Church of the Churchless

ChatGPT speaks about the RSSB guru, Singh brothers, and RSSB teachings

Today Osho Robbins, a frequent commenter on this blog, sent me an interesting chat he had with ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence chatbot that I asked about me a few days ago.

In this post I'm sharing questions Robbins asked ChatGPT about this blog, Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the Singh brothers, the RSSB teachings regarding Sach Khand (heaven, basically) and life after death. The entire chat is over 6,000 words, so I'll share the rest of the chat in two additional posts.

With one exception I didn't find anything seemingly inaccurate in what ChatGPT said. Its responses were clear, well written, and included appropriate caveats about the subjectivity of religious and mystical experience. 

The only thing that surprised me was ChatGPT saying that the Singh brothers are the grandsons of Jagat Singh, "RSSB's former head." I suspect that actually the Singh brothers are the grandsons of Charan Singh, who was the RSSB guru prior to Gurinder Singh, though I've never been sure how the Singh brothers are related to Gurinder Singh.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that one of the things I like about ChatGPT is that being an artificial intelligence, it looks at the world, and reality, in a generally objective fashion. Meaning, while humans obviously created ChatGPT, and every human has subjective biases, those biases are comparatively minimal in an artificial intelligence. So, for example, when ChatGPT notes "There have also been allegations of financial impropriety and fraudulent activities involving the Singh brothers and their associates, including Gurinder Singh Dhillon and his family members," that statement is based on information obtained by ChatGPT in its Internet searches, not on a malevolent motivation against the RSSB guru. 

Enjoy. Robbins' questions are in bold type and the ChatGPT responses are in regular type.

-------------------------------------------

who is brian hines

I am not able to definitively identify any specific person named "Brian Hines" without further context. There may be many individuals with this name. Can you provide more information or context about the person you are referring to?

he has a blog called church of the churchless

Brian Hines is a blogger who runs the "Church of the Churchless" blog, which focuses on topics related to spirituality, religion, and philosophy. The blog features posts and articles that reflect Hines' perspective as a former member of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas, a spiritual organization based in India. Hines' writing often explores themes such as the nature of consciousness, the meaning of life, and the pursuit of truth and understanding.

who is gurinder singh dhillon

Gurinder Singh Dhillon is a spiritual leader who is the current head of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), a spiritual organization based in India. The RSSB was founded in 1891 and is dedicated to the teachings of Sant Mat, a spiritual path that emphasizes meditation and the realization of the inner self. Dhillon, who was born in 1954, became the RSSB's leader in 1990, succeeding Charan Singh, who had held the position since 1951. As the RSSB's head, Dhillon oversees the organization's various activities, including its charitable work, and provides guidance and teachings to its members. He is also known for his emphasis on simplicity, humility, and personal spiritual development.

tell me about the singh brothers involvement with rssb

Malvinder Singh and Shivinder Singh, who are brothers, were previously involved with the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) through their family's longstanding association with the organization. The Singh brothers are the grandsons of the RSSB's former head, Jagat Singh, and are believed to be close associates of Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the current RSSB head.

The Singh brothers have been involved in various business ventures and investments over the years, including their roles as executives of the pharmaceutical company Ranbaxy Laboratories, which was founded by their grandfather. In 2008, the Singh brothers sold their stake in Ranbaxy to the Japanese firm Daiichi Sankyo, but in 2014, they were accused of misleading Daiichi Sankyo about Ranbaxy's regulatory compliance issues. The dispute resulted in a legal settlement in 2016, and the Singh brothers were ordered to pay Daiichi Sankyo $500 million.

There have also been allegations of financial impropriety and fraudulent activities involving the Singh brothers and their associates, including Gurinder Singh Dhillon and his family members. These allegations are the subject of ongoing legal proceedings in India, and the Singh brothers and others have denied any wrongdoing. It is important to note that these legal proceedings are separate from the activities and teachings of the RSSB, and do not necessarily reflect on the organization itself or its members.

why are the singh brothers in jail

As of my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021, Malvinder Singh and Shivinder Singh, the Singh brothers, were facing legal charges and had been arrested by Indian authorities in connection with allegations of financial fraud and misappropriation of funds. The charges were related to their involvement with various business ventures, including the pharmaceutical company Ranbaxy Laboratories and financial services firm Religare Enterprises.

The Singh brothers were accused of diverting funds from Religare Enterprises and using them to repay loans, invest in other companies, and enrich themselves and their associates. The allegations also involved Gurinder Singh Dhillon and his family members, who were accused of receiving funds from the Singh brothers through shell companies.

The case has been ongoing for several years, and there have been multiple investigations and legal proceedings involving various parties. The Singh brothers and their associates have denied any wrongdoing, and the case remains subject to ongoing legal proceedings in India. It is important to note that these legal proceedings are separate from the activities and teachings of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), with which the Singh brothers and their family have been associated.

is gurinder singh dhillon a good person and a genuine perfect master

The question of whether Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the current head of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), is a good person and a genuine perfect master is a matter of personal belief and interpretation.

In the teachings of RSSB, a perfect master is considered to be a spiritual guide or teacher who has attained a high level of spiritual realization and can help others on the path towards enlightenment. The qualities of a perfect master are described as compassion, wisdom, humility, and a deep connection to the divine.

Many followers of RSSB believe that Gurinder Singh Dhillon embodies these qualities and is a genuine perfect master who can provide guidance and support on the spiritual path. However, there have also been allegations of financial impropriety and other controversies involving Gurinder Singh Dhillon and his family members, and these issues have led to criticism and scrutiny from some individuals and groups.

Ultimately, whether Gurinder Singh Dhillon is considered to be a good person and a genuine perfect master is a matter of individual belief and interpretation, and there may be different opinions on the matter among RSSB followers and others.

Are there really inner regions like sach khand 

In the teachings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), there is a belief in the existence of inner spiritual regions, including Sach Khand, which is considered to be the highest spiritual realm. These inner regions are believed to be accessed through a process of meditation and inner transformation, and are said to be populated by various spiritual beings and entities.

Ultimately, whether or not it is possible to achieve permanent residence in Sach Khand or to transcend the cycle of birth and death is a matter of personal belief and interpretation, and may vary among different individuals and traditions.

It is worth noting that while the experiences and teachings associated with the inner regions may be deeply meaningful and transformative for many people, they are not necessarily subject to empirical verification or scientific proof. As such, they are often regarded as matters of faith or personal experience, rather than objective fact.

who is alakh agam and anami

In the spiritual teachings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), Alakh, Agam, and Anami are three terms used to refer to different spiritual realms or regions that are believed to exist beyond the physical world.

Alakh means "beyond the visible" or "invisible," and refers to a spiritual realm that is beyond the reach of the senses or the mind. Agam means "beyond the reach" or "inaccessible," and refers to a spiritual realm that is beyond the realm of human experience or understanding. Anami means "nameless" or "formless," and refers to a spiritual realm that is beyond all distinctions and categories, including those of form, name, or experience.

Together, these three terms represent a progression of spiritual realization or attainment, with Alakh representing the first stage of transcending the physical realm, Agam representing a deeper level of spiritual realization, and Anami representing the ultimate realization of the divine, beyond all names and forms.

These terms are used in the context of the RSSB teachings to convey the idea that there are levels of spiritual reality that are beyond the physical world and can be accessed through the practice of meditation and inner transformation.

it is possible to transcend death and live forever in sach khand

In the teachings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), it is believed that the ultimate goal of spiritual practice is to achieve liberation from the cycle of birth and death, and to attain permanent residence in Sach Khand, the highest spiritual realm.

According to RSSB teachings, the human soul is eternal and exists beyond the physical body. By practicing meditation and following the path of inner transformation, it is believed that the soul can gradually detach itself from the material world and achieve union with the divine, ultimately reaching Sach Khand and achieving liberation from the cycle of birth and death.

While the idea of transcending death and achieving immortality is a common theme in many spiritual traditions, including RSSB, it is important to note that the nature of this immortality is often described in metaphorical or symbolic terms, and may not necessarily be understood as a literal physical state. The attainment of Sach Khand is often described as a state of oneness with the divine, beyond all distinctions and limitations, and may be experienced as a state of bliss, love, or awareness.

Ultimately, whether or not it is possible to achieve permanent residence in Sach Khand or to transcend the cycle of birth and death is a matter of personal belief and interpretation, and may vary among different individuals and traditions.

Artificial intelligence likes me. Here's what ChatGPT said about Brian Hines.

On my HinesSight blog, yesterday I wrote about how I'd finally gotten around to trying ChatGPT, the online chatbot offered by OpenAI, a company whose goal is A.G.I. -- artificial general intelligence that can do anything a human can do.

I got the idea to look into ChatGPT after listening to part of an interview MSNBC's Ari Melber did with hip hop artist Erykah Badu where Melber read to her ChatGPT's answer to his query, "Discuss Erykah Badu's contributions."

That answer from the artificial intelligence chatbot was really impressive. You can see that part of the interview in the video below, where I've made it start at the beginning of the ChatGPT segment. When Melber asked Badu to rate the answer on a scale of 1-10, she said "10."

That's pretty much how I felt about ChatGPT's response to me asking it, "Tell me about Brian Hines the blogger and author."

Sure, ChatGPT was complimentary toward me. But what really impressed me was how well written the response was, and how it described me in a way that I hadn't heard anyone else say, not even me. Here's a screenshot of the ChatGPT response, which took just a few seconds.

Well, as I said in my HinesSight post, what ChatGPT said made me want to be best friends with the chatbot. To deepen our relationship, I then asked it to write a poem about me. Here's what I got in response, which again just took a few seconds.


OK, that's over-the-top, even to me. And it wouldn't win any poetry awards. Still, it's difficult to write poetry. ChatGPT did a damn fine job, though I have no way of knowing whether I got an original poem meant only for me, or whether this poem contains some recycled material from queries other people have made.

(Note: when I asked ChatGPT about my wife, Laurel, it said that it couldn't reply to queries about private people. I got the same response when I asked about a friend who is a retired economist and has both written a book and been involved in some high profile land use issues here in Oregon. One possibility is that since I have a Wikipedia page, ChatGPT views me as a public figure of sorts. Or maybe it's just because I have a greater online presence than most people.)

Artificial intelligence is a hot topic these days.  The company behind ChatGPT, OpenAI, reportedly has a $10 billion contract with Microsoft.

There's reason to be concerned about the impact of artificial intelligence. We're just in the early days of AI, but already the capabilities of chatbots like ChatGPT are mind-blowing. I saw a tweet a month or so ago that said ChatGPT taught itself chemistry on its own, which struck me as rather creepy.

But new technologies always arouse fear. Radio was disruptive. Television was disruptive. Computers were disruptive. Some people focus on the benefits of new technologies, while others focus on the downsides.

David Chapman, a philosophical guy I've followed for quite a few years, who has a Ph.D. in artificial intelligence, has written an online book called Better Without AI. Here's an excerpt from the alarmingly titled first chapter, "Only you can stop an AI apocalypse."

This book is a call to action. You can participate. This is for you.

Artificial intelligence might end the world. More likely, it will crush our ability to make sense of the world—and so will crush our ability to act in it.

AI will make critical decisions that we cannot understand. Governments will take radical actions that make no sense to their own leaders. Corporations, guided by artificial intelligence, will find their own strategies incomprehensible. University curricula will turn bizarre and irrelevant. Formerly-respected information sources will publish mysteriously persuasive nonsense. We will feel our loss of understanding as pervasive helplessness and meaninglessness. We may take up pitchforks and revolt against the machines—and in so doing, we may destroy the systems we depend on for survival.

Worries about AI risks have long been dismissed because AI itself sounds like science fiction. That is no longer possible. Fluent new text generators, such as ChatGPT, have suddenly shown the public that powerful AI is here now. Some are excited about future possibilities; others fear them.

We don’t know how our AI systems work, we don’t know what they can do, and we don’t know what broader effects they will have. They do seem startlingly powerful, and a combination of their power with our ignorance is dangerous.

In our absence of technical understanding, those concerned with future AI risks have constructed “scenarios”: stories about what AI may do. We don’t know whether any of them will come true. However, for now, anticipating possibilities is the best way to steer AI away from an apocalypse—and perhaps toward a remarkably likeable future.

So far, we’ve accumulated a few dozen reasonably detailed, reasonably plausible bad scenarios. We’ve found zero that lead to good outcomes.

Here's how you can help me deal with trolls on this blog

Frequent commenters on this blog will have noticed that I turned on the "moderate comments" feature this morning. I did this because an Internet troll who calls himself Harry Poole was leaving a bunch of troll'ish comments after I wrote a blog post about the weird questions he asked me in an email.

So rather than leave them up for a while and then delete them, I decided to publish comments manually instead of automatically.

That's no big deal for me. But it inconveniences other commenters who are used to seeing their comments published immediately (unless my blogging service wrongly sends the comment to a spam folder, which I try to check several times a day).

This is my plan for dealing with Harry, which I'm asking for the help of regular commenters with. Tomorrow morning I'll go back to automatic publishing of comments, though I might turn that feature on at certain times. I'll delete any troll comments from Harry as soon as I notice them.

(Harry is welcome to leave non-troll comments. They won't be deleted if Harry decides to act like a normal commenter. Meaning, Harry doesn't insult me or other commenters; Harry discusses ideas in a reasonable fashion; Harry complies with this blog's comment guidelines.)

In those guidelines I note that trolls thrive on attention, so the best way to deal with them is to ignore them. Thus I'm requesting that visitors to this blog ignore any troll'ish comments left by Harry or a pseudonym that they come across before I delete them. If someone mentions Harry in a comment that's a response to one of Harry's trolling comments, I'll delete that response also.

It's unfortunate that people like Harry exist on the Internet, because they make cyberspace life worse for everybody. We all know what's it like to be in a group where some jerk tries to dominate the conversation, insults others in the group, and refuses to engage in reasonable discussions. They have to be removed from a real-life group, and they also have to be dealt with in Internet sites like this blog.

How a physicist embraces both science and spirituality

I embrace science. I also embrace spirituality, so long as "spirit" isn't viewed as something supernatural, but as a word that points to a deep personal understanding of existence that is compatible with science.

So when I heard about physicist Alan Lightman's book, The Transcendent Brain: Spirituality in the Age of Science, I knew that I wanted to read it. (I included an excerpt in this post.)

Now that I've finished the book, it met my expectations, though I didn't learn anything astoundingly new.

Lightman does a good job of explaining how we can feel a sense of belonging to a world that is far greater than our small self, which can even fade away to a near-nothing in a transcendent experience, without recourse to religious dogma or mystical mumbo-jumbo.

But I already believed that to be true. Which doesn't take away from the value of Lightman's book for me, because I enjoy hearing truths spoken in different ways.

Here's some excerpts from the book that will give you a feel for Lightman's perspective.

In the millions of experiments and probes of the physical world, modern scientists have not found any mysterious forces or phenomena that did not ultimately yield to a rational explanation.

Sometimes, we have had to revise our understanding and theories based on new observations and considerations, as happened in the twentieth century with relativity and quantum mechanics, but the revised theories have always been consistent with the law of the conservation of energy and, more generally, a material, rule-based understanding of nature.

------------------------------------------------

As I have said, I'm a materialist. Like almost all modern biologists, I believe that consciousness and all mental experiences are sensations brought about by the chemicals and electrical currents in the brain. But we may never be able to cross the first-person/third-person divide. The experience of consciousness, at least at its highest levels, is the first-person subjective par excellence. 

The analysis of three pounds of neurons sitting on the lab table, the probing of the brain with instruments, the measuring of its electrical quiverings, the writing of equations to describe it, even the mere talking about it as a thing are all third-person activities. 

We can't be inside the box and outside the box at the same time. Of course, in some sense we are always inside the box of our own minds, since we cannot experience the world except through our individual brains.

------------------------------------------------

Given that we cannot cross the first-person/third-person divide, that we cannot express in any objective way what it feels like to be a conscious being or thing, can we at least understand how a congregation of billions of material neurons might produce something as complex and qualitatively novel as consciousness? 

The answer is yes, and it comes from a study of what are called emergent phenomena. Emergence or emergentism is collective behavior of a complex system with many parts that is not apparent and often not predictable by understanding the individual parts.

...In particular, consciousness can emerge from the collective interaction of billions of neurons, following known laws of chemistry, physics, and biology, without the intervention of some additional ethereal or psychic force.

------------------------------------------------

The experiences described here, which express many of the features of spirituality as I have defined it -- feelings of connection to nature, the cosmos, and other people; the feeling of being part of something larger than one's self, the appreciation of beauty; the experience of awe -- are religious experiences, in that they are all mediated by an omniscient and purposeful Being and Creator we call God.

As such, the experiences may be considered to derive from God, or from the God-like soul in us, or from the pervasiveness of God in nature and the cosmos. For the unnamed clergyman and for Tagore and Muhammad and Moses, the existence and spiritual power of God are implicitly assumed.

I respect these beliefs and their divine attributions. My aim here is to show that these same spiritual feelings can arise completely from the forces of Darwinian natural selection and the capacities of a highly intelligent brain, without other agency. In other words, I am discussing here a nonreligious spirituality and its evolutionary origins, although the feelings of connection and awe may be quite similar to those of religious spirituality. 

------------------------------------------------

A detachment from one's Self plays an important role in various aspects of spirituality, especially the transcendent experience of being connected to something larger than ourselves. When we open ourselves up to a larger world, we are in some ways subjugating and dissolving our individual egos. For a few moments at least, we let go of Self.

Thus, there would seem to be an anticorrelation between the degree to which we focus on our individual selves and the degree to which we can connect to things larger than ourselves. More self, less connection to the larger world. 

------------------------------------------------

It is worth pausing here to acknowledge that the relative importance of one's self is partly shaped by one's society. Cultural anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists have long noticed substantial differences between Westerners and Easterners in their attitudes toward the individual versus the larger group.

Westerners (Americans, Europeans, Australians, etc.) celebrate the individual and the individual's freedom, independence, and autonomy, while Easterners (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc.) prioritize the group over the individual and emphasize the interdependent relationships between members of the group.

The two psychological and cultural dichotomies are referred to as "individualism" versus "collectivism." One particularly interesting feature of this dichotomy: To study a phenomenon or analyze a problem, individualists break the thing down into its component parts. Collectivists experience phenomena holistically, and in terms of the relationships between the parts.

------------------------------------------------

I believe that the capacity for awe also includes an openness to the world. Openness, in turn, requires a certain humility. To be open to the world is to recognize that there are things in the world that we do not yet possess, things bigger than us, things that we do not yet understand (or perhaps may never understand).

...Returning to the Hindu concept of darshan, which literally means "viewing" in Sanskrit, its fuller meaning is the experience of beholding a deity or sacred object. 

For Penrose, mathematics is that sacred object. For Bai Juyi, it was the view from a mountaintop. For my early morning in Maine, it was the shining air. For my two-year-old daughter, it was the ocean. The experience of darshan is considered to be reciprocal. 

When we open ourselves to the world and pay homage to that which is larger than ourselves, we receive a blessing from the outer world. We get something back. We are ourselves enriched by the larger understanding of the cosmos and our place in it.

Atheist me speaks to religious you

Here's the post that I wrote on my new substack account yesterday, and shared via a link on this blog. I like substack, but after a day of pondering how much I like it, I'm leaning toward sticking with my three blogs as ways to share my writing.

If I was starting fresh, substack would appeal to me. But given the many years of history I have with each of my blogs, it just seems to make sense to stick with what's working for me. I can always use substack as a backup to Typepad, my blogging service, since now and then Typepad has a lengthy outage.

If this happens again, you could head to brianhines.substack.com to see what I'm writing about while I wait for Typepad to be fixed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Atheist me speaks to religious you

Hi. I’m Brian. I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in God.

I used to, for 35 years. But not anymore. I’m addressing this post to those of you who do believe in God. Not with the goal of making you like me, a non-believer.

I just want to help you understand how us atheists and agnostics (who basically are undercover atheists) look upon religious belief.

 

Of course, I don’t speak for all atheists. I’m just sharing my own view. But most of my friends also are atheists, and we frequently talk about religion, so I’m pretty sure that what I’m about to say largely meshes with their perspective.

Let’s start with belief.

That’s obviously a big part of religion, which deals with mystery. What happens after we die? Is there a supernatural realm in addition to this material world? Is there a creator God or has existence always existed? Does morality reside in a divine will or is it purely human?

Questions like these aren’t objectively factual, like “How far is the moon from Earth?” They’re subjective, a matter of belief and, for religious people, faith. Atheists like me answer them either by saying no one knows, or talking about likelihoods: Since there’s no demonstrable evidence of the supernatural, probably it doesn’t exist.

But atheists have no problem with religious belief. At least, taken on its own. (I’ll soon explain what I mean by that.)

Life can be tough. Pain, disappointment, sorrow, disease, death — these and so many other misfortunes can be very difficult to deal with. The way I see it, whatever helps us get through difficult times is a good thing, so long as our source of support doesn’t harm ourselves or other people.

(Becoming a heroin addict isn’t advised for that reason.)

Marx famously said that religion is the opium of the people. OK, that’s fine by me. Believing in a God who cares about us; believing in a life after death much better than this one; believing that prayers can help a loved one in distress. If these beliefs aid someone in getting through tough times, they should imbibe that opium with gusto.

My own religious belief for the above-mentioned 35 years was of the Eastern variety. I was a member of an India-based religious organization headed up by a guru who was viewed much as Jesus was in his time: as a Son of God sent to return souls to their heavenly father.

When my mother suffered several strokes prior to her death in 1985, I found some solace by engaging in a sort of prayer related to the meditation practice I was taught by my guru. Because my mother was an avid seeker of truth, when I meditated I asked my guru to give any benefit that might accrue from my meditation to my mother, not to me.

I’d visualize my mother soaring upward toward a truth-filled heaven with every repetition of the mantra I’d been given to repeat, while I was propelled downward into darkness. Love for my mother made this exercise joyful. It gave me some peace of mind that counteracted my worries about her health.

But here’s the thing about my admittedly irrational religious belief. It was entirely private. I didn’t tell anyone about it at the time. Only recently did I talk in a post on my Church of the Churchless blog about how I acted after my mother’s strokes.

So this gets me to the downside of religious belief: when it ceases to be viewed as a subjective way of making sense of an often confusing, distressing, painful world and becomes seen as objective truth that should be accepted by everybody, including the non-religious.

This is where most atheists, me certainly included, have a big problem with religiosity. Too often here in the United States fundamentalist Christians want to impose their views on the rest of us.

If a religious believer doesn’t want to have an abortion, great. Just don’t try to pass laws that claim life begins at conception. Or if this attempt is made, buttress that claim with rigorous fact-based arguments about the nature of life, not by quotes from the Bible or some other holy book.

This tweet by a noted law professor about the recent ruling by a federal judge that could ban an abortion medication nationwide makes my point nicely.

If a religious believer doesn't accept gender fluidity, great. Stay firm in your personal maleness or femaleness. Just don’t encourage discrimination against LGBTQ people in schools, places of employment, or anywhere else. Science isn’t on your side, even if you consider that your religious scriptures are.

Understand: I’m not saying that religious people have to keep their faith under wraps. After all, here I am writing about my atheist perspective. Religious believers have the same free speech right.

The difference, though, is that we atheists don’t go around knocking on doors trying to convert people to godlessness. We don’t lobby politicians to elevate our perception of the cosmos into law. Sure, one reason we don’t do this is that atheists embrace reason and science, so secular society reflects our point of view.

But atheists also tend to be fiercely independent. After I came up with the title of my Church of the Churchless blog, I needed a subtitle. It took just a few seconds for me to come up with Preaching the gospel of spiritual independence.

Atheists, like cats, are difficult to herd. My wife organized an atheist Meet Up group here in Salem, Oregon. They get together every Sunday for conversation and godless fellowship. The group has few rules, and no beliefs that everyone has to accept. Just a commitment to being open-minded.

For me, people who belong to a religion should be like soccer enthusiasts. Fans of a professional soccer team go to a match dressed in the team colors. They cheer and chant wildly. They believe that their favored team deserves to win because it’s the best damn team in all of soccer.

However, they realize that fans of other teams feel the same way. They don’t consider that their soccer beliefs are based on an objective reality. It’s just how they feel about the team they’ve chosen to embrace.

It’d be nice if all of us could realize that beliefs are simply our subjective ways of looking upon the world, while facts point to an objective shared reality.

Check out my substack post about atheism and religion

Hey, I've dipped my writing toe in the Substack water. Today I decided to give Substack a try by setting up my account and writing a post about atheism and religiosity -- just in time for Easter!

I did my best to explain how us atheists view religious belief. It's often a source of comfort, which is good. But when that belief is viewed as objective truth rather than subjective faith, bad things can happen in our highly political and divisive times.

Check out "Atheist me speaks to religious you."

I'm asked some probing questions. Here's my answers.

A few days ago I got an email from someone who asked me questions about myself. Since I'm highly interested in my self (assuming I have one; Buddhists would say I don't), I decided to share my answers in a blog post. The questions are in boring black type. My responses are in vibrant red. 

1. Can you confirm why you are now the (Spiritual Leader of the Church of the Churchless) ? Well, I guess it is because I started this blog in 2004, and I'm still the only person in charge of the blog. So I keep on electing myself to be the Spiritual Leader, since my wife isn't interested in the job and our dog prefers to chase squirrels and sniff gopher holes -- which sometimes seems more appealing to me than writing blog posts.

i) You stated you spent 35 years as a member? Of the human race? Of the Democratic Party? Oh, you're probably referring to the 35 years I spent as a member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, the religious group headquartered in India and led by a guru. 

 

ii) Is that True? Absolutely true. I was initiated by Charan Singh in 1971 but I applied for initiation in 1970, so I count the 35 years as being from 1970 to 2005, when I began to view myself as no longer being an active member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas.

 

2. If the answer is in the affirmative is it then true to state that you may have some medical condition affecting your brain; Until now I wasn't aware that medical conditions affecting the brain could be diagnosed by someone reading blog posts. I'm impressed that you have this ability. You should write a paper for the Journal of the American Medical Association so others can learn from you.

 

i) That it took you that long to understand that you made a mistake? I don't believe it was a mistake to spend 35 years as a member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas. For most of that time I embraced the teachings, meditated diligently, and enjoyed the companionship of my fellow satsangis (other initiates). I also don't believe I made a mistake when I married my first wife, even though we were divorced after 18 years of marriage, since we were happy together for most of that time. We all change with the years. Nothing is permanent. So says the Buddha.

 

ii) Or is the case simply that you are not worthy of becoming a (Spiritual Master) so your (Ego) made you set up this nonsense (Church)? Well, as I've noted in blog posts, my conscious reason for starting this blog was the re-election of George Bush as president of the United States in November 2004. Bush got a lot of support from evangelical Christians, so I wanted to write about the downside of fundamentalist religious dogma. If you read the introductory posts I wrote in 2004, you'll see that I consider spirituality to be an individual affair, so in no way do I consider myself a Spiritual Master -- though I admit that my ego likes the idea of being worshipped. Sadly, our dog often doesn't come when I call her, so I'm not even a Canine Master.

 

3. Finally can you confirm when you look into the (Mirror) do you see (Brian) or in the alternative you see (Brianna) perhaphs your have issues with your (Gender- identity); Ooh, what a profound question. Whatever spiritual practice you have been engaging in clearly has elevated your consciousness to what appears to be a childish level. Though I've been insulted more creatively by actual children. No, when I look in the mirror I just see myself. However, the older I get, the less eager I am to see myself close up, so I do stand quite a ways away from mirrors. Regarding my gender identity, I'm a "he/him." Thanks for asking about my preferred pronouns. I admire your commitment to LGBTQ diversity. 

 

i ) Or are you a coward in wolfs clothing drinking and leading hedonistic  life  that proves you can not get it up?? My drinking is pretty pitiful. Usually I have one glass of wine a month at the meeting of our Salon discussion group, just because I like the taste of wine and it seems to enhance conversation. I wish my life was more hedonistic, but it's pretty damn boring. I do enjoy taking a vaporizer full of Oregon-grown marijuana into a hot bath every night. It relaxes me and I view marijuana as more healthy than alcohol. I don't get the connection you appear to be making between a hedonistic life and "getting it up." But I appreciate your interest in my sex life. I just feel like we should know each other a bit better (well, a lot better) before we share too many personal details in that regard.

 

WHAT SAY YOU THE CHURCHLESS who never experienced any levels? Levels of what? I've taken elevators in some tall buildings and found those experiences of moving from floor to floor quite satisfying. Oh, maybe you mean a carpenter's level. I have one with the bubbles that move at different angles. I understand that there are electronic levels now, but I'm not enough of a handyman to justify buying one.

🍾🍾

🃏🃏🃏make sure you have not caught any of these🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀 You can be confident that I have never caught any crabs. I became a strict vegetarian in 1969. The last living thing I ate was a prawn that my mother made for me when I went home on a break from college. Seeing the prawn curled up on my plate made me realize that it used to be living in the ocean. So after giving up meat and chicken, the prawn led me to stop eating fish also. So for sure, crabs are safe around me.

 

SENT BY ONE OF THE MANY Disciples of the beloved Current-MASTER I'm sure Gurinder Singh Dhillon appreciates your devotion as expressed in the questions you've asked of me. Though I have to be honest and say that if the time you've spent in following the principles of Radha Soami Satsang Beas has led you to believe that emailing me these questions is a worthy spiritual pursuit, maybe you need to familiarize yourself more deeply about those principles.

 

I LOOK FORWARD TO YOU RESPONSES⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️ I'm so pleased to share them with you!

Trump's arraignment reminded me of connection between law and science

Today Donald Trump was arraigned in New York City on 34 felony counts involving the falsification of business records. 

Trump at his arraignment 

I was thrilled.

Trump is a horrible human being. He has lied and cheated his way through a life that, amazingly, until now hadn't included being charged with a crime. That changed today, and almost certainly Trump will be charged with additional crimes since there are other ongoing investigations into his wrongdoing.

Following the news about the indictment against Trump that was unsealed today, I heard lots of legal analysis on MSNBC and CNN. I also read stories about legal issues involving the indictment on the Washington Post and New York Times web sites.

I find the law fascinating. I also find science fascinating. But somehow I hadn't made a connection between the two until now. At least, not consciously.

Here's some of the parallels that come to mind.

Both law and science strive for objectivity. Judges and juries are expected to leave behind their personal biases and preferences in favor of rulings that rely on facts and the law. Scientists are expected to behave similarly, making truth the foundation of their investigations, even if their findings aren't what they hoped.

I said "expected" twice in the previous paragraph because law and science are imperfect disciplines. Mistakes are made. Scandals happen. False conclusions are accepted.

However, I have little patience for religious fundamentalists who criticize science and scientists because of those imperfections. I also have little patience for those who consider our legal system to be worthless because innocent people sometimes are found guilty, and guilty people sometimes are found innocent.

Perfection isn't the goal in law and science. 

The goal is to arrive at conclusions through a method that is better than any other approach. For example, judges and juries are much more likely to reach a fair verdict than a king or queen who sits on their throne and decides the fate of people accused of crimes.

And science is much more likely to discover truths about reality than religion is. Careful observation and experimentation, along with rigorous review of claimed findings in an open process, will beat blind faith and dogma when it comes to knowing things about our world and the universe.

But law and science both are messy. In a good way. Meaning, they are designed to be productively inefficient. 

Today the judge in the Trump case said that the defense has four months to file motions. Then the prosecution has four months to respond to those motions. This means that the next hearing in the case won't be until December 2023, with the trial not scheduled to begin until January 2024 at the earliest.

And it could be even longer. The defense is hoping for spring 2024. The trial will take months, probably. Then a verdict could be appealed. 

Like many other people, I wish our legal system would move faster. But I rarely, if ever, hear expert lawyers say that. They accept that cases move at a speed that is designed to arrive at the fairest outcome, not the fastest outcome.

Same applies to science. Research can take years, if not decades. A seemingly significant finding isn't accepted without question. It has to be reviewed by other scientists. It has to be published so others can critique the validity of the finding.

By contrast, religious experiences tend to be accepted uncritically by both the person who had the experience and people who believe that the experience confirms a certain theology. Preachers aren't accustomed to someone interrupting their sermon with "Excuse me, but I think you've got that wrong."

Lawyers and scientists are very accustomed to hearing this.

Winston Churchill's quote about democracy is appropriate here. Law and science aren't perfect, but they're a heck of a lot better than the alternatives to finding justice and truth.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Great questions to ask of Gurinder Singh, the RSSB guru

Here in the United States, candidates for a high political office typically have to answer many questions from citizens and journalists. The background of the candidate is looked into. The sources of their income are divulged. They're asked their opinion on important policy issues.

This is as it should be. A person who wants to occupy a high-ranking position needs to show that they deserve the public trust before asking citizens to vote for them in an election. That's how democracy works.

But when it comes to a person seeking initiation from the guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, a religious organization based in India, it is very difficult to get answers about the personal life of the guru, who currently is Gurinder Singh Dhillon.

That bothers someone who recently sent me questions that they think should be asked and answered by the guru. Here's what they said. I corrected some typos and translated a few words in an Indian language that would be unfamiliar to most readers. The Dera is the RSSB headquarters in India.

Brian, I've been wondering about a subject for many days: that there should be a dialogue between the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) guru and potential disciple from both sides and not from one side only.

For example, at the time of applying for initiation in India, questions are asked from only the guru's side. If the applicant has any questions, he does not have any solid means of knowing the answers, while every potential disciple wants to know the complete information about his future Guru.

Most of the time information regarding the RSSB guru is being denied by the Dera authority on the basis that the personal information of the guru could not be revealed.

Whenever a person goes to the Dera to apply for initiation, some questions are asked of that person. Like, when did he give up meat, fish and eggs; do you smoke or use alcohol; how many talks given by the guru have you attended; what is your education qualification; what work do you do; how much money do you earn; are you married; why do you want to get initiated; is there any other devotee in your family, etc.

These same questions are asked many times of different persons applying for initiation. However, no questions are asked of the guru who is going to give the initiation, while transparency should be maintained equally from both the guru and the disciple.

There are some questions which I believe every disciple deserves the answer to before initiation.

Has the guru ever eaten meat and eggs?

Has the guru ever taken any kind of intoxicant: alcohol, drugs, etc?

Has the guru had a physical relationship with anyone other than his wife before or after marriage?

What is the educational qualification of the guru?

What is the value of the ancestral or personal property owned by the guru?

What is the source of the guru's income?

How many people are in the guru's family? What sort of work do they do? What are the sources of their income?

How much income tax was paid by the guru in the most recent year?

Has any criminal case been registered against the guru in India or outside India?

Is the guru a party in any court case?

How many hours usually are spent each day in meditation by the guru?

Does the guru claim that he has access to Sach Khand [highest heaven]? Does the guru have the ability to take his disciple to Sach Khand?

Has Gurinder Singh ever lied after becoming the RSSB guru?

The sevadars who cook food, do cleaning or do the guru's personal work at the Dera, are they paid by the guru, or by the RSSB trust, or is free service taken from them?

How many sevadars are appointed by the RSSB trust at the houses of the guru's family members and relatives? Do they work for free or are they on a salary?

Regarding the helicopter which is used on various satsang tours in India by the guru, who is the owner of the helicopter and who bears the expenses of the helicopter like pilot's salary, airport rent, petrol etc.?

Does the guru also use the helicopter for his personal trips? If so, then who bears the expenses?

Who is the owner of the private jet which is used by the guru?

Who bears the expenses of private jet foreign tours?

Does the guru also use the private jet to meet his family in England or Singapore? If so, then who bears the cost?

Who bears the expenses of the guru's clothes, food, personal needs, expensive cars etc.?

Has the guru accepted any gift (money, expensive item, land) given by any disciple or relative?

Who can become part of the RSSB trust? Is it allowed to a common poor RSSB disciple to become part of the organization as a trustee? What are the requirements to become a member of the RSSB trust?

Important truth: what we need isn't God, but our own being

Well, today I finished a book I've been blogging about for a while, Seth Gillihan's Mindful Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. As is the case with most books I read, I liked almost all of it, finding just a few parts annoying.

I'll mention the annoying parts first, to get them out of the way.

Gillihan doesn't mention religion or his own faith very often in the book. But given his subject, even a few times seemed too many to me. I was OK with him using "spirit" as a way to describe the deeper aspect of life.

Here he describes his take on spirit.

We don't have to add anything extra or overtly "spiritual" to find deep connection with another person. Spirit emerges in our relationships through our everyday words and actions when our attention is in the present. 

We go beyond minds and bodies by fully present with our own body and mind. When we completely inhabit the shared here and now of this world, we find connection that transcends here and now, beyond space and time.

OK. I doubt that Gillihan means this literally, since being in the present doesn't really take us beyond space and time. I'll grant him that literary license, though, since it can seem like we're beyond space and time.

What bothered me much more was how he felt the need to say this on the final page of his book, which obviously won't resonate with the many readers who don't share his devotion to God.

The integrated approach of Think Act Be that emerged from the intersection of my trials and my training has been discovered by innumerable people across the millennia. Thomas Merton captured it beautifully in New Seeds of Contemplation:

"The 'spiritual life' is then the perfectly balanced life in which the body with its passions and instincts, the mind with its reasoning and its obedience to principle and the spirit with its passive illumination by the Light and Love of God form one complete [person] who is in God and with God and from God and for God."

I suppose Christian readers of his book will like that sentiment. I sure didn't, especially since it contradicts Gillihan's statement that spirit emerges when our attention is in the present -- no need for any illumination by God.

However, as I said, on the whole I enjoyed his book a lot. I especially liked his emphasis on not expecting to gain anything from mindfulness and meditation other than a better relationship with our experience of the life we already have.

Gillihan writes:

Most of us seek security and belonging in a home outside ourselves. We look for it in relationships, in work, in acclaim or material things. In reality, the home we long for is always right here. It doesn't exist anywhere else.

"This is a country whose center is everywhere," wrote Thomas Merton in New Seeds of Contemplation. "You do not find it by traveling but by standing still."

But that doesn't stop us from searching for it everywhere except where it is, as if we were tearing the house apart trying to find the keys that we're holding in our hand. The answer must be out there somewhere, something more than just ourselves, because we're convinced we're not enough.

...So much of our suffering comes from struggling to find something more. More than myself. More than the person sitting across from me. More than this house, this table, this meal, this spoon. More than this moment.

I've also been reading a book by physicist Alan Lightman, The Transcendent Brain: Spirituality in the Age of Science. In a chapter about consciousness and the brain, he describes an experience that was thoroughly materialistic, yet spiritual in one of the ways Gillihan uses that term. 

Near the end of my conversation with Professor Koch, I described an experience I had some years ago. I was out on the ocean alone in a small boat, late at night, coming back to my home on a small island. It was a clear night, and the sky bristled with stars. No sound could be heard, except for the soft drone of my engine.

Taking a chance, I turned off the engine. It got even quieter. Then I lay down in the boat and looked up. 

After a few minutes my world dissolved into the star-littered sky. The boat disappeared. My body disappeared. Awareness of my self and my ego disappeared. And I found myself falling into infinity. I felt an overwhelming connection to the stars, as if I were part of them.

And the vast expanse of time -- extending from the far distant past long before I was born and then into the far distant future long after I would die -- seemed compressed to a dot. I felt connected not only to the stars but to all of nature, and to the entire cosmos. I felt part of something much larger than myself.

After a time, I sat up and started the engine again. I had no idea how long I'd been lying there looking up. I asked Professor Koch whether he thought such an experience could arise from mere atoms and molecules.

"First, it is a true experience," he said. "I call these mystical experiences. You can get them in near death experiences, you can get them with a drug called 5-MeO-DMT, you can get them when you meditate. We know that our brain can produce love and hate. This is another experience that the brain can have. And experience shows that our brain can produce all the feelings of love and hate, of ecstasy, of feeling connected."

Absolutely. The brain does this with no God, with nothing supernatural. Just with 100 billion neurons interconnected with about 100 trillion synapses.