Balancing Sant Mat faith and doubt

Recently I received some emails from a fellow initiate of Charan Singh, a Sant Mat guru who belonged to the Radha Soami Satsang Beas branch of this movement. I enjoyed what this person had to say and got permission to edit the messages into a postable form.

Like my correspondent, I too resonate with the Buddhist outlook. And I similarly try to retain from the Sant Mat teachings what works and makes sense. The rest is eminently discardable.

Here are some thoughts about balancing faith and doubt. I found them interesting. Hope you do too.
--------------------------------
“I realized at the tender age of twenty-one that I was unlikely to be able to walk the razor's edge and if I did start traveling inside, then I might as well look for the highest guide—one fully enlightened. Frankly, I wanted protection from the unknown world. Instead of going from one guru to another, let's go to the top, get cleansed at initiation by the highest.

Charan Singh fulfilled a list of criteria; Julian Johnson's book [“The Path of the Masters”] was persuasive; the Gita said Bhakti [devotion] is the easiest and quickest route.

Now that I am much older...I have been reading up a little regarding the history of Sant Mat and Surat Shabd Yoga, and realize that a lot is based on faith that the guru is a Param Sant, God, and if Jaimal Singh was excommunicated because he was not a fully realized master, then the other masters following him weren't either.

Charan claimed not to be and he leaned heavily on the fact that Sawan Singh [his guru] was—he could always be dependent on his master's power—maybe it wasn't there. Remember, Soamiji [another Sant Mat guru] also had to fit into his criteria. He even left out the hookah smoking section of Sar Bachan [a book written by Soamiji].

Intriguingly I have learned also that Surat Shabd practice is pre-vedic; hundreds of Sant Mat groups exist; thirty Radhasoami groups exist with Soamiji as their originator; the five simran names [mantra] and related sounds are used in Kundalini yoga and are sometimes given in different order.

So, as you've mentioned we are more careful about buying a second-hand car than deciding on a guru. I think that the “When a disciple is ready, the guru appears” attitude is to blame. I have just seen a friend who said that when she saw Charan, she knew that she was in the presence of God.

Well, if I inherited big properties and hosted many people free of charge and they put me on a dais all dressed up and Indian with thousands below all sending me love and boosted me with the idea that I am God, I might also appear to be God. If a Westerner was to do this in the West he/she would end up in jail.

I could never read books like “On Wings of Love,” the written outpouring I find nauseatingly self indulgent that, yes, belongs to the twenty-somethings. I also find satsang [Sant Mat talks] to be limiting and don't go. Even though the present master would say that is arrogance, I am not fooled or afraid.

Sant Mat books lean heavily on the “Love the guru.” while the Guru says, “Get over me.” Also, each guru is inconsistent on the little things—like cut flowers, photos etc.—they all seem to have their own brand of Sant Mat. In Buddhism, as you no doubt know, there are also many approaches.

Before initiation I trained under several Buddhist masters and searched various other Eastern paths. My preference has always been the Buddhist approach which approves of doubt, and where simply being harmless (very difficult to achieve) and in the present, is considered an enlightened state.

Regarding the difference between Buddhism and Sant Mat meditation: In Buddhist group sitting meditation, instead of calling up names and a form eyes are half open and lowered. Meditators are in touch with the world, but not its effect. Meditators have to work on themselves to develop their own enlightenment.

Since Buddhism has many different meditations, I isolated two and a half hours of meditation, the necessity of a perfect guru and a vegetarian diet. Also it was necessary not to have to become a nun. So Sant Mat seemed the discipline to fit the bill.

I had also done Insight or Vipassana meditation along with Loving Kindness meditation and read in the Bhagavad Gita that the quickest and easiest route to merging with the higher consciousness was through Bhakti Yoga or Devotional Yoga.

I then proceeded to put a great deal of time and effort into meditation in the hopes of scientifically proving that what the guru said was true. By the time I woke up and really looked at Sant Mat (about 14 years later), I had invested a great deal into meditating on Charan Singh's form and was literally joined at the hip—I still can't shake loose.

Ask a Buddhist how many levels exist on the inner spiritual plane. They will say more than a hundred. Other paths will answer differently. Sant Mat says five or seven. What type of ultimate position can be reached for consciousness? We don't know, and do we really buy the route that Sant Mat uses? Are the five words effective and really what they say they are? This is just the start of the questions.

I am happy to be doubtful.

From what I see, simply put: Simran [repetition of a mantra] prevents repetitive negative worldly thinking—blocks it out for peace and clarity. Listening to the inner sound connects to what may be the source, or what is our actual nature. Darshan [visualization of the guru’s form] should focus on refinement and thereby develop it along with creating a protective memory—this is based on faith and we like it because it feels good.

Vipassana observes and lets go of arising thought until peace and clarity arise. Being present prevents extraneous unnecessary thinking. Loving Kindness means freeing oneself from attraction and repulsion and creating a position in which one can be helpful. Practicing Harmlessness creates discernment.

A common thread in the Buddhist and Sant Mat approach is that the mind should not be reasoning, deducing, thinking so much and should be left to rest while simran and bare attention are practiced. From the still mind; clarity, wisdom, etc. arise automatically without prodding: "leave it alone, don't mess with it." Obviously we have to think at times, many times—but not unnecessarily.

In Sant Mat, the guru says he's not going to leave us. Now, this is true because try meditating two or more hours a day for 10 years on anyone's face, and practicing diligently what they tell you to do (including not discussing with the curious and the opposition the pros and cons of the approach they've mapped out for you). Believe me, that person you’ve been meditating on won't leave you so easily.

Yes, one does become more realistic, less fanciful, realizing that it's not in the fireworks, but in the small simple daily efforts. If the guru does ride up on his super-white charger after we die, maybe we won't be so happy to go where he says we should go and if we are, maybe it's not so far.

So a little research, a little letting go for the heretics.

As you've mentioned, once one admits that a classical satsangi-by-the-book is not me, there are a lot of changes that occur. We keep bursting the bubble.

It's good to be disillusioned.”

Comments

[ET]

You say that “It's good to be disillusioned.”

I think that you are saying that you as many of us are perhaps at a similar place on a natural “growth curve”.

I think that disbelief in Sant Mat or some other “ism” is like the skin of a snake. When the snake is ready to slough it off, it will do so, but not before; and if one tries to strip the skin from the snake before it is ready to lose it, the snake becomes very angry.

Disillusionment is as normal as a snake shedding an old skin, and yes that is very good.

ET

[Roger]

Hi Brian;

Enjoyed your friend's discussion on Sant Mat. He finalized, with the statement,"It's good to be disillusioned."

That statement made me put on my "Discovery" cap again. It's a curse of mine.

I think, I remember, one of your discussions
regarding your former RSSB group, and the current guru. The current RSSB guru's name is Gurender (sp?). I think, I remember your concerns with the G person and his short comings. His poor communications skills or something?

My question, "Was his disillusionment based on the current guru, Gurender?"

Again, no big deal, I just didn't notice any reference to the G person in your friend's discussion.

Finally, I was being my silly self when I described my wildside in Vegas. My wildside is rather tame.

[spooky]

Such personal and yet understandible for many of us, thought is really good. Its probably why I am so happy with this site. Both my parents, in fact my whole family is satsangi; with all their ups and down, doubt and faith. The good thing to be born in this family is that I grew up with both Eastern and Western thought, types of faith and philosophies. Ofcourse, as one has it, its also the difficult aspect of my life.What your friend wrote is not only helping in giving words to the doubts; its also a very emotional help, because apart from the clear thinking these things seem to sit deep on an emotional level. Its sometimes like screaming; like what the '#_:+*! bleep, bleep, is going on here!!!!!!!

[Brian]

Roger, I can't speak for my correspondent. But I don't think Gurinder Singh had much to do with this person's evolution toward a more doubting Sant Mat practice.

That just comes from my reading of the messages. Buddhist to begin with; then a Sant Mat overlay; followed by, as ET said, a shedding of the portions of the Sant Mat skin that felt superfluous, unnecessary, extraneous.

[benandante]

As a mother, this discussion brings up the most questions in my heart and mind... is there a way to guide your child to the haven of Creator/All That Is/God that does not lead to disillusionment?

I have equated God with "Santa Claus" but that is frankly what my son now has concluded God is, in fact. Not Santa as in a crass symbol of commercialism (that would be his father and mother's internalization of "st nick") but Santa as in the unique internalized self that humanity seems to share for a few fleeting weeks every winter. Even people who do not celebrate Christmas seem to have a bit of "Santa", or a component of their personality that chooses to be altruistic and generous... even to the point where Santa exists because we each play the role for one another. He does not see God as real but as a psychological extension of humanity's best intentions.

This is what my son believes God is, a facet inside each of us, a choice to have the highest and best interests of everyone uppermost in mind and action. I'm trying to verbalize what he seemed supremely content with, a concept that was communicated to me using the emotional shorthand we seem to employ a lot lately.

So have I instilled in my child a weak, tepid faith? Is his personal concept of God, so different from mine, proof of a fallible and incompetent mom? I really wonder sometimes, if I had been more militant and rigid about churches, religions, less tolerant and more sure of things perhaps he would be safer? Have I failed him?

Then I recall giving a circumstance that seemed especially intractable over to Spirit, after all the footwork was done that possibly could be. I told my boys not to worry and meant it, "if it is meant to be the phone will ring and someone will be able to help, all we can do is trust that things will go the way they are supposed to" and within 30 seconds the phone rang and the help we needed was immediately offered. They were delighted and frankly a bit spooked, how does Mom DO "that stuff" -- as if I caused the telephone to ring? when all I have is the knowing that if I need it (or in this case if THEY need it, it will be there, period) I have to say, things like that happen in my house a lot, at least once a week, of course spontaneously.

I know we all shed our illusions, I hope that my resistance to burdening them with my conceptions has not lead them to being out there with little or no skin to begin with. Is it possible to teach faith? Is my imperfect attempt at just sharing my own spiritual journey enough? Or will they seek out a fundamentalist mindset later in life so they can later shed it on their own?

Times like this, it is hard when the phone is silent and I have to trust that things are as they need to be.

Jeanine

[ET]

Jeanine, your trepidations as a diligent parent are quite understandable. I raised my children with a philosophy of life similar to your own. As you, I also asked myself:

“Is my imperfect attempt at just sharing my own spiritual journey enough?”

I think that the answer to your question is an emphatic ‘Yes”.

Furthermore as our children grow up and begin to follow their own unique life paths we have to shed the skin of our own attachment to them so that we do not hold them back or interfere with their grand adventures in life, which will no doubt include some disillusionments.

I agree with your conclusion [that at] “Times like this, it is hard when the phone is silent and I have to trust that things are as they need to be.”

ET

[Roger]

Jeanine;

As before, I thoroughly enjoyed your comments. There is that "human" quality to each one that is so inspiring. Your comments are like the "phone ringing", however, the phone in here is setup with a message recorder. Oh how glorious the statement, "Leave a Message at the Tone."

[Edward]

So here is where the concept of karma falls apart for me. We make decisions in our lives that deeply impact the lives of our children. Between the necessary attachment and the necessary disillusionment, are we primarily living our paths, or are we primarily participating in their paths?
Or is there a meta-karma that assumes both life paths into itself? Or is this the kind of attachment that gets you back on the wheel? (But only as a parent, because everyone is a child, and that would mean escape would be impossible.)

If the karmic choices are made outside of time, then it can not properly be called karma, because of the extant predestination to which that would reduce.

Or is karma not analagous to the individual life, but to all lives in a sort of tapestry of paths, so we can not say "this is my karma, that is your karma."

I am not getting this one, and the discussion of raising children reminds me that the concept of growth over time is deceiving.

[Roger]

Brian;

Sorry, for being a persistent, question asking, pest. It is a curse of mine.

May I ask, "Was your friend willing to open up regarding his years of meditations. Did he discuss any observed; Visions or Sounds?"

If part of his disillusionment came from the lack of visions and sounds, that is ok.
No big deal, however, if so, I can then just "close the page," on this story.

Thanks for your reply,
Roger

[spooky]

Jeanine, perhaps my english isnt good enough to grasp some 'between the sentence stuff', or simply misinterpretate. Also I dont know how you grew up; anyway, being a son of parents who are spiritually in a deep search I can say that how your boys seem to feel God, as a facet of themselves, is simply great! Disillusionment is part of life, but thats allright. My parents 'made' me sensitive towards Being, God , whatever. My questions are my questions. My parents cant change that and they are not suppose to. As Roger sayd; Leave a message at the tone...

[spooky]

Edward, do I understand you well that your question is in fact that of choice 'versus' karma? And this in relation towards eachother instead of karma 'versus' I, as in 'free will'?

[Brian]

Roger, I don't believe this person's disillusionment had anything to do with not experiencing promised phenomena, like lights or sounds.

Buddhism puts little, if any, emphasis on stuff like that. And this person's basic outlook on spirituality is Buddhist. Enlightenment doesn't have anything to do with seeing light.

That's outward. My understanding is, you seek to become light, not to see light. What good does it do to experience another transient bit of phenomena, when the point is to realize non-phenomenal truth?

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,
"[T]o realize non-phenomenal truth"; does that equal "becom[ing]...light"? And - since you have expressed your fear of "death" (as per "this" life, at least), why think it can occur before one's "death" to "this" life?
Robert Paul Howard

[Edward]

spooky - more simply, am I answering your question to work out my karma, or your karma? Is my continuing to learn my karma or my childrens' karma? If these are intertwined, when did that happen? If it happened before our birth, does that make it necessary, or predestined?

[Roger]

Edward's discussion on karma, made me think of my thoughts on karma too.

My uncle "Roger" on my father's side, was born into the world and lived for one month and 22 days. My parents, at my birth, had every intention to name me "Larry." At the last hour, my parents decided to change my name to Roger. They decided to make the change in honor of my uncle.

Through the years, I have wondered why my uncle (Roger) came into the world and only lived for one month and 22 days.
Was this short life predestined? Was this some karmatic total that added up in some strange fashion? What was the reason for such a short life?

This is no big deal. However, in years past, I have wondered why?

In a possible similar manner, I wonder why Edward has ponderd the subject of karma, etc? Maybe, Edward knows of a loved one or someone close, that has encountered something traumatic, or came to some tragic end? Again, no big deal, I'm just thinking.

[benandante]

What a lovely surprise to encounter today! Lots of insights and people who took the time to respond to me. I was feeling that I have been speaking too often and too much... once again I am reminded that my brain is almost always never right about these things.

A dear friend always told me "Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous." He also used to say "our arms are longer than our ears for a reason"... I rediscover all the time that while listening is important, action demonstrates value.

I can only do my best and every so often I have a full scale crisis of faith: Am I Too Wierd To Do Good? Then I go back to being content. As for karma, I keep things like that pretty simple. If it involves my suffering, it is karma, and I must endure it and try to squeeze every drop of knowledge I can from it. If it involves anyone else's suffering, then it is a call to action (that sleeves/earring thing again) that I can answer or not. The more I am able to suspend the idea that "your" suffering is acceptable, and at the same time the more I am willing to let go of my own egocentric obsession with my own burdens, the better I become.

Don't bother asking me Roger, I can hear you already..."What do you become?" well, I don't know... I guess "-Er"!! As in real-Er... light-Er... sane-Er... aware-Er... sturdy-Er... happy-Er... jeanine-Er.

Peace and thanks for the wonderful insights.
Jeanine

[Edward]

Roger, I get here this way:
there's no past or future worth living in; there is one creator that is perpetually creating; as discovered by Wen the Eternally Surprised, there is only participation in immediate creation. Um, now.

And... there is no separation among us; there is an Anima Mundi and I am not alone in the face of omnipotence if we all participate in creation equally.

So... there is no distinction between your dharma and my dharma; there is dharma, and we work. Similarly, I am supposing that there is no distinction between your karma and my karma; there is karma, and we strive.

For some reason you are Roger. Doesn't that mean you are also not Roger? I am not sure that my ignorance has a lot to do with me.

[Edward]

Oh, and my life is probably most remarkable for its lack of trauma. Abnormally nice family, the occasional loss, but I am usually wondering what all the fuss is about.

[Roger]

To Jeanine;
As stated before, I love the "Human" quality of your comments. Keep writing, when you desire to drop in. Over time, as I grow, my questions will be more specific to specific issues.

To Edward;
I think, I am beginning to understand your "Point of View." I enjoy your discussions. There is something in each one to, "Study and Search." In addition, to "words," to look up. I read up on "Anima Mundi," loved the topic. I am having trouble finding more info on the "Wen." As I learn and grow, I wonder, in the years to come, will I turn into a walking breathing, "Conversational Piece?"

[Brian]

Robert, non-phenomenal truth does seem akin to "becoming light." By which I mean, becoming the consciousness that is trying to know non-phenomenal truth. Becoming One, in other words.

A phenomenon needs some place to manifest itself. Hence, duality. This may also be the case with consciousness--perhaps we have to be conscious of something in order to be conscious at all--but mystics hypothesize that there is such a thing as pure consciousness.

So it seems worth inquiring into, this prospect of "becoming light." It sure would relieve, or eliminate, the fear of death if we knew that our essence was pure consciousness, not complex matter.

It's probably true that only bodily death will reveal what, if anything, lies beyond what we know now. There doesn't seem to be any definitive proof of the hereafter from those who are still alive.

We'll all find out one day. Or not, one day.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,
Thanks for your replies.
So: the "light" you wish to "become" is "pure consciousness" - the nature/quality of which lies beyond/superior to our ordinary sort(s) of "consciousness" (although it apparently has given rise to us as [more limitedly] conscious beings).
Ought I infer that you are not convinced that "our essence...[is, in fact] pure consciousness"? Some of your (alive [and incarnate]) correspondents certainly seem to think they "know now" that their "consciousness" (or "awareness") is ever-presently eternal. You appear to doubt such an assertion.
Robert Paul Howard

[Brian]

Robert, of course I doubt such an assertion. Just as I doubt the assertion that Jesus saves, that the Tooth Fairy exists, that Guru is God, that Allah rewards martyrs with 72 virgins, that Zeus casts thunderbolts upon those who meet his disfavor, that the moon is made of green cheese.

To name just a few "that's." Reality is really important to me. Once we begin to substitute fantasy for reality we lose what makes us distinctly human. This is my opinion, at least.

I've got hypotheses about what ultimate reality might be like. Consciousness is a part of that. I readily admit that this could be wishful thinking, because I want my own consciousness to live on after death.

But so far this is just a hypothesis. It may always be.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,
Thank you for your quick response.
It appears to me, however, that - anthropologically and historically speaking - it is more "distinctly human" that most folks/peoples/cultures, around the world and through time (including the "here-and-now"), do "substitute fantasy for reality." I believe Sam Harris might agree with this opinion. I actually think you agree with this too.
Robert Paul Howard

[Brian]

Robert, you're right. Harris does recognize this. As do I. The problem isn't that humans fantasize. They always have. They always will.

But human culture has evolved to the point where it's time to distinguish between innocent and dangerous fantasies. Religious fantasy falls in the latter category, for various reasons Harris discusses.

Here's a quote I liked:

"The truth, astonishingly enough, is this: in the year 2006, a person can have sufficient intellectual and material resources to build a nuclear bomb and still believe that he will get seventy-two virgins in Paradise. Western secularists, liberals, and moderates have been very slow to understand this."