A guru should know if he is God

Brian interesting new thread. Thank you.
You shared some of your thoughts/feelings on how you see RS and it seems that you have different moments when you remember the good memories and experiences and then you ask what it all means and you feel the opposite. I like your honesty.
Regarding your take on whether BJ or Charan are GIHF, I for one did believe that, for a long time. Oh yeah, it suited me at the time to hand over my ity bity life to someone who seemed to have a lot of the answers and could ‘save’ me from the eternal hell fires. And it worked while I needed it.
When I got on my feet so to speak, from feeling I was in the gutter and worthless and began to have a good look around, I started to view things differently. It seemed like I had a different vantage point. As I said before, I always rebelled against ‘silly’ rules and had a weak stomach for people telling me how I should behave around a person who was ‘God’ basically. My idea was, why should I pretend and act in a way that doesn’t feel natural to me, as in sit quietly and don’t talk out of place and be pushed into line to allow for this ‘God’ person to do his own thing. ‘Don’t annoy him and keep out of his way was the general message. You are only dirt on his feet.’
Even when I happened to get an interview, I was told how to ‘address’ him and what not to say. Well in my rebellious mind, I cried to myself ‘I’ll say what I like’, though I did keep my thoughts private so it looked like I was playing along with the rules, until I got to the interview.
Why should I behave differently to someone who is supposedly God and accepts me for who I am, warts and all. Is that not ‘playing games?’ If for instance, I was to meet one of my children or a best friend whom I hadn’t seen for a long time, would I try to ‘behave’ in a certain way? No, I would act from how I felt and not be someone who I wasn’t, so that aspect of RS really gets up my nose – when I allow it. After all, isn’t ‘God’ supposed to love and accept you (no punishment) just the way you are? After all, he supposedly created me (us all) so surely knows the workings of all things.
I am beginning to see though, that people are people and we all coming from different places so I suppose I am getting a bit more understanding from the ‘other’ side of things not just my own personal point. I do however see why they may do this as, ‘we’ can all have the tendency to smother him and think by touching or being in contact with him in this way, we shall ‘get grace’. Ha I use to be there myself. lol
I think BJ anyway, I wasn’t around during Charan’s days, tries all the time to ‘put’ us straight and is constantly saying he is no different than any of us. I see him trying to break our deluded perceptions/beliefs all the time by saying things like ‘I could be a big fraud up here’or ‘I am no different than anyone else’. I take it that we are all part of ‘God’ or the ‘One’. The message I hear from him is that there is no difference in any of us, we are all made from the same stuff! Some may be more or less aware of that. And that too is ok. If we think back to our earlier days, we all had our weird notions, whether we admit it or not.
We all have the same basic feelings when you get down to it – ok we have different experiences or stories but it seems to boil down to the fact that we are no different than anybody else. Maybe some of us are more aware or in touch with this (or not) but still the same essence.
I find it interesting when Brian says :
”So, yes, I do feel somewhat bitter when I think about this: either Charan Singh and Gurinder Singh actually are God in human form, or they are liars. I find the former possibility extremely unlikely.
Which leaves me with the latter”
It seems to me that either point can equally true for Brian at different times from his thoughts at that moment. Why do we think it can be either one way or the other and then grab onto that and make it a belief? (hey we all can do it) It is like we try to reason out things in our mind and come up with a solid conclusion thereby cutting ourselves off from flowing along and become stagnant in our non movement with life, as we have now grasped onto the ‘answer’. Can these things be known from the minds perspective?
Maybe BJ feels he is God and see’s we are all God too but just haven’t realised it for ourselves. After all, how can we be any different? We can be at different places but still….
Brian says:
” There is, though, a bit of bitterness that lingers in my psyche. Once in a while I think about something guru-related that irritates me. It bothers me when it comes to mind — and I feel justified in this botheration
And
” If the guru really, truly, actually knows that he is God, able to do all kinds of miraculous supernatural things, then he should be upfront about this.
If BJ could or do these things it would be a different story or part of the same. You would have ‘disciples’ who would ‘throw’ themselves at his feet and you would have ‘disciples’ who would say, it is not about these miraculous things, he is just a con using these things as spectacles to get money, power etc. There seems no angle from which BJ can win from our minds. It is like he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
I don’t think it is about someone proving to us what or who he is anyway. Even for argument sake, let us say he did prove it in some way that ‘suited’ us all, what then? What good would it be for us? We have to realise for ourselves, our own enquiry. Again, nobody can eat and digest the food for us and we cannot expect to get any nourishment from them from this act. Ok, we can get pointers, directions, but the journey is one we have to take ourselves (even if it is to realise there never was a journey)
It is funny to me because we sometimes don’t take responsibility for our agenda’s that we put on the situation. In my own case, yes RS was going to save me from hell, yes it now makes me special, etc and all the other childish notions I had.
If I blame RS/BJ for leading me astray, I am fooling myself. I believed what I was telling myself and even if you say but ‘the books say it, I heard it at satsang…….’ I still bought the package because it suited me. Nobody forced me to believe anything.
It amazes me too as some people say ‘Marina you have a light grip on RS, fair play to you’ and then it comes across ‘Marina, you are a hypocrite you are not following the rules’.
Ah BJ, I do feel for you – I am damned if I do (practise RS to the ninth degree) and I am damned if I don’t ( take it lightly). Oh the paradox! :))
Saying that, I do feel for us all!
Marina 🙂

All we could ask of a half-decent human being, let alone one of ‘guru’ status, is that they tell us the Truth as they ‘see’ &/or understand it.
It doesn’t matter how hard that Truth is to swallow or how hard it might be for us to then understand & live with, it is the responsibility of any half-decent human being – let alone one of ‘guru’ status – to state that Truth irrespective and, in doing so, let us decide whether or not to act upon it.
Half-truths, half-baked philosophies, personally untested &/or unrealised notions should be stated as such. And, this is the rub vis-a-vis RSSB gurus; of Babaji-G in particular.
Why? Because we, us human beings, harbour a hope that any half-decent person, let alone one of ‘guru’ status, will have the bottle to make their position – that is their level of understanding &/or so-called realisation – absolutely clear. And, isn’t this especially the case when we are likely to invest so much of our lives in following the teachings of such a person? Then, doesn’t speaking the Truth of it all become a hugely moral responsibility?
For at least the first 8/9 years of Babaji-G’s reign it was patently obvious that he didn’t have a clue. Hence, his motivation was primarily one of ‘bums-on-seats’. This, and this alone, became the quantity rather than quality marker of his measurable outer-success as the ‘new’ model guru. And, now he is left with that legacy.
He simply never stated the Truth of his position – his understanding – from the outset & was clearly prepared to play the ‘guru’ game, so allowing us – the masses & muggins of the Sangat – to fill-in-the-gaps. In other words, by virtue of not stating his position, he allowed us to create the ‘ideal’!
True, he has now garnered more inner understanding, but he is left with that legacy; a legacy founded upon a loada half truths. And, so how can he ever be trusted again? When it mattered, he actually never had the bottle. That is the be-all-and-end-all of it; that is the crux of it all! He is a man of very little real courage.
And one thing is for sure, stated here with some grateful understanding garnered in spite of RSSB gurus;
Babaji-G – whatever his new take on old teachings – is definitely NOT cut from the same cloth as Ramana nor has he even half the bottle of a Fakir Chand!

I remember sitting in a home satsang of the RS mid-west representative and he
Quoted charan singh as saying to him “one day you’ll hate me”, he was puzzled by
That he said. I try to refrain from hating them and have tried to move on
And not hold a deep resentment that isn’t good for me. But, I can
Say that cult of evil ruined 25 years of my life. Charan singh and
The other frauds liers has given me decades of unhappiness and misery.
Spiritual terrorist is what they are. Think of the great terrorist sawan
Telling everybody they have a 100 thousand scorpions’ stings
Waiting for them at the time of death. Or the misery and agony
Or the poor families that believe one of their loved ones has gone to
Lowest form of existence imaginable, never to gain the human form
Again because they committed suicide. And guilt complex those Frauds daily lay on their follows. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. It’s hideous what they do. All to gain wealth and grow the dera.
(btw, the mid-west rep no longer practiced RS in the later part of his life).
lou

Marina, in some ways I resonate with your position that each of us is responsible for our beliefs. However, I think this only holds true in certain areas.
You wrote, “Why do we think it can be either one way or the other and then grab onto that and make it a belief?”
Well, the answer is that in many cases it truly CAN only be either one way or the other. There’s no in-between. The Earth either is round (nearly so, at least), or it isn’t. The Earth either orbits the sun, or it doesn’t.
I believe the Earth is round and that it orbits the sun because the weight of evidence supports these facts. And I trust the scientists who have investigated these questions and told me what the truth is.
The way I see it, either Gurinder Singh knows that he has the godly powers attributed to him by his devotees, or he knows that he doesn’t. I don’t see how it is possible that a guru wouldn’t know whether he can guide souls back to God, appear to them at the time of death, or know the secrets of higher spiritual regions.
So in this case I don’t think it’s true that RSSB initiates are solely or even mainly responsible for believing that the guru is god. The guru encourages this belief by not explicitly telling the truth about what he knows, or doesn’t know.
Again, for the guru they aren’t two equally valid beliefs, two uncertainties that nobody can be sure about: whether he has divine supernatural powers, or not. There is a definite truth here, and the guru knows what it is. For him not to explicitly reveal this: that’s untruthful and manipulative.

Think about it. This whole thread, if we are quite honest here, the assumption is that he is most certainly NOT Divine in Human Garb and he should admit it.
But, hey, what if he were the Divine in Human Garb? Would we believe him if he said so? No. I wouldn’t. What proof(s) would I demand? I can think of NONE that I would not end up dismissing, calling a cheap trick, or getting some lab-coat from a Skeptic’s Society to explain away. Why? Because I don’t want him to be the Real Deal, that’s why. Why don’t I want him to be the Real Deal? Cause I’ve “moved on”. It would be really inconvenient.

Brian wrote:
“So in this case I don’t think it’s true that RSSB initiates are solely or even mainly responsible for believing that the guru is god. The guru encourages this belief by not explicitly telling the truth about what he knows, or doesn’t know.
I will agree to disagree Brian.
The way I see it is that even if I give you the point that “the guru encourages this belief” WHO is more than willing to believe that encouragement and WHY?
Even if he did come out and tell us that yes he has supernatural powers, what good will that do?
Some of us will cry – give us proof!!!
other may cry – oh let me hang on to you even more!
And who knows…..
Marina 🙂

Marina, sure — if the guru said he had supernatural powers, naturally ( (and others) would want proof of this. Likewise, if someone claimed he could guarantee investors a 20% return in the stock market every year, without fail, I’d also want proof of that.
You seem quite forgiving of duplicitous behavior. If the above-mentioned supposed investment expert went around making false claims that he could make lots of money for people with no risk, don’t you think this would be wrong?
Just as it would be wrong if a used car salesman said “This vehicle is in perfect condition,” whereas actually he knew that the engine had serious problems?
I don’t think it is proper to always put the blame for holding a belief on the believer. This would mean that scam artists, cheats, frauds, and such would get a free ride from society and be above the law.
When someone agrees to enter into a transaction with someone else, whether it involves money or not, we have a right to expect a fairly high degree of transparency and honesty. The guru agrees to initiate a person in exchange for a commitment of 2.5 hours of meditation a day and holding to other vows.
In exchange, the RSSB teachings clearly say that the guru will remain with the initiate in his radiant form all through life, and also guide the disciple at the time of death. This is a pretty damn strong and important commitment. If it isn’t true, if the guru can’t do the things that are promised, this is a fraudulent transaction and the blame falls on the guru.
Again, our legal systems frown on false advertising and blatantly false performance claims. Sure, some stretching of the truth is allowed in marketing, but not wholesale lies. If a guru actually has no divine supernatural powers, that’s a huge lie — given the promises of the RSSB teachings.

We’re conditioned to believe this or that, be it a guru or a pope or the cards or whatever. When someone successfully seizes the opportunity to exploit this condition, he’s held more acountable than the suckers he’s exploited, but that he IS more accountable is just another belief.

cc, by your reasoning, wouldn’t everything be a belief? Meaning, there are no facts, no consensual human agreement about how the world is? And isn’t what you said in your comment just another belief?
The world is a lot more regular, ordered, and predictable than you seem to be assuming. Some things only exist in our own minds as beliefs; other things are quite stable and can be observed/ experienced by people other than us.
If a guru claims that he is objectively capable of doing things that actually he can’t, I say that he should be held accountable for this. If I take my car to someone and he says, “Sure, I know how to fix it,” and he turns out to be incompetent, I’m justified in holding him accountable — because he told me something that wasn’t true.

Brian, when you say
“I don’t think it is proper to always put the blame for holding a belief on the believer. This would mean that scam artists, cheats, frauds, and such would get a free ride from society and be above the law.
I think we could change the word blame to responsibility as ‘blame’ has a negitive connotation and can mislead. We could use the word – responsibility.
I still stand that it is up to the individual person to take responsibility for whatever they believe (have believed) and look at as to why, the belief(s)arose.
For instance what payoff? Is it one possibility that we feel or have felt so desperate to ‘know’ or ‘experience’ something we feel is missing in us etc,that we are blinded by that very desire and are willing to ‘believe’ anything as long as it seems to have the potential to fullfill that desire?
I don’t see it as being taken for a ride. We do our homework, that is what I say.
For me, I will speak for myself. If I have any blame or anger at someone and leave it at that and seemingly move on with life, there is a subtle feeling of something left unfinished, that’s what I do know.
The other side of some questions that you brought up;
Do we know if guru is NOT with us all our lives in his radiant form? Do we really know for sure?
Do we know if he won’t guide us through death? Is he not the very same essence as all of us? Could it be possible that ANY form can meet us or express itself to us at the time of death in whatever form we trust?
For me, I don’t know the answers to these questions either way. But I will remain open…..
Marina 🙂

The fraud isn’t just theoretical.
The fraud is on an astronical finacial scale in ‘real’ terms primarily affecting the most vulnerable. The Ghif has amassed an enourmous fortune (as did his predicessors) perpetuating falsehoods.
I’m talking about the impoverished masses who labor in the agricultural and contruciton projects of dera and westerners and others who also labor and donate and assign inheritances…..now to a billionaire Napoleonic clown named Gurinder.
Check the founding publication ‘Origin and Growth’ which Gurinder had removed from circulation which states that all donations become the personal property of the Guru to do with as he pleases and other principles of looting in the name of spiritualism….
It really bothers me when so called spiritually focused indviduals are willing to gloss over what is obvious in order to elevate ‘spritual ego’ or ‘feel good affilitaions’.

the whole notion of GIHF is an utter absurdity – he might be a very nice and even a very wise man, but there is no-one on this earth that is perfect. No-one has all the answers and no-one is all-powerful. Its complete nonsense.

Brain puts his faith in science even though science is impotent when it comes to giving meaning to the character of human experience. All science can do is explain how things work. It is incapable of giving meaning to any answers in terms of a “why” to anything.
And even if science can explain the half that is the “how”, there is no reason to think that there is some future explanation that will reveal the intricacies of life and existence. Does knowledge of the law and existence of gravity render existence any more or less meaningful? Of course not. But there are shades of grey. Brian doesn’t believe there are shades of grey. His position is naive because based on the idea “there is either a God or there isn’t”. Because he fails to recognise that making a paradox like that blinds him to consider the limitations of his senses.
There is no such thing as a pure atheist just as there is no such thing as christianity in America without denominational difference. When people say they lack belief in God or they lack belief in something, it just means they DON’T believe in it. Period. But people like Brian claim that answers lie in black and white man-made investigative endeavours called “science” and that there is no God. Don’t be mistaken here – Brian thinks with his limited brain tissue that there is no God and his arrogance informs him that he needs to broadcast this tripe to the world through his little internet blog. Don’t fall for it. It is not as simple and black and white as he, in his big ego ship, wants people to believe.
The trouble is, he claims to know things that nobody knows. Just like theists claim to know that their God exists, he claims to know that there is no God whatsoever. But he does not know this anymore than he really knows the truth or falsehood of the people’s belief in their own God.
His testimony is spurious and incomplete.
As to this man that claims to be “god in human form” that is impossible because it donotes inequality of mutual existence.

Science is not arrogant, it simply makes a claim supported by evidence.
If anything is arrogant, its those that make claims that science is arrogant without providing a shred of evidence for there own beliefs. They simply shout down others having the temerity to question those views without evidence.
You do not have to have a single iota of faith in science, it is all personally verifiable. You can toss an apple in the air and it will fall to the ground with a particular value of gravitational acceleration each and every time. You do not have to have faith in this, you can go outside and do the experiment yourself. Everyone all over the world can do the experiment and measure the results.
Now instead, the scientists are branded as arrogant because someone claims to be god in human form without a single shred of evidence therefore.

dr, obviously you don’t read my posts very carefully.
I talk all the time about shades of gray. I’ve never said that I’m 100% sure that God doesn’t exist. What I say is that there is no evidence for God, as there is for other objectively real things.
Maybe God is an idea that gives meaning to your life. That’s great. I enjoy a highly meaningful life. I hope you do too. I love ballroom dancing, Tai Chi, walks in nature, riding my scooter, spending quality time with my wife and dog — all kinds of things that are subjectively meaningful to me.
I can’t demonstrate my subjectivity to anyone else. But, obviously, it is the reality in which i live and breathe. Part of that subjectivity involves dealing with facts about the outside world. There’s where I rely on science and what can loosely be called the scientific method.
If my computer stops working as it should, I don’t throw my hands up and say “I must believe! I must pray!” I figure out what’s wrong and solve the problem. That’s the sort of knowledge which we deal with in much of everyday life.
The other sort of knowledge is first person and experiential. As you’d know if you read more widely on the blog, or with more understanding, I highly value this kind of knowledge also. It’s what gives meaning to our lives.
I have no problems with people like you believing in your own personal view of God. But if you claim that God is an objective reality, you need to have some proof. Which, I assume, you don’t. So you have your subjective view of reality, and I have mine, and everybody else has theirs.
What’s the problem with that? Why are you upset with me expressing my own views on this blog, just as you’re able to do in your comments?

Always the same, equating science to religions that require faith – whereas in fact, science is the antithesis of faith. Science requires evidence-based reason not faith, faith is anathema to science.
Scientists cannot be equated to gurus or priest, since scientists and their teaching do not require devotion or worship. A key hallmark of science, which is necessary for its very progress, is the reliance on questioning, critiquing or trying to tear down a particular scientific theory. It is why science requires full public disclosure of theories and evidence so that others can see exactly what is claimed and try refuting it, if they cannot, it become science.
Science is a search for truth based on evidence. The truth it is concerned with is not absolute. Scientific theories change depending on the available evidence and/or if someone thinks of a better model to fit the evidence.
When ppl say they have faith in the scientific method, this is not faith in a religious sense that can never be tested and must simply be accepted. Each and every scientific claim can be tested by anyone anywhere. This is a time consuming process though so we accept that someone else has done the experiements and its been tested by others. We know science works, the laws of science keep 500-ton 747 hunks of metal in the air with unerring regularity. All accomplished through the accumulation of scientific knowledge.
There is alot more to the human experience than the scientific method – but if you want to make claims aboot reality why call the ppl who actually give evidence for their limited claims ‘arrogant’?

There is also a difference between having thought things through with your mind with the sort of clarity that scientific reasoning demands (supposedly ‘black-and-white’ thinking), as compared to the sort of blurred unthinking no-mind that mysticism and religion require (or ‘shades-of-grey thinking).
If on the other hand mystical thinking is so clear, why can they not provide a single clear-cut claim to any principle of reality? Even if science is limited as compared to mysticism, how come the mystics have never revealed even the most simple of scientific laws, not even one. Mysticism is afterall a far older tradition, yet in 4000 years they’ve not come close to the accuracy of science in the relatively simple task of explaining how the universe works?

George, good point. Another commenter recently asked how a guru could prove that he had supernatural powers. Well, one way would be to reveal a hitherto unknown law of nature that could be confirmed by scientists, either now or in the future.
Like, the guru could say whether the Higgs particle exists, and if so, at what energy level it can be found by a particle accelerator. Since “perfect” gurus supposedly know everything, being privy to all of the secrets of creation, this should be simple for a divine being to do.
But such hasn’t happened. Hmmmmm. We can only wonder why.

“If I take my car to someone and he says, “Sure, I know how to fix it,” and he turns out to be incompetent, I’m justified in holding him accountable — because he told me something that wasn’t true.”
False analogy. A mechanic claims he can do the job whereas a guru claims he can enable you to do the job. Thus, when the job isn’t done and you blame the guru, he can blame you for not doing as you were told. It’s a good racket.

If my appendix ruptures I think a little belief in science is in order.Why’s start at age 2 and should generally be left at that stage of development

TEMPLATE FOR GURUS WHO WISH TO ADMIT THEY ARE NOT GIHF
Dear Satsangis and Seekers,
Since the inception of [add Sangat name here] there has been a belief held by many of you that the guru of the [add Sangat name] is God In Human Form (GIHF).
This belief is based on the satsangs of the gurus and the books of [add Sangat name].
You will also have heard or read about the gurus of this sangat refuse to explicitly admit that they are GIHF, or you may have heard or read statements of the gurus that might suggest they are not GIHF.
You may have interpreted these statements as being statements of humility, and therefore concluded that the guru in question must be GIHF.
I am here to make an irrevocable admission that will be painful for many of you to hear.
I am not GIHF. I do not know everything. I have enough trouble remembering my own schedule, let alone the workings of the Universe/s.
OPTIONAL PARAGRAPH: I have been unable, despite my best efforts, to ‘go within’ during meditation.
OPTIONAL PARAGRAPH: Although I have the ability to ‘go within’ during meditation, I am not sure whether the act of ‘going within’ is merely inducing a waking dream like state, or something more. The ability to ‘go within’ has not improved my understanding of existence.
OPTIONAL PARAGRAPH: Out of duty and love for my [name your guru], I will continue to act as the head of [name of sangat].
OPTIONAL PARAGRAPH: As I am not GIHF, I hereby resign as guru of [add sangat name].
I realise that some of you will wish to interpret this statement as a sign of my humility, and therefore conclude that I am GIHF. Unfortunately, you will be mistaken.
Should those of you who are disaffected wish to continue to believe in a guru who is GIHF, I attach a list of other satsangs whose gurus have not made an admission such as mine (but who, I believe, are nevertheless in the same predicament as I am).
Warmest Regards,
[name]

TonyM, nice job. I’m sure your form letter will get a lot of use. (Ha-ha)

It is simply amazing how Babaji-G has through the years of his reign created so much confusion. You see it writ here in these very blogs!
Of course, he’s often said that he does this purposefully in order to … what! But the truth is he’s pretty much been learning-on-the-job, trying to stay one-step ahead of the sangat and, by God, has it shown!
No wonder he avoids any documentary evidence of his ‘talks’, Q&A sesssions etc. He leaves everything to second-hand accounts which can be neatly denied, if & when necessary, should he come up with some new ‘concept’.
It is a great ploy & he’s worked it like a good-old pro, mostly by using the ‘silent’ technique … letting the sangat muggins read-into whatever it is that he does/doesn’t say with whatever they want or need to hear. Yep, still learning-on-the-job … now can’t think of any Uk teacher getting away with that, let alone a self-respecting ‘guru’ with a flock of a coupla million.
It’s interesting though – after a fashion – comparing his style to what is known of Ramana. With the latter, well He – much like Nisagadatta – left little room for confusion or misunderstanding in his explication of the Truth; that is the Truth as he has realised, known, experienced & continued to live it.
In fact, could go so far as to say that for the likes of Ramana and Nisargadatta knowing the Truth meant that they were totally incapable of doing anything else but – as best to their ability – simply expressing that Truth as clearly as humanly possible; that is not only through their words but also in the way that they lived that Truth in their daily lives.
Maybe that is as good a sign as any, of someone who knows the Truth of it all. They become totally incapable of doing anything less than expressing that Truth as clearly & honestly & simply as possible … through their words, their actions, their every deed.
Hmmmm, yeh, they wouldn’t create confusion. They would be brave, noble, direct, clear, fearless. Yep.

There seems to be one inherent question that keeps popping up time and time again.
Is BJ God in Human Form?
Let’s forget about the books for a moment, even though it does come across that BJ and the previous RS masters are GIHF – well for me anyway. For me it is merely a belief if I agree.
But, I could also take or add to that belief that we all are GIHF – how could it be any different? We all seem the same underneath the outer appearance and although we do have different experiences of life and are at different places, basically it comes down to the same set of feelings and emotions.
I find myself asking that question, if BJ is GIHF and the honest answer I can come up with is, I Don’t Know!
What would it take for me to know? I don’t know that either? If he told me personally that he was one with the Lord, would I still know? I have to say no, I wouldn’t, it would still be a belief.
If ‘He’ done some ‘miraculous’ appearing and disappearing, would that be proof? I still say no.
I think I are asking the wrong question.
The question I see as more appropriate and more helpful is not WHO IS HE, but WHO AM I?
How can I know someone else if I don’t know myself? Oh yeah, I sure have beliefs and idea’s and even feelings, which always seem to be fluctuating, but are these who I really am? How can I call someone good or bad, a saviour or a fraud if I don’t know my real self, and when I say that, I mean the ‘Self/Being’ that is not subject to change, not this small self that is focused on me to the exclusion of every other ‘me’ out there? I am beginning to realise that the mind can never know everything. (Even though mine likes to tell me it does)
I see it that I can decide if I am ‘getting’ anything from RS. If not, I can move on. If I am not sure, well I will wait and see, that is all.
The same with this blog: I see myself ‘getting’ something of use to me so I am still here. Even if it is to show me that not everyone or anyone for a matter of fact feels the same way I do, it doesn’t matter. If I get annoyed at some comment, I can choose to make that person responsible, blaming them for being rude, or I can see that whatever they have said, I believe it myself or I wouldn’t be annoyed – impossible.
Oh true, I may have no choice in the feeling of annoyance coming up, but I can choose at that stage to put the ‘blame’ responsibility out ‘there’ or own it for myself, thereby taking control of my life and being 100% responsible. No one any longer has any power to control me or better still, it can leave me not wanting to control or be responsible for anyone out there either. Ah, great freedom – acceptance.
As someone asked Ramana if he could give it to them and Ramana’s reply went something like ‘No. Even if I could give it, you couldn’t take it.’ That being the case, it does ease the ‘addiction’ of holding on to a master or spiritual teaching in the hope that it can be transmitted. Words can be useful pointers but each and all of us gets to go through the journey for ourselves. Not rejecting anything that comes up because it is not ‘spiritual’. Whatever comes up is just that experience, before we label it as good or bad, spiritual or worldly. Again we can have our concepts of what ‘it’ should look like.
One thing I am looking at though is the kundalini thing which RS seems to be based on. When I got into RS I never wanted the lights or sounds thing and I wasn’t really interested in Sach Khand. At first I wanted to get to Sach Khand but very soon realising it wasn’t happening :), (I wanted to escape life at that point) it came to me that I just wanted to be ‘happy’, to find myself. I remember telling BJ at the mike one year. I mean, come on, what good it is getting to Sach Khand and being miserable there. So my thing was always, when I look back, to be ‘happy’ or now I would call it peaceful, content, accepting, all is ok, kinda thing.
I had been into Tony Quinn who looking back was basically into kundalini energy and had some frightening experiences – which went from being ecstatically happy to pure fear.
I am reminded of a dream, which I don’t normally give much meaning to, but this one felt different. It happened many years back during the Tony Quinn days.
I was in bed sleeping and I thought I was dreaming. I could find a beautiful heat in my stomach and it began moving upwards. When it got to my throat area I felt paralyzed and when I tried to scream to get my husband’s attention, I couldn’t speak. I felt enormous fear – not being able to move or talk. Immense fear. Something came to me to ‘think’ my husband’s name and then all went away.
I was in a funny state – it felt I was not awake and yet I wasn’t asleep. Next thing, it started happening again, at first the lovely heat feeling of energy moving upwards but before it got anywhere near my throat I felt fear, thinking if the same thing was going to happen. It did. This time thinking my husband’s name didn’t work and the fear was building. It came to me to ‘think’ God, which I did and it again, disappeared.
It happened a third time and this time; a split second after the ‘nice’ feeling came the fear, full blown. Thinking my husband’s name didn’t work, thinking God didn’t work and I was really ‘losing’ it inside as I couldn’t move or speak. Again ‘something’ came to me and said ‘think of yourself’ and I did and whew, it never returned.
Now later on after all these years of thinking I could ‘get’ it from somewhere out there, and believe me I tried, it is like – you have to do it for yourself (just like in my dream). Yes, you can get pointers, directions, guidance etc, but bottom line as Ramana says ‘no one can give it to you’.
I see it now as these ‘experinces’ are all just that, experiences. As even with experiences, there seems to be ‘someone’ watching the experience. So how can the ‘experiences’ be it?
So this does leave my mind a bit confused as to – do I do my meditation or not? But I know the answer will come to me and in the meantime, I don’t make it into a problem. ….It just is where I happen to be, no more no less, until I’m not.
Marina 🙂

Whys are crude attempts to derive meaning from existence. Even so that doesn’t render the quest for meaning redundant. Everybody is searching for meaning to their existence all the time in the quest for pleasures, for example. Pleasurable things bring happiness which fulfils the purpose of existence (for most people). Some rise above bodily pleasure to mental pleasure in terms of philosophy, science etc.
Said nothing against science, just that its application is limited. It has to be, it is man made.

yes i personally think science is limited, but no-one knows to what extent, who knows what science will eventually discover and anyone who has tried to predict a limit as to what science can explain has historically been proven wrong.
In fact, science is a very big reason why so much of the modern world, and the western world in particular, has opted for a more secular culture.
Darwinian evolution was a massive part of dispelling religious belief cos it provides overwhelming evidence for how complex systems such as humans, and other lifeforms, can come into existence from the simplest of organisms.
Science may be limited, but there is no method of insight into reality or way of understanding that is not limited. Science appears to be the least limited precisely because of the requirement for verifiable evidence and peer review.

dr wrote:
“Pleasurable things bring happiness which fulfils the purpose of existence”
I don’t see it as these ‘things’ bringing happiness and thereby fulfilling the purpose of existence. I see it as when the desire for pleasurable things are gotton, recieved, the minds desire has stopped in that moment and we fool ourselves into thinking the ‘pleasurable thing’ is what caused the happiness. When in fact, it is the lack of desire in that moment that has actually caused the happiness thus allowing things and excistence just to be as it is.

Brian you wrote above
“Another commenter recently asked how a guru could prove that he had supernatural powers. Well, one way would be to reveal a hitherto unknown law of nature that could be confirmed by scientists, either now or in the future.”
I would say, “it was a lucky guess”, or that the guru had a found a savant-consultant from this world.
Have you ever had the unhappy experience of trying to communicate with a mean drunk? My 3rd date with just the nicest guy in the world rendered it impossible for there to be a 4th. We went to an outside concert and I brought a bottle of wine. He quickly drank it all and became unbearably mean. There was not a thing that I said that he did not twist to mean something negative. I said “it was a wonderful concert”. He said “you are just playing nice, it was a bad concert”, I said I thought the night air was wonderful, he said “you’re wrong, that is stupid, it is too humid”. There was no way to interject positivity. I called a taxi and left. This is what patriotic satsangi’s often feel like when chatting with “ex” people. Ex people do not necessarily sound thoughtful, and intelligent but sour and TOO eager to find out bad things. It is like the movie “Bad Santa”. This mean drunk syndrome is lamentable because some of the information on your Blog can ONLY be found on your Blog. This makes your Blog very important. At least in my opinion it is very important.
Boo

Should have asked me out Boo…wine makes me easily entertained and entertaining.Just shows the mind itself gives everything the meaning that it has.It can entertain any possibility.Dunno what you mean about the EX’s but I guess a believer has to think something about us lost ones…lol

I do have to agree with a lot of what Boo says.
Saying that, I have learned a lot about myself and learned to let others be.
Marina

Brian wrote:
Well, the answer is that in many cases it truly CAN only be either one way or the other. There’s no in-between. The Earth either is round (nearly so, at least), or it isn’t. The Earth either orbits the sun, or it doesn’t.
I would like to relativate this a little bit. To us it is meaningfull to talk in terms of geometric shapes. So to us the earth is round but wat it really is no one knows. But this does not add anything to the points, it just caught my eye and it is interesting to realise that we do not know so much about our universe but more about our perception of our univers and I hold a distinction between these two.

Create confusion – principles of divide-and-rule &/or organised-chaos – and even the most bizarre & weirdest systems flourish under even the craziest, inept, flawed of characters. Take our friend Gadaffi! Another one with delusions of a God-given right to rule-the-roost.
Nisagadatta makes one very valid point in this context.
He tells us NEVER to place any one &/or any thing between our self & the Lord; the Truth. To do so, he says, is a very dangerous practice & you are likely to end up, just like all of us here, spending our valuable time discussing the merits of the one-we-have-placed-in-the-middle … and so completely missing the target.
One lesson my dad taught me when very young. After years in India in the army & well familiar with the colonialist & class-ridden attitudes of us Brits at home & abroad, he gave me one piece of advice vis-à-vis how a civilised, educated &/or hoping to become more enlightened Brit might best handle-the-hierarchy & relate to each & every individual they happen across in this life. Quite simply he told me always to remember that even the monarch, let alone the RSSB guru, still craps in precisely the same way as everyone else!
So rock-on Babaji-G … better to be a drunk who appreciates the neti neti of it all, than a sober blinkered satsangi still pining for the One-that-got-away!
Radha Soami

Nietzsche wrote:
” But this does not add anything to the points, it just caught my eye and it is interesting to realise that we do not know so much about our universe but more about our perception of our universe and I hold a distinction between these two.
I see it as adding to the above points Nietzsche. It seems right to say it is more about our “own” perception than maybe the actual truth.
Marina

Boo, I agree with you that on this blog sometimes criticism of someone’s religious beliefs edges over into personal criticism of them, which isn’t desirable or appropriate.
We’re all trying to do the best we can to make our way through life. I understand the joy and satisfaction people get from believing, because I experienced that positivity myself for many years.
However, I think you’re stretching things a bit when you imply that a “mean drunk” attitude pervades this blog. The way I see it, it’s akin to what happens when a global warming denier leaves a comment on Climate Progress, a leading climate science site.
If you go against the grain of what a web site or blog is all about, it’s to be expected that you’ll get some negative reactions. The same would happen, I suspect, if an atheist started posting comments on a Christian site, saying that Jesus is a fraud.
We all have our own viewpoints. That’s great. And inevitable. Like you said, the problem comes when we attack the person rather than how they see things. And even then (as I say frequently), if someone is simply talking about how they subjectively see the world, I’ve got no problem with that.
I don’t like country music very much, but I’m fine with other people listening to it. However, if someone said “Country music is the best music in the world; you need to embrace it,” I’d argue with that attitude.

This is for Tao :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQ6NKiby-o&feature=related

Brian you wrote:
“However, if someone said “Country music is the best music in the world; you need to embrace it,” I’d argue with that attitude.
Boo doesn’t seem to be arguing that ‘believers’ are the best in the world. Nobody (well almost nobody) is coming across saying their belief is the best in the world.
She seems to be saying that ‘non believers’ are arguing that they are the best and anyone who doesn’t agree with their ‘non beliefs’ are treated in a mean spirited way.
As she says, ‘believers’ do seem to be ‘attacked’ for their own beliefs V other ‘non believers on the blog. Not totally, but a great element seems to persist in general.
What then is the difference in what this element is doing compared to the groups they have grievances with or whom they say are holding onto unhealthy beliefs?
That is why I put ‘believers’ & ‘non believers’ in quotation marks.
It is coming across that even the non believers have their own ‘religion’ of certain beliefs and are in the end no different than any other group they claim to be different from.
If this is the case, this blog has a particular point of view which doesn’t seem open to any ‘outside’ belief.
Marina

Yogananda takes an ostrich ride
in Pasadena California
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5GgN5XbFFI&NR=1

Marina, remember The Thinking Atheist post that I put up a few days ago? He was asked if atheism is a religion. Reply: “Sure. And not smoking is a habit.”
Not believing in god or gurus isn’t a belief. It is the lack of a belief. If I don’t believe that the moon is made of cheese, I’m not a Moon Isn’t Made of Cheese believer.
So atheism or agnosticism isn’t a belief system. Unless you want to claim that not smoking means that I’m addicted to a lack of nicotine.

When Charan Singh found out he was the next master – what happened?
(1) He was shocked – therefore he is not all-knowing
(2) He said he was not what people thought he was – so he was not god-realised or travelling to Sach Khand
(3) He tried to run away – and not be the next master – so he’s obviously not up to the job
(4) He spent many agonizing weeks (or was it months) before he made the decision to take on the role
(5) When he did take the role – he made it 100% clear that he is no master – and is simply playing the role of the head of RSSB.
(6) He also made it totally clear that he makes no claim to any spiritual progress.
(7) He published his diary entries – originals – so there will be no dispute or argument over this. He made it totally clear that he was just an ordinary person – with no special powers.
(8) Whenever anyone asked about his person experiences – he would not comment on them
His saving quality is that he made it clear that he has no special powers – and therefore was not making any claim to be GIHF.
Now someone could argue that he took on the role of master – with all the implications that come with the role. However – he made it clear he’s just giving out theory. He was the one who started the idea of disciples doing live satsangs in the UK. At first the disciples said that they had no progress – and he said – you’re just explaining what the scriptures are saying.
That is all RSSB satsang is now – a ‘speaker’ talking about what the scriptures are supposedly saying.
Anyway – charan singh makes no claims to be GIHF – although disciples took him to be that way.
Another example was when charan singh was with colonel saunders in the UK in a restaurant. The colonel went to the bathroom and the food arrived while charan singh was waiting. Charan singh asked him what the pieces were in the rice. They were egg – but the fact that charan singh did not know – means he is not all–knowing.

This is still news to me.Charan was touted as GIHF and this info was never known by me.Was it only published in Punjabi ?

The idea an atheist does not beleive must be questioned. If the idea is based on the sense that the so called individual thinker will make up his/her “own” mind. If this individual does not exist, then the conclusions formed are a beleif and not based on fact. Science is our most vluable tool, however the scientist is still limited by the same thinker/thought division. So science is limited by the scientist,as he also beleives in himself as an individual entity seperate from thought itself.

dogribb,
its made clear in a book called Treasure beyond measure. One of the last books published before charan singh left the physical body. In the foreward of the book he states that he has edited and checked the book personally – and it is factually correct. His personal diary entries are printed so it leaves no doubt about the truth of what is written in the book.

Ah well Brian, the fact that you said your God Golobet thinks ‘you’re the man’……..
Your newest thread says:
”I’m an atheist who is beloved by God”
”God loves this sort of faith, this sort of surrender. That’s why God loves me and other unbelievers so much. We’re happy to flow with whatever.
You even have conversations with your God – ”I said, “Thanks, God, nice to hear from you again.” Not aloud of course. Inside my head, where Galobet/God and I have so many wonderful conversations.
So you do believe in God. And you believe you are an unbeliever. You seem to be digging with both feet. 😉
Marina

Marina, I’m a believer in what my brain conjures up. As we all are. We have no choice. That’s our reality: whatever our brain presents to us. Our conscious awareness is like the tip of an unconscious iceberg, so says neuroscience.
So naturally I worship my brain as my god. That’s where ideas about god come from — the human brain. What evidence is there of an external, objectively real god?
My goal in the post you refer to was to point out, in a humorous way, that I can have a divine revelation that is as unchallengeable as any revelation described in a holy book or by a holy person.
Yes, I do talk to god. The difference between me and a religious believer is, I’m almost completely certain that I’m talking to myself.
But since I’m a scientific guy, I realize that 100% certainty is an impossibility; I could be proven wrong, just as any seeming fact about reality could be proven wrong.

You people are not serious at all. Its all become a game, a bit of fun.

Ok Brian, I get your point.
I agree that your thread did come across as humourous as I laughed from one end of it to the other – not at you Brian, with you.
I am looking into what, as you say, the brain conjours up. Yes, we may not have a choice of what pops up, but we can enquire into it and see if it’s true, so I do see that we have a choice.
Marina

Brian,
thats basically what the books ‘conversations with God’ (volumes 1,2,3) are all about.
The author starts of describing his frustration with God and then writes God a pretty damning letter. To his surprise his hand starts writing back – saying – do you want answers – or are you just venting.
Both, replies the author. And the question and answer sessions begins.
Later on – in the second volume the author makes it clear – that is he simply talking to himself – his higher self – if you want to call it that – not an external God as such.
The idea of an external God is a fallacy – and can be shown to be so logically.
(1) God is that which is eternal – timeless and spaceless. (because anything in time and space cannot be eternal)
(2) If God had a FORM (i.e. an external objective reality) – he would be in time and space – and therefore subject to birth and death (change)
(3) Eternal means – No time and No space. hence no objective reality – as we measure it. (i.e. God is not an OBJECT or anything that can be measured. The closest you can say is – he is a NO-THING (absence of a thing, shape or form)
(4) hence you could say – God is NOTHING. God CANNOT be a THING – as by nature – all THINGS are within time and space and therefore subject to change – born, grow, decay, die. Anything within time and space is therefore not GOD.
This is where the scientific method fails – because science deals only with objective reality – within Time and space. God is not an objective reality.
So as far as science is concerned – there is no God – which ironically is exactly what I am saying anyway. God is NO-THING.
Now you can get stuck in words and concepts. However – the simplicity of this is what makes it hard for the mind to grasp.
Mind wants answers – and this is not an answer.
It takes you to a point where the question disappears.
See – this is where it all gets mystical. And the logical scientific mind (George) starts saying it’s all fake and all lies.
Well – maybe – and maybe not. It all depends on your viewpoint.
You can say that LOVE has no objective reality – but would you say love does not exist?
Thoughts – the mind – has no objective reality – but would you say thoughts don’t exist?
I am not talking about BELIEVING anything. I am saying that GOD is that which is beyond time and space – and therefore beyond the scope of science. So science has no response to God because God is not an objective reality – so is therefore beyond the scope of science to examine.
That doesn’t make any argument about God valid or invalid.
God is a can of words – as far as science is concerned. And who wants to open a can of worms?
Fuck – it’s too late – I’ve already opened it – and now it won’t close!

Marina wrote:
I am looking into what, as you say, the brain conjures up. Yes, we may not have a choice of what pops up, but we can enquire into it and see if it’s true, so I do see that we have a choice.
My response:
You can enquire – but who will respond? YOU! And who will decide what is true or untrue? – Once again YOU will decide.
How do you ever know what is true / false / right / wrong?
Is there an objective reality to it? And are you necessarily in harmony with that objective reality?
For example – I might believe that the sun goes around the earth – it seems real to me – so I may choose to believe it. So someone says to me – that the earth goes around the sun and I will call them a liar. My version of reality is that the sun goes around the earth and the earth is the centre of the universe.
That is what appears to be true to me. So I can live my life based on that. So when I enquire – I will respond by saying – YES – it is true!
We create our own versions of reality. We decided a long time ago what is true and what is untrue. For example I decided a long time ago that charan singh was God and that he knew everything. That was my conditioning – and I did not know it was just a belief – I really thought it was objective reality. I based my life on that being the truth. When I was 10 years old I knew the only thing I wanted was to get to Sach khand and meet this Sat Purush dude and have tea with him and talk about the secrets of the universe.
So when I decide something is true – it is just based on my beliefs. I am simply doing a database lookup operation – based on the earlier entries in my database. This I call intelligent thinking.
It never occurs to me that my earlier entries could be erroneous. My whole life is based on the entries in my database (my mind).
I cannot think outside those database entries – as they now become my reality. They become pre-suppositions. Something major had to happen to me before I considered the possibility that maybe – just maybe – my database entries were not correct. I let go of those beliefs before other possibilities could open up for me.
It is the same for everyone. Until we let go of the old beliefs – (those beliefs are the box I spoke of in an earlier comment) – we cannot break free from the box.

I say open the can of worms, go for it, break new ground – but dont expect me or anyone else to believe you have done so without the evidence for it.
You want blind faith, unquestioning devotion, love, obedience and respect – that is what an unthinking dog or disciple is for – loyalty. If your ego is huge and want such respect, preach non-ego and become a guru and fool ppl that are suckers. But I will not accept with blind faith there are other realms, unless there is at least some verifiable evidence.
There are two realms to existence i) what is independent of our mind (reality) and ii) what is dependent of our mind (what we individually perceive of reality).
The individual mind is very powerful, it makes errors and creates delusions, it latches onto ideas and forms strong beliefs that are often completely untrue – imagination and speculation are great gifts but also sources of great confusion when seperated from our other aspect of mind, intellectual reason.
There is a way to break through the ‘maya’ of ii) to really see i) for what it is, but its not by going within after being psycholigically programmed by a guru, its with critically evaluation objectively verifiable evidence (i.e. science).
How can you arrive at a description or understanding of i) by going inside your own mind when this is the source of the all the delusion ii) in the first place?

Why does it depend on a particular viewpoint? Is it a fact or not? What is the relationship between thought and time? If thought and time are the same thing ,then the concept of God beyond it is still an idea.An idea born from thought, that is limited. I am not being smart. I just want it to be clear so we can move forward.

Very good points Osho, I liked…..
One thing though – all this talk of the ‘higher self’ or ‘higher mind’ stuff.
Mind is mind and self is self.
Sure, you can have different aspects of the mind for instance; the functional part where it is handy to know which mouth to put the food in so to speak. Also you have the analytical (judging, criticising, analysing, opinionated, believing) mind which would like to know everything and how everything works. What it cannot understand, it can have a tendency to reject.
This thinking mind as Osho pointed out, cannot help with love, god, awareness, consciousness. All it can do is create thoughts and beliefs about it.
To apply the mind in those areas is like trying to breath under water – it only works until you run out of breath. Or like disagreeing with Marina on this blog. It too, only can work as long as Marina believes it!
By the way Vas, I enjoyed your posts. I too had the opinion that ‘these ‘ people were not serious until I came to my senses and realised – it takes all sorts, the serious and the fun. Hang around for a while, there can be a lot of interesting discussions also. 😉
Marina

Marina wrote:
I see it as adding to the above points Nietzsche. It seems right to say it is more about our “own” perception than maybe the actual truth.
The actual truth is very much imbedded in our culture. About the force of gravitation one can ask whether it is a discovery or an invention. Before someone came up with the idea of force fields did they exist? In fact force fields are invisible things that have no thinglike existence at all. They are concepts to explain for the falling of an object short distances from the earth. So what is the truth? The earth orbiting the sun in a forcefield? Or are angels keeping the planets in their orbits or like Nietzsche said can only will act on will so it must be will that holds the planets in their orbits.
But I should not say all this as it confuses some 🙁 Just ignore me 🙂
BTW great youtube video’s Mike! I’ve read a lot on Amandamayi that was definitely the real thing yet she did not mind if someone mistakenly adored the wrong woman standing next to her. That did not matter she explained. The worship should be real that is all that matters. Makes me think…But what a personality…

Hi Vas, Marina and Osho
Vas, below is my website. Notice U. G. Krishnamurti
is linked. You posted on Jiddo Krishnamurti on
another thread on this club. He was my friend
for many years. The vast majority of my posts
prior to your arrival were on jnani. Brian posts
alot on Zen and others here on the Tao.
http://radhasoamis.freeyellow.com/index.html
Most here have ended their search. But, there are
people in Radhasoami and other groups that come on.
We discuss their views.
This club basically exists to help people out
of cults, or for people to reflect on their
beliefs.
When seekers are not here we bounce back to Zen
and jnani. Thousands of posts were on these
subjects and we covered it in depth.
Hi Marina,
I agree with your posts, but remember only one
person was causing this and I explained why.(grin)
HI Osho, Charan also edited Spiritual Letters
and said so in the book. It turned out the Jaimal
letters were not even written by Jaimal.
After my book came out debunking those letters,
Beas new books actually give the names of the
people that wrote the letters.
The books that came out during Charan’s time
were the most remarkable propaganda books I
have ever seen in any religion.
Charan used omission (the key word in fraud)
to write his books. What he allowed to happen
the the history of Beas can only be called
a scam. Charan went down as a charlatan for
his part in the deceit.

George, excellent comment above. Very clear and concise. You nicely summarize how I view reality also (which explains why I liked your comment so much.)
I especially liked your finale:
“How can you arrive at a description or understanding of i) by going inside your own mind when this is the source of the all the delusion ii) in the first place?”
Yes, I’ve been on a neuroscience reading kick recently. It’s been learned that our conscious awareness is just a small part of what the brain does, mostly beneath the surface.
That stuff isn’t accessible to us. It’s like programs run by the operating system which we don’t have the authority to look at or change.
I agree that there is a mind-independent reality. However, we need to keep in mind that our knowledge of this reality still is a product of the human mind. We have no choice in this, as we’re humans.
It seems almost certain that alien beings with different sensory and cognitive capabilities would view the laws of nature differently than we do. By how much, who knows? They’d be studying the same reality, but with different tools.

There appear to be limits to everything, including science.
Limits to our perception, whether it be through our senses or instruments.
Limits to our brains with their finite processing capabilities.
Limits to our thinking with personal conditioning and conceptual thought.
Limits to reasoning and logic, which Godel and Russell worked out.
Perhaps none of this is surprising if the universe (reality) itself is limited. Both on a grand scale with the universe continually expanding yet being finite at any point in time, but also on the smallest scale in which space-time itself might be limited to discrete quantum levels rather than continuous. Perhaps reality itself is differentiated, rather than undifferentiated, just as thoughts are made from ideas and language from words.
Who knows what the nature of reality is or what limits exist. Perhaps like the universe, our limits are just a function of time, constantly being pushed back. The telecope extended our sensory limits, the computer our processing limits, science with empiricism and peer review extended the limits of individual bias. Limits today and gone tomorrow. Perhaps there is no absolute reality and no absolute limit either.

Brian,
I think the question is what the nature of reality itself? Metaphysics, in the true sense of the word.
Is it absolute or is it relative? Is it constant or is it changing?
The perception of reality might be different depending on the observer, viewpoint or the model/lens through which reality is viewed. However, the deeper question is whether that being perceived, i.e. reality, is absolute or relative, fundamentally constant or changing.
In his latest book, Hawkings came up with the concept of Model Dependant Realism, which I think hints at the scientific viewpoint and might explain how an alien civilisation, with its own conditioning, might model reality. But it might be that the very laws of nature that we are trying to model might have also changed over time.

George wrote:I say open the can of worms, go for it, break new ground – but dont expect me or anyone else to believe you have done so without the evidence for it.You want blind faith, unquestioning devotion, love, obedience and respect – that is what an unthinking dog or disciple is for – loyalty. If your ego is huge and want such respect, preach non-ego and become a guru and fool ppl that are suckers. But I will not accept with blind faith there are other realms, unless there is at least some verifiable evidence. My response:You have me confused with someone else. Firstly – I don’t want anyone to believe me. I am saying that beliefs keep you blind. Drop all beliefs – positive and negative. Beliefs are the barrier to realizing the truth. I am not preaching any belief system. But you seem to think that I am – that is simply your own belief.How did you conclude that I want blind faith? Unquestioning devotion, love, obedience and respect? Not sure where you’re getting your ideas from – but they’re not from me!I am not out to fool anyone – that is your own concept that you created. If you have your source – please name it – because you appear to be so scientific. How can you make such statements if you cannot show your source? It might be your source is your own mind because you have already made lots of conclusions about me – that have no basis is reality. And if you can do this with me – you probably do it with others too. So much for your scientific mind.When did I say there are ‘other realms’? I have never claimed to know about or experience any ‘other realms’.

Good post Tara. Someone said for a mouse trap to work there has to be some cheese in it. It is difficult to believe RSSB could hold so much people without some genuine spirituality in it. Or main concern is that Gurinder breaks the line but sooner or later that must show. This website is probable a sign of the times.
I would be glad if there was some genuine spirituality in RSSB, I have gone 180 degrees lately more than once I hope there is something in between somewhere. When I see what Amandanmayi did I recognize stuff from close personal experience. I mean I have seen lesser stuff closer home. Trance, healing by real darshan, not eating any food…

Hi Osho and others…..
Osho you wrote:”You can enquire – but who will respond? YOU! And who will decide what is true or untrue? – Once again YOU will decide.
When I say I question my beliefs, it is not to come with NEW answers, it is to break DOWN the answers that the mind already has. The question is to lead me back until there IS no answer, there just is…..
George, when you say”I say open the can of worms, go for it, break new ground – but don’t expect me or anyone else to believe you have done so without the evidence for it.
I think that is a good point. We may or may not believe the person but either way it will do us no good. We need to get our own experience. Yes some people, anybody can tell us how it worked for them but we sometimes can have a tendency to ‘copy’ what worked for others thinking (believing) that it will work for us. Oh, many a time I have been caught in that trap! I am beginning to realise for myself that any meditation I do is not to achieve anything or get anything but for me it is being aware of the mind chattering away, 90 to the dozen and not trying to stop it or change it but notice it and the one noticing it.
I don’t see it as you wrote: ”it’s with critically evaluation objectively verifiable evidence (i.e. science).
This for me would feel like fighting when you say ‘critically evaluation’ sounds like a harsh judgement which is what keeps the mind going backwards and forwards with more food for thought so to speak – well at least mine does. And as for getting answers for ourselves from science, that doesn’t work in my inner world. Again for me, I must do my own discovery and not have science say it is this way and believe it to the nth degree.
Tara, interesting post.
I sometimes feel it must have been hard for someone who has been in any religion/spiritual path etc from a child. Thinking back to my own catholic days, I thought out of it I’d never get. I feel any good the teachings of Jesus where, they were ‘destroyed’ by add on’s, wrong interpretations, how the system and myself used it as a form of control with the threat of hell if one didn’t ‘behave’, (which I didn’t, so doomed I was ) etc and for a long time I was annoyed at that particular religion. A lot of what may have been truths or pointers seem to have being lost or buried deep.
No matter how good the teaching is, no child should be ‘brainwashed’ into having some teaching or teacher forced on them no matter how subtle, even if it was coming from the love of the parents trying to do the right thing. Misguided love I would NOW call it. Each person has the right to ‘find’ out for themselves and not be moulded by anyone else. But I think we all do our best with what we have and our culture seems to be set up that way.
Mike a wee question for you, why do you say all Gurus are false and then keep posting guru stuff on the blog? Really interested ;))
Vas, I feel I am enquiring and then dumping a lot of my ‘layers’ on this blog. So please, nobody take me seriously!! 😉
Have a lovely day to all. It is evening here and we had a wonderfully pissy day. Rain, rain and more rain all day long. I do have a preference for the sun which the ‘scientists’ say should be out tomorrow!
Marina 🙂

Marina wrote:
When I say I question my beliefs, it is not to come with NEW answers, it is to break DOWN the answers that the mind already has. The question is to lead me back until there IS no answer, there just is…..
Marina, that is great. When you breakdown the answers the mind already has – what happens? You create a vacuum – and confusion. It’s a great place to be. Then a new belief can arise to take it’s place. We normally go from one belief to another.
However, if we don’t do this – we begin to see what is – just as it is. No beliefs – no conclusions – no viewpoint.
That is what zen leads to – and it’s the purpose of the zen master to create the environment for this to happen. Not to make it happen – because nobody can make it happen – but to create the environment.
That is what happened to me in the year 2000. I had left sant mat as a belief system. I had nothing to replace it with because I didn’t understand enlightenment – so I was not seeking it. I had nothing to replace it with.
At that time I met my spiritual master. My discipleship consisted of a five day intensive with him. On the morning of the fifth day he threw me out of the session – and that was the last I ever saw of him. I wanted to go back to thank him – but he said “What for?”
The four days I spent with my master I consider to be the four greatest days of my life. I don’t revere him, respect him or worship him. What happened was because he was authentic and I was authentic.
In those four days he shattered all the concepts I had always held about the spiritual journey. He said he collected no followers because his purpose is to be a catalyst in their awakening and send them on their way. He has no disciples in the traditional sense.
That was what he did to me and I owe him nothing. The moment you get attached to the personality of the master – you are already doomed in your spiritual journey. Why? Because his purpose is to take away all supports – not give you new ones.
As Osho would say “My purpose is to chop off your head – and then another head will grow and that will be God’s head”

But hell Osho what are you charging 90 bucks for? osmosis. you must be trying to convey something or is everyone just listening to bob dylans ‘the answer my friend must be blowin in the wind…’
alot of the comments in that particular post were not directed as you, but the general ‘guru’ concept of this post, which is that fundamentally you have to worship these undoubtedly flawed men as gods, since at that point of total devotion comes the surrender and programming of your mind – much like all the great and terrible ideologies that have afflicted mankind.
All based on faith, like religion, the promise of something totally unreal and unrealistic but appealing nevertheless.

Good posts Osho, George, Marina and Tara.
I used to watch Soupy Sales when I
was a kid on TV. Whenever Soupy would
say something intelligent, a big white
furry arm would come out and throw a
lemon marang pie in Soupy’s face.
Since I love pie, would you people
please stop hogging it all ?
Marina says :
“Mike a wee question for you, why do you say all Gurus are false and then keep posting guru stuff on the blog? Really interested ;))”
Because Marina, the Golden Age of Gurus
can never be repeated. We don’t believe in them, but it is sure facinating to watch old footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNnRQ7wg7Ho&feature=related

George,
Yes – they will be listening to Bob Dylan for 90 bucks.
The answer my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.
But since they’re paying 90 bucks and it is going to last like 15 hours
I will be playing the WHOLE song – just to make sure they get their moneys worth.
Here’s a link to kate melua singing the song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7-Tb_FsWRw&feature=related
and here’s the lyrics
How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
Yes, ‘n’ how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, ‘n’ how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they’re forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.
How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, ‘n’ how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, ‘n’ how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.
How many years can a mountain exist
Before it’s washed to the sea?
Yes, ‘n’ how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?
Yes, ‘n’ how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn’t see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

Osho thanks for your very interesting post and your experiences.
I agree with what you say:
”When you breakdown the answers the mind already has – what happens? You create a vacuum – and confusion. It’s a great place to be. Then a new belief can arise to take its place. We normally go from one belief to another.
However, if we don’t do this – we begin to see what is – just as it is. No beliefs – no conclusions – no viewpoint.
But surely we do still have a viewpoint and beliefs but we don’t take them seriously? Beliefs may arise but can one not see though that?
What I am looking at though is now that I love ‘me’ not in a narcissistic way (after years of I hate me), but more of an acceptance just how I am and acceptance of what I feel (and of others too, though I still may disagree) 🙂 and not ‘try’ to push anything away that arises, but just notice it – there is a sense that this I love me is no more real than the I hate me.
Oh yeah, it feels much better but it is still a trap of the mind, so to speak. Now I am aware of that and sometimes it is fun to play with this new character I love me, but there is a part of me that inquires as to who this me is – when I catch it.
Osho when you say:” At that time I met my spiritual master. My discipleship consisted of a five day intensive with him. On the morning of the fifth day he threw me out of the session – and that was the last I ever saw of him. I wanted to go back to thank him – but he said “What for?”
What difference is this person being a catalyst than anyone else? I ask this question because when I saw your ‘Victimitis’ video, it seemed like a catalyst to cross the final barrier so to speak with my father. I had a long time ago ‘forgiven’ him and after watching your video as I say, it was the final touch I needed. Ah no forgiveness, nothing to forgive – it felt so right not just a concept but from the heart.
So again, can everything not be a catalyst? Surely to ‘condemn’ any person or groups is a lack of clear understanding as we are all at different places and all is part of the one anyway.
Osho you wrote:” The moment you get attached to the personality of the master – you are already doomed in your spiritual journey. Why? Because his purpose is to take away all supports – not give you new ones.
I can see that, but I do it no more with BJ than I do with the people on this blog. I do like ALL the different personalities (expressions) of people on the blog.
I see the same here on the blog and in all areas of my life. All catalysts! It may take the form of someone saying something that triggers me (‘good and bad’) and instead of my old old pattern of blaming them I see it is my own belief and question that. Usually it ends up being ‘a ghost’ more delusion and then comes the belly laugh.
Did you pay your master for the 5 intensive days and how much? What was their name?
Marina

Mike, so you are saying that during the ‘golden age’ it was alright for gurus but not now? Is that what you are saying? Even about Ramana?
Marina

[Note: Vas, I’ve published every comment that you’ve submitted. I hardly ever reject or even edit a comment, unless it is spam or way outside of this blog’s comment guidelines. Are you sure your comment was accepted by Typepad? The most recent one from you that I got started with “Marina the answers are in the seeing.” Is that the one you’re referring to? — Blogger Brian]
Why did you reject the last post?

Hi Marina,
I consider enlightenment a waste of time.
Gurus are a waste of time.
Religion is a waste of time.
Ramana spoke of a Force no one can
understand, except those it has
happened too. It is even beyond the
logic of a keen jnani, or Zen master.
Only children will know its existance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwbKZa6YPW8

[Note: Hey, Vas, I already noted that I didn’t reject any of your comments. Get your facts straight before you make assumptions. This is a good lesson for you: your beliefs aren’t the same as what is true. — Blogger Brian]
Mike. Replied to your comment in detail, it seems to have been rejected. No point to continue. Looked at the whole site,found more of the same. All moving away from the facts. Why?

OK Brian.

Vas,
When post button is not lit up
delete letter S in your name and
retype it. This will lite up
post button at bottom. Otherwise post
won’t enter.
Be careful a second page doesn’t open
up requesting you fill in letters
that are scrambled. If this page
opens, you must enter the letters
and hit post again.
Sometimes people miss the second page,
thinking they have posted. This second
page sometimes opens to prevent computers
from making electronic entries of spam.

Thanks Mike for the post help. Brian take a good look at what I have said. What beliefs do you claim I hold? Seems you dont like the facts, or you have taken offence at my suggestion that your site has some nonsence on it. Its not personal, just the truth. I take your word on the post issue, no harm.

Mike the last video you posted on Aurobindo and Mother Mira they seem to be saying when one gets so far it is difficult to Be in this world. A bit like what Bernadette Roberts I have heard, said.
What comes to mind when you say ‘I consider enlightenment’ a waste of time (yeah, like the question ‘who’s getting enlightened’)
It reminds me of the Buddha. The Buddha supposedly had his followers before he reached wherever he reached. When he sat under the tree fed up with his austerities, he broke his fast of no food and milk, and worst of all, it was a woman who gave him the food. His followers all left him.
During this time, he dealt with his mind and all the untruths from the horrifying to the wonderful other and he seen through it all, the mind got more and more subtle.
But Buddha had found the middle path. No austerities, no rejections.
Nowadays Buddha has a lot of ‘followers’ but like anything else, the followers adapt his teachings from their own bent of mind.
Even Ramana has his followers. Teachers, Gurus, Sages, Seers, may not be able to ‘give’ anything to us, but they can be catalysts like Osho said.
Which reminds me; I went to Tiru this February past and visited Sadhu Om’s ashram. The man in charge there, I think his name was Shankara, but anyway I got Sadhu Om’s second and third book on Ramana and ended up talking to Shankara. During the conversation I asked Shankara was he ‘enlightened’ whatever and he looked all humble and shook his head from side to side and said something like ‘oh seen as you asked, I have to tell you, yes.’ Not in those exact words. All was going well until I asked him what was this whole thing of the ‘holy hill?’ I told him, well I can see how one would revere a Guru or Sage but a hill? Now whether I have lack of understanding for the ‘holy Arunachala’ or not, Shankara got upset with me and said that ordinarily ‘things’ should not be worshiped but Arunachala was an exception.
When I told him I didn’t agree that it applied to everything else bar Arunachala he was not too pleased! And I was only asking – nicely. So I went no further with any more questions. His answer or lack, told me more than I needed to know.
When did you leave RS Mike, or if I may be so bold, what made you?
Marina

Marina,
You asked :- But surely we do still have a viewpoint and beliefs but we don’t take them seriously? Beliefs may arise but can one not see though that?
My response:
Is it a subtle point but a very important one. It is easy to mistake an intellectual grasp of this with the thing itself.
You ask that – surely we do still have a viewpoint and beliefs. My answer is NO. We have NO VIEWPOINT and NO BELIEFS. Why? Because there has to be a ME for a viewpoint to arise. Only a ME can take ownership of a viewpoint or a belief. If there is no ME – who will take the ownership? (even for a short while before letting it go). And without ownership – it is not a viewpoint or a belief. It is just a thought.
So THOUGHTS will arise – but they are not YOURS – they are simply thoughts. You can still pick up a thought and play with it – but it is not yours – there is no possession. Just as your life is not yours – there is no possession. Just as salvation cannot be yours – because there is nobody who needs to be saved.
As long as a person identifies with himself as a separate body and a separate soul – the need for salvation arises. As long as you BELIEVE you are a separate soul – you will seek enlightenment or salvation or sach khand etc.
The moment the truth dawns – that there is no separate self – nothing more is required. Truth simply is. Now I am not saying a BELIEF that there is no separate self. That is just the other side of the same trap.
A belief is something that you have taken on – believed – it is not a realization. A realization is not of the mind – it is beyond. It frees you from the mind and concepts.
MARINA wrote:
now that I love ‘me’… more of an acceptance just how I am…. and not ‘try’ to push anything away that arises, but just notice it – there is a sense that this I love me is no more real than the I hate me.
Oh yeah, it feels much better but it is still a trap of the mind, so to speak. Now I am aware of that and sometimes it is fun to play with this new character I love me, but there is a part of me that inquires as to who this me is – when I catch it.
My response
There is no love – there is no hate. Acceptance is all there is. In acceptance there is nothing to embrace and nothing to push away. Love and hate both require a viewpoint and an opinion of like/dislike. They require the mind and a judgment in order to exist.
The love is no more real than the hate – they are both your creations. They are both traps of the mind as you say. There is no you – so all inquiry into WHO this is will lead you to realize it is NOBODY – it is something you created.
EVERYONE is a catalyst when you are open. Even the master cannot be a catalyst when you are closed. ‘Closed’ means that you have no real trust – you are suspicious of everyone )including yourself). Being open to truth requires the development of a deep trust. Not a belief because belief is blind. Whereas trust is a development – something that opens up within you – and you blossom like a flower. This is what the spiritual journey is all about.
You say that you are no more attached to BJ as you are to the people on this blog.
Why would you be attached to BJ or anyone else? You can of course enjoy them all – they are all expressions of life. When I say attached to – I mean in the sense of getting attached to the personality. When you have a master – you will on the one hand completely love the master and hate him. Then you will realize you are creating the whole drama. Ultimately the purpose of the master is to take you beyond all personalities and separateness.
I paid 400 pounds (UK) for the 5 day intensive. But you want to know the irony of it? He said spirituality is free – but we never value what is free.
So on the day he threw me out – he said to everyone – “And give him his money back – I don’t want his money.” Then he left, adding “When I get back – he better be gone. Otherwise I am leaving and not coming back. And you better all figure out what the fuck is going on here!”

He Marina think we are gathered here on the believe that Gurinder might not be what he says. Some go further in rejecting every guru. Others hold some question marks. I came somehow back on track by realizing that the upanishad writings and all the rest don’t suddenly turn into nonsense when one follower is not real. It does however raise the question how you can know if someone is real. Doing the 20 to 30 years meditation experiment seems to be not the way.
I knew a person that was regularly out of her body and she could heal by holding her hands much more than many popular healers can. However she was a bad personality to live with. Was she enlightened? Don’t think so but she knew a lot more than I did. When I told her I wanted to be enlightened she frowned. Are you crazy? How will you ever live a normal life when you are enlightened, you will pick up everyones pains and know all peoples shit. You better know what you are wishing for! Strange point but it got noted 🙂

Hi Marina,
There is a problem many people on this
club have faced.
At some point in all our journies, the
people here have realized they have no
self.
This brings all search to a grinding halt.
For there to be a search, there must be a
seeker. But, when the seeker is seen as
a delusion, there can no longer be a search.
As you said, there is no one that becomes
enlightened. A person simply realizes
there never was anyone that could become
enlightened.
The people on this club simply live life
in the Tao.
I left Radhasoami about 15 years ago
and everything else.
I am here like all the other people on
this club, to tell people not to follow
in my footsteps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3Ki9rBuVXQ&feature=related

tara, nice post.
That is the whole point. The sant mat way of life creates struggle – because it is a path of the path of ‘doing’.
Gurinder has an idea about enlightenment and being the guru he has this power that he revels in – the power to be able to say anything on stage – and the majority just accept what he says.
Yes – he believes he is enlightened – but he has not reconciled this ‘all-knowing’ and ‘all-powerful’ with the enlightened state.
I have had many ‘chats’ with him on the mic over the years. Usually they turned into discussions which his followers then call an argument.
Anyway – on one of them – he tells me that I am not enlightened. He asked me “are you all knowing? do you know everything?”
I said: I know nothing. Even that which I knew before is gone.
He asked: “Are you all powerful? Able to do anything?”
I replied: I have no power at all. Even the power I had is gone.
Because enlightenment is not about being all-knowing or all-powerful. Those are sant mat concepts.
Then one time he said – If you are enlightened – you will no longer be in the body.
Strange argument – I thought at the time. Especially if you yourself claim to be enlightened. I replied that I am in the body – because after enlightenment – life becomes a game – and I can play with ‘enligthening others’ – or some other entertanining game.
His response: they will all enlighten themselves. Which has some truth to it – but is not what sant mat teaches. Sant mat specifically teaches that the master is needed for the world to get god-realized.
The strange thing was – nobody in the audience seem bothered by his response. Which means either they don’t hear what he says – or they don’t really care or understand.
It was the same when he said me – about 6 years ago – that there is no sach khand, no sat pururh and no regions. I said that the sant mat books state….
He interruped me and said – burn the books.
That was pretty radical at the time – yet nobody in the audience seemed to understand the implications of what the was saying. They just listened as if they have heard it all before.
I think he has got his disciples to the point where they no longer think – and they think it is a spiritual state to not think – perhaps they equate that to surrender.

Yes I’ve been in those publics and hearth someone ask if it was possible for a satsangi to go to hell and G replied ‘off course that is possible, if you live a bad life’. Than I thought he is just playing a game. He doesn’t mean it but he wants to scare the guy into meditating. So i sat quiet and looked right in front of me as if nothing happened, as if I was a participant in an inside joke.
I also once heard him say that by preparing meat for customers a satsangi broke the vows. That stroke me more because i prepare meat for my two cats every day. Does that make me brake the vows? I tried everything to find vegetable foot for cats but they refused to eat. Now I remember he implied to not take home animals somewhere else because of this problem. That made me worry even more. Should I let go of my cats? Take a stone drown them in the water? To make my point. These stupid answers can drive you mad if you take them literally but in the case of the cats I could not take it anything but literally. It is still frying my little brains now and than 🙂

osho and tara,
Yes, very good and honest posts.
I liked,
“burn the books” or burn the message, found within.
–Does the 2.5 hours of meditation still have a special requirement? And, is the “enlightenment” considered an event, from years of meditation? What does Gurinder say, regarding the daily meditation requirement? Thanks Roger

Nietzsche,
Yes, another honest post.
I liked,
“These stupid answers can drive you mad if you take them literally…….”
–You hit it on the nail, the answers and requirements, could literally drive a sincere devotee mad.

Osho, Mike, Nietzsche, Tara and everyone…..
I throughly enjoyed all your posts in different ways.
I have tried to ‘reply’ over the last two days and couldn’t come up with anything…..I am gone blank! In a good way :)) (Thank God I hear some of you cry!)
I just nearly can’t ‘believe’ that I have nothing to say. I keep looking and looking and my head is empty full of nothing :))
Marina 😉

“I keep looking and looking and my head is empty full of nothing.”
quote Marina
Maybe you no longer have an I.
The Zen would love your phrase,
“full of nothing”.

Marina,
a zen master might say – why are you carrying the weight of ‘having nothing to say’ – or he might say – ‘interesting’.
Roger – Gurinder still emphasises the meditation – how else is he going to keep people in a state of struggle?
enlightenment is a state of non-effort non-striving and no-struggle. Sant mat however teaches effort, doing, and struggle – by giving the disciple a goal to reach and standards to live up to.
me? I have no standards and I am not striving to get anywhere – because there is nowhere to get and nobody to get ‘there’.
Nietzsche – good points.
I know someone who HAS gone mental due to taking RSSB too literally. He used to run a newsagents shop. Then he stopped selling cigarettes because of the karmic implications. Then he stopped selling crisps because they are not vegetarian (apparently). Then he stopped selling some chocolate bars because they contain animal products.
Finally he shut the shop down and has done nothing for 12 years. He will not even rent the shop out because whoever takes it on will sell those things and he doesn’t even want that – he believes he is still responsible by accepting the rent.
How far can you go with this? It is endless and now he has become disfunctional because he chose to take the teachings literally. He reads so many books – he is a walking encyclopedia of rssb teachings – he quotes actual page numbers when he talks.
He is now at the point where he can no longer live a normal life. I am not saying that RSSB teachings are to blame – but if taken literally – this is what the result can be.
Of course every person is responsible for his own actions – and this person is in this state because he chose to go to an extreme. When he went a bit mental (he was even sectioned) nobody from RSSB offered any help despite being asked.
I find that RSSB has become an organisation that has no compassion. The individuals who do ‘seva’ really don’t care about serving or helping anyone. They are simply following instructions.
Many years ago I was going to satsang at Haynes – official event with Gurinder – and I walked the ‘wrong’ side of a rope.
The sevadar asked me to go back about 10 metres and walk back again on the other side. It was like you treat a child.
I just laughed and said he must surely be kidding. He replied that he was serious. I asked him how it would help anyone if I did that. He asked me what my ‘centre’ was.
I was going to have a laugh by saying ‘ the eye centre’ but thought he would not understand. So I said that I have no centre.
It just shows how the sevadars follow the rules to the book. And in every organisation – the organisation is just a reflection of the leader of that organisation.

Ah Mike, I need not have ‘worried’ my mind is filling up again. But that is ok!
Osho, you have just made me laugh about the ‘centre’ thing. Now in my old days (if I had been clever enough to think as quickly as you) I would have reacted or rebelled and ‘played’ games with the sevedar.
Now? I am not so sure. Actually who knows?
One thing for sure, them sort of ‘rules’ thoroughly get up my nose! But I feel there is a balance between conforming and rebelling.
This weather I seem to be eating lots of humble pie! Oh yes, it has become a major part of my diet.
My very dear friend rang me I think yesterday, and told me one of her breast implants had ruptured (silicon) and she needed a lift to the hospital today to get it removed and get more in. I talked to her and told her that I would like to see her accepting herself the way she is than basically trying to keep ‘fixing’ something to ‘make’ herself better by putting foreign stuff into her body. Another friend was there at the time and asked me ‘Marina, do you still smoke?’ Yes was my reply and I knew what was coming next! I was asked ‘well, what’s the difference?’ A good question! I shut me mouth! But yes, humble pie.
All the comments referring to RS from Tara, Nietzsche, and Osho I resonate with. I too can remember trying to take things to the nth degree. The person who introduced me to the path years ago, wouldn’t get her mother some meat she needed to make dinner even though the mother was after an operation and couldn’t drive. The mother was willing to pay for the meat, but daughter still said no.
For me, that’s what gives RS a ‘bad’ name.(ok, apart from other things)I wouldn’t have been able to do what she done. My thing would have been – I want to be liked over going to be punished. Where she had (assumption) the thing – I’d don’t care what people thing, I’m doing the right thing and I am not going to be punished.
I am not making judgements here; I am looking at what has gone on.
It is interesting too, as today I went to the doctors for the first time in years as I think I might have staf to get penicillin to ‘cure’ it. On meeting the doctor I told him, ‘long time no see, and I hope the next time is longer!’ He looked at me as if I wasn’t wise, but I meant it. I HATE tablets, long story but I do. Ok, they may have their place, but for me, a last resort. Well anyway, when I got the tablets I discovered they were capsules, probably gelatine. Did I change them? No. Does it bother me? No. Hair splitting I choose to call it.
This just reminded me of Nietzsche’s story on cats and Tara’s experience with BJ. I too use to think BJ knew every thought I had and felt embarrassed and uncomfortable in his presence because I couldn’t control them. Still can’t but don’t try to now. Mostly I am amused at them.
I have come to a place now that I don’t believe he can ‘read my thoughts’ though I do think we all pick up feelings or energies from each other – like we all know when someone is angry even if they are not saying anything (unless we are too involved with ourselves). So now I no longer am afraid or care whether BJ can or cannot read thoughts as even if he can, I am not hiding anything. It is like being on this blog. I have thought in the past, what if someone from RS has a peek and knows who I am? Then I think, very quickly, I am not saying anything that I wouldn’t have a problem saying anywhere to anybody, even at Dera. So I said, down mind, down. It is ok. I don’t need protecting.
Which reminds me, I have been looking into this thing of seeking and non seeking.
All I can go from is my experience and although I seem to have ‘arrived’ at a place where I have always wanted to be – accepting, happy, compassionate, flowing(words fail me) it is like something inside is saying ‘this is not ‘it’, there is still ‘further’. It is like finally, I have got what I seemed for years to strive after. Yes I don’t want to ‘strive’ any more but……..there is still more.
So I am left with this seeking / non seeking paradox. I do think that to seek in terms of grasping, wanting, striving is not a form I am interested in now, I think too that non seeking can be a denial of that ‘feeling’ that says ‘this isn’t the end’. I am asking myself, how do I respond (rather than the word seek) to what is this experience or what this arising ‘thing’ is? For me it is just being aware not too hold onto any ‘state’ or ‘place’ too tightly or to any idea or even spiritual path.
My mind is nearly empty again :))and even though I have a headache, sickish stomach and diarrhoea (I know, too much info) which I blame, yes blame, the tablets for, it doesn’t seem to be affecting this content inner feeling although the body feels a wreck :))
Marina

Just thinking folks after talking about RS and I have mentioned it before, trying to put it in my own words, but I feel this chapter may be of interest to some maybe not. I resonated with it that much, it has being what Osho calls “a catalyst” for me, I am going to type out the short chapter entitled:
The Guru Syndrome
or
It Ain’t Me, Babe!
So often people fall into the trap of waiting for someone else to do it. You sit back and watch. Someone is talking about this thing called truth, is communicating and demonstration something about reality. Well, let’s see what happens to him. Critically you look. Hopeful, but ready to tear him down if you can find any weakness, evil, or flaw. If he makes it through your severe testing and, for now, you accept what he offers, then you applaud him, sing his praises, and use him as your argument and protection.
What about you? So anxious to tear down or believe. What does that have to do with you, or your own understanding and transformation? Nothing. it is only more you the way you already are. If you tear him down you have simply recognized or projected qualities of yours onto him that you find unacceptable. So you have gained nothing, except you have added to your sense of “self correctness” as an individual. You have also neglected to challenge or even notice the assumption that these detected qualities or flaws are even true, or that the form you recognized meant what you inferred it to mean.
It is probable in fact, that regardless of the status of the so called individual in question, you are completely off-base, incorrect in your judgement of him.
If he “passes” your requirements, to go on to fulfil your fantasy of what one of those should look like, you still have gained nothing in truth. You have only added to your “ornaments” of identification, what you will accept as representative of you as a “special” individual. Once again, this has nothing to do with you, or your real growth.
You must not allow someone else to be responsible for the experience of the nature of being or its representation,. It is, and will always remain, your responsibility. Your relationship to such a one is cherishable, but only if you recognize it as your relationship with yourself and with Being itself.(Peter Ralston)

Thank you Tara for sharing some of the things that motivated you to reconsider the validity of it all. Disciples that are not Indian rarely have opportunity to view the sangat and guru from your vantage point, and most Indian people do not have the proximity you had/have to become aware of certain things.
So, again, thank you.
Betty

For TAO or Brian
I said i am off the line and left the mail for maybe more personal contact. Dear Tao i really admire your sayings here and would you be so kind to send me your contact to my mail so i could ask and say a word in private talk.I hope Brian if Tao does not see this if you can send him my contact. Dear Tao i would really like to learn some more things from you!
mrtncnk1@gmail.com

Osho….here are some other folks taking thing literally.It would seem this is a form of paradigm thinking universal to religious memes
Crisps,chocolate,fags and some busty English girly mags is what I went straight after once becoming Churchless…lol
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/trouble-in-amish-paradise/

“Crisps,chocolate,fags and some busty English girly mags is what I went straight for after once becoming Churchless…lol”
infamous Dogribb quote
You know, I was understanding that post
pretty good, till I saw the word “fags”.
Are you from England by any chance ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWVaG5j6il0&feature=related

Dogribb, thanks for posting link to the
documentary on the Amish; it is
an awakening to see the similarities
between disaffected RSSBers and the
disaffected Amish family featured in the documentary.I am sure the similarities are even greater for RSSBers that live in India
and are part of the RSSB/Indian culture.

sant mat followers believe that sant mat is a science. It is portrayed as the ‘science of the soul’.
Why? because all they have to do is MEDITATE as instructed by the master. This is called ‘doing the experiment’. Then they will get the RESULTS (go inside and meet the radiant form)
They REALLY believe it is a science – because they REALLY BELIEVE that it will happen and that is happens to others.
Add to this the SECRECY – and you have the perfect setup.
A whole cart load of ‘speakers’ complete the magic show. The followers sitting in satsang are under the illusion that the speakers are speaking from EXPERIENCE.
If they KNEW that they were just talking from hearsay – they would not even go to satsangs each week. Who wants to listen to another struggling disciple telling you which way to go?
Imagine I am giving big lectures on how to become a millionaire in 12 months.
THen one day – someone asks me – “are you a millionaire? how long did it take you?”
and I say – no no I am not a millionaire – I am on state benefits – but I KNOW how to do it – because I have read a LOT of books and I have met lots of millionaires.
everyone will just laugh at me and leave.
How is RSSB satsang any different? The whole idea of listening to someone who has not got there – lecturing to you is just a joke.

Not everyone knows everything or so it seems.
Yes, I am in a mood of – if you can’t find ‘it’, laugh at it…..
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xjbwg5_pizza-joke-falls-flat-with-the-dalai-lama_news
Marina 😉

Osho you wrote:
“The followers sitting in satsang are under the illusion that the speakers are speaking from EXPERIENCE.
If they KNEW that they were just talking from hearsay – they would not even go to satsangs each week.”
Osho, from my experience this really isn’t true at all in the USA. Everybody pretty much understands that the speakers are just presenting the teachings from their POV and probably have no experience of “going within.” Largely people also don’t care if they have or have not “gone inside” The teachings are much more than that for them.
Remember too RSB is a bhakti path…a path of love and devotion and the Satsangs can augment that devotion, for some. Not all, of course.
People take inspiration and sometimes very much appreciate being with the Sangat.

“The whole idea of listening to someone who has not got there – lecturing to you is just a joke.”
My point exactly. How do you know who has got there or not and where is there?

Good post osho,
I think the satsangis would be even
more surprised to find out their
masters have no inner experience
at all.

Tara — thank you for all of that.
I can only relay my own experiences with sangat/satsangs. My experience has largely been with 3 USA small-town sangats, maybe 20-40 attending. They remain pretty liberal. One lovely lady adored the Beatles and sang her way through her satsang…”My Sweet Lord” and “Let it Be” she stopped now and then to comment—“whisper words of wisdom” was, for her, the sound current….etc. Quite creative. I can’t remember anyone giving satsang on the inner journey, nor on oneness. more so they are quite devotional — love for the Master…. with a smattering about meditation. There is room for everybody.
Unlike the Asian sangat that still has strong family support, for some solitary Western satsangi, satsang, is a way to connect– it provides a little bit of community. More so in the Charan days for sure though.
Might add, many (if not most) of the older Western satsangis have stopped coming to satsang. I feel it is because the warmth is not there. It use to be….the love that people felt for Charan Singh was overflowing, and very touching.

Seeing all these posts gives me strength to post my writings which may give another point of view to all this Sant Mat/Radhasoami business. The first is my Sant Mat story, a very radical one: http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/articles/article/2291157/105807.htm
The next is an article I wrote: Sant Mat: A Comparative Analysis:
http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/santmat1.html -Peter

Hi Peter,
I was also initiated by Kirpal and all
three of his claimant successors.
You are right, Kirpal was a liar. I
also believe he was the embodiment of
the negative power. I believe insanity
also runs in this lineage of Darshan
and now Rajinder.
There are extremely evil forces swirling
around this group. You must be careful
you were not possessed.
It is my belief this negative power
is in this group, that caused me to
write this book.
http://radhasoamis.freeyellow.com/index.html

Mike Williams,
Kirpal Singh was not a liar. He was probably very sincere, but a bit “deluded” to some extent.

Mike and Peter,
Did either of you know a person named, Nina Gitana?

Dear Mike and Roger:
I didn’t exactly say Kirpal Singh was a liar. If you read my complete bio you would have noticed that he actually did a great thing for me. I think his comment to that guy who took his life was a bit of ‘crazy wisdom’, if you like, or that he just knew the guy needed another life, however cruel that may sound.
And, yes, I knew Nina Gitana, but only because I stayed at her ashram once for a few days. As far as I knew, she was a devoted disciple of Kirpal. I never spent time with Darshan Singh, but have seen Rajinder Singh a few times. I don’t see any corruption in their lineage, they live off their own earnings, etc..Kirpal worked in the Indian government for thirty-five years, so did his son. Whether they were enlightened I can’t say either. I think Kirpal was the best and most knowledgable. He certainly put me through the wringer. They certainly aren’t like most of the sages, and, I agree, there is a lot to take on belief. One thing that is different from the Charan Singh line is that initiates do get experience at the time of initiation or shortly after. In my case it happened even before. How long the ability to have more ‘experiences last depends on one’s background (receptivity). And whether having even the most exhalted experience is enlightenment or liberation is open to debate, as my second article gets into. here is another that I wrote:
http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/page/page/4578336.htm
Also:
http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/page/page/4129644.htm
– Peter

Hi Peter,
I was initiated by Kirpal. Saw him
a few times. Used to fly on jets with
Darshan Singh and Khanna.
I can assure you this lineage does
not live off earnings.
Rajinder drives a Porsche, lives in
a mansion, signs books at Borders,
wants to give satsangs on cruise ships.
Rajinder advertises on TV. I have prsonally
seen him advertise between episodes of
Criminal Minds and a PGA golf game.
I saw his flyers in a laundymat. I estimate
Kirpal transfered Darshan $30,000,000. I
estimate Darshan transfered Rajinder $70,000,000. I estimate Rajinder to be worth
$150,000,000.
This is small patatoes compared to Gurinder’s $500,000,000 I estimate him at.
Do you go to Al Capone for love ?

Mike:
I’d like to know where you got your info. Those figures are hard to believe. Kirpal and Darshan both retired on government pensions after 35 years service and lived in modest houses even by Indian standards. Kirpal even left a house he had paid for with his own money at the Dera when he left in the early-fifties. Rajinder worked for ITT for 20 years, lives not in a mansion but a ranch house in the suburbs, and works part-time with his brother’s sari-importing business. They may use some tithe money for touring, but the sums you write about seem way inflated. Where’d you hear such things?

P.S. to Mike:
Also, Darshan and Kirpal lived very simply, Darshan either slept on a cot or on the floor, and commuted to work on a scooter. Kirpal I think took a bicycle. His ashram in India was very modest, and never charged anyone anything. WHen I was to leave in 1973 the last thing he said to me was, “do you need any money?” he was very generous with the money he had. $30,000,000 sound ridiculous. You could have bought half of India for that in 1973.
In the flu epidemic of 1919, when people died faster than they could be taken to the cremation grounds, and relatives were afraid of touching the bodies, Kirpal organized a service league to do the dirty job. He served, served, served. This was before he met his guru.

He I read this on your site:
“On one of his journeys, Guru Nanak, accompanied by his companions Bala and Mardana, met with a strange sight on their path. A large worm was writhing on the ground as hundreds of ferocious ants were biting it to death. Being tender hearted, Bala asked the great Guru what terrible deeds this poor worm had committed to warrant such suffering. Nanak replied that in a former life that worm had been a false master and the ants were his disciples. They had to be reborn in this form – cruel though it may seem – to balance the scales of karmic justice.” (2)
Does that mean that in the case that Gurinder is a false master that from Sikh teachings he has to suffer like this? On the other hand we would have to be the ants and I don’t like that ;(
Aside from the fear based teachings about reincarnating as an animal and hell beyond death what I find the most obtrusive about the teachings is that they learn you to be helpless.
In case of a disaster humans have three types of reactions. They can start to fight, run or they can sit and do nothing. The last ones certainly don’t survive, the others have a chance. RSSB teaches his students that they are completely controlled by the master and that nothing they do or can do is their own accomplishment. Many students as a result do nothing when faced with disaster or with a drawback. They just sit down because they feel they can not do something about it. The master should do it and if he doesn’t than it is their karma and that makes it useless to act as karma has to be paid. They really call this behavior ‘learned helplessness’.
In Christianity people are guilty but powerless. God says they are guilty but also that he is all powerful. So Christians tend to do nothing when faced with difficulties too. They just sit in a corner and pray until they are death.
I think we should make it a habit to empower ex-satsangi’s to make something from their lives. To teach them that they are in control to a certain degree. That they can make a difference. Like Kennedy said ask not what others can do for you but ask what you can do for others and certainly don’t let a teaching become your unquestionable ‘truth’.

These numbers are shocking. Even more
shocking is Summa Ching Hai may be worth
more than Gurinder. She has the fastest
growing group in the world.
Once, she donated $500,000 at one time
to the Veterans orginizations in the USA.
She gave out tens of millions.
The Guru business is quite lucrative.
Rajinder spent millions on his last USA tour
over national television.
Rajinder could not have accumulated his
massive fortune from work as a programmer.
His claim to fame was helping invent the
computer numbers you see on gasoline pumps
when you fill up.
No Radhasoami Guru will show you their net
wealth. If you ask them, they will not
tell you.
Gurinder says he does not take money from
the sangat.
Write a letter to Chicago and ask Rajinder
his net wealth.
You will not get an answer. You could not
get an answer from Kirpal, or Darshan either.
India is one of the most corrupt countries
in the world. The Gurus dominate politics.
An ambassador from Canada recently went to
the Punjab to see about making loans to help
people. He came back and said the Punjab was
so corrupt, there was no possible way.
Remember Sawan’s will ?
He said he owned the Dera and all the houses and farms.
Sawan was a rich man. Yet, he suppossedly
was a simple engineer.
There is no such thing as a non profit
orginization for Gurus. Because, when they send the money to India, which has different
laws, the money becomes theirs.
Kirpal, Charan, Summa Ching Hai cannot be used as spiritual authorities.
Faquir Chand called these types of people
criminals.
Kirpal’s knowledge of yoga was horrible.
He was a simple minded greedy charlatan,
whom usurped the Guruship off Sawan.
These people were snakes. The lowest form
of humanity.
Gutter trash is the name for them all.

Summa Ching Hai was an initiate of Thakar
Singh (a Kirpal successor).
She donated $640,000 to the Clinton legal fund.
Ching Hai, The Material Girl, uses the
five word initiation of Sant Mat.
Though Ching Hai denied Trie came looking for money, it was Trie who later delivered nearly $640,000 in manila envelopes to the Clinton legal trust, money the trust eventually rejected because of suspicious-looking checks and too many questions.
http://supremeleak.pbworks.com/w/page/39756803/1997-01-09+Religious+Leader+Felt+Sorry+For+Clinton+-+Brooks+Jackson+and+John+Gilmore

‘Can’t keep my thoughts from flying ’round
Not sure what I am thinking about, I got soul doubt’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlF6TLr2jog

Peter,
Do you think Kirpal was a GIHF?

Tara:
I don’t buy the God-in-human-form archtype. Kirpal always said “I am a man like you, only developed in a certain way.” He cared alot about ecumenicalism, and had lots of visiting masters from other traditions sit with him. And I don’t believe he raked in a fortune. He meditated since he was a young boy, nearly all night according to his wife and son, and hardly slept while being a guru. He worked for the Indian government for 35 years before he became guru. Same with Darshan. Enlightenment is another story. That requires other criteria, IMHO, than (even) the ability to give an experience of light and sound – which it seems the Gurinder line doesn’t get. Kirpal was good to me in a hard way if you have read my bio of my time with him:
http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/page/page/2291157.htm
Also check out “Scare Tactics”. You might find it interesting:
http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/page/page/4578336.htm
Kirpal had power and insight. He took away my mysticism, but gave me my first glimpse of non-duality. I also once heard him say, “God is nothing!” (no-thing?) “I am Mr. Zero.”, etc. I think he was the best of the bunch.
Thakar was a fake – he had alot of sex scandal and taught ridiculous things like blindfolding children until the age of five so they wouldn’t be “polluted by the world.” Ajaib Singh supposedly killed a man and Ajaib’s brother took the rap and is in jail. Ajaib was also caught pilfering funds from Kirpal Ashram disciples to build his own ashram in the desert.
I don’t doubt that Gurinder has a lot of money. I haven’t followed the Beas line very closely, but their satsangs are very buttoned-down. (All the satsangs are). That’s why so many satsangis check out other teachers and teachings – to find answers to their unanswered questions. I mean, its very hard to compare Ramana maharshi or Adyashanti with Sant Mat. I have tried to do this on my website to the best of my ability because I, too, have questions. I do like one thing that Charan Singh said, however. He said, “real questions never get answered.” And most satsangis don’t have real questions, IMO.
http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/page/page/1522670.htm
As per Mikes posts, Rajinder had something to do with touch-screen technology development when at ITT, I don’t know anything about numbers on gas pumps, or, for that matter, his million dollar TV campaign. I get emails from their satsang headqurters, and was never informed Rajinder was going on television, and they tell those on their email list everything that the guru is doing.
-Peter

Rajinder is advertising like crazy.
Kirpal said a master never advertises.
Summa Ching Hai and Rajinder are the only
ones I have seen on TV.

Nietzsche:
I hope you understand that my reference to the story of Nanak and the worms and ants was as an example of”scare tactics” the traditions have employed to motivate their disciples. I don’t believe for a minute that it is literally true..
Mike:
I don’t recall Kirpal ever saying that gurus never advertise. Maybe he did, but the context is important. There must have been some advertising when he went on tour. And those were the days before the internet and even extensive mass media. Adyashanti and plenty of other non-dual teachers advertise, through mailings, Utube, etc.. Personally, I would be interested in seeing Rajinder on TV, but I have never been informed that he was going on. And, on the face of it, I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with it, unless, of course, as you continue to assert, it is only to make money.I am not endorsing anyone by saying this, I just feel someone should balance what you say. You seem to have been burned. I am sorry. Unfortunately, that seems to have happened to alot of people. Not me. I sat with Kirpal for three months twice a day in his living room where he dealt with me in a traditional guru-disciple relationship, employing all of his skills deftly..He stole my ego without giving me one mystical experience. Long story. WIthout that I may have suffered for years endlessly “seeking inside.” But I am a unique case. I haven’t really meditated for 35 years, but I still consider him my root guru.
As I’ve said before, I think he knew much more than he publically taught, for reasons most people wouldn’t understand, just like Ramakrishna taught traditional devotion to most of his followers but only taught non-duality to Vivekananda through a copy of the Ashtavakra Gita he kept hidden from the others.

Hi Peter,
Yes. Kirpal made a big fact out of Gurus
not advertising. Kirpal also made a big fact
out of masters not transfering Guruship
via wills. (Despite the fact Swami Ji
read his out on the front porch of his house).
I could literally write volumes of books
on the lies of Kirpal. But, for Charan initiates, I can say the same, for his
omissions in editing his books.
Charan was a much more sophisticated
liar than Kirpal. Charan was a lying lawyer.
And, lawyers, barristers, are quite arrogant.
Both Kirpal and Charan went down as two lying bastards.
Literal scum.
k

Mike said:
I could literally write volumes of books
on the lies of Kirpal.
Peter says, “bring it on. I’m all ears.”
And did you listen to my “Saga of a Disillusioned Seeker”?

Peter,
Thanks for your messages,
You wrote,
“Kirpal always said “I am a man like you, only developed in a certain way.”
–What did Kirpal mean by, “developed in a certain way.”
–I’m not an initiate of any guru. Just found this topic interesting, some 5 years ago. My beginning readings began with the David Lane person writings on Successorship. This is more of a hobby for me. I’m not searching or seeking anything.
That said, blogging on these issues is fun.

Peter,
You mentioned,
“Enlightenment is another story. That requires other criteria, IMHO, than (even) the ability to give an experience of light and sound – which it seems the Gurinder line doesn’t get.”
–What would be the other ‘Enlightenment’ story. Write something in your own words regarding what Enlightenment is.
–Who, in your opinion, has the ability to give an experience of light and sound? Has this ability been firmly established? Write something on this issue, specifically. I’m not finding fault with you. Roger

Hi Peter,
http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/radhabook.html
http://radhasoamis.freeyellow.com/index.html
Peter you don’t understand you are hypnotised.
You can’t even admit Rajinder
was on TV. You can’t admit Kirpal said
the master never advertises. You can’t admit
Kirpal said the mastership is not transfered
by will, then left Darshan the Guruship
via will and also said Darshan had reached his level in the will.
Kirpal said the Radhasoami lineage ran back
to the Sikhs via Ratnagar Rao. This was proven false by Prof. Dr. Agam Mathur.
Above are two books loaded with the lies
of Kirpal. Aren’t two enough ?
How many lies does Kirpal have to be caught
at before one realizes he was not a master
of any sort ?
500 lies ? 1000 lies ? 1500 lies ?
These are documented lies. Not hearsay.
Kirpal has been condemed by all historians.
To Tara. Charan was slick. I think of
Charan as the Willie Sutton of Sant mat.

Roger:
You said:
What would be the other ‘Enlightenment’ story. Write something in your own words regarding what Enlightenment is.
–Who, in your opinion, has the ability to give an experience of light and sound? Has this ability been firmly established? Write something on this issue, specifically. I’m not finding fault with you. Roger
“Enlightenment is the discovery of what you have mistakenly taken yourself to be.” It is the hard and fast knowledge that “I am the Self.” It is “waking up” to what was never really lost. It is not an experience, but an understanding. Or you could say a combination of both, although words fail to describe it accurately.That is my understanding. See my post to Mike today for a bunch of quotes that I have chosen to more fully express how I feel about all of this controversy.
To your second point, I can’t personally vouch for any guru who can give light and sound. I do know that many Rajinder disciples do get light and sound, but, again, I no longer think the ability to do that means someone is enlightened. It is a siddhi of a sort. Plus, it is also possible that many who do report getting light and sound might have gotten it on their own just by meditating. I had experiences like that before my initiation in 1970. I just have changed my mind about the whole shebang. But I definitely – well I don’t ever want to say definitely – don’t think Kirpal, Darshan or Rajinder were frauds. Darshan made grandious claims at some times, but he also said “I am old-fashioned.” Rajinder seems soft-hearted and loving, but his discourses don’t indicate enlightened to me. Enlightenment isn’t seeing light; it is recognition of the ‘light’ by which one is seeing. They call it light because it is not dark, but that is a metaphor.- Peter

Hey Mike,
You wrote:
“Both Kirpal and Charan went down as two lying bastards.
That seems like very harsh language and judgements.
Are you angry Mike? Just interested in why you feel this way.
Marina

[Note: I added a “don’t” in your prior post, Peter — Blogger Brian]
Roger:
I made a typo mistake in my last post to you. I meant to say “I definitely DON’T think Kirpal, Darshan, and Rajinder are/were out and out frauds.
Sorry if I mislead anybody.
Again, that is not my imprimatur that any of them were perfect, or enlightened by, let’s say, Buddhist standards. I actually think Kirpal was, or, at least, was pretty close, despite all the contradictions brought up by David Lane or in The Secret History of the Radhasoami teachings or whatever that website is called – which I have previously read a couple of times. Again, that’s just my opinion based on personal experience, because he showed me an awakening outside of the experiences one gets in Shabd Yoga.
One interesting thing that I have noticed, for what it is worth, was that during initiation Kirpal would just sit up there, fiddling with pieces of paper, burping and hacking, sipping coke, and then when the sitting was over he would ask who saw the Big Star, who saw the Masters form, etc., and plenty of hands would go up. When Rajinder gives initiation, which I sat in on a couple of times, he goes into meditation himself, as if he is ‘doing’ something, and when the sitting is over, no one is asked to verify what they saw or heard. They are just asked to fill out a form and say what experiences they had and turn it in.
In my understanding, in the Gurinder line, you are not necessarily supposed to have any experience. Even the meditation instructions for daily practice are different. They are told 75% of the time to do simran, and 25% bhajan. But how can you do bhajan if you don’t hear any inner sounds?! In the other line the time is split 50/50. I personally don’t know if it matters that much, to tell you the truth. – Peter.

Nietzsche:
As per your post of June 22 here you said:
“Kirpal, Charan, Summa Ching Hai cannot be used as spiritual authorities.
Faquir Chand called these types of people
criminals.”
I think the only spiritual authority is your own higher Self along with the best of the written traditions as confirmation.
I just want to mention, however, that Shoonyo, a current guru, and successor of Dr. Sharma, who was himself successor to Baba Faqir Chand, when he heard the name Kirpal when I saw him at a friend’s house said, “Kirpal, he was God!” So he held him, in particular, in utmost reverence. He was also asked to come and meet Rajinder, and he said, “I am going to Rajinder to learn from him.” For what its worth, Shoonyo said he himself had gone to the sixth plane. Makes no real difference to me, however. We are all God in human form.

Hi Marina,
People waste an entire lifetime believing
their Guru will come for them at the end.
Decades of useless meditation.
A Guru destroys a persons life.
I am very harsh on Kirpal and Charan
because they knowingly lied.
They hurt countless people.
I believe Rajinder’s group to be the
most dangerous cult in the world.
And, I have studied hundreds of them.
I believe Rajinder to be the most evil
man in the world.
I believe him to be the Devil.
As was Darshan and Kirpal before him.
When I say Rajinder is Satan, I
mean that literally.
The Evil Forces the swirl around
this group can get into a person and
destroy them.
There are many crazy people in this group.
But, not crazy …… possessed.

Mike, you wrote in Secret History:
“Note : Faqir Chand was endorsed by Sawan Singh as a legitimate Radhasoami master. Kirpal Singh witnessed Sawan bowing at the feet of Faqir’s guru Shiv Brat Lal and the later returning the gesture. Not many westerners have heard of Chand.
Faqir Chand informed Sawan he was radically changing Radhasoami teachings to be more truthful with disciples. Sawan gave Faqir his blessing and endorsement in person. Faqir Chand stated in ‘The Unknowing Sage'(linked off this site), that modern day Radhasoami masters had no power. He stated Radhasoami masters do not project their radiant forms, nor do they come for the disciple at death. He stated this was deception on the part of masters telling their disciples this to gain a following. Chand stated he did not know where he would even go upon death, nor were the inner planes experienced in a particular order as generally understood. He asked these key questions to Charan, Kirpal, Sawan and his own Guru, whom had asked him to change the teachings. Chand meditated 80 years before he died and considered himself much advanced from these noted.”
I just want to add that the very fact that Faqir Chand said he “didn’t know where he would go after death” pretty much discounts him as a sage. When they asked Ramana where he was going, he said, “Where could I go, I am here.” Faqir was identified with a ‘he’ that might go somewhere.That is not an enlightened perspective.
On the issue of the radiant form, I agree that in many instances, perhaps most, it is the soul of the disciple that pulls the form out of the universal mind due to the inherent devotional propensities of the aspirant. Christians see Christ, Hindus see Krishna, etc. Even so, it (the form) may be useful for concentration. Ramakrishna had these kinds of visions and then went beyond them. It is also true, as Faqir Chand said, that alot of these experiences go on over the head of the master personally. That debunks the “Omniscient” concept of a master, but it doesn’t negate a certain physics of things in the spiritual realms. There is one thing I haven’t nailed down, and that is, what about people who have had no spiritual inclination, who have never heard of or seen the master before, then having his vision and talking to him inside and getting it later confirmed by said master? This seems to imply that a master can project his form, even if he usually doesn’t.
A couple of things about Sawan put some doubt in my mind. One, I saw a picture of him standing with his right thumb in his ear, implying to me he was trying to listen to the inner sounds. That is ridiculous if he was already a master who had merged with the shabd in the highest regions,and supposedly never descended below the eye-focus. Why would he need to put his thumb in his ear. Even I heard inner sounds wen I cut grass at a golf course 40 years ago. Also, when he was dying, he was “restless” and said if anyone proficient in bhajan and simran would be in his presence, he would be alright.” That doesn’t sound like the composure of a sage who has realized non-duality and that the phenomenal self was not the reality..
Kirpal, when dying, was asked how he felt, and replied, Bot acha (“very good”) and then he just left. Darshan Singh entered another room, people heard laughter, then he was dead when they came in. Somethings to ponder.

Hi Peter,
Faquir Chand said he realized himself
as a drop of consciousness. He wondered
if he hadn’t woven a web (by continuing
to teach surat shabda yoga).
Enlightenment is the realization of
no self. Consciousness does not have
a personal self. It is an impersonal
energy.
Yes, Sawan bowed at the feet of Faquir’s
Guru. Sawan also bowed at the feet
Sudarshan (Chachaji’s son), whom introduced
the resolution to excommunicate Jaimal
in Council, which passed.
Sawan said he was inept and powerless
to Chachaji when Jaimal died. But,
a little after 1915, Sawan declared
himself a master, with no authority
from anyone. Completely self declared.
I have seen two sant mat masters whom
could produce first hand experience.
(No one got anything from Darshan or Ajaib)
I used to listen to people come in a room
with Darshan and complain, saying Kirpal
said a perfect master must give first hand
experience at initiation. But, no one
was getting any.
Thakar Singh ran nearly 100% first hand
experience at initiations (I witnessed
many hundreds myself.)
Hariharinanda (Yogananda successor) also
ran near 100% first hand experience at
initiation (of which I saw hundreds)
That’s why I always took the initiations,
to see who had the juice.
Various groups gave me various experiences.
Yes, there were gurus who could actually
give first hand experiences.
But, I don’t know of any still alive.
As you noticed in my book, the secret
letter of Thakar Singh published for
the first time. He claims there
were demons swirling around Kirpal’s
ashram and they were attacking him.
He was correct. There is a such thing
as Demons. A Negative power does exist.
I have seen many possessed people
in Kirpal based groups. It is not
so subtle. Some people end up in
mental institutions.
If you have belonged to this group
you need to take great care.
If you are going to believe in this stuff,
it is better to go to Beas. I don’t recall
any possessed people in Beas group.

http://www.sahajayoga.org/
Shri Mataji was one of the kundalini masters
I was initiated by. You can see her photo
on the web page above.
When I took the in person initiation there
were probably 1000 other people in the
auditorium.
I was with my wife, whom also took the
initiation. This was a long time ago.
At the end of the initiation, she asked how
many had first hand experience. Literally
every one in the hall raised their hands.
Except me and my wife !!!!!!!!
How could this be ????
With Thakar, we had both been given first
hand experience.
But, now, with Shri Mataji…. nothing.
To this day I can’t figure that one out.
I had this weird thing about touching the
Gurus. I touched nearly every one of them
including Jiddo Krishnamuti.
So, when Shree Mataji was walking out the
auditorium I got up close and pretended
I bumped into her. I remember putting
my hand on her forearm.
The Gurus always thought it was accidental,
but it was not.
I always tried to get into the back rooms
with the guru to watch them off camera.
Their personalities switch on and off
like a light bulb. They know
how to play the Guru bit.

Mike, just because someone has a mental experience in the company of a guru doesn’t mean that the experience was caused by the guru. Self-hypnosis is powerful. Expectations and the placebo effect are powerful.
If someone is given a sugar pill by a doctor they trust, they have an experience of feeling better. The pill didn’t do anything; the patient’s brain did it. Likewise, just because everybody in a room says “I felt something upon being initiated” doesn’t mean that the initiation caused the feeling.

Hi Brian,
I agree the placebo effect can account
for a large portion of first hand
experience. And, I know Beas people
rarely have any. Kripal’s people
for the most part didn’t either.
But, I have been initiated by many masters
and seen thousands of initiations into
every sort of yoga by every sort of master.
I understand the hypnotic effect and the
placebo effect and was keenly aware of it
while I watched these initiations.
I know it would be easy to classify inner
experiences into a psychological framework.
I would love to be able to say it is all
psychological.
But, I have seen too much in my lifetime.
My experiences with Gurus and masters and
groups has led me to a much different
conclusion.
(remember I am an atheist and my favorite sport
is debunking gurus)
I have come to the conclusion Mother Nature
is unconscious. But, conscious entities
abide in that unconsciousness underneath
our layer.
I believe these entities work from other
dimensions.
It turns out one force is postive and the
other negative.
The vast majority of Gurus and masters
have no power to create first hand experience.
These people are often seen with placebo
effect. Most groups will have this.
But, there is a very small portion of Gurus
and masters whom very definitely can produce
first hand experience.
And, these first hand experiences can be
quite shocking. Absolutely unmistakable.
There is absolutely no doubt there is another
entity besides oneself producing the
first hand experience.
It is quite a shock to realize something
else can be in your own mind, besides you. (grin)
A real wake up call.
But, how do you know if a Guru is positive or
negative beforehand ? In the past people didn’t.
Now people can be informed on the internet.
Bad Gurus do bad actions.
We know them by their deeds.
The problem is, the positive power rarely comes
in the form of a master. It works through people
to accomplish things on earth to make it a better
place.
That means that the Gurus who do have power
are all negative, almost without exception.
Almost all religions and almost all masters are
negative. Evil comes in the form of the holy.
That’s its clever disguise. It uses a hypnotic
technique and messmerism.
There was nothing holy about Ramana Maharshi and
Jiddo krishnamuti. Yet, their actions were good.

Mike:
You wrote:Hi Peter,
“Faquir Chand said he realized himself
as a drop of consciousness.”
That still doesn’t make him enlightened.He said he was hanging on the gallows and was bewildered to the end.
“He wondered
if he hadn’t woven a web (by continuing
to teach surat shabda yoga).” Yes i know that’s what he felt.
“Enlightenment is the realization of
no self.”
I know that’s in vogue these days. I would say it’s half of the picture. Realization of no fixed phenomenal entity (no-self) apart from the rest of manifestation; also, realization that the consciousness behind the ego is the same consciousness behind the world. That gives non-duality.
“Consciousness does not have
a personal self.
True but it is the light, the real identity, within a personal self; you could say it projects a personal self as well as body to experience a world with.
“It is an impersonal
energy.”
Consciousness is not an energy. Consciousness is noumenal; energy is phenomenal.
“Sawan said he was inept and powerless
to Chachaji when Jaimal died. But,
a little after 1915, Sawan declared
himself a master, with no authority
from anyone. Completely self declared.”
Yeah, that’s why I am suspicious how Charan Singh ”evolved’ so fast after he said he was nobody and not fit to be a guru at all, but then became one. To Kirpal’s credit, not knowing who he was referring to, I once saw him with a world-weary kind of look on his face saying, “That man who wants to be a guru, I feel sorry for him.”
“I have seen two sant mat masters whom
could produce first hand experience.”
“(No one got anything from Darshan or Ajaib)
I used to listen to people come in a room
with Darshan and complain, saying Kirpal
said a perfect master must give first hand
experience at initiation. But, no one
was getting any.”
Not true. My friend William and his wife Lorna got experience from Darshan Singh as have many others.Darshan said you get it either at the first sitting or by the second day.. I have to differ with you about Kirpal. Tons of people attested to getting inner experiences from him. Even to Sach Khand. Two to be exact that I know personally, and I am sure they would say you are completely wrong about Kirpal. And when Rajinder goes on tour in India especially whole villages report seeing things inside with sometimes a great majority seeing the Master’s form.
I don’t know about Ajaib, but I have expressed my thoughts on him elsewhere.
“Thakar Singh ran nearly 100% first hand
experience at initiations (I witnessed
many hundreds myself.)”
I felt nothing and got weird vibes from him, and he later ran foul with sex scandals and telling parents to blind-fold their kids until they were five so they wouldn’t get polluted by the worldly impressions and other assorted gems of advise.
“Hariharinanda (Yogananda successor) also
ran near 100% first hand experience at
initiation (of which I saw hundreds)”
Yogananda said he was to have no successor.
“Various groups gave me various experiences.”
Experiences due vary, don’t they? What do they have to do with enlightenment, is the question.
“Yes, there were gurus who could actually
give first hand experiences.
But, I don’t know of any still alive.”
– Again, Rajinder gives experiences.
But, as I have said, to me that doesn’t mean they are enlightened because they can do that.
“As you noticed in my book, the secret
letter of Thakar Singh published for
the first time. He claims there
were demons swirling around Kirpal’s
ashram and they were attacking him.”
Then why would he claim to be Kirpal’s successor? That doesn’t make sense. He probably said that because he was deluded and wanted credence for himself and his failings.
“He was correct. There is a such thing
as Demons. A Negative power does exist.”
In ones mind mostly. Unless you’ve got holes in your psyche they can’t hurt you. I don’t believe in Satan or Kal. That’s talk for beginners, IMHO
“I have seen many possessed people
in Kirpal based groups.”
You mean there were cultic personalities among those there? Not unexpected. But ‘possessed’ sounds so medievil. I never met any.
“It is not
so subtle. Some people end up in
mental institutions.”
I did know of two suicides. It IS dangerous to go to a true guru sometimes. Fragile egos and childish expectations can get shattered and there are unfortunate casualties. But people make their own choices. The gurus (some of them anyway) try the best they can to be sensitive to everyone’s needs, but they are not perfect.
“If you have belonged to this group
you need to take great care.”
“If you are going to believe in this stuff,”
I don’t, mostly, so I guess i am safe.
“it is better to go to Beas. I don’t recall
any possessed people in Beas group.”
You know all 1,000,000 of them?!!! Yuk Yuk

Mike Williams said:
‘I know Beas people rarely have any.’
First of all Beas people are people living in Beas.
If you mean people initiated by Beas gurus then it is also wierd to say this, do you know all ‘Beas people initiates’ man than you know about thoughts and experiances of many millions. This is an awkward thinking. For me this is a dogma too. You cannot know of any other experiances than yourself and even if i tell you mine you cannot trust me cause you never know if i am lying to you.
A

And yo Mike have you came across in your guru collection of this Acharya Shree here is link and there is many many videos with different themes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuj54YN8Ceo

Mike:
You said:
“The vast majority of Gurus and masters
have no power to create first hand experience.
These people are often seen with placebo
effect. Most groups will have this.”
You’re probably right.
“But, there is a very small portion of Gurus
and masters whom very definitely can produce
first hand experience.”
“And, these first hand experiences can be
quite shocking. Absolutely unmistakable.
There is absolutely no doubt there is another
entity besides oneself producing the
first hand experience.”
But experiences of what? And SO what? Experience is not enlightenment.
“It is quite a shock to realize something
else can be in your own mind, besides you. (grin)”
Everything is in your own mind. LOL
“A real wake up call.”
Wake up call to what? Muktananda could produce experiences by waving a peacock feather,but that didn’t stop him from building a corridor to a secret sex room where he played with another p-cock to his hearts content!
“But, how do you know if a Guru is positive or
negative beforehand ? In the past people didn’t.
Now people can be informed on the internet.
“Bad Gurus do bad actions.”
I don’t know of any major bad actions by Kirpal. As far as I know, he was a relentlessly selfless servant his entire life, wills or no wills.
“We know them by their deeds.”
That’s a good start to discrimination.
“The problem is, the positive power rarely comes
in the form of a master. It works through people
to accomplish things on earth to make it a better
place.”
True, real gurus and sages are few and far between. They aren’t always easy to find and usually don’t have that many followers. The higher the teaching, the fewer who want it.
“That means that the Gurus who do have power
are all negative, almost without exception.”
I wouldn’t go that far.
“Almost all religions and almost all masters are
negative. Evil comes in the form of the holy.
That’s its clever disguise. It uses a hypnotic
technique and messmerism.”
“Holiness” is not enlightenment, is it? Yes, Satan (who I don’t believe in), or Lucifer, masquerades as an angel of light,” says the Bible.
“There was nothing holy about Ramana Maharshi and
Jiddo krishnamuti. Yet, their actions were good.”
Mostly good. JK had extramarital affairs, including one with the wife of his best friend. And Ramana didn’t bother to send someone after a young man who ran out of the ashram into the woods and killed himself. One might say he could have been a little more proactive.

Thanks everyone for the open discussions. There are manny first hand experiences here and I get to get a glimpse of things I have never heard before.
The part about the demons around Kirpal is shocking from what I know these entities are only interested in destroying truth spirituality so that makes one think. But on the other hand they might be workers of a higher power I don’t understand but certainly something to be careful with and no complete nonsense imo.
That brings me on the remark from Peter that a guru uses scare tactics to bring his disciple together. Like a dog barking around sheep. So hell en animal reincarnation threats might be just that.
I have read a book by Michael Newton who did research in to life after death by using hypnoses techniques to collect hidden memories that we are supposed to have about the periods in between lives. This is his book and many of the scary stories are debunked in it.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567184855/ref=nosim/neardeathcom-20
One might chose an in between life as by example a dolphin he says just to have some rest and relaxation in the oceans 🙂
The other question from Peter I must remark that it is was not me telling something about these guru’s. Must have been Mike.
One thing that bothers me too, and Peter noted it, is how can I listen to the sound current when I don’t see the light? I asked this to a Satsangi and only got the answer ‘you simple have to do it’ not really an explanation.
Did anyone see the marvelous movie ‘the invention of lying’ it does seem to apply to many of us as most of us just don’t lie and some have no trouble with it 😉 But this doesn’t rule out all of the guru’s.

Interesting posts Mike and everyone.
Mike, you seem to have been a bit of a Guru junkie. :))
How many initiations did you take, did you keep count? I would love to hear what your reasons on why you started ‘seeking’ and what it was then that you felt you ‘wanted’? Also Mike, how can you say all Gurus are negitive? Do you really, really know?
I don’t know what all the disagreements are all about really. On reading Ramana, it seems clear to me that there is the path of knowledge – enquiry, “Who am I” and the path of bhakti – love or surrender (of the ‘I ness’).
The path of enquiry needs no explanation really, just bring the attention to who this I is which according to Ramana will bring the awareness back to the Self – Reality.
The path of bhakti which seems to imply, surrendering this ‘I’ness to a Guru/teacher, which seems to lead to the realisation of ‘I am that’, which then inquiring into, who is that I am, seems to lead one back to the real Self – Reality. As he says something like, it is all our own love(which we supposedly are) at the end anyway and it just needs maturing.
It doesn’t seem to matter which ‘path’ one takes, but it seems more about the intention what we really want. I know we say we want truth whatever, but a lot of our actions/thoughts go the opposite way.
Also, maybe someone’s path is neither of the above but by understanding that karmas (action) is a merry-go-round, starts understanding ‘doing’ versus ‘being’.
No matter what ‘path’ one finds themselves on, I think it takes all sorts and an understanding of what ‘is one man’s pleasure is another man’s pain’. In other words, it is like what suits one, may not suit another. Where there is a need there will be a service.
I think that there are different Gurus/teachings for different states of maturity. None is bad as far as I can see it. How could it be, just because I might not get anything from something, if someone else does, how do “I” get to be right! All being part and parcel of the journey.
On the subject of radiant forms, whether it is a projection of one’s mind or not again seems irrelevant. At the end of the day, any experience that comes or goes cannot be IT (Reality/Truth). What seems important to me is what it means, ie recognising that ‘I am that’.
Tara you wrote:
”Charan could have easily dissolved it all, why didn’t he I wonder”
I am glad he didn’t. 🙂 I needed to hold on to someone’s hand when I first came on the path.
I liken it to a child who for whatever reason is afraid of the bogey man. The ‘parents’ console the child and tell the child that they will protect him from the bogey man until such a time, be it that the parents through talk when the child is not so emotional or the child comes to the realisation himself with maturity, that the bogey man was an ‘illusion’. Does he then condone his parents for ‘lying’ to him? Or is he grateful for their ‘protection’ when he felt he needed it?
What difference is this than what a true Guru does?
I too when I re-sat initiation, that it was boring, but where I was coming from, I always ‘blamed’ myself. Even years doing meditation – no results (well the ones I assumed I should be having) was always because there was something wrong with me, I wasn’t ‘doing’ it right or I put it down to me having bad karmas!! 🙂
On Faqir Chand. BJ now seems to be saying that the master’s radiant form will not meet one at the time of death. Is he not then saying what Faqir Chand has said? One might argue that he should have been up front at the start but do we know the reasons why? Also do we know what he means when he says this? Could he not be pointing out that how can anyone meet you when there is only one? There are a lot of people it seems to me anyway, that need different things. Maybe he is gently letting us all know the ‘real’ truth without the metaphors. Again, we all hear it from where we want to hear it which is why there seems to be so many discrepancies.
I do think that there is too much finger pointing outwards at what others are ‘doing/not doing’, when the best ‘science experiment’ could be done on ourselves. What assumptions or beliefs did we all start out with? I know mine were all screwed up!
Marina

What about Ramakrishna and Amma – going into samadhi and their fingers showing mudras?
A placebo effect?
HAHAHAHA

Peter wrote:
“In ones mind mostly. Unless you’ve got holes in your psyche they can’t hurt you. I don’t believe in Satan or Kal. That’s talk for beginners, IMHO
Ditto, but it is not that long ago when I did believe in the devil and kal. Oh, what a nightmare that was! 🙂
Marina

Hi Peter,
I think I got lost in all theses messages.
That said, are you stating that you didn’t receive any light and sound meditation experience from your initiation by Kirpal?
And, what was the special guru abilities that you think Kirpal had.
Thanks, Roger
I’m not finding fault with you.

Hi Roger:
Yes I did receive experiences from Kirpal for a couple of years. Then he or some force dragged me down into the body over the course of a couple of months. It was very devastating at the time, but it had a good ending as my story posted previously told.
. By ‘special abilities’ I meant two things, only the second which concerned me. One, if he wanted to, wherever he focussed his gaze or grace I guess, people would start to withdraw andhave experiences. Second, he had the ability (at least in my case, I speak for no other) to push ones ego so far into a corner that one gave up. I experienced a no-self kind of thing, I’d call it kensho or satori, after a three month long ordeal where he demolished my mysticism but gave me something I consider over the years to have been much better.
My story again if you missed it:
http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/articles/article/2291157/105807.htm
Near the end it should be re-written somewhat as it shows a lingering doubt I had about my state versus the mystical ‘path’.
Here for today is something good from Adyashanti I think we could all agree on:
“Come Out of Hiding
In almost every person, every religion, every group, every teaching, and every teacher, there are ideas, beliefs, and assumptions, which are overtly or covertly not open to question.
Often these unquestioned beliefs hide superstitions, which are protecting something that is untrue, contradictory, or being used as justification for teachings and behaviors that are less than enlightened.
The challenge of enlightenment is not simply to glimpse the awakened conditioned, nor even to continually experience it. It is to be and express it as your self in the way you move in the world.
In order to do this, you must come out of hiding behind any superstitious beliefs and find the courage to question everything. Otherwise, you will continue to hold onto superstitions that distort your perception and expression of that which is only ever AWAKE.”
~ Adyashanti, The Impact of Awakening. http://www.adyashanti.org

Have to give shotgun answers to many’questions.
To Mungos, Do not know Acharya Shree .
Do know several Beas initiates whom
see the radiant form. But, I do not
consider this a geniune experience.
To Peter,
Read Susan Blackmore on consciousness.
Consciousness is temporal. Firing off
in micro seconds. Consciousness is
not continuous. The Gurus use this trick
and turned out wrong.
I was initiated by Kirpal with about
200 people. Only one person reported
seeing light. I saw none at time.
I was also initiated by Darshan and watched
many initiations. Had no experience from Darshan
even when he put his thumb on my head several
times. People used to line up outside
his room and I would let them in. Khanna
was usually sitting with Darshan.
One after another they would complain
of no inner experience. He would simply
say, “I am sorry”, and bow his head
sheepishly.
You tend to forget my information on
Kirpal and Darshan is first hand.
The reps for Kirpal were often crazy.
Quite often possessed.
Their ability to lie about either their
experiences, or others is part of
the routine.
Kirpal people had no better results
than Beas people.
In my book I give reference to the lack of
inner experiences had by Kirpal people.
Yogananda did leave a successor. I
forget his name now, but he was
a millionaire. He died shortly after
and the grouchy woman usurped
power. I went through the 52 week classes
but found out she was not a Guru.
Hariharinanda was a 7th degree sant
mat master. He had been authorised
by Yogananda in writing to initiate.
Used to work right across the street
from Muktananda’s ashram. I passed on this
guru as I found out the story on him
ahead of time.
Kirpal believed in Kal. Was he lying ?
Jiddo Krishnamuti never had an affair
with his editors daughter. Mary Lutkens
was incorrect (or rather she lied to sell
books). Jiddo was asexual. There was a rumor
when I knew him he had never had sex.
He was brought up Brahmin. Hariharinanda
never had sex in his life also.
The entire time I knew Jiddo, I
never even heard the name of Mary
and never saw her once.
This is part of the crusifiction process
a true jnani goes though at death.
Hi Marina, All Gurus are not negative.
Once in a great while a positive Guru
appears. But, they are fantastically rare.
Lost track of how many initiations I have had.
Most Gurus produce no inner experience.
99.5% I would guess. I would research the
obscure Gurus. Weeded out the bad seeds.
Would track down the others.
When I found out a Guru could actually give
a first hand experience, I decided to get
initiated by all masters I encountered.
No way to tell who had the juice otherwise.
Apart from the positive masters, all other
Gurus that can produce experience (the 1/2 of
1 per cent) are negative.
It is unlikely anyone here has taken initiation
from a Guru whom can produce experience. They are
very rare.
But, I would confirm and reconfirm.
I can assure you. After what I have seen first hand,
I am a big believer in the existance of Lucifer.
Even though I am an atheist.
My experiences in the real world with real
gurus completely changes my ideas.
The psychological effects explain 99.5% of
the Gurus.
But, the problem is the other 1/2 of 1 percent.
That’s what revolutionized my thinking.
Unless you experience these things, there
is no way to know.
I am afraid Satan walks amoung us. He is not
the stuff of fairy tails we all thought.
When getting these first hand experiences,
that’s when one truly enters the dark
land of the occult.
Tremendous caution must be taken.

Nietzsche:
You said:
“One thing that bothers me too, and Peter noted it, is how can I listen to the sound current when I don’t see the light?”
What I said was “how can you do bhajan for 25% of the time of your meditation if you don’t hear anything?!
It is entirely possible to hear the sound without seeing any light. That was my experience most of the time. The sound was much stronger; the light was sporadic or rare. And vice versa is also possible.

Mike,
I think, I remember in my readings about Kirpal, that there was a lady that was very close to him. She was just a devotee, nothing bad or sexual. She typed many of the letters, mailed to the devotees. Do you remember her and her name? I’m guessing she has passed on. Thanks, Roger

Peter thanks. I guess I should have paid more attention during initiation but to be honest it was pretty boring and I could not even remember the names so I had to call someone on the phone.
But I always believed that I should go through the stars and moon and sun in the third eye whatever that means and than hear the sound current. But If I hear the sound current where will I go during meditation? Is there a shortcut passed the stars to sach kant or something?

Hi Mike,
thanks for your comment!
You wrote:
“I can assure you. After what I have seen first hand,
I am a big believer in the existance of Lucifer.
You also mention evil Mike, which I am assuming is the same thing as Lucifer. What does evil mean to you? For instance if your parents where ‘bad’ to you but it leads to ‘enlightenment’ how then can it be called ‘evil’. Do you mean that these people you were around were lying or misleading people? If that is the case, I would use the word deluded more so than evil.
I use to think I was evil. No matter what experiences I had in life growing up or when I was an adult, it never occured to me to blame the ‘other’ person. I always took it on myself that I was evil, there was something big time wrong with me.
About 16 years ago I thought I was that evil/bad that the devil himself was coming to get me – literally. I sat up one night and ‘believed’ that the devil himself was going to come and get me at 3.00am in the morning and there I sat waiting……funny, at 3.00 the door opened and my roommate walked in to see what I was doing. No kidding.
Now, I see it as my own mind, which can be very powerful either in a negitive or positive way. Interesting……..
Marina

Hi Peter,
Thanks for the link to your story above.
I got to read it today as it was raining all day long!
It was very, very interesting to me and it has led me to ponder on a lot of stuff.
There is a lot in it and comes across as genuine and honest…..
It does leave me questioning a few things which I will probably comment on at a later stage when it gets a bit clearer in my head 🙂
Marina

HEHEEE, Mike, you are funny! I told you you were a schizophrenic before, but you have just added the icing to the cake!
Everything you say is confused and contradictory.
Why did you seek out so many gurus if some of them gave you real experiences? That seems like a very bad and naughty way of committing yourself.
You seem to have met every guru in the flesh except Yogananda. You must be old. I wonder whether you ever tried to stick to one guru only. Maybe your seeking led you to flit from guru to guru like a short lived bee. I can only feel sorry for you. You seem less enlightened now than you were when every single guru gave you a spiritual experience that was not a placebo effect.
I read your webpage and i was especially interested in your contention that spiritual experiences are the product of the brain only, based on the Persinger experiments, and which you lifted from somebody else’s webpage about neuroscience. There are so many HOLES in that guy’s argument i don’t know where to begin with it. Rest assured, your stating that demons exist doesn’t put you in a good light where consciousness arising from the brain only is concerned.
You are a freaking mentally ill person. And you should get help from a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist. Writing on this blog is not helping you.

eh well enlightened people don’t fight 🙂
About demons, it is common known that some entities seem to cause the big disasters as they are often seen when they happen. Are they demons? They have little to do with the demons in our heads but they seem to play some part in dying and destruction? About possession I don’t think they like the human body at all.
@Tara
Nobody seems to know the future even paranormal gifted people can be wrong. There is room for free will. Perhaps Charan saw Gurinder becoming enlightened but perhaps that didn’t come truth. Perhaps we should mirror Gurinders own words as he tells others to meditate more and as he tells others that no master can do it for you. Perhaps it is his subconsciousness that tells him that he should do more effort and perhaps the money has led him astray. Just guessing here but there is no blame on Charan for not seeing the entire future I feel.

Hi Roger,
Hardevi comes to mind. Darshan also wrote
alot of the letters for Kirpal.
Hi David,
My step father is a pyschiatrist, M.D.
Think you know more than him ?
All of experiences can be explained
by the brain when it comes to masters
giving initiations. Even the ones where
a negative power shows up.
I only consider experiences where the
negative force produces them,
or the positive force produces them,
to be genuine experiences.
These experiences are very unique and
you won’t read about them in books.
All other experiences are run of the mill.
By the way David, do you know a fellow by the name
of Mike Carris ? (grin) He was also a Yogananda
branch disciple and believes Rajinder is God.
It’s OK to be a Rajinder mole and be here.
You are welcome. But, you are possessed
and have serious issues to deal with,
as I have mentioned before.
The sooner the entity removes itself from
you, the better off your life will be.
This isn’t a good club to be a Rajinder
mole on. The people here are very intelligent.
We all know what you are doing and are watching
you like an animal in a cage at the zoo.
Somewhat as a curiosity. So you are welcome
to stay. We will all pretend we don’t know
what you are doing and who you are doing
it for, if that makes you more comfortable.
I am here to help people like you.
Quite seriously.
Hi Nietzsche, Evil is actually a very rare thing.
Most is psychology. But, even though true Evil
is rare, I do believe it exists. It very much seems
these entities want to inhabit a body. It’s as if
where they exist they are lost, or can’t feel
themselves. They are not in control.
I do not believe in ghosts. But, yes to entities.
Luckily there is a positive power. But, the positive
power is even rarer then the negative.

[Note: Peter, all of your comments seem to have been published. I checked TypePad’s spam section for a mistake and there was nothing from you there either. — Blogger Brian]
I sent a post today on this but it has not appeared yet. I will try to recompose it in a shortened form.
I find it strange that Thakar would take it upon himself to do exorcisms on so many people from Sawan Ashram if he considered himself to be the successor to Kirpal Singh. Many of those exorcisms apparently included sex with him, too. Go figure.
I believe in Satanic or Luciferian people, not one big guy. Yes, there are occult dangers for those who are mediumistically inclined: passive, weak ego-types. Aurobindo warned of the ‘Intermediate Zone’ where unevolved spiritual aspirants can get lost in the ‘dark side’ of things.
Whatever you may think of her, I knew Judith Lamb-Lion before she claimed to be a guru. She helped me a lot to figure out what happened to me at Sawan Ashram. And she confessed with Kirpal’s permission in front of a room full of satsangis and dignitaries that she had gone to Sach Khand during her initiation. Anyway, she told of an encounter she had with a personification of Kal in the form of a black knight with a quiver of feathered arrows. She pulled an arrow out of his quiver and instantly he became all light. Interesting to think about.
Here is an example of the real Luciferians we might worry about, in my opinion:
http://lewrockwell.com/rep2/al-gore-agenda-21-population-control.html
Also, re brain studies. The scientists, IMO, will never prove that consciousness comes from inert matter. They have no explanation how that occurs and never will. They ignore consciousness. There may be out-of-body experiences, some real, some imagined, but there are no OUT-OF-CONSCIOUSNESS experiences. Nothing is ever known outside of someones perception or awareness of it. So all the Faraday cage experiments (where people are in isolated metal boxes can still influence the minds of persons in other boxes) prove is that there is a universal mind that we tap into. Persinger, et. al. need to study epistemology, for that is where the truth is revealed. Even Bertrand Russell said the argument for “all is in the mind or consciousness” was unassailable, but that he just couldn’t BELIEVE it! That shows the inherent prejudice of most western minds to regard anything but the consensus reality as true.
I just read of a guy who was BRAIN-DEAD for an hour and a half, who described an intricate out of body experience: hovering above his body , going into a tunnel, seeing light – this is all without ANY brainwaves going on. When he returned he found the nurses crying over his body. This pretty much proves that these experiences are not all products of the brain, wouldn’t you think?
But I will agree with some of the research shows certain ‘spiritual’ experiences can be stimulated by probing various areas of the brain, but that, too, doesn’t disprove the primacy of awareness or consciousness. Something has to witness those experiences. That something is consciousness.
Furthermore, since all of the koshas or bodies interpenetrate, I would think it is possible for one to have similar experiences both while in or out of the body.
“A fella ain’t got a soul of his own, just one great big soul, the one big soul that belongs to everybody.” ~ Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck

roger wrote:
Mike,
I think, I remember in my readings about Kirpal, that there was a lady that was very close to him. She was just a devotee, nothing bad or sexual. She typed many of the letters, mailed to the devotees. Do you remember her and her name? I’m guessing she has passed on. Thanks, Roger
Not sure if you aretalking about thesame person – but kirpal wasvery close to a lady known as Bibi Hardevi. After Kirpal passed away – Bibi Hardevi didn’t know who the successor was – and she was the one who apparently installed Thakar at Sawan Ashram. Although she said she had no inner experience.
Some say Kirpal was having ann affair with her – but it’s just hearsay.
Is this the lady you were referring to?

Mike, if you are trying to insinuate that i am some other person called Mike Carris you are very much mistaken. I don’t think you know damn shit about me as your comments prove.
Persinger isn’t a materialist. He has done experiments with telepathy and psychics. THere is a presentation by him on Youtube about this called the Secret is out, or something like that.
He found that when 2 isolated persons were told to think of each other etc that the same parts of their brains lit up at the same times. I don’t see how ANYBODY can deny this as evidence.

Thanks Mike and Justthe Facts,
Yes, I think that is the lady, I remember. Apparently, she was at Kirpal’s side for many many years. Very interesting, that she said that she had no inner experiences. Very interesting. When I began my readings, some 5-6 years ago, I was under the impression, these ‘initiation’ inner experiences were of a ‘supernatural’ nature. Something well beyond an ordinary ‘mind’ brain generated experience. Now, after enough readings, my hobby, I think it’s more towards sounds and visuals generated by the mind/brain.
I have a big problem with the rule that ‘no’ exchanges of inner experience are incouraged in SantMat. There really isn’t any Science of exploration of these supposedly unique spiritual experiences.
I just wonder, if that Nina Gitana person, would admit that she didn’t have any inner experiences too? True, she has passed on.
However, that would be interesting likewise.

Peter,
You wrote,
“Whatever you may think of her, I knew Judith Lamb-Lion before she claimed to be a guru. She helped me a lot to figure out what happened to me at Sawan Ashram. And she confessed with Kirpal’s permission in front of a room full of satsangis and dignitaries that she had gone to Sach Khand during her initiation.”
—Yes, the claim to have gone to Sach Khand during one’s initiation sounds slightly interesting. Would Judith be willing to describe ‘Sach Khand’ in extreme detail? We could begin some sort of Science investigation, maybe and maybe not.
Did Judith, ever exibit an over inflated EGO? I’m not finding fault, she must be a very nice person.

Hi Roger and Peter,
My take is there are no inner planes.
But, there are inner dimensions.
I dismiss inner plane experiences
as the work of archetypes in
the brain.
The experiences of the inner
dimensions are quite different
from the phantasmagorical
experiences of the non existant
inner planes, caused by the brain.
Both a positive and negative force
resides on the inner dimensions.
These are highly unique experiences.
very rare experiences.
I believe both are real, as apposed
to inner plane experiences of the
common mind, which are unreal.
I believe the inner experiences
of the Gurus we talk about here
are unreal. Completely worthless
even if one reaches sach kand.
The negative force on the inner
dimension is extremely dangerous.
The positive Force is very wonderful,
almost like a miracle come true.
The gurus know nothing of its existance.
The positive Force on the inner dimension
is what Radhasoami people thought they
were going to get, when they signed up.
People whom FEEL and KNOW the positive
Force blow by the rediculous images
of the so called inner planes and laugh
at them as kids stuff.
This is the force Ramana Maharshi spoke of.
That’s why he said there was only one Reality.
Ramana said you are either in Reality,
or you are not. There are no stages.
Either one has contacted the positive dimension,
or they have not.

Roger, good questions. Anybody can claim anything. That’s what con artists do: “I know how to make millions of dollars in real estate, and so can you if you sign up for my $500 course!”
The question is, dude, if you can make millions in real estate, why are you shilling for hundreds of bucks via your seminars? Likewise, if someone really has reached the lap of God, why aren’t there any evident signs of this?
Like you said, the person claiming to have gone to heaven (Sach Khand, in the Sant Mat tradition) should be able to describe in detail what it is like there — just as a real estate millionaire should be able to supply proof of how he/she made those millions.
So many stories… so little proof. It all becomes more than a little boring and irrelevant, this fascination with other people’s supposed spiritual experiences and other people’s supposed divine knowledge.
Where is the person who says “I experienced such and such. I know this and that. And here’s the proof”? Nowhere. All the gurus and disciples are nowhere people living in a nowhere land.

Mike, Roger:
Here is my take on inner experiences. First, Madame Hardevi might have told someone she didn’t have experiences. but the 1955 book As They Saw the Master, pretty much concludes that even at that time she was going within. Maybe she was just being modest. If she did have experiences, however, it just goes to show that having experiences, up to a certain level at least, doesn’t protect you from ego, as evidenced by her behavior after Kirpal died.
I don’t know about Nina Gitana. She seems very one-pointed and I don’t doubt she had inner experiences. Whether she could leave the body I don’t know. But, so what? What does that prove or disprove?
Again, I assert that consciousness is primary. Experiences aren’t evidence of consciousness, they are what consciousness witnesses. So the mystics and scientists are both wrong on this point. You need to go to the sages (Ramana, Atmananda, etc.) for the answer to this controversy.
“Any mystical state, any dream state, any wakeful state is a content and an object of consciousness. Different ones are going to demonstrate different characteristics, and there’s going to be an infinite array of possibilities, but the point to be grasped is that every one of them is an idea to consciousness and that the mind puts forth its own ideas and then experiences them….If you go to a higher level than this one, it will still be a content of consciousness; and if you go to an even higher level, or even to the level of being itself, there will always be a content of consciousness….That’s why it is so important to grasp this principle firmly. Hold on to it, because with it you will be able to analyze all experience and tear apart any misconceptions you have….This is true of all the seven levels of existence, even if you live in the angelic world. So if someone came from another level of existence and said, “Yes, but your analysis doesn’t hold for my plane of existence,” I would say, “Is it a content? Is it an experience for you? Is it a world that you are perceiving? Is there a perception taking place? You know it? Yes? Then it’s subject to the same analysis.” That’s how it cuts through everything and that’s why this teaching is direct and the most comprehensive one you will find. This teaching has been around for thousands of years and it won’t disappear.”
“Mystical experiences are still on a penultimate stage of the imagination. You become aware of that. And no amount of superlatives will take you away from that stage….it’s still not [ultimate] reality.” – Anthony Damiani
I wrote the following in my Sant Mat: A Comparative Analysis article to try to sort out some of the stuff about inner planes:
“Sant Rajinder Singh has said that one will be assured that there is life after death when one reaches the third plane. This is interesting, but does that in itself imply that the first two inner planes are then not after-death planes but reside in the brain and are thus still within the body? Interestingly, the Sar Bachan Radhasoami (Poetry) : Part Two appears to say so. After Sahans Dal Kanwal and Trikuti, one enters the Banknal and then goes through Daswan Dwar (the “tenth door”) to reach the third inner region of Sunn:
“Surat moves onward and opens the door. It enters Banknal (crooked tunnel) and gets across. It passes through high and low valleys. It turns up the pupil of the eye.” (p. 118).
“Turning up the pupil of the eye” and entering the “tenth door” or aperture (the other nine being the bodily openings: eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, and two below) implies attention finally leaving the body. Babuji Maharaj of the Agra branch said that “within the folds of thy brain there are many beautiful regions,” etc. He may have been quoting Maulana Rumi, who likewise said, “Within the folds of thy brain there are wonderful gardens and beauty spots. Should you like to enjoy them, hie to a Murshid (Master) for instruction.” Maharaj Saheb, a Sant Mat guru after Rai Salig Ram, even more explicitly said,
”In the fissure between the two lobes of the brain there are twelve apertures, which provide the means for communion with the six subdivisions of Brahmand and with the six subdivisions of the purely spiritual region. The apertures appertaining to Brahmand are to be found in the gray matter, and those appertaining to the purely spiritual region, in the white matter.”
First off, this passage is somewhat confusing, as it suggests that someone who has an accidental death would have no access to the spiritual regions because he had no chance to pass through the apertures in the white matter of the brain. Some Buddhist schools teach this also. But can that really be the truth? Other Sant Mat masters have said that a true disciple in such a case is immediately with the Master within, so this cannot truly be an impediment]. The suggestion definitely, however, is that the path of Sant Mat initially takes place in a passage through the brain, the most direct route being via the central channels in the white matter (i.e., via the corpus callosum and corona radiata; interestingly, there is a swan-like configuration in the brain that one might conjecture has something to do with the appellation “paramahansa” designation given to some saints or yogis), culminating in the “God-light” or “purely spiritual region(s)” that manifest when one truly pierces the crown center in ascended samadhi. This implication or interpretation is somewhat uncommon in the Sant Mat or Radhasoami literature, which generally assumes a gnostic position considering all of the subtle realms to be outside, or above and beyond, the body, while Saheb seemed to be suggesting that, as experienced in meditation, they are actually in the braincore, with only the alleged truly spiritual realms beyond the limits of the body. Sometimes Sant Mat writers claim that the third eye is between and behind the eyebrows (i.e, near the pineal gland, with the pituitary more towards the center of the head), while the so-called “tenth door” leading to Daswan Dwar, the third region, is at the crown of the head – where the fontanelle is in an infant. So, this would suggest that only the highest inner planes, such as Bhanwar Gupta and Sach Khand are truly out of the body, as the spatial descriptions of a lower region where the ”crooked tunnel” (Banknal) is found seems to suggest the passageway in the braincore itself. This would also mean that Sahansdal Kanwal, the first inner station in Sant Mat, may not be the exact equivalent of the thousand-petalled lotus of the true Sahasrar as described in traditional yoga sutras, but yet a region in the sky of mind in the braincore (as likewise would be the ‘Blue Pearl’ of Swami Muktananda), which would, however, truly be felt to be outside of or interior to the body for the normally extroverted individual.This should be clarified, so adequate comparisons can be made with other schools.
For instance, in the Kriya Yoga as taught by Paramhansa Yogananda, the “spiritual eye” is visualized at the ajna or agya chakra, but passage between the agya chakra and the sahasrara at the top of the head is said to culminate in nirvikalpa samadhi and transcendance of the astral and causal bodies. The actual passageway is said to be a subtler form of the sushumna called, in their school, firstly the vajra and chitra nadis (luminous astral nadis, the “spine of the astral body”), and then the “brahmanadi” (or the “spine of the causal body”). Thus, in the kriya school, the implication is also that the astral and causal worlds, at least before death, are somehow within the physical body or brain itself.
Soamiji also describes Trikuti as being within the sushumna, the central yogic channel that culminates in the sahasrar, an additional implication that this region is not truly outside of the body. Sant Kirpal Singh, in his book Godman, quotes Guru Nanak:
“The Master exhorts the jivas to listen to this music in the Sukhman, the artery between the two eyebrows; Then be established in Sunnya (the Region of Silence), with the result that all oscillations of the mind would cease. When the chalice of the mind thus turns into the correct position, it will get filled with the Elixer of Life, making the mind steady and self-poised. The ceaseless music of eternity becomes a constant companion.” (p. 131)
The upturning of the chalice of the heart is standard mystic terminology, but the reference to the region of Sunn is to the third inner plane. Is that then also experienced in the brain, at least, so long as one is alive? The importance of these questions lies in establishing the true uniqueness of shabd yoga as contrasted with other traditional yogic explanations.
The exposition of this in the Kriya Yoga in the lineage of Paramhansa Yogananda is even more confusing. [for more on this, see Paramhansa Yogananda and Kriya Yoga: A Comparative Analysis ]. In that path, as in Sant Mat, the aspirant is to focus at the spiritual eye, located between and behind the eyebrows, which is said to actually extend from that subtle center backwards to the medulla. According to Yogananda,
“The spiritual eye is perceived as a golden aura surrounding a sphere of blue, in the middle of which is a five-pointed start of white light…The point of origin of the single eye is in a subtle spiritual center in the medulla oblongata (at the base of the brain where it joins the spine). The energy from this single eye divides at the medulla and pours through the brain into the two physical eyes, through which the world of duality is perceived. The spiritual eye with its three lights, or three different rays – one within the other like an extending telescopic lens – has all-seeing spherical vision. Through the gold ray, the deeply meditating yogi beholds all matter and the mass of radiation (the vibratory cosmic energy) permeating the universe. Penetrating the blue light , the yogi will realize the Christ or Krishna Consciousness – the Kutastha or infinite intelligence of God – which is present in all creation. Piercing the tiny five-pointed white star, the yogi experiences Cosmic Consciousness – the transcendant consciousness of God that underlies all creation and that is also beyond the realms of manifestation in Infinitude. The yogi in Cosmic Consciousness perceives that all creation, including the microcosm of his body, is a projection of the fivefold rays of God’s Cosmic Consciousness.”
“The tricolored rays of the spiritual eye, through a complex transformation known to yogis, form the physical body of man the microcosm. The golden rays of cosmic energy, for example, are strongly inherent in the vital red blood, and are manifested in the electric current that flows through the nerves. The blue rays are a predominant factor in the gray matter of the brain, which provides a medium for the expression of thoughts through sensory-motor activity – just as on the universal scale Christ Consciousness provides the medium that upholds all of nature’s activities. And the white rays are the predominant factor in the white matter of the brain, in which God’s transcendant Cosmic Consciousness is insulated.” (Journey to Self-Realization, p. 92-94)
The last sentence in this quotation is most interesting, and similar to the comments above of Maharaj Saheb that relate the “spiritual Regions” to the white matter of the brain. In his first book, A Search in Secret India, Paul Brunton wrote of similar comments given him by Radhasoami guru Sahabji Maharaj of Dayalbagh:
“The innermost parts of our brain centres are associated with subtle worlds of being; that, after proper training, these centres can be energized until we become aware of these subtler worlds; and that the most important centre of all enables us to obtain divine consciousness of the highest order..The most important of these centres is the pineal gland, which, as you know, is situated in the region between the eyebrows. It is the seat of the spirit-entity in man….It is the focus of the individual spirit-entity which gives life and vitality to man’s mind and body…Since the human body is an epitome of the entire universe, inasmuch as all the elements employed in the evolution of creation are represented in it on a miniature scale, and since it contains links with all the subtler spheres, it is quite possible for the spirit-entity in us to reach the highest spiritual world. When it leaves the pineal gland and passes upwards, its passage through the grey matter of the brain brings it into contact with the region of universal mind, and its passage through the white matter exalts its consciousness to lofty spiritual realities.” (p. 244-245)
Swami Sivananda whom Kirpal visited before he died wrote that raising the kundalini to the seventh chakra – the Sahasrara – gets one to Sat Loka.That is, he said one exits the body through the “tenth door”, which he calls Daswan Dwar, or the Brahmarendra (here saying the tenth door is at the ‘top’ of the head, as experienced subjectively, not the Daswan Dwar of a higher inner plane) and he says one attains Sat Lok here.
This is interesting, and confirms what some of the other Radhasoami gurus were saying, as mentioned above, that only the highest spiritual plane is definitely beyond the body. Of course, it is concurrent with the body as long as the body is alive.”
Again, whether Persinger and other brain researchers were die-hard materialists or not, they are wrong to deny the primacy of consciousness. Perhaps Persinger wasn’t a materialist, but then i would assume he believed in something called a mind that influences or arises from the brain. Obviously there is an interpenetration of mind and brain while one is in the body. But mind is not conscious nor is matter.
On the other hand, are we really ‘in’ the body? Sages would say that the body is really only a thought – not necessarily our individual thought, but of the universal or cosmic mind projecting through our minds – but still a perception, a bunch of discrete sensations and not something ‘solid’, although due to the force of agelong habits we think it is solid. Some sages would in part agree with the materialists in saying there is no continuity of personality, however subtle, after death, but would then qualify that by aserting that there is no continuity NOW either. We only think there is. They are referring to the phenomenal, however, not the noumenal. The noumenal is consciousness, and it is not personal. But it is our real identity.
I repeat, the story of the guy who was brain-dead for an hour and a half, with no brain waves whatsoever, but who reported having an intricate near-death set of experiences, pretty much proves that such experiences do not depend on, although they can sometimes be stimulated by, brain activity.
Since I think a previous post of mine didn’t get posted (at least, I couldn’t find it), I will enter here an article I wrote called Spiritual Implications of Brain Research to show what I mean by consciousness being primary.
Let’s have a happy and fruitful interchange. – Peter

Peter, I’m not sure what your point is in the lengthy comment above, which I’ll confess I didn’t read word for word.
No one in the history of the world has ever described a so-called “spiritual” experience when he/she wasn’t a human being, with a human brain.
So there is no such thing as a brainless conscious experience for anyone who is alive, and thus able to talk about their experiences. That’s an evident fact.
People debate about the existence of consciousness separate from a brain/body, but they do this via the brain/body. So I don’t see how it is possible for anyone to know that consciousness survives bodily death, since they haven’t died yet, being still alive.
As I noted in another comment, talk is cheap. Spiritual hypotheses are a dime a dozen, as the saying goes. But the fact remains: nobody knows. Repeat: nobody alive knows what it is like to be dead.
Why? Because they’re alive.

I am in complete agreement with Brian, wherein he writes:
“…so little proof. It all becomes more than a little boring and irrelevant, this fascination with other people’s supposed spiritual experiences and other people’s supposed divine knowledge.”
Yes, I agree. And I it find strange that so many people seem to be so concerned about what somebody else claims to supposedly have experienced. I mean, don’t they have any life of their own? Who cares what other people say they experience. And who knows whether it’s true or not. Tne internet is filled with that sort of thing. Its ridiculous. Yet I see so many of the regular commenters here bantering back and forth, over and over, about all manner of details as to what somebody else *supposedly* experienced, or that such-and-such a guru is enlightened, or about the supposed inner planes… and many other other similar sorts of rubbish.
As Brian has so aptly said: “But its all nothing more than heresay, and it has nothing to do with reality. It is irrelevant what these people may claim.”
“Where is the person who says “I experienced such and such. I know this and that. And here’s the proof”? Nowhere. All the gurus and disciples are nowhere people living in a nowhere land.”
Precisely. Yet that is the focus of attention for so many blog commenters. People seem to believe something just because some guru said so, or because its written in some book somewhere.
“there is no such thing as a brainless conscious experience for anyone who is alive, and thus able to talk about their experiences. That’s an evident fact.
People debate about the existence of consciousness separate from a brain/body, but they do this via the brain/body. So I don’t see how it is possible for anyone to know that consciousness survives bodily death, since they haven’t died yet, being still alive.”
Exactly. So why is it so hard for people to recognize this simple all important fact?
Brian and I both agree, as Brian said: “I noted in another comment, talk is cheap. Spiritual hypotheses are a dime a dozen” -and- “nobody alive knows what it is like to be dead. Why? Because they’re alive.”

But there are people that where brain death as witnessed by EEG’s and who describe things that happened during that period of time. By example a conversation of the doctor was heard and later confirmed. There has been scientific research in this area published in ‘The Lancet’ an important medical journal.
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
But of course the methods where not rigid enough to convince everyone. If by example a doctor said that it was correct what a patient had heard one might say that the interview suggested the doctor the answer and that a correct question would be to let the doctor recall everything he said and compare it to the story by the patient. But than the doctor might not remember everything and there might be no overlap and the critics would assert that the case was not strong enough. To be short you never proof anything if one does not want to believe it. I could not proof that we where on the moon to someone sceptic enough.
Scientific truth is a function of power (Foucault said something like that).

Brian:
Too bad you didn’t read all of my post. I think you missed my point. There are lots of NDE’s experienced by people who were BRAIN-DEAD for different periods of time. That should prove these experiences aren’t dependent on the brain. So it is not really an evident ‘fact’ that such experiences depend on a brain.
I also said that even sages like Ramana say , from the highest perspective, there is no personal survival after death. But they also say there is no personal survival even now, in life. It only appears to be so. Phenomenal life is a discontinuous set of experiences. But beneath it all is awareness. No one can deny that, if they are honest. Otherwise, how could they know they exist or experience anything? You can’t deny your own awareness. This is the crux of the matter, it is kind of subtle, you really have to think hard about it. The supposition that mystical experience, or any experience, in fact, is ’caused’ by the brain or even that there is matter independent of consciousness, is really just a guess. I am not saying that you don’t need a body or brain to experience anything in this world, just that the source of the experience and the actual experiencer lies not with the brain.
Of course no one can tell you of their death experiences without communicating with you on the earth-plane with a body and brain. How else could they communicate to you? But that is no proof that there is nothing after death.
In fact, Ramana would say there is nothing after death and there is nothing now either, no birth, no death, no creation. Only the Self, the One Consciousness, as mentioned by Plotinus.
Roger, you admit that Ramana was great and he said either you experience Reality or you don’t, and there are no stages in Reality. True enough. So you admit there is a Reality. What is that reality but consciousness? That’s all I am saying. Ramana also replied to a questioner that in fact there WERE gods, goddesses, inner realms, but they were ultimately only as real as you were. So if you think you are just a meat-body now, you will experience those realms after death as real, according to him. If you know Reality now, you will see them as imaginary, or thought-forms, just like this world.
And, sorry, I don’t see the difference between your saying there are no inner realms but there are inner dimensions. What is the difference? Dimensions and realms are the same thing to me. Experience of inner dimensions, then, are not rare either. Saying all realms are illusory and only in the brain and then saying that there are in fact inner dimensions that aren’t in the brain doesn’t make sense to me, unless you’re only purpose is to invalidate certain masters (and I’m not saying that all they say is true). What is your definition of an inner dimension?
I went into detail with quotes from different Radhasoami gurus and also Yogananda and Sivananda to show that there does seem to be a similarity between the teachings and that there also seems to be a possibility that some regions are experiences in the brain, while others are outside the brain . But I also offered quotes arguing that, in any case, they are all appearances to consciousness itself, which is the primary reality. I will add to that: pundit V.S. Iyer, court philosopher to the late Maharaja of Mysore and a teacher of Paul Brunton, said, “anyone who says he sees Sat Purush inside is no sage.” So you are right in that all inner experiences are only appearances to consciousness, but you have no proof that they are all in the brain.
Ramana said alot of things, many contradictory. He said “a great power took him over” when he had his initial death experience. But he also said, as mentioned above, that there is no birth, no death, no creation, no inner, no outer. That would imply there was no power either! This is the ultimate view called ajata. He also said that the “I-thought” had to die in the Heart on the right side after much inquiry and struggle. That it was an inner experience. He said, “having visions is better than no visions,” because it implied a deepening of concentration and that one was closer to the (inner) Self he talked about. He later as he matured said, however, that there was no inside or outside from the point of view of the Self or Reality. This is when he realized true sahaj, and not just inner trance absorption. It took him 17 years in the caves to mature from his initial death experience.
Ramana also said there was nothing to do, that the Self is realized right now and is never unrealized. That is true, if one can know it. Usually we have to try real hard before we give up. I think Gurinder recently said that the purpose of meditation is so we give up and realize we can’t do it. Adyashanti also said that “the purpose of spiritual practices is to exhaust the seeker.”
Some of Ramana’s disciples, like Sadhu Om, continued to argue there must be a great struggle to realize and ‘ cauterize’ the ‘I-thought’ in the Heart. Others claim there is really nothing to do, just realize what is the case and what is undeniable. So Ramana said it both ways, depending on who he was talking to.
I say the planes interpenetrate, so they can be experienced while one is still in the body and when the body is no more. And there is some differences in peoples inner experiences of the planes, due to the comingling, as it were, of their individual minds with the Universal mind projecting those planes. [All of this is secondary from the non-dualist point of view].
Rajinder recently said that in meditation you do not actually ‘leave’ the body (in the way some might imagine), so his language is getting a little closer to that of the sages. Again, this is not an endorsement.
Faqir Chand said all up to Banwhar Gupta was “phantasmagoria”. I agree, but again that doesn’t mean it is all in the brain. He also didn’t say Sat Loka was phantasmagoria. Who knows, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. According to sages, it is the highest level of illusion. According to the saints it is real, the first expression of the Godhead. But you and I don’t know the answer to that, let’s be honest..
Ramana said that the light in the brain or sahasrar was the reflected light of the Heart. That the light of the Heart went up to the sahasrar and then enlivened the body below. These were in his early writings, where he extolled the inner experience of the formless Heart or Self as he called it. These statements were not ultimately true, but somewhat true from our subjective experience of things in inner meditation or self-inquiry according to his methods. The true Heart is dimensionless. So he was trying to describe how all arises in consciousness, but that, usually, one has to realize the Witness, or inner Self, first, before one can come out and incorporate the reality of the world into one’s consciousness. That is so-called sahaj samadhi.
So I partially agree and disagree with the things you said.
But ask yourself, and this is an open question, not a put-down, but how do you know that all the experiences, even Sach Khand, are in the brain? Remember, even Ramana said there was a great power.
Yours, Peter

Peter, re. your first paragraph above: you’re wrong. People who have a near-death experience aren’t brain dead. That’s a misconception. You should read more about NDE’s, as I have, from the perspective of a neurologist.
See my blog posts on this subject:
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2011/02/near-death-experiences-are-physical-as-is-meditation
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2010/12/no-evidence-that-near-death-experiences-are-spiritual
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2008/05/proof-of-life-a
Here’s an excerpt from the second blog post, a Q and A with neurologist Kevin Nelson, a leading NDE researcher.
——————–
Q. You often hear people claim that these experiences happened during minutes when they were declared clinically dead. How could that be?
A. This is an incredible misconception that has arisen because people use the term “clinical death” when they really mean cardiac arrest. When your heart stops and you lose blood flow, you don’t lose consciousness for another 10 seconds and brain damage doesn’t occur until 30 minutes after blood flow is reduced by 90 per cent or more. So when experiencing an NDE, you are not dead.
People like to say that these experiences are proof that consciousness can exist outside the brain, like a soul that lives after death. I hope that is true, but it is a matter of faith; there is no evidence for that. People who claim otherwise are using false science to engender false hope and I think that is misleading and ultimately cruel.

Brian (Mike, Tao, too):
I never said that all NDE’s were of people who had no brain activity. But there have been quite a few. Even one is disproof of the assertion that it is impossible.
All my other points are still relevant, IMO.
Who or what is aware right NOW? That is enough to answer, and all existential doubts will go away. That is the direct path of most sages, who don’t care about birth and death considerations. They are really secondary.
I am really curious why you write a book on Plotinus. He is one of my favorites. Did you write it to disprove his philosophy and account of his mystic experiences? I didn’t think that was the reason you wrote it, did you? “Return to the One” you called it. What happened? Did you come to doubt what he said was at all true after reading what some scientist said?
Here is what Plotinus wrote about the Soul in its native homeland (which to the non-dualist could be right here and now as well):
“A blissful life is theirs. They have the Truth for Mother, Nurse and Nutriment; they see all things: not the things that are born and die, but those which have Real Being and they see themselves in others. For them all things are transparent and there is nothing dark or impenetrable, but everyone is manifest to everyone interiorly and all things are manifest to the most intimate depth of their nature. Light is everywhere manifest to light. There, everyone has all things in himself and sees all things in others, so that all things are everywhere and all is all and each is all, and the glory is infinite.” (v. 8, 4)
Sounds a bit like a description of Sach Khand.
This is also much like what is written in the Lankavatara Sutra, one of the most important texts of Mahayana Buddhism, which in the end argues for non-dualism:
“Thus passing beyond the last stage of Bodhisattvahood, he becomes a Tathagata himself endowed with all the freedom of the Dharmakaya. The tenth stage belongs to the Tathagatas. Here the Bodhisattva will find himself seated upon a lotus-like throne in a splendid jewel-adorned palace and surrounded by Bodhisattvas of equal rank. Buddhas from all the Buddha-lands will gather about him and with their pure and fragrant hands resting on his forehead will give him ordination and recognition as one of themselves. Then they will assign him a Buddha-land that he may possess and perfect as his own.
The tenth stage is called the Great Truth Cloud (Dharmamegha), inconceivable, inscrutable. Only the Tathagatas can realise its perfect Imagelessness and Oneness and Solitude. It is Mahesvara, the Radiant Land, the Pure Land, the Land of Far-distances; surrounding and surpassing the lesser worlds of form and desire (karmadhatu), in which the Bodhisattva will find himself at-one-ment. Its rays of Noble Wisdom which is the self-nature of the Tathagatas, many-colored, entrancing, auspicious, are transforming the triple world as other worlds have been transformed in the past, and still other worlds will be transformed in the future.
But in the Perfect Oneness of Noble Wisdom there is no gradation nor succession nor effort, The tenth stage is the first, the first is the eighth, the eighth is the fifth, the fifth is the seventh: what gradation can there be where perfect Imagelessness and Oneness prevail? And what is the reality of Noble Wisdom? It is the ineffable potency of the Dharmakaya; it has no bounds nor limits; It surpasses all the Buddha-lands, and pervades the Akanistha and the heavenly mansions of the Tushita.” (from The Lankavatara Sutra, Chapter 11, trans. D.T. Suzuki, as condensed in The Buddhist Bible, by Dwight Goddard)
You will notice that the writer admits towards the end that in the ultimate reality (the One?) there are no stages or levels. Just what Ramana said. The inner realms exist, but are only relatively real.They exist in mind.
And to Tao, who said, quoting Brian’s post:
“there is no such thing as a brainless conscious experience for anyone who is alive, and thus able to talk about their experiences. That’s an evident fact.”
It’s NOT an evident fact. You don’t know that.
“People debate about the existence of consciousness separate from a brain/body, but they do this via the brain/body.”
Yes, they debate it that way, but many say they have experiences that aren’t that way. You must make the experiment in your own body-mind to find out if you are right or not. As well as do some hard reasoning. Swami Nikhilinanda said that some men would rather die than think. It is not that easy to do, really. It requires a revolution in your way of thinking, such like this: “I do not see the world because it exists; it exists because I see it.”
“So I don’t see how it is possible for anyone to know that consciousness survives bodily death, since they haven’t died yet, being still alive.”
I get that you can’t see it, but you CAN know who and what you are right NOW. You don’t need to wait until death or even to have a mystical experience. You just need to recognize Consciousness or Awareness.
Here is what Adyashanti said about our predicament. he doesn’t bother with considerations of birth and death:
“…the state of consciousness that a great majority of humanity is in is not natural. It’s altered. We do not need to go looking for altered states of consciousness; humanity is already in an altered state of consciousness. It’s called separation. Separation is the ultimate altered state of consciousness…Contrary to a popular misunderstanding, enlightenment has nothing to do with an altered state of consciousness. Enlightenment is an unaltered state of consciousness. It is pure consciousness as it actually is, before it is turned into something, before it is altered in any way.”
You won’t get around all of these arguments so easily. the greatest minds – and souls – in history have wrestled with these things for centuries.
It’s not that you are not the body; it’s just that the body is not you.

Peter, show me proof of one NDE (near-death experience) where the person was definitively diagnosed as being brain-dead. I don’t mean unconscious, or in cardiac arrest.
I used to work in health planning. I’m pretty familiar with the ethics of keeping people alive in persistent vegetative states, where there is no discernible higher-level brain activity.
So I’m curious about your statement that there have been “quite a few” cases of people with “no brain activity.” Please share the evidence that your statement is correct.
Your comments show that you are a true believer in the existence of non-physical consciousness. That’s fine. You’ve got a lot of company: billions of people who subscribe to the world’s religions. Just understand that this blog isn’t religious. So when you encounter skepticism about statements you make that are faith-based, that’s to be expected.
I get the impression that you think there is some sort of conspiracy among scientists and rationalists to cover up evidence of non-physical human consciousness. Finding such evidence would be one of the most amazing scientific discoveries ever. It would guarantee fame and success for the scientist(s) who accomplished this feat.
So it’s extremely unlikely that science is ignoring evidence of supernatural phenomena that you believe in. What’s much more likely is that solid demonstrable evidence simply is lacking.

Hi Peter,
I like your comments. I read then all
and understand them perfectly.
“Sant Rajinder Singh has said that one
will be assured that there is life
after death when one reaches the third plane.”
Faquir Chand was authorised by Sawan Singh
and reaffirmed by Charan.
Faquir Chand said he did not know what happens
after death, or if he would even be conscious.
And, Faquir said he was advanced from
his comtemporaries.
To quote Rajinder as an authority in yoga
is bizarre. None of his lineage understands
complex surat shabda theory.
But, quoting Yogananda’s group is correct.
Since I am a forth degree initiate in
this line, I completely understand your
analysis. As you know Yogananda’s group proper,
only has four initiations. But, there are
actually 7.
I can tell you for a fact, you will not
know when you reach the causal plane if
your consciousness, or awareness will survive
death.
Remember, science has shown consciousness
as temporal, not continuous. Again, go
read Susan Blackmore.
Ramana stated the Force from above opens
the centres from the top down. They are
opened without kundalini. Ramana was not
talking about shaktipat energy.
The higher heart centre in theory is
on the right side of the chest. The higher
heart centre is the shushumna curling back
down from the top of the head. Cane shape.
The jnani uses pranahuti energy to open
this higher heart centre. It is a direct
assault. This direct assault automatically
opens all the other centres in a natural way.
The dangers of kundalini and shaktipat
are bypassed.
By the way, I was initiated by Ram Chandra,
master in this energy. It is an extremely rare
yoga and I know of no masters of it today.
Ramana could transfer it directly also,
which he said he did in silence. He transferred
into the higher heart centre as did Ram Chandra.
Enlightenment does not give one access
to this energy of pranahuti. If you follow
the yoga of Ramana and indeed become jnani,
or enlightened, you still will not have
access to pranahuti.
Kirpal and Charan and Sawan were neophytes
in surat shabda yoga. None of them even took
second initiation, not alone the 7th to be
classiffied as paramahansa. Not one of them
was even jnani, or enlightened.
None of these people were even advanced
in surat shabda yoga. They were simply
criminals.
The inner planes don’t exist. Faquir Chand
said they do not exist as real places and
even Gurinder says it.
Any good Zen master will confirm this.
You can never know if you will survive death
with any type of kundalini yoga, even if
you reach mahasamadhi. These Gurus have all lied
to the last man.
With pranahuti, you are told to completely
ignore the inner experiences because they
are not real. The merger into the Self
is completely different from flying
the inner planes.
The only way to know if you will survive
death is to merge with the Self. To actually
FEEL your substance at its core. Not
to become jnani and know the theory for a fact
via realization of no self.
But, to actually FEEL your real being.
Again, FEELING your Being is different from
consciousness. Consciousness will drop at death.

Peter, regarding Plotinus: my views have changed since I wrote this book. When I did most of my researching and writing I was still pretty devoted to the Sant Mat/Radha Soami Satsang Beas way of looking upon reality.
Yes, I was scientifically inclined. That’s why “Return to the One” talks quite a bit about science and the scientific method. But back then I was accepting of unproven dogma; now I’m much more skeptical.
You’re fond of quoting other people in your comments. Well, I can understand that. I’ve also read a lot in mystical, spiritual, philosophical, and religious genres.
However, just because someone says something, or a bunch of people say that same thing, doesn’t make it true. There has to be evidence for truth. Otherwise it is simply a subjective statement. I understand your passion for believing that consciousness is separable from the body. I shared that passion for over three decades.
There’s just no convincing demonstrable evidence for this. So now I’m focused on living life as meaningfully as possible with as few added conceptual belief structures as possible. Belief in life after death and consciousness without the body isn’t necessary to enjoy life, to be highly aware of life, to embrace the mysteries of life.
I encourage you to consider what life would be like without so many unproven beliefs. That’s all I’m doing, encouraging. After all, that’s why I started this blog: to encourage people to break free of dogmatic belief structures and seek truth independently.

Brian:
I agree with you in that “there are no true beliefs.” That’s why I say, examine or pay attention to consciousness. True, you don’t have to believe anything to live an enjoyable life. In fact, beliefs are, by and large, meant to console us over fear for our continued personal survival. But there is nothing to fear because sages say, and I say, there is no continued personal survival RIGHT NOW. All is changing, even the “I”-thought, only we don’t see it because we think of it constantly. But something is aware of all of this.
Dr. van Lommel conducted a Dutch study of NDE’s and found that 18% had NDE’s with no brain activity at all. If you don’t believe that, then there is the case of Benedict-Thomas Mellon, who was dead for an hour and a half and detailed the most elaborate NDE ever described. If, as you say, it takes 30 minutes for the brain activity to subside, then he would have had an hour left in which he had his NDE.
But we don’t need NDE’s as proof of life after death. In fact, no true sage is really concerned with life after death. They all say, what are you right now? It is still a guess of scientists that consciousness arises from the inert brain. There is a gap that they have not and cannot cross.
Mike you are incorrect, IMO, when you say there is a difference between feeling your Being and Consciousness. You must mean by consciousness. consciousness of the world and the body. Of course that goes out the window, finished. But feeling your Being is the same thing as being aware of Consciousness. Consciousness is Being. That’s pure Ramana, Atmananda, Nisargadatta, etc.. Don’t take their word for it; see for yourself is what they would say. You are playing a little too fast and loose with your choice of words, ‘feeling of being’, etc.. I wish you would be more precise.
Mike, you just can’t have it both ways, arguing for the existence of inner dimensions or the One reality, and then saying there is no consciousness without the brain. You can say the radhasoami gurus are all fakes, fine, but you haven’t offered one peace of reasoning why what I suggest isn’t true.
I say inner regions are imaginary, in the sense that they are products of mind, whether individual or universal. They are the same as your “dimensions.” How can you argue there is a difference?
You also said:
“I can tell you for a fact, you will not
know when you reach the causal plane if
your consciousness, or awareness will survive
death.”
How do you know this for a fact?! Be honest, or there is no sense having a conversation. Actually, I only brought that up to show an inconsistency in the Sant Mat teachings, because if ALL the inner realms were supposedly out of the body, then one should have certainty of life after death even if he reached the FIRST plane. So I actually questioned what Rajinder said, which should have made you feel validated somewhat. I don’t think you read me carefully, and then you brag about all your experiences and initiations as if you had the skinny on everything. I apologize if I appear too harsh, but I wish you would give me a break and please try not to be so adversarial. I am trying to be objective, and am not an apologist for the Sants.
“Remember, science has shown consciousness
as temporal, not continuous.”
Why should I ‘remember’ this? Science HASN’T shown this because they do not know what Consciousness is, or that it is temporal; they only know what awareness of physical objects appears to be; temporal, and discontinuous, which is just what the sage say..
“Ramana stated the Force from above opens
the centres from the top down.”
He said that AFTER the light arises from the Heart it goes ‘upward’ towards the sahasrar and then downward enlivening the body below. He never said it opened all the centers below. . He posited a terminal pathway of the sushumna, a bend down from the sahasrar, like a cane as you say. But that is only an expedient; the Self is omnipresent and dimensionless. Again, he never talked about opening the centers below, that is, the chakras, although some people in his company had that experience, as well as kundalini experiences. But he thought that was entirely beside the point.
“They are
opened without kundalini. Ramana was not
talking about shaktipat energy.”
I never said he did.
“The higher heart centre in theory is
on the right side of the chest. The higher
heart centre is the shushumna curling back
down from the top of the head. Cane shape.”
The first sentence is partly true, only I wouldn’t call it ‘higher’. Deeper maybe. The second sentence makes no sense to me. The “shushumna curving back down” is not a center. The Heart is the center, the center of your being Ramana said. But actually it is centerless once it is realized..
“The jnani uses pranahuti energy to open
this higher heart centre. It is a direct
assault. This direct assault automatically
opens all the other centres in a natural way.”
Ramana never mentioned ‘pranahuti’ energy. And what is the need to open the other centers if the causal heart is opened? Ramana advised bypassing all the chakras as irrelevant once the ‘jnana chaksu or Heart was opened. Later he would expand on that teaching and say that it was always already opened and realized, but that it was just a matter of recognizing that.
“The dangers of kundalini and shaktipat
are bypassed.”
Granted, yes.

P.S.
I will just say one more thing. What it all boils down to, IMO, as well as that of the great Zen masters, Ch’an masters, Eckhart, Plotinus, etc., is that ALL the inner realms are imaginary – and so is THIS one. That’s the missing piece in this conversation. So…….
THERE IS ONLY THE ONE. There is no reaching it or attaining it, but there is the recognizing of it, and different avenues for getting to that place, some direct, some indirect, depending on the background and necessity of a person. that’s partly why there are different teachings and why some genuine teachers will say different things to different people.
P.P.S. And Mike, FYI, I can quote a number of Zen masters, actually, who talk of light and sound and inner realms; where they and we agree I think is that they are not Ultimately real, they are not the Reality, but are imaginary or only arising in consciousness. But these Zen masters or Buddhists of all kinds don’t deny their relative or seeming existence, or the seeming suffering beings undergo in those manifested realms.

Peter, you’re welcome to your beliefs, and to your quoting of gurus, masters, and such. But I’ve been there and done that, as have most of the people who visit this blog. There’s no end to arguing over which guru is the best, which holy writing is superior, and all that.
And it’s always possible to pick and choose among researchers to find someone who supports a particular viewpoint. The plain fact is that there’s no persuasive evidence of survival of consciousness after death, or without a brain. If you want to believe that, great. Just don’t expect that your fervent belief will convince others.
If that was the case, those of us who have Jehovah’s Witnesses coming to the door would have converted to Christianity by now. Thanks for preaching to us. I think your views have had an opportunity to be expressed at considerable length. They’re just not convincing, to me at least.

Brian what do you think your experience will be after death? You have written previously that you think there will be non-existence for you. What will that be like? Is it something you are prepared for? To me this actually sounds like the most crazy belief I have ever heard, yet I know millions hold it.

Ramana said:
“There can be no moment or condition from which awareness is absent. It’s absence means their absence.”

The only place non-being can exist is in the human mind. Non-existence (pardon me for referring to something fictional as if it were real) does not exist. It can ONLY be a concept and only humans can have such a crazy concept. I challenge anyone to find one other single being in the universe that can believe in such a crazy concept.

Yet, I maintain that this crazy concept of non-being is solely responsible for almost all human misery despite its most obvious falseness. Why? Well as soon as I say xyz should “not exist” when in fact it does exist, I create misery by my lie. If I say my wife should not exist exactly the way she does exist, I create suffering for myself. If I say my teenager should not be and exist exactly the way they do, I create suffering for myself. If I say my bank balance should not be exactly as it is, I create suffering… and all down the line. This phony, false concept of non-being is the direct source of all human misery.

The ego, the controller, is the clever one … it takes this false concept of non-existence and says, “I will make things different than they are.” Off into the imagination it goes, imagining a future and busily trying to rearrange it. It even imagines a separate individual which acquires experiences. But there never was a separate individual and there never was anything but being. To imagine otherwise is just that imagination and delusion. Being exists … non-being never existed …..except as a concept. You can’t become non-being (except in your mind) and non-being can’t exist except as a concept.

What is provable? Can you prove to me the future exists? Can you prove the past exists? You can’t because they don’t exist, they are simply concepts in the brain. The only thing provable is aliveness here and now and I have already proven it to you by the very fact of your reading these words. All else is conjecture and lies including the insane belief that in the future you will experience non-existence. Go around and around with concepts if you must but in the end BE-ING will be the one undeniable constant and truth.

Hi Peter,
Nisargadatta and his famous disciple Ramesh Balsekar
both say consciousness will drop at death. I have all
their books and was on their internet club for a long
time. They closed the club and I am not sure if it
is back up, because they were assualted by right wing
Christians. (Which always amazed me.)
Since you are forcing an answer to this question,
I will tell you there are jnani on this club. There
are people here at Nisargadatta’s level. People
who reached this level long ago.
What you don’t realize is you are quoting such jnani’s
as Ramana and Nisargadatta, whom used ancient archtypes.
The jnanis here have switched to common street language
and science.
What you don’t realize is, there are more enlightened
people about then you suspect.
There is no such thing as kundalini. It is suppressed
sexual energy and hormones. Such things as centres are
now refered to in neural logical terms.
Consciousness has been debunked as cause and is found
to be temporal. Consciousness has been found to be the
product of evolution and is not even continuous.
Science has exposed the Gurus.
You have confused the word consciousness with awareness
as used by Nisargadatta.
Amoung intelligent people, the words inner planes
are defunct.
Peter, you must realize you are not going to tell us
something we don’t already know.
What you feel is advanced theory, is old hat to we
people here.
We could add truck loads of this stuff to what you know.
The old language of dogmatic yoga can be spoken here,
now matter how sophisticated it becomes.
You have become tangled in a web of dogma. We can straighten
your dogma out and correct it. Some of us here are
quite expert at it.
So, lets say I correct your mistakes of dogma on Yogananda.
What will happen ?
You will now have perfect dogmatic logic of sant mat surat shabda.
If I correct your dogmatic analysis of pranahuti and
the higher heart centre, what will happen ?
You will now have perfect dogmatic logic of the higher heart centre.
There’s only one problem.
Dogma may be defined as an arrogant assertion of opinion.
A belief. It is called dogma because it cannot be proven.
With Kirpal and Sawan and Yogananda and most masters,
we have caught them lying to great extents.
So, why do we believe the dogmas of liars and cheats ?
Why would we emulate the actions of hypocrites and con artists ?

Regarding NDE’s I use to read a lot of them as I found them, for some reason fascinating.
One that sticks in my mind (I’m not sure of the name or if it’s the same person Peter mentioned) was one who, for an hour and a half lay covered over on a trolley with a white sheet over him and had been pronounced dead after been fervently worked on for half an hour after he had ‘died’ trying to revive him.
It was the cleaner who came in an hour and a half later who discovered the body was alive when they saw something move under the sheet! Can you imagine the shock you would get seeing a dead body move?:))
The person went on to describe an awesome experience which at that stage was a memory – in the present moment.
Life after death is like a futuristic thing. Just the moment, the present seems to be all there is. Even notions of what ‘happens’ after death, are all happening now.
What all these mean, I don’t know but find it very interesting.
Anyway, all this brain stuff is way over my head and I feel like I am in kindergarten and ye are professors when some of these discussions are going on regarding brain, and pathway, and paths etc.
Brian said:
” just because someone says something, or a bunch of people say that same thing, doesn’t make it true. There has to be evidence for truth.”
And
” There’s just no convincing demonstrable evidence for this.”
There never will be. How can anyone demonstrate the truth? Unless one has ‘experienced’ or ‘realised’ it for themselves it is all going to be concepts or beliefs, no matter how good it sounds.
Granted, it may feel right and can be a pointer to the truth.
Brian again:
”I encourage you to consider what life would be like without so many unproven beliefs.”
Hey Brian, what would it be like for you to consider life without so many ‘disbeliefs’, which are beliefs turned round? 😉
We ALL ‘pick and choose’ among researchers to find someone to support OUR particular point of view – be it for or against the ‘arguement’.
Just as Mike keeps saying that Guru’s have all lied. What can be said about the truth? Just words and images. Concepts and beliefs for us, until they are not.So no wonder some mystics/teachers say ‘neti, neti. We all hear and take on what has been said from our own unique, conditioned, programmed point of view.
Oh language can be a course as well as a blessing!
Peter as I said before, I enjoyed your story. Regarding using simran to escape, I agree with that. It doesn’t work to ignore what is going on in oneself by repeating simran. As BJ told me one year at the mike when I asked him should I do simran (with this ‘problem’ that I had). He kept saying ‘no simran’. No matter what I asked the answer was ‘no simran’. I was confused at the time as I thought that was what it was all about! Not that it ever worked too well for me. If feelings were there, there was no escaping them no matter what I tried to do.
I think too that you mentioned when a master/teacher said something to you and later on you ‘got’ the meaning of it. That has happened umpteen times for me with BJ. Sometimes, even years later, the ‘truth’ of what was said would hit me many times in many situations.
You quoted in your story:
If its root remains undamaged and strong, a tree, even if cut, will grow back. So too if latent craving is not rooted out, this suffering returns again and again. (Dhammapadda, 338
Has that meant for you, dealing with core assumptions you have gathered about yourself growing up or something deeper? And also, when Kirpal said to you ‘convey my love to your parents’, what did or has that meant to you?
I loved your quote by Paul Brunton:
””It is a common error, among the pious and even the mystics, to believe that one path alone – theirs – is the best. This may be quite correct in the case of each person, but it may not necessarily be correct for others, and then it is only correct for a period or at most a number of lifetimes.”
Each man’s path is his unique one, with its own experiences. Some are shared in common with all other seekers but others are not; they remain peculiar to himself. Therefore a part – whether large or small – of what he has to do cannot be prescribed by another person, be he guru or not. In the groups, organizations, schools, there is too much rigidity in the instruction, the rules, and the expectancy aroused of what should happen at each stage.”
Marina

It is sad that science has become a political game really. It is used to defeat religion and to ban magic while its only purpose should be to produce working models. The paradigms of science seem to be the power struggle of a small number of mainly christian scientists that work for new scientist and scientific american. If someone presents data that can be more elegantly explained with a different paradigm than the contemporarily paradigm than that someone faces a hard power struggle. The fact is that the paradigm itself can not be proven with scientific methods This is not something I claim. A lot of science philosophers they all point to the arbitrariness of paradigms. I am absolutely certain that in time we will work with completely different paradigms about the mind and consciousness.
To me an explanation that assumes conscious without a body is not something impossible but I realize that an explanation that assumes consciousness needs a body will work as well to explain the data, in the case of NDE’s it just becomes unlikely, not impossible, it is a matter of choice not hard proof what one wants to believe in.

Hi Mike, you wrote:
“Since you are forcing an answer to this question,
I will tell you there are jnani on this club. There
are people here at Nisargadatta’s level. People
who reached this level long ago.
And…
“The jnanis here have switched to common street language
and science.
Ah come on Mike. ~What planet are you on? :)) The above quotes sounds like, in your words ‘dogma’.
Dogma may be defined as an arrogant assertion of opinion. A belief. It is called dogma because it cannot be proven. says Mike
I don’t see that science has exposed the Gurus as you say. They may discount them because they don’t know.
Marina

ps Mike,
Who are these jnani(s) on this club
Marina

Peter I like your attempt to build a foundation on new paradigms. I dod not read enough and Brian I also will reed your comments on NDE’s. One can not be to informed. I will even read Suzan Blackmore one day 😉 Thanks all!

First, Paul Brunton was expelled by Ramana from
his ashram. Thrown out for tricking people out
of money. Read My Father’s Guru. No one should
quote him on anything. Especially anything spiritual.
Ramana said:
“There can be no moment or condition from
which awareness is absent. It’s absence means
their absence.”
Both Ramana and Nisragadatta use consciousness
and Awareness with two completely different
meanings. This causes confusion to the western
mind, which sees them as similar. It is caused
by a language translation.
They both say Awareness will exist after death,
but not consciousness. Think of Awareness
as THAT. Think of consciousness as temporal.
“I don’t see that science has exposed the Gurus
as you say. ”
quote marina
80% of the top scientists in the world are
atheists. Seems science does all the proving,
the Gurus provide mountains of theory.
The historians have blown Gurus away as liars.
If they are lying about their histories, would they
hesistate to lie about their yoga ?
Could a Guru be half liar and half Godman ?
Could a Guru be half Al Capone and half Mother Teresa ?

Consciousness *as we know it* is composite in nature. Whenever we talk about consciousness, the chances are that we are involving memory, sense perception, cognition/recognition – and probably thought and imagination. Without these brain generated functions/operations, what would basic consciousness look like?
Well, it would be absent of thought, memory, knowledge, recollection, imagination, perception of any kind – thus ruling out light, movement, form, sound, smell, taste, texture etc. It would obviously be void of any possibility of self-reflection, i.e. it couldn’t possibly know that it was conscious.
There is evidence of sensing and responding in organisms without a brain (even in unicellular organisms), could this be thought of as consciousness? Possibly. But consciousness *as we know it*, especially the self-aware consciousness that we associate with human organisms is clearly (and demonstrably) dependent for its manifestation on the brain.
The typical guru tells us that our true nature is consciousness or awareness – with the implication that we are eternally fully functioning with cognition, perception, memory, imagination and that very rare manifestation self-awareness, i.e. the knowing that we are knowing. It is magical thinking to suppose that these particular properties could arise without a functioning brain.

Rob, excellent points. Alan Watts presciently talked about this back in the 1950s, when neuroscience was in its infancy. He was ahead of his times in that respect (and others), because his Zen’ish, Taoism’ish view of reality is in tune with modern science.
When, he says, have we ever experienced a bare experience? When, he says, have we ever been conscious of just consciousness? Answers: never.
Experience and consciousness always is of something, some content of awareness. Even those who believe in the notion of “pure awareness” are aware of something or other. Otherwise, how would they know anything about this supposed pure awareness?
Those who talk of pure awareness or consciousness without content are engaging in intellectualizing and conceptualizing. That’s fine. I’ve done a lot of that myself. It gives the mind something to do; it provides some experiences and contents of consciousness to play around with.

I have to post a quick movie reverence here. ‘Agora’ about religion and science in the old days. Hypatia already had a philosophy about the earth moving around the sun. Religion disapproved. Top movie just as interesting as ‘The invention of lying’!
About the quotations of guru’s I think Peter is doing a comparative analyses. He compares what they say, he is not saying they are no liars, I think it is an interesting investigation just academic 🙂

Well Mike,
I have heard that it was not Ramana who expelled Brunton from the ashram but Ramana’s brother Annamalai Swami who seemed to make a habit of this to ‘maintain’ order at the ashram. Seemingly Brunton didn’t get ‘permission’ to write about Ramana or give any ‘profit’ to the organisation.
Brunton gives this explanation from an experience he had while with Ramana;
“I find myself outside the rim of world consciousness. The planet which has so far harboured me disappears. I am in the midst of an ocean of blazing light. The latter, I feel rather than think, is the primeval stuff out of which worlds are created, the first state of matter. It stretches away into untellable infinite space, incredibly alive.”
From what I have read on Ramana he seemed laid back and even ‘allowed’ TV to be playing loudly nearby while satsang was going on – much to the annoyance of a few people.
Also there is talk however that a young monk Swami Dandapani who lived at the ashram for 5 years was expelled. That night he apparently went to Ramana and wept. Ramana’s response;
“Don’t be a fool! You should know that this physical Sat-sang [personal company in an ashram] is only for beginners. When one advances to a certain stage it is better to go away if further and real advancement is to be made. For then one is compelled to seek, and find, the inner guru, within the mind and heart. Even the little birds have to get away from their parents’ nest when they have grown wings: they cannot stay always in it. So too the disciples have to practise away from the ashram what they have learnt here, and find there the peace they found here.”
But again, this is all hearsay as you can’t believe ‘everything’ you read in books’. And that goes for history books also. All info from different people coming from different places from their own point of view – maybe mainly. Saying that, one can argue that believing in God who mets out punishment without ‘proof’ is the other side of the coin. But horrid interesting stuff!
If 80% of scientists are athiests, well what does that say? Could it say that they are closed to anything which does not go along with their bent of mind?
Oh yeah, one could argue the other way of ‘believers’ and their bent of mind. Again, same difference.
I am sure Mike you heard this quote on atheism:
“Atheism- the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to
nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating
everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself
for no reason which then turned into dinosaurs.” and so on and so on the nothing goes…..
Also Mike, who are the jnanis on this club?
Marina 😉

Mike is wrong. Paul Brunton wasn’t thrown out of Ramana’s ashram because of trying to make money there. I have read the book he refers to to substantiate this accusaion, My Father’s Guru, and it is not in there.
Mike, do you drink alcohol?
Mike is also contradicting himself. He says on the one hand that gurus are all liars, and on the other hand that people like J Krishnamurti and Ramana Maharshi are real gurus.
He also says that people at this blog are dyed in the wool advaitists on a higher level than Nisargadatta Maharaj. However, Brian, the owner of this blog, would not agree with this point of view.
It is telling that when you present evidence that flies in the face of the general character of this blog and its attitude, such as the “no more secrets” video of Michael Persinger wherein he presents the evidence for telepathy, that there is no response to this. All this does is magnify the fact that these characters posting in this blog, minus a few, are not prepared to look at evidence and want to keep up the charade of being objective observers with all the answers to life.
Brian is not a scientist. He is just a burnt up old hippy with an axe to grind. He says that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain without addressing any arguments against that. Such as the equally plausible suggestion that the brain is acting as a filter for consciousness like a corked bottle full of water being in the ocean is limiting the amount of water that it can contain even if it rised to the surface and some water spilt out.
People like Brian will have none of this. They will insist that the mind originates from the brain even if evidence is presented that questions that assumption. It is an assumption, after all, since nobody really knows either way. The most parsimonous explanation is that the existence of anything whatsoever that questions the scientific philosophical school of naturalism is a dead give away to the possibility that that particular paradigm is lacking, or at best, false.

Hi Rob,
Nice post. Science can now put innate materials together
in a lab that respond as if conscious. At least they react
to outside factors.
The question is, can awareness ever be aware directly
of itself. Not consciousness, but awareness as the
sustratum of the universe. We know consciousness is
temporal and was a product of evolution, not the cause.
Consciousness die with us.
But, does something called awareness exist apart from
consciousness, as Ramana and Nisargadatta claimed ?
A general permenant field.
We know consciousness requires an object to be aware of
its existance.
But, if awareness is a different entity, can it be
conscious of itself without an object ?
If awareness is That (which we are in substance),
can THAT FEEL itself, as THAT directly ?
If awareness exists and we are THAT, it would seem
awareness would have to do what consciousness
cannot do.
Directly experience itself.
This would then prove the person survives death in
some form, or energy, or dimension.
Unless awareness could experience itself, there
would be no way to know if there is something about
us that survives physical death.

Mike Williams is wrong, yet again.
The synthesis of life by scientists depends upon already existing living substratums. This is not an explanation of life but further deepens the mystery of life.
And consciousness without awareness is a meaningless proposition. All sentient beings have awareness, it is just that their level of consciousness is not developed enough to reflect upon itself.

David wrote:
“Mike also says that people at this blog are dyed in the wool advaitists on a higher level than Nisargadatta Maharaj. However, Brian, the owner of this blog, would not agree with this point of view.”
That David is an assumption. Brian has not said anything either way. Usually if Brian has a different view point he makes it known.
As you have not got back to me Mike, I am going to have to discount the information that people on the blog are jnanis ….
….due to insufficient information and proof!
Marina 😉

Marina, out of due respect, i do not believe you have read many of the posts on this blog. You are not familiar enough with Brian’s beliefs as you claim to be.
I am absolutely sure that Brian does not endorse the sayings of Nisargadatta any more than he believes that Ramana Maharsi’s teachings on a pranic energy resting at the right side of the chest called the “heart” warrants any merit.

Gheesh I wish these comment were brief or at least Id like to not have to scroll through a mile of posts to get to resent comments

In honor of our guest Rajinder moles today,
Rajinder is seen in all his glory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOT8QihL6rs

To Marina,
[as well as to a few other commenters here who seem to like to talk about and refer to Sri Ramana, the nature of his realization, and concerning his teachings on self-knowledge:
I just happen to know and understand a great deal about Sri Ramana and his teaching of self-enquiry and self-knowledge.
Altogether, I spent several years at Arunachala and Sri Ramanashramam. I first resided at Sri Ramanashramam during all of 1970 and 1971. And then again in 1984, and then again in 1990. So I have spent quite a bit of time at Ramanashram and I am very familar with Sri Ramana and his life and his teaching and realization. I have also read everything that Sri Ramana had said (and wrote) many times over, and I have also known several different people who were present and close with Sri Ramana when he was alive. In addition, I myself have practiced and have realized his teachings during the past 40 years. I am also personally acquainted for over 25 years with one or two other people who have deeply realized Sri Ramana’s teachings as well.
So Marina, fyi, Annamalai Swami was NOT Sri Ramana’s brother.
Those are two different people. Annamalai Swami was one individual, and Sri Ramana’s brother (who was the manager of the ashram) was a different individual. I knew Annamalai Swami personally, years before his death in 1995.
Annamalai Swami was born Sella Perumal in 1906 in a small village in Tamil Nadu, Southern India. In 1928, when he was 22 years old, he travelled to Tiruvannamalai to meet Ramana Maharshi who, at that time, lived at the base of Arunachala. He became the Maharshi’s personal attendant and was given the name Annamalai Swami (Annamalai is another name for Arunachala) with duties to oversee the ongoing construction at the ashram.
It is believed that in 1938, ten years after his arrival in Tiruvannamalai, Swami Annamalai realized the Self. Five or six years later, sometime in the mid-1940s, Bhagavan instructed him to leave the Ashram and engage in intense sadhana.
Following his departure from Sri Ramanasramam, Annamalai took up an austere life in his own hut in Palakottu. He would occasionally meet the Maharshi on his walks, but never again in the fifty years that followed did he re-enter Sri Ramanasramam. A few years later he built the Sri Annamalai Swami Ashram and lived there until his death on November 9, 1995.
As for why did Paul Brunton leave Sri Ramanashramam?
The following was a posted on a message board at IndiaDivine.org:
“Brunton claimed that he was banned by Sri Ramana’s
ashram because Brunton in 1941 published a book
that was slightly critical of Sri Ramana. A lot of
people believe this, and this is probably the story you’re
referring to.
However, like so many things that Brunton said, this was
a lie. In fact, Brunton got banned in 1939 before the
book was published. David Godman recently discovered
textual proof of this in the library of Sri Ramanasramam
and printed it in “Living by the Words of Bhagavan” on
page 192.
In that same book, Annamalai Swami explains what I
take to be the real reason why Brunton got banned.
In 1934 Brunton had published an earlier book, the one
that made both him and Sri Ramana famous, “Search
In Secret India.” Not only did this book make both men
famous, but it also made piles of money for Brunton.
According to Annamalai Swami, Sri Ramana’s brother
banned Brunton because “he hadn’t asked for permission
to write about Bhagavan or given any profits from the book
to the ashram.” This was not unusual behavior for Sri
Ramama’s brother. He used expulsions and threats of
expulsions to maintain order at the ashram.
David Godman discovered that the original manuscript
of “Talks With Ramana Maharshi” contains a record of
Brunton getting banned. It happened in March, 1939.
However this portion of “Talks” was deleted prior to
publication and does not appear in the printed versions.
The whole story, including both the transcript from
the manuscript of Talks and Annamalai Swami’s
recollections, are included in David Godman’s book
“Living by the Words of Bhagavan” on pages 191-94.”
http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/advaita-vedanta/507643-why-brunton-got-banned-ramanas-ashram.html

David, if you don’t believe that the mind is the brain in action, you should try some experiments on yourself. Such as…
Have part of your brain removed. An important part, like the cerebral cortex. Then see if your mind is unaltered. (Of course, I suspect you won’t be able to talk or communicate, but maybe you’ll still have crystal clear consciousness even if you look “brain dead” to others.)
Less dramatically, drink a lot of alcohol. Or take a lot of drugs. See if your mind functions normally. I’d recommend driving your car while you’re doing this experiment; hopefully you’ll be pulled over by a cop and you can see how you perform on a sobriety test. (Downside: if you fail, you’re headed for a big fine and maybe even some rehab.)
My point is that the burden of proof is on those who believe that human consciousness isn’t dependent on the workings of the brain.
You call me closed-minded about this. That’s a strange thing to say, since I spent over thirty-five years looking for evidence of non-bodily consciousness via several hours of meditation a day and other spiritual practices.
Doesn’t that strike you as a pretty open-minded thing to do? It sure does to me.

David,
I think that you are incorrect about Brian in regards to Brian’s views towards Sri Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta. I very much doubt that Brian has the sort of negative attitude towards either of them as you suggest.

Mike, David: You said
“But, does something called awareness exist apart from
consciousness, as Ramana and Nisargadatta claimed ?”
Both of them equate consciousness and awareness. So did Ramesh Balsekar. Whoever said they didn’t is mistaken.And Nisargadatta didn’t say that Awareness or Consciousness didn’t ‘survive’ death. he said that the personality dies, and dies for good. He said he was living happy and wpould die happy. He did not contradict the ancient doctrine that Consciousness never changes. Neither did Balsekar. Most definitely Balsekar. See A Duet of One, his translation of the Ashtavakra Gita.
“We know consciousness requires an object to be aware of
its existance.”
Do we? When you wake up, you know that consciousness is self-aware; it can also be aware of objects
“But, if awareness is a different entity, can it be
conscious of itself without an object ?”
Sages say it can, and awareness is not a different entity; in fact, it isn’t an entity at all. It is omnipresent and dimensionless, and not personal.
“If awareness is That (which we are in substance),
can THAT FEEL itself, as THAT directly ?
“If awareness exists and we are THAT, it would seem
awareness would have to do what consciousness
cannot do.”
Why confuse the issue again? – consciousness and awareness are synonyms.
“Directly experience itself.”
“This would then prove the person survives death in
some form, or energy, or dimension.”
They all say that the person doesn’t survive death, but the deathless and birthless principle of consciousness remains. Guys like Nisargadatta claim that there is no subtle being that survives death. Many others say there is, but that too dies before rebirth, which is whole other and complicated topic.
“Unless awareness could experience itself, there
would be no way to know if there is something about
us that survives”
Awareness doesn’t experience itself; it knows itself by direct insight. And I don’t see how that would be convincing proof for anyone on this board for life after death.
I have to change something I said before. It pertains to the having of NDE’s while brain dead (for which there IS evidence, Brian. I have read the literature too.) And I mildly resent your accusing me of lecturing. I am trying to offer a balanced and objective viewpoint. It is you and Mike that are lecturing, chastising, and pontificating, if I dare say so.
But back to my point. I don’t know if even HAVING brain activity or a heartbeat disproves that NDE’s are experiences in the mind, not dependent on the brain. Why couldn’t some neurons be firing or the heart beating even as the consciousness has separated from the body? How can you explain someone losing consciousness of the room, then finding themselves in a variety of the witness position above their body and looking down on it, recalling everything that happened in the room during that time, and having that confirmed by the doctors and nurses in the room later? If this experience was produced by the brain, that gives the brain some pretty unusual abilities: to project itself to the top of the room and look down on itself! The only reasonable answer is that the room is seen with the mind, not the brain. The brain is merely a tool used by the mind-soul to experience and live in a world of its own creation.
And whoever said that Ramana taught anything about ‘pranic’ energy on the right side of the heart is mistaken, also. He never spoke of pranas in that way.
I don’t get it Mike. On the one hand, you want to argue for the superiority of certain sages who teach enlightenment, and then want to claim everything is in the brain. What would be the purpose of going to see those sages or gurus, for Chris’ sake?!!.

The passage Tao quoted is merely the opinion of one person. It doesn’t even make sense. It says that Paul Brunton was expelled from the Ramana ashram because his book was taking money from them – a book that was written a long time AFTER Paul Brunton even visited that place.
Brian, again and again and again, you are failing to address the points i made. If somebody had a chunk of their brain removed it would of course impair their behaviour. But that is not because the brain is responsible for containing their conscious mind and perhaps unconscious material, it is because the brain limits the potential of that person’s consciousness just like air is invisible but can be seen by its effects on the rustling of leaves or in tornados. The air is actually everywhere but when it coagulates in certain regions it produces a tornado which then becomes visible to the naked eye.
Again and again and again, you have not commented about the Persinger video “no more secrets” studies on telepathy and remote viewing. You are like the schoo bully who has a sore thumb and is crying int he corner about it and nobody cares about them. They just leave them to wallow in their self created junk.

Tao, i didn’t suggest Brian has a negative attitude towards Ramana and Nisargadatta. I simply said that he probably doesn’t agree with their views and that their guru status is legitimate.
I sincerely hope you don’t say anything to me that makes it look as though i am a fool.

Hi Peter and tao,
Good post tao. You should post more.
So should tara and george.
Peter said, Ramana and Nisargadatta
equated consciousness and awareness.
This is absolutely incorrect. When I used
to belong to Ramesh Balsekar’s club, his people
were constantly correcting people on this issue.
I have all of Balsekar’s books and for years
have been sending them to people. I recommend them
as the best jnani books ever written. They completely
strip out dogma.
“whoever said that Ramana taught anything about ‘pranic’
energy on the right side of the heart is mistaken, also.
He never spoke of pranas in that way.” quote Peter
This is also absolutely incorrect. Again, you are
confusing prana with pranahuti. Ramana did not use
the word pranahuti, he called it the decent of Force,
and likened it to the Self. He often used the higher
heart centre in his teachings. But, the decent was
through the top of the head, which he said opened
all centres below automatically. The pranahuti
transfer by the master goes into the higher
heart centre of the disciples.
This was the same method of Ram Chandra
Ramana did not work with kundalini. But, was fully
conversant in it.
Surat shabda yoga works the opposite of pranahuti.
They are apples and oranges.

David, there’s no evidence that the brain is a channel for consciousness, like a TV set is a channel for electromagnetic waves. Your air analogy isn’t apt, because air is easily detectable even when leaves aren’t blowing, while human consciousness isn’t detectable absent a human brain.
Your anger and irritation at me is interesting. You seem desperate for me to agree with you, to watch the almost hour long Persinger video (which I don’t have time to do right now, as my granddaughter and her family are coming for a visit tomorrow and I’ve got more important things on my to-do list).
When I see believers in the supernatural, like you, insulting other people, like me, that makes me happy that I’m a good-natured religious skeptic instead of a judgmental true believer.
Now, maybe those last words don’t describe you accurately. If so, understand that your descriptions of me, “a burnt up old hippy with an axe to grind” and “You are like the schoo bully who has a sore thumb and is crying int he corner about it and nobody cares about them. They just leave them to wallow in their self created junk” aren’t accurate either.
Where does this bitterness come from? If you really know that what you believe is true, what difference does it make if I agree with you? Have some confidence in yourself, David. You can happily be yourself while other people are happily themselves.

18 months left, I have trouble understanding your point.
Sure, when I die the cosmos will continue to exist. My non-existence doesn’t mean that everything in existence will become non-being. But the particular configuration known now as “me” won’t exist. And the brain by which I’m conscious and aware also won’t exist.
So I don’t see how this is conceptual or crazy. Change happens. Entities live and then they die. That’s obvious. It’s clearly evident from observation of everyday life. You seem to have some abstract philosophical idea of “being” that makes you think that consciousness is primal and exists forever.
Or maybe I’m not understanding what you were trying to say. If so, say it more clearly. What of you or me will continue to exist after we die, in your opinion — beyond mere atoms?

I was thinking after reading some of the comparative analyzes by David that some maybe many guru’s life in a place where they can life their phantasmorgana and not be disturbed. It is the perfect haven for a narcissistic personality with a fantasizing lying deviation.
We see a lot of these people command their pupils and teaching them total nonsense and getting away with it. Yes some concrete examples come to mind as L. Ron Hubbard and Paul Mitchell. Go read their stories about space aliens and yogi’s that life in the desert for many hundreds of years or so.
Some of these guru’s are harmless but some of them are not as I will not repeat here because a simple google search will verify what victims they make.
But it is important to somehow see if their is some advanced knowledge among these natural liars.
I did like the statement by David that it all comes down to realizing that all these planes are fantasies and that that applies to this plane too. I mean that statement has a copernican beauty doesn’t it? Might as well be the lie of all lies but something in my own experience resonates with it.

To David,
I am speaking to the entity inside David.
You will arise.
What is your name ?
How long have you resided in David ?
Where do you come from ?
How many of you are inside David ?
Is there any way we can help you
exit from David ?

Mike: You said:
“Peter said, Ramana and Nisargadatta
equated consciousness and awareness.
“This is absolutely incorrect. When I used
to belong to Ramesh Balsekar’s club, his people
were constantly correcting people on this issue.”
Read A Duet of One. Balsekar continually talks about Consciousness being the only reality, on almost every page.. Nisargadatta usually talked that way, too, but he occasionally changed things up a bit by saying that he abided in the Principle before consciousness. Sri Atmananda Krishna Menon said these two opposite things sometimes, but most of the time said consciousness was Reality. But that was only their way of saying that normal waking consciousness was not the pure Awareness he had realized. He told people again and again to pay attention to the feeling of I AM, which he felt would lead them to recognize pure consciousness. So I beg to differ with you.
“I have all of Balsekar’s books and for years
have been sending them to people.
I see you have all the right credentials. That and all your initiations qualifies you as the authority on everything, including knowing all the jnanis on this board!
” I recommend them
as the best jnani books ever written. They completely
strip out dogma.”
He was O.K., but kind of one-sided in trying to get everyone to see that there was no free-will, as if that investigation was enough for most people to realize the truth.
“whoever said that Ramana taught anything about ‘pranic’
energy on the right side of the heart is mistaken, also.
He never spoke of pranas in that way.” quote Peter
“This is also absolutely incorrect. Again, you are
confusing prana with pranahuti. Ramana did not use
the word pranahuti, he called it the decent of Force,
O.K, I’ll do what you’ve done. I’ll say I’ve read ten or more books on or by Ramana (Talks, Day by Day with Bhagavan, The Power of the Presence (3 volumes, Teachings of Ramana Maharshi, Collected works of Ramana Maharshi) and NOWHERE does he talk about a descent of force, except when criticizing Aurobindo when talking to a disciple. You are blowing smoke to so easily imply that he meant pranahuti when he said force (which he didn’t at all). And he never spoke of awakening the centers below the crown. In fact, he even said to people, “why seek liberation? Just be as you are.”
“and likened it to the Self. He often used the higher
heart centre in his teachings. ”
He never spoke of it as higher. High and low were not in his teachings. He sad they were concepts of the mind, and “to think is not our nature.”
“But, the decent was
through the top of the head, which he said opened
all centres below automatically. The pranahuti
transfer by the master goes into the higher
heart centre of the disciples.”
If there is something called pranahuti, Ramana never thought about it. O.K. I have looked up ‘pranahuti.” Here is a capsule of Ram Chandras teachings. Ask anyone on this board if these don’t sound as much of bullshit as the Radhasoami teachings you so criticise. You might as well throw out Buddhism, Taoism, and all the no-self type of teachings and stick with teachings of “doers” seeking personal salvation:
“Pranahuti or transmission of superfine thought
– what the f__k is ‘superfine thought?’ More obscurity.
“is the most unique feature of the system of Rajayoga of Sri Ram Chandra. This is supposed to make the task of the aspirant easier.”
So the aspirant has a task. Already he is a seeker like any good Radhasoami disciple.
” The Master says that without the help of Pranahuti it will be difficult, if not impossible, to reach higher stages of sadhana.”
I thought you agreed with Ramana that there were no stages in reality?!
“The word Pranahuti is derived from the words Prana and Ahuti. Ahuti is offering particularly in sacrifice during religious ceremonies. Prana means life or life force. The nature of Prana is expounded in the Vedic and Upanishad literature, particularly the Kaushitaki Upanishad (3-2) where it is stated Sahovaacha Praanosmi (He said I am Life) and Kena Upanishad (2) where it was stated as Praanasya Praanah (The Life of all lives) and Praanosmi Mam upaasva (Adore Me who am Life). Thus we find the nature of the Ultimate is of the nature of Prana. Prana is of the nature of pure thought and that is what makes human beings important in the scheme of Divinity in as much as he shares the nature of original stir in a way that no other being, animal or devas etc., is capable of is now fairly established. That human life has been regarded, as most fortunate is no new concept for any religion but the main reason why it is so, is what is established by Rev. Babuji.
Salient Points of Pranahuti
“It is pure and simple act of will backed by Divine Will of a person who is committed to the progress of the aspirant for progress in the spiritual path.”
Here we go again with a spiritual ‘path’.
It is an act of will on the part of the person transmitting Divine thought.”
What a dualiistic notion. I think you were taken in by a crock of s__t. And what is ‘Divine thought’ as opposed to regular thought?
Thought isn’t force anyway.
“It is an act of will supported by the Divine.
It does not require words or touch or any other such physical aids.
It assists the aspirant to develop the capacity for balanced existence while simultaneously assisting him / her in the spiritual progress.
– Spritual ‘progress?’ More dualistic notions. Strike three.
“It is no mystic or mysterious force.”
Sure sounds like one.
“Viveka or discriminative intelligence is improved by the regular influx of the Divine impulse imparted during Pranahuti the awareness of the Power behind all existence shared in one’s being is fully realised.
It enables the aspirant develop an attitude of humility in thought, word and deed. It enables the aspirant understand that Master is the knower, doer and enjoyer.”
I thought you hated Masters.
“The capacity to impart Pranahuti is obtained only when a person is beyond the realms of his limited self, Pinddesh and is established in the higher plane of consciousness called Brahmand.”
Uh Oh – here is a big word again – ‘Brahmand’. Now where have I heard that before?
The Grand Master Rev. Lalaji Maharaj prayed and obtained the grace of the Divine so as to make the influx of Pranahuti possible into every seeker.”
-‘Seeker?’ Sounds like personal progress to me. Nothing to do with Ramana or Nisargadatta’s teachings at all, and just more seeking nonsense.
I think you are tripping over your own feet and have too many concepts helplessly floating through your mind.
See, I can be as nasty as any one on this board! But at least I try my best to back up my points with reasoned argument and valid comparisons where needed to have an honest discussion, instead of just attacking and dismissing or, I will use the word again, pontificating, to lord it over someone else.
Brian, I must apologize a bit to you. I read through your personal blog posts which show up on the left side of the page and found them very useful and insightful, in contrast to some of your rebuttals at times to my own posts. I don’t think we are that far apart in our thinking; there is an issue with semantics, mostly.
-Peter

David, you wrote:
“The passage Tao quoted is merely the opinion of one person. It doesn’t even make sense. It says that Paul Brunton was expelled from the Ramana ashram because his book was taking money from them – a book that was written a long time AFTER Paul Brunton even visited that place.”
David, apparently you do not read very well, and you are mistaken.
What I posted does NOT say that “Paul Brunton was expelled from the Ramana ashram because his book was taking money from them”.
Here is exactly what it says:
“Brunton got banned in 1939 before the
book was published. David Godman recently discovered textual proof of this in the library of Sri Ramanasramam…
In 1934 Brunton had published an earlier book, […] “Search In Secret India.” Not only did this book make both men famous, but it also made piles of money for Brunton.
According to Annamalai Swami, Sri Ramana’s brother banned Brunton because “he hadn’t asked for permission to write about Bhagavan or given any profits from the book
to the ashram.”
David Godman discovered that the original manuscript of “Talks With Ramana Maharshi” contains a record of Brunton getting banned. It happened in March, 1939.
So therefore David, your assertion is incorrect. It clearly says that Brunton got banned (expelled) from Ramana ashram simply because “he [Brunton] hadn’t asked for permission to write about Bhagavan or given any profits from the book
to the ashram.” It does NOT say that it was “because his book was taking money from them”. It says that Brunton had not got permission to write about Sri Ramana, and also that Brunton had not given any profits (from the book) to the ashram. Its very clear.
Also, that entire matter was reported by Annamalai Swami, and it was also verified by David Godman. So it seems you have a tendency to twist the facts a little bit in order to suit your own agenda and bias. I simply reported what info I had found on the subject.
Also, about the matter of your comment about Brian, which I had interpreted as a bit of “negative attitude”…
You now say: “I simply said that he probably doesn’t agree with their views and that their guru status is legitimate.”
Well, imo, your attitude [about how Brian feels about and views Ramana and Nisargadatta] did seem presumptious and somewhat negative. Also, I am am pretty sure that Brian does not doubt that they were both sagely gurus. But Brian would be the one to ask about that.
You also said: “I sincerely hope you don’t say anything to me that makes it look as though i am a fool.”
I can not say anything to make you look like a fool. Only you can do that to yourself. *grin*

Damn I’m really getting confused in this thread. I said David where I meant Peter. It is like David is drawing my atention and then Mike is expelling an entity from him. On the other hand I woke in the middle of the night to make my former post and felt obliged to do so. Guess I need some coffee 🙂

@Tara
There also seems to be the question if consciousness survives death or awareness.

This topic seems like a good place to share the following…
“May all deeply meditate upon the Truth revealed by the Maharshi and, abiding in His Grace and in that Truth revealed, dwell in perpetual Bliss and Peace. Whoever deeply inquires as instructed by the Maharshi realizes the true nature of the Self to be ever bodiless and, liberated from bondage and its consequent suffering, abides in infinite Wisdom and Bliss.”
— Ramanaprasad
For anyone here who desires deeper truth and understanding, here are links to some very good videos of satsangs given by Ramanaprasad, a long-time personal acquaintence of mine. Enjoy.
Videos on the teaching and realization of Self-knowledge:
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Perfection
http://www.satramana.org/html/sri_ramana_maharshi__perfectio.htm
One Undivided Self
http://www.satramana.org/html/satsang__one_undivided_self__s.htm
Video Gems – short video excerpts from satsangs:
The Timeless, Spaceless, Nondual Reality
http://www.satramana.org/html/the_timeless__spaceless__nondu.htm
Sri Ramana Maharshi: He reveals the Truth, He reveals Himself
http://www.satramana.org/html/sri_ramana_maharshi_-_he_revea.htm
From Sri Ramana Maharshi’s book “Who am I?”
http://www.satramana.org/html/from_sri_ramana_maharshi_s_boo.htm
Index of Video Gems:
http://www.satramana.org/html/video_gems.htm
Index of Full Satsang Videos (each approx 1 hour in length):
http://www.satramana.org/html/satsang_videos.htm
SAT Reflections magazine [PDF format]
http://www.satramana.org/html/reflections.htm

OK Brian, i apologise for some of the words i used.
But you are going to have to do better than excuse yourself from the debate by saying you aren’t interested in any evidence which goes against your worldview. This is not a scientific approach. You do like to cite science as a means of bolstering your opinions. You should be able to be open minded when it comes to others using science to challenge your opinions.
There are double standards when it comes to Persinger. On the one hand, he is used as a pawn to bolster a materialist world view but when someone points to his work with psychic phenomena he suddenly loses all credibility. This is embarassing to all decent thinking human beings.
Mike, you have problems. I suggest you see that step father of yours and get some help.

Hi Peter,
I was initiated 30 years ago by Ram Chandra. His
teachings are very complex so I will put them
in laymens terms and relate to Ramana.
Pranahuti comes off the finest inner dimension,
not inner plane. It is the Force which flows
off the finest field.
Pranahuti can be had directly, or via a master.
While the master is alive, pranahuti flows
with greater force.
Pranahuti works on a holographic principal.
That it is flowing in one person in the world,
automatically helps all the world.
Pranahuti is not finest thought. It can be directed
by the master via his thought.
Pranahuti enters the right side of the chest in
what is called the higher heart centre, same as
Ramana spoke of.
Ramana transferred in what he called silence.
Ramana and Ram Chandra clearly defined its effect
as bringing down the Force from above.
If you spin muddy water fast enough, all the dross
will go out to the edges.
Pranahuti is the Positive power of the inner dimensions.
When pranahuti hits grosser frequencies, it removes
them automatically when they should be removed.
Hence, Reality is only one. Its Force is one. It
can move from the finest inner dimension to the grossest.
Contact with it, is all that is needed at any point in
any dimension.
Ramana said there are no stages to Reality. That’s because
contact at any point, is contact with Reality.
A person is either in Contact, or not in contact.
To become jnani is not enough. That opens for Contact.
Enlightenment will not necessarily produce Contact.
I can see because you can’t find the quotes of Ramana
you think they are not there.
I can see by Googleing you think your an expert
on pranahuti in 5 minutes.
You might want to try a different approach in your
search. Humility.
Instead of pretending you know something, try to
learn something.
Your search is a vanity faire.
Not the journey of a true seeker.
Only honest people can find Reality.
Your knowledge of the occult is abysmal and
completely confused. You are a beginner.
You have it in your mind you are advanced.
But, deep down, you know you have not gotten
anywhere.
What you don’t realize is, you are talking to people
whom have gotten somewhere.
They instantly see your mistakes as you print them.
Because they once made the same mistakes.

Hey tAo,
You seem to have had a lot of experince at Ramana ashram and as you say, have read all the books.
Have you ever met Sadhu Om or Shankara (I think that was his name) who lives across from Sadhu Om ashram and deals with the books? If you have met Sadhu Om, what was he like, or what did you think of him?
I personally like Sadhu Om’s books on Ramana and Ramana’s teachings, though must confess, that is all I have read apart from Ramana’s teachings 6 years ago, which being honest went whoosh over my head.
It seems that Sadhu Om’s books have opened me up to a wider perspective on things. Now whether that is good or bad, I don’t know.:)
By the way, have you walked around Arunachala? For me personally, I didn’t because it would feel no different than getting a knife out of the drawer and thinking because something happened to Suzanne (Foxton) it will happen for me that way. I feel I would still be walking around Arunachala years later and no different. Maybe it has to do with intention, I’m not sure.
Marina

Peter,
You said,
“Roger, you admit that Ramana was great and he said either you experience Reality or you don’t, and there are no stages in Reality. True enough. So you admit there is a Reality………..”
–When did I say all that?
—Reality, Consciousness, Ego, Mind, etc. are just words. They are just words with various definitions and interpretations. That said, we can debate the various interpreations. That’s the good part of blogging.

To Tao,
Thanks for links. By the way, was it
you who said they expected something
in the year 2012 ? I don’t remember.
But, I did a study. Only bad thing I could find
was a solar flare cycle that could
fry the transmission lines unless they
ugrade.
The comet, Mayan calendar, etc., turned
out to be phantasy. But, I could have
missed something.

More pranahuti dogma:
http://www.sriramchandra.org/pranahuti/Pranahutichap_0.htm
Obscure references to Maha Kal (where have I heard of that word Kal before) and sudarshan chakra, neither which was ever used by modern sages like Ramana and Nisargadatta, etc.
“The Supreme Personality is using a power called Maha Kal chakra, which has the power of Time as its core, which is far too superior to the Sudarshana chakra.”
The power of time as its core?!! What the hell does that mean?
“LIVING MASTER
My dear fellow travelers in the Path,
It is a great opportunity for us to gather here again on the auspicious occasion of Janmashtami. Lord Krishna we all know is the Avatar of the day and shall be so until the next Avatar emerges as ordained by the divine. Master has stated that “… with the advent of Lord Krishna the regime of Lord Rama was over. It is now the regime of Lord Krishna which is to continue till the next avatar comes into the world. This is the phenomenon of Nature which I bring to light for your understanding. (SS-110).Humanity at present is reveling and reeling under the never heard of acts of violence and terrorism in the history of mankind. It is not perhaps wrong to state that sadism and cruelty have become virtues now days. However it is the fortune of humanity that the divine willed the emergence of a special personality of almost the same status of an Avatar to mend the wayward mental tendencies of mankind which seems to be determined to ruin itself in constant conflicts and wars. This is an unique occurrence in spiritual history and this happened in 1944. He is ever active in his work entrusted by the divine and shall be there till the emergence of a new Avatar when divine wills so.
We all know that Sri Ramchandraji Maharaj of Shahjahanpur was born on 30th April 1899 and has left its mortal coil on 19th April 1983. The period of life our beloved Babuji we can see is thus not co-terminus with that of the Special Personality. The physical form of Sri Ramchandraji Maharaj was utilised by the Grand Master Lalaji Saheb to carefully structure and carve out a personality and Nature was waiting to use such a person as the Special one to guide the erring humanity. It is guiding humanity since then and also attending to such works entrusted by Nature. It is the imperience of all the aspirants in the Natural Path that it is functioning more effectively after he shed his mortal coil in 1983 from his true astral plane.
However after he left his mortal coil in 1983 many started seeking for a person who is living in the physical plane who can replace beloved Babuji Maharaj. That he was the President of SRCM and there should be succession of President in SRCM is undisputable. However that there can be no succession for the status of Special Personality or the Master as we dearly call him is elementary gnosis. ISRC has answered this point several times in it’s about 16 years of functioning and the answers are available for those who really seek in our web sites also. However recently it was brought to my notice that someone from an European country asked us as to who is the Master now and whether women are not eligible for being a Master etc.,
I shall share today some of our clearly stated point of view. The question of the need for a living master is raised by many almost implying a demand that a master in order to be a master has to be in the physical plane. For persons who understand that masters work even when they are in existence in the physical world from astral plane only, there is no difficulty to accept the living master by virtue of their experiences and imperiences irrespective of his physical existence. If anything the master’s grace in the form of Pranahuti has been proved beyond doubt does not suffer the limitations of any physical form barrier to it.
Form and Name are basic binding factors in our thinking which prevent our breathing our liberated status. But from childhood we are taught in schools and colleges to identify persons, objects and patterns by their form and name and this pattern of thinking makes many think that consciousness also should have a form and name. In this context it may be useful to remember the statement of Lord Krishna as quoted by our Master in his letter to Dr.K.C.Varadachari (EH- 335): “I am reminded of Lord Krishna’s predictions intercommunicated to me some time ago, that the time has not yet come for the people to have a full understanding of your (my: Ed) existence though it shall definitely come but when you (I) have given up the material form.” This makes it amply clear that Sri Ramchandraji whom we all feel every moment of our life through the practice of Constant Remembrance is a living master though he shed his mortal coil and it is a form that is formless universal presence responding to the cries and needs of persons by whatever name it is called and that is felt by us and not the physical one.
We need to accept the function of the guru as Master has given it to us, as descending through the disciplic succession from Lord Krishna. It is stated by the Master that his master communicated to him to the effect that “All initiations shall be effected on my hand and their connection shall be (invariably) with Lord Krishna. At the time of initiation a promise will be made to the effect that all that Lord Krishna has enjoined as matters of principle, shall be observed(by the initiated persons).” EH.182. Most of the aspirants should be knowing the difference between introduction to this system of practice and spiritual initiation. Thus not only the Master is on record to say that he is living guru but Lord Krishna is the Jagadguru.
Guru is not an ordinary man. That is why we celebrate the appearance day of the spiritual masters. It may be noted that here the words ‘appearance day’ are used instead of the usual ‘birth day’. Appearances are the only things that happen in the physical world to the great masters, as otherwise they live, move and have their being in the astral and divine realms. In a sense they were never born nor will they be dead. They are eternally living divine entities discharging the duties and functions as assigned by the divine. Lord Krishna the Jagadguru functions now as he did during his physical life on this planet. He has taken note of the emergence of the Spiritual Personality and is in a sense working proxy through the great master Sri Ramchandraji Maharaj of Shahjahanpur who will be eternally working for the cause of the divine.
We are worshiping our Master as he is a pure via-medium to Sri Krishna. Master wrote in his letter to Dr. K.C.Varadachari (EH-428) that “Lord Krishna appeared before you in dream and has given you a very mild transmission also.” He also stated that “Sri Krishna disappeared because He felt that you have got the difference between him and the master.” Thus there is no difference between Lord Krishna and the Master is fully established. Therefore it may not be wrong to say that “He is worshiped as “saksat Krsna” or “directly Krishna”. It is morally and spiritually wrong to consider such a guru an ordinary man and it is also totally inappropriate to consider any ordinary man as the guru.
Our Master classified the types of gurus and never brought in the concept of a living guru there. There are five types of gurus according to him. We know that our Master and Grand Master belong to the category of Guru Azli Fazli meaning that they are born gurus of the highest type. Every seeker has the opportunity of realizing his/her true nature and by a total dedication to the cause of the divine become a Fazli guru and assist humanity to work in harmony with the divine. Such gurus having gone beyond death during their physical life time itself never die and become dead. They are the ever burning torches showing the brilliance and beauty of the divine.
The argument for a living guru is based on the assumption that the original master is a dead guru. It is necessary to prove this statement. One has to show that Sri Ramchandraji is dead in all planes such that he cannot deliver his blessings to us. The clarification given by the Master to Dr. K.C.V and the experiences of many of us, disciples of the Master Sri Ramchandraji Maharaj of Shahjahanpur testifies that the Masters function from higher planes than the physical and they are capable of communicating and transmitting. To receive transmission it is not necessary to have a physically living master around us. Many disciples of the Master try to push the argument in favour of the “living guru” line, implying that our beloved Master is now a “dead guru” and no one can take shelter under him any more and that he is incapable of doing any spiritual service now. It is not true of course and the Master has quoted Lord Krishna’s’ statement that he will be more effective after his physical veiling.
Sri Ramchandraji Maharaj of Shahjahanpur is living still is understood by any one who experiences Pranahuti. A true and sincere aspirant takes refuge only in him and feels that his surrender is accepted, is bare truth of experience of many. It was never before possible for a spiritual master to be so vividly present after his physical departure from our material vision. There are surely many Masters in his lineage and that is the wish of the Great Master too. He categorically stated that he makes Masters. Not all claimants are necessarily of that standard since one has to be qualified.
Any true master will not try to say, leave alone attempt to prove that the Great Master is dead as the concept of death itself is alien in the field of spirituality. Where and how one lives in the different planes of existence alone matters. A master in the lineage or order will simply present the message of his spiritual master and his spiritual master will live through him and this fact should be understood by all spiritual aspirants. The Masters are self effulgent and have their authenticity not by virtue of a group of persons governing an institution or any other agency than that of the divine order which follows self illumination. It is completely apparent to any non-envious person to understand that Sri Ramchandraji of Shahjahanpur is empowered by Lord Sri Krishna and Revered Lalaji Maharaj. This message we tried to pass on through our publication “Ganga Jamuni” issued last year on the auspicious day of Janmashtami.
Some entertain odd and mystic notions about Pranahuti. ISRC has effectively proved through its research work that it is not so and the real nature of Pranahuti was brought to the public view without any prejudice. Our books and publications on this topic are available in the internet and any one can study them. Certain concepts regarding Guru is sought to be explained in this context.
Traditionally the role of the Guru is to give Diksha. Diksha is a unique and rare process of making the life of a disciple more pure, more enlightened and more successful. Generally a human being remains under the sway of bad karmas of past lives which do not allow him to make the desired level of progress in spite of hard work and sincere efforts. In such cases nothing can work better than to receive Diksha to remove the baneful effects of past Karmas and propel the aspirant onwards on the path of success. Just as a cloth has to be washed thoroughly to free it of stubborn stains similarly Diksha is a method adopted by a Guru to free the disciple of his mental, physio-psychological and physical drawbacks so that he could make good progress with a free mind in the spheres of spirituality and materialism. Diksha is the foundation of a disciple, the fuel of spiritual life, completeness of the mind and the path to reach one’s destination. The act, by which teachings are given and by which all kinds of animal instincts are sought to be demolished, which is granted by the Guru in charity is known as Diksha.
It is not my desire to go into the merits and demerits of various paths shown by different gurus. All I desire to state is that in the system of Rev. Babuji Maharaj which utilises the power of Pranahuti the trainer introduces a new energy by means of transfer thus enlightening him and helping him in sadhana and realisation. At the beginning the transfusion of energy brings in a state of peace, settledness and balance. It is a subtle transfer of the divine energy of a Guru into the heart, soul and body of a disciple. This pure energy initiates a process of change in the person which ultimately leads to destruction of all evil and negative tendencies, and spurt of creative and positive powers which encourage him to strive for the highest and best in life.
It is obvious that a man has a twofold duty here on earth one to preserve his life, and two to realise the true nature of his self. To preserve his life, he has to learn to work for his daily bread. To realise his true nature, he has to meditate, love and serve. The Guru who teaches him the knowledge of worldly arts is called the Siksha Guru. The Guru who shows him the path of Realisation is the Diksha Guru. Siksha Gurus can be many, as many as the things one wishes to learn. The Diksha Guru can be only one: the one who leads him to the state of realisation. This is the reason we have been insisting on having one and only one, our beloved Master Sri Babuji as the Guru/Master. Several persons of very high spiritual calibre do help us in the path and we are grateful to all of them but there is only one Guru. The trainer and masters of the order are all relevant but our focus and orientation is the real Guru only. It is obvious that the strength of the chain lies in its weakest link. This demands that the links we have and of which we are also a part have to be strong. That demands sadhana of a high standard and the aspirants and trainers have to work hard at it.
We are all fortunate to have obtained diksha or introduction in this system but for making us attain our goal it is necessary to free the body and the mind of all impurities. The sadhana in this regard starts by implementing the First Commandment of the Master. Only when one is physically and mentally pure does the divine light that is within starts emitting its fragrance and we gain a glimpse of our true nature. It is very difficult for an ordinary person in the present age to become free of the evil tendencies on his own. For this he needs the help of an accomplished master who could instill his own spiritual power into the person and destroy his weaknesses. Master says only such a person who can transmit his own internal divine power to the aspirant can be a trainer. This is an act of kindness and love which the master has for us and it cannot be repaid by any other means than becoming truly spiritual and in turn carry the torch of spirituality into other hearts.
It is not any ordinary power or energy that is transmitted but the original power at the root of creation which for our understanding may be called supreme consciousness. This is what we call Sri Ramchandra Consciousness, more to satisfy our desire to remember him who is all in our life: but in reality it is something that is beyond our comprehension. It is such a consciousness that is guiding the human destiny now as ever. It is just Love: a love that is not possessive and particular. It is Love Universal Omnipresent and Omnipotent.
Sri Ramchandra Consciousness breaths through the firmament and all that it requires to be felt is an earnest longing for Him who loves all. Lord Krishna is called so because he is the Lord and he is the giver of immeasurable bliss. I pray on this auspicious day that we all live and move in that Consciousness of which all manifestation is an expression in the eternal present.
Pranam to all the Master intoxicated co-travelers in the path. Pranam.
“Get ‘real’.”

Roger:
You said:
Peter,
You said,
“Roger, you admit that Ramana was great and he said either you experience Reality or you don’t, and there are no stages in Reality. True enough. So you admit there is a Reality………..”
–When did I say all that?
I’m sorry I can’t find the post I was referring too. If I was incorrect I apologize. Semper fi. – Peter

Peter,
Ram Chandra died a few decades ago in
1983.
There are no living masters to quote,
because he left no successor.
Only the usual usurpers that always
sping up.
Here’s your grade on your attempt
to understand Ram Chandra.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaYR5lwzomE

Quote, Ram Chandra d. 1983, Complete Works, Vol.1 ,p.362.
“Generally people select anyone (guru) for the purpose without regard to his capabilities or worth. They are induced to do so mostly by persuasion or miracles displayed by those so called gurus to attract the ignorant masses. Disciple hunters are not wanting. They are as numerous as leaves on a tree.. For most of them, gurudom is a very profitable job which can secure enormous income which they cannot otherwise earn.
Besides they command the highest personal service from their disciples. The ignorant masses thus fall a ready prey to these self seeking professionals. A petty miracle or ordinary display of something charming is enough to attract hundreds of these silly sheep to their fold of gurudom. A simpple threat of a curse upon one who happens to displease them, may bring thousands to abject submission. Not only this, but in order to ensure monopoly of their profession they declare that none but one belonging to the priveleged class has the right of being a guru. Sannyasins too, you will find these days in multitudes, posing as as mahatmas and professing to be jagat gurus – world teachers.
Is it not a pity to find such professional imposters, who are a shame to the nation and religion, roaming about with complete impunity to cheat and defraud ignorant people, in order to serve their own selfish ends ? It is high time for the masses to open their eyes and see what havoc has been wrought by such persons. The popularly believed principle that a disciple can never break off the sacred conection with his guru under any circumstances, is also a cunning device adopted by those false gurus to make their position safe and secure, and is nothing but fraud. Their only function is to breathe a few mystical words into the ears of the disciple at the time of initiation … and give them his darshan once a year for realizing annual toll and tribute to him.”

Marina, you asked:
Marina: “Have you ever met Sadhu Om or Shankara (I think that was his name) who lives across from Sadhu Om ashram and deals with the books?” –and– “Sadhu Om, what was he like, or what did you think of him?”
Met Sadhu Om. He was very sincere and humble. His mahasamadhi was in 1985, I believe. I don’t know of Shankara. I do know David Godman, who served for a long time in the ashram library.
Marina: “I personally like Sadhu Om’s books on Ramana and Ramana’s teachings, though must confess, that is all I have read apart from Ramana’s teachings 6 years ago, which being honest went whoosh over my head.”
Sadhu Om gained a great deal of his understanding from Sri Muruganar. So you would be better off to read a book by Sri Muruganar titled “The Garland of Gurus’s Sayings” (Guru Vachaka Kovai). It is available here: http://store.satramana.org/guvako1.html
Sri Ramana’s teaching is very clear and concise, but If you have trouble understanding Sri Ramana via his own words, then I would suggest that first you listen to and study the videos that I linked to.
You might also read “Self Revealed” [in PDF format] here: http://www.satramana.org/SelfKnowledgeExtract.pdf
And “Self Knowledge” is a very good book that will bring you much deeper understanding. It is published by SAT and available here: http://www.satramana.org/html/self_knowledge.htm
Also, David Godman has written a fairly good easy book on the teachings of Sri Ramana. It is titled “Be As You Are”.
http://www.amazon.com/Be-You-Are-Teachings-Maharshi/dp/0140190627/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309218106&sr=1-1
You can obtain many good books of the teaching of Sri Ramana at the SAT online bookstore: http://store.satramana.org/allbooks.html
Marina: “By the way, have you walked around Arunachala?”
Yes, many times.
Marina: “For me personally, I didn’t because it would feel no different […] I feel I would still be walking around Arunachala years later and no different.”
Its a matter of just being there, in close proximity. I always liked to walk/climb up on the mountian. I enjoy the view and being above the surroundings. Walking around Arunachala is nice too. Especially after you get outside of Tiruvannamalai and into the countryside.

Mike:
I have no problem with your last post. That is the most thoughtful one you have written so far.
The post on ‘Ram Chadra-ism’ I posted earlier still stands. That group doesn’t believe in a new guru. They believe in Ram Chandra only. So that stands as another example of a dualistic ,guru-worshipping-other-wordly -Godman teaching, with a secret special transmission (unlike anything ever done before) and unverifiable as any other from a scientific perspective. So you can’t prove that any of that stuff is outside the confines of brain processes, like Brian leans toward, just like you claim for the sants teachings.
And you have yet to produce one quote about Ramana about a need for a descending force. You just quote your own authority and an answer to my question, as if that meant something.
You said I am a spiritual beginner. I am happy to agree. I don’t have to worry about pranahuti, avatars, or any other ‘initiation.’
But, I am obviously not as ‘advanced’ as you are.
Thanks for posting the link to Fred Rogers. I always considered him to be a saint. He had true humility.

Mike:
The only thing Ramana said that is remotely like what you are saying about a descent of force was simply his description of what happen when you wake up. He cared not for the chakras and basically considered them, from his point of view, as imaginary. He said that when you wake up from sleep, the light arises from the heart, goes to the sahasrar, and from there gradually enlivens the body below. He said nothing about awakening the centers below, however.
“When you wake up from sleep a light appears, which is the light of the Self, passing through Mahatattva. It is called cosmic consciousness. That is arupa (formless). The light falls on the ego and is reflected therefrom.”
Elsewhere _ I haven’t located the quote – he said it more like how i said it. Here is more:
” Once a man came to Ramana Maharshi from the Sri Aurobindo Ashram and told him that he had been advised to keep his mind blank in order that the Divine power might come down from above. He asked for the Maharshi’s advice and was given the following answer:
“Be what you are. There is nothing to come down or become manifest. All that is needful is to lose the ego. That which is, is always there. Even now you are That. You are not apart from it. The blank is seen by you. You are there to see the blank. What do you wait for? The thought, “I have not seen,” the expectations to see and the desire of getting something, are all the working of the ego. The ego says all these and not you. Be yourself and nothing more.”
The following remarks were reported by Swami Madhavatirtha, a prolific author, who spent time with Aurobindo until 1926 before leaving, his questions unsatisfied, and then with Ramana in 1944.
Q: “Sri Aurobindo wants to bring the power of God into the human body.”
M: “If, after surrendering, one still has this desire, then surrender has not been successful. If one has the attitude, ‘If the higher power is to come down, it must come into my body’, this will only increase identification with the body. Truly speaking, there is no need of any such descent. After the destruction of the I-am-the-body idea, the individual becomes the form of the absolute. In that state, there is no above or below, front or back.”
I like what Robert Adams, last American disciple of Ramana said:
“Don’t get too technical. Simplicity and realization are synonymous. You don’t need to read Advaita, get into all kinds of concepts and meditations, and things we have to do. Just calmly realize there is nothing to realize. Be free of the whole thing.”

Brian:
Correction. In my last post I meant to say that Soul, or Self, or Atman in its true meaning, not the commonly accepted one, IS ‘not-svabhava’ (not a substance) instead of saying as I did “not non-svabhava. I hope you got my point, which was meant to clarify while validating what you wrote.

Nice quote from Robert Adams, Peter. Thanks.
Here’s quote from Adyashanti:
Enlightenment is just normal every day life, minus thinking.

Hi Peter,
While alive, Ram Chandra was one of the most
outspoken critics of Guru’s in India.
There was no Guru worship of Ram Chandra.
He was so poor, that he served people milk
and drank water.
There is a remarkable similarity between
Faquir Chand and Ram Chandra.
Except for one thing, Ram Chandra could
direct the positive Powers energy.
A Force few people even knew existed,
except such rarified people as Ramana.
But, the simple fact is, it can be had
directly. No philosophy, or Guru needed.
It is better to have no knowledge at all
of its operation.
The Positive Force finds you. It makes
itself known. It literally does everything
necessary for the person.
All yoga, means and religion, go by
the wayside.
The positive Force is so competent, that
nothing needs be done after contact.

Hi tAo,
thanks for the info.
Maybe on re reading Ramana’s own words would be different now – after 6 years.
I do like simple so David Godman, what a nice name 😉 “Be as You Are” sounds good to me. Thanks again.
Did anyone ever hear of Almaas who says something like traditional teachings of someone telling him what to do didn’t work for him. His thing was how could someone tell you the truth or tell you what to do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJL5J4hw5LE
Marina

Agree with the post that avoiding some things can seem like hair splitting. Babaji himself says to do your best. at the recent Haynes park satsang he literally used the same words – to not split hair and to do your best :). I’ve seen evidence of divine intervention (skeptical brows going up yet ? 🙂 ) at multiple points in my life to lose faith in Babaji. I think everyone will, if you keep your eyes open and pay attention. It is easy to dismiss some things as ‘ coincidences’, but after a point, you kind of know that you have a ‘guardian angel’ looking out for you. What keeps me going in meditation is that I enjoy it, the silence and commune with myself and attaining an inner harmony and peace. And keeping my expectations low wrt ‘visions of the regions’. If i realise ‘the truth’ thats a bonus, but is not the primary focus of meditating, which probably helps avoid a lot of the frustration many satsangis may feel, who are looking for obvious signs of ‘progress’ on the inner path. When asked about rigidity of the 2.5 hours by a questioner, Babaji said, do your best. In the times I’ve listened to his satsang in person, he has never come down hard on this expectation. As a working wife and mother of 2 kids, this is always a big relief to hear! 🙂

Tao:
Nice post … interesting links regarding Ramana stuff. One thing I am a bit curious about….

Since you have obviously spent a great deal of time involved in Ramana’s teachings which is a teaching of acceptance, kindness and freedom … why then in light of this have you insulted people, ridiculed people and verbally demeaned people who post messages on the blog.

I sincerely am not trying to insult you by asking this question. It is a genuine question. Perhaps you are reading something into Ramana’s teachings I never noticed.

I completely understand telling someone their ideas make no sense to you. But to then say or imply that there is something defective, inferior or lacking in them as humans only seems like more of the same hurtful programming that has created a world of division.

So honestly, what is your thinking on this? I am having difficulty making sense of it.

Peter,
Jut before you came on this club, I had by coincidence posted quotes of Ramana
on the Force. Everyone here read them.
Ramana Maharshi stated the foundation of Awakening was
associated with the right side of the heart and a unique
channel of yogic force that connected the
place above the head with the right side of the heart.
The structure is called by Ramana Maharshi,
“amrita nadi” (the channel of eternally nectarous Love-Bliss,
connecting the right side of the Heart with the “sahasrar”.
The descent of the Spirit-Force down
“amrita nadi” into the right side of the heart is the culmination.
From Gopi Krishna’s book Higher Consciousness (no page references
available). Note the references to inner light and sound:
“But it is important to remember that all these visionary
experiences with shape, form, place, or time are but the
figments of one’s own imagination, rendered vivid and
realistic by the radiant stream of kundalini. The gods
and goddesses, angels and devils, heavens and hells,
superhuman and subhuman beings, strange unearthly creatures,
astral and mental planes, conditioned by earthly time, space,
name, form, or figure, have no real significance, but are
merely the creations of the subjects themselves through their
active and glowing imagination.
“The higher state of consciousness, despite its enrapturing
radiancy and the alluring sounds in the ears, is as void of
visions and hallucinatory figments as the consciousness of a
healthy, wise, and clear-thinking human being, who calls a
spade a spade, and who views everything he comes across in
sane perspective and proportion, always ready to distinguish
reality from a dream or a hallucination.”
The Radhasoami Tradition, Dr. David Lane 1992, page 106.
RS Tradition book notes once 700 people were initiated by
Sawan and only 2 people saw light. First hand experience at
time of initiation by Sawan was called rare.

from Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi
edited by David Godman
Although Sri Ramana was happy to give his verbal teachings to anyone who asked for them, he frequently pointed out that his ‘silent teachings’ were more direct and more powerful. These ‘silent teachings’ consisted of a spiritual force, which seemed to emanate from his form, a force so powerful that he considered it to be the most direct and important aspect of his teachings. Instead of giving out verbal instructions on how to control the mind, he effortlessly emitted a silent power, which automatically quietened the minds of everyone in his vicinity. The people who were attuned to this force report that they experienced it as a state of inner peace and well being; in some advanced devotees it even precipitated a direct experience of the Self.
This method of teaching has a long tradition in India, its most famous exponent being Dakshinamurti, a manifestation of Siva who brought four learned sages to an experience of the Self through the power of his silence. Sri Ramana frequently spoke of Dakshinamurti with great approval and his name crops up in many of his conversations.
This flow of power from the Guru can be received by anyone whose attention is focused on the Self or on the form of the Guru; distance is no impediment to its efficacy. This attention is often called sat-sanga, which literally means ‘association with being’. Sri Ramana wholeheartedly encouraged this practice and frequently said that it was the most efficient way of bringing about a direct experience of the Self. Traditionally it involves being in the physical presence of one who has realised the Self, but Sri Ramana gave it a much wider definition. He said that the most important element in sat-sanga was the mental connection with the Guru; sat-sanga takes place not only in his presence but whenever and wherever one thinks of him.
http://bhagavan-ramana.org/BAYAsilence.html
————————————
Ramana Maharshi’s deepest teaching was given in silence.
He emanated a force or vibration that could still the mind
and lead one to experience what Maharshi experienced.
http://www.spiritualteachers.org/ramana_maharshi.htm

Hi RK,
I like your post. You are right! Do what feels right for you or what is working for you. You only have your own experience to go on. And yes, it is good to ‘do’ your best and be happy with that – no expectations…..
Hair splitting was never one of my big issues – which caused some annoyance to other satsangis. From my experience, go with your heart, it is the only thing that works/is working for me.
Oh and for me, it was not holding on too ‘tight’ to anything. No need to actually, when you think of it. 🙂
Marina

Mik:
Now we are getting closer. No doubt there was a power emanating from Ramana. He called it the power of the Heart. he could slow down one’s thinking processes – in receptive individuals – not everyone had experiences like Brunton, Annamali swami, and a few others – and help the mind ‘sink’ into Heart. He occasionally mentioned a terminal bend of the sushumna from the head ‘down’ into the Heart, but never advocated that one had first to ascend to the sahasrara and then go down. He said the Heart, truly, was simply the very core of one’s being. In later years he said the Heart was not actually a specific location, but only felt relative to the body in initial trance samadhi as being to the right side of the physical heart area. The amrita nadi wasn’t a route from above for a transmission of force to go down, as his transmission was from Heart to Heart. The amrita nadi was actually felt as a resurrected spire between the Heart and its light, once the Heart was realized. In later years he downplayed going in and just said things like this:
Q: If “I” am always, here and now, why do I not feel so?
A: That is it. Who says it is not felt? Does the real “I” say it or the false “I”? Examine it. You will find it is the wrong “I”. The wrong “I” is the obstruction. It has to be removed in order that the true “I” may not be hidden. The feeling that I have not realized is the obstruction to realization. In fact it is already realized and there is nothing more to be realized. Otherwise, the realization will be new. If it has not existed so far, it must take place hereafter. What is born will also die. If realization is not eternal it is not worth having. Therefore what we seek is not that which must happen afresh. It is only that which is eternal but not now known due to obstructions. It is that which we seek. All that we need do is remove the obstruction. That which is eternal is not known to be so because of ignorance….
The ignorance is identical with the “I”-thought. Find its source and it will vanish.
The “I”-thought is like a spirit which, although not palpable, rises up simultaneously with the body, flourishes and disappears with it. The body-consciousness is the wrong “I”. Give up this body-consciousness. Seeking the source of the “I” does it. The body does not say, “I am”. It is you who say, “I am the body”. Find out who this “I” is. Seeking its source it will vanish.”
I am happy to know that Ram Chandra was a simple man. I just posted whatever I could find about his teaching, however, because everything available uses terms here and there such as Pind, And, Brahman, Maha Kal, the exclusive power of the Godman, etc., much like is found in Sant Mat, although with a different twist. I have long felt that Ramana’s teachings were of a higher and different realization, and have argued so in my writings. Or, at least, I have tried to keep an open mind about it, so as not to offend and turn away people in both camps. – Peter

Brian:
I agree with you that cutting out a portion of ones brain will affect how one experiences life . That is obvious. But that is, IMO, because the brain as part of the body is the vehicle for experiencing in this world.
Someone experiencing a NDE or himself floating above his body and having his experiences validated by the people in the room later, still can’t make his body move or anything like that, because his consciousness is not connected fully with the brain.
I know this is not proof for the scientist, but the reasoning is sound, IMO.
The following is not an endorsement for Sant Mat, but when Kirpal Singh was on tour in 1972, someone brought their son to see him. The son was a very mentally retarded type of person, with obvious defective mental capacity and physical carriage, but in Kirpal’s presence he, for the time being, became clear and lucent and intelligent. When he moved on, he returned to his previous condition. So what changed the condition of his mind? Go figure.

Mike:
The emphasis on the amrita nadi seems to have been emphasized more by Annamali Swamy and Lakshmana Swamy who both felt the “mind must fall into the heart and die” for realization to occur. Ramana did not stress this as much as they did. The mind does not have to die, as it has no inherent existence.
What do you make of the ‘aham sphurana’ that Ramana frequently spoke about, “throbbing’, leading one into the Heart? It does not feel the same as the amrita nadi.
Of course the amrita nadi exists. But Ramana never said that a force must come down from above into the amrita nadi and then go to the heart. He said the “I”-thought must subside there, which in itself was still a halfway house to realization. One must then come out of the heart and realize that the substratum of the world is the same as the substratum as the ego. That gives sahaj, which seems to have been Ramana’s later understanding, after he contemplated in the caves for 16 years.
See David Godman’s “The ‘I’ and the “I-I”. http://davidgodman.org/rteach/iandii1.shtml
Also of interest is that in 1912, when he was thirty-two, he went through a lesser-known second death experience which seemed to mark his complete return to normal outward activity. He remarked numerous times that the current of the self he had realized at age sixteen had never changed, but while this new experience may not have upstaged his previous realization it did serve to reintegrate him with his bodily vehicle and with life. This is how he described what happened. While walking back from Virupaksha Cave one day he was suddenly overcome with physical weakness. He lay down and the world disappeared as if a bright white curtain was drawn across his vision. His breathing and circulation stopped and his body turned a livid blue. For fifteen minutes he lay as if in a state of rigor mortis, although still aware of the Self within. The current of awareness that was his daily experience persisted even with the shutdown of all bodily systems. Then suddenly, he explained, he felt a rush from the Heart on the right to the left side of his chest and the re-establishment of life in the body. After this he was more at ease in everyday circumstances, and began to increasingly associate with those seekers who gathered around him.
By some accounts he said that there was no discipline, effort, or change in his conscious awareness since the first event in 1896, but it must be kept in mind that he, like other spiritual masters, said different things to different people. This second death event, however, seemed to initiate his full transition into the stage of sahaj wherein the body-mind and the world are not excluded or seen apart from self-realization, and the Self is known both inside and out, or neither.
When the disciples began to arrive, Ramana at first was silent, but later gave out the method of Self-Inquiry, or Atma-Vichara, where, as stated, one asks of himself, “Who am I?”, and pursues the source of the “I-thought”. Not to be merely an intellectual exercise, he emphasized that this inquiry demanded an intensely introverted mind and was, thus, for ripe souls, whose entire lives of spiritual discipline and understanding fitted them for the quest in its ultimate form. This form of inquiry requires a high degree of free attention in the disciple for its fruitful use. The “I-thought” or “aham vritti” of which Ramana spoke is actually more like the feeling-of-I, or the separate self-sense itself. It is not a mere thought like all of the rest, but the root thought and feeling of identity from which mentation springs. It is similar to the I AM of Nisargadatta. It has also been described as the self-knot or granthi, or the thought “I-am-the-body”.
At other times and especially in his later years he would dismiss even the need for this, and say, “why not just remain as you are,” “the Self is always already realized,” etc.
I like Robert Adams. he said to forget all of this and just give up. Here is something I like, a bit lighter material and a great practice!:
From a Dog’s Daily Diary
8:00 a.m. – Dog food! My favorite thing!
9:30 a.m. – A car ride! My favorite thing!
9:40 a.m. – A walk in the park! My favorite thing!
10:30 a.m. – Got rubbed and petted! My favorite thing!
12:00 p.m. – Lunch! My favorite thing!
1:00 p.m. – Played in the yard! My favorite thing!
3:00 p.m. – Wagged my tail! My favorite thing!
5:00 p.m. – Milk bones! My favorite thing!
7:00 p.m. – Got to play ball! My favorite thing!
8:00 p.m. – Wow! Watched TV with the people! My favorite thing!
11:00 p.m. – Sleeping on the bed! My favorite thing!

18 months: “Ramana’s teachings which is a teaching of acceptance, kindness and freedom”
Then perhaps YOU are reading something into Ramana’s teachings, something which is your own projections or personal interpretations.
“to then say or imply that there is something defective, inferior or lacking in them as humans”
Never said or implied any such thing.
“what is your thinking on this? I am having difficulty making sense of it.”
Well, I don’t think about other people’s illusions (projections)…. so I therefore don’t see what you are trying to make sense of, or alluding to. My comments have always been quite straightforward.

I am not in any way obligated to conform or adhere to other commenter’s concepts of “acceptance, kindness and freedom”. Neither am I obligated to conform to other commenter’s projections, assumption, or interpretations about the teachings of any guru. I am not obligated to answer to disingenous commenters or their trollish comments.

Ramana:
“Unless you exist, you cannot ask questions. So you must admit your own existence. That existence is the Self. It is already realized. Therefore, the effort to realize results only in your realizing your present mistake – that you have not realized your self. There is no fresh realization. The Self becomes revealed.”
D: “That will take years.”
M: “Why years? The idea of time is only in your mind. It is not in the Self. There is no time for the Self. Time arises as an idea after the ego arises. But you are the self beyond time and space; you exist even in the absence of time and space.”
“Realization is our nature. It is nothing new to be gained. What is new cannot be eternal. Therefore, there is no need for doubting if one would lose or regain the Self.”
“People seem to think that by practicing some elaborate sadhana the Self will one day descend upon them as something very big and with tremendous glory, giving them what is called sakshatkaram [direct experience]. The Self is sakshat [direct] all right, but there is no karam or kritam about it. The word karam implies doing something. But the Self is realised not by doing something but by refraining from doing anything, by remaining still and being simply what one really is.”

Ramana Maharshi’s deepest teaching was given in silence
….and how many folks do you think were enlightened by this method? Maybe he didn’t want to talk to anyone.

“to then say or imply that there is something defective, inferior or lacking in them as humans”
Tao wrote:
“Never said or implied any such thing.” (!!!!!!!!!!!)

So you never one time ever ever ever said or implied any such thing?
Is this pretty much the consensus here on this board? Brian, Mike, Tara, Nietzshe, Mongos, Osho, Dogribb, Marina, David, Peter, Roger, etc. … all of you regular posters, are we all in agreement that tAo has never implied anyone is defective, inferior, or lacking as humans?

18 mf,
Don’t forget, blogging is a dualistic activity. So, there can be defectives and not, inferiors and not, with a smiggin of lacking as is with humans.
So whats the big deal???

Peter,
Thanks for your contined messages,
I noticed the following,
“Unless you exist, you cannot ask questions. So you must admit your own existence. That existence is the Self. It is already realized. Therefore, the effort to realize results only in your realizing your present mistake – that you have not realized your self. There is no fresh realization. The Self becomes revealed.”
“The idea of time is only in your mind. It is not in the Self. There is no time for the Self. Time arises as an idea after the ego arises. But you are the self beyond time and space; you exist even in the absence of time and space.”
—The use of Self and self, within the above passages seems confusing. Is the Self a dualistic existant? And, the ‘self’ a non-dualistic non-self?
—The passages seem to jump in and out of the same definition. This can and does create much confusion among supposed beginners.

Roger, I too am confused about this sort of talk. It’s common in “non-dualistic” sorts of teachings. I’ve come to feel that largely non-dualism is semantic wordplay of the variety some sorts of philosophers like to engage in.
Zeno wondered how Achilles could outrace a tortoise because all is one and time is an illusion. Yet it’s obvious that the tortoise gets outraced in actuality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes
Likewise, intellectually people can argue that there is no time and there’s such a thing as an enduring Self. However, concepts aren’t reality. Time sure seems to march on, and no one can point to this thing called Self.
I used to enjoy playing these sorts of word games myself. But increasingly it seems to me that life is best lived directly and naturally, not with ideas going through our heads akin to the wonderful “Advaita Trap” dialogue. (Wonderfully irritating.) See;
http://nonduality.org/2010/08/10/the-advaita-trap-by-jeff-foster/
(There’s also a cartoon version.)

Brian,
Yes, we have blogged enough to spot the persons that are(directly/indirectly) playing the word games, and that have a gift for Gab.
Correct, life is best lived directly, naturally and hopefully with a minimum of endless babble.

Roger:
All references to the Self in those passages should have been capitalized. Sorry if there was confusion. I used those quotes partly to counter Mikes assertions about Ramana’s teaching being all about “amrita nadi” transmission.
Brian:
It’s o.k. if you don’t like to play word games. I don’t either. And that’s not something that Ramana did. But he often talked from the highest, or most direct, viewpoint. On the plain of ordinary living, however, he lived much like the rest of his ashramites. He also got fierce with guys who thought they knew alot or thought they were jnanis. One time he yelled at a man several times, “Enough! enough! You think you are a transcendental being! Enough!! Enough! Go!!”
True advaita, btw, is not a word game; it is an investigation.So-called “neo-advaita” has some problems.
Tao:
I have no problem with anything you have said.
Good day to all – Peter

Brian, how’s this:
“The unexamined life is not worth living.” – Socrates
“The unlived life isn’t worth examining.’ – anonymous

Peter,
Referencing the 2 passages..
Is the ‘Self’ a dualistic self? Such a self can comprehend time and space, etc. That said, this Self is an illusion of the mind.
With that, one can say there is no Self, or no thing.
This statement is confusing,
“But you are the self beyond time and space; you exist even in the absence of time and space.”
–So, what is this ‘self’ that is beyond time and space? There is ‘no-self’ beyond time and space. You, me are selves that we have mind created within this time and space stuff.
—again, those passages are all mixed up, imo.

Again, no, I have never said that there is “something defective, inferior or lacking in them as humans”.
I never said that there is something “defective” in any other individual.
I never said that there is something “inferior” in any other individual.
And I also never said that there is something “lacking” (as a human) in any other individual.
Therefore, it appears likely that ’18 months left’ is actually someone who has been here before (with a different nickname), but who is now back again and is again attempting to raise the same old false allegations and misrepresentations, in yet another veiled but deliberate attempt to personally attack and undermine myself and my commentaries.
I used to put up with this sort of thing, but nowadays I am no longer interested in participating in blogs where this type of trollish type of activity is engaged in. And I don’t think Brian is either. Its negative, unproductive and a stupid waste of time.
If ’18 months left’ has something positive to share or contribute, then thats acceptable… otherwise not.

Roger,
A little basic study of Sri Ramana’s teaching will help you to better clarify what Ramana means when he refers to “the Self”.
To put it briefly, no, the term “The Self” does not refer to “a dualistic self”.

Buddha babble blocks the way – Ikkyu
Talking about the way – gets in the way.
when you are deluded even a thousand scriptures are not enough. when you ‘realize’ – even one word is too much
The truth is to be lived – not talked about – Hui Neng
all teachings are false if they create opinions.
The devil was taking a walk with a friend – when they saw someone stoop down and pick something up. “What was that?” the friend asked the devil.
“It was a piece of TRUTH” replied the devil.
“aren’t you worried?” asked the friend
“No”, replied the devil, “because I know he will turn it into a conclusion, a belief or a religion.”
He is going to miss the truth again – and just be left with the empty shell
A scholar, having read the scriptures, said to The Buddha, “The things you teach, sir, are not found in the holy scriptures”
“Oh really,” replied The Buddha “Then put them in the scriptures”
The scholar hesitated, then managed to get enough courage to say, “May I be so bold as to say, sir, that many of the things you say actually CONTRADICT the holy scriptures”
“Then AMEND the scriptures” suggested The Buddha

Enlightenment is all at once. It
is seeing there is no self directly.
This shoots the mind down totally
in an instant.
When one realizes Santa Claus does
not exist, Santa can no longer
produce action to be naughty, or nice
The Santa thought still exists, but
it is net neutral.
After realization, the self thought
still exists. But, it is net neutral.
It cannot produce action, no matter
how fast the mind spins.
Why wax a self, or save a self, that
doesn’t exist ?
The transmission of Ramana and Ram
Chandra cannot be taught.
Ramana taught jnani yoga to trick the
mind into realizing it has no self.
Nothing religious, or spiritual about
it.
The transmission of a super energy
was the last step.
What happens after one becomes a jnani ?
Is enlightenment the last stage ?
Here comes into play something one might
think of as the Presence. It could be called
the Self.
Contact with the Presence is a remarkable event.
It is rare, even amoung the enlightened.
Contact at any point is full contact.
Amoung those whom have made contact, some
can transfer the energy such as Ramana and Ram
Chandra.
The logic of the Presence is so complex ….
only a child can understand it.
That is why Ramana sat on a sofa reading comic
books, while the great scholars questioned him.

Regarding 18 months comments to tAo and tAo’s comments to 18 months:
It was put to the bloggers if we agreed that tAo “implied that there is something defective, inferior or lacking in them as humans”
I can only give my experience as that is all I have to go on, saying that, taking into consideration my personal likes/dislikes and preferences, judgements, and the likes.(unless I start quoting Budda, BJ, Ramana etc, or as Osho said ‘picking up a piece of truth) 🙂
For me, who I have commented to tAo and vice versa, I personally didn’t see things that tAo said to me as referring to me as being defective, inferior or lacking. Now I know other people did at the time see that it could be taken that way, namely Brian and David who both referred to it in this manner; Brian in my response to tAo came back and said that I was a tough lady, I think he said that often it disturbed him that this ‘language’ (that tAo used) would stop bloggers who may have good points, ever returning to the blog. Also David told me to ignore tAo.
As I said at the time, and I stick with it, tAo gave me a gift – the gift of not taking things personally as I had once too often done. Was it because I am special, enlightened, a jnani, realised? No! It was a simple fact – I just didn’t believe it!
If I don’t believe ‘it’, why on earth would I bother arguing with ‘it’.End of!
Other people may have an opposite view on this, which is understandable also.
But again, that was how I took/take it. Maybe comments from others will sometime trigger annoyance or whatever in me, which I will take it that something in me is holding that whatever is being said is true in some subtle way for me or it may be a case of me holding onto a different viewpoint which I feel it the only one, the RIGHT one.
In regards to tAo and my comments towards each other, I did and do want to say that during those discussions (regarding abuse) I don’t condone any sort of violence and that still stands.
If I don’t see what it means for me – it will end up as a comment with attack (even subtly) towards the other person, which can lead to ill feeling (suffering) and causes separateness and people taking sides – with whatever side of the fence they happen to be on.
Saying all this I resonate with both sides and can see both sides.
To give a wee analogy I just thought of(crazy phones):
Someone calls us on our mobile (cell) phone and we have bad connection. [Our mind is on other things, we are not fully present]
We have a conversation and because of bad signal we can only hear every second or third word. [We are off in our minds with our own story, flitting in and out with our attention]
We fill in the ‘blanks’ [with our own meanings or interpretations and beliefs] and we comment and communicate from that stance.
Sometimes we fill in the ‘blanks’ that suit both parties and the conversation runs smooth. [We agree]
Other times we get annoyed because of the bad signal [lack of agreement, seeing only our own side or seeing the other person as wrong]
Sometimes the communication breaks down completely – no signal [we hang up, give up, make excuses, feel justified, argue, blame]
Depending on the signal coverage for each party [receptivity, openness] we can understand that circumstances are not in this moment favourable [we see the others side] or we blame the service provider [the other person whom we are communicating with] and feel for the former – understanding, accepting and happy with the way things are, open, connected, one………
or for the latter – blaming, accusing, closed, righteous, victimised, suffering, separateness…..
We can Be with the service [accept life/reality, be our best] as it is, or we can fight with the service and complain that things should be different. [out of touch with reality, argue, fight, things should be different]
It is back to take responsibility for our own generated feelings by how we ‘create’ our own meaning.
No harm whatsoever in having a good, heated, deep discussion.
The problem arises when we hold tightly to our own experiences as the only true one and dismiss or accuse others as being wrong. Mutual respect!
If the shoe was on the other foot…. what then?
Until I walk in your shoes…… what then?
Marina

While on the surface insults may be regarded as just semantics, I actually feel it contains some important points for the blog and any study of consciousness.

As [unrealized] humans we are identified with language. After realization of course identity in language is gone. But before that … it is not gone.

Now for someone who is identified with words, the greatest harm you can do to them is to label them with words that mean things unpleasant and even despicable. For most humans [who are identified with language] this kind of violence is worse than actual physical violence? Why? Because they don’t live in the physical world. They live in the virtual world of language.

You and I know that what “I am,” …cannot be labelled, not with the label “troll”, not with the label “loser,” not with any label. That is just not the case for someone identified with language… someone who lives and moves and has their being in language (99.9% of all humans).

So to insult, demean or ridicule someone who is identified with language is of course the greatest cruelty and harm one can inflict on them.

More words!!!!
Nice post Osho.
Mike, hooray. There still can be a Santy but I don’t have to be naughty or nice! Don’t have to believe or disbelieve.Ah, I see….:))
Peter, I loved the Dog’s diary thing!
Marina

[Note: 18 months left, you’re determined to do your personal attack thing, but that isn’t going to happen. Read this blog’s comment policies. Then leave some substantive comments if you like — Blogger Brian
https://churchofthechurchless.com/commenting-policies ]

Mike,
“Here comes into play something one might
think of as the Presence. It could be called
the Self. Contact with the Presence is a remarkable event. It is rare, even amoung the enlightened.”
—We are eternity itself, its-unself.
We think presence is something but it is no thing at all. What we fail to understand is that absence is all and is the Source of presence. Presence is what is not, while Absence is what is.
What we really are is unmanifest, phenomenally absent.
What we are is the absence of everything we appear to be and can think that we are.
What we are is the absence of all presence.
Presence is a dualistic mechanism of subject-object relation resulting in an I-concept that emerges from sense perceptions illusorily interpreted by our conditioning. If there is neither this nor that (subject-object), where would “I” be? Nowhere. Never was, this “I” thing. Therefore there is nothing to lose in death or gain in life. Really, they are the same.
—Mike, what is, “the Self,” that you referenced?

18 months left says:
>> “As [unrealized] humans we are identified with…”
You say “we”. And you also claim that “we” are “unrealized”. Yet you only have the right to speak for yourself alone. You don’t have the right to speak for others, and you do not know how it is for others. You say “unrealized”. That’s a concept that you have, but what does it actually mean? And what does ‘realized’ mean? You apparently differentiate one from the other, as if people fall into one category or another. But that is only your view. Not eveyone sees it that way.
>> “After realization of course identity in language is gone.”
Again, what is “realization”. The concept and term “realization” apparently means something to you. You assert that “after” this so-called “realization”, that there is no more “identity in language”. But the “identity in language” here, is clearly your own. You don’t know what “identification with language” others have.
>> “before that … it is not gone.”
Again, you are assuming that there is such a thing as “realization”. And you are assuming that there is a “before” [before realization] and an “after” [after realization]. These are all your own concepts and assumptions. They are not necessarily true or valid.
>> “for someone who is identified with words, the greatest harm you can do to them is to label them with words that mean things unpleasant and even despicable.”
I definitely do not agree. Sometimes so-called “unpleasant” or shocking words can and do cause people to become free of fixations etc which were binding them… that otherwise they would not have. So which is more harmful… remaining bound and fixated and stuck, or becoming more open and free? Life is not all peaches and cream. Many times its the things which shock or offend us, that are the things which bring us the most benefit and good and freedom in the end. Words can hurt, and words can heal. But many times the words that hurt at first, later bring healing.
>> “For most humans [who are identified with language] this kind of violence is worse than actual physical violence”
I absolutely do not agree. You are incorrect. There is no such “violence” in words. Words can be hateful or offensive etc, but not violent. Violence is physical.
>> “Because they don’t live in the physical world. They live in the virtual world of language.”
No. Everyone lives in the “virtual world of language”. And everyone lives in the physical world.
>> “So to insult, demean or ridicule someone who is identified with language is of course the greatest cruelty and harm one can inflict on them.”
Again, I seriously disagree. To say “the greatest cruelty and harm” is utter rubbish. Its quite the contrary. Being insulted, demeaned and ridiculed during the course of my life has only made me a stronger, tougher, wiser and more free being. And I know many others who feel the same.

Osho:
Why did Hui-neng bother to write the Platform Sutra if he didn’t believe in talking as a form of teaching?
Roger:
I was just quoting Ramana. The Self he is talking about is the impersonal perceiver of all experiences. It is not the empirical subject, which is an object to consciousness, like everything else..
Brian:
I don’t intend to change your mind, but the kind of proof, imo, that you would accept is only of one kind, that of objective observation.But even quantum physicists have come around to the idea that you can’t eliminate the subject in any experiment. And you will never ‘see’ consciousness, but it can be known, whether while still connected to the brain or not. There are thousands of studies in the psi research area that cannot be explained as results of brain processes..Charles Tart said as much as far back as 1978. So alot of scientists are climbing aboard the consciousness train. I think the problem comes down to philosophy, not science, at this point. There is plenty of scientific evidence for the mind not being a product of the brain exclusively. The problem is believing it. It requires, imo, a new paradigm and a new way of ‘looking’. Willis Hartman, scientist said, about the primacy of the mind or consciousness over matter: “I wouldn’t believe it even if it were true.” So that is the prejudice that has to be overcome. WHat kind of proof would you accept?
Perhaps you like to remain as the person who wrote the following:
“Nothing worthy proving can be proven – or disproven, my son;
Wherefore, cling to the sunny side of doubt and be happy.”
-Peter

Hi Roger.
I totally agree with you.
But, this discussion has moved beyound
the jnani and enlightenment.
There are people here such as you,
whom are enlightened.
This club reminds me of a covered wagon
journey in the old West. They have
made the journey, only to discover
they made camp a few miles from the
waterhole. The jnanis have piled up
here, but still thirst, even though
their logic tells them they should not.
In the movie the Great Escape, they broke
out of the German prison camp, only
to wind up stranded at the train station.
The discussion has moved past consciousness
to the Substance of Ones Being.
The theory of a Presence, such as Ramana
elucidated on, is being discussed. It was
called the Self.
This Substance is being presented as both
substance and energy at the same time.
The Substance is presented as highly
intelligent.
Simply make contact and that’s the
end game.
This is the aspect of Ramana people
don’t understand.
He went beyound enlightenment and declared
the Presence had extreme power, as I have
recently quoted.

Hey Brian,
Interesting few comments regarding personal attack/insult comments.
What I am asking is, how is it alright for one person (tAo) to use colourful language towards another and not ok for another person?(18 months)
You wrote: “18 months left, you’re determined to do your personal attack thing, but that isn’t going to happen. Read this blog’s comment policies. Then leave some substantive comments if you like”
I personally have not seen any insulting comment made to any blogger from 18 months. Though saying that, I am not on the blog a long time, admitedly. Where is this ‘determined to do your personal attack thing?’
Have I missed something?
Marina

The enlightened experience nothing
and move in the Tao. Selfless
and often compassionate. Typically
they have no beliefs and no God.
They are a blessing to earth.
But, who can help the jnani ?
They are wondering nomads, parched
by the desert sun. They help everyone
and no one helps them. No one
offers them a glass of water.
Who will have mercy on the poor jnani ?
Will not your own Self (Presence),
have mercy on you ? No matter your condition.
The jnani believes there is no experience
of the Self (Presence). Because when
enlightenment occurs, the little self
is gone. No one can be saved, because
no one existed.
But, the fact is, the Substance the
Jnani is made of exists, even if
consciousness was a fallacy.
The jnani must be That Substance.
For even crude matter, must be bound in
the highest inner dimensions.
Can the Ultimate Substance of Your
Being be FELT ?
What if your Ultimate Substance (Self)
is highly intelligent ?
Don’t you have a desire the FEEL yourself
at the Core of your Being ?
Is this not the the greatest subliminal
desire ?
How long can you deny your thrist ?

Marina, yes, you did miss something: two comments from “18 months left” that I didn’t publish, because they were totally aimed at criticizing a fellow commenter. No substantive discussion, just griping about how someone else communicates.
This sort of “flame war” stuff is boring, ridiculous, and what makes the Internet so irritating at times. Those sorts of comments don’t get published on my blogs.
There’s no reason why they should be. On the Internet, if you don’t like a comment on a post, don’t read the comment. If you don’t like the entire post, don’t read the post. If you don’t like the entire blog that a post is on, don’t read the blog.
In cyberspace, you’ve got plenty of choices. In real life, if someone is dominating a conversation, or is talking inappropriately, it’s more difficult to decide what to do. But even then (and I have plenty of experience with discussion groups), it’s almost unheard of that someone will interrupt a discussion and instead start making personal complaints about a member of the group.
Anyway, that’s what you missed: several comments that didn’t get published, because they weren’t appropriate.

Good morning Brian,
I looked up ‘flaming online’ and there are many definitions online as well as the ones on your comment policy section:
• To engage in an online argument usually involving unfounded personal attacks by one or more parties.
• to be or is in a state of being overtly gay and homosexual in nature and appearance.
• An online argument that becomes nasty or derisive, where insulting a party to the discussion takes precedence over the objective merits of one side or another.
I haven’t seen any evidence of what you say on the posts you are referring to. One thing you do mention:
‘it’s almost unheard of that someone will interrupt a discussion and instead start making personal complaints about a member of the group.’
In fact, I thought it was a good question(s) put forth regarding how we communicate to each other. I have given plenty of how I feel and have felt when words were used to me, which by your reckoning, were personal attacks/insults. I also see the comments referred to (tAo and 18 months) as constructive. It was discussing ‘beliefs’ or what we believe words to mean – the meaning we give to them or how we may say one thing and contradict ourselves in the next statement. It can be helpful to see our ‘blindspots’.
Ah if that’s the case, you have ‘broken’ your own rule on the comment policies, posting comments that are aimed at the person rather than the message. I would count 4 out of the 5 comment policies to be broken regularly in the short time I have been on. Not complaining. As I have said, it can be helpful. tAo agrees also from his last post which he wrote:
“To say “the greatest cruelty and harm” is utter rubbish.[On identifying with language] It’s quite the contrary. Being insulted, demeaned and ridiculed during the course of my life has only made me a stronger, tougher, wiser and more free being. And I know many others who feel the same.”
So I don’t honestly see the problem Brian. As you say yourself, if you don’t like the post, don’t read it, if you don’t like the blog, don’t go there. On my own words, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Marina

Marina,
It seems that you are missing the point. The flame war stuff that Brian was referring to is about engaging in unnecessary personal attacks, not about being gay.
You said: “I haven’t seen any evidence of what you say on the posts you are referring to.”
Well, thats because Brian ‘unpublished’ (ie: deleted) those particular comments (posts). He has already told you that. You just aren’t getting it. You are arguing with Brian about the comment policy of his blog. But this blog belongs to Brian. Brian writes it, maintains it, moderates it, and pays for it. So why are you telling Brian how he should conduct his blog?
The fact remains that the commenter in question was clearly attempting to hijack the benign flow of the general discussion, into one of launching a personal attack. You are naive if you think otherwise.
You said (to Brian): “…you have ‘broken’ your own rule on the comment policies, posting comments that are aimed at the person rather than the message. I would count 4 out of the 5 comment policies to be broken regularly in the short time I have been on. Not complaining. As I have said, it can be helpful. tAo agrees also from his last post which he wrote…”
No, I don’t agree. My point was that criticism is not necessarily all bad. I was not defending personal attacks. You seem to misunderstand the comment policy.
Furthermore, I am not on trial here. But the commenter was trying to put me on trial.
I am just one individual who shares his views and opinions. There have been commenters who posted here in the past who were exceedingly offensive, insulting and derisive… using very offensive language, threats, and the whole nine yards. My comments are extremely mild and benign in comparison. But that was long before you arrived.
One more thing: 18 months’ comments were not intended to be “constructive”. They were primarily aimed at attacking and discrediting me, using bogus claims, arguments and spin, and frame-ups. 18 months is very reminiscent of another previous commenter who used to try doing the very same thing repeatedly, against both Brian, myself, and another fellow named Tucson. Some people just get off (enjoy) throwing darts at other people and stirring up conflict. In internet parlance, its called being a troll. The comments made by 18 months that were not acceptable, were unpublished/deleted. Almost all of the times (in the past) that I posted harsh comments, was because someone else had attacked me first. So I would advise you to not jump to conclusions and be a smart-ass, when you really don’t know the reasons or the history.
You went on to say: “It was discussing ‘beliefs’ or what we believe words to mean – the meaning we give to them or how we may say one thing and contradict ourselves in the next statement.”
You are assuming (quite incorrectly btw) that I had or was contradicting myself. But that was 18 months’ false assertion. I haven’t contradicted myself at all. I never said what 18 months claimed that I had said. Don;t just assume that whatever some commenter says is true and factual. Furthermore, 18 months was crossing the line into violating blog comment policy. Therefore, it would behoove you to first listen more, and then talk less. In other words, try to be better informed before making premature judgements and conclusions… especially in regards to other people like myself.
And lastly you said: “So I don’t honestly see the problem Brian. As you say yourself, if you don’t like the post, don’t read it, if you don’t like the blog, don’t go there.”
That refers to the readers and the commenters, not to Brian the author and owner of the blog. It means that if someone doesn’t like what they read on this blog, then they can go somewhere else.

Well tAo,
I have to say I disagree with you on this point that you made:
“I absolutely do not agree. You are incorrect. There is no such “violence” in words. Words can be hateful or offensive etc, but not violent. Violence is physical.”
tAo most if not all of us have been subject to ‘violence’ in one form or another in our lifetime. It may not physically harm us but mentally….that is a different story – physiological violence.
Psychological violence leads to physical violence. Say I call your religion, country etc, a load of shit, assholes……. That then can be interpreted as an attack which may or may not turn to physical violence. Just turn on the tv to see some evidence of this. I hear what you have said regarding words ….but there is the other side of it also.
There is a whole school of thought called ‘Non Violent Communication” (Marshal Rosenberg)
This group’s aim is to communicate non-violently. I am not the only one who sees there is such a thing as violent communication [words].
One of Marshal’s core points is, telling someone what they are doesn’t help them, doesn’t help the communication/discussion, it only leads to more feelings. If I myself believe, I’m not good enough, defective, it adds to the hurt when you call me an asshole. But, if I don’t believe I’m defective, then it doesn’t hurt me granted, but it doesn’t help me either. Otherwise it just adds to the persons suffering. So how does it help, someone telling me ‘I am a ……..’?
Marina

tAo, that was a good description of the “18 months” commenting situation. You explained it better than I have. I can understand how Marina got confused, given that I was referring to comments that hadn’t been published.
After about eight years of near-daily blogging, it’s gotten much easier for me to tell when someone is trying to disrupt a blog, as contrasted with merely being a bit disruptive with his or her comments.
Meaning, the latter person supports the purpose of the blog, but has gotten overly emotional in defending his or position. The former person, though, is trying to control the blog.

Interesting post tAo. I agree with you that sometimes strong language can shake people … not sure if it really makes them question their beliefs. I guess those that wanted to question them would, and those that did not want to question them probably will not until they are ready.

I know sometimes people can be unaware of their motives in the things that they say. For example sometimes you might see a kind, nice man walking a mean attack dog. You might wonder, how can that be, such a kind, nice, fair man, walking such a mean spirited dog. But if you dig deeper you might find that the nice man had some deep seated anger and hostility that he couldn’t express because of his self-image as a nice guy. So he teams up with an attack dog in order to express what was really there under the surface. The dog on its own would have been quickly rounded up by the pound, and the man on his own would simply be depressed and unhappy. Together though they can express their anger and hostility far and wide. I’ve seen this in marriages, families, including my own family with my father and mother.

Actually tAo I had no intention of insulting you or anyone here. As a matter of fact tAo had you read my comments I doubt you would have taken offense on what I have said and most likely would have been in agreement. Language is a huge topic relating to consciousness and I don’t think talking about it’s many aspects is really diverting the thread.

Mike,
Thanks for your message. Enjoyed, as usual.
“The theory of a Presence, such as Ramana
elucidated on, is being discussed. It was
called the Self.”
—Is the Presence(the Self)(the Substance) as mentioned, a pure awareness, pure non-conceptual, state of pure ‘free’ will?
Free will, being expressed, “If you can observe the space and not react to the impulse, you have exercised free will.”
So, the Presence(Self)is, when it becomes clear that our ‘self’ is only a concept and not what we really are, then we are ‘free’ to snap out of that fixation and to live free, as we are, as ‘Presence’ is.
–Thanks for any further clarification in wordage. We are just blogging here.

@Peter
I wonder if it requires just a paradigm switch to accept a consciousness without a body by science. I mean in the ‘consciousness without a body’ view nothing is a function of consciousness and consciousness is not a function of anything (certainly not the body). It seams consciousness is entirely outside any thinkable science because is is not part of any causal chain. Kant would call it intelligible versus the sensible world. Kant said a thought (consciousness) exists with a causal chain but is not at the beginning or anywhere in it. If I think I will move that stone than this thought does not cause the stone to move wherever I look in my brain. Thoughts are intelligible they can not be found with instruments.
Someone said that Kant’s ‘ding an sich’ was a mistake because Kant used a causal explanation to prove it and causality and logic where to be used. Perhaps the NDE is the proof for the existance of the intelligible word and the ‘ding an sich’ in contrast to the sensible world. Perhaps not a paradigm switch but more a revalidation of philosophy as a part of science and a realization of science being a part of philosophy solves the problem.
About consciousness than there is nothing to proof scientifically and we are at the mercy of revelation from beings without a body or beings that transcended their body or from memories form the periods without a body.

I typed ‘and causality and logic where to be used’ I meant ‘and causality and logic where not to be used’ because they where a posteriori.
What I essentially try to say is that there is no way we can conclude that there is another world a priori, before the senses. But that the NDE can be explained by assuming such a world!

Hi Roger,
The Presence is a new concept.
It needs a new language and
definition.
The Presence cannot be described.
The Presence cannot be worshiped.
The Presence does not talk to you
and you do not talk to the Presence.
But, the Presence proves itself by
its compentency.
All one does is FEEL it on top of
the head. Just above the eyes and running
a bit to the top of forehead.
You can FEEL it now. No yoga, no Guru,
no philosophy, no religion.
Makes no difference if your ready
or not; and has no code of ethics.
Nothing you do makes any difference.
The Presence is contacted by the desire
for it. By FEELING it.
There is nothing else to do.
It does everything that needs to be done
without the person even realizing it
and without any effort.
This is what many jnanis around Ramana
failed to understand.
There is one last step beyond enlightenment.
But, it is so simple, it eludes the
intellectuals.
The FEELING is there NOW. No preperation
is necessary, or possible.

Marina here is one of reviews of that book on communication i always go with the 1 star reviews at amazon.
I think that someone might be well learned in verbal polite kind of talking but could be very damaged in thoughts and otherwise someone might say a few ‘fuck offs’ and be very honest and pure person cause it is easy to remove a few words than damaged thougts. And also Peter asked us few about our friend tAo and i say tAo taught me alot
and i am thankful to him as i am to my teacher(Baba)
Marina,tAo…stuff,communication..review:
Poorly written, self-aggrandizing babble, January 10, 2006
By
Dr. Margaret Ryan – See all my reviews
This review is from: Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life (Paperback)
As a doctor of psychology, I was appalled at the short-sightedness of this book. How can a person peddle this gibberish? Rosenberg pushes “correct” speaking instead of honest, open dialogue. Watch one of his videos, and you can see the pickiness of language he insists upon. I would never recommend this book to a client. I strongly suggest you consider the credibility (or lack thereof) of this author before pushing this dribble on another person.

Marina: “It may not physically harm us but mentally….that is a different story – physiological violence.”
I think that you may have made an error in spelling? You wrote “physiological”. Physiological refers to the physical.
Psychological refers to the mental.
Marina: “There is a whole school of thought called ‘Non Violent Communication” (Marshal Rosenberg). This group’s aim is to communicate non-violently.”
I am aware of that. But I do not agree with all of their conclusions. I do not agree that “telling someone what they are doesn’t help them”. It sounds nice, but it doesn’t always work out that way. Communication takes different forms. There is no one formula, no ‘one size fits all’. Every circumstance is different.
If you study the Witter Bynner translation of the Tao Teh Ching, you may come to better understand what I mean.
Tao Teh Ching, trans. by Witter Bynner (indexed version):
http://www.terebess.hu/english/tao/bynner.html
Tao Teh Ching, trans. by Witter Bynner (non-indexed version):
http://tinyurl.com/nxgw7p
Marina: “If I myself believe, I’m not good enough, defective, it adds to the hurt when you call me an asshole.
The world is always going to push your buttons, no matter what. Thats just the way it goes. Life is going to slap you in the face until you learn. It is my belief that being truthful is the way to proceed. Sometimes people’s feeling get hurt, but saying the truth is better in the end. I don’t believe in the notion that we should walk on eggs around other people. There is no end to that cycle. Once you start tip-toeing around, and worrying about other people’s feelings, you are bound to go astray, and you will lose the power and protection of truth. It is far better to simply be candid and truthful in your dealings with other people. Then everything will come out right in the end. Otherwise, you will be forever and constantly adjusting to other people’s hang-ups.
So I don’t buy Rosenberg and his faulty philosophy. Imo, it tends to disempower people. I also don’t believe in socialism or communism. I think its poison and destructive to the individual. If thats what you’re into (either consciously or unconciously) then you and I are opposed.
Marina: “if I don’t believe I’m defective, then it doesn’t hurt me granted, but it doesn’t help me either.
I really disagree. Telling the truth always helps. You may not see it at first, but it does. Hiding the truth, and/or not being upfront with other people, is only going to make matters worse. Being truthful carries great power and light. Truth is more important than feelings and emotions. Truth is more important than making people feel good. The truth will help them much more, even if its temporarily uncomfortable.
Marina: “it just adds to the persons suffering.”
I also don’t agree with that. Suffering is a fact of conditional existence. People suffer due to ignorance – because they mis-identify with the unreal and the transitory. Being truthful does not cause suffering. My comments don’t cause people to suffer. Suffering is caused by a lack of understanding in the one who suffers. This is all very basic and fundamental. Yet people still try to blame other people for their own suffering. The solution is to stop blaming other people, and take responsibility for your own suffering.
[please note: pain and suffering are two very different things: pain is physical, suffering is mental.]

Thanks Mungos, you just confirmed and validated my own critical opinions about the Rosenberg book etc.
It really is a bunch of “gibberish” and “dribble”. I used to know some people who were into that crap, and they were all really screwed up. They could not just simply be real. It was pathetic.
I am sorry that Marina buys into this sort of lame rubbish. No wonder Marina does not understand this blog.
I have explained some of my reasons for being critical of it in my previous comment above. If you contemplate on what I said about being straightforward and truthful, it will bring powerful clarity and insight into your life.
Also, Mungos I have not forgotten you, and I intend to try to get an email off to you as soon as I have some extra time. Until then, best regards.

Hi Toa,
I wonder how many people there are like you and
I, whom have seen so much of the occult world.
Never expected to end my journey with the
conclusions that were reached.
Thakar talked about demons at Kirpal’s ashram,
in the secret letter I published.
What would you say to people whom do not think
Evil exists ?
Can you tell us its modus operandi ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZUgoz0Q9s0&NR=1

Tao,
What do you think of Kirpal and Darshan and Rajinder ?
Can you tell us any of the experiences with
the Evil force that you have seen ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4nb6wfw6s0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkboNMt_q6M&NR=1&feature=fvwp

It is known that Hubard was a satanist and was a student from Crowley, also a satanist.
On this site you see how they destroy people that are critical of the cult today, inspired by ?
http://www.xenu.net/ in the right upper corner you see
‘scientology black intelligence’
It is part of a coming out of Mike McClaughry a former agent of the dark cult. Here are the first two parts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eTLdUuxE54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkjhZifrcfs
For more parts see the main site upper right of xenu.net. It is very interesting how these people creatively destroy other people for a living.
In my own life I have seen these agents call the organization that I work for, a Christian organization, and they were pretending to be a disturbed man that I met on a paranormal website. They pretended to be that man and wanted to sue my company because I used the company logo in these paranormal groups (of course a lie). They left the impression at my employer that I was into the occult and that I was doing weird stuff in my free time. As a result my employer has fired me (for other reasons of course). This is not a fantasy, I have the facts and conversations with the legal department of my former employer. Needless to say few people believed me until I showed them these interviews that I mentioned above. It is hard to believe that there are people like that at all in this world. It makes me believe in evil again.
Thanks for reading hope I’m not to far off topic and hope I don’t cause trouble for the webmasters here. Mostly I shut up for that reason, I don’t want to have this website being attacked.
Give me that good old religion 😉
http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/go.htm

oops I forgot this one!
http://www.entheta.net/southpark/southpark-closet.wmv
🙂

tAo thanks for your comments and Mungos, yes I did mean psychological. Phs and Phy words always mix them up when I spell them, even I suppose when I talk about them. lol
On Non Violent Communication, I was just saying that some people do believe in violence through words. I do agree with you that ‘a one size fits all’ is not the way to go – generalisations.
Mungos, I am in agreement with what you said here:
“I think that someone might be well learned in verbal polite kind of talking but could be very damaged in thoughts and otherwise someone might say a few ‘fuck offs’ and be very honest and pure person cause it is easy to remove a few words than damaged thougts”
There is the part though, that thoughts too are words.
If their theory is misused which is and can be in all walks of life – from teachers/masters/religion/books etc it can be more ‘harmful’ than what they are trying to achieve.
Using it[Non Violent Communication] in a way for ‘correct speaking, instead of open dialogue’[Mungos quote on Margaret Ryan] it loses its essence.
In saying that, you can be as honest as you want without ‘changing’ colourful language to suit others BUT not at the expense of the other person. I see no harm in saying ‘ I feel so fucking angry, I feel the whole world are losers, assholes, mentally insane, stupid, shitheads……… it can be a different story if you say ‘YOU are a fucking loser, asshole, mentally insane, stupid, a shithead…..
There are no hard and fast rules in either case though. Some situations may merit it and be the right thing. Sometimes it is hard to know; just what is the ‘right’ amount of medicine to administer and why we may feel the need to administer the medicine [comments] in the first place.
If it [administering/commenting] is coming from a place of self-serving agenda’s of blame, our need to be right, condemnation, negative judgement, superiority, being a smart-ass, separation……we may need to apply that medicine to ourselves. Yes, words are tricky and misrepresent the truth. Sometimes too, the best thing is ‘to be cruel [appears that way] to be kind’ IF it is coming from a genuine place and not from some hidden agenda.
tAo you said:
”It is my belief that being truthful is the way to proceed. Sometimes people’s feeling get hurt, but saying the truth is better in the end.
I agree, though as I said above, only if it is the real truth and not coming from behind some ‘unconscious hidden self-serving agenda’. Sure, some people will take insult even when insults are not ‘given’.
But don’t let us use that one either to hide behind, because if we want to be honest with ourselves, we all know, deep down when we have or are doing this. Ok, so no big deal, if that what is ‘true’ for us and that being how we want to see the world/reality. If it makes us happy(peaceful, content, happy, accepted, open, (no conditions) then fine. If it doesn’t give us these happy (peace, content, acceptance, one)and we wish it to be different, then that too can be a ‘catalyst’ to enquire into. So it is not a case of ‘adjusting to someone else’s hang ups’ as you say tAo, but being with what is and acceptance of life. Sure it doesn’t mean we can’t argue……
On these points below tAo:
[Marina: “if I don’t believe I’m defective, then it doesn’t hurt me granted, but it doesn’t help me either.]
——[tAo]:I really disagree. Telling the truth always helps. You may not see it at first, but it does. Hiding the truth, and/or not being upfront with other people, is only going to make matters worse. Being truthful carries great power and light. Truth is more important than feelings and emotions. Truth is more important than making people feel good. The truth will help them much more, even if its temporarily uncomfortable.]——
If someone has the truth, how can it help telling them what they already have?
Whereas, if they haven’t got the truth, telling them lies ‘you are an asshole, a loser, mentally insane’ is not telling the truth, but the individual’s ‘version’ of the truth. We shouldn’t try to be God and think we know what is best for everyone.
No one owns more ‘truth’ than anyone else.
tAo you say:
“The solution is to stop blaming other people, and take responsibility for your own suffering.”
That is what I have been trying to say time and time again. Anytime we are blaming someone out there, we are not taking responsibility for ourselves and our own suffering. It is always back to ourselves!
tAo I had a quick look at ‘Tao Teh Ching, trans. by Witter Bynner (indexed version). It seems very interesting. I will get back to it. ~Thanks for the links!
PS. tAo, did what was going on for you when I wrote my comment in reference to the Victimitis thing, interesting to me on this discussion on words? Do you still hold the same views? What are your views on that?(in case I make up my own story about what it meant for you) lol
An excerpt from what Osho posted on other thread: The Velveteen Rabbit. (beautiful)
“Does it hurt [on being Real]?” asked the Rabbit.
“Sometimes,” said the Skin Horse, for he was always truthful. “When you are Real you don’t mind being hurt.”(scary at times…)
Marina

”Even though I am helpless of
The force above
And even though I Can’t see far
I hold tighter and draw the stars” –my mantra of these days
———————————————
Love is only worthy of its name when you can love someone when they are
Unlovable
Charan Singh

Hi Nietzsche and Toa,
(I left some questions for you above Tao.)
Scientology is a remarkable cult. I have read
some of their court cases and it is amazing
the tricks they pull.
They make money at higher levels in a ponzi
scheme. (I must add this is my belief
to protect myself legally).
The Masons have been in America since the
beginning. They worship Lucifer and their
religion is an ancient Egyptian source
of Isis.
There have been many presidents who were Masons and
the elite meet at the Bohemian Grove. Many presidents
here also.
They perform occult ritual called the Cremation of
Care. See Alex Jones secret film of the event at
Bohemian Grove.
The Masons at 7th initiation contact the
first force. At 27th initiation, they directly
contact Lucifer.
Also, see Bilderberg Group by Alex Jones
on You Tube.
They are the ones whom run the world.
What is remarkable is that Lucifer worshipers
such as Bush claim to be
reborn Christians. They all claim
to be Christians to run for office.
It is no accident Nancy Reagan was reading
occult material in the White House.
There is a famous speach by John F. Kennedy
on you tube, denouncing these secret cults
which he says runs the world.
Must watch videos below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2E_HP97Rzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1smgz-px1Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd8wwMFmCeE&feature=related

God Nietzsche, that must have been a tough one. I had heard of Scientology but never passed any remarks of it or looked into it at all.
Interesting links!
Mike, your first link I watched and again, I hadn’t a clue that, that stuff was going on. Guess I have lived a sheltered life!
Marina

Marina: “If someone has the truth, how can it help telling them what they already have?”
Why do you say they “already have” the truth? In most cases, people do not see the truth about themselves. So the don’t “have” the truth. And the “truth” I spoke of is not some absolute or universal or spiritual truth. Thats not what we’re talking about. People usually don’t see themselves objectively. So they don’t “already have” the truth about themselves.
Marina: “Whereas, if they haven’t got the truth, telling them lies ‘you are an asshole, a loser, mentally insane’ is not telling the truth, but the individual’s ‘version’ of the truth.”
You are assuming that what is being told is a lie. What is being told to them is an observation or an opinion, and that obsevation or opinion may be more true or less true. Sometime people DO in fact act like so-called ‘assholes’, or ‘losers’, or they behave and interact in a ‘mentally disturbed’ manner. Yet you claim that is all a lie. I can’t agree with you, and a majority of human society doesn’t agree with you either. Why do you deny things that are obvious?
Marina: “We shouldn’t try to be God and think we know what is best for everyone.”
No one said anything about “trying to be God”. I am not “trying to be God”. I never said that I know what is best for others. I simply said that it is best to tell the truth as you see it. That its best to be honest, upfront and candid. That its best to say what you think. Thats not playing God. Thats simply telling it like you see it. So it appears that you rwaly don’t understand this issue at all. Its not about acting like God and judging what is best for others. Not at all. Its about being straightforward and expressing one’s opinions and obsevations, whatever they may be. You seem to think that people like myself should just refrain from telling others what I think or observe, or what my opinions are about others, but yet you do this every day. Thats hypocrisy. You make obsevations and opinions and judgements about other people all the time, and yet you tell me that its not appropriate to do that.
Marina: “No one owns more ‘truth’ than anyone else.”
Again, I never said (or implied) that I “own” the truth. I do not claim to own truth. I simply said that I believe that its best to simply tell the truth as one sees it, in any given situation. And the truth I speak of is not some sort of almighty ‘absolute truth’. Its simply about being truthful and candid. So you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said and what I meant.
tAo said: “The solution is to stop blaming other people, and take responsibility for your own suffering.”
Marina: “That is what I have been trying to say time and time again. Anytime we are blaming someone out there, we are not taking responsibility for ourselves”
I was only saying to take responsibility and not blame others for one’s own suffering. I was NOT saying that we should refrain from making obsevations, judgements and/or criticisms of other people.
Marina: “tAo, did what was going on for you when I wrote my comment in reference to the Victimitis thing, interesting to me on this discussion on words? Do you still hold the same views?”
I don’t know or I am not sure what exactly you are referring to. ??
Marina: “What are your views on that?(in case I make up my own story about what it meant for you)”
My views on what? I don’t know what you are asking about. Also, you don’t know what any particular thing means for me, unless I tell you. And its pointless and unnecessary and to make up you own stories about what you think things mean to other people. Its much better to just state your own views and opinions and what things mean to you, and let others do the same. Don’t try to assume what something means to another person. That gets very messy.
I would also like to let you know that I am not at odds with you personally, but I do feel that some of the things you say here indicate an attitude that this is all just a game to you. Now some people don’t mind that sort of thing and they even play along with it, but others like myself find blog-comment game playing to be more or less annoying. Me, I don’t play games, I just say what I mean, and I say what I think.
Lastly, if you don’t mind, I have one question for you… which country do you reside in? I am just curious. I live in northern California, in the USA.

Marina,
Well, since you say you’ve led such a “sheltered” life, its high time for you to become truly informed and educated, and enter the real world…
Alex Jones’ INFOWARS website:
http://www.infowars.com
Listen 24/7:
Alex Jones Radio Show – streaming audio (for windows media players):
http://www.infowars.com/infowars.asx
Infowars Radio Show – streaming audio (for other media players):
http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls

Mike I better understand the movies you posted now.
From what I learned these dark cults follow a logical pattern in trying to disguise themselves. If some one reveals their secrets or makes the truth come out about abuses and bad things happening in the society or even reveal their secret literature, rituals or in any other way thwarts their purpose than they try to eliminate that ‘attack’. The attacker is discredited or they see how the attacker sustains himself financial and they try to destroy that or they see what the attacker protects and they try to destroy that to make the attacker turn away from them to protect himself. All they want to is to be left alone, to work in the dark whatever they are preparing. ‘If you leave us alone, we will leave you alone’ S is credited for saying.
It is very difficult to present the truth about these movements and it might be truth that real evil tries to convince the world that it does not exist. I know of books that are explicit about demons and demonic forces and these books you don’t want to have in your house unless you also can deal with the disturbing events that surround and follow them. One movie comes to mind ‘The exorcism of Emily Rose’.
To all the people that left S I hope you find the courage to speak as
McClaughry listening to him I am able to forgive this guy. This part is about the protect button and how it is worked to destroy the ‘attacker’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpccSxB6Dwo
They worked me in far more ways. I got dead threats by email anonymised but traceable by style. Links to disturbing video’s, voodoo rituals etc. I also believe they worked black magic on me but that is more difficult to proof. It is strange however how my health deteriorated in the months following the attack.
If I come through like a paranoid. Please have some patience I don’t have all the fact clear yet as is nearly impossible when one receives such a personal attack. Am I afraid? Of course but does that stop me? Don’t think so, they have to kill me for that 😉

Hi Brian:
The question has been has been posed to me on this thread, “have you posted on this blog before?”

Just to give you some context for some of my posts, I actually had posted on this blog a few times a number of years ago under a different name. I think I posted only one or two posts then lost interest.

I myself do not even remember what name I might have posted under. A little over a month ago I posted again just something I had written that I thought was worth saying and put it on your blog. Then I noticed something on the blog which I thought was offensive and questioned one of your longtime commentators on it. We know what happened next.

Last night I did some research and actually read some comments posted on your blog from years past and I can see that the direction I had started down has been covered quite a bit in the past. I was not the first one to comment on it.

I don’t think the blog really works if it becomes a blog about the commentators on the blog. Especially when it has been covered exhaustively in the past. No wonder you found it uninteresting, when to me it was new territory.

Regarding personal name-calling and insults, I myself find overt personal attacks unintelligent and I can’t tell you how much I agree with your written policy of not allowing them.
If you re-read every comment I have ever sent I think you will find that I did not overtly engage in any direct personal attacks. Any attacks I have done were subtle and underhanded.

Due to these conditions, I am wondering if you allow subtle underhanded attacks on the anti-church blog, or is that reserved only for overtly disparaging comments?

I am curious because I want to know if I should take up my posting duties over on that site?

18 months left, if you want to criticize me and this blog, which is your theme in the comment you just left, then it’d be better to do it on “I Hate Church of the Churchless.”
Like you said yourself, commenting about the style or personality of other commenters is boring (which is what you’ve been trying to do, but I wouldn’t publish your comments). Complaining about a blog that complains about religion also is boring. That’s why I want the boring stuff over on my “I Hate” blog.
You’re most welcome to post substantive comments here. They even can be uninteresting. What I mean by “boring” is what I said above: getting all worked up about other commenters on this blog, and this blog itself. Now, that’s boring!

Hi Nietzsche,
You are correct, L. Ron Hubbard was a satanist.
The Masons actually manifest Lucifer in their
bodies starting at the 27th initiation. They are
given proof by the manisfestation of Lucifer
Himself and are given powers.
The Skull and Bones, Masons, Bohemian Grove
and Bilderberg’s group are all satanists.
A great many of our presidents belonged
to one or another of these groups. Several
founding fathers such as John Hancock,
Samual Adams, Paul Revere, etc.
John F. Kennedy was outspoken on these
secret groups which controlled the world
and our central banks. The Rothchilds
were Masons. Saddam Hussein was a 33rd
degree Mason.
Our government has always been loaded
to the max with Masons.
L. Ron Hubbard followed the teachings of
Aleister Crowley.
George W. Bush’s mother was believed to
be the illegitmate daughter of Aleister Crowley.
She was born 9 months after her mother returned
from a meeting with Crowley in Europe and
engaged in a sexual ritual with him and her friend.
Prescott Bush endorsed Hitler and his assets
were frozen by the US Government. He was not
charged due to his friendship with FDR.
Crowley acted for the secret service of both
the US Government and the British. Crowley
introduced Lucifer in the flesh to Hitler.
Hitler stated Lucifer struck terror in him.
Two popes tried to give exorcisms to Hitler
to remove his devils and failed.
The swastica is a symbol of Satan.
It was Lucifer Himself whom spoke through Hitler
and Crowley was very responsible.
One of the members of the group Led Zepplin
now own Crowley’s house.
Their songs often contain Satan love when
played backwards.

Well tAo,
Some interesting points you made.
You ask me ‘why do you [Marina] deny things that are obvious’?
I am not denying things that are obvious. I do agree with you and I like the word you used act like assholes, losers etc rather than you are an asshole.
My daughter acts very irresponsible. Her car tax is up from last April or May and she hasn’t the money to renew the tax. She is at university up north and she got a grant, which is already all spent. In the past I use to ‘preach’ to her and tell her she needed to get her act together and budget for the important things that need taking care of.
As a result of my ‘preaching’ even though I only wanted the best for her, she saw it as an attack. I know that because she occasionally would ask for money out of desperation, but would tell lies why she needed the money because she didn’t want a sermon.
Lately I have been looking at this and instead of telling her what she is eg. ‘you are stupid, how did you spend all the money you got? What did you spend it on?…..’, now I be objective and ask her how she sees the situation. I don’t give her money as I see, no matter how much I give her, it is not productive in helping her stand on her own two feet, or advice, but I do give her my objective listening, compassion in any way I can. It can be very hard tAo, as I sometimes go into fear thinking Noah (my grandson) may suffer. Deep down I feel what I am doing is helping more – not making her into a victim of her own actions. I want to come from a real place and let the right thing be done.
Ok tAo, I can see your point of saying ‘you are acting irresponsible, but to call her a loser, asshole, mentally disturbed…….. I still say doesn’t help. I may see what is going on and call it stupid behaviour in my subjective thinking(like her dad does) but fighting stupidity is just more stupidity in my book.
There is no denying the ‘pain, suffering, violence, misery, power struggles, and abuse going on in the world as you say and I thoroughly agree. But if I see violence from a subjective point of view and give it my meaning, let’s say blame; that judgement of blame is like fighting with those who I deem violent in the first place. Call it what we like, but fighting is fighting – no matter what the cause and only adds to the suffering already present. You cannot eradicate violence with violence. It is different coming from a balanced point, or as Buddha says the middle way. When we know
Yes there is the other side of things too, ie, we can ignore that there is any suffering or violence going on and blanket it with spiritually by saying, there is not pain, everything is one, all is perfect……that can be the other side of the blame. Being unreal, airy fairy, stick our heads in the clouds.
Which leads me to the view you have of me. You say tAo:
“I [tAo} do feel that some of the things you say here indicate an attitude that this is all just a game to you.”
Can you give me specific examples tAo? I honestly don’t see it that way or I am not trying to come across as being a smart-ass as you said to me in a former post, never mind playing games. I am really interested, as something which I see as similar, happened to me a couple of years ago at work and I would like to see things from your shoes.
I have left work. But a couple of years ago one of the girls in the office said to me with an air of anger and hostility:
“Marina, you are not as stupid as you try to make out!!”
This was after I told her I didn’t know how to find a certain programme on the computer – one which I didn’t use that often. She asked me to do something and when I told her I forget what programme to use, that is when she made the above comment.
Well, do you know what tAo? Honest to God she was wrong, because I was that stupid!
However though, back then, I allowed her to have her opinion as I preferred to see myself as intelligent and playing games over being what was really real – stupid. (stupid meaning something different to me today) I am laughing here at myself. lol lol lol. I can now see the funny side of it. At last.
tAo, I didn’t make myself clear in my last post about the views I was referring to.
I meant, what was your thinking process/emotional response, what meaning did you give it, when you read my victimitis comment? And why do you see me as a loser for having that view?
I tAo am from Ireland. I have lived here all my life. I was born in the republic a half an hour from the border in Northern Ireland.
When I got married at 19, I moved to Crossmaglen which is a village right on the border. Bandit country it was known as. I seen a lot of violence between the Catholics and the Protestants – both who saw, their viewpoint was right. I even witnessed a young soldier which a sniper shot in the village one day. He was someone’s son. I never could understand the ‘delight’ in which people from either side felt, when someone on the other side of the fence so to speak was killed. Well, in some way because I was an ‘outsider’ and wasn’t brought up in Cross village, maybe I wasn’t entrenched in the war or suffer with the goings on so from that viewpoint as I say, I couldn’t understand it. I never took sides.
I lived here for 20 years in Cross and then got married again and moved back into the republic. I am still about half an hour only away from the border. Things though have settled down big time from the old days.
tAo, we are thinking of living in some different country and maybe we will move to US and maybe we could become neighbours :))
Marina

Huh? Was anyone calling this blog boring?

Marina,
You probably would not like the climate and terrain around where I live. Its quite hot and very dry all summer, and then somewhat rainy in the winter.
I looked up your area on the map. I see its right up north of Dublin. I have never been to Ireland. However I did live around London for sometime when I was doing music there in 1969 and again in 1972-73.
However, My mother lived in Ireland when she was very young. Her father (my grandfather) was a prominent MD (a medical doctor) who eventually became the director of the US Public Health Service for US presidents Truman and Eisenhower. Back during the 1930s my grandfather was sent to Ireland by the U.S. government to assist in the public health of Ireland. So thats why my mother and her parents (my grandparents) lived in Ireland. They lived around Cork and Cobh, which as you know is way down on the south coast.

dear tAo i hardly wait your music envolment!

Yeah tAo,
Cork/Cobh is one of the nicest parts of Ireland. Some of the landscape around this area is very rugged.
Did your parents/grandparents always live in Ireland?
Do you know what they say about the Irish?
BJ asked me that one year I was at the mike. I was about to say ‘they drink too much…..but before I got saying it, he came back and said ‘they are stubborn!’
You have some good blood in you tAo! 😉
Marina