Why I embrace unorganized religion

Regular Church of the Churchless readers will have noted my antipathy toward organized religions and my corresponding fondness for spiritual independence.

It’s worth asking, “How did you become such an anti-church curmudgeon, Brian?” And since I don’t hear anyone else making this query, I’ll pose and answer it myself as briefly as possible (which won’t be all that brief, given my blogging style).

I won’t spend time delving into the psychological nuances of the first five decades of my life, other than to say that I was blessed to be raised by a divorced mother with decidedly intellectual and independent tendencies. And also, cursed. For a person’s greatest strengths also are the source of his or her greatest weaknesses.

Over the years I have probably thought more than was desirable, as I have excessively railed against organizational restrictions. Still, who I am is who I am, an unavoidable tautology that applies equally to each of us.

Up until about seven years ago I was fairly comfortable with the religious organization to which I have belonged for thirty-four years: Radha Soami Satsang Beas, or RSSB. I realize that this name won’t be familiar to many of you. However, it isn’t important to understand what sort of spiritual group RSSB is, for the themes I’ll be writing about seem to apply to virtually every religious organization—from the vast Catholic Church to the smallest sect.

I say this because over the years I’ve talked with quite a few people whose experiences have been remarkably similar to mine. A Bahai follower comes to mind. He was active in the Bahai faith and became familiar with its inner workings. The more he learned about the organization that lay behind the Bahai teachings, the more he perceived the gap between leaders’ words and actions.

That is, they were talking the talk, but not walking the walk. We all do this. I certainly am guilty of espousing ideals that I don’t live up to. But our goal should be to bring the talk and the walk into consonance: not pretending to be anything other than we are, while still striving to improve ourselves. Otherwise, we are hypocrites.

Now, a recent commenter on one of my posts implied that a spiritual group such as RSSB shouldn’t be judged on the basis of its members. At first I agreed with him, but I’ve been thinking about this off and on for a few days and have decided that I tend more toward disagreement (hey, I’m a Libra—I rarely come down solidly on one side or another).

For how else could you judge the worth of a religious organization whose stated aim is the spiritual transformation of those who pledge allegiance to it and to its leader (in this case, a guru)? If the members of the group aren’t becoming better human beings, wouldn’t you be justified in saying that the organization is failing to achieve its purpose?

Consider the Tai Chi classes that I started taking less than a year ago. Obviously I’m still a beginner, while some people in the class have been learning Tai Chi from my instructor, Warren, for over five years. Naturally Warren is highly proficient in Tai Chi. Since he’s the instructor, he should be. But what if I saw that most of the people who had been studying with him for a long time were as bad at Tai Chi as I am?

In other words, outwardly they hadn’t learned much about how to move in the harmonious, controlled, soft, continuous, flexible Tai Chi fashion. Maybe inwardly they were flowing with chi (ki). That just wasn’t apparent from their actions. In this case I’d say to myself, “Gosh, this can’t be a good Tai Chi school, given how little students learn in five years.”

This conclusion wouldn’t negate the teacher’s clear competency in Tai Chi. It just would mean that either he’s inherently a lousy teacher, or the methods he’s using to teach aren’t effective. It might also be that the students are bumbling fools, but if they appeared to be competent in other areas of their lives and were physically normal, I’d discount that explanation.

In truth, I’ve observed that the people who have studied longest with Warren are, by and large, the best at Tai Chi. A few even seem to be as proficient as he is, which shows that he’s an excellent instructor.

Yet in the case of RSSB, my experience was different. I came to see that those people who had pursued the practices enjoined by this group for the longest time, and apparently with the most diligence, hadn’t made much outwardly evident spiritual progress. And one of those people was me.

This realization struck while I was in the midst of writing my third book, “Return to the One,” which is about the spiritual teachings of a 3rd century Greek philosopher, Plotinus. Radha Soami Satsang Beas wanted to add a Mystics of the West series to their existing Mystics of the East series. I agreed to write this book in cooperation with RSSB, hopefully fulfilling both my own literary goals and those of the spiritual organization to which I had belonged for so long.

Given the length this post already has achieved, it would unduly stretch the reader’s patience if I were to go into many details of the eight-year process of researching and writing “Return to the One.” I’ll just say that it was enormously fulfilling. And also enormously frustrating.

Fulfilling, because I came to love Plotinus’ marvelous blend of grounded rationality and soaring mysticism. Frustrating, because I came to realize that high-ranking people in the RSSB organization were surprisingly beset with such human frailties as egotism, a controlling nature, closed-mindedness, and an unwillingness to compromise.

I say “surprisingly” for this reason: Naturally I was uncomfortably aware of my own weaknesses that remained after decades of daily meditation, adherence to moral/ethical vows, voluntary service, and so on. Yet I had always assumed that others who occupied an elevated position in the RSSB organization were more spiritual than I was, just as the experienced Tai Chi students in my class exhibit greater skills than I do.

This didn’t seem to be the case, however. And I’ll pretty much leave it at that, not naming names and not detailing the reasons for my disillusionment. In a few words, in the course of writing “Return to the One” I was deceived, let down, lied to, ignored, and manipulated. Such is par for the course in a business or governmental organization, but I had expected better from a spiritual group.

Hopefully I don’t sound bitter. Really, I’m not. Certainly I was disappointed at having years of my work be cast aside by people who I had trusted would treat me better. However, having lived for fifty-six years on this earth I understand, as the saying goes, that “nobody promised me a rose garden.” No, this was more a philosophical turning point for me than an emotional personal crisis.

For it finally had dawned on me that just as the RSSB people in leadership positions had failed to be spiritually transformed after many years of diligent devotional practice, so had I. Yet the difference between us was that they were much closer to the leader of this religious group, the guru, than I was. They also were much more intimately tied into the inner organizational workings of RSSB than I was. In Catholic parlance they’d be considered Vatican insiders with ready access to the Pope.

What I observed happening—and my psychotherapist wife agrees with me on this—is that holding a position of power in a religious organization exacerbates the common human tendency to assert one’s ego and exert control over other people.

Simple egotism and a desire to dominate are transformed into a more complex self-righteousness which justifies frailties as positive qualities. For example, closed-mindedness can be misconstrued as unquestioning faith and inability to compromise as acceptance of revealed truths.

In Bertrand Russell’s provocative essay, “Why I am not a Christian,” he says:

One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it…You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs…I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

Note that Russell speaks disparagingly of Christian religion “as organized in its churches.” He considers that belief in God is a fantasy, but reserves his harshest condemnation of religion for its institutionalized, not individual, manifestations.

So do I, though I am uncertain about the existence of God, while Russell says that “it is a conception quite unworthy of free men.” I’ve seen that whenever believers come to identify more with a particular religious organization, such as RSSB or the Catholic Church, than with an ultimate reality that transcends such petty distinctions, their spirituality becomes seriously circumscribed.

I don’t know if God is real, but I am confident that reality is real. For me, the essence of reality is what I call “God.” What it is, I don’t know. That it is, I’m persuaded by logic and science. How to realize it clearly is the mystery of all mysteries, the task of all tasks. If God can be known, and the testimony of mystics points to this conclusion, then opening oneself to a realization of the divine nature is the job of a lifetime.

I’m confident that God speaks to us in many ways. Directly, though—not through third parties. And certainly not through organizations. Religious organizations are dead. They’re legal and cultural figments of the imagination. They have no reality, no vitality, no consciousness, no love, no compassion.

When people fall into the trap of saying “I’m a Christian,” “I’m a Muslim,” or “I’m a satsangi” (in the case of RSSB), they enclose themselves in one more layer of illusion. This further distances them both from God and from their fellow human beings.

Like this fair façade, their spirituality may be superficially attractive. Yet a closer examination reveals that it lacks depth and is flimsily propped up by artificial supports: dogma, blind faith, self-righteousness, unquestioned adherence to arbitrary moral codes.

Based upon my personal experience, here’s some advice:

It’s un-organized religion that will make you a better person and point you toward the reality of God. Don’t let anyone or anything stand between you and what you seek. Worship without any intermediaries.

Become your own church. Just don’t organize your faith. Organization is a structure. What we want to do is break down the barriers between us and God, not construct new ones. Let reality speak to you in its own formless fashion.

Above all, love one another. I may not be a Christian, but I certainly subscribe to this part of the gospel. If people in your religious organization aren’t demonstrating that they understand the importance of love, flee. It’s much better to love on your own than not love as a group.

Comments

[Samadhi Ma]

Brian,

Like yourself, I had been closely associated with the RSSB group for many years, since 1970 to be exact. As an initiate, I practiced the meditation (simran and bhajan) and the principles for many years. As you know, the whole purpose was to focus the unruly mind, and tame it. Like yourself, I felt, after many years, that little progress was being made from this practice. But now, I am glad that I did this practice, as it prepared me for what was to come.

I began to explore other spiritual teachings in 1983, notably Advaita, the teachings of nonduality. The emphasis here is to "Know Thyself", to find out who the "I" is, and to discover our true nature and thereby abide as eternal peace.

You said: "For me, the essence of reality is what I call “God.” What it is, I don’t know."

Brian, God is your very own Self. That is why Self Knowledge is the only REAL Knowledge. All other knowledge is not Self Knowledge.
The Self is Being/Consciousness/Bliss.
Self Inquiry is the most direct path to Self Knowledge. When one quiets the mind from Self Inquiry, the Self shines. God and Self are ONE. Our essence, our natural state is pure consciousness. We are to worship pure consciousness, and that alone. That Self is not apart from God. There is no separation.

You said: "How to realize it clearly is the mystery of all mysteries, the task of all tasks. If God can be known, and the testimony of mystics points to this conclusion, then opening oneself to a realization of the divine nature is the job of a lifetime."

Absolutely, Brian. We must open ourselves to our own Divine Nature, the Supreme Self. To know God is to know our very own Self. This is our sacred duty.

As for human spiritual organizations, I fully agree with you. Dealing with them opens a pandoras' box to difficulties and obstacles. It is best to first find out who YOU are, then all questions will be answered.

Yours in Truth

Samadhi Ma
Northern California

[Netemara]

Brian, I have to disagree with much of what you have said here. I am also a little disappointed. I too thought many of those same thoughts about who is manifesting more spirituality than whom and I came to the conclusion it was I who was not manifesting. The lesson was to be a sound beating for my ego (I am not saying this is true for you) but that was my lesson.

I took time off and did not meditate for two years and even went back on vegetarianism and thought "hmmm my life is no different." But I was wrong. Whatever has manifested in my life or in your own is chalked up to destiny karmas that we cannot escape. The dealings you have with the higher ups in RSSB are because you had dealings with them of a dishonest or whatever type in past life and you are here reaping it and are not being grateful. Shame on you Brian.

It's all there for you to see when you are ready to see it. It is as plain as the nose on your face.

Spiritual progress is a myth. All time is enclosed in the NOW, past, present and future are all in the NOW. That is not a platitude. Thus you are experiencing the same thing with RSSB as you did in the past right now. And so was I.

That is not to be ignored but embraced and as Kabir or somebody said (paraphrase) "heap that slander on me and my mother" as it washes me clean with no charge. That is so damn true. I learned this as a teacher. He also said to keep the slander close to you. Geez, it is hard to bear but it cleans up that ego like nothing else. Pride IS really the last to go.

Netemara

[Brian]

Netemara, you may be correct: perhaps when people act badly towards us it is because of bad karma that we incurred because of our own past bad actions.

I used to hold a similar opinion myself. I don't mean to imply that now I've seen the light and you haven't. I just want to share a few ideas for your consideration.

(1) If karma theory is correct--that this is an overarching law of cause and effect that guides everything in existence--then we can't "one up" karma. I mean, we can't stand outside of karma and say "this is karma and this isn't karma," because that very saying necessarily is part of karma.

Do you see what I mean? There isn't any end to the thread of karma where you can start disentangling it. Let's assume you're correct, and karma is assuring that I am getting what I deserve from RSSB leaders.

Then it follows that my reaction to what I've gotten also is karmically inspired. And your reaction to my reaction, as described in my post, also is karmically inspired. So we're all being controlled by destiny--just playing out a game that none of us can comprehend from the outside, because you can't stop playing the game.

I used to get annoying phone calls from a satsangi who would want to berate me about my failings as sangat secretary. She'd say, "Brian, we've got some karma to work out, so let's talk." I'd reply: "Well, I feel that my karma is not to talk, so I'm hanging up the phone." Click. That really annoyed her, so she'd call back. And then I'd hang up again. How powerful could karma be if I can override it so easily?

(2) Thus I've come to hold the view that karma is like gravity: it's just there, and we live with it unconsciously. I don't think about gravity when I pick up my feet and walk. Gravity simply constrains my actions naturally.

Similarly, I now have a Taoist perspective about living and acting in the world. I'm just going to try to act as naturally and spontaneously as possible, and not worry about whether it is my ego, my karma, my guru, my god, my free will, or my whatever that is doing the doing.

KISS: keep it simple, stupid. That's my motto. And I'm the stupid one, I want to emphasize, not you. I don't know myself and I certainly don't know the reasons for what happens with myself.

The simplest approach, I've found, is that if it feels to me like I'm being treated badly by someone, then I'll just leave at that: feeling like I'm being treated badly. Conversely, if I feel like I've treated someone else badly, I'll also leave it at that: feeling like I've acted badly.

This is honest. It's direct. And it's all I know how to do. If other people have a more enlightened view of me and the cosmos then I do, god bless them. I'm happy for them. I wish I could know what they know.

But until I do, I don't. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I honor it, though I can't share it given my current level of understanding or misunderstanding.

[Netemara]

Hi Brian,

Did you go to Petaluma on Saturday? I got call that Babaji is there today.

You wrote:

"(2) Thus I've come to hold the view that karma is like gravity: it's just there, and we live with it unconsciously. I don't think about gravity when I pick up my feet and walk. Gravity simply constrains my actions naturally."

True, gravity is a law of nature and so is rebirth. And that people live in it and with it without knowledge of it is also true. I am working to change that.

In my intense study of karma which I actually call "a redoing" in that sense there is no need to think or worry about it, it takes care of itself--again true. But to go to the next level I wanted to know everything. All past lives and the karma contained therein.

What I've concluded is that we cannot even have a conversation with someone unless it is karmically ordained...meaning simply done before--deja vu. When we come full circle the truth gets extremely complex, for a while, but ends in an extremely simple conclusion--we already are that.

As for your reactions as I said it means that you've reacted to whomever the same way before and likely for the same reasons. Now some things do change from life to life, or seem to, but the similarities are so scary that it seems we have never changed! Thus I took that premise as the basis of my work. That's why I don't believe in psychotherapy or that people are crazy.

Everything is rooted in the past and most of it really most problems seat themselves in the physical body. It acts as a receptical of karmas--it recalls the diseases we've had in past lives and brings those too back for us to go through again--all karma means (the other bodies are also recepticals).

Thus my simple point: there is no spiritual advancement nor mystical enlightenment. It is already period. If we are the drop then we have all the qualities of the ocean.

I have also examined Advaita and even met with Maharshi on the inner planes. I went in as far as you can using their recommended method I achieved it in about a month. But it felt like total annhilation--didn't like it so I came right back -- So been there and done that too.

Best

Netemara

[Dawn]

"Well, I feel that my karma is not to talk, so I'm hanging up the phone."

Can I use this line? It's priceless!

[Brian]

Yes, Dawn, you certainly can use the “my karma is not to talk” line—unlimited usage is hereby granted to you and anyone else. I did indeed enjoy using that line myself.

You asked, “Is it the Sant Mat teachings you object to, or do you think the growth of RSSB is causing 'organization' to occur, and people to lose sight of the teachings?” Well, I didn’t write the message that comprised this post, but I agree with most of what was said.

It’s a little of both now, Dawn. I used to uncritically accept virtually all of the teachings, but over the years I came to see that this is an unscientific attitude—and this is supposedly the Science of the Soul. So now I try to leave aside conjecture and focus on direct experience. My experience, because that’s the only experience I can have.

My observation is that long-time satsangis are heading in one of two directions. Most have had little direct experience of the hypothesized Sant Mat truths, like me. So the choice seems to be to either (1) believe even more strongly in them, becoming Sant Mat fundamentalists akin to true believers of any other religion.

Or, (2) you can back off, become a bit more skeptical, a bit more scientific, a bit more inclusive of teachings from other faiths (in my case, it’s probably better to say “a lot more” rather than "a bit more").

I didn’t sign up with RSSB to join a religion. Yet it appears to me that this is the way the organization is heading. I still heartily agree that meditation is key—the only way to directly experience higher realities. That should be the focus, not all the other stuff that many satsangis pay a lot more attention to (like “When is the Master coming next?!”)

[Who Am I ?]

Brian,

Thanks for your quite rational and sensible comment.

You wrote: "I didn’t sign up with RSSB to join a religion." - and - "...meditation is key—the only way to directly experience higher realities. That should be the focus, not all the other stuff that many satsangis pay a lot more attention to..."

My sentiments as well. I take a very pragmatic approach to spiritual growth and work. The simple reason that I became involved with RSSB in the first place, was because I was only interested in the particular form of meditation, and what results it would produce. I did not even want any "master" or guru. I had been associated with a few quite genuine and spiritually enlightened gurus, and I was not interested in another guru, or all the rest of the cultish baggage which most satsangis seem to give a lot of attention to. Such as: the elevation of the master to near God status, dogmatic authoritarian dictates, self-imposed narrow-mindedness and tunnel-vision, excessive attention and attachment to the physical form, personality, and proximity of the master, and a very pervasive and sanctimonious attitude of: "we satsangis are a very special elect group, and we are on a higher spiritual path than non-satsangis".

And yes, a very few satsangis drop out and seek true enlightenment elsewhere, but most become more rigid and defensive in their adherence to dogma and belief, and in denial about the fact that they have achieved no real progress after many years of practice. This fact is further ignored and avoided by the admonition of the master that "one is not to question, but just keep meditating". This sort of denial is a formula for blind faith, but not for true spiritual growth. Spiritual growth requires real Self-examination, and conscious understanding, leading to spiritual awakening and true knowledge. Most satsangis, by and large, are just repetitively going through the motions, and are not any more awakened or spiritually enlightened than they were when they started. In my opinion, it is extremely sad and unfortunate for such satsangis to remain spiritually stagnant for an entire life.

On the other hand, with the application of a proper spiritual teaching, the guidance of a true and genuine Sage, and a moderate conscious effort and focus, one can certainly achieve the highest perfection in life - Self-realization, in a relatively short time.

[Netemara]

It seems that a Master is important when there is nothing, seemingly, happening within the eye focus. Yes, many here are anticipating the sound of Babaji visiting here if only for an hour. It makes no difference to me because I am actively engaged in the eye focus.

The outer physical master is really a temporary crutch. When one finds the master within, and he is lurking there waiting, then everything changes and the outer master is not only redundant but virtually nonexistent.

The definition of a cult includes that a group of people follow an individual who is charming and magnetic and powerful, for whatever reason, and those who follow this cult figure will gladly do his/her bidding. In this world of duality it is nearly impossible to not follow some damn body or want to be with somebody. Show me where there is no cultism and I'll show you a recluse...

Netemara

[Ed]

No one is talking the talk and walking the walk, the strong ones are the ones who can see how weak they actually are but concede it and accept it, that is faith. I think the more we can accept our, and everyone elses weaknesses, the better we become.
I don't look at weather the followers of organized religions are walkign the walk, I look at whether the relgious teachings challenge me to grow - not mine to judge if others are making the grade or not, but they're all up for the challenge = organised religion.

Kahil Gibran, a spiritual genius, probably one of the most observant people of the last while, only found one man who he said he could deem as truly spiritual, Abdu'l-Baha, (the Master). We have to find beauty in both our strengths and weaknesses - we're both.

[SURINDER SINGH KHABRIA]

Sir

Spirituality, religion, dogmas, all words are made to show the blind. I mean to those who live a life of majority who are totally ignorant to innerself. The word 'god' is also criticised. It is very difficult to select a word to call the blind group of people who are eating drinking and making merriment.

The awaken donot need these words. They are born with a quest to search something they are ignorant and unable to give a meaning or word to that. OK we call that God. So mojority criticise this word 'god'.
The awaken want to experience it. Just as we experience many worldly things throughout our journey on this earth. It is not bad to experience the innerself. This is also a journey. A step forward makes a complete change.

Better we mind our own business. Afterall, we are living in our body and we have to leave it on death of this body and if we donot experience the inner worlds through this human body, we will lose the chance to know greater things after death of this body.

Surinder Singh Khabria

[Anon]

I do believe in unorganized religion, and that any spiritual path can better a person. I do however, see that to know the truth must be beneficial over to not in some sense.

The Bahai leaders were not perfect in such matters, and did not see themselves that way.

[Jonathan Elliot]

Wonderful post, Brian. I find myself agreeing with you on so many levels, and I appreciate hearing the perspective of someone with much Eastern-based spiritual experience, as that hasn't been mine.

I do have a couple of questions, one of which I'll ask here:

"When people fall into the trap of saying “I’m a Christian,” “I’m a Muslim,” or “I’m a satsangi” (in the case of RSSB), they enclose themselves in one more layer of illusion."

I find it difficult to work with labels, but sometimes for simplicity's sake I find myself having to use them. Even my currently prefferred "agnostic" still has to be qualified, as some will assume I'm much closer to atheism than I am.

Do you think it's possible to use labels in a "light" fashion, saying something like "for simplicity's sake, I'm a muslim, but I don't really fit with much of that faith any more". ?

[Brian Hines]

Jonathan, "light" labels are impossible to avoid. Nothing wrong with them. I was probably over-stating the down side of "I'm a ..." in the quote you cited in your comment.

After all, if somebody asks me what I believe in, currently I'll say something like "I guess you could call me a Scientific Taoist." But that doesn't really encompass, or describe very well, what actually transpires inside my head when I ponder the meaning of my life.

It's just a couple of words that gesture vaguely in a certain philosophical direction, which I guess is better than saying nothing at all -- which doesn't foster communication or a conversation.