How I wrote a holy book

Did you know that I wrote a holy book? Yes, indeed. Brian Hines, the unpastor of the Church of the Churchless, is the author of “Life is Fair.” It was published in India by Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) in 1999 with a first printing of 25,000 copies.

When I first got a copy of the book I enjoyed looking at the back page. There was “Life is Fair” listed in the Books on Sant Mat in General category, right along with such classics as “The Path of the Masters” by Julian Johnson.

I wrote the book because I was asked to. One day the phone rang and I found myself talking to Faith Singh, the head of RSSB publications in India. She said that a book project aimed at explaining the karmic rationale for vegetarianism had stalled. Faith asked if I’d like to review the work that had been done so far and take it from there.

I said, “Sure.” The guru who initiated me, Charan Singh, reportedly had said that he’d like to be able to hand out a little book that would explain why it is wrong to eat meat. He died before such a book could be written. I was honored to be able to offer my guru a posthumous gift.

I got to thinking about “Life is Fair” while watching the first episode of PBS’s Bill Moyers on Faith and Reason last Friday. Salman Rushdie was his guest. Near the end of the program Rushdie was shown reading from “The Satanic Verses.” This was the supposedly blasphemous book that forced Rushdie to spend ten years underground, hiding from Islamic assassins.

A transcript of the Rushdie interview is well worth checking out. He’s a courageous guy who knows first-hand how dangerous true believers can be. He has no qualms about writing “The Satanic Verses.” I haven’t read the book, so was interested to hear the excerpt read by Rushdie.

It is about an educated scribe, who happens to be called Salman, and his experience taking down rules dictated by the prophet Mahound—who is channeling the Archangel Gibreel. Salman suspects that the revelations have much more to do with Mahound’s earthly ambitions than any godly purpose.

Salman began to notice how useful and well-timed the angel's revelations tend to be, so that when the faithful were disputing Mahound's views on any subject from the possibility of space travel to the permanence of hell, the angel would turn up with an answer, and he always supported Mahound.

So Salman starts to change Mahound’s recitations. Minor changes at first. Then, when Mahound doesn’t notice the alterations when his words are read back to him, bigger edits. For example, “He said Christian. I wrote down Jew.” Mahound still is clueless.

Here's the point. Mahound did not notice the alterations. So there I was actually writing the book or-- or rewriting anyway, polluting the word of God with my own profane language.

But good heavens if my poor words could not be distinguished from the revelation by God's own messenger, then what did that mean? What did that say about the quality of the divine poetry? Look, I swear, I was shaken to my soul. It's one thing to be a smart bastard and have half suspicions about funny business, but it's quite another thing to find out that you're right.

I can tell you for a fact that no angel helped me write “Life is Fair.” The book came right out of my own mind, then improved with some expert editing by Jean Rosenblatt, Faith Singh, and others. I have no idea whether the metaphysical side of what I wrote is true. I thought at the time that is was, but now I don’t know.

Karmic law may guide what happens to souls after death. Or it may not. Each of us will find out after we die.

“Life is Fair” contains intriguing spiritual hypotheses which will make a lot of sense, or seem like nonsense, depending on your perspective. In no way is it a divine revelation. Yet my book is read at meetings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas devotees as if it was. The same is true of the other books published by RSSB. It is assumed that if this religious organization puts its stamp of approval on a title, the words inside can be trusted.

Yet in the case of “Life is Fair” I know that they can’t be, since I wrote them most fallibly. I read other books about karma and vegetarianism. I delved into my own experience. I stared out the window, came up with ideas, and typed them into my word processor. Then I’d re-read what I wrote and change it. Sometimes I’d start a chapter over again from scratch.

I’m willing to bet that most (if not all) “holy books” have been written in much the same fashion. Human beings put down what they believe to be true. But they don’t know for sure. So a reader should give their words no more credence than he or she would give the content of any other book.

No book is holy, just as no flag is. Today, thankfully, the United States Senate failed to approve a constitutional amendment that would ban burning of the American flag. Proponents talk of “desecration,” as if a piece of cloth somehow could be divine.

Nothing earthly is. Not the American flag. And certainly not books written by all-too-human beings.

Believe me, I know what I’m talking about.

Comments

[Susheel Sabnani]

Hi Brian,

I came across your blog during lunch one day at work. I am a follower of the RSSB path. I am not here to argue with any of your postings as these are your opinions and are to be respected as long with those of your other contributors.

My personal view of the line "Yet my book is read at meetings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas devotees as if it was.", referring to the book being viewed as a holy one and every word in it being considered divine is very different.

I have had the pleasure of reading your book and I must comment that it is well-written and the use of animation intermittently was a nice touch.

However, I personally, and most people I talk to who have read the book use it primarily as a source of rational thought to argue a case for vegetarianism. It is quoted as are many other books, even those without the RSSB stamp of approval, when it aids in explaining a finer point.

At the end of the day, to communicate one's opinions and beliefs, one often needs to borrow ideas that have been expressed by other authors and some of the thoughts and words used to express your ideas have clicked with numerous readers.

I have never viewed it as a holy book and I personally do not believe in the idea of any book being holy in the first place.

Once again, please do not view my comments as a personal attack or me standing up on behalf of RSSB. These are my personal views and felt that those visiting your blog may enjoy this freedom of expression.

Best wishes with your blog and other pursuits in life.

[Brian]

Susheel, I agree with you. I don't know anyone who considers my book genuinely holy, as in the sense of infallible.

What I was trying to get at in this post is the attitude of RSSB satsang speakers toward the approved Sant Mat books. That attitude does indeed border on holiness. As a long time satsang speaker and listener, I'm confident about this.

When was the last time you heard someone pick up "The Master Answers" or "Divine Light," read a passage, and say, "I don't agree with this, and here's why."

If somebody did that, I'd believe that RSSB truly is a science of the soul, and that RSSB books aren't treated with undue veneration.

Myself, while I was still an approved speaker I'd often say to the audience, "How do we know this? Isn't this just a hypothesis? Why should we believe it?" Well, this helps explain why I'm not a speaker anymore.

Anyway, my main point is one that you seem to agree with: that no book should be considered holy, because all books are written by human beings, not God. Relgious books are filled with contradictions and nonsensical statements, which certainly includes RSSB publications.

[Susheel Sabnani]

Brian, first of all, I must say your response is very prompt.

I will agree with you that some individuals treat some of the writings as holy. This, I feel, boils down to individual views and traits.

My understanding of the teachings is that one's journey is purely internal and books, as you have rightly pointed out, are imperfect though they aid in one's understanding and decision-making.

[Edward]

Like they say on the teevee, drink responsibly!

How about if I share someone's karma, instead of deeming myself responsible for it? Then in writing, I am aware of my spiritual life, and in so doing, am aware of your's too.

Of course, an easy thing would be to read that way, too. Give someone the benefit of the doubt, while activating the bullshit detector. I could be cognizant of what is spiritually alive, and not have to blame a writer for assuming "ultimate" authority.

Because we have all heard the coincidental, and the contrived, truisms out of the mouths of babes. As there is only one power in the universe,(the universal one,) well, the actual world is expressing. If I am listening in order to catch someone in a religious faux pas, I am probably bored with myself. Or scared.

A holy text is one that raises my awareness of the holy. Dr. Suess has passed that test. But the exam had to be honest and kind, not possessive of correctness. That is the absurdity of Rushdie's dilemma: by calling you mad, you become mad.

When complimented, my friend used to demure by saying, "I don't write these poems, I just make them up." I like the idea that we have nothing to do with what we write.

[Vikas Kalra]

Hi Brian,

Two points on your blog entry and your subsequent comments:

Look at the endorsement by RSSB (or any other sect/group) the same way as you would see a company that is ISO certified or a product or medicine that meets the FDA norms. You still can’t be sure if its 100% safe or good for you but the certification gives you some comfort.
You at least know that the contents of the book are in accordance with your faith and beliefs.

This brings me to the second point on critical appraisal of the texts. There are two categories of readers of books - the seekers and the initiates. For the seeker it makes sense to ask all possible questions and satisfy all doubts. This time, however, is gone for the initiates (like you). They have had their moments of questions and doubts and only after putting them to rest did they accept the path (one hopes). The most sensible way now is to practice what has been taught and verify the written word. Lets not keep questioning for the sake of it.

The RSSB (and most other such) books are for support and not for worship. These books are to be treated just as a lawyer or a doctor would treat books on their subject matter - referrals and guides.

Best wishes.

[Gaz]

Anyway, my main point is one that you seem to agree with: that no book should be considered holy, because all books are written by human beings, not God. Relgious books are filled with contradictions and nonsensical statements, which certainly includes RSSB publications.

What do you think of the GGS? That was written by 10 Sikh Gurus.

I agree with you RSSB has books which have contradictory statements, e.g. they have stuff such as if you see the back of Guru while he is having a shower, a certain amount of karma gets eradicated. And if he stands on an ant, that ant gets a human birth in his next life. Absolute crass, Gurinder was asked about this, and he said such statements are not true.

Best

Gaz