Church of the Churchless

Reality is here and now, not there and then

If we aren't in touch with the reality of what is actually present before us, right here and now, there's little point in conjecturing about what might be, there and then.

This is my main problem with religiosity.

Like a magician, religions do their best to distract our attention from what is really going on, so they can astound us with supposed miracles: A rabbit popped out of a hat! A woman was cut in two! is similar in kind to God so loved the world he sacrificed his only begotten son! and Heaven awaits those who have faith!

Atheists like me have seen through the trickery.

We're no longer willing to play the God Game. We have no patience with those who promise salvation after death. We recognize the con job being promulgated by religious leaders who lust after money and power while hypocritically preaching worldly detachment and humility.

Today I went on a bike ride with my daughter and granddaughter at a resort in central Oregon, Black Butte Ranch. Near the end of the ride we pedaled across the Big Meadow, which is both big and a meadow. 

You won't find truth like that in any religion. 

A fenced area adjacent to the bike/pedestrian path contained a bunch of horses and their foals. Some of them came to the fence to be fed, either with grass or tastier morsels. A woman had planned ahead and brought a bag of baby carrots. She kindly gave some to my granddaughter. Which ended up in the mouth of a horse. That was real. Very real. I saw it happen. 

You won't find truth like that in any religion.

Look, I've done more than my fair share of theorizing, philosophizing, and fantasizing about what might lie beyond this physical world. It was fun, and I still enjoy dipping my toe into this sort of maybe, could be, perhaps. 

But my passion is this world, this time, this place. Hopefully those who read these words are similarly immersed in the reality of here and now. That's the treasure which keeps on giving, not supernatural dreams.

Here's a few photos of what I experienced today.

My daughter, in black, and my granddaughter, in grey. Plus a horse in light brown.

The horse enjoying a baby carrot.

A foal lying in the grass.

Two other foals either playing dead, or taking a nap in the warm summer sun. 

"The Case Against Reality" seems more right than wrong

It's rare that I find it difficult to put down a non-fiction book because I'm so eager to read the final chapters and grasp the author's concluding arguments.

Such was the case, though, with The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes, by Donald Hoffman. I hadn't planned to spend so much time reading the book this morning, but I carried on until I'd read all but a technical appendix.

Hoffman's Big Idea is this: evolution selects for fitness, not truth. If a living organism perceives reality well enough to be able to pass on its genes, that's what evolution is all about. Or at least, mostly about. In shorthand, FBT, Fitness Beats Truth.

Another acronym Hoffman uses a lot is ITP, the Interface Theory of Perception. Here's a paragraph that encapsulates key ideas in the book.

Perception is not about truth. It's about having kids. Genes that fashion perceptions that help us raise kids are genes that may win the fitness game and elbow their way into the next generation. The FBT Theorem tells us that winning genes do not code for perceiving truth.

ITP tells us that they code instead for an interface that hides the truth about objective reality and provides us with icons -- physical objects with colors, textures, shapes, motions, and smells -- that allow us to manipulate that unseen reality in just the ways we need to survive and reproduce. 

Physical objects in spacetime are simply our icons in our desktop.

This Big Idea strikes me as being more right than wrong. Which means that I agree with most of what Hoffman says in his engrossing book.

Still, a Publisher's Weekly review had some key words that reflect how I see The Case Against Reality. "Intriguing but overreaching treatise."

I'm a believer in objective reality. So I resonated with Hoffman's contention in all but the final chapter that objective reality exists. For example, he writes:

According to the FBT Theorem, if selection shapes perceptions, then perceptions guide useful behaviors rather than report objective truths about an independent world. Something exists independent of us, but that something doesn't match our perceptions. This feels difficult to understand because of our penchant to reify our interface. 

Hoffman notes that a Maserati certainly seems real. It can be seen, and touched with eyes closed. However, Hoffman says:

It proves nothing. It suggests, but does not prove, that there is something objective. But that something could be wildly different from anything you perceive. 

When you open your eyes, you interact with that unknown something and create a visual icon of a Maserati. When you close your eyes and reach out your hand, you create a tactile icon. The same is true for all the other senses.

OK, that seems reasonable.

There's an objective reality, but all sentient beings perceive it differently. We humans view reality in one fashion, while other species view it quite differently. An ant, bat, dolphin, and eagle all have their own way of looking upon the world, as would, almost certainly, aliens from a galaxy far, far away.

I certainly agree that there is no one way, or preferred way, to perceive reality. Evolution has led each species here on Earth to possess different reality interfaces, in Hoffman's language. So the icons that populate these interfaces also are going to be unique.

No two people perceive the world in exactly the same way, and certainly no two species do. Hoffman appears to be on solid ground when he says this in his Preface:

The purpose of a desktop interface is not to show you the "truth" of the computer -- where "truth," in this metaphor, refers to circuits, voltages, and layers of software.

Rather, the purpose of an interface is to hide the "truth" and to show simple graphics that help you perform useful tasks such as crafting emails and editing photos. If you had to toggle voltages to craft an email, your friends would never hear from you.

That is what evolution has done. It has endowed us with senses that hide the truth and display the simple icons we need to survive long enough to raise offspring. Space, as you perceive it when you look around, is just your desktop -- a 3D desktop. Apples, snakes, and other physical objects are simply icons in your 3D desktop.

Those icons are useful, in part, because they hide the complex truth about objective reality. Your senses have evolved to give you what you need. You may want truth, but you don't need truth. Peceiving truth would drive our species extinct. You need simple icons that show you how to act to stay alive.

Perception is not a window on objective reality. It is an interface that hides objective reality behind a veil of helpful icons.

However, Hoffman casts independently existing objective reality aside in his final chapter. I found this intellectually dubious. He spends nine chapters arguing that evolution has fashioned interfaces for determining what is useful for us, fitness-wise. So what we perceive is objective reality filtered through both a species-specific interface and our personal interface.

(A blind person, for example, has a decidedly different interface than a sighted person.)

Then, in chapter 10, Hoffman casts objective reality aside. Or at least, objective reality that is independent of conscious agents. He writes:

"But," you might object, "didn't you earlier define 'objective reality' as that which exists when no one observes? And don't conscious experiences exist only when some agent observes? Haven't you contradicted yourself when you propose conscious realism, and claim that objective reality consists of conscious agents?"

Indeed, for sake of argument, I adopted a notion of objective reality that is accepted by most physicalists. Then I used evolutionary assumptions that are also accepted by most physicalists to make the case against physicalism and its notion of objective reality.

Now that I have presented that case, I am proposing a new ontology, and with it a new notion of objective reality in which conscious agents, with their experiences and structures, are central.

Well, I think his original ontology was stronger. Somehow Hoffman ends up arguing that "Objects, shapes, space, and time reside in consciousness. If the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be annihilated." 

That's a huge argument to make in the concluding pages of a book where Hoffman argued quite differently up to that point. Understand: he isn't saying that living creatures perceive space and time from their own unique evolutionary perspective. Rather, he claims that there is no such thing as space and time absent a conscious observer.

He may be right. Perhaps the universe was just sitting there doing nothing for billions of years after the big bang, waiting for conscious observers to bring it into being.

But how did conscious observers come to exist if there was no space and time for evolution to work its magic? This strikes me as a major flaw in Hoffman's replacement ontology. His final two paragraphs sound way too New Age'y for my tastes.

What is spacetime? This book has offered you the red pill. Spacetime is your virtual reality, a headset of your own making. The objects you see are your invention. You create them with a glance and destroy them with a blink.

You have worn this headset all your life. What happens if you take it off?

That said, I still hugely enjoyed his book. Again, it seems much more right than wrong. Check out his TED talk, and I think you'll agree.

More evidence of Hindu nationalism in India

It's amusing how some commenters on a recent blog post where I shared an opinion piece about India trampling on the rights of people in Kashmir (who are mostly Muslim) are claiming that Hindu nationalism is "fake news." 

Actually, Hindu nationalism is real, and dangerous in the same way that Christian nationalism in the United States is. For more evidence, here's a New York Times story, "India Plans Big Detention Camps for Migrants. Muslims Are Afraid." Excerpts:

NEW DELHI — More than four million people in India, mostly Muslims, are at risk of being declared foreign migrants as the government pushes a hard-line Hindu nationalist agenda that has challenged the country’s pluralist traditions and aims to redefine what it means to be Indian.

The hunt for migrants is unfolding in Assam, a poor, hilly state near the borders with Myanmar and Bangladesh. Many of the people whose citizenship is now being questioned were born in India and have enjoyed all the rights of citizens, such as voting in elections.

...But the governing party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not backing down. Instead, it is vowing to bring this campaign to force people to prove they are citizens to other parts of India, part of a far-reaching Hindu nationalist program fueled by Mr. Modi’s sweeping re-election victory in May and his stratospheric popularity.

...Among Mr. Modi’s critics, events in Assam and Kashmir are Exhibits A and B in their conviction that the prime minister is using the early months of his second term to push the most forceful and divisive Hindu nationalist agenda ever attempted in India and to fundamentally reconfigure the concept of Indian identity to be synonymous with being Hindu.

Many Indians, on both sides of the political divide, see Assam and Kashmir as harbingers of the direction Mr. Modi will take this nation of 1.3 billion people in the coming years.

No lions? Then relax. Especially if you're a zebra.

I've been saying "No lions" to myself quite often the past few days.

Not because there aren't any lions in my life, because there also aren't any elephants, black holes, or starfish in my immediate vicinity, and I don't go around commenting on their absence via my inner thoughts.

Rather, recently I started reading Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers, a book by Robert M. Sapolsky. First published in 1994, it's been updated regularly, with the current 3rd edition coming out in 2004.

Naturally I checked the index under "ulcers" to see if Sapolsky talks about the research that implicates H. pylori bacterial infections and non-steroidal inflammatory drugs like Aspirin and Advil in the formation of stomach ulcers. Not surprisingly, he does.

So contrary to what was thought for a long time, stress isn't the primary cause of ulcers. However, stress is a risk factor for ulcers, and can make them worse and more difficult to heal, according to the Mayo Clinic.

My interest in the book comes from my desire to worry less and enjoy life more.

I agree with my psychotherapist wife (now retired) that worrying can be productive if it leads us to recognize potential or actual problems that we can do something about.

But as Sapolsky notes early on in his book, modern life for us humans tends to be filled with stress that bears little resemblance to that felt by a zebra being pursued by a hungry lion, or to that felt by a hungry lion desperate to find food needed to survive. Instead, we often worry about things that are far removed from clear and present dangers.

That's why I've started saying "No lions" when I find myself getting worked up by thoughts or feelings that aren't connected to a genuine problem that I can do something about. 

I combine those silently-spoken words with a mental image of zebras grazing peacefully on an African savannah. Of course, I'm aware that my carefree zebra-mind can, just as with actual zebras in the wild, be jolted into full alert by an actual problem at any moment.

Which comes with being alive. A problem-free life doesn't exist. Our only choice is how to deal with problems, not whether they're going to appear.

The genius of Sapolsky's book title, Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers, is that it points to a truth that zebras intuitively understand, but we humans have a lot of trouble grasping. Namely, problems should only be a source of stress when they actually exist.

If there's no lion in sight, go back to grazing. If a lion appears, run. Then go back to grazing. Worrying about lions isn't going to make lions disappear.

For zebras, there's no way to guarantee a lion-free life. Similarly, there's no way any of us can guarantee a problem-free life. Something is going to go wrong before too long, guaranteed.

Cars break down. Bodies fall prey to disease. A nasty email gets inadvertently sent to the person being complained about. Our job demands too much of us. Family members are fighting. A beloved sports team has a nasty losing streak. What we care about most gets a yawn from politicians. Noisy neighbors make it impossible to sleep.

Etc. Etc. Etc. 

That's why I enjoy saying "No lions" when my mind conjures up a problem that is imaginary rather than real. I should be saving my energy for dealing with genuine problems in my life, just as zebras go back to grazing after a lion attack because they need to be able to cope with the next appearance of a lion.

Sure, it's wonderful that we humans can envision a future or past that doesn't actually exist. This enables us to plan, learn, create, and so much more. But that capacity also leaves us prone to stress, anxiety, worry. We often find it difficult to let go of a problem that has already occurred, or to stop thinking about a potential future problem.

Since I'm sharing this post on my Church of the Churchless blog, I want to add that religious beliefs can also be a non-existent lion that leads to stress. 

People worry about their afterlife even though there is no solid evidence that life after death exists. Ditto for sin, whether God is pleased with us, and a host of other sources of worry that lack any demonstrable foundation. No zebra spends its day anxiously wondering, "Am I doing the right thing?"

And neither should we, without good reason.

Life is too short to spend it in a state of concern over supernatural imaginings. Be concerned about real problems in the real world. There's no lack of them. Don't add on extra religiously-inspired worries that almost certainly are non-existent. 

RSSB volunteers punch someone in the face at Haynes Park

Hypocrisy is rampant in every religion. When love is preached from the pulpit, hate often is in the minds of believers. When humility is set forth as a virtue, egotism frequently is on actual display.

Here's an example from Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), an Indian religious organization led by a guru that I belonged to for 35 years before I saw the light and deconverted.

What follows is the tale of a frequent commenter on this blog, Osho Robbins. He's a bit of an iconoclast, since he enjoys going to RSSB meetings, including those where the current RSSB guru (Gurinder Singh Dhillon) is speaking, where sometimes Robbins engages the guru in a spirited question and answer session.

But Robbins doesn't subscribe to the traditional RSSB teachings. At any rate, recently he went to the RSSB center in England, Haynes Park, where he was treated in a decidedly un-loving fashion by a bunch of RSSB volunteers, or sevadars. 

In fact, he got punched in the face by one of them, as you can read below. 

What I find interesting about Robbins' Haynes Park adventure is what it says about Radha Soami Satsang Beas. Where did these volunteers/sevadars get the idea that it was OK to act like jerks? From higher-up in the organization, of course. 

The RSSB guru has been accused of making death threats, either directly or through RSSB associates, not once, but twice (see here and here). So I guess punching someone in the face is mild, by comparison. Still, this episode makes me glad I'm no longer involved with RSSB.

Robbins alludes to the fact that devotees of the RSSB guru are absurdly attached to their seva, volunteer work.

Because the guru is considered to be God in human form by the RSSB teachings, service to the guru is viewed as service to God. So members of RSSB take great pride in being allowed to perform volunteer work, often becoming inordinately rigid and dogmatic about their assigned task.

Here's three recent comments from Osho Robbins. I've separated them by dashes. "Baba Ji" refers to the RSSB guru. "Satsang" is a spiritual talk.

BIG news coming up about Haynes Park satsang. I attended Friday and Saturday. In two days I managed to hear exactly zero minutes of Baba Ji's words.

On the Friday it was because certain sevadars took my phone and refused to return it.  I specifically said "I wish to leave Haynes Park immediately and would like my property returned to me immediately."

They said I could have it after the satsang. I explained that I am not staying, but am leaving immediately. Still they refused. So I said I would calk the police as this was theft of my phone.

I did in fact call the police exactly as promised. The police explained to them that they have no right to hold onto my phone without my permission.

Anyway, finally got my phone back at 3pm and was told that I am "banned" from Haynes Park and all satsangs. As far as I know, nobody is banned from attending public satsangs. But I guess there is always going to be a first.

Oh I forgot to mention the most important part. I did take the phone into the tent despite the notices. Guilty as charged.

I did also record about 5 minutes of the English speaker who did the satsang before the Q&A.  Because he seemed to say some interesting things. Once again, guilty as charged.

Two major crimes that gave the sevadars permission, in their mind, to keep hold of my phone despite my request to have my phone back as I wish to leave Haynes.

One sevadar was forced to tell a lie in order to keep his seva. The sevadars don't care about what is "legal". They have their own rules that are above the law. Why? Because they said so.

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

The sevadar who originally “clocked me” was asked what happened.

Now the thing was, I’d spoken to him while I was waiting for my phone and he was an okay guy. In fact he started feeling bad for taking the phone and wished he hadn’t. He was very fearful of losing his seva.

So when asked to say what had happened, I was surprised when he said  “I don’t want to say it.... “ I naturally asked “ what exactly don’t you want to say, just say it.”

He then said that I had threatened to “kick him in the nuts”.

Not a phrase I would ever use. Naturally I denied it. The sevadar then said “I would rather believe my sevadar than you”.

Of course it was just too obvious what was going on. I had seen the sevadar have a meeting with this higher up sevadar just a few minutes earlier. So he had obviously told him to tell this lie when asked if he wishes to keep his seva.

So that sevadar said it hesitatingly because he was clearly having a conflict about if he should lie in order to save his seva.

If it was me, I would have simply spoken the truth and handed the sevadar my badge and walked away with a clear conscience. To me, that would be the only course of action possible. But that’s because I would not be desperate to keep my seva.

Someone who is desperate to keep his seva can be bribed. Of course if I was desperate, I too could be bribed.

So the sevadar lied to save his seva, and that was predictable and there was a brief moment when he could break out, that would change his life. Stand for truth instead of lying.

It’s not “wrong” as such. He only did what he was programmed to do. Neither is the higher up sevadar “wrong” as he too was only doing what he was programmed to do.

Liars lie. Thieves steal. It’s the way their life has programmed them. So even in the midst of all this happening against me I am saying it was all inevitable and unavoidable. Each person is acting according to the way they are programmed including me.

So all this was all happening perfectly, despite the fact that at that moment it was not in my favour.

Or was it? It was only against me if I am desperate to step this “calamity” from happening

But it’s seriously not a calamity. I was actually quite happy watching all this unfold. It was entertaining watching how it all happens. Only if I have no agenda. In this case I have no agenda, because I don’t care in the slightest about being “banned” as such.

I can’t be hurt by banning me. The sevadar picked on the wrong guy. I just find the whole thing entertaining. Gives me something to write about.

Of course I am not going to “stay banned”. I am going to test this to see what happens next. I am going to see how far this corruption at the top goes.

Obviously the higher up sevadar has a hold on the lower down sevadar that enables him to force him to lie. So the lower sevadar chose that path because he was desperate to save his seva.

There is no free will here. Nobody can break free unless he stops caring to save his seva. The higher up sevadar is just as bound because he wants me to be banned at any cost. Each is doing whatever they are doing to get the outcome they want.

Drop the outcome and it becomes a game. That’s why I found the whole thing entertaining and laughable. Including “me”. I am also part of the entertainment. If I stop, the entertainment stops.

That too is an option. I can stay banned. I am not desperate to go to satsang. My spiritual future is not in satsang. If it was I would be begging him not to ban me.

And that is what is getting to that sevadar. He wants power over everyone. He has it over the Sevadars because they want their seva. He thinks he got “a result”. But he has no idea what that result is yet. Neither do I.

That’s the only thing that makes it worth playing. Because in reality nobody including me is doing anything here of any real significance. It’s all a divine joke that we all take our personal agenda so seriously.

As I walked away from Haynes Park, I was with my cousin. He had patiently waited two hours after satsang for me. I had made it clear to the sevadars that I had a lift with someone to come to Haynes and he has a child with him. I don’t want to put him out.

They probably thought I was lying. But I wasn’t. I have told the truth from beginning to end. I have no reason to lie. I confessed my “big sin” openly from the start. I lied about nothing.

That’s what gives this whole thing credence. I have no agenda that would make me lie. I won’t lie for any outcome because I am not desperate for any outcome.

Am I bothered about “being banned”? Not in the slightest. Just as I had no care in the world when I was banned as a speaker,

My cousin asked me if I was upset about being banned from satsang. “Upset? Do I look upset?” I am about as upset as when I was banned from being a speaker.

In fact I will be the only person who has been banned from both giving satsang and attending satsang.

This “satsang” thing clearly “has it in for me” or so it seems. I hope you all find it as entertaining as I do. Because it’s about to be upped up a notch. I don’t let sleeping dogs lie.

I like a little entertainment. Hey maybe the baba is doing exactly the same, just a thought.

Stay tuned as the next episode unfolds. This was Friday. Saturday was a whole new day with a whole new adventure. Just like every episode of batman I watched as a child ( the one with Adam playing Batman).

“ Tune in tomorrow to see what happens. Same bat-time same bat-channel”. But don’t take it literally as “tomorrow” and call me a liar when it doesn’t happen tomorrow.

Till next time,. Over and out from “The ONE”.

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

The full story is coming soon. It gets much much more interesting. Ends up in premeditated assault. Instigated by the sevadars.

And when I am saying I want to leave Haynes Park, six people grab me physically and take me where nobody can see and physically assault me by punching me in the face.

They think nobody will find out but don’t realise the power of truth. I am known by many of the old satsangis. I don’t tell lies. If I say it - it’s the truth regardless of if it works against me. And people who know me know this

I am not a violent person. Okay I did accept anami’s challenge to combat in jest . That’s about the extent of any violence in me. Whereas the sevadars in question might have a history of violence, who knows.

The matter will go all the way to the top to the guru himself. I have more than enough support to do this from satsangis who know me and my father and family.

Don’t forget, my father was one of the early uk satsangis from 1963.

-------------------------
UPDATE: New comments from Osho Robbins. "Hukam" means divine order or command.

RSSB is meant to be a spiritual organisation and is also called Science of the Soul. I for one have always seen it that way right up to this incident.

Last Sunday, before the national satsang, Babaji said to me in the Q&A that everything always happens “in hukam” and I agree.

This too is in hukam. Nothing happens outside of hukam. Not even this. It was hukam that I get punched in the face. Obviously “The ONENESS” wants to stir things up for me. The Oneness is welcome. Let’s see what unfolds.

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

There was zero resistance and zero retaliation from me during the entire two day episode. When the punching in the face incident happened I was on the way leaving Haynes Park, and my brother in law saw me leaving.

But the volunteers in question stopped me from leaving and then carried out the premeditated attack.

If anything they will be shocked at my level of nonviolence because apart from asking them to let me go, there was no other resistance from me. Six or seven guys onto one defenceless member of the sangat.

There was no reason for the attack as I was on the way out of Haynes Park. Hardly a sign of great bravery to attack a defenceless person who already wants to leave.

Of course if questioned they may lie but I can prove my position, that I was already leaving. This was a totally unprovoked attack to show me that the sevadars in question had the power to ban me. “Egos on steroids” is all I can say.

Hindu nationalism, Modi, and Kashmir

I make no claim to being an expert on either the history of India or current happenings in this vast, complicated country.

But news stories I've read about India's crackdown on Kashmir, which historically has enjoyed a large degree of independence, certainly are disturbing. As is the rise in Hindu nationalism, which bears some disturbing resemblance to the cries of fundamentalist Christians in the United States, "This is a Christian nation!" 

Which is untrue. Just as it is untrue that India is a Hindu nation.

At any rate, I just came across a Washington Post opinion piece by Kapil Komireddi, "The Kashmir crisis isn't about territory. It's about a Hindu victory over Islam." Here's how it starts out:
Download The Kashmir crisis isn’t about territory. It’s about a Hindu victory over Islam.

For two weeks, Kashmir, India’s sole Muslim-majority state, has existed in a surreal state of nonexistence. Since a presidential decree abolished the state, revoked its autonomy and partitioned it into two federally administered territories, the Internet has been shut down, cellular networks have been disabled, and even landlines went dead. Public assembly is banned, and citizens are under curfew.

A soldier has been stationed outside every house in some villages. Eight million people have been cut off from the world — and from one another. Pharmacies are running out of medicine, households are low on food, and hospitals are clogging up with injured protesters. Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, insists that all this is for the good of the Kashmiris. India’s grip on Kashmir has seldom been stronger. Its hold on Kashmiris, however, has never been more threadbare.

Modi’s sudden takeover in Kashmir is the fulfillment of a long ideological yearning to make a predominantly Muslim population surrender to his vision of a homogeneous Hindu nation. It is also a way of conveying to the rest of India — a union of dizzyingly diverse states — that no one is exempt from the Hindu-power paradise he wants to build on the subcontinent. Kashmir is both a warning and a template: Any state that deviates from this vision can be brought under Delhi’s thumb in the name of “unity.”

Obviously Modi has lots of support of India, so many people would disagree with Komireddi's view of what's going on with Kashmir. Here's a discussion of his book, which in the view of the author of this piece is correct in some regards and out the mark in other regards.

Fortis files suit to get money that reportedly went into Dhillon family pockets

Today a commenter on this blog shared a link to a Business Standard story that can only be read in its entirety by subscribers.

But since it deals with a subject that's I've written about frequently -- the financial scandal involving the Singh brothers and their relative, Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas -- I'm sharing a screenshot of the abbreviated story.

Scroll down for my take on it. Rs 520 crore is about $72 million, with Rs 403 crore being about $56 million.
This action by Fortis was anticipated back in May, as discussed in a LiveMint story, though the current amount Fortis wants to recover is higher now. 

The impact on the RSSB guru and the rest of the Dhillon family is unknown at this point.

What should concern them is that theyve been named as the ultimate beneficiaries of the money that flowed in a fraudulent fashion from Fortis into shell companies, then reportedly into the pockets of the Dhillon family.

Here's a flow chart from a Business Today story that shows this.

Though Fortis has filed a civil suit, if recovering the money that went into the shell companies, then apparently to the Dhillon family, results in evidence of wrongdoing by the Dhillon family and their associates, it seems there's a decent chance of criminal charges being filed at some point.

Video of Brian Hines talking about his Break Free of Dogma book

I just uploaded a video to accompany the Amazon listing of my recently-published Break Free of Dogma book. Here's the You Tube version.

Remember: this book is a great gift for the spiritual-but-not-religious person (or people) in your life. Which naturally could include you.

 

My "Break Free of Dogma" book is live on Amazon

Today's visit to our mailbox was both exciting and a bit scary. I knew that Amazon would have delivered a print copy of my new book, Break Free of Dogma, which consists of 93 posts that I selected from the early years of this blog, 2004-06. 

But even though the cover and interior design files uploaded without a hitch, I couldn't be sure the book would look as good as I expected until I ripped open the Amazon package.

Delight! Here I am, doing the obligatory author-selfie thing.

I chose to have a painting of my mother when she was sixteen in the background, with her looking over my shoulder, because she was a huge book lover who would have enjoyed my book, being a spiritual-but-not-religious person herself.

There's both paperback and Kindle versions of the book available on Amazon. Even if you're a regular reader of this blog, you'll enjoy the posts that I selected for Break Free of Dogma. 

Each continues to speak to me, even after so many years. Because my views have changed considerably since 2004-06, I preface each churchless "sermon" with a brief comment from my current perspective.

Re-reading the posts several times in the course of fashioning the book, I was inspired.

Hopefully others will be also. As I say in the Introduction, each of the 93 short chapters is just a few pages long, so if a post isn't appealing, the next one is right around the corner.

If you read my book, please consider leaving a review on Amazon.

Osho Robbins talks with Gurinder Singh Dhillon

Osho Robbins is a frequent commenter on this blog who enjoys asking the guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), Gurinder Singh Dhillon, probing questions.

Me, I'm not into gurus anymore. But I realize that many people who visit this blog are interested in what Dhillon has to say. So below is what Robbins shared in several email messages.

Since I was a member of RSSB for thirty-five years, I'm familiar with the organization's traditional teachings and books. Thus I was struck by a seeming contradiction in what Robbins says below.

On the one hand, Dhillon told Robbins that what's important is what the previous RSSB gurus said and what the scriptures say. On the other hand, Dhillon said the guru is only a guide and a teacher.

But that isn't what the traditional RSSB teachings proclaim, including the "scriptures" -- if that is taken to mean the books describing the teachings of the preceding gurus.

Those teachings say that the guru is greater than God, because the guru takes souls back to God, being God in Human Form. The radiant form of the guru (meaning, a supernatural form) guides the disciple through higher regions of reality all the way to Sach Khand, or "heaven."

So it seems to me that the current RSSB guru is trying to have it both ways.

He doesn't claim to be any sort of divine being, yet he refers people to the traditional RSSB teachings -- which DO say that the guru is divine. Even more, those teachings speak of the Perfect Living Master, Dhillon being the current occupant of that title.

I'd find Dhillon to be more believable if he simply said that the traditional teachings are wrong. Anyway, read on for the most recent interchange between Osho Robbins and the RSSB guru.

Today I went to Haynes Park. It’s a week before the national satsang. It was a great opportunity to openly discuss various points without being rushed. I had a very interesting dialogue that answers a lot of points raised by participants in the discussions at Churchless. 

 

Firstly, the notion that “He claims this and that” has to be quashed. If you all wish to validate a claim, ask the person directly, instead of conjecture. 

 

At one point, I said “but YOU say ..........” and he interrupted me. “No, it’s not what I say. I am nobody to say anything. Just see what the previous gurus said and what the scriptures say.”

 

He also said “Please, let’s be clear. I cannot erase your karmas, I cannot do anything for you. I can only guide you and the rest is up to you. The guru is only a guide and a teacher.”

 

Clearly he doesn’t claim to be a “perfect living master” with all the notions that go with that title. 

 

He is making his position clear. If anyone wants to project their beliefs and notions onto that, it’s okay as long as they realise they are making that contribution. It’s their notion, not his. 

 

He also spoke a lot about “going beyond good and bad” and that it has to be your own experience, not something you heard or read. 

 

So the conclusion from this is clear: GSD [Gurinder Singh Dhillon] claims to be a human being. His position is a guide and a teacher. He makes no other personal claims of grandiose. He claims no special powers. He doesn’t claim to be “God in Human Form”.

 

Of course anyone can project anything they choose. It’s a free world. However I am reporting what I heard first hand from the man himself. 

 

Regarding the issue of the money transactions. My view (and it’s just my view as I was not there) is that he is a human being. When did he ever say “I cannot do any wrong”?

 

Wrong and Right are human made up concepts. One society considers the same thing to be “wrong” that another society says is “right". One obvious example is “halal meat.” Sikhs specifically consider it “wrong”.

 

As a human being, if we happen to be in business, not everything is going to be above board. There is corruption inherent in all of society. Anyone who says there isn’t is living in an ideal world that doesn’t exist. 

 

We have a president with serious corruption allegations against him. Doesn’t make him an “evil” person. 

 

All this only becomes an issue if you first project the status of “perfection” onto the guru. And when he fails, he is now condemned for not being perfect. 

 

Reminds me of a conversation I had with David Lane in London long ago about Charan Singh in the video “Satguru”. 

He feels sleepy, probably jetlag, while giving darshan at Wembley. The sangat thinks “Wow, the Surat is being pulled up by the shabd”.

 

David said “He is just jet lagged and feels sleepy. I can’t lose my faith in him as I only consider him a human being”. First you project perfection onto a person then complain when he shows he is not “perfect”. Nobody is.

 

I also addressed the topic of the master coming at death

 

Me: You ask people to meditate but then take away the reward (guru coming at time of death) so now it becomes nishkaam because no reward.

 

GSD: Forget about me. The previous gurus and the scriptures say that the creator will come and take care of his souls, but will we recognise him?

 

Me: But no god can come because there is only the ONE.

 

GSD: Yes that is true, again its words. No god will come because he has already come. He is ever present. He doesn’t come and go. But at our level we cannot understand this, so scriptures and gurus use the language we understand. In reality no guru comes or goes, it’s a figure of speech.

 

Me: Kabir says, Jab hum hoti tab him nahin. So the meeting never happens. Either I am or god is, never together. No meeting

 

GSD:  Yes, that is true once you realise that it is all the play of the ONE. We don’t do anything, he is the doer. But at this level, and until we realise for ourselves, we continue to act

 

His perspective is that although the ONE is the truth, we have to start with where we are, otherwise we cannot understand.

 

Hence the reason he says “meditate” and also says the meditation is just to tire you out until you surrender. He says the meditation will not get you there, but do it without any desire for reward. Nishkaam.

 

Which is impossible to do because we always seek the reward. So it’s a method to take you beyond the ego. 

 

Osho Robbins

 

Gurinder Singh Dhillon