
Disclaimer: I keep on using words like “dishonest” and “lying” etc. That’s because that’s what is patently the case, and I’ve shown clearly how that is the case. …But I wanted to emphasize, that’s only in the sense of lacking in intellectual integrity, nothing more. …And that lack of intellectual integrity is, no doubt, merely a symptom of religious brainwashing, that will not permit you to admit that your pet woo is wrong. That’s true of many religious dupes, and that’s true of you as well. …Just wanted to clarify, I meant nothing more than just that much. Absolutely not intended as an insult or a put-down.
Another Disclaimer: Like I said a comment or two back: I assure you I won’t, after this, seek out things you’ve said to others, including Brian, to comment on. Like I did in my first comment on this thread. Henceforth when you throw around your woo, I’ll let you do that unmolested. For reasons I’ve already spelled out. If there’s any specifics I want to discuss then I’ll ask, or comment, but not otherwise — not unless you explicitly ask me something or refer to me in some context. …Heh, you needn’t think every time you open your mouth here you’ll have Appreciate Reader out to prove you wrong. That’s never been my intention, ever.

@ AR
>> .Heh, you needn’t think every time you open your mouth here you’ll have Appreciate Reader out to prove you wrong. That’s never been my intention, ever.<< He has to prove himself wrong .. like in the old days of chinese revolution. Hahaha

Or the protestant Pastor weeping sating ..I AM A SINNER … [before logic]

Gurinder Singh Dhillon the king of lies
This whole story is the Truth about Gurinder Singh Dhilion and Radha Soami cult its a bag of nicely weaved lies on stage and off
The fraudulent Baba Gurinder has lived out an act which contradictes everything he says and does.
The facts tell the truth the liar on stage who changes with the weather daily.
The liar is so good at lying he has becomes the living lie.
Gurinder Singh Dhillons face says it all his eyes are shifty, he’s always acting out of character as he’s up to something and he is.
Take it when he comes on stage he looks around like he’s doing something strange with his eyes and he is.
Alot of folks say he does Black magic on the sangat and later they feel and act differently they feel strange as somethings not right and it isn’t
Then the lies on stage are ridiculous as he says to the sangat to do this, but he himself does that.
Gurinder has been exposed and caught out by many and has no answers, still.
Finally he has run away from the fake persoudo and taken early retirement as he knows soon he’s going to be caught out outright by the sangat too.
As everything about Gurinder and Radha Soami is wrong, very wrong and soon the sangat will see the truth about him. And hiding he may get too
So Gurinders done one in the nick of time.
As you see here in the article it’s curtains for Gurinder Singh Dhilion and the Radha Soami cult.
The cat is out off the bag and it’s over for him

It seems the above can disturb some of the Non execs here
But think about QE
Quantum Entanglement
Imaging a Purusha in Eternity somewhat bored
Then with her Dhyan/imaging poxwer She create a nice piece of free will that knows HER , hough its next forgets Her and both have extreme fun.
So THAT works , . . . let s do it again
Each Entity make regions 5 up to 99^9
The original Plan was to have fun & Orgasms together
but these new entities modified a lot
Also they thought They existed , . . what is really Crazy
Think of all the Love and excitement streaming , generated by the Chakras
Not bad after all specially with the Sound Current for those of Compassion
Yes karma is a bitch, . . sorry for that but always ends in pleasure and LOVE
I wrote this to tell that there are no regions other than those U create with my immense Dhyan power
Further >1000 videos of non ssatsangis in NDE
They also create the Jesusses, Buddhas etc Radiant with Love
So WE pick up the One we loved already all the time
Remember : Real VOODOO is QE also
777
Love is Compassion
Don t steal a smile Charan said
🌸🌸🌼🌺🌺💛 🌸🌸🌼🌺🌺

“As always
nobody mentioned LOVE”
Posted by: 777 | December 17, 2024 at 05:53 AM
i object!
Just because I’m not over 65 to be able to retire, doesn’t mean I’m not old enough to understand what love is..
Love is what one feels for their family.
Love is the bond between disciple and their Guru.
Love is willingness to die for their significant others.
Love is sacrifice for one’s seeds, children, or adopted kids.
There you go again 7 with all your dominant WISDOM
Slow down, i’m tryin to keep up!

Hey, um!
———-
“He has to prove himself wrong .. like in the old days of chinese revolution.
Hahaha”
I’m not really clued in to Chinese history that much, so I didn’t quite get the Chinese revolution reference. Presumably the Mao thing?
But of course, your actual meaning is clear enough. Indeed!
That’s something I find fascinating, something one often sees among the religious. I mean, sure, some people are unable to properly think through things, and that’s fine, it’s who they are. But with the religious, they’re often razor sharp when spotting logical and empirical flaws in others’ religious twaddle ; and then, amazingly, completely oblivious of the mote in their own eye, completely oblivious of the logical and empirical flaws they themselves commit, and then defend claiming those same principles that they deny to other religious folks. That disconnect, that’s …fascinating to see.
———-
“Or the protestant Pastor weeping sating ..I AM A SINNER … [before logic]”
Oh, he does that, does he? How amusing. And also, how sad.
(I actually spent only two or three minutes dragging the marker through the vid, in order to get a general gist of what it was about. So I didn’t actually get any of the details of it, including the specific part that you mention.)

“now turn it all upside down. You (AR) thr one asking for evidence – you have no evidence of even the claim that ” I am” or that you exist. your logic dies with you. (…) WHO are you really is the only question. (…) what is your true identity. (…) i am saying it is beyond time and space.”
Osho Robbins, notwithstanding everything we said about your own religious brainwashing and your inability to see the flaws in your belief system even as you merrily point out the flaws in others’ : notwithstanding that, this part of what you’d said to me is actually interesting, substantive. So I thought to respond to this specifically.
Agreed, back during Shankara’s days this line of thinking and argumentation may have been a slam dunk. Indeed it was for Shankara, who ended up winning debates and disciples everywhere he went.
But that was then. Today we have access to much more of background knowledge than he did. We have access to other modes of thinking. And, most importantly, we have access to the process of the scientific method, and also to the plentiful fruit it has borne in terms of actual knowledge. Basis that, we are no longer as clueless about this as those folks had been.
———-
To answer your question briefly:
This “I am”, this sense of self, is a chimerical thing. It does exist, obviously, in terms of our subjective experience. But it is no more than merely a construct of our brains. The “I am” is not real at all, there is no self at all —– or, to be more precise, an *abiding* “I am” is not real at all, and there is no *abiding* self at all.
This is all elementary stuff, how do you not know this? Particularly since, as I remember, we’d discussed this very matter during that long discussion of ours?
———-
So that, that last sentence of yours, where you say, “i am saying it is beyond time and space” —– first of all, that is a CLAIM. Second of all, it is a HUMONGOUSLY EXTRAVAGANT claim. Third of all, it is a claim that has ZERO EVIDENCE to hold it up. And fourth of all, current neuroscience points towards the sense of self itself being a chimera, so that there is no self at all in an abiding sense — and most certainly no question of one that is beyond time and space.
Haha, it will be amusing to see how you now pretend to forget this all over again, just like you’ve done that now after your already having asked this and my having answered this back during our long discussion. And it will also be amusing to see what kinds of knots you tie yourself into in order to claim that THIS clear claim of yours (“our sense of self is beyond time and space”) is not a claim at all, that this clear belief of yours is not a belief at all, that this clear article of faith of yours is not faith at all.

@AR
you said
“When it comes to RSSB beliefs, you’re happy to use logic and evidence to find flaws. When it comes to Jesus worshipers, you’re happy to use logic and evidence to find flaws. Even when it comes to your own pet woo, even then you are happy to keep on using logic and evidence to make your case, and you often do manage to make your case very well indeed. ”
yes, good observation – and now let’s find out why.
logic works when there is a belief involved.
RSSB, Jesus, islam are all beliefs.
They have to BELIEVE. I don’t believe. I am saying OBSERVE, BE AWARE, not believe.
In a moment I will share this process in detail.
I can call it meditation – but all words are loaded – that’s why I don’t agree with advaita, or non-dualism etc. because as soon as I agree, it becomes a belief to hold onto. The belief arises the moment I use words and you believe my words.
I don’t want you to believe. I am saying “let’s go for a walk…” and you say immediately, “ah, so you believe in walking? you think God is in the park?” This is logic. I say “no, just walk and see”.
you reply “you are stuck, a liar, fake, you believe in walking, see you are disingenuous etc etc”
You are so stuck in logic. logic has become your God. Logic does not work in this arena. I use it where it is valid, you use it everywhere. That is the difference.
you seem to have missed the crucial part of what I said.
i copy it here for your convenience:
=========================
The position that “there is no such thing” is a reasonable position to take. based on evidence there is no such thing. so you are right.
I told you at the start, that i concede.
i can no more prove anything about this than the cube can prove to the square that it is a cube.
I am openly saying it doesn’t exist. why? because “exists” means within time/space.
so “no time. no space” means non-existent.
it cannot be seen, met, experienced, known etc. it’s even called “nirgun”
it is effectively nothing. or oneness.
it is the only reality – because it remains change less (no time)
this material universe changes – is not eternal.
the radha soami regions described in what i just posted to um, are firmly within time and space because time and space is used to describe them.
The non-duality is NOT a state, not a place, not a region, not a belief. hence the ‘neti, neti’ it is nothing you can point to,
if you point to it, it is NOT it.
when you seek EVIDENCE- you are seeking the impossibe.
because i cannot supply evidence you conclude it is delusion,
=========================
You have simply deleted all this, because it ends your argument. You are disingenuous and avoiding the core issue. You cannot see your own trap. You have supreme confidence in your logic. This is called ego. This is the barrier. You cannot ever find truth because you have found logic. You will deny truth because you insist you know.
The radha soami teachings are in time and space, so logic can be used. There are specific teachings to follow. They list them during every satsang.
When I was a speaker, they called me in with regard to this talk. They didn’t like my “tone” because I was speaking with authority but not towing the party line.
part 1:
https://youtu.be/rwTQiZb_8zs?si=Ywj94g9KBjgaDFmK
this is 23 years ago. Still early days. even then i am calling followers sheep, following blindly. Does that sound like a believer?
Indeed in the first five minutes i am distinguishing between belief and the real.
knowing about God and knowing God.
I don’t tell the followers to meditate, keep the vows etc. I was called in and told “we need parrots – you have to tow the party line. I refused to be a parrot, because i will not sacrifice truth for fame. I told them to keep their seva, that I am not interested. They told me to plan my talks on paper. I said “I do, but when I am on stage, the talk goes into a different direction, what can I do? I am not easy to manage. I don’t care if they take the seva away, because I wasn’t doing seva. I was just playing, enjoying the moment. I don’t care if anyone listens. That is their business. I just spoke my nonsense and enjoyed it. It was pure entertainment for me. I derby a seeker came to me, intrigued, wanting to talk. I said let’s meet at the secretary’s house. and we did. She was not yet initiated. She asked questions and I answered. she asked if she should get initiated and I said no, remain seeking, keep questioning. don’t accept ready made answers. the secretary said I was not authorised to answer questions. He said the official person who answers questions will be there next week. she said “can’t you see – he is not saying the same thing as everyone else – he is challenging us”
I am the last person to believe. Hence i don’t follow advaita, non-duality, enlightenment etc. you cannot put me in a box. I will break out of every box. it is very inconvenient for you and your God (logic) but that is how it is. Your logic doesn’t work here and your name calling only ( liar, disingenuous etc) doesn’t work on me, i don’t understand these long words. I know they are spoken out of frustration and i can sympathise and i remain your friend. i know you speak from a genuine desire to help me. but I am beyond help. I am too far gone. even God cannot help (the non-existent one).
The non-dual has no attributes. the non-dual is not subject to logic.
when you asked above “why you”?
again you have missed the point
you think i am claiming special powers. I am not. then you get disappointed because I fail to meet your standards. you say “i thought you had mystical inner experience- but you don’t even have that.” Absolutely I don’t because that IS the trap – that is the duality – a “ME” claiming to have seen God -the height of ego. I claim nothing. just pure non-existence. emptiness, nothing, silence. even that is too much. I claim even less. put that in your pipe and smoke it. the pipe will blow up.
I am not offering you anyhing to believe.
if i said it was an experience then you could say i am claiming to have experienced the mystical. Then your argument would be valid.
i don’t have a philosophy that you can believe. RSSB does have, until GSD demolishes it.
At that point, GSD is in the same position as me. He is saying there is nowhere to go, no regions. no evidence is required unless you misunderstand his statement.
There is a Sach Khand – evidence is needed- it is a claim.
“There is no Sach khand” -no evidence is needed because it is not a claim. no burden of proof is needed. He is simply denying the belief that there is a sach khand. Nobody is saying you can’t experience it, many people do. even i do. i experience light, sound, radiant form of the guru. regions. but they are all in the mind. beyond mind they disappear. So i don’t care about them. they are within time and space.
I interrupt this – to bring you an important message. This video played by itself. I guess God wants you to watch this. (the fictional God)
at min 42:00 go there and listen
https://youtu.be/ykcdg0Vd3I4?si=LePiZNGluuEcHaih
but listen fully.
listen like your life depended on it.
The first art is the art of listening
anothet one:
https://youtu.be/3rE9U4ty5vw?si=qBQKO6OPx59Dhzhk
watch this at 16:00 for 4 mins
https://youtu.be/nENMCNBSQvQ?si=zkNlcmkwllhr9rhj
he is not giving a belief – he is saying “inquire, observe”
now for beliefs:
https://youtu.be/BoMi7wn_-m4?si=zZCGL93ndCsxdpvs
osho advocates doubt. the questions disappear because they cannot be answered.
knowing and not knowing are two aspects of the same thing.
reach where there are no questions, no answers.
to you it will seem like deflecting because you seek answers. there are none

@AR
you quoted
“now turn it all upside down. You (AR) the one asking for evidence – you have no evidence of even the claim that ” I am” or that you exist. your logic dies with you. (…) WHO are you really is the only question. (…) what is your true identity. (…) i am saying it is beyond time and space.”
now read it carefully. I am denying the “I am” saying you have no idea what it is. I am saying you don’t know who you are.
Now use your intelligence for the next part.
” I am saying it is beyond time and space”
you jump on this, saying it is a huge claim.
what absolute nonsense.
i have already explained (but you have ignored) that “beyond time and space” means “does not exist”
how can it exist? show me one thing that is outside of time and space. just one. you cannot.
because “exists” means “in time and space”
everything outside of time and space is non-existent to us as we can only see and experience things in time and space.
something that occupies zero space is non-existent to us.
so that statement is not a claim.
just as “i don’t accept there is a God” is not a claim.
how you can state it is a claim is beyond me.

@AR
Everything you know, you know ONLY through experience. Unless you experience it, you cannot claim to know.
If I believe in Sach Khand and regions and Sat Purush and his three sidekicks, Alakh, Agam and Anami, then I have to reach there, meet those characters, only then can I say I Know. otherwise i only have theory.
This also raises other questions for those who believe.
What is Sat Purush like? is he friendly? humourous? or very serious? Does he joke around like GSD? What does he do all day? indeed has anyone ever reported anything about him?
Hmmm.., very suspicious. many have been to Sach Khand, and must have met Sat Purush. But no description so far. Well, actually I tell a lie. There is ONE documented description. writtrn in great detail in a book.
The Tiger’s Fang – Paul Twitchell.
He claims his guru was Rebarzar Tarz.
But Kirpal initiated him, and he sent the manuscript to Kirpal. Kirpal told him not to publish it. Paul demanded it back then published it changing all references to Kirpal into Rebezar Tarz, and then he started the Eckankar movement.
Masters initiate in dreams.
That is the only account. He describes each of thr five lords of each region. nobody else has described. if they do, they won’t match.
Now someone cannot say “I know Sach Khand, but havr not been there”.
You will call him a liar.
Turiya is not like that. It doesn’t fit that paradigm. You know, but not in the same way. AR has to call “bullshit” at this point.
Let’s not mind the call of “bullshit” and move on…..
Turiya is NOT an experience. This is the dilemma. It is not the FOURTH state, such as the other three states. in fact, put Turiya aside. do you even experience the three states. Clearly you experience the waking state. You are aware of the world outside. You interact with it. you experience it.
As for “The dream state,” yes you DO experience it, but it’s not a simple answer. You were there, in the dream, but you can’t remember.
Now this is an issue. If your memory is so bad, what kind of witness would you make if I put you on the stand in a court case?
You remember BITS, sometimes. Most of the dreams you forget totally. So, HOW do you know you were there?
You cannot rely on memory, because it’s such a low capacity memory.
You forget very quickly.
Yet you will still say you were there. so HOW do you KNOW and what kind of knowing is this that doesn’t rely on memory?
Maybe you don’t know -but in all honesty you know because you remembet some bits, sometimes even vividly.
i could carry on, but it gets even more complicated when we get onto dreamless sleep.
Turiya is even more complicated because it’s the witness of all three states. it is not another state. it CANNOT be experienced because it is the witness.
Right now, let’s address just the first question. How do you know that you dream? That you wre there experiencing it?
question is open to anyone

@ Osho R
>> What is Sat Purush like?<< That question reminds me of such an question asked in the books of Carlos Castaneda. Carlos Castaneda approached the path he was on,[without knowing and understanding] with his mind conditioned along the western way of thinking. So he wanted to know for example, when there was a talk about, bi-location, what was going on with his body, in the location where the bi-location started He also wanted to know from his companions, whether they saw the Nagual in the same way as he did, when in the state of second attention. These very questions made his companions laugh their heard out and even wet their pants from laughter, especially when they saw his face when they answered in the negative. It was obvious for them that they all saw the SAME in a different way and yet6 they knew they saw the SAME. When "I" want to take a sip of coffee, I "know" how to do it. The very act of lifting proves that I know how to lift a cup and take sip. Yet if anybody would ask "HOW" the proces works in absolute terms, "I"have to answer .."T" don't know. ...and these days I might add to it ..and it cannot be known. ..and then ...have some coffee and enjoy.

Hahaha, it’s an …experience, talking with you, Osho Robbins!
This is …heh, deliberate incoherence, these comments of yours that are all over the place. I’ve read them, but I absolutely don’t have the bandwidth to discuss them. (Otherwise, given the mood I’m in now, I wouldn’t have minded, despite knowing they’ll lead nowhere.)
Here’s what I’ll do. I’ll deal do three things here. First, I’ll discuss just one comment, the relatively short one that’s topmost on this second page. Next, I’ll discuss the reasons for this this incoherence of yours, as it occurs to me. And third, I’ll briefly discuss my take on those reasons. And with that, I’ll pack it in, simply because, like I said, I lack the bandwidth to keep on doing this endlessly — although I’ll read anything you might have to say, sure.
———-
Right, your comment first. Like I said, the one that’s topmost on this second page.
Heh, you’re now saying that you’re using “beyond time and space” as simply another term for ‘does not exist’. So that, when you say “who we are is beyond time and space”, you actually mean to convey that “who we are is actually non-existent”. Hahaha, that’s …completely …heh, I lack the words. God, you’re so completely unabashedly disingenuous! (No offense. “Bullshit” isn’t a swear word, it’s a bona fide word that conveys a bona fide sense, despite its etymology. Likewise, disingenuity in this case is merely a descriptor, is all.)
So now, you’ve told me that when you say “Oneness” you don’t mean “oneness” at all, but merely use that as a random word, like X or Y or Z. You’ve told me that you use the term “Turiya” not to mean what Advaita means, but merely as a descriptor of the three basic stages. You’ve told me that you don’t subscribe to Advaita at all. And you’d earlier told me that when you say “real”, you don’t actually mean “real” at all. And now, you tell me when you say “beyond time and space”, you use that as a figure of speech, to mean merely “does not exist”.
And you do that while also, all the while, using Oneness to mean exactly Oneness; and put out videos clearly discussing the Turiya stage in exactly the terms in which Advaita discusses it; and keep referencing Advaita concepts and actual discussions to make your point; and do use “beyond time and space” in exactly that sense. Just, now, in order to get out of the corner you find itself in, you keep on making these things up as you go along, completely entirely unabashedly!
Hahaha, that’s …like I said, an experience, conversing with you!
Okay, here’s how I diagnose this. That is, obviously I can’t mindread you: but here’s how I infer, make a reasonable guess towards, why exactly you conduct yourself in this bizarre fashion. Three things. I’ll put them in the next section.
———-
Okay, like I said, here’s how I read you, Osho Robbins. Three reasons why you conduct yourself in this bizarre fashion. All three reasons will apply, is what I’m guessing. (The first two reasons are obvious. But the third one occurs to me now, on seeing how completely brazen and unabashed is your disingenuity. Again, not namecalling, it’s just what I’ve described. My point is, this third point is very interesting! So yeah, let me list those three out.)
1. Firstly, and obviously, your grasp on what is reasonable is not very firm. While you’re able to discuss logical fallacies well enough, and use logic well enough, but there’s some basic things that are missing in your repertoire of reason. (And, towards that end, in the next section, I’ll just list out some heuristics for rational thought, that you’ll find useful, should you choose to avail yourself of them.)
2. Secondly, and equally obviously: You’re fully invested into your belief system, as most religiously inclined folks are. And, in as much your identity has gotten so intertwined with your beliefs, you keep twisting and turning to somehow make it seem, to yourself if not to others, that your beliefs make sense. (This I have no remedy to. This you can correct yourself, should you choose to. Or not. This part’s completely up to you.)
3. This third reason is actually the interesting part. Here’s what I think, Osho Robbins. You’ve had that experience you’d described to me long back, that hand thing you described to me. That disconnect of your ego. A process like this led to that experience of yours. And you’ve seen this exact process described, as facilitating that kind of experience. So that, what you seek to do is recreate that process, so that your listeners — I, in this case — might, just perhaps, be led towards just such an experience. …So that, the brazen disingenuity, and this complete incoherence, is actually kosher, because it is towards a good end, is how you think of it. …In short, for you this discussion isn’t a rational reasonable discussion at all, but you trying to facilitate that process which might bring about the realization of ego-remove in your listener (me, in this case).
Heh, I’m right, am I not? Did I, or did I not, hit the bulls-eye there, eh, Osho Robbins? Only then can this extreme incoherence, and this unabashed disingenuity, make sense.
In the last section, I’ll put down some thoughts about this exercise of yours.
———-
Okay, so in this section, here’s some basics of rational thinking, that I believe you have a less than firm grasp on. Some rough pointers that might help you correct that, should you choose to avail yourself of them. I’ll enumerate them below, to give them structure, and to make them as clear as I know how.
1. Everything we believe is a belief. Everything.
2. Beliefs are either valid, as in an accurate reflection of reality, or at least, as accurate as we can make them at this point. Or else beliefs are not valid, and not as accurate a reflection of reality as we can make them at this point.
3. Even correct beliefs are beliefs. Correct beliefs do not cease to be beliefs. (Likewise claims as well. Even correct claims are claims. Correct claims do not cease to be claims.)
4. It makes sense to strive to make our beliefs correspond with reality. The opposite of that is by definition delusion.
5. Us humans have developed some rules, some heuristics, some methods, to help us arrive at correct beliefs, and reject wrong claims/beliefs.
6. Two important elements of those rules and heuristics are logic, and empiricism. Without either, we have no way to arrive at correct beliefs other than by simple happenstance. This combination of logic and empiricism (following the evidence) is our only structured way of arriving at correct beliefs.
7. The formal application of #6 above is science.
8. In our own small personal lives, we can arrive at correct beliefs by following science; and, over and above that, by informally applying #6 above to questions of fact in our lives, which is to say by adopting rational thinking.
9. This applies to matters of fact. Matters that are not related to factuality obviously do not fall under purview of this, although even here we can to an extent be guided by this principle. (For instance, what music we like, or what person/s we love, are not matters of factuality, and so not a matter for logic per se. That said, even here we can eliminate inconsistency and confusion and factual-based errors by using #6. So #6 plays a role here as well; but absolutely, not the primary role.)
10. When it comes to matters of factuality, EVERYTHING falls under purview of logic and empiricism. Everything. Nothing is outside of its purview. Nothing.
11. If some matters of factuality do not lend themselves to evidence, then we cannot pretend that they somehow lie in a realm where logic does not apply. (So that factual claims that do not admit of evidence are not therefore not claims, they are merely fallacious claims. Likewise, factual beliefs that do not admit of evidence are not therefore not beliefs, they are merely fallacious beliefs.)
12. Your black hole example is fallacious, wrong. What happens in black holes is this: gravity is so strong there that everything, light included, is drawn in, and has no way of getting out again. (Well, there are hypotheses that indicate they might do that, via two means: one would be information leak off of the event horizon, and the other would be from the “other” side of the black hole. But let’s leave aside that nuance for now.) So yes, you’re right, information that enters black holes does not, in general, come out again. That does not mean that black holes are somehow places where logic and empiricism do not apply! It is logic and empiricism — aka science — that has enabled us to know what we do about black holes; and we keep on updating that knowledge with ongoing research.
13. So that, when you propose that there’s Oneness outside of time and space, or that our true identity is beyond space and time: well then, simply because you put in “beyond space and time” does not somehow mean that those claims aren’t claims, or that those beliefs aren’t beliefs; and nor does that somehow exonerate those claims and beliefs from the heuristics of rational thought. There is no reason by logic and empiricism shouldn’t apply to those claims and beliefs.
———-
And finally, now: My thoughts on your playing …what was that guys’ name, the wild guy whose workshop triggered your hand-experience? My thoughts on your trying to do the same, and to try to facilitate and trigger that experience in your listeners:
I get where you’re coming from, and I do appreciate the thought and the effort, Osho Robbins. (Assuming I’m right about this! I believe I am, but of course, I can’t mind read, so if you tell me you’re not doing this then I’ll accept that.)
I was saying, I appreciate the thought and the effort, but there’s this:
Let me use an analogy, Osho Robbins. People meditate, and sometimes report extravagant “experiences”, visions and “sounds” and whatnot. Part of that is lying. Part of that is suggestibility. But part of that may be bona fide experiences. But even if the last, even so: what does that really mean? Say you’ve seen constellations and heard bells and conches, what does that really indicate? The most obvious explanation is probably either some form of psychosis (whether spontaneous, or induced); and/or an atypical firing of one’s nerves. That’s by far the likeliest explanation. Far likelier, immeasurably likelier, than the possibility that the meditator has actually accessed some extra-physical dimensions of reality.
Well, likewise. That experience of yours, of no-self: assuming it’s not a lie, and assuming it’s not just suggestibility —- that is, assuming even a bona fide experience, even so, the likeliest explanation is it is some kind of psychosis (whether induced or spontaneous), and/or some atypical firing of the nerves and brain cells. After all, there are documented cases of people losing their sense of self following on some accident, or trauma to the brain. That’s far likelier, immeasurably likelier, than the explanation you favor, which is that the experiencer — you, in this case — have somehow “realized” Oneness.
So that, I don’t really see the point either of actively seeking out such an experience, or of actively guiding people towards such an experience.
You get what I’m saying? While appreciative of what you’re trying to do — assuming I’m right in making this inference — but I’m not sure it’s a good idea, really.
———-
Haha, like you, I’m given to sometimes/often writing very long comments. And this time I might have set a personal record, this may well be my longest comment ever!!
But I actually enjoyed thinking this through, and putting this down. Examining these things is kind of the whole point of why I’m here at all. So that, I absolutely don’t grudge the time and effort I’ve put into this comment. Just the process of thinking this through clearly was worth it to me. …Whether or not it will be of any use to you, Osho Robbins, I don’t know, though. I hope it will. But if it doesn’t, well then, that’s cool too. *shrugs*
Logging off now. Like I said, that’s logging off from this discussion. Happy to read anything you might have to say in response, though. But I’ll try to resist the temptation to respond back again, at least in this thread. Like I said, I actually cannot afford the time right now for this endlessly meandering discussion.
Cheers, Osho Robbins.

Hi Appreciative:
I would not have chosen to comment on here, except that your list of logical thinking parameters, items 1-13, is very nice indeed.
If I understand correctly, to summarize just a little, you are suggesting that all reality, to be perceived as a rational statement of fact, must have some grounding in factual evidence that can be shared and tested. To suggest something is outside of space and time, and therefore any criteria against which to test, is to make a claim that is not “rational”…No one else can verify it on its face value.
You further give your estimates of what is likely or not likely in judging the reports of others. That is, relative to your understanding of those experiences, and like experiences reported as the result of some negative condition. If one sees lights after being injured, then maybe that’s what is going on when someone reports some interesting internal experience.
I would like to comment on how to rationally handle reports, without the bias of one’s personal limited exposure to facts and experiences, or perhaps in full respect of these limitations we all have to some degree or another.
If I had never met a black person, or an asian, or a woman, I might have very biased and limited views about such people. But even if I had met them and known them, I might be judging them from the roles that my group of white guys thinks is the role appropriate to these “other” folks. My limited thinking from a limited conditioning, even parts of which I am not aware of. Because I wasn’t taking the time to put aside my notions and instead to learn about these people as they are, individually, within their own context and by their own voice. Instead I may broad brush them with some claim of who and what they are as “improbable…because I’ve never seen or heard of it before. Becuase in the past someone of their color or sex or orientation did this…so that’s what is likely for them.”
You see, this is also a rational reality: Bias. Does logical thinking provide you with a sense of reality that you like? It does provide that to me.
But the difference is that all logic depends upon selected premesis. And none are more subject to subjectivity, then those premeses presented to us entirely outside of our own accepted premeses. They are different, new. We waste time trying to place them into some context we have invented from our limited understanding.
A logical view towards the unknown is an open mind.
So when Osho says something about beyond space and time, of course that exists. Because space and time are relative and fluid, as astrophysics teaches us. Yes, they behave according to laws, principles. So may the existence outside of space and time. We just have no basis to understand it. But, as I will demonstrate, all science proves it.
When someone speaks about things outside your experience you don’t need to narrow that down to something you can explain away as “unlikely”. The entire creation rests upon forces none of us have any idea about.
What does that mean? It doesn’t mean you blindly believe something outside of your experience, nor reject blindly, however much knowledge you may incorrectly believe in.
It only means you cannot comment about its veracity with an actual factual basis.
Just because something looks a little like something else says more about where you are standing than the reality of just how far apart those two things are: what you know, and the unknown someone else is speaking of.
Time and space, just FYI, could not exist without a zero state, just as no actual measure of physical space could exist or be measured or tested without zero. Nothing in creation exists without measurement, right? Or the potential for future measurement? But measurement doesn’t exist with zero. Hence, what cannot by definition exist must exist in order for anything else to exist.
Rational thinking should increase our awareness of our own limitations so that we are open, not to believe blindly, but to honor the unknown, and proceed with exploration, discovery and learning. There is where logic grows into wisdom.

Oops typo Meant to write:
Measurement doesn’t exist without zero. Zero must exist for any measurement to exist. Zero is real, even if nothing you can point to is zero.

@AR
excellent response. detailed and articulate. You take the time to respond, even you know full well that I am a hopeless case. Complete goner.
and you hit the bullseye and you know it. Very perceptive.
i haven’t read much of it yet, but will reply to no 10. kind of a play on words, but also true when taken literally.
you wrote:
10. When it comes to matters of factuality, EVERYTHING falls under purview of logic and empiricism. Everything. Nothing is outside of its purview. Nothing.
Exactly – the thing we are discussing is NOTHING (equiv to ONENESS in my fucked up world). And you admit that this thing (nothing) is outside of its purview. exactly what I have been saying.
finally something we agree on. calls for a celebration don’t you think?
obviously i know that’s not what you mean, but just couldn’t resist that one.
i’ll carry in reading your thesis now.
Your last bit is interesting too:
======================
But I actually enjoyed thinking this through, and putting this down. Examining these things is kind of the whole point of why I’m here at all. So that, I absolutely don’t grudge the time and effort I’ve put into this comment. Just the process of thinking this through clearly was worth it to me. …Whether or not it will be of any use to you, Osho Robbins, I don’t know, though. I hope it will. But if it doesn’t, well then, that’s cool too. *shrugs*
======================
who cares if it is of use, as long as you enjoyed the process. we cannot be too serious, can we?
when we can discuss and be okay to be right or wrong, and enjoy the entertainment value, that says something. When i used to give those talks, i am sure some people thought i was crazy. If i got the chance I would prove they are right.
Once in Haynes Park (okay, at least once, my memory is not that good) i had a run in with a sevadar. i walked the wrong side of a rope, like it was the crime of the century. He was annoyed and told me to go back and come the other side of the rope. “and this will be your ticket into sach khand?” i asked him. he wasn’t happy. “which centre are you from?” he asked me. “From the Eye Centre” I replied and walked off into the sunset.
If you’re going to confront, do it in style is my motto.

Hi Spence,
welcome to the never ending story….
oh, i meant the never ending discussion
i welcome your input.
Any other takers? um perhaps?

@ Osho R.
I just deleted an comment but I will write part of it again.
Participating here as commentators, makes me think of shops in the main street of town.
Each shop has its own ware in the window display. The uniqueness of each store becomes visible over time.
Spence T. made once an remark about the conversation tradition at their dinner table and you to made such an remark that tells something of the motivation behind running an shop.
Shops in order toi survive need customers.
During my life time Osho I have been often present in a room where very erudite experts and their entourage were having their conversations and coffee, backstage so to say, where they were freely discussing their idea’s and plans. They were all eloquent speakers and writers. Most of the time I was not able to pull my finger behind what they were after as that was covered in so much words and clever use of them. That were often frustrating times as something in me told me that there was fundamental something wrong with what they were saying but I could not get that clear let alone able to put it before them in their own language.
You see in the interaction with the late MCS, as far as I can remember, I never felt that frustration. His way of communicating was quite different.. his communication was never directed at me so to say but having heard what I was after, he pointed at me in his answers in public, interview of by letter in the direction where to look.

@ Osho R
In running a shop, one can restrict one’s focus on what is in display, but one can also focus on the owner and how he runs his shop …most of the time that is much more interesting … at least for me.
So I hardly ever, open a shop of my own and to my best not to engage in a competitive interaction. That is not always easy and not always appreciated.
You see Osho, the older I get and the further I get away from the bygone days and the close interaction with this path, the more I I came to see the late MCS in a complete other light. Free from the more or less compulsive image that is created in literature and by the general accepted views of his followers, I can look at him through my own eyes and look upon a human being that has set up sut an agreeable example of humanness. …so to finish ….he had NOTHING of a teacher, he was not teaching and he allowed nobody to be a student of his.
Read what I do not write, understand what i do not say

Hi, Spence.
No, no, why wouldn’t you? If all I wanted was a soliloquy, I needn’t have burdened Brian’s blogspace then. My journal would have sufficed. Those rough heuristics of rational thinking were the off-the-cuff product of my own mind. Neither are those heuristics infallible, and nor am I. Very happy to have you examine them, and put in your thoughts about them. Correct them, and correct me, maybe, if either is remiss. Happy to take such correction onboard, if so warranted.
Welcome to the party!
———-
Absolutely, we should keep our minds open. It’s just, you know: Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. Both the open mind, and the knowing what is true and what is not.
Basis what you say, let me add these observations, these nuances, to further finetune my heuristics:
(a) Okay, this nuance is important. Unless it is a concoction, a lie; then every experience is “real”. Obviously. However, the question is, does the experience actually reflect outer reality? Those two nuances it is important to keep in mind. For instance, take lilliputian hallucinations. (You may have heard of them, given your exposure to research in psychology, given both your specialization and your profession.) The experience is real. But does the content of the experience correspond with outer reality? That latter is what should inform our worldview.
(b) Certainly these heuristics are primed towards evaluation of others’ experiences. But they’re also, first and foremost, a means to rationally evaluate one’s own experiences. Speaking squarely about yours, that you’ve spoken of to me, and treating it in the first person: Should I witness constellations within, I myself, and hear conches and bells within, I myself: then there are three possibilities: either I’m being suggestible, and am experiencing surface level hallucination; or else those are the result of more-deepseated atypicality in the equipment of my brain and neural pathways; or else they are indicative of actual dimensions within. Which of the three is it? Certainly the third is by far the least likely possibility. Therefore, it is irrational to immediately seize on the third and least likely possibility, without first clearly ruling out the first two far more likely possibilities.
(c) To say which is not to keep one’s mind closed. Certainly it is good to explore further, should one be so inclined, basis either one’s own experiences or others’. You know I do that myself, or try to, both subjectively and objectively.
(d) Bias. The scientific method is geared specifically to, among other things, effectively deal with bias. That is the whole point of it, or at least, one of the points of it: the structured, systematic dealing with bias.
———-
“It only means you cannot comment about its veracity with an actual factual basis.”
Oh yes, you can. You can, and you necessarily do, every moment. Unless you walk around “with your brains falling out”.
Heh, that takes us back to *our* long involved discussion about what a scientific worldview entails.
The missing piece there is, Burder of Proof. Fit that in, and the picture is complete.
If tomorrow people claim there’s UFOs on the loose in the country. Or if people claim that in some specific geographies people are feasting on dogs and cats. How do you evaluate that? Certainly, the ideal, factual way is to oneself examine those claims, properly, rigorously. But as an individual, who may not have the bandwidth to examine every claim, then what do you do? The answer is to invoke the Burden of Proof. (Of course, that applies even to rigorous examination of evidence. But looking at it from an individual’s perspective.)
What you do is, you ask the claimant to provide their evidence. Their claim, their evidence. (Indeed, a rational, honest claimant would not even present a claim, even to their own selves, without first satisfying the burden of proof.)
As long as that burden is not satisfied, it is reasonable to reject the claim. Regardless of who the claim comes from. Even oneself. And certainly others.
Which is not to suggest one keeps one’s mind closed. One recognizes that one’s heuristics lead to PROVISIONAL results. One remains open to further research uncovering other, different results. One might conduct such research oneself, in one likes. But as far as the conclusion: One keeps an open mind, but takes care that one’s brains don’t fall out.
So, when someone reports extravagant experiences, one concludes that they correspond with outer reality only when the burden of proof is satisfied.
Equally, when one oneself has extravagant experiences, one concludes they correspond to an extravagant worldview only when the burden of proof is fully satisfied.
That is how to root out bias.

“and you hit the bullseye and you know it. Very perceptive”
Haha, bingo! Thought as much!
Certainly, reasons #1 and #2 to an extent. But this is much too extravagant, this incoherence and this brazen disingenuity —- no offense intended, at all, you know what I mean! —- not to be deliberate.
In context of that, you do get why I said what I did about what such experience might amount to? (Add to that what I’d said earlier about Advaitic “brainwashing”.) And, in context of both these, you do get, then, what I said about the desirability of either seeking such experience oneself, or of trying to induce such in others?
———-
(In a way, all of this is playing devil’s advocate. Underneath, I’d love to be assured of these truths myself. But only if they’re valid, not as wish fulfilment.)
———-
Haha, I did respond, both to Spence and to you! Well, why wouldn’t I, that’s what we’re here for, this open discussion!
Just, what I said about being completely snowed under at this point in time.
Osho Robbins, I’ll look forward to reading your comment. Given we understand each other now, I’d appreciate it if your response eschewed, for now at any rate, all three reasons, and actually bared your thoughts to me, sans all subterfuge.
Oh, and you mustn’t mind if I don’t respond after this. Spence too. If there’s anything substantive —- substantive, either in terms of what I might take in, or in terms of what I might contribute —- then I will. Else, given time constraints, I may not. But I’ll be sure to read your response/s, and with pleasure.
…Heh, this a bit like old times, this vibrant discussion, this party, no? Loved it!
Cheers, Osho Robbins.

“Measurement doesn’t exist without zero. Zero must exist for any measurement to exist. Zero is real, even if nothing you can point to is zero.”
As far as this, Spence:
Not sure I agree. Sure, you must necessarily base your measurements on some zero ground. That in itself does not make the zero real. Only evidence does that.
For instance: Hypothetically, we might, for whatever reason, find it expedient to calibrate our measurements such that we define absolute zero as – 1,000 degrees C. That’s a measurement issue. But merely our fixing on a zero does not in itself make that zero “real”. Even if we do routinely use – 1,000 degrees C as the zero point each and every day, even so, that zero is “real”, in the sense of actually existing, if and only if the evidence shows it does.
This seems straightforward. Or did you mean something else?
———-
What I said to Osho Robbins.
Enjoying your inputs. Appreciate your inputs. But you mustn’t mind if my answers are staccato, or if I don’t respond. Completely snowed under, up to eye level. So I won’t, unless there’s something really substantive, that either I can take in, or contribute.
Heh, like I was saying, just like old times, no?
Cheers to you too, Spence.

Hi Appreciative:
Very good points!
You wrote:
“Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. Both the open mind, and the knowing what is true and what is not.”
When dealing with discovery, there is the possibility that your brain might fall out! You might encounter something that defies rational description (not rationalization, as anything can be rationalized as either true or false). And so what you firmly thought you knew, you now realize you don’t. Brain on ground.
You see, what you think is real may just be how you see something that is quite different. No one can take your perception away from you. You may have verified it with repeated scrutiny and personal testing. But it’s still just how you are seeing things.
You asked:”Unless it is a concoction, a lie; then every experience is “real”. Obviously. However, the question is, does the experience actually reflect outer reality? ”
Exactly.
Your first point is the one most interesting, what is real to the individual? Because what is reality to reality means little to us, who are just biochemical creations that believe they exist as persons. What we think are man made artificial concepts. That some of these do reflect our immediate physical reality isn’t quite so interesting to me.
What is reality to you is most important. But is what you believe to be real, just an opinion? Science suggests it is.
And is that opinion truly educated? Or is the ignorance of what is not known also baked into that opinion?
People seek spiritual experience for a number of reasons, some of which I think are great: They want some exposure to something they can’t dismiss or rationalize away, something truly outside their own conventional thinking, as some means to transcend their biases, to see reality directly, to contact a reality outside their own thinking. Very noble motivations there, if somewhat ignorant. As we all are. But we don’t know what we are ignorant to.
And that brings up your next point:
“So, when someone reports extravagant experiences, one concludes that they correspond with outer reality only when the burden of proof is satisfied.”
I would go one step further and say, whether from the hard sciences or someone’s meditation, don’t take it as “real”…take it as information. Never dismiss information. Attempt to understand it from the source in which it came, within the context of who and what that source actually is, not what we want to label them as.
It is safe to say claims extravagant to a person are outside of their outer reality and and their inner reality as they view it today.
Now, we do know that all things that appear material are largely empty space, fields of energy with tiny particles at great distances from each other held together with forces we understand but not fully.
Who sees reality that way?The mystics who said this entire creation is a projection may have had some experience of that reality modern physics as verified.
When pythagoras claimed that the planets are actually slightly eliptical and not fullly spherical, how could he have known this finding that science would verify centuries later?
I would estimate that as science has verified such a claim, that Pythagoras and a few other mystics were just working very very hard at pure observation, wherever they could, within and without.
And when fortune smiles upon them and it happens, then of course the question remains, is it a blessing or curse? They cannot fit it into their own biases, which now may be completely disproven! And what they witness may be a reality just for them.
For those seeking that experience in science, they get a new knowledgte that is somewhat transferrable. But there are problems with this also, however worthy science is, when it is practiced with honesty and a desire to find truth over creating book sales.
Very few people outside a given science will appreciate the nuances of a discovery or the limitations of the controls within the experiment. For us lay folks, we have to take on faith a lot of explanations from scientific explainers. I find a few of the popular neuroscientist writers to the lay public to be the most aggregious liars as they take hard neuroscience and attempt to make statements about God and spirituality, both of which are well outside any actual scientific research. They will take a finding and generalize well beyond the intent of the original researchers, well beyond the external validity of the research. Very unscientific, but clothed in the appearance of science. It happens.
So, science has its current day charlatans as well. Caveat Emptor.
There is a risk in discovery that what you thought you knew, you will discover you do not. The person not wedded to a particular opinion gains most. Unless they discourse based upon opinion almost exclusively, and explore very little.
Note in the scientific community the greatest debate about those items with the least hard data. It can go on for decades. If it’s an honest debate that’s fine. But if it’s just intellectual posturing, with no intent to go and investigate, then it’s just theoretical. An theoretical science, without investigation, is just intelligent opinion, at best.
And then there are scientists who simply enjoy gathering more information, looking deeper, not chained to a public position. They are in love with the mystery and wonder of reality and aren’t using it to bludgeon others who see things differenty.
Yo wrote:
“Equally, when one oneself has extravagant experiences, one concludes they correspond to an extravagant worldview only when the burden of proof is fully satisfied.
That is how to root out bias.”
I think that suggests this experience can be viewed without bias.
What if the person who has the experience understands that viewing that in memory or after the fact is looking at it second hand with all biases filtering the view.
What if a truly transcendent experience of direct reality simply cannot be understood by the human mind? Becaase, in part, the object and the observer are now One and not two?
It’s a very sad thing to say that such an experience has no place in the “outer” or may I say dualistic reality where the human brain is the ceiling for understanding.
Or is it?

@AR, Spence l, um, anyone
It is not my job to convert anyone. and what am i converting to anyway?
AR and I are simply exchanging ideas. AR is logical and precise. i am illogical and impossible to pin down on purpose.
i did this talk in the gurdwara
This is a brief 2 min summary.
I was m using their language, their beliefs to show them something else.
I don’t care how it is received
https://youtube.com/shorts/XGsnv0EyPy4?si=wqI8Fj7zoRB5MIoS
it doesn’t matter. it is pure entertainment.
i am even laughing in it.

@ Osho R.
People will deal with you according how THEY perceive you and not how you think thei perceive you or how you want them to perceive you.
You are not the MAKER of their world, you are just part oif the world they created for themselves.
Things are what they are
seldom what they look like
let alone how they are made to be seen.

@OSHO,…….since I watched you , on your short Video clips,….AI is now stalking me with your face and black head wrap , every time I open YouTube!
I am wondering , or asking, ….for your absoutely HONEST belief , of where you exist, right now, other than as The ONE?
In traveling the path that most of us have, or are traveling, from Unknowing, to Disinterest,….to Curious,…to Seeking,…to Believing,….to Receiving,….to Verifying,…to Testing,…to Loosing,…to rejecting,…to Skepticism,…to Sharing,…to Teaching,…to NO Thing.
Where in the ONE are you , when your head is wrapped in black, and you are trying to impress viewers on Youtube?
Be honest!
Jim Sutherland

“I am wondering , or asking, ….for your absoutely HONEST belief , of where you exist, right now, other than as The ONE?”
-Jim Sutherland
Good question. i might answer honestly but you have excluded the honest answer.
We ALL exist only as THE ONE. Everything else is the dream reality.
one by one we all disappear into the abyss that we have named death.
we sing our song, we dance our dance. Then we die. we disappear.
Some humans are obsessed with eternal life and “being saved” once it becomes clear to them that this life is so temporary.
They seek eternity – but the method of seeking various so much.
I was brainwashed in RSSB from childhood. I used to take “spiritual link” to school with me. My sole ambition was to meet Sat Purush and live forever in Sach Kand.
I pursued that ambition with passion. At 18 years old I heard of Ishvara and SOTM (Spiritual Teachings Of The Master). i was at university in Queen Mary College in mile end, east end of London. SOTM had meetings every Mon, Wed, Fri 8pm-10pm so i took the tube to the other side of london 3 times a week. They had people who said “I am all there is.” i was hooked. eventually i got initiated and started meditation. 4 hours a day. Then i came acros Thakar Singh and got initiated by him, then Darshan Singh. i met Ajaib, swami Divyanand, Dr Harbhajan. Pretty much all the successors of Kirpal.
i meditated until 1998.
I went through a divorce. At that time i met the guy who i had it all wrong. At the same time I met Mikaire (disciple of Osho).
Suddenly i entered a whole different world. Then it happened. I had no idea WHAT had happened but SOMETHING had. I didn’t understand it.
That’s when I had that conversation with GSD – where i said “my God is here”
From there, i gave some talks at RSSB centres. This was completely different from the duality teachings. I was talking about oneness on RSSB stages. some people connected, others had no idea what i was saying.
This TikTok thing i just started recently and youtube i have not started professionally yet, just toying with it yet.
what is my purpose, honestly? I have no idea. I let things happen, and enjoy the ride.
i have no specific goal.
I do enjoy the talks and seminars, everything is free so far. We’ll see where it all leads.
Not sure if that answers your question but i enjoyed writing it all anyways

@OSHO,….you should contact BBJ’s new appointed Successor, JSG, with your Resume and Tic Tock Clips, and offer your services to become his ONENESS Tutor.
His Ph.D. and Business Degrees surely never taught him Spirituality Oneness.
JSG will be much too busy tending to RSSB International Business , as well as Dera day to day care , of the Satsangi Sheep. He will not have time to read any RSSB Boiler Plate books on “How to keep One’s Sheep in the Flock”,……and will need his own Sheep Dog to keep the Sheep at the Deras.
I’ll bet JSG would be impressed with your Resume, and might offer you the Seva position of becoming his Personal Oneness Tutor .
Once he watches a couple of your Tic Tock Videos, AI will then be stalking him , instead of me. Haha
Jim Sutherland

@Osho R.
In order to understand by what path you have come I searched the net on SOTM and Mikaire but could not find anything. .is there something to be found on the net?

@OSHO,…..Going through your body count of Gurus you were initiated by, I see you neglected to also mention being initiated by Charan Singh. Didn’t you say in some of your past comments here, you were initiated by Charan Singh as well, or did I misunderstand!
Jim Sutherland

Hi Appreciative!
I had made a statement that you commented upon:
“Measurement doesn’t exist without zero. Zero must exist for any measurement to exist. Zero is real, even if nothing you can point to is zero.”
You wrote:
“As far as this, Spence:
“Not sure I agree. Sure, you must necessarily base your measurements on some zero ground. That in itself does not make the zero real. Only evidence does that.
“For instance: Hypothetically, we might, for whatever reason, find it expedient to calibrate our measurements such that we define absolute zero as – 1,000 degrees C. That’s a measurement issue. But merely our fixing on a zero does not in itself make that zero “real”. Even if we do routinely use – 1,000 degrees C as the zero point each and every day, even so, that zero is “real”, in the sense of actually existing, if and only if the evidence shows it does.”
“This seems straightforward. Or did you mean something else?”
You can look at it from the same perspective you provide, but just a little further. With a little more science. We know from science that temperature is a measure of atomic pariticles moving around: energy that has moved from potential to active. That can be measured as heat.
A zero state has no active energy at all. Potential is all there, but nothing moving about kicking other particles, creating movement and heat. That means that zero degrees temperature, in an absolute scale, has no heat. It can’t be measured, however, due to quantum fluctuations. So, all measurement of temperature is relative to that zero point, and it must exist for any other metric of relative value to exist with any accuracy.
Matter may have an infinite amount of potential energy. Atomic bombs attest to the fact that within matter is an immense amount of energy, but dormant in potential, hidden from our view, and therefore, until we can see it in action, it’s immeasurable. But it isn’t non-existant. That potential must exist for any actual heat to exist.
The whole creation is like that. To have a relative scale of measurement, where 1,000 is exactly 10 times 100, you must have a zero value. It’s called a ratio scale. It must be real for anything else to be real, anything you could measure.
But having a zero value doesn’t mean nothing. It just means that along the dimension you can measure, you don’t have any of that. All that might exist in infinite quantity, but be potential, not active.
Due to quantum fluctuations, you can’t really say that “nothing” exists when it comes to temperature. Because it can’t be measured.
But on an absolute scale of temperature, where o degrees is no atomic movement of free particles, ie; no temperature, then 1 degree is actually infinitely greater. There is no basis even with “1” for measurement.
It’s only when you get “2”…a duality, that measurement actually begins. In the example of heat, 2 degrees is exactly twice one degree. It isn’t ten times one degree. It is entirely equal to 1 degree added again.
10 degrees is exactly 10 times the amount of heat energy in 1 degree. That is an accurate ratio scale. No science can exist without measurement, and ratio scales are the most accurate way to measure physical phenomenon. But that means that Zero is baked into any measure of physical reality.
You could place an entire building at the top of another. Then you would have incredible energy. but only when that building gets pushed over and begins to fall. Until then, it sits silently as huge potential energy.
For you to have a dollar, that only has value relative to zero money. In order for 1,000 to be 10 times greater than 100, each dollar must be exactly the same size. That’s the only value money has, as a fixed quantity in a ratio that is exact. And that size is always relative to it’s non-existance.
The entire scale can change, however, relative to how people demand and use money, changing its value, but only relative to its position and demand with other monetary systems. This is wny very large private business leaders who control much of the world’s money, loves bitcoin, and also hates it. They can more easily manipulate its relative value, as owners of large quantities of money, simply by moving theirs into bitcoin. Instant change in relative value to other monies. But if you didn’t move your money into bitcoin as your colleagues did, you lose value in the older currency. It’s like a high school popularity thing.
But these all must be placed upon a single metric in order to evaluate and measure:”In US Dollars…in Yuans”..etc…we pick something, however, relative that is, to try to create a ratio scale evern where it doesn’t exist in reality. Otherwise money would, overnight, have zero value.
And when a currency has no other in the world, it can explode into near infinite value, until someone moves their assetts into another currency.
People think Gold has value. But it’s a shiny yellow rock. It’s only value is relative to a currency, and in the minds of those who buy it, and then in the minds of those who want it. They don’t want the rock, though. They just want the perceived value of it, and that is relative to other things, it’s monetary value, and monetary value only has value in terms of perceived wealth, what you can buy.
With inflation the world grows poorer every day, unless you are one of those relatively few constantly accumulating more of it. Then it’s a race with your colleagues just to hold onto its relative value by grabbing for more.
The entire creation only is measurable against non-existance, a zero state. Relatively speaking we measure zero all the time. Your wallet had money, you bought something, now you can say it is has absolutely zero dollars in it. Zero exists in your wallet! Perfect zero!
Zero is a part of our reality whether we like it or not. Understanding zero, 1 and 2 puts a lot of things into a less relative, and more absolute perspective.
And where people invent their own values, that is only, at best relative to some other extant system.
It reflects reality, but as you point out, it is relative and a human creation. Measurement may exist, but it is largely a human invention.
LOL

Hey, Spence.
I’ll briefly touch on *every* point you raise in your last two comments. As well as one you’d raised earlier, and that I’d overlooked at that time.
———-
“When dealing with discovery, there is the possibility that your brain might fall out! You might encounter something that defies rational description (not rationalization, as anything can be rationalized as either true or false). And so what you firmly thought you knew, you now realize you don’t. Brain on ground.”
That is NOT what “brain falls out” refers to, in the aphorism “Keep your mind open, but not so open that your brain falls out.”
QM is a textbook case of “encounter(ing) something that defies rational description”. One unhesitatingly accepts QM as “true” bizarre and completely counter-intuitive although those ideas are, but they’re borne out by evidence.
The “brain falls out” part refers to not keeping in your skeptical filters up and running, so that you end up believing ideas that are not reasonable to believe in at that point.
———-
“People seek spiritual experience for a number of reasons, some of which I think are great”
Sure; but that’s completely irrelevant to what we’ve just been talking about.
The rational thinking part is about establishing factuality, about sussing out as best we can what’s true and what’s not.
What one is “drawn to”, that’s a matter of one’s predilections. Factuality has nothing to do with it. As far as religion: I might want to go to Church, or to one of your RSSB satsangs, to hook up with that hot girl who visits there with her family; or I might want to go there because the music and the atmosphere appeals to me; or any other number of reasons that have nothing to do with factuality. As far as spirituality: I might seek out “experiences” for the quietude they bring me; or for the centeredness they bring to me; or because I simply enjoy having those experiences; or any number of reasons that have nothing to do with factuality.
As long as one does conflate one’s non-factual reasons for attending to religion and/or spirituality with being inclined to believe in the factuality of the claims around them, then there’s nothing unreasonable about it.
Like I said, this is a non sequitur, given what we were talking about. Fair enough, though, if you merely thought to point this out as an intentional non sequitur, and without implying that it bears on what we’d been talking about.
———-
“I would go one step further and say, whether from the hard sciences or someone’s meditation, don’t take it as “real” ”
I disagree completely with your attempt to conflate the claims of meditation with the claims of science. The former obviously one takes only as information and not as “real”, obviously — not unless there’s hard reasons to accept them. But what science tells us, there’s every reason to take it provisionally as “real”, even despite knowing the provisional nature of it.
Sure, we can, if we like, further suss out the details of the science itself, as far as specific claims, in order to evaluate if they passes muster, should we be willing to put in the time and effort. But it is nonsensical to suggest that one takes results from science as merely information, without taking them to be true, like one might with meditation.
———-
“When pythagoras claimed that the planets are actually slightly eliptical and not fullly spherical, how could he have known this finding that science would verify centuries later?”
Now *that* is indeed a substantive point! But here’s the thing, Spence: Claims of these types are often counterfeit. The Bible is full of such, starting with the obvious and laughable mistranslation of ‘young woman’ as ‘virgin’; as well as the many laughable attempts by Islamic “scholars” to pretend that modern day science was pre-empted in the Quran: to take two examples.
I agree that Pythagoras talking about elliptical planets was a remarkable thing. But that is something that does qualify as “information”, or rather as “apparent information”. One needs to make a thorough study of the subject, to fully convince that he did actually say that, and that it was not just some mistranslation or deliberate misrepresentation. Further, one needs to clearly understand the context of his saying that, in order to rule out happenstance.
That said, I agree that’s a remarkable data point. Absolutely worth looking up on.
Where I disagree with you completely, is in therefore concluding, already, and basis this patchy “evidence”, that meditation also offers us a route to understanding outer, objective realities.
———-
“science has its current day charlatans as well. Caveat Emptor.”
Sure. Agreed!
But that does not detract from what I’d said, at all. If you don’t imply such, and introduce that nuance only as a general word of caution: well then sure, I agree with you there.
———-
“I think that suggests this experience can be viewed without bias.”
On the contrary. That recognizes that we all have biases; and seeks, structurally, systematically, to adjust for any such bias.
———-
“What if a truly transcendent experience of direct reality simply cannot be understood by the human mind? Becaase, in part, the object and the observer are now One and not two? (…)
It’s a very sad thing to say that such an experience has no place in the “outer” or may I say dualistic reality where the human brain is the ceiling for understanding. (…) Or is it?”
Not at all. Nothing remotely sad about it. If its existence cannot even be understood by the human mind, then it is reasonable that the human mind should not be expected to believe in it. To take such claims seriously would be to throw open the floodgates for every charlatan and every delusional to parade their claims around — which is exactly what we see happening in the world, with religious claims.
And no, that is not, at all, keep one’s mind closed. One clearly recognizes the finite extent of one’s knowledge, vis-à-vis the infinitude of reality; and one also clearly recognizes, always, the provisional nature of everything one knows. And, in any case, nothing in what I’ve said stops us from further investigating any of this further. And nor does it prevent us from actually partaking in this, if one wishes to and is able to: that’s a matter of what one is “drawn to” (as discussed above, in an earlier section in this comment).
———-
Then this, from comment, that I had overlooked in my last comment:
“If I had never met a black person, or an asian, or a woman, I might have very biased and limited views about such people. But even if I had met them and known them, I might be judging them from the roles that my group of white guys thinks is the role appropriate to these “other” folks. My limited thinking from a limited conditioning, even parts of which I am not aware of. Because I wasn’t taking the time to put aside my notions and instead to learn about these people as they are, individually, within their own context and by their own voice. Instead I may broad brush them with some claim of who and what they are as “improbable…because I’ve never seen or heard of it before. Becuase in the past someone of their color or sex or orientation did this…so that’s what is likely for them.” (…) You see, this is also a rational reality: Bias. Does logical thinking provide you with a sense of reality that you like? It does provide that to me.”
You seem not to understand how the Burden of Proof works. Let me spell this out:
Should a claim be made tomorrow that there exist a race of men here on earth with green skin, then that is a claim of factuality, and will carry the burden of proof. We will not believe such a claim unless good evidence is provided.
Equally, given a race of green men, if it is claimed that they are lacking in intellect, then that too is squarely a matter of factuality, and carries the burden of proof. We will not believe such unless good evidence is provided.
You refer, clearly, to such pseudoscientific twaddle as The Bell Curve, and similar nonsense. That whole thing fails on three counts: First, the science itself is wanting, lacking. Second, it does not adequately address underlying issues, issues that address education and other inputs that go to making a man. And thirdly, and most importantly: the policy that follows on such observation, that is not a matter of science, but of how we wish to address the issue. (Instead of addressing the lopsided education and other inputs, the racists sought to further cement the inequities.)
———-
And this, about your recent-most comment, about measurement:
Spence, this is what you’d said to me in your last comment:
“But measurement doesn’t exist with zero. Hence, what cannot by definition exist must exist in order for anything else to exist.”
I’d shown you how that is wrong, incorrect. That we fix on some point as “zero” in our measurement schema, has nothing to do with whether such point exists. Two different, unrelated subjects, those. What it is reasonable to believe exists, is squarely a function of what we have evidence for.
What I’d said was clear enough. I’ve no idea why you do insist on doing your thing, again, of unleashing this spate of words to try to spin the obvious.
Had we elected to take -1,000 C as the zero point in our measurements, then that would not have no bearing on whether that actually exists as reality. Whether that exists as reality is squarely a matter of whether we have evidence for it. Regardless of whether or not we find it expedient to use as the zero ground for our measurements.

“@AR, Spence l, um, anyone
It is not my job to convert anyone. and what am i converting to anyway?
AR and I are simply exchanging ideas. AR is logical and precise. i am illogical and impossible to pin down on purpose.”
———-
Amazing comment. Given everything that went before, and given what this was a response to. And given that this was immediately followed by a further bot-like repetition of exactly the kind of nonsense that this discussion has been about, in the vid immediately following, as well as in your subsequent comment here.
Amazing; but at this point no longer surprising, really.
Go thou, Osho Robbins, and dissemble no more! …But that’s not happening, is it? So instead, let me just say: Go though, and keep on dissembling away: I at any rate know now what you’re about, and I’ll let you be after this.
…I wouldn’t have remarked now, except that you talk about thinking of doing this sort of thing “professionally”. That’s …
*makes a face, and refrains from actually voicing the obvious but distasteful (and, I suppose discourteous) inference*
That did call for some remark, I thought, even if not actually spelled out.
But even so, I’ll let you be after this.

Hi Appreciative
Check out the Kelvin scale. Very cool! Zero is absolute zero in a true ratio scale of measurement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin
And that necessity of zero is part of all measurement of physical reality.
As for the burden of proof you refer to, that presumes I can prove something to you.
Easier to justify what I already believe, and reinforce those of like prejudice.
So there are facts that exist and those things we call facts, from selections of premeses we choose.
At best the mind holds opinions.
Some are well informed. But all are ignorant of what we don’t yet know.

facepalm
The Kelvin scale is high school physics, Spence.
I said -1000 C. Very clearly. Then repeated it for emphasis, one more time, again very clearly. I don’t see how you could have possibly missed that.
If we found it expedient to use -1000 C as zero point in our measurements, then that has no bearing with whether -1000 actually exists. -1000 actually exists only if it has been shown to exist — whether by direct observation, or by indirect inference basis other observations —- completely regardless of whether or not we use that as our zero point in measurements.
We cannot magically conjure some hypothetical data point into existence, sans evidence, simply by defining that as the ground zero for our measurement schema.
———-
“As for the burden of proof you refer to, that presumes I can prove something to you.”
No, it emphatically doesn’t.
That was one of my disagreements with Osho Robbins, to clarify which I presented that tentative list of heuristics of rational thinking.
Regardless of whether you CAN prove something, you nevertheless carry the burden of proof when you make a claim. That your claim is such that it does not admit of proof at all, does not somehow absolve you of your burden of proof. It only means that your claim is fallacious, and should not be accepted as true —- certainly not by others, but first and foremost not by your yourself, if you’re a reasonable rational person.
Remember Carl Sagan’s garage dragon? Heh, I remember I’d christened him Shadowfax, after Gandalf’s steed, in that long discussion we’d had, some years ago, about a scientific worldview. If I present a claim about an invisible, undetectable dragon living in my garage, that defies all ways of gathering evidentiary support about: well then, that will not therefore absolve me of my burden of proof, and mean that it is reasonable to accept that my garage dragon exists, or even to be ambivalent about it: on the contrary, it makes sense to completely reject the claim, given the burden of proof has not been met.
Which, again, is not to remain closed-minded. We are welcome to keep on investigating my ethereal horse, my dragon, as much as we like, should we have the inclination and the time and the resources. But we are not to (reasonably) conclude that such might exist, or even remain ambivalent about such existing, pending/absent proof.
To remain ambivalent about the existence of Shadowfax is, like I said, to let loose the floodgates of all manner of unevidenced claims from every charlatan and every delusional. That demon-haunted world — hat tip to Carl Sagan again — is exactly what much of religion is about, and what much of our superstitions are about, and exactly what science shows us a way to lift ourselves out of.
———-
“But all are ignorant of what we don’t yet know.”
Sure. But, while true, that tautology is just a cliche, an empty platitude, that means nothing at all. What that does speak to is the humility to realize that our knowledge is finite and limited, while reality is infinite; and to further fully internalize the essentially provisional nature of our knowledge, and to always remain open to self-correction. As I’ve very clearly spelled out already in my comments to you in this thread.

” -1000 actually exists only if it has been shown to exist ”
Re-reading my comment, I thought I’d pre-emptively clarify one avenue that might present you with another chance to contort yourself up, one more time, to spin this away:
What I mean by the above is: “It is reasonable to believe that -1000 actually exists only if it has been shown to exist.”
Had these comments had an edit function, I’d have edited that phrasing. Absent that, this comment in clarification.
(Obviously, whether something actually exists is a different matter than whether we know something exists, or find it reasonable to believe something exists. But again, all that philosophical point points to is, like I said, the humility to appreciate the finite nature of our knowledge; vis-a-vis the infinitude of reality; and also the appreciation that all of our knowledge is provisional, always. Not in our loosening of our filters in deciding what is reasonable to believe. Not in having our brain fall out.)

Hi Appreciative:
Thanks for your replies.
You wrote:
“I said -1000 C. Very clearly. ”
I had referred to the necessity of zero in measures of reality. I referred to ratio scales. You had chosen to look at the Celsius scale and claimed that zero is just a numeric figure that could be placed at any point on a measurement scale.
I tried to explain absolute zero once again and that all measures of physical reality have a zero state. You can use the Kelvin scale or Celsius or Farenheit. All of them have measures of zero heat. Kelvin calls zero heat energy “0”, Celsius calls it -273, and Farenheit calls it -460. But the state of absolute zero energy is the same. Zero must exist for any reality to exist, at least any you can measure. And I pointed out this is a ratio scale.
You could have just accepted the facts I presented as truth. But instead you chose to argue that this is wrong.
And that is because acknowledging the fact that zero is real opens the door to understanding that there may well be a reality to Osho’s statement about something existing outside of time and space. Every theoretical physicist understands that as a very real possibility…like what existed before the big bang? Outside of time and space as we know it. And if that is true, then than exists today. Somewhere.
These aren’t my facts, AR, they are just facts, even the possibility of zero time, zero space is a possiblity based in facts.
And to go one step further, absolute measurement, and therefore the truth of Zero is critical for YOUR argument for absolute reality.
No measurement of reality can exist without, it, at some point, finding basis in a zero ratio scale.
Then you doubled down on your argument about burden of proof.
You wrote:
“Regardless of whether you CAN prove something, you nevertheless carry the burden of proof when you make a claim. That your claim is such that it does not admit of proof at all, does not somehow absolve you of your burden of proof. It only means that your claim is fallacious, and should not be accepted as true —- certainly not by others, but first and foremost not by your yourself, if you’re a reasonable rational person.”
What purpose is proof when even common scientific facts are not accepted in the dialogue?
Discovery is where it’s at!
What you call facts are really our shared educated opinions.
They have value, but they are just people’s understanding of what they recorded. These are mental conceptualizations, at best models.
I wrote:
“But all are ignorant of what we don’t yet know.”
And you commented:
“Sure. But, while true, that tautology is just a cliche, an empty platitude, that means nothing at all. ”
It means everything.
In the absence of context and the larger picture, what you claim are two related facts may be entirely unrelated.
Spiritual experience and illusion may look to you as identical. But if you don’t actually see spiritual experience, then you are just labelling something invisible to you with something else you do see.
You aren’t alone. Lot’s of people are trying to explain spiritual experience to people without any.
To you they look identical. But you are only seeing the one, illusion. To make the claim they are the same you need to see both. In reality, the two may well be millions of miles apart. How would anyone know unless they had some exposure to both?
Lacking that exposure, they cannot logically make any such claim at all.
All those things that don’t have evidence yet aren’t false. They may still be true. And all of reality you have no exposure to is true, because it is also part of reality, and awaits discovery.
And that’s why argument is of little value. Investigation, discovery, learning, these things are very real and work our attention. And of course unbiased observation, open mindedness, controlled observation, looking and listening are all skills of investigation, discovery, learning. Let’s hone them!

Hahaha, wow! Behold, Spence’s by-now famous corkscrew mind in action!
What was it that time, Spence? The scientific worldview thing, or the Aquinas thing? I think the latter. I’d likened a couple of your egregiously over-the-top-completely-disingenuously-twisted comments there to the Book of Punishment in Neil Stephenson’s Anathem, remember? A book so vile — intellectually vile, not morally so! — that to engage with it was considered to be the worst punishment the scholars of the monastery could be subjected to? A book so …haha, wait a minute, let me fetch it and look this up, it’s once again so very remarkably apposite: right, let me copy that part out: “(T)he contents of the Book had been crafted and refined over many centuries to be nonsensical, maddening, and pointless: flagrantly at first, more subtly as the chapters progressed. It was a maze without an exit, an equation that after weeks of toil reduced to 2 = 3. (…) The punishment lay in knowing that you were putting all that effort into letting a kind of intellectual poison infiltrate your brain to its very roots.”
You, Spence, are that Book personified! This last comment of yours is exactly Book of Punishment category, like exactly. Vile through and through in its complete, twisted dishonesty and deliberate incoherence — again, vile only in the intellectual sense, not morally so — so that to even engage with it makes one’s skin crawl, and makes one want to throw up.
Heh, when I’d mentioned this book then, and pointed out the egregiousness of your (intellectual) vileness in those two comments, I remember you’d been able, then, to uncoil your twisted mind out of that dishonest pattern, and, after a few days, you’d returned to address those same posts of mine again, with straight honest responses: and thereafter we did carry on with our discussion. Might you be able to do that this time as well? If you’re able to, then I’m happy to resume this discussion with you — but honestly and coherently this time, not this vile twisted disingenuous grotesquerie.
———-
But we’ll resume — assuming you want to, and are prepared to abide by those terms, like you did last time — after the holidays. I’m off now, tomorrow, for a couple weeks’ vacation, and don’t want to keep compulsively returning to commenting here while away!
And, as ever, Spence: no offense intended, and no personal insults implied! Just a clear description of exactly what you’re up to here — which description I am, as ever, fully prepared to clearly demonstrate, should you ask me to, by quoting chapter and verse as far as this last comment of yours. We go back long enough, I’m sure, and have done exactly this sort of thing enough times, for you to know exactly where I’m coming from, and that there’s absolutely no personal animosity or ill will involved, exactly the opposite.
Happy Christmas to you, Spence. My good wishes to you and yours.

:::boop:::
https://youtu.be/_wMU54gg3Sc?si=YfQZQ_5i5Qv82r7V

To the Oneness Teachers, who haven’t researched the Christian Bible,…….
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”
James 2:19,
Jim Sutherland

Did BBJ really say anything all that different? I mean, he offered that guy a perspective on how to meditate, not to throw meditation completely out the window.
If the the One is all there is, then how do we have an experience of the many? Either the One as such is a fantasy, or the many and the One operate simultaneously.

@umami,…..from how I understand, The ONE is IN the many, while the many some times might be in the ONE, but not too many at any one time.
Expanding on my understanding, here it is:
I’d like to claim direct communication with God, or that I hear audible voices in my head directing my every move. But, sorry to disappoint Y’all. I can’t hear the words to any particular language. But I DO feel I receive Divine Guidance, in my daily affairs, as long as I ASK my Creator for Grace. It comes at surprising times when I least expect it, or have given up on my own floundering around trying to solve my own problems!
I have read that our physical bodies might be compared to a miniature universe, or a “microcosm” formed in the image of the “Macrocosm.” If we compare, please consider the Macrocosm as our Ultimate Creator of each and every living thing on every planet, star, asteroid, in each Galaxy of the entire Universe! Now, THAT’s how Big I consider my Creator to be! Now, compare my present physical body as the miniature microcosm. Now, there is a lot going on in my microcosm body, from the top of my head to the tips of my toes! Most of it is going on without any assistance from me at all, or without any individual cell having the slightest clue about what its part of the entire process of maintaining this body involves. But, for sure, in order to me to be alive and animated, a “Portion”, no matter how small, of the same Electro-Magnetic Source that the Ultimate Creator is made of, is injected in me,………..and YOU, in order for us to be alive and in order to be able to experience consciousness in these particular bodies here on earth or ANY other planet! Cool stuff, Huh? So, the Bible taught me that my body is a “Temple of God, and The Holy Spirit Dwells in this Temple.” ( paraphrased.) I found that out 35 years ago, and stopped using tobacco and alcohol right away, and have never used either since! ( Didn’t want to take the chance of smoking the Holy Ghost out of the Temple!!)
Now, as my pea brain visualizes how the Ultimate Creator communicates with me, is by “Trickle Down” Holy Spirit Vibration. As I understand, ALL, I mean ALL, Creation exists within the domain, or Spiritual Vehicle of our Ultimate Creator we call God. So, in order to communicate with, and guide me, this Electro-Magnetic Holy Spirit Vibration comes to me in the form of “Intuitions”, “Ringing Radiance” that is an inner ear Sound that constantly rings like buzzing bees in both ears when ever I concentrate or my mind is silent; and also as Inner Light, manifesting in the middle of my forehead when I sit quietly with physical eyes closed concentrate my attention there.
I believe I have had other past lives, because of personalities I have, so my “Oversoul” encompasses me, or my physical body, and is actually my Spirit Guide” while in this physical body. This Spirit Guide is none other than Myself, which includes the totality of every single experience I have ever had in every single physical body or species on any given planet since my Ultimate Creator manifested life in me and decided to share creative experience with me! Cool, Huh? Now, during this time, I obviously must have had many physical Teachers, Masters, Gurus, Saviors, Parents, Siblings, friends, enemies, etc, etc. It can really get complicated, when trying to figure it all out. But, in simplicity,or Laymen’s terms, no matter how many Channels, Levels, physical or Spiritual,s this Electro-Magnet Holy Spirit Vibration of Creationt takes to reach us, and animate us, God never looses our channel,…..as long as we keep our Radio/Receivers turned on, ready to receive the latest communication from Spiritual Headquarters! Hope this make sense, without quoting thousands of Scriptures, and Holy Writings have already been written for those “who have ears to hear, and eyes to see.”
It is no Secret,……….What God can do. What He’s done for others, He’ll do for YOU!”
Jim Sutherland

Jim,
Yes. Sant Mat 101. Macrocosm in the microcosm. Ocean in a bottle.
To borrow from Spence, simple but not easy.

Not a Drop
Every Soul is 110% GOD – Totally
in temporally voluntary hyper amnesia
Wow
Great IQ EQ QE
777

@unami and 777, there once was a man named Job, who imagined he was God also. But he found out he wasn’t , the hard way, as I hope you never have to be tested as Job was , and by Satan, who also Imagined he was God, and cast out of Heaven.
Job 38:4-7
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
Can either of you god men answer these question asked of Job?
Jim Sutherland

As I told:
In 1850 I was a kind of Halliburton mass murderer
How can I be proud?
777

JOB never said he was God
1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.
2 He had seven sons and three daughters,
3 and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.
4 His sons used to hold feasts in their homes on their birthdays, and they would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them.
5 When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular custom.
6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.
7 The LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”
8 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied.
10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land.
11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
12 The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.” Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.
13 One day when Job’s sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother’s house,
14 a messenger came to Job and said, “The oxen were plowing and the donkeys were grazing nearby,
15 and the Sabeans attacked and made off with them. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”
16 While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, “The fire of God fell from the heavens and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”
17 While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, “The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and made off with them. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”
18 While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, “Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother’s house,
19 when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”
20 At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship
21 and said: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart.The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.”
22 In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.
This is a Jahweh / Brahma / Proctor_god ( astral region or lower )
Romeo / Juliet story is better and based on LOVE

@7, you wrote,…” This is a Jahweh / Brahma / Proctor_god ( astral region or lower )”
I agree.
Jim Sutherland

Therefore the first word is his frequency, . . a PASS Port
I don t know if I already told the following about ORBS
It. happened after an afternoon with rain and lightening
I m on the couch and Help 4 meters fro me standing in the kitchen.
The a ball lighning One meter diameter came inside our room
and enveloped Helda. She felt consciousness and it expanded around her
to 2 meters
She said : the inside was Orange – I couldn t believe my eyes
It dissapeard through the one phase pd three phases 3 x 220 Volt
power line
We lost Power – The lightning circuit breaker was destroyed
& new one was 800 $
Duration was 8 seconds
We have 2 Ecoflows power units 2 x 2000 Watt. but non connected to the grid

All this chatter. Have any of you actually died while living?

@Aiya,….I’m listening to a guy right now, who really died while living, as I have many times, ….but I chose my Technique, whereas he chose a different way.
If you don’t listen to his testimony, he claims to have been out of body watching Surgeons do brain surgery on him!
I was also out of my body, watching a Doctor and his Anesthesiologist do a Colonoscopy on me! I watched it all, from a space 50 feet away, looking down on them from the ceiling, and felt extreme jolts of pain when Palups were cut off! I watched the Surgeon remove the wand from my butt, and walk to the sink where I was hovering over it, watching him. I was afraid he’d see me, but my Astral body must have been invisible to him.
But, as far as dying while living, all OBEs and NDEs are not complete death, because until our Silver cord, is severed completely, from the physical body, real death has not yet occurred.
But please tell us you died and are back here to school us.
https://youtu.be/vcS1_286C8M
Jim Sutherland

Hi Osho
Bad memory
I had no time to search

@AR, umami, 777, 7, Jim
This podcast says it all.
https://youtu.be/tTXCgAAbh2c?si=OMTArlryn3dVMO5M
the followers cannot ignore an important statement like the oneness as it is fundamental to the teachings

@AR, umami, 777, 7, Jim
this is the video the podcast is about
https://youtu.be/N8kSF8BEeks?si=jct6M68-q4iCTqTu

this video of
Maharaj Charan Singh Ji
says the same – there is only God
https://youtu.be/zTZW_w2EGeM?si=UmCBVX_Ve72N8QP1

https://youtu.be/tTXCgAAbh2c

@Osho, …If that is the revised Sant Mat Faith, that you and GSD are teaching, than I renounce being a Disciple. But I’m not throwing the Baby,…..i.e. , “The Lord” out with the bath water. In my belief, “The Lord” who will be coming for me at death, and escorting me to Beyond, will be my Higher Self/Causal body.
Jim Sutherland

It’s so simple
God created Souls to enjoy TOGETHER Pleasures and Pain
If We have deprived Her from this fun , . . SO BE IT
777
PS
I wonder if ex discipels can chase The Master from their 6th Chakra at Death
I think that s possible
Then KAL which is a state of mind rapidly jumps in
10th time : We go where 777our heart already is

@Jim
clearly GSD hasn’t switched over fully. This type of dialogue is rare, because most followers cannot relate to it.
he says it in the answer of the very next question when he says “you won’t be able to take it”
A personal being such as Sat Purush is impossible. why? because the eternal cannot have form.
the eternal is necessarily formless and timeless.
if there is a form, and a place (sach khand) to take souls to – that is within time and space – so cannot be forever

@Jim
Where is your higher self going to escort your soul to?
and will you remain a separate soul?
these are fundamental duality questions.
duality is within time and space. there is movement – coming going etc.
in non-dual oneness – there is nothing – no separate soul, no place to go

@osho,…do you subscribe to the possibility that you might be a Multi-Dimensional Entity, simplified by the Bible Trinity, of The Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit?
Or as Theosophy has taught, simplifying a Physical body, Astral body, and Casual body, all connected by what they call, the Etheric body,…which I coined as “The Condom of the soul”.
And, of course, the Agra Soamibagh Parent RADHASOAMIS , some of them, divide our Multi-Demential bodies in to 18 different regions.
Do you buy ANY of the above possibilities, as you exist right now, or are you absolutely certain you are THE ONE, right now, and GSD is also merged in the ONE, right now. If so, do you feel him? Are you presently thinking the same thoughts? If so, what am I thinking right now, if I am also ONE?
Jim Sutherland

THIS is what GSD means when he says “you won’t be able to take the truth”
The thing about souls, sack khand, travelling, merging etc only happens in duality and cannot be forever.
everything in duality has to die.
it’s born, lives, dies. ir can’t be eternal.
it CAN be for a “VERY LONG TIME” but it has to have an end. hence the teachings on dissolution and grand dissolution
so anywhere there are souls, there has to be the whole package.
so are there houses? cars? mansions? and jobs? commerce? shops?
do you eat food? do yoi get Ill?
can you die of old age?
what age do you live upto?
as soon as you buy into the separate self, these questions all arise.
then there is no eternal.
so this coulf be the “heavens” etc which are for a limited period

@osho,…well, if all are ONE, why do you have almost 90,000 subscribers following you! Are each of them also ONE?
If each of those subscribers donate $1.00 a year to your podcasts, have you already quit your Day job?
Jim Suthetland

Man, And His Bodies,….pdf, a 120 pages free book, sorts out the simplicity of ONE, and is similar to Sant Mat and Bible Teaching of who we are.
https://archive.org/details/manhisbodies00besa
Jim Sutherland

This is copied from the book, page 78. That makes the most simplified sense to me.
“All of us who are beginning to understand some-
thing of this causal body can make its evolution a defi-
nite object in our life ; we can strive to think unselfishly
and so contribute to its growth and activity. Life after
life, century after century, millennium after millennium,
this evolution of the individual proceeds, and in aiding
its growth by conscious effort we are working in har-
mony with the divine will, and carrying out the purpose
for which we are here. Nothing good that is once woven
into the texture of this causal body is ever lost, nothing
is dissipated; for this is the man that lives for ever.”
Jim Sutherland

“this video of
Maharaj Charan Singh Ji
says the same – there is only God”
Osho,
Yes. In the video Maharaj Ji explains, separateness is an illusion of Self. God is within. Self is the obstacle to uniting with God within. How to remove the obstacle? Meditate on Shabd.
Shabd is the nuclear core of Sant Mat. Anything else (video, book, discourse, guru) is of the containment structure.
• Meditate on Shabd •
(then teachings are the same)
• No such thing as Shabd •
(then teachings have changed)
Which does GSD teach?
Which do you teach?

@Jim
you wrote “@osho,…well, if all are ONE, why do you have almost 90,000 subscribers following you! Are each of them also ONE?”
the answer appears all over the guru granth sahib. and charan singh also quotes it.
like a reflection in the mirror, it appears to be there. break the glass and nothing is there. it was a reflection.
the many is like the reflection – an appearance.
also explained here
https://youtube.com/shorts/sEP_otGBp6s?si=P66muDYti7wI6TJb

@Umami
“How to remove the obstacle? Meditate on Shabd.”
it doesn’t say meditate on the shabd’ – that is a RSSB innovation.
the obstacle is HAUMI. the separation we feel, that “I am a separate self”
the solution is to imbibe
“gur ka shabd”
listen to the words of the guru
( varanatmik ) to understand and then
allow that to be your truth (realize)
this is dhunatmik – free you. how?
because you have realized.
RSSB followers take Shabd to the the sound, and spend their whole life seeking it.
some never find it, some hear it occasionally. some hear it constantly.
if you are trying to hear, you will hear something – that is the delusion
gurbani is saying the wisdom of the guru about oneness. – that is shabd

@Jim Sutherland
i am not denying we have bodies.
we can see the physical body.
in the dream state, we experience the dream in our astral body.
i am saying the only real thing is the timeless formless.
The other bodies exist but they are born, live and die

Osho,
In the video link you posted
https://youtu.be/zTZW_w2EGeM?si=UmCBVX_Ve72N8QP1
MCS, unless he’s mistranslated, clearly instructs to meditate on Shabd.
Fair enough. You disagree and teach Gurbani instead.
Your radical thesis seems to be that GSD also teaches Gurbani INSTEAD, but I might have misinterpreted.
MCS quoted the Bible all the time. Was he teaching Christianity instead?
Big questions:
• Is Shabd divine, satanic or delusional?
• Is the Satguru genuine?
• What would Gurbani (or any scripture) have over a genuine, living Satguru? Weren’t the Sikh gurus genuine, living Satgurus of their time?

@Osho,….I Peter 3:22, “ Now Christ has gone to heaven. He is seated in the place of honor next to God, and all the angels and authorities and powers accept his authority”
And Born again Christians in Collisions 1:27,….” To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
So, my Higher Self meets Jim at death, and escorts him back to his ‘MOTHER SHIP”, which is his Causal Body archived with all past incarnations since the first incarnation.
And then, 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man, Jesus Christ.
Once all Karmas are completely balanced, our Causal Body will be escorted to Heaven, or Sach Khand, or back to Christ , Who is with “The Father. “
Consider your soul having Eons ago been released through the Grand Cosmic Check Valve of The Father. A Check Valve only allows flow in one direction. There is no back flow through THE FATHER Check Valve.
Christ sits at the right hand of the Father as the Mediator of man, For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ
Perhaps it’s time for you to accept Christ as your Mediator, Osho. There’s always room for one more.
Jim Sutherland

@Osho, https://www.christianwebsite.com/what-does-god-sound-like/
Jim Sutherland

Shabd is the Word of God made flesh.
Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
Romans 10:17,…. “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.”
So, HEARING SHABD, WHICH IS THE WORD, builds Faith, IN CHRIST.
No disrespect OSHO, but your ONE Jargon is confusing genuine Spiritual Seekers,
Jim Sutherland

Where is your higher self going to escort your soul to?
and will you remain a separate soul?
Integration on a need to know only
Total collapse if u like – Everything except the pure sincere Move
RESONANCE for Lovers
Pick your choice
777

@Unami,
you are correct that MCD advocates meditation on Shabd.
That has always been a central theme throughout RSSB, right from swami ji onwards.
That is what keeps the disciple in a state of doing, trying to attain.
now listen to the podcast.
If God is ever present and here and not a goal, then what is the need for a goal.
what is here, doesn’t need any action to attain it. it just requires a surrender to the truth.
watch this
https://youtube.com/shorts/bRMUoYY62ec?si=EggzeWqPa8diTA28
through effort it cannot happen
kin bidh mile

@Umami
I am not saying gurbani is the way.
the gurbani is the words of those gurus.
we have to figure out the real meaning of
shabd. Naam, hukam, jap.
Naam = realization of God
hukam = God, and all that us happening
Shabd – the words the satguru is speaking
when they become your truth, the shabd becomes Naam ( realization)
jap does not mean to repeat words
it means to ponder
often it says shabd vichar
that means ponder the guru’s words

Big questions:
• Is Shabd divine, satanic or delusional?
• Is the Satguru genuine?
• What would Gurbani (or any scripture) have over a genuine, living Satguru? Weren’t the Sikh gurus genuine, living Satgurus of their time?
asked UMANI
We all are Shabd in our own frequency – the root tone is divine
We all are Satguru but in particular voluntary temporal amnesia
temporal can be a long time if stopping at all regions
( which are phases / states of consciousness )
again : WE MAKE THOSE REGIONS )
We can answer if we see these Sikh Gurus
but we might be blinded by their radiance.Adi Granth
gives answers too – Special Goal Sing s translation which is enlightening
I find special :
Alakh Agam Anami – Is not boring
777
What I liked
Q : When I go meditating
A : GSD starts to say No NO

For those still on the fence, and are compelled to become initiated, but can not decide which Guru, ….”has the Juice”, if I was still one of you, as I was in the mid to early 80s, here is what I’d be considering right now. ( I didn’t do enough of my own, Due Diligence then, but I definitely WAS compelled to seek Initiation, but, as a Born Again Christian, I already HAD Christ in my heart, and life, and felt I had Eternal Security. ( My blog shares my Journey)
But back to right now. To Readers here, there is the most information available on the Internet, about Gurinder Sing Dhillan.
And it appears, his only Competitor, here, as of late, shopping for Desciples is our, Resident, Osho Robbins, who has now gone public on YouTube, and is getting wide appearances on YOUTUBE Shorts. Every time I open you tube, OSHO is on a Short, at the top of the page, preaching ONE ness.
Plus, every one here by now must be familiar with Guru Rajinder Singh, Kirpal Singh’s Grand Son, continuing the Family Business of SOS.
So, considering all of the negative information of Gurinder’s past, posed here, if I was still a Seeker, not yet initiated, and was COMPELLED to do so, I’d certainly choose to try and expedite getting initiated by Gurinder, than floundering around, by waiting for the untested GSG Guru of RSSB to take leadership of RSSB, if large numbers of followers are what would draw me to the Guru.
But, cutting to the Case. As per my personal belief , for what ever it’s worth:
BOTH Charan and Gurinder Singh have said they aren’t Masters. And BOTH have said the the real Master is the Shabd.
So, I’d want to have some one who knows how to connect me to this mysterious Shabd, share it with me, if they are willing. I’d do my best to take what ever Vows they suggested, that would connect me to the Shabd the quickest.
Sooo,…consider,;;
John 1:1, The WORD was WITH God, and became God, IN THE FLESH!
I’ve recently shared many Bible verses that describe this Word being sharper, than a 2 edged Sword, able to do, exactly what the Shabd does, to Sant Mat Intiates!
I have even shared the Sant Mat Technique of Meditation here, several times, and also on my blog.
So, again, The Word is Christ, Shabd, Master, Guru, …….ALL agreed on, by RSSB Masters.
So, for those already initiated by any Guru, you should feel secure as long as you believe that your Guru has, or Had, Christ in them, The Hope of Glory, which is The Word/Christ/Shabd made flesh!
So, hope this helps.
Choose wisely, or at least, give your choice and practice a decent test, of at least a year. If it doesn’t produce enough of the promises, move on, and keep searching.
Jim Sutherland

Typo. GSG should have been JSG, Gurinder’s new Sheep Lord.
Jim Sutherland

*looks in to check if The Book of Punishment hath chosen to speak in this while, and if the discussion is to be resumed*
Not, apparently.
*shrugs*

@AR, umami, 777, 7, Jim
This podcast says it all.
https://youtu.be/tTXCgAAbh2c?si=OMTArlryn3dVMO5M
the followers cannot ignore an important statement like the oneness as it is fundamental to the teachings
Posted by: Osho Robbins | January 04, 2025 at 03:24 AM
——————–
They’re both of them nonsensical screeds, I think we’ve established that by now, Osho Robbins.
Sure, so apparently the bearded crook’s peddling a different cock and bull story than his forebears and predecessors. And apparently those predecessors had said a hundred different things at a hundred different times, one or two of which can be cherry picked to show a similarity with the latter. Big deal.
The point is, it’s all nonsense anyway. Choose this fiction, choose that one, what difference does it make?
(Haven’t watched the vids. Can imagine what it is. Going by your two comments addressed to me, inter alia.)
I don’t see why the latter fiction’s any better than the former. It’s all unsupported fiction.