« When is it OK to trash-talk a religion? | Main | Sam Harris' recommended reading: good list of books »

September 15, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It is money that matters in religious lineage.

Bharat, good point. I should have mentioned that also. When one spiritual leader can appoint, or heavily influence the appointment of, another favored spiritual leader, a religious monopoly is established -- with all of the financial and other benefits that come with it.

I fully agree with you Brian.

What makes Radhasoami lineage so important
is the founder Salig Ram lived very recently. There is a great deal of documentation on him. His lineage is
very easy to determine. His lineage ended
in the late 1940's.

History is important because it lets you see
what fake group is lying about what, compared to what actually happenned.

History will show who is lying. That
is the easiest way to discount the reality
of a group quickly and easily.

Other wise you end up with a Kirpal, a Twitchell, or a Summa Ching Hai.

Once history gives the answer, you can
further proceed to examine the reality
of the faith itself.

This can't be done with Krishna and Buddha,
because the history was too long ago.
So, only the faith itself can be examined.

When historically these gurus go on record
saying they have no power, the history becomes critical to decision making.

Also, branch off groups change the teachings. The original has to be found.

Show me what you have got.

As far as Radhasoami groups, only
Thakar Singh had any recent power.

Not Sawan, not Charan, not Kirpal, not Twitchell, not Chand, not Lal.

Thakar and no one else. And, to be reminded,
Thakar admitted he was possessed
by demons.

So, now you have the answer to show me
and indeed Thakar could and would show you
in the most extraordinary way. Everyone got first hand experience.

Next question is ? Is the power positive,
or negative. Look at the masters life
to determine this. Look at your own life.

"So why is it that religions, spiritual paths, and mystical practices usually are so obsessed with who gave a thumbs-up to someone else, certifying that the second person is as enlightened, God-knowledgeable, pure, or whatever other quality is important to the faith as the first person? "

exactly, you summarised my point using a quarter of the words.

what are these ppl arguing about? it is surely the concepts or teachings that are important , not the lineage of the teacher. in fact with mysticism, it is not even the concepts or teaching, but the supposed direct experience itself - so what are all these supposed spiritual adepts, diciples and gurus doing arguing over manmade dogma and theology for?

surely these are the people one should be least inclined to listen to?

what power? where's the evidence?

conjecture, completely baseless name-dropping conjecture.

the only ones arguing and dissecting what whoever said and trying to tear down and analyze what represents truth from fiction are the self styled intellectual giants who occupy their 'inquiring minds' with ALL the garbage under the sun as to 'which' authority on anything spiritual is either genuine or fake..

You will NEVER by way of intellectual wranglings on ANY internet website be in ANY position to declare authoritatively whether ANYONE has the capacity to teach you ANYTHING relevant to your spiritual evolution..

ALL these who purport to have 'SUDDENLY' woken up to the fact that their prior guru's were or are FAKE are not only intellectually misleading their own shallow lack of reality realization.. or else they are STUCK FAST in the very intellectualized straight jacket that HAMPERS their own awakening..

try being a little objectively honest Brian your subjective angle at subjugating and manipulating information or debate by way of your self styled agenda based censorship is totally revealing on how FAR you still ARE from ever becoming a true objective real honest sincere reality seeker.

Aha sukha dev, consider how much self-centered ego is reflected in your comments. According to you...

YOU alone supposedly know the Absolute Truth, while billions of other people who have other ways of knowing are wrong.

YOU alone have had meaningful honest sincere seeking of reality, while those countless other billions have been living a life of lies.

YOU alone are able to share authoritative thoughts in English (or any other language), while the thoughts of others can't be trusted.

YOU alone are evolving spiritually, while other people are sliding backward.

If this is the endpoint of your spirituality, you can have it.
Me, I prefer humility, open-mindedness, acceptance of diverse opinion, reliance on evidence and argument rather than name-calling.

so wtf you doing on this here website wrangling away?

practice what you preach.

It's admirable that you persist in your crusade against religious nonsense, Brian, but as you know, you're preaching to the choir. It's good to publish your enlightened view of enlightenment, but unless your church becomes as established and tax-exempt as the churchy churches, all you're doing is gathering the faithless. Keep up the good work.

"How can you tell whether someone is a genuine prophet, saint, guru, master, yogi, enlightened being? "

You should have an entire blog thread posted to this question so we can try cut thru all the crap.

I dont wanna here about master x, swami p, guru z, njani r or jedi y - please for the love of god, let us hear from all the spiritual sages on here why some chappie is Mr Enlightened?

cc, thanks for the support. I don't really care whether I change anybody's mind. If I didn't enjoy my blogging, intrinsically, I wouldn't be doing it. I'm changing myself, by expressing myself.

Doesn't make logical sense, but that's the way the brain works -- almost entirely illogically.

(Meaning, dominated by right hemisphere and unconscious processes.)

Science may show that we're "dominated by right hemisphere and unconscious processes", but experience tells me I'm making and executing decisions, so what's a brain to do, Brian?

cc, I can't really advise about what your brain should do, but this is what my brain likes to do:

Learn about modern neuroscience, which is the only way of getting objective insights into the subjective workings of my brain. Then those insights become part of my own brain, affecting how I see the world. I then understand that neither are I freely making conscious decisions, nor are those decisions as defensible as I like to believe they are.

Everyday example: my wife and I recently were irritated by a new shower head slowly dripping continuously after being turned off. Our old shower head didn't do that. We were convinced there was a defect in either the design or construction of the shower head.

My wife spent a long time talking with a Delta customer service rep. He was very doubtful the problem was with the shower head. But our experiences, our brains, they made us SURE we were right.

Until we realized that we weren't. We put the old shower head back on. We realized that it also dripped, but out of the lower hose connection, not the head itself, where it was much less visible. I researched the subject via Google.

Found mention of a vacuum breaker. I ordered one for a shower connection via Amazon. $10 solved the problem. Our bathroom had been remodeled by someone who wasn't a licensed plumber. He did a great job, but somehow neglected to prevent slow siphoning from the shower head even when the valve had been turned off completely.

Moral, as learned both from everyday life and neuroscience books: the brain can come to conclusions from experience which feel absolutely CORRECT, yet aren't true to reality.

That we experience what we experience can't be doubted (as Descartes said). However, whether our experience comports with the reality of the world outside the brain is a whole other question. Being uncertain about our certainty is wise.

"Being uncertain about our certainty is wise."

Granted, but if the right brain is unconsciously dominant and therefore responsible for the left brain's mistakes, the right brain is wrong, right?

Well, in his "Master and the Emisssary," Iain McGilchrist explains that the relationship of the brain hemispheres is complicated. They are interconnected, obviously, so every decision and perception and thought involves both hemispheres.

But they function best when they function largely independently. Jumping at the sound that could be a beast in the brush has to happen automatically; no time for the left brain to reason out what the sound could be.

He also argues that over time human culture has bounced back and forth between left and right hemisphere dominance. I'm now reading his chapter on ancient Greece where the right started off dominant, but by the time of Plato philosophy had become highly left brained with all its talk of soul, the forms, shadows of this material world compared to the light of "intellect," and so on.

So the right brain, the way I understand it, is responsible for what the left brain is able to pay attention to. But once the left brain starts cogitating about something, the right brain is mostly out of the picture. It doesn't have the language to argue with the left brain's verbosity.

In the sphere of spirituality, facts and information are intimately tied to the personality, the individuality and the (spiritual) orientation of the researcher(s). All such facts and findings are therefore subjective. This subjectivity, however, does not invalidate the finding(s) because the process by which it was achieved can be communicated and duplicated by another (as in an authentic initiation). The very nature of these types of findings is proprietary. This ownership when legitimately passed on to a receiver who is not only in complete harmony with the teaching but with the essential nature of the teacher as well, maintains the integrity and subtleties of the teaching for generations to come.

Take for example the scientific work of Gregor Johann Mendel, an Augustinian monk, the father of modern genetics. During his lifetime, his work was largely almost completely rejected, however later his written work was taken up by various researchers some affirming its veracity others not, because the results could not be demonstrated even though the validity of Mendel's hypothesis was clearly and substantially demonstrated. This, because of a state of mind called Confirmation Bias, where people gather, remember, interpret or apply information selectively or with bias. Now, if Mendel, had taken up the idea of Guru Pampara (lineage), he could have passed on the esoterics of Mandelian inheritences directly to his student (s) who in turn could have continued to communicate and demonstrate the finer points thereby ensuring further well founded scientific research without confirmation bias as well as other ills. (Of-course there is much more to the debate between the Mandelian biologists and the biometricians and its resolution in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology, i.e., the combination of Mendelian genetics with Darwin's theory of natural selection than my simplistic argument in order to make my point!)

Presently there continue to be challenges to the modern sysnthesis of evolutionary biology. So, I venture that if Mendel had adopted the Guru Pampara model, results could very well have been different.

I wonder if Mendel have wanted his work to be synthesized with that of Darwin?

Hi Janya,
So that you know, Salig Ram, founder
of Radhasoami, had no scandals, was
Postmaster General of Uttar Pradesh.

He got much of Swami Ji's family jobs
in the post office.

Displayed one of the most remarkable
Guru disciple relationships with Swami Ji
ever recorded.

What is so strange about Radhasoami faith
is, it actually was an upstanding reigion
through the Agra lineage which ended in the late 1940's.

Salig Ram was the rage of the day and drew the masses to him from across India.

It is only modern day Radhasoami that
stinks with corruption.

Mike,

Thanks for the post. I liked Charan Singh ji and still have absolutely no ill feelings towards him or the essential concept of Dera. I also have good feelings towards Sawan Singh Ji. The Agra group, I have no ill feelings towards Rai Saligram, Radha ji whose pics I liked or any of the other folks. I had weird feelings looking at Shiv Dayal ji's pics and then the Bukki event, which I can chalk off to either a mental breakdown on her part or an intimate relationship between Guru and disciple, which ought to be none of my business. I did read about Thakkar and his unbelievable abuses of European (maybe even Indian) women at his ashram place and throughly disliked him as well as some others of this group even before I knew of Thakkar's abusive activities.

Now Kabir Sahib does mention in his Anuraag saagar that when splits and dissolutions of this type happen, end of lineages etc. it is to mislead men, but the real gem, the real naam system is still around, but only few find it.

It would be much better for these people on the other thread to take what we say as constructive criticism, because I have good will and I know you do too towards the real Santh Math, especially as illustrated by Sant Kabir Das in Anuraag Sagar.

And finally, what does it matter if I reach the ultimate reality but the rest of humanity does not? It would be very sad liberation indeed if this were to happen to me. This is why I prefer the Bodhisattva concept where an individual is motivated by great compassion and wishes to gain liberation/Buddhahood for the benefit of all and their ultimate welfare rather than the Santh Math ideal of getting out of creation as quickly as one can just for one's own welfare.

NEither JANYA neither MIKE knows complete truth about RADHASOAMI faith.
You both are totally completely ignorant.
Keep on ranting,
it hardly matters now to me,
when i come to know your true faces and actual intentions.

" I'm changing myself, by expressing myself. "
... those are beautiful words Brian !

Mike and Janya, your exchange is excellent. I'm enjoying being a spectator to it. There are many interesting points you've talked about and therein lies the wellspring - the food for thought for seekers, should they be open to it.

Brain is changing by expressing what?
are these expressions,
if they are i doubt them,
why because there is much of duality,so much o imbalance,so much of unknowness in his expressions.
I do not understand what tara enjoyed between Mike and Janya,
Mike is almost Fake person,while i m still figuring out who Janya is.

Your Friend,

So why don't you start doing some real educating by writing a book or something?

If it doesn't matter to you who ever you are, why do you keep commenting?

And I see you are threatening me. Is this what a Gurmukh is supposed to do?

Reading this from your own holy book: Sar Bacchan:

Bacchan 94: Indulging in criticism or praise is sinful because no one can be described as he really is. If we must praise anyone, we should praise praise our Guru, and if we must find fault with anyone, it should BE WITH OURSELVES. This does us good.

Bacchan 129: The Lord Himself is present in both, friend and foe, and we should not, therefore, mind either the friendship of friends or the enimity of enemies. The Lord is the Mover in both cases. . . And you, who hear the holy discourses, should try to imbue yourself with this idea so that no ILL WILL may enter your minds. . . This state of mind may not be attained soon, but you will develop it in time if you attend the Satsang EVERY DAY and regularly practice inner Abhyas."

Bacchan 182: . . . How can the blind lead the blind? Hence the insistence upon seeking a SAT GURU. So long as HE is not found, the Inner Secret of the path cannot be known.

So,I conclude YF, that either you are not a real disciple or you have not found the SAT GURU yet. And GOD is the mover in me, so it is GOD that you are getting upset with.


Hi Tara - I too liked:

" I'm changing myself, by expressing myself. "
... those are beautiful words Brian !


"This is my commandment, That you love one another, as I have loved you."

So love Your Friend, I will. :)

Mike you are so right on this post:

When historically these gurus go on record
saying they have no power, the history becomes critical to decision making.

Also, branch off groups change the teachings. The original has to be found.

Posted by: Mike Williams | September 16, 2012 at 06:03 AM

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.

Posts compendium

Teeny-tiny Collection Plate

  • Brian Hines: Return to the One

    Brian Hines: Return to the One
    If you'd like to support the Church's efforts in a small way, and also learn about a great Greek mystic philosopher (Plotinus) who wonderfully embodies our creedless creed, consider buying our unpastor's book, "Return to the One: Plotinus's Guide to God-Realization."

Blog powered by Typepad

Become a Fan

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...