Visit our new, improved website at www.beyondorange.org




English, Hungarian


German, English, Hungarian, Czech, Serbian, Slovenian


English, Croatian, Czech, Hungarian, Slovenian, German, Serbian

  • pavitra May 2011
    Posts: 270
    And I forgot to say thank you for your answers to my questions about relationships. It gave me a new insight. I found out that my problem is fear, fear to confrontate, fear to face the reality. I was really the perfect victim for someone who is selling fairytales...
  • batawebatawe May 2011
    Posts: 409
    Hermits of our times:
  • batawebatawe May 2011
    Posts: 409
  • Tony May 2011
    Posts: 172
    Reply to @batawe: Sorry, dude, I guess I am too old for this. ;-) "Very difficult... only one in ten thousand can speak to God....Above all, God wants humility, humility, humility." Right...

    Reminds me of swAmi in a way: superficially very sweet, saintly looking "wise man" with undeniable charisma, but if you actually carefully parse his wisdom, the guy isn't really saying anything useful, anything helpful, or anything new. My friend, you spoke to God and all you could bring back is this? Couldn't you get like the cure for cancer or cold fusion or something practical?

    In a way, this old man epitomizes all my reasons of why I left YIDL.
  • batawebatawe May 2011
    Posts: 409
    Reply to @Tony: for the ascetics and seclusion-types this will work, but it will hardly work for modern-cyber-type wo-men;), it's the tradition of ascetism and it has its own structure; it isn't out of the 'social' order; as long as we speak, or better - we are Spoken, caught in the Symbolic of the Language, we are caught in the ambiguity of the words, which makes us "subjects of the unconscious" and we always fail to deliver "the meaning"; the only way to 'free' ourselves would be to cross the threshold of the Symbolic/Language, to 'free' ourselves from (the discourse of) the Other...as long as we speak, we need a "scene", we stage the 'truth'/the word, be(for)e the "gaze of the Other"...we are on the "scene" on which we perform "the spoken truth" for The Other as a spectator...when there is no spectator left, and no one to receive the message, that's definitely a sign that we are already dead (some make suicide and remove themselves literally from the space of "inter-subjective recognition of the Other", but as a dead subjects, the question will be left, for the Other/s to ask themselves of the nature of their own gaze - their own "Why?").....as long as we speak, we fail, and message is always displaced...
  • batawebatawe May 2011
    Posts: 409
  • batawebatawe May 2011
    Posts: 409
    Some thoughts "On Transference of Love and perspective of an "Object" beyond all objects"!

    While reading certain things I decided to share some of the thoughts with you, some ideas you can apply on the structural points of human desire, knowledge-transmission, love-transference (the hidden object in You, which "I", as the subject, see or love in "You as the Other"), the "infinite perspective" which is a perspective of an "Object/the Thing; das Ding/God...", beyond all (particular) objects etc.

    (Hopefully this might help as to 'clarify' our own desire a little bit, our own desire as the "subjects of desire", subjects that are barred with "the Lack or Loss", who 'suffer' their own insufficiency of (constitutive) manqué of their own desire.
    ***( "manqué" –adjective
    (postpositive) - meaning: Unfulfilled due to some inherent flaw or an — often uncertain — constitutional lacking of some kind. )

    As the "subjects of desire" we search the "object" that will fulfill our desire; the search of the missing object is the constitutive part , belonging to the desire itself, which is again the function of the manqué. It is constitutional for our desire to search, to open the place for love and knowledge itself; this desire pushes our will in trying to find or fulfill our meaning, it's not something that is usually thought as negative or that it should be rid off...but this same "subject of the desire" that we are, finds the meaning in certain "object or the Object" in which our desire, will supposedly be fulfilled, and to anticipate little bit the conclusion of my thoughts, we could say, that when the desire becomes totally fulfilled in the Object, there is no desire left and that is the "death of the subject"...to fully confront the Object means to fully die as the "subject of the desire", it's absolute death of us as we know ourselves to be. But at the same time, this desire to meet our chosen Object, plays tricks of how not to confront with our desire directly...
    (subcomment: People talk, they want to merge with God or realize Truth and it is just mere words and shuffle of verbal representations and symbolic mumbo-jumbo that today's neo-adwaitins sell to the people, who sit on the floor and listen to the Master's discourse/Master being "the subject who is supposed to know", and he will give them an 'answer' to their inherent lack of their own being, he will 'fulfill' their emptiness and in Him, they will find the embodiment of that "Object" they so fervently seek - but cannot find; Master (as indirect means) renders their search and experience more manageable, through the Master they postpone their 'suicidal decision' to 'kill themselves' as unsatisfied, empty subjects of the radical manqué, the unfulfillment, while in Master/the Knower who is One, who is fulfilled, who possess the secret (treasure) of his own being, they will find their Desire (temporarily) fulfilled, before the final meeting with the "Absolute Object of the Final Dissolution" and the "Death of the/ir Desire"...)

    We are born as sexual beings, split organisms, mortal and subject to death. That is the "Real manqué". Many myths tried to 'sew' this sexual division with metaphorical stories, meanings, as it seems, where the logic fails, or is unable to represent it directly, the myth jumps in and tries to patch things up.
    One of such myths is presented in the Plato's dialogue "Symposium", a talk "On Eros" or Love.
    As in all Plato's dialogues, Socrates is the main protagonist and he delivers the final meaning throughout the dialogues and though it looks as a dialogue, it is in fact more or less 'monologue', serving Socrates line of thinking (which is again Plato's thinking, as Socrates didn't write anything himself).
    But in the "Symposium" even Socrates, does not speak directly but he (or the Plato) introduces the woman, named Diotima, that taught Socrates while ago and now Socrates speaks indirectly through her knowledge of things, and that is the only time that Plato puts in the mouth of Socrates, somebody else, to speak through him. When sitting around the feast, they come to the idea to talk about Love/Eros, and Socrates says: "What concerns me, I could not agree more, as the Love is the only thing that I Know about." Same Socrates, that erected as his motto: "I know that I know nothing", he appears in "Symposium", as an expert on the subject of Love. Strange indeed. But Love and Knowledge are somehow connected.

    Philosophy that is declared as the "love of wisdom", through Socrates transmutes into "wisdom of love". We enter into the realm of (love) "transference". Socrates becomes the specialist on Love not on Wisdom.
    "Knowledge/wisdom on love", goes beyond the field of "love of wisdom". The implication is that the nature of philosophical knowledge is transference-like and transference is not the matter of wisdom. - It is possible that you don't know nothing but still you can produce a powerful transference. Transference-like nature of Love, means, that knowledge in its very core, contains the point, which is evasive in itself - it contains the point of Love (transference towards the Master/the one who knows) - We need love/transference, for the knowledge to structure itself around the empty point of the "treasure as the object". Our desire is structured around that 'nameless' point of love.

    First we have "transference" in its etymological meaning as the "transmission" of knowledge (for example as from tradition to tradition or from one Master to another Master, along the whole line of tradition). The chain of discourse, "the knowledge-transmission", is passed along the sliding chain of the downfalling succession.

    But the other meaning of "transference" is the "love transference", the relation of Love towards its chosen/loved Object.

    From the myth that appears in Symposium, the myth of the original nature of wholeness of our nature and doubled bodies, that were later split..."There were three sexes: the all male, the all female, and the "androgynous," who was half man, half woman. The creatures tried to scale the heights of heaven and planned to set upon the gods (190b-c). Zeus thought about blasting them to death with thunderbolts, but did not want to deprive himself of their devotions and offerings, so he decided to cripple them by chopping them in half, in effect separating the two bodies."

    We search for that Wholeness, we seek it in the "other half", that is there somewhere, but even in original split there is unbearable pain and resignation as the reunion of bodies doesn't take place properly - the whole thing introduces death, the dissolution.
    Sexuality in that sense appears as the "death drive" in its pure form.

    And in "Symposium", the main thing that Socrates tries to present is the "search for that true object of Love". What is missing in the one who loves? Love is put in the register of desire - the lack (of something)!
    If the love is the "desire for Beauty", it is because the Beauty is missing. And which "object" can fulfill this lack? From the love of bodies to the love of the beauty as such, to the idea of Beauty, the movement of uplifting askesis, the transcendence of all particular objects (of experience) etc...we come to the "infinite perspective" - perspective of an "Object", beyond all objects" (the final truth, Beauty, God, That, Nameless&Formless, Abstract Absolute Oneness...)!
    We can not possess that object - it is the perspective of that "MORE" in the "object that is more than the object itself", it is the absolute perspective of Death, Eternity and Immortality.
    And the Beauty is here, in a sense, some sort of covering/a veil which hides/covers up/conceals the access to the impossible "final Thing" - the Beauty here serves the purpose of some sort of defense mechanism, as a mask of "the Thing" that protects us from meeting with "the Thing/das Ding".
  • batawebatawe May 2011
    Posts: 409
    And that same "object", which we cannot possess, is on the other side contained in the Socrates himself. In the "Symposium" at a certain point , enters Alkibiades, totally drunk into the center of discussion - and if the Socrates served us with the problem of love towards the final/absolute Object beyond all objects, Alkibiades serves us with the transposition of the problem - of love towards the Socrates.

    Alkibiades ridicules him and compares him to the small statues sold on the market, which, when you split the statue apart, you can find inside small pictures or images of gods.
    Small statues contain "agalmata", the special, hidden treasure (agalma) - which is also a word that Homer used to characterize the content of the Trojan Horse. And as the Socrates was known to be more or less ugly in appearance and they mocked him because of that, nevertheless, under his ugly and repulsive appearance, the "agalma"/hidden treasure of immense value, was appearing as if kept secretive, the object of fascination and jealousy, the treasure nobody was able to see/fathom...
    Alkibiades (who was known for his physical beauty), tried once to seduce the Socrates and to exchange his beauty with agalma of Socrates...He used all strategies but they all failed; they even spent the night together but nothing happened; but Socrates was known to be the one who cannot be seduced.

    Socrates does not enter into the chain of love "as the one who is loved" - he does not take the place of the one who loves. As the 'possessor' of the object (agalma/secret treasure) he does not subjectivize himself, he does not respond with the "desire", he does not become the "subject of love". He takes the place of some kind of "central emptiness", the supposed fullness of the treasure, always slips away - he remains in the center, as he doesn't allow himself to be caught in the game of substitution or exchange. He knows he does not possess the "agalma", but nonetheless persists in the position "beyond the desire", and in that sense he represents "the point of ignorance in the center of knowledge" - and that is the point where the "knowledge on love" situates itself, the point which evades the knowledge (though it is the point in the middle of the knowledge itself).
    subcomment: isn't the point beyond "knowledge" - that which we can not represent/symbolize anymore, even when we talk and speak about God and we never really get anywhere, the point where nothing can be said anymore, - the point of the unconscious of the God Himself...isn't the "transcending" aspect of God, the nameless and formless/unreachable God, the point in which God Himself is unreachable to Himself?, the point of God's own ignorance that is hidden in his own all-knowingness, around which even his all-knowingness is structured, around the central emptiness, nothingness, which evades all knowledge and definitions?, the unconscious part of God, central part of his own non-possession of agalma?...

    The "object" which the Other supposedly possesses, on which our love or transference is invested (in You I love something more than You), is in a problematic relation to that Other (the one who supposedly knows).
    The object (that something in You which triggers my love) is somehow included in the Other (let's say Master or anybody), but we can suppose that even "Other does not really have any possession on it", - it's not at his disposal no more than it is in the hands of the subject (who loves).

    I can only give you what I don't have - my love!, it's free, but sometimes it wants nothing less than the soul...;)
  • someonefromhungary May 2011
    Posts: 334
    Reply to @batawe: :) :) :) :)
  • someonefromhungary May 2011
    Posts: 334
    Reply to @batawe: :) :) :) :) :)
  • batawebatawe May 2011
    Posts: 409
    Reply to @someonefromhungary: ;))
  • joyriver May 2011
    Posts: 101
    Hello, everyone. I had the most wonderful experience last evening. It was full moon rising, Vesak, and I went in my garden. I have always been afraid of the dark. but every year when it's Vesak, I do not fear the dark. So I went into my garden, overcame my fear, stood there and enjoyed the moment. It was amazing. that feeling that someone described of the stsangs... I had that feeling of bliss and complete peace. And I was happy. felt accepted by all the nature around me and actually, I had a glimpse of understanding. It is us - each and everyone of us that creates the satsang atmosphere. We do not depend on swAmi or any other person to be in that state of bliss, peace, harmony... :)
  • someonefromhungary May 2011
    Posts: 334
    it's good to be released from any fear :) :) :)
  • batawebatawe May 2011
    Posts: 409
    Reply to @karavan (from "False Guru Tests" responses and in general): @Karavan: I would say- without counting I find the picture of fake guru in my answer to what was going on in YIDL.

    On the other hand- we let him be this way! We were bowing, drinking his feetwash (NOT ME!!) giving him love from our own desire to have one to give him love in our expectations to be loved. What is with us, were we stupid, silly, naive, hurt from our childhoods on?

    I would say - no matter what and why, we were a part of the cult and we helped in grow. I helped others to come in. I helped it grow. I helped it nurish.

    I must deal now with my kharma for what I did. I am deeply sorry for all people I brought them in, assured them YIDL is not a cult, guru is not as others and spiritual development needs a guru. This is my biggest pain, no matter the reasons why I did that and my intentions were good.


    I guess we were all 'deprived' of something; basically we are "beings of desire", which means the Lack is constitutive part of our psychological makeup, "the Object" of desire (Prenatal bliss state, Fullness, Unity, God, Abstract Oneness Beyond All Difference and all possible concrete and abstract ‘examples’ of that “ONE”, which is our ‘true’ home etc...), is somehow 'lost' and we try to structure our desire according to something, which will give us that "mythical wholeness" back; how to become one, not two, how to transcend the difference ("sexuality" - being the symbol of difference, par excellence), and around this fundamental Lack, which ‘scars’ us, the myths and stories and systems of delivering the unification-promise, works as a wonder –

    "We have found ourselves, we have found the meaning of life, we are saved, we are in the process of becoming a whole (again), and we will become one with god also...", and if we think we have found that in something or someone, than our life will be structured around that; our desire will circle around this 'temporary object' which is going to fulfill us...but the problem remains that this promise of unity is than materialized also in the person, a saint, and s/he works as a vehicle of our desire towards that Fullness and we attach this "Truth" and elevate the person in his/her magnanimity and are ready to (fetishisticly) worship "that Truth", see it "objectified in the Other"...and this 'fetishistic object' as it is the nature of every object (which we self-reflect and it is always “object-for-us”/subjects), will not fulfill us, as we are the ones who initially gave meaning to that 'object'; without our own attachment of meaning we assigned to the object, the object wouldn't arise as the "privileged object of our desire"...

    this same desire opens the space for creation, for knowledge, for ability to search and discover; what we will re-discover, will it be the primal lost object of our desire, the final object of desire - fulfilled in “the ‘Object’ of all ‘objects’ – the GOD”?, will we meet any-Thing which lies beyond the scope of desire?, isn’t the desire for god same desire as any other desire, differing only in the chosen ‘object’?; the ‘pathological’ element of desire remains the same, and as long as we are subjects, who are limited by their very nature as phenomenal beings and “bear the ‘scar’ of desire/difference/sexuality”, till than we will yearn for promised land where “milk and honey flow in abundance”, but these idealistic prospects (however noble they are) can diverge us from creating something beautiful here, while attempting to permanently ‘transcend away’, and I guess, God or the Infinite is not something only Beyond, There Somewhere…but is already-the-Involved-process-of-Life, which fulfills its "inherent Infinity" through Finite, the Finite is already the Infinite; according to Hegel the Infinite which is posited as ‘opposed’ to the Finite is “bad/weak Infinity”…;)))

    like Möbius strip, which nicely and topologically shows how 'inner' and 'outer' are intertwined and you cannot really discern when or where the inner un/folds into it's 'opposite'...


  • %5BDeleted+User%5D[Deleted User] May 2011
    Posts: 0
    As the vital rays of the sun nurture all, so should you spread rays of hope in the heart of the poor and forsaken, kindly courage in the hearts of the despondent, and light a new strength in the hearts of those who think that they are failures.

    When you realize that life is a joyous battle of duty and at the same time a passing dream, and when you become filled with the joy of the making others happy by giving them kindness and peace, in God's eyes your life is a success.
    Paramhans Yogananda.

    How wonderful, if only we all all live like that!
  • karavan May 2011
    Posts: 135
    Reply to @sophie:
    another one knowing how to sweettalk the world

  • truthseeker May 2011
    Posts: 541
    Reply to @karavan: yes, yet another one. I'm getting tired of these people.

    Sophie, Mahahprabhuji's Golden Teachings are important to you, I hope? I just had a look at them and counted how many of the 55 teachings swAmi has violated with his actions. I have counted 32 violations. But you say we shouldn't look at the teachings, just ignore them? What's wrong with you! Open your ears, eyes and heart, not we are the negative ones, swAmis is!

  • Roman May 2011
    Posts: 347
    Reply to @sophie:
    It is really wonderful. If only those in position of great responsibility which includes priests, politicians, gurus and swAmis lived like that.

    I could not agree with you more.
  • PallasAthene May 2011
    Posts: 246
  • truthseeker May 2011
    Posts: 541
    I dedicate this song, 'The Ballad of John and Yoko', to swAmi, the Jesus of our times.
    "The way things are going, they're gonna crucify me"

  • falseswamijifalseswamiji May 2011
    Posts: 255
    Made a lightning trip to Vienna,
    eating chocolate cake in a bag.
    The newspaper said, "She's gone to his head,
    They look just like two gurus in drag".

    Christ you know it ain't easy,
    You know how hard it can be.
    The way things are going
    They're gonna crucify me.
  • truthseeker May 2011
    Posts: 541
    Yes, we have the Big Orange, but there's also a small orange: the robin bird, also (incorrectly) known as the 'red' breast

  • atom May 2011
    Posts: 6
    hi, i'm new here, my english is bad, but i read this forum every day. I didn't define my state yet about the organization and the master, but i think that is good to have a place like here where you can see the other side of the coin too. It is very important for me to know what is happening now with Cici, because i really admired him and miss his presence.Does anybody know how is he doing now?
    And can anybody tell me what is that music on the site, it is very nice...
  • truthseeker May 2011
    Posts: 541
    Reply to @atom: the last three pieces of music on the satsang part were the Bolero from Maurice Ravel, the Beatles with The Ballad of John and Yoko and a robin bird singing its own song. :)
  • atom May 2011
    Posts: 6
    Thank you truthseeker, but i thought about the music on the exyidl site, you can play the music optionally if you want,it was on falseswamiji's previous site, before it was hacked.
  • Ivan May 2011
    Posts: 161
    Lisa Gerrard "Now we are free"

    Before that it was something from Dead Can Dance, check it out on YT, you'll like all of them if you like Lisa G.
  • atom May 2011
    Posts: 6
    Thank you Ivan a lot.:)
  • mangotree May 2011
    Posts: 118

    Do you believe there is someplace
    That will make the soul less thirsty?
    In that great absence you will find nothing.

    Be strong then, and enter into your own body.
    There you have a solid place for your feet.
    Think about it carefully!
    Don’t go off somewhere else.

    Kabir says this: Just throw away all thoughts of imaginary things
    And stand firm in that which you are.

    by KABIR
  • someonefromhungary May 2011
    Posts: 334
    Reply to @mangotree: :) :) :)
  • Roman May 2011
    Posts: 347
    Very nice. I hope, many people these days can enter their own bodies and minds. It may look difficult but it is actually quite simple.
    ... stand firm in that which you are...
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

In this Discussion

Devotees' testimonies:

Devotee #1


Devotee #2


Devotee #3


Devotee #4 - Contact: valika.balazova@centrum.cz


Devotee #5 - Contact: synapseproblem@yahoo.de


Devotee #6


Devotee #7