Church of the Churchless

I find my fundamentalism-mocking blog post hilarious also

One of the joys of writing thousands of blog posts is reuniting with one of my long-forgotten creations. 

Today I saw that a new comment had been submitted on a post.

This is hilarious! Love it!

Naturally I had to check out what was so hilarious and lovable. Unsurprisingly, after I read what I'd written seven years ago I thought to myself: This is hilarious! Love it!

Check out "Top ten signs you're a fundamentalist Satsangi." It will make more sense if you know something about the Indian religious organization I used to be a member of.

But the inspiration for this post is religious hypocrisy. And that's a virtually universal phenomenon among faiths, whether of East or West.

Here's a sampling of the ten signs:

(4) You have worked diligently for years toward merging your soul with God’s spirit, establishing a direct personal relationship with the divine. However, if an impulse or intuition comes to you that isn’t given a thumbs-up by the Sant Mat books, you’re afraid it’s a trick of the “negative power.”

(3) You are grateful that you’ve broken free of traditional religious dogma that required you, without evidence, to have faith that a dead Son of God will save your soul after you die. Yet the only difference is, now you have the same unfounded faith in a living Son of God.

Parts of a discarded religion can fit into a new spiritual practice

Reuse. Recycle. 

Good advice for handling material stuff. Also practices that can be used with religious stuff. Recently someone emailed me, asking whether I still repeated the mantra I was taught after being initiated into a guru-based meditation practice.

Part of my reply was:

Usually I don't repeat the RSSB mantra. But sometimes I do, sort of for old time's sake. I figure that I repeated it so many times over the many years, it must have formed some sort of concentrative relaxed groove in my brain. It's kind of comforting to repeat the Five Names. Sometimes I do it while falling asleep. Or just a few of the names.

There's no harm in continuing to engage in a religious practice, even though you no longer believe in the religion. Many lapsed Christians still go to church. They enjoy the atmosphere, the hymns, the stained glass, socializing afterward, whatever. 

Me, I still meditate every day. I rarely use the mantra mentioned above during my meditation. However, like I said, sometimes I drag it out of my memory chest and give it a try again.

After all, words are just words. Sounds, more accurately, when someone isn't focused on the meaning of the words. Maybe this is how de-converted Christians feel when hymns are being sung, or a sermon preached. 

Like how I feel when I repeat the familiar mantra: comfortable word-sounds echoing in my head. I enjoy the sensation of them; not the theological significance they once held for me.

D.T. Suzuki, a Zen adept, has a similar attitude about the Buddhist mantra, namu amida butsu. I wrote about this in previous posts: "Update on my enlightenment (in brief, going well)" and "Mantra meditation: what's in a word?"

The basic notion is to still the intellectual, rational, analytical, conceptual aspect of the brain, allowing whatever is left over to shine in one's consciousness. Bingo! Enlightenment! Here's another passage from D.T. Suzuki's book on Zen that I re-read today.

In my view, the reason [to repeat a mantra like Namu Amida Butsu] is to be sought not in the magical effect of the name itself, but in the psychological effect of its repetition.

Whenever there is an intelligent meaning, it suggests an endless train of ideas and feelings attached thereto; the mind then either becomes engaged in working a logical loom, or becomes inextricably involved in the meshes of imagination and association.

When meaningless sounds are repeated, the mind stops there, not having chances to wander about. Images and hallucinations are less apt to invade it. To use Buddhist terminology, the external dust of discrimination covers the original bright surface of the inner mirror of enlightenment.

For many years I followed a spiritual path that emphasized repeating a mantra that had a lot of meaning. The "five holy names" supposedly pointed to actual supernatural realms of reality, each with a divine ruler, sights and sounds, special characteristics, and such.

Holy? From the above-mentioned Idiot's Guide [to Taoism]:

A famous Zen saying describes the sacred sutras as "useful only for wiping puss from your boils." 

Holiness can go to hell.

Along with religions, gurus, masters, mystic practices, spiritual paths, and every other purveyor of metaphysical crap that sells the "meshes of imagination and association" and "images and hallucination" Suzuki mentioned.

Religious practices, including mantras, work. But not for a supernatural, mystical, divine, or miraculous reason. Because those practices affect the human mind in certain ways.

Christians and other monotheists believe in "let go and let God." Meaning, cast all your cares upon God. It isn't necessary to be religious to understand that this is a good thing to do: worrying less and living contentedly more.

Not long after I was initiated in 1971 and starting repeating my mantra as often as I could, I got a part-time job as a teacher's aide. I had just gotten a psychology degree from San Jose State University. Having taken 4 1/2 years to do so, I needed a job before starting a Master's in Social Work program at Portland State University.

I was asked to counsel a female Santa Clara High School student. I had no idea what to do or what to say. About all I remember was that I tried to repeat my mantra even while counseling her. This left me rather distracted. I didn't think I was helping her at all.

When I got feedback from the teacher who was supervising me I was told that the student thought she got a lot out of our sessions. I was amazed. At the time I thanked my guru and his mantra. Obviously this was a miracle of sorts, divine grace!

Now, I'm inclined to a different perspective.

In addition to the fact that simply listening to someone share their feelings can be therapeutic for them, thinking often isn't a productive thing to do. Many activities go best when they're accompanied by the fewest possible thoughts.

I talked about this here:

Understand: there's nothing wrong with words, ideas, thoughts, understandings, theories, hypotheses. But they should be seen for what they are, emanations of a human brain, not something godly to be bowed down to.

Last Tuesday my wife and I went to the sixth of an eight-week Hustle class (danced to disco music) that we've been enjoying a lot. The moves have been getting more challenging from week to week.

As the leader, it's my job to get our hands, arms, legs, and feet in a moderately correct position, while keeping time to the infectiously happy disco beat. At first, I have to think about this with a newly taught move.

"Jeez. From the two hand hold, I'm supposed to drop my right hand, not my left. Damn! And after the woman's one and a half turns I've got to keep to her right side in order to lead her in the opposite direction." 

That sort of stuff goes through my head. But at the end of the class, when our instructor said, "I'm going to put a few songs on you can practice to; run through everything we've learned so far," I was pleased to see how I found myself doing a new move correctly without knowing what I was doing.

Meaning, I could do it without thinking "I'm doing it." I'd be halfway through a complicated Hustle move before I realized what I was doing.

Enlightenment! 

Not what I thought enlightenment would be like why back when, before I knew I was enlightened. But what I think, and what is -- those are two very different things. 

"Dirty money" tied to RSSB guru's Ranbaxy wealth

Like I said in this post, there's a tangled web of financial dealings surrounding the newfound wealth of Gurinder Singh Dhillon and his family. 

Gurinder Singh is the current guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, an India-based spiritual organization I used to be a member of.

Theologically, he is considered to be "god in human form."

Financially, his family has become one of the richest in India, thanks to gifting of Religare stock by several relatives (and RSSB initiates), Malvinder and Shivinder Singh. Another post of mine describes the money connections between Religare and the guru.

Religare is a company that Malvinder and Shivinder Singh invested heavily in after selling their stake in Ranbaxy, a pharmaceutical company. So the money gifted to the guru and his family is rooted in previous Ranbaxy holdings.

Wikipedia describes the involvement of Malvinder Singh with Ranbaxy:

Malvinder Mohan Singh is a former Chairman and CEO of Ranbaxy Laboratories, an Indian unit of Japanese drugmaker Daiichi Sankyo, who resigned in 2009 after Ranbaxy posted losses and after Daiichi Sankyo decided to get more actively involved in the newly acquired Indian unit.^[1] He is the grandson of Bhai Mohan Singh, the founder of Ranbaxy. He and his brother Shivinder Singh, who in 1999 upon the death of their father inherited their family's 33.5% stake in Ranbaxy, are among the twenty richest Indians.

...Malvinder Singh's tenure as CEO of Ranbaxy starting in 2006 is controversial. Corporate culture of fraud continued unchecked under his tenure. In November 2006, Malvinder Singh led a delegation to FDA headquarters to try to reverse the decision to accept new drug applications from Ranbaxy.

This attempt failed as FDA asked Ranbaxy to turn over audits done by its outside consultant, Parexel, which the company was claiming were confidential. The meeting ended in a standoff. Soon thereafter Mr. Singh decided to cash in. On June 11, 2008, Singh stunned the Indian business world by announcing that he and his brother were selling their 34% stake in Ranbaxy to the Japanese drugmaker Daiichi Sankyo for $2 billion.

That phrase, "corporate culture of fraud," is much elaborated on in a lengthy May 15, 2013 CNN Money story, Dirty Medicine: The epic inside story story of long-term criminal fraud at Ranbaxy, the Indian drug company that makes generic Lipitor for millions of Americans.

What Thakur unearthed over the next months would form some of the most devastating allegations ever made about the conduct of a drug company. His information would lead Ranbaxy into a multiyear regulatory battle with the FDA, and into the crosshairs of a Justice Department investigation that, almost nine years later, has finally come to a resolution.

On May 13, Ranbaxy pleaded guilty to seven federal criminal counts of selling adulterated drugs with intent to defraud, failing to report that its drugs didn't meet specifications, and making intentionally false statements to the government. Ranbaxy agreed to pay $500 million in fines, forfeitures, and penalties -- the most ever levied against a generic-drug company. 

As noted in the Wikipedia article, Malvinder Singh (the guru's nephew, I'm pretty sure) became CEO of Ranbaxy in 2006. Another CNN Money story says: 

Ranbaxy has been grappling with quality issues for years. In 2008, the Food & Drug Administration took a highly unusual step, barring the importation of 30 drugs from two of Ranbaxy's plants in India. The FDA slapped the company with what's called an "Application Integrity Policy," halting the review of new drug applications from one of the company's Indian facilities until Ranbaxy proved its truthfulness.

Which, of course, it wasn't able to do. Ranbaxy was permeated by sleazy corporate policies aimed at making more money by avoiding drug safety and testing requirements. The details are laid out in Dirty Medicine.

I find this Ranbaxy story fascinating for several reasons. As noted before, my involvement with Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) began in the days of a previous guru, Charan Singh, who was scrupulous about not mixing spirituality with money-making. 

So far as I know, Charan Singh lived completely off of his own earnings, never mixing up his RSSB gurudom and personal financial dealings. Gurinder Singh, the current guru, operates much differently.

In a previous post I quoted an Indian blogger who referred to Gurinder Singh's early involvement with Ranbaxy :

For instance, the patriarch of the Radha Soami sect headquartered at Beas (he is also called the Beas Sant or the saint of Beas) is reported to have played his role in the succession drama at Ranbaxy after the death of then CEO and promoter Parvinder Singh in 1999.

I readily admit that few large corporations are ethically impeccable.

Making lots of money usually requires cutting some moral corners. But traditionally Indian spiritual leaders have stood apart from this "dark side" of modern culture, pointing to a way of living that elevates direct experience of divinity above material concerns/desires.

In that light, here's another excerpt from the Dirty Medicine story:

In January 2006, Malvinder Singh, the founder's grandson, succeeded Brian Tempest as Ranbaxy's managing director and CEO. At 33, with an MBA from Duke University, Singh was brash and competitive. The Indian business press dubbed him the Pharaoh of Pharma, and hailed him as an "out-of-the-box decision-maker."

Others viewed Singh as petulant and immature. "I want profit!" he would yell in meetings, two former employees recall. Among the staff, he was known for being preoccupied with his ranking on the Forbes list of India's 40 richest people. When he and his brother Shivinder fell from No. 9 in 2004 to No. 19 in 2005, despite $1.6 billion in assets, Singh seemed to blame the decline on a lack of employee loyalty, a former employee recalls.

Shows that even if "god in human form" is your uncle, enlightenment and detachment from worldly concerns can be far away. 

Gurinder Singh's son become CEO of Religare subsidiary

Money (lots of it) and spirituality (questionable amount of it) continue to mix at Radha Soami Satsang Beas, the Indian religious organization I used to be a part of.

Someone just emailed me a link to this news story, "Religare Health Trust names Gurpreet Dhillon as CEO."

Religare Health Trust (RHT), a wholly owned subsidiary of Delhi-based Religare Enterprise Ltd (REL), has named Gurpreet Dhillon as CEO of the company. Earlier, Dhillon was working as the executive director and COO of RHT.

...Gurpreet Dhillon is also a second cousin of the billionaire brothers Malvinder and Shivinder Singh who are the promoters of Religare and Fortis Group. Moreover, Gurpreet is one of the two sons of Gurinder Singh Dhillon, leader of the spiritual group Radha Soami Satsang Beas. The Singh brothers are followers of the spiritual group and their maternal grandfather had previously served as one of the gurus of the group.

It's a tangled web -- the connections between Guru Gurinder Singh Dhillon, Malvinder and Shivinder Singh, and the guru's sons. You can read about the strands here, here, and here.

Some will say that all's fair between relatives, whether close or distant. If a Radha Soami Satsang Beas devotee wants to make Indian-style billionaires out of relatives who just happen to be the guru and his sons, so what?

Others, like me, have an old-fashioned view that spirituality shouldn't be so closely connected to money-making. Gurus and other spiritual leaders should be focused on "divine" aspirations, not becoming hugely rich.

Without religion, I enjoy feeling normal and not special

Recently I experienced an insignificant moment on an airplane which reminded me of how, when I was religious, experiences like this took on a wildly undeserved meaning.

The flight attendants were coming down the aisle on their last beverage service before the plane landed. Sitting way in the back, I could hear repeatedly, "Would you like a complimentary Mai Tai?"

I started to think about what I'd say when the two women got to my aisle. 

I've probably only had a couple of Mai Tai's in my life. In fact, likely I've consumed less than a dozen alcoholic mixed drinks in my 64 years of living. 

From the age of 20 until I was in my mid-50's, I didn't drink a drop of alcohol. Not even wine or beer. I was devoted to a system of meditation that required from its practitioners total abstinence from alcohol and mind-altering drugs.

For that and other reasons, I felt really special in my true believing days.

Of course, like most religious people I tried to hide my attitude of Me, Me, Me behind a veneer of Thee, Thee, Thee -- submission to the will of my guru and God (who were tightly connected, since the guru was considered to be God in Human Form, a lot like Jesus is viewed by Christians).

In truth, though, I'd come to see my life as akin to what was noted in the above-linked post: a Technicolor production in a black-and-white world.

My vivdness arose out of a belief that I was on a fast track to spiritual and mystical understandings which most people in the world would never be privvy to, because I was a "chosen person" and they weren't (amazing how so many religions consider a particular faith, and that faith alone, to be the special beloved of God.)

So, for example, I'd stand in a theatre ticket line, observing my fellow movie-goers, and think, while repeating the oh-so-special mantra the guru had given me when I was initiated in 1971, "I am destined for divine heights these other people will never reach; I'm so fortunate."

It felt good to feel so special. Yet, looking back, it also was a burden. Many little things of life became gigantic moral challenges. 

I was such a strict vegetarian, I didn't want to eat even a speck of meat, fish, or egg. I read the details of every food label to make sure that something like Worchester sauce wasn't in it, because the sauce contains anchovies. 

If some of my dining companions were ordering wine with dinner, I'd decline even a taste. After all, commandments must be followed. God in Human Form, my guru, had told me not to drink a drop of any alcoholic drink. 

Now I see things much differently. There are indeed good reasons for not drinking alcohol. Feeling that by remaining abstinent you are strenthtening your special relationship with God isn't one of them. 

Eventually I tired of my supposed special-ness. I yearned for normalcy. I wanted to feel like I was no better and no worse than anyone else, just another human being living my human life. I make my choices about what to do; other people make theirs. We're all going along trying to do the best we can.

Deciding whether to drink a free Mai Tai no longer is an episode in a morality play for me. As the flight attendants came closer, I wondered whether I'd like the taste of it, and if one drink of an unfamiliar alocholic concoction would affect my driving after I picked up a rental car.

"Complimentary Mai Tai?" The flight attendant looked at me.

"Sure," I said. She turned to the guy in the center seat. "Sure," he told her. I liked how he used the same word I did. I'd only exchanged a few words with him during the flight. But now we were Mai Tai buddies, two normal guys enjoying a free drink.

I'm still a strict vegetarian. I rarely consume more alcohol than a nightly glass of red wine. I meditate every morning. Difference is now, I don't feel like I'm doing anything special, or that I'm anybody special for doing these things. 

Early editions of Radha Soami Satsang Beas books wanted

A while back I blogged about how I boxed up almost all of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) books that I'd accumulated over some thirty-five years. 

An Indian woman had contacted me, saying she was looking for older editions (first and second editions, ideally) of RSSB books published before 2000. I agreed to send her mine for the cost of mailing. They were sent to her relatives in this country, because shipping books to India is expensive.

Only one of the three boxes I sent off got to her. Two were lost, one seemingly because it was opened by the postal service to check if the contents indeed qualified for "book rate," then not resealed properly. I did my best to find the books via USPS staff, but had no luck.

I just heard from the woman again. She still wants to obtain copies of older RSSB books, preferably first or second editions, published before 2000. She wants the older editions because she has heard that they were rewritten, and she wants the "originals."

Email me (see right sidebar) if you have any books you don't want any more.

She will pay the mailing cost. I'll forward any emails I get to her. Then she and the prospective book provider can work things out. I was glad to get rid of books that were sitting in storage boxes in our attic. Books should be read, not stored away.

This woman has told me that she's interested in the RSSB teachings, though she isn't an initiate. This is what she told me in one of the first emails that we exchanged.

 

The basic reason why I am interested in the RSSB books is that I have a keen interest in philosophy. The journey "within" has been shrouded in mystery in all the ancient cultures of the world....mystics who have trod this path since time immemorial have alluded to it with vague accounts, but few have described it at any length. The RSSB books seem to have set it out simply, shorn of elaborate masks and interpretations...and they had made their books freely available to all seekers....at least till some time ago. 

 

Video of Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the secretive guru

One of the most strangely secretive gurus in the world is Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the leader of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (headquarters are in Beas, India). 

His predecessor, Charan Singh, had no problem with being photographed in both still shots and videos. However, Gurinder Singh prohibits cameras from being used in his presence, even in public places. 

I witnessed this myself when I was serving as a security volunteer at a RSSB meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Prohibitions of that sort, though, can be gotten around. Here's a You Tube video, "Babaji Gurinder Singh Dhillon -- I Just Wanna Hide," that pokes some fun at the guru's secretiveness.

Gurinder Singh also won't allow recordings of his talks, or even, I believe, contemporaneous notes to be taken of what he says. Could be wrong about this, though. I haven't been to a meeting of his for many years.

 

Eyes shut spiritual escapism: the trap of "going within"

For many years, decades actually, I practiced a form of meditation aimed at "going within." Meaning, within some supposed realms of consciousness distinct, and higher than, the physical world.

This practice was part of a Sant Mat teaching. As Wikipedia says:

The basic teaching of contemporary Sant Mat, as described by its Masters, is that everything lies inside us and that God is within. The outside world is only an image or a reflection of the inner reality.

So, in pithier terms, what's outside of us is worthless crap; what's inside of us is precious divinity. This world-denying notion is found in many other religious, mystical, and philosophical systems. 

The big question is whether seeking reality "within" makes sense.

If this life here on Earth is the only living we're ever going to do, then ignoring the Big Wide World outside for a Tiny Narrow World inside our head is pretty damn stupid.

Regardless of how you feel about this question, you should read Shyam Dodge's "Excerpt Mine Eyes: Contemplating the Roots of Spiritual Escapism." Great writing, and great analysis of inner-directed truth seeking. Likely I'll be returning to the Yoga Brains site.

Here's some excerpts:

This reverence for the human capacity to see with the eyes closed may be the root contemplative experience underpinning the vast web of ontology, cosmology, and epistemology spun by philosophical systems like Vedanta. The Vedantin trusted experience and therefore used it as the ground for philosophical analysis; elaborating from such subjective experience he (for it was always a he in Vedanta) crystallized truths about the nature of consciousness and objective reality.

...When Socrates closed his eyes awareness did not go away. More importantly, he still saw. This was a mystery to him. As it was a mystery to the Vedantins. They imagined that there must be more than one world—a deceptive world of the eyes and another (truer) internal one. The invention of the soul may have its origins in our capacity for self-reflection, and even more significantly our ability to dream with our eyes closed.

Rendering themselves ostracized by both Hindus and Buddhists the Carvakans maintained that inferences based upon self-reflection were shoddy at best when it came to synthesizing ontologies. We now know that even in dreamless sleep the brain is still operating, it is still alive. When we sleep the body does not enter a state of complete suspended animation. When we dream it is a function of the brain, not an action of consciousness independent of biology. In fact, our capacity for awareness is not isolatable from body, world, or brain. It appears that the Carvakans, after all, were correct. (I discuss many of these ideas in greater depth here.)

...But there is another question nagging me at the edges of this reimagining (a feeble attempt to reconstruct the origins of our ocular-distrust): Why this valuation? Why choose to believe that the world experienced inside is the realer one?

A cursory review might say that we are natural solipsists, that our own experience of the world is more real to us than the world itself. Psychologically it is easier to believe than the alternative—the world is bigger, badder, and stronger than us and we are at its disposal rather than the other way around. There are reams of psychological speculations about this very quality of the human animal that could support this assertion. Attending this tentative observation is another, simpler explanation: in one version we are saved from death, in the other we are doomed to it. Most of us will choose the former, the one that says our dreams are reality.

...The world behind our eyes is just as valid–and much more comfortably numb than the world of our everyday life. It is to die before you die and become, for all intents and purposes, a Buddhist zombie. Detachment is a recipe for the Walking Dead—or at the very least a world of the blind. The modern meditator, then, is very close to the classic dissociative who finds internal means for isolating themself from pain (psychically one must become a blind-orphan to do this—without a father or a mother, simply awitness who has inverted their gaze).

Charan Singh was a loyal guru

It's a reasonable theory: that a guru who supposedly is "god in human form" isn't a liar, lunatic, the Lord, or a legend.

He or she is a loyalist, someone who carries out the role of a divine person because he or she is loyal to the person/organization who elevated them to their gurudom.

This was what I argued in "Who is the guru?" 

Is there another L-word that better fills the bill? One springs to mind: loyalist. Perhaps when a successor is appointed to fill the shoes of a highly-regarded guru, loyalty both to his predecessor and to the surrounding organization prevents the newcomer from crying out, “Hey, I’m not God! I’m just a man filling the role of a guru.”

A new video by David Lane, a.k.a. neuralsurfer, adds weight to this hypothesis. It's called "Charan Singh and the Way of Surrender."

 

David addressed this question in a response to someone on his Radha Soami Studies discussion group. Here's part of what he said.

Charan didn't opt out of the role for a whole variety of reasons (family loyalty, I believe, being number one), and from my perspective (American, individualistic, atomistic) I think he should have done a radical Faqir Chand move and stopped the madness...

He should have said, in my opinion: GAME OVER.

He didn't.

Now I have had a number of Indian T.A.'s [teaching assistants] working with me for years and the more I got to understand how tight an Indian family can beit gave me a deeper understanding of the pressures inherent in such a complex......

Clearly, one can argue that Charan's loyalty to family (or, more precisely, HIS PERCEPTION of such loyalty) is what led to him to accept the role of guru and not really buck the system.

It may be partially understandable on some level, but let's be clear (and I agree with Gloria on this point), IT IS NOT ENLIGHTENED. It has nothing to do with "truth" as a spiritual path.

Reality is more than the human mind

Roger asked some good questions in his comment on a recent blog post. He started off by agreeing with my oh-so-agreeable statement about the ineffable can't-know'ness of someone else's subjective experiences.

Correct,

"Everybody has their own subjective experiences. It isn't possible to know what those subjective experiences are like, unless you're the person having the experiences."

---However, what is a RSSB [Radha Soami Satsang Beas] meditation experience? Why is there a need for RSSB initation into a meditation process? Is the RSSB meditations nothing more than one's subjective personal experiences?

---So, these RSSB meditation experiences of the various astral planes or regions are nothing more than one's personal subjective experiences?

---How would a honest and sincere RSSB devotee know that their subjective experience didn't just come from their brain? Surely, the human brain can generate various experiences, without the need of a GIHF [God in Human Form, the RSSB guru].

---Finally, why is there a problem with sharing one's subjective experience with another person? The other person is listening to what is being described, nothing more.

I found the middle two questions particularly interesting, because they're related to a central philosophical issue. What is the nature of reality as known to us humans?

Some people take a realist perspective.

What's real is our perception of a cosmos open to being known. There's really no difference between the objective outside world and our subjective internal experience of it. What we experience is what there is.

Now, it's pretty clear that absolute realism can't be true.

Illusions are common. Hallucinations are experiences of what isn't really there. Different people understand things in different ways. Animals (and likely space aliens, if they exist) have sensory/cognitive abilities at variance with ours.

On the other hand, some people take an idealist perspective. 

What's real is our individual understanding. There's no such thing as objective reality. How we subjectively perceive things is how the world is. Conscious experience essentially creates the cosmos through awareness of it. No way of looking at the world is more true than any other.

Well, it's also pretty clear that absolute idealism can't be true.

Most people agree about what exists and doesn't exist. Sensory perception is generally accurate, or we couldn't function in a world that had no reliable foundation. Laws of nature operate whether or not human consciousness is present.

So a middle way appears to be the correct path: there is an objective world, but it isn't transparent to our understanding. Knowledge of the universe steadily progresses, but a realm of mystery always lies beyond the horizon of what humans are capable of knowing.

Which brings me back to Roger's questions about internal meditative experiences. I say "internal," because meditation with eyes closed and one's attention diverted from the senses often is termed going inside. 

The Big Question is: inside what? One's own brain, or some transcendent supernatural realm of existence?

Answering this question isn't easy. Especially if the person who goes inside and experiences something seemingly divine doesn't compare notes with other meditators, or share his/her experience with other people.

After all, how do we confirm that what we perceive in the outside world is really there? We ask other people. Do you see that bird in the tree? Do you smell smoke? Doesn't it seem like the room is colder than usual? We also may gather some demonstrable evidence of our perception: a photograph, chemical analysis, thermometer reading.

We can't blindly trust our subjective experience unless we take an extreme idealist position in which reality is however it seems to us. If we accept the presence of objective reality, there has to be some demonstrable outside confirmation of what we experience "inside."

Mysticism is bullshit without this.

People are adept at deceiving themselves. The brain has many layers, many complex mechanisms, many hidden tunnels, many unconscious processes. Blindly accepting whatever pops into our awareness puts the human mind on an undeserved throne.

There is a lot more to reality than just the human mind. Worshipping our own mind by believing in the objective reality of our own thought-creations is a form of blasphemy. Not against God. Against what is true.

Why be reluctant to share spiritual experiences?

One of the (few) things I like about Christianity is how open Christians are to talking about their visions of Jesus, heaven, angels, and other aspects of the divine.

If a Christian has a spiritual experience, he or she usually feels that this is something to be shared, not kept secret.

By contrast, there's a rather cult'ish tendency in Eastern religions, meditative practices, and mystical paths to -- shush! -- keep quiet about "inner" supposed supernatural experiences. I've always been suspicious of this, because it strikes me as a means of control.

For example, I'm quite familiar with the injunction of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), an India-based group I was a member of for many years, to never divulge inner spiritual experiences.

I used to give frequent talks, satsangs, at RSSB meetings. One of my favorite lines was, "The easiest vow for us initiates to keep is the one to not talk about the experiences we have in meditation." I'd almost always hear laughter after saying that.

The reason: nobody was having any mystical experiences. At least, that's what I strongly suspected. How could I know for sure? Nobody was supposed to talk about the experiences they had while meditating. 

So this was akin to buying a TV set which didn't show a clear picture and being unable to know whether anyone else could get the damn thing to work. That would be great from the standpoint of whoever sold you the television. 

"It's a feature, not a problem," they could say. Not knowing whether your experience was typical, you'd find it difficult to persuade the store that you'd bought a bad product.

Likewise, gurus, masters, yogis, and such often promise specific mystical/spiritual experiences. However, if their disciples are forbidden to talk with each other about what experiences they are having, or not having, this allows the teachers to get away with merely the promise, not the reality -- because each student tends to think he or she is the only one not having marvelous inner experiences.

Another wrinkle is to tell the students, "If you talk about what is experienced in your meditation, you will lose those wonderful experiences." 

Of course, this isn't much to worry about, since nobody is having those experiences. But disciples worry that they might someday. And they want to obey the teacher they have such unwarranted confidence in.

I've also heard this argument put forward: "Our relationship with the divine is so intimate, it must not be divulged to other people, just as we don't share the intimate details of sexual encounters with our beloved."

OK, this makes some superficial sense. Not much, though.

For one thing, many mystics have been extremely open about their love affair with "God" (or whatever other name they give the divine). Rumi, for instance. He wrote reams of poetry about the ruby lips of the beloved, and other spiritually-sensuous descriptions of his personal experiences.

Also, I've never understood why, if someone's spiritual experience is of a personal divinity, it isn't possible to describe the nature of that person -- leaving the details of one's intimate encounter private.

After all, husbands and wives have no problem talking about how they experience their spouse's qualities, even if they usually are reluctant to divulge what happens in the marriage bed.

So my conclusion is that when people refuse to talk about their supposed mystical exeriences, the reason is that they aren't having any genuine experiences. Believe me, if I ever have a conversation with God that strikes me as really real, readers of this blog will be the second to know (after me).

Weird religious stuff I've believed or done

A couple of weeks into the New Year, I still haven't completely broken a half-hearted resolution: be more understanding and less in-your-face toward people I disagree with. 

Such as on matters of religion or politics. Which are the main areas in life where I can get frothy at the mouth with indignation at how incredibly stupid some people can be who aren't like wise me.

I've been trying to remember that over my 64 years of living, my own religious and political views have changed a lot. I've believed and done things in the past that my present self would consider absurdly ridiculous, yet at the time they made complete sense to me.

(Along this line, here's a dating tip for Americans of a more than middle-age: if you're on a second date with an attractive blonde woman of decidedly liberal political inclinations who you like a lot, and somehow the topic of Ronald Reagan comes up in conversation, whereupon she asks you "You didn't ever vote for Reagan, did you?", do not, repeat do not, take unduly long to reply "Well, I might have..." Rather, immediately say "I'm pretty sure I didn't." I have personal experience in this area which taught me the value of a nuanced shading of truth when it comes to discussing certain sensitive subjects early in a relationship.)

So here's an incomplete list of some of the weird religious stuff I've believed or done pre-2004'ish, when my churchlessness really started to blossom. I share this to show that when I now criticize people for embracing strange beliefs, believe me, I've been there and done that.

As noted above, this exercise in recollection will help remind me not to throw accusatory stones too enthusiastically or holier-than-thou'ly at people who live in glass belief houses similar to where I once happily resided.

-- While in college, I got deep into a crazed Greek Orthodox yogi's "Christananda" teachings. In my apartment I meditated facing an image of Jesus that I'd bought at a Christian supply store. I liked how Jesus sort of looked like me as I was at the time (see photo here), forgetting that no one knows what Jesus looked like. Regardless, Jesus was my buddy for a few months.

-- Yogiraj, as the yoga teacher liked to be called, would give talks on campus to attract more students. More accurately, cult members. Once, in the midst of a talk, I walked up to him, bowed with my hands folded in the Indian way, and placed flowers at Yogiraj's feet. He beamed. I was pleased at the time. I'm cringing now at the memory.

-- Moving on after a Yogiraj disillusion, I was initiated by an Indian guru who I thought was more reputable, Maharaj Charan Singh Ji, as devoted disciples called him. I went to India in 1977 to spend two weeks with Maharaj Ji. He blessed a shawl and photo which I kept in my meditation area for more than twenty-five years. Never dry-cleaned the shawl. Was worried the blessing would wash off.

-- I also brought back "prasad," food blessed by the guru. After that, other disciples would occasionally share little bags of parshad they'd gotten in India. Some was sugar. I'd eat a few grains of sugar a day before I meditated, believing this had some spiritual benefit. If any sugar spilled on the floor, I'd wet my finger, pick the sugar up, and eat it anyway. You don't waste blessed holy food! (Reminds me of my brief childhood Catholicism, when my first communion didn't go very well.)

-- For many years I meditated as Maharaj Ji, the guru, prescribed: two and a half hours a day. I'd always wear a watch with a countdown timer, setting it for 2:30. If it got to be late at night, and I knew there was 17 minutes and 23 seconds left on the timer, I'd go into my meditation area, put the blessed shawl around me, and sit there meditating until the timer beeped. Often I'd be asleep when that happened, but hey, I had obeyed the guru!

-- When my mother had a serious stroke (which ended up taking her life), I went outside and sat on a stump before flying to California to be with her. I asked the guru to help her, and to give me any bad karmas that might be responsible for her poor health. Even now, when I meditate sometimes I imagine that with every breath of mine the soul of my mother comes closer to the Light, and my soul retreats more into darkness. Difference is, now I don't believe in life after death or the soul; I just like to imagine that it could be true.

-- The guru taught that at initiation, his "radiant" (astral) form became part of the disciple's consciousness. After that, whenever the physical guru wanted he could tune into whatever that radiant form was aware of. So basically I believed that God (because the guru was considered to be God in human form) was watching everything I did. Even more than Santa Claus. It's an effective control tool, shared of course by mainstream theistic religions.

-- Related to the above, for many years I was the secretary (leader) of our local group associated with the guru's organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas. During the time we met in an elementary school classroom, I'd get there early on Sunday, usually by myself, to set up chairs. I'd obsessively line the chairs up and straighten out tiny wrinkles in a cloth that covered the speaker's table. Yet I'm a messy guy! (You should see my t-shirt and sock drawers.) The guru was watching me all the time... whereas mostly my wife isn't. So far as I know. 

Well, I could continue describing more weird religious stuff that I've believed and done. Barely scratched the surface, really. But what I've shared is plenty to remind me that what I now look upon as super-strange used to strike me as nicely-normal.

Change happens. I'm glad that I've evolved into churchlessness from my previous heartfelt religiosity. I just need to keep in mind that many people still sincerely believe things similar, if not the same as, what I once did.

Remembering this helps make me more understanding of both my former self, and those who think and act now as I once thought and acted.

We're all struggling souls. Not that I believe in souls. Just the struggling part.

David Lane's honest view of Sant Mat

There's a lot to like in a recent posting by David Lane on his Radhasoami Studies discussion group.

"What I Believe? -- a position paper of sorts by David Lane" describes how Lane feels about the Indian philosophy of Sant Mat, Radha Soami Satsang Beas version (Sant Mat comes in various guises, much as Christianity has many competing theologies).

One of the things I liked the most in this mini-essay was praise of me -- the person I'm closest to -- at the end. And I wasn't even expecting it!

Meaning, I didn't search out the posting because of the me-mention. I came across it in the course of perusing the Radhasoami Studies latest offerings, which I'm interested in because of the longstanding history I had with Sant Mat, just as David Lane did.

He wrote, in response to another person's posting:

P.S.

I think you mentioned Brian Hines and I wanted to throw in my two cents about how much I admire what Brian has done with his blog and about vocalizing his views.

Brian has been initiated even longer than I have and yet he had the courage to come out publicly and state very clearly where he disagrees with the teachings..... and even his own writings. This is a rare and admirable trait.

Now I realize that satsangis may view him as off the path or as ex-satsangi or Kal's next to kin or whatever...... but from my perspective I think he represents the best trait of a genuine satsangi...... he wants to associate with what he believes is the truth..... and if that takes him in a completely different direction than Path of the Masters, then good on him (as surfers in Australia might say).

Brian is still giving satsang, but just in a more radical way.

Nicely said, David. And not just because what you said expresses nice sentiments about me.

I completely agree that a true "satsangi," which means someone who associates with truth, isn't only a devotee of certain India-based religious groups who have appropriated that word to describe members of their organizations. 

A seeker of truth cares a lot more about truth than the path a particular group or person deems to be the best way of finding it. If truth isn't found in one direction, a genuine satsangi changes course. 

This makes the most sense when searching for spiritual truths, meaning of life truths, metaphysical truths, supernatural truths. External truths related to objective reality have evidence standing behind them, guideposts which tell someone whether he or she is approaching a certain realm of truth.

But religious, philosophical, and mystical truths can't be demonstrably proven. Only experienced personally. Which means they aren't true in the sense of being true for everyone. Just for oneself. 

So both David Lane and I are committed to distinguishing between these two sorts of truths: objective vs. subjective, general vs. personal, provable vs. unprovable, evident vs. hidden.

I've got no problem with someone who says, "The truth as I see it is..."

It's when someone claims "I see the truth as it is, and you should too..." that's problematic. Because as David notes in his posting:

I came to the path when I was 17 and now that I am 56 I don't think that much has changed in me, except that I have grown a bit more skeptical (and more vocal about it) over the years.

I still meditate (my kids just yelled that I meditate too much!), I am still a strict vegetarian, and I still have a deep and abiding love/affection for Charan Singh.

But do I agree with all of Sant Mat theology? NOPE. Indeed, I don't think I ever agreed with it in the absolutist sense.

...I disagree with notions of "perfect masters" and Kal powers and all this kind of stuff which seems to me to belong to our mythological past.

...I think Kirpal Singh had it right when he said that "Sant Mat should be treated like ANY OTHER SCIENCE." And what is that (at least for me)?

Critically, analytically, and skeptically. So, yes one can still meditate and still be skeptical of the theology surrounding it.

It's natural to meld the objective and subjective sides of a spiritual path/practice when someone first embraces it. That is, we like to think that out of the thousands of religions, theologies, mystical belief systems, and such in the world, we have found the One True Path.

In addition, we feel wonderful about what we've found. So intellect and emotion, objective truth and subjective feeling, outer and inner -- they go hand in hand for a while.

Eventually though, a sincere seeker after truth, a genuine "satsangi," may find that this conflating doesn't work for him or her any more. The seeker has seen through the spiritual path's attempts to push demonstrable evidence that it is the One True Path into another realm: life after death or a reincarnated life, for example.

I've come to understand that living a meaningful life can't be postponed.

At least, it shouldn't be.

There's no solid proof, none at all, that the life we're living now won't be our one and only chance to experience the cosmos. We need to make the most of this chance. Living inauthentically, mistaking illusion for truth, failing to feel the marvelous mystery of being -- so sad. 

Often we make life a lot more complicated than it needs to be.

I'm not saying that I am anywhere near answering the question, "What's it all about?" I just think that Julian Baggini has some good advice in his book with the same title (which I blogged about in Meaning of life is whatever you find meaningful.

Here's a quote from Baggni's concluding chapter.

The mere fact that life's meaning is available and potentially evident to all is a major challenge to those who see themselves as the guardians of life's significance: the priests, gurus and teachers who would have us think life's meaning is beyond ordinary mortals.

To challenge this view is to challenge the power others seek to exert over us by their claims to special knowledge. The main argument of this book is therefore democratic and egalitarian, in that it returns to each of us the power and responsibility to discover and in part determine meaning for ourselves. 

Believing in miracles is an insult to God

In tune with the Christmas season, which is full of talk about unproven religious miracles, yesterday "G" left a comment on my "Where have all the miracles gone?" post. 

Sorry Peaceseeker, if you want proof of the RSSB miracles all you have to do is do a Google search, it's funny how there is positive news about RSSB on Google but Brian doesn't incorporate it on here. But when there is false news about RSSB he's quick along with the other bloggers to incorporate it here.

My response made a lot more sense.

G, please share the proof of RSSB miracles. Gosh, if there was demonstrable proof of ANY miracles in the world -- Christian, Buddhist, RSSB, whatever -- you'd think this would be front page news.

But this hasn't happened. So let us know about this proof, which somehow has gone unnoticed by everybody but you. Enlighten us.

Remember what I noted in last night's post: anecdotal evidence isn't persuasive proof. People can say anything about anything. Doesn't mean it is true.

The human brain is capable of massive feats of self-deception. That's why objective evidence is needed: to protect against self-delusion, tricks of the mind.

What I said is so obvious, it doesn't seem like it needs to be said.

However, actually it does, because religiosity blinds people to what they would be able to see clearly, if they didn't have a wall of dogma standing between them and reality. I know, because I used to be one of those who stare at a mental wall and believe there is nothing on the other side.

Truth should be our goal, not blind belief.

Believing in miracles, or God, or any other supernatural phenomenon without good reason/evidence means that we're more interested in the subjective products of our own mind than in the Big Wide World of objective reality that exists beyond our personal notions about it.

This is the beauty of science and the scientific method: it is the best way to become egoless. We can't get away with merely self-centeredly saying "I know...." A scientific way of looking at the world challenges us to say "This is the way things are, because...." 

In other words, we are pushed to see reality as it is, not as how we want it to be, or prefer it to be.

Since God usually is considered by religious people to be the highest truth in the cosmos, blind belief in miracles is insulting to any God which might actually exist. Assuming something to be true without excellent evidence to back the assumption up means we aren't really interested in truth.

We're interested in embracing our own beloved unproven assumption, not reality, not the highest truth. We've deified an emanation of our own mind, a desire to believe in something, rather than what truly exists.

Sacrilege! Which is why skeptics are the true devotees of a God that they doubt exists, not those who embrace blind faith.

Skeptics love truth more than the comfort of a reassuring feeling. "Jesus rose from the dead, just as I will." "The guru is all powerful, capable of saving my soul." Ideas such as these comfort believers. But science knows that reality exists beyond the bounds of what we humans find comfortable.

Big claims demand big evidence, big proof.

Miracles are a big claim. So is God. To accept miniscule evidence as proof of a big claim is demeaning to it, an insult. We should respect objective truth more, and our personal ideas less.

(For more along this line, check out my previous post about the burden of proof.) 

Science loves being wrong. Religion hates it.

Are you sure you're right about something? Whether it is going to rain tomorrow; whether space aliens have visited Earth; whether God exists. Whatever.

If so, you've got a religious attitude, even if you don't consider yourself to be religious. That's because science is never completely certain. Scientists always are open to having their ideas about reality disproved. 

In short, they love being wrong. Indeed, says Steven Ross Pomeroy in his Scientific American blog post, "The Key to Science (and Life) is Being Wrong."

A good scientist must be willing to be wrong. Such an inclination is liberating, for it allows him or her to investigate potential answers — however unlikely they may be — to the difficult questions inspired by this vast, wondrous universe. Not only that, a willingness to be wrong frees a scientist to pursue any avenue opened by evidence, even if that evidence doesn’t support his or her original hunch.

“The hard but just rule is that if the ideas don’t work, you must throw them away,” The great science communicator Carl Sagan wrote. “Don’t waste neurons on what doesn’t work. Devote those neurons to new ideas that better explain the data.”

Absolutely. 

I diligently conducted experiments in meditation for about thirty-five years, almost exactly following the precepts of Radha Soami Satsang Beas' Sant Mat-style soul-travel god-realization system. The evidence I experienced led me to conclude that truth lay in a different direction. 

As Carl Sagan says a scientist should, I threw away ideas that didn't work. And embraced better ones. Pomeroy writes:

Wrongness is something we all secretly or openly dread. According to self-described “Wrongologist” Kathryn Schulz, in the abstract, we all understand that we’re fallible, but on the personal level, we leave little to no room for being wrong.

But Schulz believes that we should view this situation in a slightly different light.Realizing you’re wrong is what’s devastating, but being wrong often feels pretty good. As a matter of fact, it often feels identical to being right.

Like Wile E. Coyote chasing Road Runner off a cliff in those old Warner Brothers cartoons, we only start to fall when we come to the realization that we, along with our incorrect notions, have no solid ground to stand on. But the simple fact of the matter is that we had already run off the end of the precipice a long time ago! Thus, it’s best to admit that we’re wrong and get the fall over with so we can land (hopefully not too harshly), dust ourselves off, and get back on our feet.

Now, using my non-mystical powers of seeing into the future, I can predict that almost surely (note that scientific "almost") some religious believers will read this post and think, This guy failed to experience divinity, but this doesn't mean _____ [God, spirit, soul, heaven, Allah, take your pick] isn't real.

True. And I haven't claimed that. 

What I'm saying is that I conducted a certain spiritual experiment, gathered a lot of evidence, considered how this evidence related to the hypotheses being investigated, and then came to certain conclusions. Noted physicist Richard Feynman said this is how science works. 

“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong,” he asserted, craning his neck forward and adroitly pointing his left hand at the chalkboard to accentuate the point. “In that simple statement, is the key to science.”

“It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is,” Feynman proclaimed, gesticulating in wide, circular, somewhat flamboyant motions. “It doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

lf anyone wants to prove that I'm wrong about Sant Mat/RSSB teachings being wrong, they need to provide evidence to the contrary. Otherwise we're left with the usual situation in religiosity: claims about divinity being made on the basis of unsubstantiated personal experience.

Sure, space aliens may have visited Earth. Lots of people claim to have seen them. But without solid demonstrable evidence, there's no reason to accept those claims.

Sure, heaven may be real. Lots of people claim to have seen heaven in a near-death experience, meditation, or some other means. But without solid demonstrable evidence, there's no reason to accept those claims. 

This is why I've said that every religion and spiritual path is wrong. One big reason is that fundamentalist religious and spiritual believers don't consider they could be wrong. Science knows that it is impossible to be right if you're absolutely certain you can't be wrong. I wrote:

A personal experience is just that: one person's experience. End of story.

But if that person shares his or her tale with others, and it ends up getting written down, documented, formed into dogma, systematized, conceptualized, cast into philosophical stone, then a unique perspective on the cosmos can turn into a claim of universal truth.

Science, of course, doesn't work this way.

The laws of nature don't depend upon Newton's, Einstein's, Darwin's, or anybody else's personal experience. Confirmation of a scientific hypothesis is independent of the originator's individual perspective.

It's very different in the world of religion and spirituality. Jesus's supposed sayings are taken on faith as a reflection of divine reality. The Buddha's teachings are much less fundamentalist, but even here many devotees revere the messenger as much as the message.

I've read lots of books where the spiritual teaching is based on the author's questionable assumption: "I did this and that and experienced such and such, so this is how you can do it too."

For example, Ramana, an Indian sage, was told by his own guru to keep asking "Who is the seer?" So Ramana formed his own teachings around the question, "Who am I?" 

Well, that worked for Ramana. But why should it work for anyone else?

Indian cultural attitudes help explain guru devotion

"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."

Well, back in 1892 Rudyard Kipling might have been right about the relationship between Britain and India, but obviously since then the world has become, in Thomas Friedman's jargon, a lot flatter. Meaning, a lot more interconnected, alike, accessible.

Yet there still is a cultural gulf between East and West. A question I got from an Indian in an email today reminded me of this.

I was a member of an India-based spiritual organization (Radha Soami Satsang Beas, or RSSB) for over thirty-five years. I've been to India twice. I've spent a lot of time with Indians who were fellow RSSB members. I wrote a book about vegetarianism from a karmic perspective that was published in India by RSSB.

Even so, my Western/American heritage led me to puzzle over the question:

How can you still defend or claim to love someone who you know now was the leader (or part of the leadership) of a organisation deliberately misleading people with false promises of spirituality and enlightenment?

Now that question, taken on its own, seemingly is pretty straightforward. However, when I first read it I immediately thought of many other queries I've gotten from Indians about how I could be devoted to Charan Singh, a RSSB guru who now is dead, for so many years, and then go off in a different spiritual direction.

The question I got today may seem to be opposite, since it asks how I still can have a fondness for Charan Singh now that my view of the RSSB teachings has changed so much. Here's the commonality, though: 

In each case there's an underlying assumption that I should stay constant. Either I should be as devoted to my guru now as I was during those thirty-five years, or I should disavow the devotion I felt before and retroactively "de-love" Charan Singh.

During my evening dog walk today, when marvelous insights often come to me, a thought came to mind: India still has lots of arranged marriages, whereas the United States doesn't; divorce is rare in India (1%, supposedly), whereas it is common in the United States (40%).

So falling in and out of love, along with getting together and splitting up with a loved one -- these are taken for granted in my culture. Which helps explain why an increasing percentage of Americans don't belong to any organized religion, yet still are committed to some form of spirituality.

Constancy isn't our thing.

I can't recall a single person from my country ever asking me how it was possible that I could fall out of love with the RSSB teachings, just as no one has ever questioned how my first wife and I could have gotten a divorce. Americans are used to repeated marriages and divorces, both theological and matrimonial.

We may pay lip service to "until death do us part," but we certainly aren't surprised when someone changes course and pursues a different spiritual or romantic path. My impression is that Indians are more devoted to tradition (if that's the right word), feeling that a commitment to either a religion or a person should be taken more seriously than we Americans do.

Which brings to mind another cultural difference between India and the United States: our openness to strong criticism of spirituality or religiosity.

Free speech in the United States is guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Constitution. In Oregon, where I live, the state constitution provides for even greater protection of free speech. So here again, we Americans are accustomed to a more free-wheeling culture than is common in much of the rest of the world.

Like, India.

I was astounded to read in a June 30, 2012 New Scientist article that the head of the Indian Rationalist Association faced possible arrest after debunking a purported "miracle" at a Catholic church in Mumbai. Sanal Edamaruku said in the article:

Leaders of two Catholic laity organisations have launched charges against me under section 295A of the Indian penal code. This charges a person with "deliberately hurting religious feelings and attempting malicious acts intended to outrage the religious sentiments of any class or community." It is absurd to claim that I did anything of the sort.

Wow. 

From my American perspective, what's absurd is that Edamaruku feels he has to deny hurting religious feelings or outraging religious sentiments. In this country we don't worry about that at all. Free speech is more important than hurt feelings. 

After reading about Edamaruku's legal problem I better understand why people from other countries occasionally email me, or leave a comment on this blog, expressing a "how can you say that?" sentiment. Probably their country doesn't have such a strong commitment to free speech as the United States does.

On the flip side, hopefully this post will help people in other cultures understand how "wild and crazy" the United States is compared to countries with a more settled/traditional way of looking at the world.

Embracing and then discarding a religion or spiritual teaching -- no big deal for us. Vigorously criticizing a belief system -- also no big deal for us. We may put a guru up on an elevated platform, but we have no problem knocking him or her off it.

Dude, where's my soul? Can't find it anywhere.

I've been looking for my soul everywhere I can think it might be. No sign of it.

I've gone through the drawer where I put stuff that I figure I might need someday, but don't want to throw away. Nope. No soul. Our garage is filled with places it might be, lots of boxes filled with long-forgotten crap. But I don't remember putting my soul into storage there. 

So I'm left with talking to myself. Or to whoever might be listening who could help me out. Dude, where's my soul? (If this allusion doesn't make sense to you, your taste in movies is too elevated. Lower it, dude.)

For a long time I've been on a soul search.

After all, back in 1971 I was initiated into a mystical/religious practice called Sant Mat which promises to unite soul drops with the ocean of God. There was a lot of talk about "soul" and "spirit" (universal side of soul, basically) in the teachings. But not much guidance about how soul could be recognized.

Eventually I gave up soul-searching, as evidenced by this and this, among other soulless blog posts.

My previous post, though, got me to pondering this whole soul-business in a fresh fashion. Here's part of what I quoted from Jan Westerhoff's book about the nature of reality.

To put the point in a different way, suppose someone offered you a drug that completely destroyed your self while leaving all your beliefs, desires, preferences, and so on intact. Would there be anything wrong with taking it? It would certainly be preferable to a drug that destroyed all our beliefs, desires, preferences etc. and left our self intact.

Substitute "soul" for "self" in that quotation and you'll see why I'm having so much difficulty finding my soul. By many accounts (especially of the Eastern philosophy variety), it's supposed to be something different from mind and matter, something spiritual, ethereal, pure.

Christians seem to look upon soul a bit differently, but there's a problem with every notion of "soul" that I'm aware of. Westerhoff described it nicely through his thought experiment.

If soul is different from mind and matter, would you be willing to trade everything mental and material that you're conscious of now for whatever might be left over once you're "soul"? (Note: I'm not implying a strict divide between mental and material; my view of mind is that it's what the physical brain does.)

Let's say you're deeply religious. You love God. Or you love your guru. Or you love Jesus, along with the angels which accompany him. Regardless, you love something divine. That love is precious to you. It's a big part of what makes life so satisfying.

Your mental life. Your emotional life. Your thoughtful life.

So if soul is different from mind, and you choose to discard mind and matter for whatever "soul" might be, say goodbye to those love-feelings. Also, goodbye to your perceptions of whatever/whoever you love. And goodbye to being able to know their presence in any sort of material way also, since soul is supposed to be something non-physical.

Do you see the problem with believing that you are, or have, a soul?

There's absolutely no evidence that it exists, apart from abstract concepts in holy books and theological teachings. The life you actually live is filled with mental and physical experiences -- perceptions, feelings, thoughts, intuitions, sensations, etc.

Subtract all that out and what are you left with? Do you know?

Have you any experience of being conscious without any experience? (If you believe you have, I'd like to ask how you can know what something is like that has no qualities, and thus nothing to like. Or, dislike.)

Soul is a fantasy. Soul is a concept dreamed up by religious authorities who want to control people by making them afraid that if they don't follow the precepts of a certain religion, they'll lose their soul.

To which I say, I can't lose what I don't have. No one can. But if you believe you have, or are, a soul, feel free to show it to me. If I know how to recognize it, I'll take another look in my garage. 

Skepticism about Charan and Gurinder Singh

Some comments on this blog deserve more attention than they get if hidden away as part of a blog post. Here's one such thoughtful comment from "aloe," published yesterday on this post, which will be of interest to those who follow Sant Mat and Radha Soami Satsang Beas goings-on.
-------------------------------------------- 
I read some of these posts with some sadness. I was initiated by Charan Singh and followed him for 23 years. After 13 years among older initiates who were a joy to be around, my life in a good discipline, the next 10 years were a gradual revelation that Sant Mat was false.

It had started earlier, as once in a while someone would mention something that was out of order about Sant Mat. I would tuck these objections in the attic of my mind, thinking them to be exaggerated rumors.

Then I got to know younger Satsangis who went in and out of marriages, who acted oddly after being at the Dera, and a Representative who encouraged devotees to smuggle merchandise into the Dera via their suitcases.

Then there was my trip to the Dera, to hear Gurinder Singh. My roommate and I would write down what he said during the daily meetings for Westerners in a Yurt as soon as we got to our rooms, so we would not forget anything. We even matched notes. The only word we disagreed upon was “that”.

I thought he’d leave out the “that” in “so that” and she felt he must speak correct English and had put that word in. What surprised both of us was that Gurinder Singh answered someone who mentioned getting out in four life times (liberation from the material regions into the pure spiritual regions). Gurinder Singh said “I never said that!”

No wonder he will not be taped. He doesn’t know what the Sant Mat books say and does not want us comparing notes!

The other thing that surprised us was when he said that meditation results were “exactly the same as a drug trip.” The “only difference is, that a drug trip is unnatural, forcing your way inside. Meditation is the natural way inside.” Why this impacted me is that, unlike most Satsangis, I had not taken drugs and was very much against it.

I met a man shortly after the above exchange and he said that he had taken drugs and fully agreed with Gurinder Singh. In fact, he felt vindicated for using them, in the beginning, because of what Gurinder Singh had said. This is why I remember the incident so clearly. Two others besides myself heard him say this.

Another time a lady came up behind me as I was looking at the photograph of Nimi wearing Rajasthani jewelry with her father, Charan looking lovingly at her in the then new book Legacy of Love. She said curtly, “So that is who I bought that jewelry for!” I looked at her, astonished. She said “And with my money!” Then she walked off. This was on a United States Sant Mat property.

In the early 1980’s at a Sant Mat potluck, a pretty young lady in Salwar and Kamiz outfit came near me. She was obviously in a bliss state. She said, “Master is all love.” I smiled. Then she said, “I spent the night with him in his bedroom and he is all love, all love.” Upright me said, “Wait a minute. You spent the night where? “In his bedroom…” Before she could sing song the “love, love” thing again, I said “That is not proper!” She suddenly grasped her face in her hands and said “OH, I want my life back! I just want my life back!” She turned and literally ran away.

I was in a Western Representative’s home and he asked the group to volunteer to take some merchandise to the Dera. I volunteered and asked what I would be taking. He said that the package would be wraped. I said “What about customs?” Do you know what he said? He said “We don’t think about that.” I said, “But I will have to go through customs”. He said, “No, I don’t want you. You are not suitable.”

Later I read about the smuggling that was the usual way for Dera to stock its computer room with computers and its hospital with medical supplies. I guess that quarter billion dollar business was not up and running yet, and Gurinder could not pay the customs duty? Evidently this also went on under Charan.

Bible verses of God revealing Himself to mankind ran through my brain. Reading the Bible again I was shocked that Jesus said that he was God (that is what the Son of God means in Jewish. It means you are God. That is what was so shocking to the Sanhedrin. They did not like Jesus claiming to be God. It was not in their plans for a material kingship type Messiah). My New Age upbringing had always stated that Jesus never claimed to be God!

Then there is Genesis, where the Satan as the serpent tempts the Adam and Eve with the path of becoming God through the path of knowledge—just like a Guru, my, my!

But wait, mankind through the birth of a Messiah through Mary will crush the head of the serpent, God will make the sacrifice burning up everyone’s karma, Jesus will establish His Church which will present the Eucharist as a sacrament to join us in His sacrifice so we will go to Heaven and enjoy the Bliss of God according to our own capacity and the bad guys will be thrown in the prison of Hell, so that goodness will not have to put up with evil any longer! Well, it is different!

I was struck by the person who said they were equally as comfortable with Sant Mat as with Catholicism. Well, Charan’s daughter was sent to Catholic school so guess where Charan got his information in fusing some Catholic ideas onto Sikkism?

It is the Hindu way to accept contradictions, to accept nonsense. That is why Sant Mat can blithely preach that God emanated Himself in a churning motion and precipitated the world out of himself.

A rock is as god-like as a Guru. The only difference is that the rock is unconscious that it is God and the Guru is conscious that he is God. Then Sant Mat can turn around and say that God as Divinity created the material world and God transcends the creation. Both are equally true: the creation is God and the creation is transcended by God. The creation always existed and God also made the creation out of nothing. There, everyone can be happy in what they believe. Just believe whatever you want, even both at the same time!

The only problem with this is that there are a few of us left who want the truth, just like the lady I heard at Dera, crying, saying “Master, you always speak the truth, don’t you? People are saying that you do not speak the truth. But you are truth. You must speak the truth. Tell me that it is not true, that you do speak the truth. Tell these people that they are wrong!”

Master looked pityingly at the poor soul, who had obviously not been messed up enough to just accept evil and good as being the same thing, merely an act to get over with until the last karmic tit for tat is done. He said “Why do you care what they think?” Then he just looked at her, saying “I will be what you want me to be.” Well, how convenient!

The world, my dear friends, is a battle between good and evil. Satan is the great trickster and liar, determined to stop you from fighting on the side of good against evil. Satan has a lot of followers who try to tell you to just be indifferent to everything and stay in a happy, self-induced bliss state through all and you will merge with…..WHAT? Merge with what? With whatever you want that what to be?

Few escape the New Age world. Very very few escape. Usually guru followers run after one guru, one New Age path after another. Even Catholicism has its New Age apparition. The current one is Medjugorje. Just type in Medjugorje/ documents , to learn the truth about that one.

Read Archbishop Lefebvre’s books especially Against the Heresies and The Mass of All Time for one who sees through paganism. This is probably your only escape route, as the Church is courting humanism, right now, and is confusing. Lefefbvre is never confusing. Read the Douay Rhiems version of the Bible as Jerome had manuscripts that are now missing. Thus his sources were older than what exist today, making his translation more accurate.

The 1500’s Rheims New Testement is hard to obtain, but possible. It is the literal Vulgate. Most are the 1700’s version and have a slight humanist slant to them, but it is still mostly intact. The real Christianity is quite austere and frugal in its required behavior. Very disciplined. That is why so many who need discipline follow gurus. The Church dropped the ball and made everything easy, which is not what disciples need. But Lefebvre does not. He follows Jesus, one of the few.

God’s plan is different from the New Age. Instead of humans inventing and discovering ways to be God, God reveals All to us and gives us a plan to obey so that we can adore God in His Realm and be happy forever. It is really a no- brainer, it is that sad tendency to keep rebelling that is the problem!

I hope this helps some of you to get over your deep sentiments of affection for Sant Mat. After the deep pain of seeing the truth (praying to Jesus to keep away all false visions really helps) and the embarrassment of being tricked, there is life after Sant Mat.

Few will understand you, but there are some out there who will leave the New Age behind for good, and not simply carry it with them. Just remember, however, that the entire world is against Jesus. Most of the world is much more accepting of Masonic type New Age stuff than it is of a true Jesus. The world loves humanistic Christianity; it will tolerate the moral discipline of a Satsangi, but it will never tolerate the Sacrifice of the Mass. Try to see the Infinity of God and not the chasm of world. Pax Christi

Radha Soami Satsang Beas loses another believer

l like hearing deconversion stories. Deconversion, as I've noted, is as natural as conversion.

Here's a tale that came to me in an email message. Jesse was pleased to let me share it with others. Thanks, Jesse. I've added a few explanations of unfamiliar terms [in brackets].

Hi Brian,

Since your blog is the go-to place for anti-Radha Soami Satsang Beas stuff I thought I'd share this with you, you fuckadilly pigfuck. (I'm kidding. That's an insulting and hilarious line directed at you from a hater who left a comment on your I Hate Church of the Churchless site.)

Anyway, I'm not sure how to articulate this but I'll try.

Earlier today a friend and I went to the local Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) meeting in Minnesota. I'd decided to donate two boxes of RSSB books which I had already read. I never thought anything about donating the books since I'd been collecting free books and magazines for years.

Though I hadn't attended satsang [meeting of RSSB devotees] in a long time, I thought this practice was still kosher and encouraged since giving free shit to people -- ESPECIALLY free RSSB propaganda -- couldn't be wrong.

Or could it? Needless to say I was mistaken.   

With arms full of boxes of books I approached the local RSSB chapter secretary and asked where I could put the books. She as well as another local satsangi [RSSB initiate] simultaneously replied "Donating books has become a big problem. A really big problem."

I asked "Why? I've been getting free books for years." "Well, we have to ship them back to Fayetteville (or some other town?), and also since the books are already so cheap we can't just give them away."  

This sent me into severe aggravation for whatever reason. I said, "So the Guru needs more money?"

I think they are so used to everyone agreeing with them about everything that my taunting actually shocked them. Both the secretary and the other guy started rattling off more excuses as to why giving away free books was not halal [permissible] and they advised that I "give them to Half Price Books (local used book store) but.."   

This was my favorite part. "Don't accept any money for them because it sort of goes against the vows you've taken." Interesting.

RSSB vows as I remember: Meditation, clean moral life, no drugs or alcohol, no meat, do seva [volunteer work], give charity (which was code for giving to the Guru). Can someone explain how selling a book that is unclean for redistribution in a sacred RSSB hotel satsang is against the vows?   

I think you could imagine the faces and tones that were projecting from these people was all the more convincing of their complete brainwashing, but no words could describe it. As I was leaving I told them that I didn't believe in those vows. One of them sort of rolled his eyes in that "Let's not waste our energy on this non-believer" way that they do so well.

I left and decided that, unless I'm going with a friend or something, there will be no more satsangs and maybe I'll take Baba Ji's [the Guru's] advice that has been passed around recently and I'll burn the books. It could be the great cleansing ritual that I've needed for a long time.

I've been straddling the line for years and that pushed me over the edge. It's a strange feeling to admit that I was part of a weird cult and it's slightly scary to think of how I will fill the gaps that blind faith had been filling. Maybe the metaphor would read like I've grown out of my Guru will save me security blanket.  

Thanks for keeping the Church of the Churchless going for all these years. I've come back to it many times for inspiration and to open my eyes. I think you and some of your frequent contributers like Tara and more recently the articles by Waking Now have been a lifesaver.

That may be literal. Somehow I suspect that this fear and guilt I've felt for so long is rooted in Radha Soami Satsang Beas. We'll see how I do without it.

Take Care, Jesse

I'm confident you'll do just fine, Jesse. Absolutely fine.

Truth, meaning, well-being, happiness -- these don't reside within the confines of any organized religion, spiritual faith, or mystic practice. The dogmatic boundaries people put around reality aren't real. 

Lineage means little in science and art. Why so important in religion?

When you learn about an important scientific discovery, does it matter to you what "line" of scientists the researcher is associated with?

When you listen to a scintillating musical performance, does it matter to you what "line" of musicians the artist is associated with?

No. At least, not much. Likely not at all. 

Recently the Oregonian had a story about a classical guitarist who is going to play in Portland. It was mentioned that Scott Kritzer was the "grandson" of famed guitarist Andres Segovia, because his teacher was a Segovia student.

But that fact has no bearing on Kritzer's reputation as a guitarist, or why people are going to see him perform. He's a great guitarist. Period. That's obvious to anyone who appreciates music. 

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? 

And so on.

Down through a lineage that might extend for a thousand years or more, as is the case with Buddhism. Also with Catholicism, which traces its Popes back to the apostle Peter. Believers are supposed to be impressed by the purported continuity of... something or other... in the faith's leaders.

Four words in that last sentence are central to the question of why lineage is so important in religiosity: something or other and faith. Because religions are focused on the supernatural, and/or on ineffable qualities of physical existence, there's no there there.

Meaning, religiosity is insubstantial, unprovable, evidence-free. In short, founded on faith. So something or other has to be taken on faith: salvation, enlightenment, god-realization, etc.

Science and art are much different.

"Show me what you've got" is the catch-phrase of scientists and artists. A discovery lacking evidence isn't a discovery. An artistic creation lacking observability isn't an artistic creation. So it's understandable why religions place so much emphasis on lineage: they've got nothing else to back up their empty claims.

I got thinking about this stuff after reading recent comments on this blog post relating to the lineage of Sant Mat gurus in general, and those of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) in particular.

Having been a member of RSSB for quite a few years, I find this sort of discussion mildly interesting from a historical perspective, yet meaningless from the perspective of whether the organization's teachings point to a transcendent truth or whether the RSSB gurus truly are "God in human form."

For that, demonstrable evidence is needed, not just proof that one guy who claimed to know a transcendent truth and supposedly was God-realized certified that his successor had those same qualities, so could take over the job of guru, so forth and so on down through an unbroken lineage.

Again, the religious obsession with lineage is a symptom of how lacking in anything supernaturally substantial religions are.

If a highly spiritual dude or dudette could perform obvious miracles, clearly foretell the future, or reliably transform the consciousness of believers into an evident more-than-human form, there wouldn't be any need for a chain of "believe me, this guy is real" testimonials from previous people with supposed spiritual accomplishments.

Since taking up dancing about six and a half years ago, my wife and I have taken lessons from quite a few different dance instructors. Our concern about who they learned how to dance from is essentially zero. What we care about is whether they know how to dance now, and can teach that to us.

It's pretty darn obvious whether someone is a good dancer. You just watch them dance. But with religion, it isn't obvious at all whether someone is a good... something or other. You see, I can't even think of what words to put after...

How can you tell whether someone is a genuine prophet, saint, guru, master, yogi, enlightened being? I have no idea. If anyone else does, please, um, enlighten me. And don't, repeat DON'T, describe some quality of a human being which could apply to any non-religious person.

Like: kind, compassionate, wise, charismatic, giving, selfless, inspiring, loving. I know lots of atheists and agnostics who have these qualities. 

And also don't tell me that genuine spirituality is demonstrated by getting a stamp of approval from some other supposed genuine spiritual person. I need to know how it's possible to discern the genuineness of the first genuine spiritual person.

Bottom line: with religions, don't trust lineages. Don't care about lineages. Be like a scientist or artist. Say "show me what you've got." Now. 

I'm asked questions about Sant Mat. I answer them.

Recently I got an email from someone who shared ideas about Sant Mat, the Indian philosophy I used to believe in. My correspondent also asked me some questions. Here's what the person said, in italics, and my responses, in regular type preceded by a "ME."

A lot of this won't make sense to anyone who isn't into the intricacies of the Sant Mat teachings. But quite a few visitors to this blog are, so I figured that I might as well share the comments/questions and my responses.

----------------------------- 
I have been initiated for about 4 to 5 years now, and there is nothing that makes better sense than Sant Mat, as far as spirituality is concerned.

ME: I used to think that myself. Now I doubt it. But spirituality is a very personal affair. Whatever works for you, hold on to it. What doesn't, discard.

I should say that Life Is Fair is one of the books that I swear by. It makes sense and explains a lot of things or rather it opens the mind somewhat, so I don't think you should beat yourself up for writing it because even the most perfect book has its negative aspects. It should teach you though not to be too eager on the computer keypad.

ME: Well, Life is Fair was edited, re-edited, and re-re-edited. Both by me, and quite a few RSSB publications department reviewers. So whatever I don't like in the book now wasn't caused by over-eager writing. Rather, my views have changed on certain subjects. I'm no longer so eager to conclude that what I believe, or want to believe, really is true. I'm much more comfortable with simply saying "I don't know."

You raise a lot of legitimate concerns though concerning BEAS, because I have always wondered when I read Sar Bachaan as to where "our" lineage of Masters originate because Swami ji does not make a mention. It would be nice to get a history on Jaimal as to ascertain where he falls in, and why he regarded himself as a Master. In a letter to Sawan he mentions that he sent a lady (is it Swami ji's wife?) to take Sawan across the three regions; I have always wondered why he didn't do that himself, but maybe there is a logical explanation. 

ME: I don't think logic is what's needed. Logic can be used to justify anything. Just look at all of the Christian logical arguments for believing in the Christian God. Evidence has to support logic. Otherwise logical assumptions can't be trusted. This is why science works, and religion doesn't.

You question the 10% percent [of souls] that have to go back [to God] (is it really 10%?). I too have my reservation on that, but maybe again there is a logical explanation for that.

ME: Again, logic isn't the issue. The real question is whether consciousness survives death, whether reincarnation is reality, those sorts of things. This requires evidence, not logic.

I don't find the whole "science" to be a sham as when collaborated with Eastern and Christian content, it does prove somewhat to be something worth "looking" into". 

ME: Of course. Anything is possible. But not everything is true or real. We can fit together stories that make sense to us, whether religious or otherwise. This doesn't make that true or real, except in our own mind.

Have you done any research on vegetarianism as to ascertain it relation to Karma? I find Karma the explanation to make better sense than the big bang theory.  

ME: Not sure what you mean. The big bang theory has lots of evidence behind it. Karma, in the sense of cause and effect, is obviously part of how the universe works. But "supernatural" karma isn't proven. It's a hypothesis.

If Swami Ji was a real Master, then following his real lineage wouldn't be altogether futile. What do you think of that? Apparently the Agra sect were building a tomb/memorial which is not very much in line with the Masters' teaching; that is why I didn't bother researching the Agra lineage. What do you think of the Agra lineage? 

ME: I have almost zero interest in Sant Mat history. What's the point? It's like delving into Einstein's childhood life in an attempt to determine whether the theory of relativity is true. Truth, pretty much, stands on its own. There's a world apart from the human brain. The quest of science is to understand that reality, using the human brain. Our own internal world isn't very relevant to that quest, except insofar as (obviously) the human brain is how we experience everything, including the outside world.

I have never come across Kabir talking about the sixth Word. Can you help me with that. If the five names belong to Kal then does it matter?; considering that Sohang and Satnam are beyond Kal. Am I wrong there?

ME: I have no idea. This sort of question isn't very interesting to me, though I can understand why it is to you. Every religion is interested in its own history. I have just about zero interest in the history of Christianity, and the same level of interest in the history of "saints." 

VERY IMPORTANT
What is the truth in that when a "real" Master initiates you, it is compulsory that you see the light. Doesn't it make sense that you need a guide when traveling unknown territory? 

ME: You're assuming the territory exists. You're assuming there is something beyond this world that can be, and needs to be, explored. This is an example of how logic fails. You're assuming the Inner Light exists, and that Inner Realms exist, then asking how one goes about experiencing the light and realms. In my opinion, the basic question is whether these things exist at all. 

I'm sorry that I should give you so many questions as I was not initiated by you, but you have been there a while and you wrote one of the books so I guess I am not totally out of place when I hold you somehow "responsible." 

ME: Questions are good. No reason to apologize for them. Keep on questioning. This includes questioning your own questioning. Ask yourself whether your questions are the best ones. Are there more fundamental questions that need to be asked and answered before your questions make sense?

-----------------------------
Here's an explanation of what I was thinking about when I wrote those last sentences. I'd just been reading a section in my new favorite book about the brain and neuroscience. The author gives examples of how the left hemisphere of the brain looks upon the world.

It likes logic, even when a premise doesn't make sense. For example:

1. All monkeys climb trees.
2. The dog is a monkey.
3. The dog climbs trees.

The obvious response here is, "But the dog isn't a monkey!" Iain McGilchrist, the book's author, writes:

When asked if the conclusion is true, the intact individual displays a common sense reaction: 'I agree it seems to suggest so [by logic], but I know in fact it's wrong [by experience]'. The right hemisphere dismisses the false premises and deductions as absurd. But the left hemisphere sticks to the false conclusion, replying calmly to the effect that 'that's what it says here.'

So Sant Mat, along with all religions, has it's own left brain logic. For example:

1. A guide is good when traveling unknown territory.
2. Superatural spiritual realms are unknown territory.
3. A guide is good when traveling in spiritual realms.

The logic is fine. The premise in 2 and conclusion in 3 are highly questionable.

This is why I recommended that the person who sent me the email question more deeply his/her questions. If they are founded on false premises, it's the premises that need to be questioned.

Radha Soami Satsang Beas men reportedly attack journalists

Interesting story in the Global Sikh News: Beas Dera Radha Swami men attacks journalists -- no action as yet. (Thanks for the links, Robert.)

Senior Journalist H. S. Bawa, editor of YesPunjab.Com has release a news report providing extensive information regarding attack on Sangat TV (UK) crew members by Radha Swami Dera men.

The men of Radha Soami Dera at Beas, which preaches non-violence, attacked the crew of Sangat TV at village Jodhe near Beas in the district of Amritsar. However, both the members of the crew were lucky enough to escape the attack.

The crew members – Baljeet Singh, a correspondent and the camera man Monu – had to virtually run to save their lives as both of them were attacked by Dera men on Saturday.

What happened to "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek"? Oh, right. These followers of Radha Soami Satsang Beas aren't Christians, so I guess it's OK for them to hate their neighbors and hit the other guys.

Now, the Global Sikh News may not be dispassionate in reporting this story, as there are tensions between Sikhs and the religiously divergent Radha Soami organization -- sort of like the tensions between Catholics and Protestants, though both are Christian.

Here's an example: Dera Radha Swami illegally occupies panchayat land and destroys Sikh Gurudwara. God supposedly is all lovey-dovey and oneness'y. However we humans are anything but, especially when religion divides us.

Another inspiring RSSB "why I left" story

I love religious deconversion stories. They're more inspiring to me than conversion stories, because I've come to realize that a meaningful life is far distant from religiosity. 

So someone is making progress when he or she is able to get further away from rigid dogmas. Below is a story from one such "someone."

After sending me an email, I encouraged this person to write a blog-sharable version of why a decision was made to leave the formalities of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, an India-based spiritual group organized around the teachings of a line of gurus who are considered to be God in Human Form.

This morning I read a passage in one of my favorite books, Raymond Smullyan's "The Tao is Silent," which is a good introduction to the following deconversion story.

I would make the statement "everyone has the right to do what he wants" only to people who I feel are overly moralistic.

...All I am really trying to say to them is, "I wish you would let yourself alone and stop beating yourself on the head; I believe you would be better off." That's all I really mean by "Everybody has the right to do whatever he wants." 

Perhaps a still better way of conveying my real message is to say that if one believes he has the right to do what he wants, then he is more likely to want to do what is right.

Here's the story:
---------------------------------

Brian, 

Thanks for offering to let me have an opportunity to share my experience with your readers.  I have always enjoyed reading your blog; you are quite prolific and thought provoking.  

Since I was a very young child I have felt deeply that someone or something was always with me.  Perhaps it’s just my own ego or personality, but I have never felt as if I were entirely alone.  When I first started thinking about having a guru, I imagined “this must be who has been with me all this time!”  This sense of companionship has always felt like a living presence.  This is in contrast to my feelings about Jesus who in my childhood I tended to only see in black velvet paintings or nailed to a cross. 

I was raised a southern Baptist and briefly attended Catholic Mass along with a boyfriend during the late 1970’s.  [I didn’t know until later that because I wasn’t an official Catholic I am likely doomed to hell for drinking the wine and chewing the wafer following transubstantiation. I was never confirmed.] 

A few years later I was initiated into RSSB.  And somewhat like you, I quit after nearly 30 years.

During the intervening years I had officially converted from Christianity to Judaism, as my husband was Jewish, and we had a huge “religiously recognized” wedding.  It was the first gay wedding at our reform synagogue--one of the oldest in the United States.   

During my active involvement, I was pretty much a closeted Satsangi. As you know, the RSSB books contain much of the typical fundamentalist preaching on the subject that I had heard from the Baptist church (which I abandoned) and a sort of “gay-hate lite” that I heard from the Catholic Church.  Frankly, I had been so numbed to what religion had to say on the subject that I pretty much ignored it.  I never in my life felt that God didn’t love me because I was gay. I knew that I loved our creator, whatever entity that may be, and that was enough for me.  

As far as I know I was the only openly gay Satsang speaker.  There may have been others but having lived in the Baptist closet my entire childhood I just avoided discussing it.

Our local center has always been really great. People were nice and we didn’t have any weird group dynamics that we always heard rumblings of happening across the country.  Over the years I was even nominated for secretary.

This last time I was nominated, the local secretary was apparently asked to pry into my personal life with weird questions that I am sure they would never ask a straight person. Anyway, I was fine with it all but relieved that I didn’t get the “honor” of all the extra work.

This spring I finally accepted the fact that the RSSB rose had started dying on the vine for me some time ago.  It started several years earlier on a trip I took to Petaluma. It was during a Q&A session when someone asked Baba Ji a question about how they could be sure he was real and he said, "Sister, how do you know I am not a fraud?" And I can’t explain it, but his answer made me completely sick in the pit of my stomach.  It felt like a sign from God… and not like mere indigestion from an Amy’s burrito or the work of the devil. 

The entire audience laughed when he said that. I tried to put it out of my mind. Still, it would came back to haunt me occasionally. It had been 25 years for me; and I thought shit, WHAT IF THE JOKE’S ON US?

I liked the fact that in RSSB we weren’t pushed to give money. This was a huge change from all the years I spent among the evangelicals, although it felt much more up front in India during my visits there.

One day recently I was just sitting in the car when a feeling flooded over me like a giant wave.  “This is making you unhappy.  Why don’t you stop it?” 

And so I did, I tuned in to my inner self and dropped out.  I decided to stop beating myself up for being gay. I decided that God probably doesn’t care if there is a particle of an egg in a muffin or gelatin in a marshmallow.  I decided that it doesn’t make any sense to raise a ruckus with insurance companies over whether a prescription pill is available in a form other than a gel tab, and I don’t give a flying flea whether there is rennet in my cheese.  If this is what is required of perfection, we simply cannot attain it and we will always be unworthy.

It’s sad to think of the number of times I refused or threw away food, sending it back to the kitchen and somehow feeling I was the victim in the situation.

Because it was also frowned upon to feed carnivorous pets meat products, I also had tried to feed my cats vegetarian kibble and related products over the years. One of my cats, with the personality of an angel from heaven, has all kinds of allergies. One of the things she is allergic to is yeast, which it turns out is in everything vegetarian.  The poor dear ended up licking herself bare in numerous quarter-sized spots of her fur while I was trying to force her to eat vegetarian cat food. I wondered: did God really want me to have a hairless kitty?

Sant Mat also somehow makes you feel superior every time you eat with someone and they apologize for eating meat in front of you. We might say, "No, go ahead and eat meat I don't care—really!" but in the back of your mind you think "God, you're just poisoning yourself with that stuff!" Sant Mat makes you feel special, more valued.  And then you feel guilty for feeling chosen, and then you feel sorry for the people who are less special because “they will just have to live another lifetime to be as special as you.“

I had even less to fear however, since in my case, having converted to Judaism in 2000, I am in fact, covered by a perfect soul-saving trifecta! 

• Although I had forsaken Jesus when I became Jewish, it seems safe to say that if I turn out to be wrong, he’ll be there to greet and forgive me
• If my Guru is there to greet me when I die, no doubt he will forgive me for leaving RSSB as well. And then I’ll probably come back for another life.
• If neither Jesus nor the Guru is there, at least I will still be a part of the original chosen people.  

Brian, while I may not be an official member of RSSB any longer [although you can never actually leave since the guru never leaves you -- just like with Jesus!], the benefits of meditation are clear according to various scientific studies.  

Now however, instead of beating myself up for not meditating two and a half hours every day, I want to be able to feel great about myself if I meditate for even an hour! Hooray! Ten minutes? Hooray! Hooray!

What a different world I will be living in now… one where I can talk positively to myself instead of thinking that people who don’t follow the path “like me” are missing the boat, and where I can be grateful for whatever moments of the day I am able to focus on living in the moment instead of worrying about the past, the future, or whether my guru approves of what I’m feeding my cats. 

The bottom line is this: Sant Mat has requirements of people that are virtually impossible to attain, and because you can never attain them, you are never perfect enough for god-realization. So you have only yourself to blame for not going within.  

After 30 years I am going to believe the opposite: each of us is already perfect because we were created in God’s image. To me that means that together with God we are evolving. And just by being who we are, we are always automatically becoming our future higher selves.

Devastating critique of Radha Soami Satsang Beas lies

Two words: read it. 

If you want to know what's wrong with spiritual-mystical-religious dogmas that spout lies about science in order to selfishly promote their own false teachings, read it.

If you want proof that one such organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), is devoid of intellectual honesty, respect for truth, and humility before the largely unexplained mystery of the cosmos, read it.

If you want to feel better about choosing science over religion, truthfulness over falsehoods, openness over closedmindedness, read it.

What I'm strongly urging you to read is a marvelous essay by David Christopher Lane and Andrea Diem-Lane, "Mysticism's Version of Intelligent Design: A Critique of John Davidson's Projective Creationism." Dadrea (every couple needs a twin-name these days) rip to shreds a book recently published by RSSB, which supposedly espouses a "science of the soul."

I found very little to criticize in this critique of Davidson's One Being One, aside from noting a few minor typos. I could have written it myself, if I was as knowledgeable about evolution and the scientific method as David and his wife are.

David and I both were involved with RSSB for a long time. We've come to similar conclusions about the emptiness of the religious claims RSSB and the organization's current guru, Gurinder Singh Dhillon, make about God, soul travel, reincarnation, salvation via a "perfect living guru," and such.

However, perusing reactions to a Yahoo Groups posting about Lane's critique, I can see that David remains more enthusiastic than I am about some aspects of the meditation approach taught by Radha Soami Satsang Beas. 

I've migrated to a quasi-Buddhist, quasi-Zen, quasi-mindfulness meditating.

But this reflects the beauty of a truly scientific view of reality. Whatever works trumps whatever a holy book or person says. David and I each have our opinions about what sort of meditation technique is the best. Yet if we want to elevate those opinions to be facts, we'd need to back them up with evidence.

After reading David and Andrea's critique, I feel like I may have been too soft toward Radha Soami Satsang Beas, and guru-worship in general. They tell it like it is: the organization lies; the RSSB guru lies; John Davidson lies.

It [is at] this point that any reasonable reader may reflect on why Davidson is being so dishonest and disingenuous about the vast array of evidence that the varying sciences have marshaled in support of evolution by natural selection. The answer, sadly enough, is too obvious: Davidson is a religious devotee who believes (apparently absolutely and apparently quite dogmatically) in the metaphysical theology of Radhasoami Beas and anything which upends his cherished belief system is open game, even if it means being duplicitous in his presentations of the “other” side.

...In assailing Darwinian evolution (but without mustering convincing evidence), Davidson on page 164 juxtaposes molecular biology with his own mystical theology, one where “behind all the physical processes lie the patterning processes of the formative mind, projecting subtle inner mental patterns into physical reality. This is all part of what some folk call the law of karma.”

Does Davidson give us even a scant of evidence for this theory? No. So how does he know that his subtle mind theory is correct, especially in contradistinction to the plethora of evidences provided by the hard sciences? The answer again is a revealing one: because his religion says so and because he believes in the veridicality of meditational experiences.

Yet, what is so alarming, particularly in a book that wants to be taken seriously, is that Davidson doesn’t once find even the tiniest fault or crack in his own theological superstructure. In this sense, he is no different than fundamentalist Christians or Muslims who take their respective holy books as inerrant. 

I'll add myself to the list: I've lied.

I wrote a book published by RSSB, "Life is Fair." Much of what I said in that book, I still stand behind. But I promulgated some falsehoods about evolution being guided by a cosmic intelligence, just as Davidson and RSSB have in One Being One.

The difference with me, though, is that I came to see through my own duplicity.

The contradiction between my love for science, and the hatred Radha Soami Satsang Beas has for certain scientific truths such as evolution, and it's disdain for the scientific method, eventually became too great. No longer could I profess a devotion for knowing ultimate reality, while ignoring evident facts that lay along the never-ending path of cosmic knowledge.

David and Andrea have done a tremendous service in describing so clearly why truth-seekers must embrace scientific openness, willingness to admit errors, and reliance on demonstrable evidence -- while shunning religious closed-mindedness, rigid dogmatism, and faith-based belief systems.

Like I said at the start: read it.

I'm not bitter toward religion -- just fed up with false claims

Fairly frequently true believers leave comments on this blog saying, "Brian, you're so bitter toward religion." This surprises me. 

I don't feel bitter toward any religion or spiritual organization, including Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), the India-based group I was an active member of for about thirty-five years. Rather, I'm disappointed about the false claims RSSB promotes in its teachings.

If I buy a car, or a computer, I expect it will function as advertised. If it doesn't, I don't feel bitterness. Just irritation, disappointment, let-down.

Now, how do I know that RSSB, or any religion, makes false claims? I can't know with 100% certainty. This isn't how knowledge works. Even scientists who study the material world never say "I'm absolutely sure X is true." 

Truth always is provisional, subject to change via new observations, facts, evidence, research. So are claims of falsehood. 

Every morning before I meditate, I say "If there's a god or other supernatural power aware of me, pay a visit; surprise me; show me something of yourself." I'm entirely open to having an experience that makes me cry out Praise Jesus! Praise guru! Praise Allah! Praise Buddha! Praise alien beings! Or praise whoever/whatever.

But I've never had such an experience.

And in my three decades-plus of communicating with many, many other RSSB devotees, before I started this blog and afterward, I've never come across anyone else who had the sort of transcendent, mystical, ultimate-reality knowing, astral traveling, soul-body separating experience the RSSB literature promises.

Most other religions or spiritual practices aren't nearly as specific as RSSB is regarding expectations. Nor, as certain. I bet from the Pope on down, no Christian alive today could say with complete certainty that they know what happens after death, and what the nature of God is.

But Eastern religions such as RSSB are quite different.

They assert that it's possible to become god-realized while in the flesh, to achieve a perfected form of consciousness, to be a "god in human form." The GIHF guru supposedly takes root in each disciple, guiding them both in life and after death, eventually revealing his non-physical nature: spirit ("shabd" in Indian parlance).

So this puts a different slant on what can be expected. Christian ministers don't claim to be god-realized beings. They admit to being seekers of Jesus/God, just as every other Christian is. But certain gurus, such as RSSB's Gurinder Singh, are held up as being God. 

Is this possible? Sure. Is it likely? No, not at all.

Stupendous claims require stupendous evidence to be believed.

After more than forty years of examining evidence for and against the claim that some humans have become more than human, possessing powers of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and such normally attributed only to God, I've concluded that the evidence (or lack thereof) strongly points toward the RSSB gurus, and others making similar claims, being pretenders.

I can understand the reasons for this, which seem to be rooted in Eastern culture and tradition. (See "Who is the guru?" and "A guru should know if he is God."

But I can't understand why someone would make claims about himself, and the spiritiual teachings which he represents, that almost certainly aren't true. After all, every religion -- and there are thousands of them -- makes certain assertions about the nature of a supernatural reality.

Which are contradictory.

They can't all be true, unless we give up the notion of "truth" as referring to anything objective, universal, demonstrable. So the likelihood that any particular religion or spiritual teaching, such as RSSB, is the One True Knowledge of God... that's so small as to be almost non-existent. 

I've learned a lot over the past forty years. For that, I'm grateful.

Every experience I've had, including experiences of disappointment, have made me who I am today. But just as I look back with irritation on cars and computers I've bought which didn't perform as advertised, so do I view religions which make false claims.

 

Guru Gurinder Singh Dhillon's teachings: a logical look

Here's a blunt, honest, and amusing reaction to some questions and answers of an Indian guru, Gurinder Singh Dhillon, who is considered to be "God in human form" by devotees. 

The author is well-known, Anonymous. (Isn't me, I can assure you.)

Gurinder Singh Dhillon heads up Radha Soami Satsang Beas, or RSSB, which is termed Really Stupid Shitty Bullshit in this PDF document:
Download Gurinder Singh Dhillon questions 

The questions and answers apparently are authentic, having been circulated among RSSB members. The caustic commentary on the Q and A is one person's logical reaction to some religious illogic.

Surrender to a lower power. Or equal. Not higher.

I used to believe in surrendering to a higher power. And not only to my wife -- but also to a spiritual, supernatural, metaphysical higher power.

No more. Don't see any reason to.

Now I'm much more comfortable with surrendering to lower and equal powers. Which, I suspect, actually are the only varieties powers come in. In fact, we could be talking singular here.

Power. Not powers. There's no higher or lower. Just varying manifestations of One Energy, One Nature, One Cosmos, One Reality.

But religions, spiritual systems, mystical philosophies, and other advocates of surrendering to a higher power would have us believe that life can't be fully lived without imagining some "sky god" is looking down, guiding our steps, inspiring our positive motivations, leading us out of darkness and into the light.

Bullshit. Crap. Fantasy. And self-serving.

Because almost always, somebody gains from all this higher power surrendering. Not the higher power, since there's no evidence of one, but the holier-than-thou men and women who run the organizations which claim to point the way to Higher Power'ness.

Groupies, syncophants, and hangers-on get pleasure from associating with powerful people, even at a distance. That's sort of strange.

But at least those objects of adoration are real. Surrendering to higher powers which are undetectable, even if supposedly manifested in a living saint, guru, master, prophet, or whoever, is even more ridiculous. 

I speak from experience.

For more than thirty years I sought to follow the will of what the Indian Sant Mat teachings variously call God, Spirit, Shabd, Satguru, and other high-pointing terms. I got a lot of pleasure from obeying rules, performing volunteer services, giving talks, writing books, opening my mind, heart, and soul to whatever the higher power I believed in wanted me to do.

Not surprisingly, the more I identified with this higher power, the more elevated above other human beings I felt myself to be. 

Sure, I knew how to appear all humble and selfless. That's the first thing you learn in Higher Power School: how to say stuff like "It's not me doing it; it's Him," or "I'm the dust beneath the feet of the Master, nothing more."

But lurking just below the surface of every surrender to a higher power is a feeling of "I'm so cool! So blessed! So special! I'm the Higher Power's best buddy!"

Meaning, other people aren't so cool, so blessed, so special, so befriended. Eventually I got tired of feeling humbly superior. It annoyed me when fellow Surrenderers to a Higher Power would look upon my non-believing wife with pity.

"Poor woman. She doesn't have a direct connection to God like we do. Maybe in another life."

Actually, my wife wasn't deprived. She felt totally content. Just as I feel now, having given up the conceit of knowing Mr. or Ms. Higher Power more intimately than those poor souls who can't get in the door of the exclusive spirituality club I once belonged to.

Our twelve year old dog, Serena, doesn't move as well as she used to. No matter. Almost every afternoon I still take her on our traditional dog walk, a two mile loop around our rural neighborhood. 

Serena used to pull me along at the end of the leash, she was so eager and energetic to explore sights and smells that beckoned around the next corner. Now, we plod along at a speed considerably slower than I'd walk at if I were by myself.

So slow, my habitually fast-walking wife finds it frustrating to accompany Serena and me. Usually she takes our younger dog, Zu Zu, on a much more aerobic walk. I understand her attitude, but I've surrendered to my commitment to walk with Serena for as long as she can, at the speed Serena is comfortable going at.

If Serena were to stop, lie down, and take her last breath on our afternoon dog walk, I'd be happy. Not that Serena died -- that I was with her at the end, while she was enjoying one of her favorite activities. 

Given the "dog years" thing, it's unlikely that Serena and I are going to die simultaneously on our dog walk.

However, every time I'm out with Serena, watching her sniff those marvelously interesting smells left by passers-by (canines, humans, deer, squirrels, whatever captures her nose fancy), I think It wouldn't be the worst way to go, holding the leash of the dog I love so much, out on the road we each have come to know so well.

That's my surrender. Not to a higher power called God. To a lower or equal power named Dog. It feels precisely, exactly, 100% the same as my previous surrendering to a imagined higher power. Well, actually better.

Because I'm no longer looking upward and outward for the power that I've surrendered to. Sideways and inward -- those are the directions which now point to where I want to go.

The natural world and me; we're connected in a way that seems a whole lot more genuine than the subservient posturing I used to engage in during my Surrender to a Higher Power days. Everyday life always is guiding me.

There's no need to look outside of nature, or ourselves, for some mythical guidance mechanism.

Skeptical look at mantras and Transcendental Meditation

I've never practiced Transcendental Meditation (TM). But for over forty years I've meditated daily, mostly using a mantra (a word or words repeated over and over) just as TM does.

So I resonated with a "Mantras" post on the TM-Free blog, which describes itself as:

Insider information about the Transcendental Meditation™ techniques, the TM movement and its late founder, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Our bloggers take independent, skeptical and critical views of TM claims and research. We report allegations of deception by TM organizations and reports that some individuals experience harm from involvement.

For most of those forty years I used a mantra taught by a Sant Mat organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, that was known as the Five Holy Names. The mantra bore some resemblance to the ones used by the Transcendental Meditation folks. 

Sudarsha, the author of the post, says:

My question is this: why are the results in activity so much more rewarding for me using the breath as an object than using a "meaningless sound".

The “method” is useful, but what about the “mantra”?

The mantra (a.k.a. meaningless thought, meaningless sound): Let’s look at what Mahesh said at the beginning:

We do not select any sound like mike, flower, table, pen, wall etc. because such ordinary sounds can do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind; whereas there are some special sounds which have the additional efficacy of producing vibrations whose effects are found to be congenial to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do not select any word at random. For our practice we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life.***

So, first we don’t want sounds that just do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind. Isn’t this in and of itself a red flag? Why wouldn’t we want sharp minds? If we had sharp minds might we detect something not in Mahesh’s best interests? That was my thought when I read this remark by Mahesh.

Like any totalitarian thinker, Mahesh would only want sharp minds from which he could cull information. Then, as he has done so often when finished with someone providing him with answers, he could send them to round and do the ‘sidhi’ program until they were no longer sharp enough to realize they were being blindsided and their work siphoned off to the credit of someone else. 

Later in the blog post Sudarsha talks about the dulling effect of a mantra. 

A simple experiment:

(after you read this)

Sit and close your eyes and say/think/ponder some word over and over; just that word, over and over, some word you understand, some particular word you know the meaning of. Pick a simple word like house or flower or chair.

What happens?

If you keep doing it you notice that it becomes nonsense. The sound and the meaning detach from one another. There’s just this very strange sound that does not have the sense it had when you started. It’s even funnier if you do it again and pick a complex word like hypothalamus or train station. After a while you begin to hear what someone who known no English hears.

Now notice: do you get intellectually sharper doing this, or do you feel slightly spacey? – Ask yourself very carefully how different is “just any word” and your personally selected meaningless sound? Do different words bring different experiences of silliness? Is this a beneficial experience of altered alertness? Is this experience of altered alertness beneficial?

Good questions. I started asking similar ones myself after many years of repeating a mantra for at least ninety minutes during a morning meditation session, and then as much as possible throughout the rest of the day.

I've come to much the same concluson as Sudarsha has: following the breath mindfully is a better meditation approach than is repeating a mantra mindlessly. 

In some way, I knew I was in the darkened house of ignorance and TM really had the feel of gold. Maybe it might have been just that; but much later I discovered that Mahesh was corrupted by his own greed and narcissism subsequently corrupting not only what he had purloined from his tradition and teacher, but those he taught as well. This is my perception to this day, based upon my interaction with Mahesh and observing his interaction with others.

But just because I had been hoodwinked by a charlatan whose motives I felt were highly suspicious, I did not cease seeking. I kept looking for the gold and now I feel I have found that gold and have been examining it in the broad daylight, questioning practitioners and teachers alike, watching, observing, certainly looking for the behaviours and attitudes with which TM allowed me to be familiar. I am also looking at criteria such as Lifton’s to see if I am being cheated. I wish I could have done this from the beginning with TM.

I have continued the search that began in the spring of 1964. I can only conclude at this time that there is much more to life than TM. There is more than imagining that if you believe something good is happening long enough something good will happen. There is more to life than imagining you have been spiritually endowed by using the suitable mantras for personal gods.

I am a Buddhist presently practicing in the Thai Forest Tradition of Theravāda Buddhism. I have no intention of suggesting that this is better than or superior to what Mahesh or Guru Dev is teaching/taught. However, if you are or feel you might be or might have been a TM casualty, you might want to look at “feeling the body” as explained in the Buddhist teachings.

...I am suggesting nothing easy, but I am suggesting something very do-able and uncomplicated. But, if you will, notice that the teaching begins with following the breath and letting mind and body become calm. Do you remember from the checking procedure how, before any mention of mantra, after opening and closing the eyes, you felt some quiet and calm, just naturally?

Did you realize anything or ever think about this?

You already knew how to be calm and quiet. It is my opinion that Mahesh’s teachings beyond establishing this insight is nothing more than a distraction from that calm and quiet, sidestepping the only meaningful reality, your own innate, knowable reality.

How can there possibly be any other basis for happiness in the world than knowing your own specific reality (your own colour)?

Cultivating this calm-and-quiet is the object of the Anapanasati Sutta. The method and teaching above (A Practical Guide) has been extremely helpful for me and I feel that if it is only read as an explanation it is helpful to understand the concept of mindfulness in the Buddhist tradition.

Further, in the The Satipatthana Sutta, we read how the Buddha established mindfulness in four REALITIES, the primary four realities of the individual, the person, YOU.

Lastly, I'll end with some cogent thoughts from Tucson, a regular commenter on this blog. Back in 2007 I shared what he said in a comment.

I will say that Sant Mat meditation, at least the basic technique of simran (mantra repetition), seems to me to have a dulling, dumbing-down effect that seems to interfere with intuitive perception.

Imagine you are in a wilderness at night. It is pitch black and you know there is a predator out there. All your being, all your senses are fully in the moment listening for some sound or movement to indicate where that predator is. You are fully absorbed in the present situation, in the immediacy of your current reality. No simran is necessary at this time and would actually be a hinderance to full awareness of what is. Your mind is totally quiet absorbing the sounds of the night because of the urgency of the situation. It is alert, ready.

This is a good non-meditation. Be fully present in whatever you are doing. The mind will wander off. No matter, it can't be helped. When you are fully aware again, just be that way.

Great advice from Tucson. Why would you repeat a mantra in your mind when your goal is to be aware of what exists in what I like to call really real reality?

It'd be ridiculous to remain focused on mentally repeating sex, sex, sex, sex, sex when a beautiful willing partner is lying next to you on a bed, arms outstretched for your embrace. 

Likewise, it'd be ridiculous to keep saying sunset, sunset, sunset, sunset, sunset as the REAL sun is dipping below the horizon, displaying gorgeous colors across the sky.

And even if your aim is religious, does it make any sense to utter God, God, God, God, God (or other supposed names of divinity) instead of being receptively open to whatever divine presence might be capable of being experienced at the moment?

Occasionally I still use a mantra, but more and more it seems pointless to speak repeated words inside my head. Life is going on all the time I'm awake and aware; experience is happening all the time I'm awake and aware.

A mantra now seems like an unnecessary distraction from life and experience. When I'm ballroom dancing, I don't think to myself dance, dance, dance, dance, dance. I just dance. 

 

"Magic" of Sant Mat guru-hypnotists explained

Hypnotism works. Sadly. Otherwise I would have spent the past forty-two years believing that I looked just like a young Paul Newman.

Below you'll find an email message I received a few days ago from someon who persuasively argues that what Sant Mat gurus do is take advantage of quasi-hypnotic suggestibility. Devoted disciples are told, over and over, that the guru has divine powers. They're also told, over and over, that they will experience certain mystical lights and sounds under the guru's direction.

Not surprisingly, some disciples say they've had such experiences. Then those tales get added to the store of Guru is God teachings, which are taught to more disciples. And the game goes on.

I say "game" because there is no demonstrable proof that either the guru is divine, or meditation experiences of his disciples truly reflect knowledge of higher realms of reality. Such proof would be necessary for Sant Mat to deserve the title of "Science of the Soul" that it wishes to claim.

Genuine science isn't certain of outcomes. Genuine science, in fact, is uncertain, open to unexpected findings, doubtful of dogmatism and just have faith. Yet faith in the guru usually is considered to be essential if a disciple is to have mystical experiences of the guru's divinity.

A form of hypnotism could be at work here. As it was during an assembly at Santa Clara High School, where I had a job as a counselor's aide for a few months after graduating with my B.A. in Psychology from San Jose State College.

The gym was filled with students watching a hypnotist do his thing. He brought a female student up on stage and hypnotized her. Then she was instructed, "Go find Paul Newman in the audience." She wandered down the gym floor, gazing up into the bleachers as she walked.

I was in the second or third row. She paused when she reached my section of the gym, then stepped onto the bleachers that separated us, put her arms around my neck, and hugged me. Made my day! (More than that, actually, since I still have such fond memories of the event.)

Maybe I was as good-looking as a youthful Paul Newman was back then. Or, more likely, I was one of the older looking males in the audience who the girl wasn't already familiar with (teachers, administrators). Whatever... I wasn't Paul Newman, but the girl gave every sign of believing that I was.

Here's the message from someone who is familiar with devoted disciples believing their guru is God. Seemingly equally mistakenly.

Hey Brian,

Every year or so I find myself reading a few articles on your church of the churchless. And every year or so I always feel like sending you an email straight away to thank you for your time and energy in sharing your analysis of the situation.

I resonate 100% with everything you say. I like honesty at all costs.

I just wanted to ask whether you have covered – what I feel is the key concept of the trickery – the fact that one’s subconscious will provide whatever we secretly desperately wish for as an inner light show – as admitted by Baba Faqir Chand.

I myself have had direct experience of a lucid dream with spectacular affects involving a sikh gentleman (provided by my subconscious half heartedly at first) which my subconscious (knowing my prior programming with the Sant mat long (philosophical) induction script quickly turned into “Gurinder Singh” for me.

However, my dedication to truth caused me to take another look at what was going on behind my desperation and I quickly but reluctantly realised that I was being played by myself and the Sant Mat Hypnotists. Not many have the honesty to turn down the ego gratification of “a self centered inner visual experience” for the scientific/psychological reality of the phenomena – there is not as much happy hormones released at the truth behind the phenomena in relation to the scenario that one might actually be one of the chosen ones!

Hence when I read the “How do you know I am a guru” article, the key deception will work something like this. You would need to meditate to see me inside to know that I am the true guru.

Now knowing how the subconscious works, the Fake guru who has been handed down the secret of the subconscious from his cohorts in crime (previous gurus) knows full well that after some time the more hypnotic of his followers will start seeing him inside and due to word of mouth the rest of the sheep (who literally see nothing) will blindly follow out of peer pressure and desperation.

So that’s it in a nut shell. No big deal. Guru spell (God’s Spell – Gospel) broken by logical analysis. I feel this needs to be the “Headline article”.

I have been meaning to get onto pub med and finding if the psychology community have done any research into the subconscious in relation to these inner visions. I have also wanted to see if pub med can deliver any research on the phenomena of hypnosis – as I feel this is the key to dispelling a lot of the trickery that has existed since the dawn of time.

In fact part of me seems to suspect that the psychology people have not spent as much time on this hypnosis phenomena as they should have due to conspiratorial reasons. E.g. black ops, taking all such work into secret study, as such knowledge is useful for controlling large masses of people in national politics via the media etc. etc. etc. The ugliness has no end to it!

Once again wishing you well. Stay healthy – it makes life so much less painful and good luck with that gum graft! [Note: that was three and a half years ago, my gums are all better now -- Brian]

P.S. It takes chains of steel to enslave a rational human, but all the rest may be enslaved by a belief.

(I told my email correspondent that "priming" is another psychological process that could explain how disciples believe they are experiencing something that isn't really there. Here's an article about it.)

Profound significance of "blowing Willie Nelson" joke

Last night my wife and I saw humorist David Sedaris at Salem's oh-so-cool historic Elsinore Theatre. There's a lot to like about Sedaris. He's gay, liberal, funny, ironic, cynical, profane, and a really good writer.

Also, thoughtful. Many of his jokes make you think. They've got layers of meaning. Here's my favorite joke, which I tweeted after the show, minus Sedaris' entertaining set-up to it.

What's the last thing you want to hear while blowing Willie Nelson? "I'm not Willie Nelson."

(Note to those who aren't conversant in American slang: "blowing" is synonomous with "giving a blow job," which is synonymous with oral sex performed on a male, a.k.a. fellatio. That Wikipedia link has some charming illustrative artwork, plus fascinating facts. Who knew that female bats perform fellatio to increase copulation time? "Blowing," of course, is sort of a strange term for this sex act, since it involves more sucking than blowing. Wikipedia: "The English noun fellatio comes from fellātus, which in Latin is the past participle of the verb fellāre, meaning to suck.")

I really liked this joke as soon as I heard it. So did my wife.

From the laughter in the packed audiorium, so did the rest of Sedaris' appreciative audience. But why? Well, why? isn't a question that usually should be asked after a joke is told.

Funny is funny. Period.

Sedaris himself, though, made some follow-up comments about the joke. He'd told it to a female employee at an airline check-in counter. When her reaction was more bemused than smiling, Sedaris said he pressed onward.

"Um, see, you'd be disappointed if you thought you were giving a blow job to Willie Nelson, and then the guy just turns out to be someone old with a bandana." 

(Nelson is 79; I'm a comparatively youthful 63; so I decided not to get seriously offended at this ageist joke, especially since I never wear a bandana, though I do share Nelson's short gray beard.)

Unlike the woman at the airline counter, I didn't need to have the joke explained to me.

I got it right away, in part because the joke has some universal qualities to it. Meaning, our attitude toward someone isn't based just on what we're directly experiencing about them at the moment, but also on the story that our mind is telling us about the person.

Willie Nelson is a cool dude. If you gave him a blowjob, it'd be something to talk about. "Do you want to hear about the time I blew Willie Nelson?" would elicit a much more positive reaction than "Do you want to hear about the time I blew an old gray-haired geezer wearing a bandana?" 

Likewise, "I'm devoted to the Pope, the emissary of Jesus, who is the Son of God and died for our sins so that we may enjoy eternal joy with our heavenly Father" is a lot more appealing than "I'm devoted to a well-off German guy who wears funny clothes and lords it over lots of people from his lavish palace in Italy."

Not long after I started this blog, I wrote Did I see God in first class? 

That post told the tale of how the mood in an airplane's coach section, where I and a bunch of other members of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (an Indian spiritual organization) were sitting, changed markedly upon the arrival in first class of the group's guru -- who is considered to be God in Human Form.

Except, at first I didn't recognize the Indian man who was wearing a white turban and blue jeans. He sat down in the row just ahead of my coach seat. I nodded politely, then went back to perusing the Alaska Airlines shopping magazine, or whatever else I was reading.

For me, the man was the equivalent of Sedaris' old gray-haired geezer wearing a bandana, aside from the fact that he was a dark-haired middle-aged man wearing a turban. He wasn't anybody special. I had no interest in, so to speak, getting down on my knees and giving him a devotional blow job.

But when the murmuring of lovestruck disciples around me caused me to realize who was sitting in first class, suddenly my attitude changed. Oh, my God! It's God! Well, back then I wasn't quite that enthusiastic and emotional toward the guru. I did view him as a spiritual celebrity though. 

So the blowing Willie Nelson joke points toward some important questions.

Since there's no convincing proof of any human's divine status, whether the person be alive or dead, wouldn't it be funny if religious believers are "servicing" supposed saints, prophets, gurus, masters, and sages who are really just ordinary people who'd say, if they were honest, "I'm not who you think I am."

Indeed, that'd be funny. Not ha-ha funny to most religious people, but I'd laugh. That's the nightmare of a devotee who believes their supposedly divine beloved is worthy of the slavish attention they've been giving to him or her.

What's the last thing you want to hear while surrendering your life to someone you believe is God? "I'm not God."

Hilarious.  

What if Jesus had acted like a rich Indian guru?

A few days ago "Jimi" left a comment on my blog post, Radha Soami Satsang Beas guru makes $254 million. He/she said, in part:

I've been reading this article and comments and I'm not sure what the issue is... It looks like BJ [Baba Gurinder Singh Ji, the guru] and family bought some shares and sold them and made a profit. What's wrong with that? Am I missing something? Is there something wrong with him being wealthy?

I replied:

Jimi, you are indeed missing something. Gurinder Singh got a special insider deal on the shares. He didn't buy them as a regular investor. The RSSB guru used his connections as God in Human Form to become rich.

The shares were essentially gifted to him by a disciple who also was a relative. RSSB initiates dominate the management of Religare, so there are inherent conflicts between Gurinder Singh's "spiritual" life and "personal" life.

Soon I might write a blog post about how the New Testament would look a lot different if Jesus had acted like Gurinder Singh has. That'll give you more insights into the weirdness of a "saint" using his sainthood to become hugely rich, which preaching the importance of returning to God and detaching from the illusion of this world.

Well, here's my take on how the New Testament might sound if Jesus acted like Gurinder Singh. I'm not very familiar with the Gospels, never having been much interested in Christianity.

So if I don't sound like the King James version, there's good reasons.

I think it's instructive to undertake this exercise (in addition to the fun I'll have doing it). After all, the gurus of Radha Soami Satsang Beas are considered to be God in Human Form, just as Jesus was. And the RSSB literature says Jesus was the "perfect living guru" of his time.

(Though Jesus might have married and had children, I'll assume his earthly relations included a mother, father, and siblings; thus the money that went to Gurinder Singh's sons will go to Jesus' parents in my Gospel story.)

So seemingly Gurinder Singh should have a similar attitude toward money and worldly pursuits as Jesus did. If so, an updated version of the Gospels would have included a passage somewhat like this...

And it came to pass that Jesus' ministry bore fruit, with multitudes gathering around him to hear how God, the Father, loved them. God especially loved his Son, for blessings were showered upon Jesus: he became vastly rich not only in the spirit, but also in money.

Through the grace of the Lord, two of Jesus' nephews became successful merchants. Their business prospered even as they came to look upon their uncle as God's messenger, not a mere relative. So the nephews bestowed upon Jesus' earthly mother and father a hundredfold gift of riches, returning unto them a dollar for each penny they had given to the nephews.

Which returneth unto Jesus, for his mother and father shared with him the riches that they had gained, making him one of the wealthiest men in Galilee. Jesus chose not to share his riches with the poor who flocked around him, preaching that they should find their treasure in heaven even as the Son of God traveled in great comfort and slept in luxurious homes.

His intimate disciples were pleased to be the servants of Jesus as much in his money-making work as in his ministry.

They became trusted advisors to Jesus' nephews, helping to make their business prosper even more greatly, adding to Jesus' wealth. The Son of God and his family became billionaires, even as those who flocked around him remained both poor in spirit and poor in money.

And when they heard Jesus proclaim, "Again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God," looking upon him quizzically, the Son of God would say:

Dudes, don't take me so literally! Irony. Think irony. Anyway, do what I say, not what I do.

They would struggle to understandeth, knowing that the ways of God are dark, mysterious, and beyond comprehension. Especially that word, "dudes," which none in Galilee had heard before.

My "Gospel story" is pretty darn close to the truth of how Gurinder Singh and his family became Indian billionaires. To learn the details, see here, here, and here.

Break free of the religious merry-go-round

I liked this image as soon as I saw it shared by someone in my Facebook feed.

Horses running free, coming vibrantly alive after they escape from their wooden attachment to a merry-go-round (or carousel). It resonated with my irreligious non-soul. 

Interestingly, Anne Wipf, the artist who created "Freedom - the Carousel," is big into fantasy. The image is posted on Elfwood, described as the world's largest sci-fi and fantasy community.

Well, each to his/her own.

I saw this image and thought free of fantastical religion!. Others look upon it and think free of restrictive reality! Fine. We're on the same wavelength of Free!

Which I look upon as meaning "open to changing," rather than unfettered from all outside influences.

I don't believe in free will (see here, here, here, and here). As a non-card-carrying Taoist, I do believe in the inevitability of change. There may be some invarying aspects to the cosmos, but as life is lived by us humans, constant changing is the only constant.

Browsing through "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism" this morning, I came across:

Ch-Ch-Changes
In the following quote, is it the man or the river that changes?

"No man ever steps in the same river twice."
-- Heraclitus 

Great question. Both seems like a good answer. But I might change my mind about that. 

Today I boxed up most of the books published by Radha Soami Satsang Beas that have been part of my life since 1970. I was an active member of this Indian spiritual/mystical organization for over thirty years.

Even though I'm no longer involved with the group, and don't subscribe to most of RSSB's "Sant Mat" dogmas any more, for quite a few years I stored the books away in the attic of our garage rather than giving them away or selling them.

Then, recently, I heard from someone in India who was looking for early editions of the RSSB books.

I emailed him back that most of mine were early editions. She isn't a member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas; she just enjoys reading Indian philosophy and doesn't like how RSSB has edited some of its books over time.

I realized that the time had come to take another step off of the religious merry-go-round. Those books had meant a lot to me. That's why I'd stored them, rather than getting rid of them. Some I'd read many times, highlighting passages in various colors over decades of re-reading.

Binders had come loose of some books that I'd had for over forty years. Handwritten notes were inserted in many pages, as I'd used the books as references for talks ("satsangs") that I'd given many times at RSSB meetings.

The Indian woman and I are trying to figure out how to get 87 pounds of books to New Delhi in the least expensive way. Any ideas would be appreciated (leave a comment). Surface shipping seems to have mostly disappeared, with the modern emphasis on air transport.

This morning I decided to figure out how many boxes it would take to ship the books. Answer: three 12 inch by 12 inch boxes. Not many. 

Seeing them on the kitchen floor, I thought about how much of my previous spiritual life was reflected in those three boxes, those 87 pounds of pages.

When I had gone through the books a few days before, determining the publication date and edition of each so the Indian woman could decide if he wanted a particular book, there were moments when I started to become emotional. I was remembering how much a certain book had meant to me.

But almost instantly I realized, that was then, this is now. I've changed. Change happens. Change is good. Also, inevitable. 

I've given up some beliefs. I've embraced others. That's how life goes, for as long as we're alive. I'm glad my books will be going to someone who appreciates them (assuming we figure out how to ship them). They used to be important to me.

Now, they're not.

Inner planes of creation... revealed (on a poster)

Impressively artistically cool. True? That's a whole other question. 

This arrived in my email inbox today. Could have come from God. If She uses a pseudonym email account.

Which seems to belong to Tassos Z. Who adapted the image from the Way of Mystics site. 

Uh-oh. God in Human Form doesn't like this blog.

Guess I'm doomed, salvation-wise. (Of course, I already knew that, having denied the Holy Spirit and embraced eternal damnation in exchange for a free DVD.)

Someone sent me some copies of Australian "Science of the Soul" newsletters, figuring that I might be interested in news about Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) -- the India based religious organization I was an active member of for over thirty years.

RSSB is led by a guru. The guru is believed to be God in Human Form.

So not surprisingly, whatever the guru says is taken very seriously by his devotees. Me, not so much. In fact, not at all any more.

Nonetheless, I was interested to read in the February 2012 newsletter that social networking sites and blogs have attracted the attention of God in Human Form.
Download Science of the Soul February 2012 

This how a newsletter item, "Correspondence Received from Dera" (RSSB headquarters), starts out:

With the increasing popularity of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as personal blogs and personal websites, the RSSB organization and the Master have been unwillingly drawn into an arena of endless chatter and frequent misinformation. Most of the individuals who actively participate in these discussions are innocent in their intentions.

They believe that these online discussions are somehow beneficial and that they can receive spiritual motivation, clarification, and inspiration through these chats. However we should not confuse these outside distractions with something of spiritual value. Such spiritual ideals are gained only through satsang, the reading of spiritual literature, simran, and meditation.

Interesting. 

Since 2004 I've written from time to time about my experiences with Radha Soami Satsang Beas. Not "endlessly," but fairly frequently. I'm not sure how the RSSB powers-that-be define "spiritual value." All I know is that I've gained a lot from writing about different approaches to spirituality, and learning how other people look upon these subjects.

RSSB publishes lots of books that are filled with lots of words. The RSSB guru gives lots of talks ("satsangs") that also are filled with lots of words. If you visit the Dera, headquarters of RSSB in the Punjab, you'll find people from both India and all over the world engaged in lots of conversations involving lots of words.

Yet somehow engaging in discussions, or reading, about spirituality on social networking sites and blogs is a no-no to the Radha Soami Satsang Beas organization.

Oh, except when the sites are run by RSSB. The last paragraph of this newsletter item says:

In order to inform people of Master's views on this matter, a decision was taken to put up official pages for RSSB, SOS/SSRC, SMRF, and Baba Gurinder Singh [the guru] on Facebook and other social networking sites. In this way, individuals participating in online discussions on Sant Mat and the Master will have an opportunity to view offically sponsored pages rather than become confused by sites which appear official but are not.

So the message is, online discussions aren't spiritually helpful, but if you're going to use the Internet in an attempt to juice up your spirituality, head to the official social networking RSSB sites (which don't seem to be active yet).

Thus if you're reading this, and are a RSSB disciple who believes the guru is God in Human Form, you'd better click your way elsewhere. However, if you want to live dangerously and risk damnation, read on.

What I disagreed most with is the statement that "spiritual ideals are gained only through satsang, the reading of spiritual literature, simran, and meditation." This is an other-worldly attitude that bothered me even when I was active in the RSSB organization.

("Simran" basically is mantra meditation, the repeating of a word or words to the exclusion of other thoughts.)

I no longer believe that spirituality, whatever that word means, can be separated from everyday life. Now I reasonate much more with the chop wood, carry water philosophy of Buddhism and Taoism. Anything, anywhere, at any time can be a "spiritual ideal" -- again, whatever those two words mean.

I've known RSSB disciples who paid little attention to their family (spouse and/or children), yet considered themselves to be saint-like when they headed off to India to spend weeks with the guru, doing what they thought was "selfless service" via volunteer work and meditation.

Well, selflessness and service begin right at home.

If we can't be decent with our family and friends in everyday life, or while interacting with other people on the Internet, what makes us think we're gaining anything from the "spiritual value" the newsletter says can only be gained through religious talks, reading of spiritual literature, and meditation?

But, hey, this is just my opinion, expressed on my blog. If you trust in the RSSB guru, you won't find anything of value in what I've said here, or in any comments left by other people. 

On the other hand, you might want to make up your own mind about what provides spiritual value, and what doesn't. Just a suggestion.

How I deprogrammed fundamentalism out of my brain

I got some great questions in an email today, boldfaced below.

Brian, out of curiosity.... I was wondering after you left RS [Radha Soami Satsang Beas]... How did you deprogram all the fundamentalism out of your brain?

The whole "The world is a bad place, don't get "involved" in worldly things....  and pursuing things in the world to find happiness is bad...

How did you start to finally pursue your own happiness, without the fundamental programming snake coming in and poisoning your progress?

I told the person who wrote me I'd reply via a blog post tonight, adding that I'd been planning to write about something else, but found these questions more enticing.

However, on my evening dog walk a little while ago it struck me that my previously envisioned theme actually fit in nicely with How did you deprogram fundamentalism and pursue your own happiness? 

Our older dog, Serena, is almost twelve and a half. That's old in dog years, especially for a larger dog (she's a 70 pound Shepherd/Lab mix). Serena seems to really enjoy our daily two-mile loop walk along a little used two lane road in our rural neighborhood. 

She used to walk really fast, almost trotting, the sights and smells were so enticing. Now, for much of the walk, I feel like I'm almost in slow motion. My wife, who is a habitually fast walker, asks me, "How do you handle Serena walking so slowly."

My answer:

"Because this walk is one of her joys in life. She's old. She isn't going to live much longer. Being a dog, Serena doesn't know she will die fairly soon, but I do. I want to make her moments as enjoyable as possible, since after she's dead, almost certainly our dog won't experience anything. For forever. She'll be dead.

So for as long as Serena is alive, and can walk even haltingly, or limpingly, I'm going with her on our evening walk around the loop. If it eventually takes us hours, that's fine. I'll walk as slow as she can go. Serena deserves to drink in the smells and sights -- deer...another dog...squirrel...ooh, ooh! cat! -- because this is her one and only life. For forever."

Somewhat strangely, when I was a religious true believer and accepted the dogmas of reincarnation, soul survival after death, and the prospect of eternal life in a heavenly realm, I was much more afraid of death than I am now.

I'm pretty sure that I never actually believed what I thought I did. It was more that I wanted those things to be true.

My fear of death testified to that: fundamentalism tries to push truth out of sight where it can't conflict with dogma. But truth has a way of making itself known... through feelings, emotions, intuitions, inner voices that speak honestly to us when we open ourselves up to what they have to say.

Eventually I got tired of lying to myself.

I grew weary of being two people, one who had fantasies of being chosen by God and the guru to experience eternal life in divine realms unattainable by the vast majority of humanity (including my non-initiated wife), the other a decidedly imperfect, average, often-confused man who was doing his best to live life as happily and wisely as possible, but with mixed success.

Accepting that I was nobody special... what a relief! To once again feel that I was simply a normal person with a mix of virtues and vices, good and bad qualities, positive and negative habits... what a joy!

Our dog, Serena, can spend several minutes sniffing a particularly sniffable clump of grass. This used to irritate me a bit, because while she did her dog-thing, I'd be standing there holding the leash, thinking about all the important human stuff I planned to do when the dog walk was over. 

Now, I'm happy to watch Serena sniff away.

I no longer find it easy to divide life into important and unimportant aspects, into meaningful and unmeaningful activities. I used to think that several hours of meditation was the most important thing I could do each day. Today, observing Serena gorge her highly sensitive dog nose with scents only she could appreciate, I was happy doing what I was doing.

Walking with my dog on a country road, both of us experiencing moments of everyday life that now strike me as being the infinitely precious reality which I used to believe lay in a transcendent realm.

Not true. It's right here. Right now.

That's what I know. For myself. Can't prove it to anybody else. Have no desire to. I'm just telling the truth as I see it, as I experience it, as I live it. It's a fundamentalism-destroying truth, because religious dogma can survive only in a there and then, not a here and now.

I just poured myself what was left of a bottle of Trader Joes' Green Fin organic red wine. I like the taste. After I finish this blog post I'm going to watch a West Coast Swing dance instruction DVD. My wife and I have forgotten most of what we learned about West Coast Swing in a beginning class, and we want to take a "Level 2" class this month, so we need to do some brushing-up.

Simple stuff. Real stuff. It's enough for me now. Plenty enough. 

What permeates my consciousness now isn't abstract, conceptual, theological, dogmatic notions about what some divine reality might be like. It's the realization that every moment is infinitely precious, because before my birth and after my death stretches an infinity of me-not-being-me.

Unconscious. Not existing.

I'll be talking to someone at a coffee shop. Suddenly -- unbidden, uncontrollably -- a strong feeling will wash over me of this moment never will come again; in fact, one day no moments ever will come again. This feeling makes everything more vibrant, more lively, more real.

The feeling reminds me of the familiar Zen story about a man, two tigers, and a strawberry. How sweet it tasted! That's how life is for me much of the time now. After giving up religion and a belief in an afterlife, I've vastly deepened my appreciation for presentlife.

That West Coast Swing DVD beckons. I have no idea if this answer to the emailed questions will make any sense to anybody. No matter. Life isn't a question, and it isn't an answer. Life is just what it is. Don't miss it by looking beyond to a fantasized other life.

Better to be a dog sniffing a pile of poop, in the really real world, than a saint imagining himself or herself in a realm that doesn't exist.

Radha Soami Satsang Beas buys a $4.5 million office building

Must be God's will.

Contributions given by devotees of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, an India-based religious organization, aren't being used to feed the poor or shelter the homeless, but to purchase a 34,000 square foot office building in Irvine, California for $4.5 million.

A fresh look at Seth Shiv Dayal Singh (Soami Ji)

Those who are interested in the history of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), a contemporary Sant Mat movement headquartered in India, will want to read the following message I received from "SM Dass" (a pseudonym).

Others won't understand much about what is being talked about, yet will be able to follow the gist of the arguments.

Since I was a member of RSSB for over thirty years, I told SM Dass that his analysis was intriguing and I'd like to share it on my blog. I've added a few explanatory terms in [brackets], and some links.

By "intriguing" I don't mean that I agree with the thoughts below, just that SM Dass seems to have put considerable effort into researching the early history of RSSB and how the organization's teachings relate to traditional Sikhism and mystics revered by Sikhs.

My favorite part of the message is how "Radha Soami" might actually mean "Lord of Radha," the nickname of Soami Ji's wife.

I told my wife that I could be called "Laurel Soami" (Lord of Laurel). Her silence potentially meant agreement. However, and this is bad news for my Lordship, I have a feeling that Laurel's non-response said too ridiculous to even acknowledge.

Here's the message. 

Let's begin at the source, i.e with the supposed originator of it all, Soami ji Dayal Maharaj ji.

1) Firstly, he had no Guru himself. There are many RS [Radha Soami] followers who believe that he was initiated by Tulsi Sahib of Hathras but Soami Ji's very own younger brother, Chacha Lala Partap Singh wrote in the Life Account of Soami Ji clearly that Soami Ji had no guru and neither did he take updesh/naam/initiation from anyone. Yes, he did attend satsangs of Tulsi Sahib Ji but did not take initiation from him. 

If you are familiar with the great Kabir Sahib Maharaj, then you may be aware that he wrote:

"Guru bin mala ferteh
Without a Guru they circle the mala/beads ,

Guru bin dehteh dhaan,
Without a Guru they give initiation

Guru bin dhono nishfal hai
Without a Guru, both are useless,

Pucho vedh puraan,
Go ask the Vedas and Puranas"

There are many accounts by every great saint that has come to this earth, all preaching the need for a True Guru. If saints like Kabir Maharaj or Guru Nanak Maharaj didn't have Guru's themselves, then that would make them hypocrites!

2) Secondly, Soami did not start off the RS faith. It was Rai Saligram. In the book Sar Bachan, you'll find an account where Soami ji says that "My path is that of Satnaam and Anami. Rai Saligram has started this. Let him continue with it". 

3) Thirdly, The word Radha Soami is not really a reference to the True Lord or "lord of the soul". That definition was concocted some time after Soami ji.  The word "Radha" was the nickname of Narayani Devi (wife of Soami ji) , whom Chacha Partap Singh and Rai Saligram used to refer to as, and when they were referring to Soami ji himself, they used to say Radha Soami, meaning Soami/master/lord of Radha a.k.a Narayani Devi.

In India, it was very commonly widespread to refer to the husband as "Soami/Swami" and people used to take the wifes name first, accompany it with Soami/Swami to refer to the husband. e.g, Shiv ji's wife is also called Uma so whenever it is written or said "Uma Soami", then it's understood that the reference is going to Shiv ji i.e. Soami of Uma. 

4) Fourthly, on many occasions, I heard a few RS followers say that a sign of a true saint is one who does not let anyone bow in front of them or touch their feet (which as you may know is a sign of great respect in India). But in Soami Ji's life account, Chacha Partap Singh writes that one of Soami ji's close disciples, Bukki, used to 'suck his toe' because she used to think that she got the same feeling as if she was drinking milk. When people used to come to Soami ji to pay their repects, he used to tell them to bow to the other foot which is not being sucked. Is this the sign of a Saint?

5) Soami ji used to smoke the pipe/hooka/tobacco. Now, some people may argue that what hindrance is smoking in spirituality. Those people obviously haven't heeded the teachings. Kabir Maharaj clearly expresses the abstination of bhaang/tobacco/hooka and says that those who do are deemed to never get salvation but more a repeat in this cycle numerous times. 

6) At the time of his death, Soami ji was more concerned about what was going to happen on earth than where he was going. He was still concerned about the welfare of Bukki for some reason. After he passed, Bukki used to remain unconscious for hours on end, and Chacha Partap singh writes that she used to see him. 

On seeing Soami Ji, she was told by him to prepare the bed, food and hookah for him, just as she used to when he was alive.  After making the preparations, she used to eat the food herself, smoke the pipe herself, and then remain unconscious in the bed herself. In other words, the spirit of Soami ji went into Bukki Ji, even though his aim was Sachkhand.  If this was the result of a so called "param Sant", what will be the result for the rest of the followers of RS?

7) If you aware of Kaal [subject to death, as opposed to Akal, immortal] then you should know that the 5 names given in RS all belong to Kaal and are up to his level only. The 5 names were actually taken from the original bani/sacred speech of Kabir Sahib Maharaj called "Santo Shabadai Shabad bikhana".  The difference being RS changed the last name from Shaktee to Satnaam. 

Now, in his book, Tulsi Sahib of Hathras writes that the 5 names all belong to Kaal. The truth is , 'Satnaam' in itself is not a mantra to repeat over and over again.  It is just an indication of what the Name is. Sat means true, naam, means name so its just a reference to say the Name is True or True Name. Soami refers to 'Satnaam' as being the Name of the Lord, the place where He resides, the name of that Shabad. That's like saying the wheels of a car are called car, the driver of a car is called car, and the petrol of a car is called car, everything is called car. 

Actually, Satnaam is made up of 2 mantras, 2 words, which we are advised to recite.

In the Guru Granth Sahib, Kabir Maharaj Says 

"Kehai Kabir akshar dho bhaak
says Kabir speak/say those two words

hoega kasam tho laega raakh.
if he is authorised then he shall protect you"

Even Guru Nanak has written

"Soee Guru poora kehaavai jo dho akshar ka pedh butaavai"
That Guru is called complete who TELLS  the identity of the two words. 

The latter quote was taken from Sant mat prakaash  vol. 4 as written by Sawan Singh ji.

Both Guru Nanak and Kabir Maharaj talk about 2 words and yet RS give 5??? 

The Bhagavad Gita says "Om, Tat, Sat, iti nirdesai, brhmnai, trivdidai, simritai" meaning Om+Tat+Sat is the final decision/ final for that Lord which should be recited. Tat and Sat are coded words and not the real words to be recited.  Om+Tat = Satnaam and Sat= Saarnaam, its the One word that will lead to salvation.

Guru Nanak writes

"Ek akhar jo Gurmukh jaapai,
One word that the Gurmukh (one's who face is towards the Guru) recites, 

Tis ki nirmal hoi"
they shall be purified. 

This one word is the final Saarnaam which leads to salvation.

I have seen the proof myself that this satnaam made up of two words, is the same naam that Guru Nanak used to recite. Kabir Sahib Maharaj also writes about the same two words, made very clear in His Granth/spititual text. 

8) Meditation will not lead to salvation. RS advocate the need to meditate as much as you can, close your eyes and ears and look inside. See the lights, hear the sounds etc, focus at the eye centre.  What they fail to realise is that everything within this body is of Kaal's, all the lights, sounds etc, are of Kaal and not of the ultimate reality. 

Maya made a false creation within this body and imitated the true regions/abodes. Kabir Maharaj says that the true abode is way beyond this body, it doesn't even exist in the body. None of the Saints which I've mentioned herein meditated for hours on end. What they did do is recite, (simar/simran) with each breath. They did Jaap whenever and wherever. There were no resrictions or rules. When you wake, when you sleep, when you get up, when you sit down, when you eat etc. They recited the naam with each breath and morsel of food, not restricted to 2.5 hours or more a day [the length of time RS disciples are supposed to meditate daily].   

Kabir Sahib Maharaj says

"with each breath recite the naam, 
don't let any go to waste, 
for who knows when it shall come or when it will go"

9) Do you know of any true Saints who were multimillionaires who actively took an interest in generating millions? 

Kabir Sahib Mahraj used to say

"Oh sahib, only give me that much so that I may survive. 
Let not myself, my family go hungry and neither my guests"

Also, I have never known any true saint to sing contemporary songs of their time, whereas the current so called Baba of RS [Gurinder Singh Dhillon], revels in singing contemporary songs. 

It's been written that Kabir Mahraj cried on the account of not reciting the naam for 2 breaths/ 2 seconds, and here we have a so called saint who sings contemporary songs, nothing related to naam, for hours. 

10) Soami ji in one of his writings says that 

"Satyug, treta, dwapur have passed, nobody knew the path of shabad"
and that the true lord with his grace gifted the world with Soami ji in this age of Kalyug.

This statement completely ignores the fact that Kabir Mahraj came in all four ages, as written in his Bani. He even gives an account as to what his names were in each age. 

Religion is wrong, but it feels right to believers

So how is it that religious beliefs are almost certainly wrong, yet the vast majority of people in the world accept them? What makes religiosity so attractive? 

A central theme of my previous post, New Scientist looks at the science of religion, is that belief in the supernatural comes naturally to humans. Early on in childhood development we understand that "agents" with desires, intentions, and a consciousness like our own exist even though we can't perceive these beings.

It isn't much of a jump to divine unseen agents, gods and other entities.

But after listening to a Point of Inquiry podcast interview with Jonathan Haidt, author of the recently published "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion," I got some additional insights into why people believe.

Both Haidt and his host, Chris Mooney, agreed that the stance of so-called New Atheists is too simplistic. "There's no demonstrable evidence for religious beliefs, so anyone who believes them is a fool." 

Maybe that sentiment isn't stated quite so bluntly by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and their fellow New Atheist advocates, but it's close to their basic attitude.

By contrast, the New Scientist articles about the "why religion?" question point to causes that are deeper and more complex than a simple failure by people to comprehend that what they believe is factually wrong, untrue, out of touch with reality.

Haidt said that religions appeal for many reasons, not least of which is the pleasing sense of community that believers enjoy. For example, they assemble in a church, mosque, temple, gurdwara, meditation hall, or wherever with like-minded people, sharing a common view of what life is all about.

This does indeed seem to be more of a motivation for sticking with a religious organization than a purely cognitive sense of theological truthfulness.

For over thirty years I was an active member of an India-based spiritual group, Radha Soami Satsang Beas. I gave lots of talks ("satsangs") at RSSB meetings, almost always observing that the attention, enthusiasm, and energy level of those in attendance rose markedly after the talk was over and we turned to chit-chatting -- either at the meeting place or a coffee house.

Sure, if asked why we had joined the group, and continued to stick with it, we'd offer up "politically correct" reasons relating to the marvelous sophisticated mystical teachings which were so obviously reflective of how the cosmos truly was. 

In truth, though, we all liked the feeling of being part of something bigger than ourselves, a community which shared an appealing belief system and supported its members in navigating through life with the aid of a certain religious compass.

So since religions are popular for reasons other than their truth-content, atheists and agnostics aren't going to be very successful in deconverting true believers by merely pointing out the unreasonableness of what is believed. 

I've come to accept that insight, partly by reflecting upon my own experience. I don't think I ever was really convinced that the spiritual beliefs I held were true. And I also don't think I ever was convinced that the system of meditation which purportedly would confirm the truth of those beliefs was capable of doing the job.

Jonathan Haidt said, matter of factly, that of course he's an atheist, along with almost all of his fellow psychologists and other researchers who study religiosity/morality. His gripe with the New Atheists isn't that God exists and religions are right. Rather, Haidt seems to go so far as to look upon scientists as having a belief system which isn't all that different from the religious variety.

I haven't listened to all of the podcast. But I could tell that the host, Chris Mooney, disagreed with Haidt on this point. As do I. And other listeners. (Check out comments about the interview on the Point of Inquiry web site.)

Haidt said our intuitions and emotions are the "elephant" on which the "rider" of reason sits. He implied, and maybe stated directly, that science is as prone to this neuroscientific fact as religion is. In response, Mooney asked him whether truth is one of the criteria people use to arrive at intuition and emotion laden moral judgments.

I didn't hear a straight answer from Haidt, which was surprising. After all, Haidt must accept that some truths are truer than others. If not, why has he written several books? Why does he carry out the scientific research that he does?

Indeed, Haidt said that the community of science is effective in distinguishing truth from fiction, reality from unreality. He thinks, though, that individual scientists are as prone to truth-shading as religious true believers are.

I don't agree.

The examples he gave were unconvincing, like researchers who refuse to acknowledge that behavior differences between men and women are driven by hormones, or that physical differences (like "white men can't jump") between the races aren't real.

Sure, scientists have blind spots, biases, unexamined beliefs that cloud their view of reality. However, secularists are much more willing to change their minds than religious true believers. Just look at how much the Catholic Church has changed in the past few thousand years or so, compared to how much scientific knowledge has advanced.

Take me, a subject of considerable interest to myself. 

For about thirty-five minutes today I listened to Jonathan Haidt explain his viewpoints in the interview with Chris Mooney. That was enough to cause me to change my mind about some issues that, previously, I'd been pretty confident about. Such as, demonstrating that a religious belief almost certainly isn't true should be enough to prod someone into questioning their devotion to a belief system.

I'm open to new ideas, fresh perspectives, evidence I hadn't considered before -- and more so now than when I was deeply entrenched in a guru-based, supernatural-embracing, just-have-faith religious organization.

So, yes, I accept Haidt's contention that religiosity is founded on much more than a simple "I believe in X." But I can't equate religious belief with scientific belief, or morality that's capable of providing good utilitarian reasons for why something is right/wrong with a "thou shalt" morality.

Mystical experiences. What's the big deal with them?

Mystical experiences were on my mind today, after someone left a comment on a blog post inquiring about whether I'd gone inside while meditating or heard sacred sounds.  

I replied. But then I thought, "What's the big deal with supposed mystical experiences?"

Most religions, forms of spirituality, and philosophical systems don't pay much attention to them. Most Christians or Buddhists aren't out to see fantastical scenes of the astral plane, or bliss out on a supernatural light and sound show.

Their goals are to become better people; to learn what reality is all about; to be of service to humanity; and other thoroughly non-mystical aspirations. 

I don't agree with most of Christian dogma, and much of the Buddhist viewpoint. However, I've come to appreciate that if any good is to come from pursuing an organized form of spirituality, it should manifest as evident goodness in how the practitioner relates to other people and the outside world.

For many years I was a member of an India-based organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), which emphasized meditation aimed at hearing divine sound and seeing divine light. Quite a few other offshoots of the Sant Mat movement preach the same gospel.

I had a few experiences along those lines, but I can't say they had any spiritual significance.

Lots of people hear bell tones, ringing, and such inside their head. They're tinnitus sufferers. And even if inner sounds or lights arise from some other source, like sensory deprivation via lengthy meditative withdrawal from perceptions of the outside world, what's the big deal with them?

When I was in college during the 60's (decade, not my age), I had many mystical experiences. You can too. Just find some LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, peyote, or other psychedelic substance, ingest it, and wait a little while.

I experienced amazing insights into the nature of existence. (See here and here.) So what?

Did those experiences have any lasting effect on my personality, my character, my relationships, or anything else? No. Likewise, do non-drug-aided mystical experiences have any similar lasting effects? Sometimes, it seems, judging from the number of "I almost died and saw Jesus" books on the market. 

However, those almost died and went to heaven purported experiences are much different from meditating and hearing some sounds, or seeing some lights. In my thirty-plus years of talking with lots of fellow RSSB meditators, I can't recall anyone who said he/she had become a markedly different person after a mystical experience(s).

My observations of high-ranking RSSB disciples bore this out. Those who had been in the organization the longest, and who presumably had the most meditation to their karmic credit, didn't demonstrate laudatory qualities lacking in ordinary people.

This included the guru himself, who is considered to be the very essence of divine light and sound. I found him to be an interesting, charismatic guy, but not any wiser, ethical, or compassionate than countless other human beings.

Again, what's the big deal with mystical experiences if there's no sign that those who purportedly have had them are any different from, or better than, ordinary folks?

David Chapman makes this point in his typically creative fashion in "Wholeness, Connection, and Meditation: Competing Visions." Excerpt:

      And as for connection:

• Monism promises “total connection with the Absolute Infinite” (or with “the whole universe,” as though that were a single thing). But meaningful connections can only be made with specific, finite beings in this here-and-now world.
• To achieve unity, internalizing meditation deliberately cuts you off from everyday reality, which is supposedly a distraction and not spiritual enough.
• You are supposed to “turn inward,” to find a “profound inner experience” that connects you with the divine reality. This is nonsensical. Experiences are not connections; connections aren’t inside you; you can’t connect yourself with all things by cutting yourself off from them.
• In practice, monists’ relationships with other people, and with their physical environment, usually become godawful messes. Monist practice makes you self-obsessed, unreliable, and unwilling to deal with mundane practicalities. 

Unauthorized photo of Gurinder Singh Dhillon

Ah, this feels so deliciously tabloid'ish. I received a photo of Gurinder Singh Dhillon, guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, from an utterly anonymous source.

This wouldn't be newsworthy if the guru wasn't so camera-shy. To my knowledge there are only a few authorized photos of Gurinder Singh Dhillon (he's at the top left in the Google Images search).

When I did security volunteering for RSSB in the 1990's, I was more than a little astonished to observe the guru waving "no, no!" at someone who was taking a photo of him in a public place from quite a ways off.

The poor guy was asked to surrender his film (what cameras used back then), which almost certainly was an illegal request. This happened in Hawaii, which so far as I know is subject to the Constitution of the United States.

Anyway, here's the photo. Photos, actually, as I got an altered one and the original showing others at the funeral Gurinder Singh attended a year or two ago.

My letter to a supposed Godly guru

As noted in my previous post, devotees of various Indian "Sant Mat" movements believe that the gurus who head up these groups are GIHF -- God in human form. If such were true, Jesus is alive and well in various bearded, turbaned male bodies.

Including that of Gurinder Singh, guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB). I was an active member of RSSB for over thirty years. Near the end of my involvement with the organization I had quite a bit of personal contact with Gurinder Singh. 

I had several private interviews with the guru, and met with him in some other group sessions. We also corresponded by mail about several books that I wrote under the auspices of Radha Soami Satsang Beas.

Recently I've been resonding to emails from someone who is highly interested -- perhaps "mildly obsessed" is a better way to put it -- in learning details of how and why I de-converted from the Sant Mat belief system.

I've told him that why? is a problematic question when it comes to complex human behavior. None of us is privy to the unconscious workings of the brain. Yet neuroscientists know that most of the why's behind the what's of our actions and thoughts aren't available to conscious awareness.

I can give reasons for what I do, as can you.

Whether those reasons bear much resemblance to brain-based reality is a whole other matter. So I've told the guy to read the posts on this blog in the "Radha Soami Satsang Beas" category to understand my viewpoint on the "why?" question, realizing that it's impossible for anyone (including me) to know exactly why I do the stuff that I do.

However, another question I got asked is easier to answer: what was the last communication I had with Gurinder Singh before I departed RSSB for other spiritual locales? Rummaging through my Return to the One files yesterday, it didn't take me long to find the April 17, 2003 letter to Baba Gurinder Singh ("Baba" is a term of respect). 

Now, I realize that the letter won't be of much interest to anyone other than those who are curious about how my book about Plotinus ended up being published by me, rather than RSSB, or are into the whole guru-disciple thing and want to see how a disciple (moi) speaks to a guru about a volunteer task he's taken on.

I hadn't read this letter for many years. Perusing it yesterday, I was impressed with myself. I'd forgotten how generous and respectful I was right up until the end of my relationship with Radha Soami Satsang Beas.

In the letter I talk about how files of two books have been given to RSSB: Return to the One, and a rewrite of God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder -- which was distributed by RSSB until the publisher went out of business and new copies of the book became unavailable.

Brian-bashers, who are heard from regularly in disparaging comments on this blog and emails to me, have this notion of my Enormous Ego firmly in mind. They like to believe that I left Radha Soami Satsang Beas because the organization wouldn't go along with my egocentric efforts to have the Plotinus book published exactly as I wanted it.

Not true. 

After about seven years of research, writing, reviewing, and copious re-writing, the letter to Gurinder Singh shows that I happily gave RSSB Return to the One to publish, or not, as they saw fit. After this book was put on hold by RSSB for nine months, and didn't show any sign of coming back to life, I decided -- entirely reasonably -- to go ahead with publishing the book on my own.

But I fulfilled my commitment to the guru, and organization, which I was still a part of at that time. I had agreeed to write a book about Plotinus, a marvelous Greek philosopher, as part of a "Mystics of the West" series.

No pay. No royalties. Just for the satisfaction of learning about Plotinus' teachings, and sharing that knowledge in a readable fashion with people who wouldn't find the scholarly books about Plotinus comprehensible.

Radha Soami Satsang Beas was invited to publish its own version of my book, editing as desired the draft I'd sent to India. However, I told the guru that I wasn't willing to dilute or misinterpret Plotinus' philosophy in an attempt to make his teachings match up with the spiritual worldview of RSSB. 

So kudos to me. Re-reading the letter, I come off sounding even better than I'd remembered. I love me! (If that's a sign of ego, so be it. Long live ego, and long live love.)

Here's the letter:
Download April 2003 letter to Gurinder Singh 

Sant Rajinder Singh: "godman" revealed as ordinary guy

Christians might be surprised to know that Jesus is alive and well, right here on Earth. Not the historical Jesus who died on the cross several thousand years ago, but other humans who share Jesus' divinity, his "son of God" status.

Such is the teaching of Sant Mat movements.

They're based in India and have an affinity with Hinduism and Sikhism. A central Sant Mat tenet is that God-realization requires initiation ("baptism") by a perfect living guru who is considered to be God in human form.

Just like Jesus!

Which makes these Sant Mat movements appealing to people who want a personal relationship with a Jesus figure, but prefer someone they can physically interact with, not a son of God who has departed heavenward.

Sant ("Saint") Rajinder Singh is the purported godman who heads up the Science of Spirituality (SOS) branch of Sant Mat.

He's billed as a spiritual master "dedicated to helping people realize themselves as soul" who "grants seekers a firsthand experience of their soul by putting them in direct contact with the Light and Sound of God."

Sounds like a highly elevated dude. If you were a disciple of this supposed modern-day Jesus, you'd expect that Rajinder Singh would demonstrate divine qualities -- such as exceptional love, compassion, wisdom, understanding.

Heck, probably even omniscience, since Rajinder Singh is a manifestation of God's creative power.

However, below is the story of someone who experienced a disappointingly ordinary Rajinder Singh. This person emailed me a few days ago, recommending some books I might like, and mentioning three and a half years of Rajinder Singh discipleship which ended after a shocking encounter with the guru.

Here's the tale:

Hello there Brian. About Sant Rajinder Singh Ji:

The feeling or belief that has been cultivated in these spiritual paths/organizations is probably familiar to you. That Indian guy is supposed to be a Perfect Master! A living Jesus Christ!  Am I right?

I don't want to speak at great length about how and for what reason I was initiated, it is not relevant. The NEGATIVE shock for me came 3 years ago. It was a incident that put Rajinder Singh's godman properties to the test and opened my mind for good. This guy is the clown of the town.

May 2009.  My late beloved father is sick. He has been diagnosed with lung cancer. I bought a ticket and visited the "living Christ" in Prague, Czech Republic, for some advice (chemo or alternative ways of healing, etc).

In the usual satsang setting Rajinder Singh meets with every one of the satsangis [disciples] at the end of the meeting. I was waiting for him to come in front of my seat. Beside me there was a young German couple with a bunch of photos of their new car. Right next to them I was holding a tiny photo of my dear father. My mind was in a storm.

Now watch this sequence in your mind:

-- The "master" came in front of the Germans.

-- They were flooding him with silly questions about the purchase of their new car and were asking him dozens of questions about their new house!!!  PATHETIC waste of about 7 minutes. Rajinder Singh, the Indian 'master', gave them some replies and dealt seriously with them. I was saying to myself: "What the hell am I doing here?"

-- Finally "He" finished with them, and greeted me as he was passing quickly to the satsangis next to me. I called out "Master, wait!"

-- I stood up. I passed him my father's picture, saying that my father was sick. I didn't have a chance to describe my father's medical situation.

-- As a supposed god-embodied and partially omnipotent guru he could have spent more than 20 seconds with me. He could have asked me more questions about my problem, if he had really understood my critical situation. From the pain in my eyes any good psychologist would be curious to ask me more questions!

My heart was aching like hell. As a living Christ he could have said something more divine or insightful or spiritual to someone who was intended to feel death in his family.

Do you know what he did say during the 10 seconds he stayed with me and looked at the picture? "HE WILL BE/FEEL BETTER!"  He said that my father would feel better or something like that. My personal Jesus devoted 10 minutes blessing the German car, and gave me a shitty FAST FOOD answer, full of generality and emptiness. 

Because my father was not in terminal stage at that time, he was driving, eating etc. He was feeling good.

December 2009.  My dear father died. As a family we gave death a great battle. I discovered that my father was a saint/martyr who endured pain and suffering. Probably I lost precious time with mind trap by believing in promiscuous miracle working. But now I feel more free and powerful than ever. 

It was nice to have a word with you, Brian.

Sententiously: In my darkest hours, Rajinder Singh, my personal godman, that well-fed jerk, uttered a sentence of four words and left. A three year long misconstruction had finally collapsed to pieces. 

"I think the world has had too many perfect masters, and popes, and mahatmas, and other such pretenders. Finding a perfect master is ideal only if your desire is to become a perfect slave."
      --Robert Anton Wilson

Now, I'm sure devout Sant Mat followers will excuse Rajinder Singh's behavior in various predictable ways. (For over thirty years I was a devoted member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, another Sant Mat group, so I'm familiar with these rationalizations.) 

Which include...

No one can judge a guru's actions.
The guru was testing this person's faith.
Gurus act like ordinary human beings to mask their divinity. 
Expecting attention from the guru is an act of ego which won't be rewarded.
God, and gurus, behave in mysterious ways.
The father did "feel better." After he died. 

Here's the common denominator of these excuses for a guru acting like a jerk: there's no way to know whether a Sant Mat godman is a divine being from his outward behavior or statements. Well, this is the same as saying "the existence of God must be accepted on faith."

It turns out, then, that Sant Mat and Christianity indeed are much the same. But not in the way Sant Mat says -- that both religions are founded on teachings from a Son of God. 

Rather, the divinity of gurus like Rajinder Singh is supported by just as much evidence as exists for the divinity of Jesus: zero. These gurus are just ordinary guys who sometimes act like jerks.

Like the rest of us. 

Ah, the wrath that awaits us at death--Satsangi Revenge 101!

Here's David Lane's great response to some highly judgmental (and theologically questionable) rants by a Sant Mat follower on a recent blog post.

I say "theologically questionable" because Sant Mat teachings, Radha Soami Satsang Beas variety, at least, say that every disciple/initiate, wayward or not, will return to God within four lifetimes under the guidance of the perfect living guru, a.k.a. "God in human form."

So I'm saved! Doubly saved, since I was baptized Catholic. Doesn't that get me entry to purgatory, at minimum? (I'm vague about the details of Catholic dogma; never got confirmed, thank God.)

David writes on the Yahoo Radha Soami Studies discussion group that he administers:

Recently over on Brian Hines' blog (the church of the churchless):

A poster, who I assume is a satsangi (given the content), is miffed at Brian (and me) for his various critiques of Radhasoami, etc.

What I found both intriguing and amusing was this particular rejoinder by the poster who goes by the name of Cam,

"As far as this blog owner and David lane, at least they will live out the rest of their lives somewhat satisfied because their egos got stroked. But come the day of their deaths they are going to be very unhappy campers (and that is an understatement) as the Masters have also clearly described what awaits those who take vows before God and then not only dishonor them, but mock Him besides (and that is exactly what they both have done - extensively)."

So, in an inverse of Bill Murray's classic take on what the Dalai Lama was going to give him [full consciousness at death] for being his caddy (see Caddyshack), apparently Brian and I will being given the wrath of god treatment since the infinite being just doesn't like bloggers who mock......

And as Bill would say, "I got that going for me.... which is nice."

Of course, Cam's rhetoric reminds me of what one priest once told me when I had doubts about Catholicism.

Different religions, same curses.

With kudos to Hines for publishing Cam's invective.

Does religious familiarity breed contempt?

I'm amused when other people try to understand why I did something -- like diassociate myself from the religious organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), that I was an active member of for over thirty years.

Heck, I don't even know why I do stuff much of the time. None of us does. Neuroscience tells us that most of the brain/mind's activity occurs outside of conscious awareness. A desire, thought, inclination, motivation, or whatever pops up and we act on it.

But where it came from or what made it rise into awareness is a mystery. To ourselves. To other people.

Regardless, we humans erroneously believe that the workings of the amazingly complex Homo sapiens consciousness can be reduced to platitudes. 

Today I got an email from someone who described a conversation he had with a senior RSSB "sevadar" (volunteer, basically) after he wondered how a disciple like me, after decades of devotional practice, would leave the guru-centered organization.

The response: "familiarity breeds contempt." Also, that I wanted to publish books outside of RSSB control, and this wasn't permitted. Both assertions lack validity. I may not know everything about myself, but I certainly know more than someone who isn't me.

Regarding the book, Return to the One, about the teachings of a Greek philosopher (Plotinus) that I began writing under the auspices of RSSB, I've previously described how I wasn't willing to compromise truthfulness for the organization's "party line." See here and here.

Other authors who tried to cram Christianity and Buddhism into the Radha Soami Satsang Beas belief box have done this, but I wasn't willing to. After studying Plotinus for several years, I came to have a deep respect for his philosophy. When RSSB wanted me to edit my book in ways I didn't feel were honest, I said "goodbye" and published the book myself.

Successfully (it's gotten good reviews).

What about "familiarity breeds contempt"? I'm not sure what this means. Why would I be contemptuous of something or somebody I know a lot about? Wouldn't I be as likely to feel better about that thing or person after my familiarity is strengthened, as to feel worse?

This is the perspective of a Psychology Today article on the subject.

In relationships, the problem is not with familiarity, but more about that to which we're acclimating. For example, disrespectful, dishonoring, and negative energy all too often become familiar territory in relationships. These are the elements that cause contempt. Perhaps we'd be better off saying mediocrity or unhappiness breed contempt.

I've been married for twenty-two years. All of that familiarity with my wife hasn't brought contempt. It's brought a deeper love. We know each other much better now than when we first met. Our relationship has become stronger, not weaker. My wife and I have grown together, changed together, adapted together.

With a religious organization like Radha Soami Satsang Beas, though, it's natural for someone like me to become disenchanted.

Many people have a superficial relationship with their faith. They go to church, or the equivalent, on the weekend. They pay lip service to vows, commandments, rituals, and the like. So they never really become intimately familiar with their religion. Hence, the relationship remains shallow, a passing acquaintance rather than an intimate getting-to-know-you.

By contrast, I threw myself into meditation, volunteer service, and other devotional aspects of RSSB. Yes, I became deeply familiar with the organization and its teachings. I got to know high-ranking disciples quite well, along with the guru, Gurinder Singh.

It wasn't familiarity, though, that led me to leave RSSB. As noted in the quotation above, if someone has a pleasing and satisfying relationship, familiarity breeds even more pleasure and satisfaction. In my case, the more I learned about Radha Soami Satsang Beas, the more I realized that what I desired -- truth, honesty, friendship, intimacy, caring, growth -- wasn't what RSSB was desirous, or capable, of.

The problem with rigid religions is that they aren't able to change along with their members. By contrast, Taoism, and to some extent, Buddhism, have a "there's no single right way" attitude. A good marriage, ditto.

Give and take; flexibility; compromise; humility; willingness to change -- this is how two people are able to happily get along for decades, or a lifetime. With religions, though, often the hierarchy and dogmas are set in stone.

"It's my way or the highway" says the religion to devotees who find themselves changing in a direction that isn't acceptable to the powers-that-be. Which is weird, when you think about it.

What I mean is, all religions, and particularly those of the Eastern variety like Radha Soami Satsang Beas, are about personal transformation. Yet rigid religions demand that their members change only in certain ways. For example, I spent thirty years meditating several hours a day, investigating subtleties of consciousness.

The result: insights, understandings, realizations.

However, since those weren't what the so-called RSSB "science of the soul" deemed to be valid, I was asked to not express them. So I was faced with a choice between what I had come to know as experientially true for myself, and the dogmas RSSB wanted me to believe in.

I chose truth.

Not just because I'd become intimately familiar with the RSSB organization and teachings; but because that familiarity led me to realize that what RSSB offered wasn't what I wanted. Life is short. None of us should spend our earthly time span living untruthfully, failing to follow what beckons us from the depths of our being.

Is Radha Soami Satsang Beas racist?

With permission, I'm sharing an email that I got from an American of Indian heritage who is outraged at how "brown" people are treated when they go to the headquarters of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) in Beas, India.

I've been to Beas twice, also called the Dera.

RSSB is a spiritual organization which talks a lot about oneness, humility, love, and such, but I have to agree with this person: there's a lot of hierarchical inequality in RSSB which can look like racism (and maybe it is). Westerners are treated much differently from Indians, getting special treatment and access to the guru.

Anyway, here's thoughts on this subject from my email correspondent. I've added some explanatory definitions [in brackets] after words that will be unfamiliar to many readers.

Hello Brian, just wanted to say how much I appreciate your blog being up there for people who finally snap out of their haze and realize that RS Satsang is a cult. Took me 30 years to realize that.

I just found out from someone that "White people" in Dera [RSSB headquarters in Punjab, India] are told they are not supposed to talk to Indians in the Dera.

This along with the fact that Indians have to give in all their electronics whereas white people can keep them, and white people have a special Christmas party with Mr. Gurinder Singh [guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas] and Indians are not allowed unless married to a white person. 

Have you heard of any of this?  I'd love to see it addressed on your blog. 

I think people need to know about the ridiculous inconsistencies that happen in Dera.  My favorite part, when you point out an inconsistency, is when someone responds back, "Well it's the sevadars [volunteers], not the Master.  He is unaware of what's going on." What a joke!  He is the HEAD of what's happening!

I myself stopped going to satsang [devotional meetings] about 3 years ago, but my entire family still goes so I still hear a lot about what's going on. 

I was born and raised in America, and I remember visiting Beas for the first time at the age of 13, and finding out upon arrival that our family had to stay in the "Indian Hostel". My first reaction was WHAT THE ##$%??   I was outraged.  

Born, raised and brought up in America...  I was a full blown American and I was going to have to stay in a hostel that had amenities for an Indian lifestyle when I myself was American, but my skin was brown?! And because of the color of my skin I was unable to stay in a place with American lifestyle amenities?  

Wow. That was truly racism at it's finest. I'll never forget that as my first impression of Beas.  

But what did I know, right?  I was just a little kid and I didn't understand the true meaning of the teachings, and Babaji [Gurinder Singh, the guru] was just trying to "accommodate" the foreigners. Hhhrmph!  Well why wasn't he accommodating me?  Didn't I need the same pandering as other people from America?    

30 years later, now of course I see a whole different picture. My question today would be, why on earth are you treating some people one way, and other people another way? Aren't we all supposedly supposed to be equal in the eyes of Sant Mat? What a joke.  

I feel ill when I see old people, blind, hobbling and unable to walk getting yelled at and being told to sit on the ground, when perfectly capable, healthy young people are given cushions and chairs and a seat up front.  Oh but wait!  Babaji is all knowing, so they must just be fulfilling their karmas right? Being punished for a past life? 

And yes, I had heard that a very special private Christmas party gets put on every year for all the Westerners. They laugh, dance, sing and joke with Babaji. It's a "great time" to get up close and personal and see the "master" acting normal.

I also heard that if a brown person is married to a white person then and only then can a brown person gain entry into this party.  Scoff Scoff Scoff Scoff!  I am now married to a white person and can easily gain access to this party, but pigs would have to fly before I ever even consider participating in something as hypocritically ridiculous as this.  

I feel so crass using the words white and brown to describe people, but what can I do? If I have to talk about Sant Mat those are the descriptors I have to use because that is how they set the bar for treating people.  

I see people as people. Humans. Sant Mat classifies them into categories from "VIP's" to "They Don't Matter". White, Brown, Black, money, property, usefulness.  It appears that who you are and how you're classified will decide the fate of how you are treated in the Dera and in the cult.  

I heard that Westerners (translated as "White people", because how could someone of color born and raised in another country be considered a Westerner?) were told not to talk to Indians while at the Dera.

So let me get this straight. Jim Jones and Punjabi Singh both attend satsang every Sunday in America or England or Australia and have fun, laugh and even meet up for lunch... but when they arrive in Dera, Jim Jones is told not to talk to Punjabi Singh because he is Indian and it is "Master's orders"?   Does that make sense in any way shape or form?  

Mr. Gurinder Singh has all the latest toys, wears the best brand names, flies in his own private jet, owns stocks in Religare and made his own sons Billionaires through that. I am not saying it's wrong to want or have those things but don't you think it's just the tiniest bit hypocritical for a supposed Master and messenger of God who PREACHES simplicity and asceticism to not follow those rules himself?

I'm not saying... but Just saying.

Kierkegaard and crazy leaps of faith

Recently I listened to a Philosophy Talk podcast about Soren Kierkegaard, a dour 19th century Danish philosopher. I read some Kierkegaard back in college, many years ago. At that time I was into crazy existentialists, loving how they embraced the meaninglessness of life.

Now, I see Kierkegaard as simply crazy -- without many, if any, redeeming philosophical qualities that balance his insane defense of religious leaps of faith.

The podcast focused on Kierkegaard's take on the Old Testament tale of Abraham and Isaac, as discussed in his book "Fear and Trembling." According to Wikipedia:

Kierkegaard wanted to understand the anxiety that must have been present in Abraham when "God tested [him] and said to him, take Isaac, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him as a burnt offering on the mountain that I shall show you."

Abraham had a choice to complete the task or to forget it. He resigned himself to the three and a half day journey and to the loss of his son. "He said nothing to Sarah, nothing to Eliezer-who, after all, could understand him, for did not the nature of temptation extract from him a pledge of silence? He split the firewood, he bound Isaac, he lit the fire, he drew the knife.” Because he kept everything to himself in hiddenness he "isolated himself as higher than the universal."

Kierkegaard says, "Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith, so anyone who has not made this movement does not have faith, for only in infinite resignation does an individual become conscious of his eternal validity, and only then can one speak of grasping existence by virtue of faith."

There's some fancy intellectual talk going on there. Here's a more down to earth way of looking at the situation.

Abraham hears a voice in his head that tells him to kill his son as a burnt offering. He doesn't tell anybody about this. He ties up his son, lights a fire, pulls out a knife, and prepares to kill his child. What the hell is virtuous, moral, or praiseworthy about these actions? 

If any normal person came along and saw a father about to kill his son in this fashion (or any fashion), they'd do whatever they could to stop him.

However, because God supposedly put the idea in Abraham's head, countless Christians -- including Kierkegaard -- believe that Abraham's leap of faith, accepting that killing his son is the right thing to do in spite of all the reasons that it isn't, somehow is the essence of religious life.

That, plainly put, is fucking crazy.

A leap of faith is what allowed Charles Manson to convince his followers to commit multiple murders. A leap of faith is what allowed over 900 People's Temple followers of Jim Jones to kill themselves by ingesting cyanide.

Leaps of faith are dangerous. They can kill you. Or others.

That's an extreme consequence of blind faith, religious or otherwise. Lesser, yet still serious, consequences include being taken advantage of, surrendering autonomy, and enabling manipulative authority figures to screw you over.

I used to belong to an Indian religious organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, which loved the story of a guru who ordered his disciples to do something stupid without giving any reason for his dictate: build mud platforms; then tear them down and make some more.

That is why Christ said, If ye love me, keep my commandments.

This is the first step. Ultimately, we give body, mind, soul and everything. Such a man has got no will of his own, but the Will of the Master is his will. Just see where you actually stand. If you give everything, what remains is God. W-o-r-l-d spells world. If you take out this I-hood from within you, you are God. If you take out 'l' from the word World, only Word remains. 

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.

This little I-hood, this ego, stands in our way to God. When you completely surrender yourself to the God-in-man (to the God-in-man, not the body, although we have respect for the body of course), then your 'L' or I-hood is eliminated.

There is a story of Guru Ram Das, who was the fourth Guru of the Sikhs. The Masters always test their disciples to see how far they are fit. So his Master (Guru Amar Das), gave an order to raise certain platforms made from mud. All of the disciples started building the platforms as ordered. 

When they were ready, the Master inspected them and said, 

"These are no good, this is not right, you will have to make new platforms."

Again the disciples constructed the platforms. Two, three, four, five times they did this. Then the Master said, 

"This place is no good. There is a better place over there to build them."

Well, bye and bye, all of the disciples left off building the platforms except Guru Ram Das. The other disciples began to say that the Master has grown old and is losing His faculties. 

Guru Ram Das with tears in his eyes said, 

"The Master is all wisdom, All-Consciousness. If I am ordered to build these platforms and break them all through life, my lookout is only to obey His orders."

He had complete self-surrender.

You follow me? This means complete self surrender. Now, step by step, judge for yourself where you stand. If you want to meet God, then you must have self surrender. 

No, if you want to be a slave of a crazy man/woman, then you must do everything you're commanded to do. Charles Manson and Jim Jones would have loved to have a hundred, or a thousand, Guru Ram Dass's. 

This is how charismatic crackpots attract their devotees. This is how religious authorities manage to maintain control over millions, even billions, of sheeplike true believers. People are manipulated to believe that unquestioning obedience, even when told to do something obviously wrong, is the path to salvation, God, eternal life.

Killing your son is wrong, even if a voice in your head says "This is God. Do it!" Try convincing a judge and jury you're innocent of murder by using that defense. Good luck, unless you've demonstrably insane.

Which, you likely are, if you think that whatever God, the Pope, a Guru, or some other religious authority tells you to do must be done, no matter what.

No need for a creating God in Buddhism

In my previous post I talked about how a book called Buddhism published by a Sikh'ish, Hindu'ish Indian organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, distorts Buddhist reality. 

So far I've only read one chapter in the book, "A Perspective on Buddhist Views on Soul and God." Here's a PDF file of the scanned chapter pages, complete with my often skeptical highlighting (yellow question marks in the margins).
Download Buddhist Views on Soul and God chapter 

I hope other people more knowledgeable about Buddhism than I will read the chapter and leave comments about this question: Does the author, K.N. Upadhyaya, correctly describe mainstream Buddhist teachings about "soul" and "God"?

I see no sign in his book that he submitted his manuscript to Buddhist scholars, or even practicing Buddhists, for review and comment, so this strengthens my suspicion that Upadhyaya allowed his personal religious views to sway his analysis of Buddhism.

So does my reading of the "In Search of the Great Watchmaker" chapter in an interesting book, The Quantum and the Lotus, by Matthieu Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan. Ricard is a Buddhist monk and the French translator for the Dalai Lama. He's also scientifically trained, as is Thuan. 

The subtitle of their book is "A Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet." In the above-mentioned chapter, Ricard and Thuan discuss whether there's any need to posit a religious creating God, a secular organizing principle, or a philosophical first cause in order to explain the universe.

Rather surprisingly, Ricard, a practicing Buddhist, turns out to be more ungodly than Thuan, an astronomy professor. Ricard says that Buddhism sees no need for the sort of Hindu "Brahman" that Upadhyaya feels is part of the Buddha's teachings.

As far as Buddhism is concerned, the idea that there is some principle of organization that is supposed to have tuned the universe perfectly so that the conscious mind could evolve is fundamentally misguided.

...The universe has not been adjusted by a great watchmaker so that consciousness can exist.

...Why shouldn't a chain of causes be infinite in time and complexity? What law of nature does that contradict? How many causes must we have before saying, "That's enough. I can't keep going back in time ad infinitum, so let's adopt a causeless creator"?

...To sum up the Buddhist alternative way of thinking, which requires no principle of organization, in the Buddhist world of appearances, each instant is a perpetual end and beginning because of the basic impermanence of the phenomena produced by the laws of cause and effect. 

In terms of absolute truth, all past, present, and future events are identical in that they have no intrinsic existence. Thus they have no real end or beginning. 

If nothing is really "produced," there is no need to look for an end. And so it isn't necessary to search for a principle of organization that is supposed to have made everything and have been made only by itself.

So Matthieu Ricard, a monk who has studied and practiced Buddhism for over forty years and is close to the Dalai Lama, disagrees with the contention of Radha Soami Satsang Beas and K.N. Upadhyaya that the Brahman/God worshipped by Hindus also is part of Buddhist teachings. Even more, Ricard says that Buddhism sees no need for any ultimate organizing principle, even secular/scientific.

Such is in line with the "What Buddhists Believe" web site, which contains descriptions of core Buddhist tenets, including The Origin of the World and The God-Idea.

The third school of thought says that the beginning of this world and of life is inconceivable since they have neither beginning nor end. Buddhism is in accordance with this third school of thought. Bertrand Russell supports this school of thought by saying, 'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'

...If man is created by an external source, then he must belong to that source and not to himself. According to Buddhism, man is responsible for everything he does. Thus Buddhists have no reason to believe that man came into existence in the human form through any external sources. They believe that man is here today because of his own action. He is neither punished nor rewarded by anyone but himself according to his own good and bad action. In the process of evolution, the human being came into existence. However, there are no Buddha-words to support the belief that the world was created by anybody. The scientific discovery of gradual development of the world-system conforms with the Buddha's Teachings.

In another post I'll show that the RSSB "Buddhism" book also is wrong about how soul is regarded in Buddhist teachings. 

RSSB "Buddhism" book distorts Buddhist reality

This morning I got angry while reading a chapter in "Buddhism," a book published by Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) which purports to show "the essential unity of the teachings of the Buddha and other spiritual teachings of the time."

Anger isn't very Buddhist, I suppose. But it felt justified. 

I'm a big fan of Buddhism, the non-religious variety, at least. Ever since my college days I've devoured writings about Buddhism, particularly Zen.

So since I was an active member of RSSB for about thirty-five years prior to my churchless un-conversion, I was curious to learn how an author (K.N. Upadhyaya) would attempt to relate Buddhist teachings to RSSB's belief in an eternal immutable soul whose highest destiny is to merge with God.

After all, my impresssion has been that (1) Buddhists don't believe in an unchanging soul, nor (2) do Buddhist's believe in a transcendent personal divinity called "God."

The book arrived a few days ago after someone told me about it in a blog post comment. Today I decided to start reading it by jumping into what seemed to be a crucial chapter: "A Perspective on Buddhist Views on Soul and God."

In another post I'll write more about Upadhyaya's surprising take on Buddhism. (At least, it surprised, and angered, me.) Here I'll just share a few short excerpts concerning how Buddhism supposedly is right in line with traditional Hindu notions about soul and God.

This principle of microcosmic representation of the macroscopic consciousness and the concept of the presence of the Tathagata as held in Buddhism are essentially not different from what is called soul -- or atma -- in standard non-Buddhist Indian tradition.

...In the Pali Canon itself, an accomplished disciple of the Buddha named Kassapa affirms the existence of the jiva or soul, which can be understood as the immortal essence of a sentient being.

...Buddhist texts speak of the supreme state as Brahman...The Buddha himself is described as one who has obtained Brahman.

...Even though Buddhism is rigorous in not personalizing ultimate reality, it is equally pragmatic in its presentation of the Buddha, personalized and infinitely compassionate, as one with ultimate reality. 

...We might also suggest here that in their earnest quest for truth, the need for seekers to find a wise and compassionate Buddha to guide them on the right path is emphasized again and again.

As I suspected when I ordered "Buddhism," Radha Soami Satsang Beas has published another deceptive pseudo-scholarly fake comparative religion book, in line with the equally deceptive "The Gospel of Jesus." 

I'm fine with books which accurately describe a religion or philosophy, and then attempt to show how its tenets relate to some other belief system. But it deeply irks me when an author distorts a religion or philosophy in order to cram it into the confines of his/her favored world view, like RSSB's Sant Mat.

After reading only one chapter, I can tell that this is what K.N. Upadhyaya is up to with his "Buddhism" book. It was difficult for me to recognize the Buddhism that I've come to know (and sort of love) in his discussion of how Buddhists look upon soul and God.

Over and over, Upadhyaya cited the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, Hindu holy books, in his effort to show that the Buddha's teachings basically are the same as Hinduism's central tenets of atman (soul) and Brahman (God).

Well, if the Buddha was so up with Hinduism, why did he head off in a different spiritual direction? I'm no expert on Buddhist lore, but I've always thought that the Buddha was critical of Hindu dogmatism and urged his followers to leave all of that supernatural theorizing behind.

That's the impression I get from a Wikipedia article on Buddhism and Hinduism.

The focus of the Noble Eightfold Path is not so much about worshipping god, achieving heaven in the next life (perhaps for a number of lay devotees but not for bhikkhu / bhikkhuni), nor is it about experiencing Brahma consciousness in this life or the next.

The reason is that in all these realms, beings are subject to rebirth after some period of time. It is like going around in circles in the round of rebirth despite all the effort and striving. Therefore, the purpose of the holy life in the Buddha’s path is about liberation from the cycle of rebirth and experience awakening in this very life (some might take longer, depending on the person).

At any rate, in my next post about this book I'll try to include a PDF file of the chapter I read today. Hopefully some other people who know a lot more about Buddhism than I do can take a look at it and comment on how accurately they consider RSSB's take on Buddhism to be.

My main point, for now, is that RSSB shouldn't distort the reality of other religions and philosophical systems.

One of the most duplicitous aspects of Radha Soami Satsang Beas is how it isn't content with simply promulgating it's own teachings, but tries to demonstrate that the RSSB version of Sant Mat is the universal common ground of every religion, form of spirituality, and mystical practice.

In other words, RSSB isn't content with being one religon among many, but does its best to proclaim itself as #1 over all.

So even after reading just a single chapter in "Buddhism," I can confidently predict that K.N. Upadhyaya will argue that the current RSSB guru should be looked upon as a modern day Buddha, just as John Davidson argued in "The Gospel of Jesus" that the guru also is a modern day Jesus.

Jesus Christ! Buddha! (hard to make the latter into a swear word, but I'm trying)

Let it go, RSSB. Isn't it enough to claim that Gurinder Singh and his predecessor gurus are "God in Human Form"? Why can't you let Christianity have Jesus, and Buddhism have Buddha, as their own?

But no, you've got to try to show that Jesus and Buddha actually were gurus/masters just like the RSSB line of "saints," and that Christianity and Buddhism are the same as Sant Mat once minor details -- namely, facts -- are set aside.

Absurd. Irritating. And anger-producing. 

Are all religions essentially the same?

I used to believe that underneath all the obvious differences between religions, there was a difficult-to-discern common core. Mysticism was what united Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, and other faiths.

God is One. Humans have, or rather are, a soul. It is possible for this soul-drop to merge into the One god-ocean.

There. Three simple sentences. Forget all the complex divisive theologies. That's the oft-forgotten genuine essence of every religion: realizing that our true Self is, basically, the same as God. 

It was a nice belief. Warm and fuzzy.

The Indian spiritual organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, that I was an active member of for over thirty years promulgated this creed in books that purported to show how Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Sikhism really were the same once the common mystical essence of each religion was recognized.

And who was the recognizer of this amazing truth? As the old saying goes, you only get three guesses, and the first two don't count. 

Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB).

That common mystical essence just happened to be exactly what the RSSB gurus and high-ranking devotees taught. If you were a Christian and thought you knew what Christianity is all about, you were mistaken. You needed to buy the RSSB books which explained what Jesus really meant in the New Testament.

Ditto for Judaism, Islam, and Sikhism. To my knowledge Radha Soami Satsang Beas never has gotten around to showing how Buddhism and Taoism are akin to the RSSB teachings, probably because this would be such a stretch.

In a fascinating piece, "Preventing holy wars, by consensus," David Chapman convincingly argues that this all religions are one notion is a load of crap. He focuses on how Consensus Buddhism gets this wrong, but his analysis pertains equally to anyone, including RSSB, who claims to know the common essence of all religions.

If all religions are essentially the same, what is it that is the same about them?

This is a question advocates of the “brotherhood of all religions” would rather skate over. When pressed, they usually produce one of two answers:

• All religions say everyone should be nice to everyone else.
• The essence of all religions is the mystical insight that your True Self is the same as God.

Both of these are factually false.

...Almost no one agrees that your True Self is God

The only major religion that says your True Self is God is Hinduism—and only some Hindu sects.

Nevertheless, the idea that this is the essence of all religions—which are therefore all really the same—is increasingly popular in the West. This is called “Perennialism” by religious scholars.

Perennialism is rejected by most prominent spokespeople for most religions. Perennialists need to argue that all these authorities are deluded about the nature of their own religions. A Perennialist knows The Truth about Islam, that it is really one path among many to becoming God. Most imams consider that the worst idea imaginable, but they don’t really know anything about Islam. Since the essence of Islam is the mystical experience of becoming God, which the imams have lost, they are idiots and should be ignored.

...The third problem with “all religions are essentially the same” is that it has been, from its invention, a tool for totalitarian domination. Whoever gets to say what the “essence” is holds all religious power.

This has been the strategy of American Consensus Buddhism: to define all alternatives out of existence by insisting on sameness.

Read Chapman's entire essay. The comments on his piece also are interesting, including Chapman's responses to some criticisms.

I'm a big fan of his open-minded, intelligent take on both Buddhism and religiosity in general. Check out my previous Chapman-related blog posts here, here, here, and here.

Is my "Life is Fair" book really crap?

A few days ago I got an email from someone who pointed out that, in a recent blog post comment, I'd said: "Karma, reincarnation, rebirth -- no, not solid at all, as evidence is lacking for these ideas."

My correspondent thought that a retraction of sorts was in order, given that in 1998 I'd written a book for an Indian spiritual organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, called Life is Fair. The book is a karmic justification for vegetarianism (complete with cartoons!).

I replied to the emailer by saying that, hey, minds change. Today, I don't look upon karma and reincarnation as I did thirteen years ago. 

A reply to my reply then hit my inbox:

Perhaps you might consider publicizing what may - now - be your "retraction" (so to speak) of your previous "views" - as the crap which I saw them to be when I looked at your book years ago.

That struck me as a reasonable request. At first. Then I did some additional thinking about when it makes sense to publicly retract previous views that currently seem like "crap" to both me and other people.

I talked about this question in regards to Life is Fair in a 2009 blog post: "Shocked at my own beliefs, should I disown me?" Conclusion: no.

Back in the late 90's I thought differently. In the future, who knows?

The only thing I can be certain about is that from this moment until the day I die, I'm not going to be absolutely certain about anything. Probably, I should add, to be consistent.

So after a few days of pondering my emotional reaction to re-reading what I wrote a dozen or so years ago, I've concluded that I was too hard on myself.

Yes, I was disturbed that my beliefs back then fell into a "religiously mentally ill" diagnosis. And when I read how the Brian of that time looked upon evolution, it bothered me that I was less scientific than I'd remembered myself being.

But here's the thing: I changed. And I'm still changing. As are we all.Thankfully.

Because change only stops when we're dead. Until then, living leads us in largely unpredictable ways. Our relationships with other people change; our bodies change; our lifestyles change; our physical activities change; our personalities change; our philosophical and religious beliefs change.

Which is unavoidable. And largely to the good, even though many of life's changes are objectionable to us.

So I don't feel like retracting what I said in Life is Fair. I'm glad I wrote the book. It pleases me to think that some people have become vegetarians as a result of reading it, or were strengthened in their commitment to remain meatless.

I still believe that life is fair.

Just not for the same reasons I offered up back in 1998. Now I'm much more skeptical about the reality of reincarnation. If we haven't had past lives then "karma" is limited to our experiences in this life, plus the genetic heritage in our DNA of ancestors' lives.

But often it isn't possible to prove the non-existence of something, especially when that thing is hypothesized to be beyond the bounds of materiality. I'm not 100% sure that karma and reincarnation aren't real, just as I'm not 100% sure that God doesn't exist.

To me, retractions are justified when a factual error has been made.

If a newspaper story gets someone's age or occupation wrong, or misquotes them, a retraction/ correction is called for. However, opinion writers don't issue retractions. If a columnist changes her mind, she says "I look upon this issue differently now." No apology is required; no mea culpa. 

Recalling my state of mind when I wrote Life is Fair, I don't see how I could have done anything differently. Life is what it is, a cliche that nonetheless is true. 

As I've noted before, my relationship with Radha Soami Satsang Beas and the guru (Charan Singh) who led the organization when I joined up in 1971 strikes me as being a lot like my first marriage. Both began with love, followed by many years of happiness, and ended with a divorce.

Have I ever felt about "retracting" my attraction to my first wife? Of course not. What I felt for her at the time was real. I still feel a lot of fondness for her. We grew apart, but the eighteen years we were married never will leave either of us. Our marriage changed us, led us to grow, albeit in different directions.

Likewise, writing Life is Fair meant a lot to me. I agree with the person who emailed me that some parts of the book aren't scientifically defensible. I'd write it differently today, but yesterday isn't today.