I return to church. And sit through a sermon.

Yesterday I went to the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) equivalent of "church," a satsang. It'd been quite a while. I felt right at home, though no more so than at the Beanery Coffee House – our post satsang destination.

Old friends Ron and Rita had come down from Seattle for their almost annual visit. They enjoy the Salem Art Fair, even when I kid Ron about a leather cap making him look like one of the Village People.

Ron is a faithful RSSB devotee, though by no means a fundamentalist. Me, I'm whatever I am now. Some would say, a "deluded heretic." I prefer "open-minded skeptic."

Whatever, I enjoyed listening to Ron's discourse (e.g., sermon) to about fifteen members of the Salem sangat (congregation). I felt a little bit like Martin Luther going to Mass after nailing his theses to the door of the Castle Church. (Guess he didn't have a blog.)

Just a bit, though.

I'd always given rather heretical talks when I was a satsang speaker myself. So my churchless current state of mind wasn't all that different from my ostensible true believer days. I listened to Ron's 45 minute discourse with the same sort of attitude I had when satsang was a weekly habit.

Positive, yet questioning.

I agreed with one of Ron's main themes: We should lessen our ego, which manifests as a desire to have this happen rather than that. Trusting that what's going on in our lives is just fine exactly as it is, relax. Try to change what you can, if it seems to need changing, but don't sweat the small stuff. Which includes just about everything.

Question marks were emitted from my cranium, however, whenever I'd hear phrases like "We should be thankful to the Lord" and "God knows what is best for us."

References to a personalized divinity don't resonate with me anymore. The all pervading Tao or One seems plausibly possible to me, but not a Big Guy in the sky.

This is no criticism of my good buddy Ron, whose talk was about as non-dogmatically appealing to me as a RSSB "sermon" could be. It's just that I was newly struck, after my lengthy absence from satsang, at how much the RSSB teachings can sound like Christianity with all this talk of the Lord and God's grace.

What gives?

Back in 1971 I signed up for an Eastern philosophy, not Jesus-speak in Indian terms. Over the years I got accustomed to the guru who initiated me, Charan Singh, talking about the "Father." However, it always sounded incongruous to me, the result of trying to cram a formless monistic mysticism into a dualistic religious box.

Never wanting to pass up an opportunity to quote myself, I'm reminded of a favorite passage from a book I wrote about the Greek philosopher Plotinus, "Return to the One."

Normally love is considered to involve some sort of relationship. A relationship by definition consists of a connection that includes some and excludes others. If I am related to members of my family it means there are many other people in the world with whom I am not related. Having an intimate relationship with one person implies less than intimate relationships with others. There are shallow acquaintances and deep soul-mates.

It is easy then to project this sort of love onto the One. Some people believe they have a personal relationship with God. Thinking like Plotinus, we might ask them: "Does this mean that God is a person? Or does it mean that you are a person?" Perhaps it is possible for my relationship with the One to be markedly different from the One's relationship with me, because I am a minute part of creation and the One is the whole of creation.

There is no mention in the Enneads [Plotinus' writings] of a divine love that waxes and wanes or falls more upon some than others. It is our love that has these changeable and arbitrary qualities, not the One's love. For universal love is founded in absolute unity. When love, the lover, and the beloved are all the same entity, where is there room for any limit or duration?

Wow. I sure make a lot of sense to me.

Next time I go to church, it'll be inside my own head.

Comments

[Mystic Wing]

Very interesting blog today. Thanks.

I can tolerate, and even enjoy, religioius ritual so long as I can hold onto the sense that its all symbolic of a transcendant truth. Like you, though, I grow uncomfortable with literalness.

[Paul]

Brian,

I enjoyed reading this recent post and specifically enjoyed reading the following:

"We should lessen our ego, which manifests as a desire to have this happen rather than that. Trusting that what's going on in our lives is just fine exactly as it is, relax. Try to change what you can, if it seems to need changing, but don't sweat the small stuff. Which includes just about everything."

Since there is a lot happening in my life right now including a potential reloaction. This indeed provided a comforting feeling.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,

My background/studies are/have been Christian. But I say "Amen" to your stance.

Robert Paul Howard

"When love, the lover, and the beloved are all the same entity, where is there room for any limit or duration?"

I didn't understand -- at the time -- why our teacher used to refer to His initiates as "brother" ... now I understand.

We may refer to the beloved as the Christ, Friend, "Father" God(the 'good')Radha Soami, Swami, Great Spirit, Sat Nam (true name) Anami (nameless one), or whatever 'name' suits one's fancy... it is the same "entity" that we are referring to.

The relationship to the beloved is one of love... not names.

Why is this simple truth is so hard for the intellect to grasp?

Our Master used to say that if one explained Sant mat(teachings of the saints)to a simple man -- in an intellectual way -- the simple man would get confused; but if one explained Sant mat to an intellectual man -- in a simple way -- the intellectual man would get confused!

The true "Satsang"(sermon)is inside(and constant). And the True Being, or essence, of BOTH the Master and Disiple will also be found within.

Ram Singh

[Tucson Bob]

Ram Singh wrote:

"Our Master used to say that if one explained Sant mat(teachings of the saints)to a simple man -- in an intellectual way -- the simple man would get confused; but if one explained Sant mat to an intellectual man -- in a simple way -- the intellectual man would get confused!"

I think what he's saying here is that Sant Mat is for simpletons!

"I think what he's saying here is that Sant Mat is for simpletons!"

What He is saying is that one who cannot understand the very simple is in no position to comprehend the more complex.

One who gets "confused" when presented with A...B...C...is not going to master the more complex talents of reading and writing, any time soon.

Ram Singh

[Catherine]

Ram, you are a believer that Sant Mat meditation will reveal all. If it is good for your physical and mental health - and it helps those around you - to live in expectation with a high enthusiasm, then why should you change?

At this stage you cannot possibly believe that you will ever doubt what you have given in to.

Catherine writes:

“Ram, you are a believer that Sant Mat meditation will reveal all."

Dear sister,

I can only know what Sant Mat meditation has revealed to me.

You also write:

“If it is good for your physical and mental health - and it helps those around you to live in expectation with a high enthusiasm -- then why should you change?”

Sat Mat meditation (under proper instruction) IS good for our physical and mental health.

And it DOES help those around us.

So, as you imply, the question of change need not arise.

You also write:

“At this stage you cannot possibly believe that you will ever doubt what you have given in to.”

At this stage I would find it difficult to doubt what I have seen and heard(experienced) with my Spiritual eyes and ears ... keeping in mind that the later is a very crude way of describing what is -- ultimately -- indescribable.

Ram Singh

[T. Bob]

Ram Singh wrote:

"I can only know what Sant Mat meditation has revealed to me."

"At this stage I would find it difficult to doubt what I have seen and heard(experienced) with my Spiritual eyes and ears"...

...There are a number of us here that would be very interested to hear about what Sant Mat meditation has revealed to you and what you have seen and heard with your spiritual eyes and ears.

Note: If you put your name and email address (make one up if you wish) in the appropriate boxes, your comments will be easier to identify in the "recent comments" column on the main page.

Thanks

[tao]

Ram Singh wrote the following:

"I can only know what Sant Mat meditation has revealed to me."

"Sat Mat meditation (under proper instruction) IS good for our physical and mental health. And it DOES help those around us."

"I would find it difficult to doubt what I have seen and heard(experienced) with my Spiritual eyes and ears"

A.) Whatever has been your personal meditation experiences, such has nothing to do with objective reality.

B.) There is no evidence that Sant mat meditation is healthy, either physically or mentally. In fact, there is some considerable indication that it is actually rather detrimental to mental health. This is revealed in the cultic behavior and disempowered mentality that is evidenced by a vast majority of satsangi believers. And by far, most of the satsangis that I have ever known or encounted have also had various physical health problems. These are directly related to their unhealty Santmat lacto-vegetarian diet which includes excessive and long term consumption of dairy (milk, cheese, etc), cooked oils and fats, and coffee & tea etc.

C.) Again, what you have supposedly "seen and heard(experienced) with ... Spiritual eyes and ears" just does not represent significant manifestation and evidence whatsoever of any meaningful spiritual wisdom, awakening, realization, enlightenment, etc. But you repeatedly try to use it as such. You just do not seem to see or to understand that your blind faith and your supposed inner experiences, are insubstantial, very subjective, and prove nothing.

"There are a number of us here that would be very interested to hear about what Sant Mat meditation has revealed to you and what you have seen and heard with your spiritual eyes and ears."

Well, as you probably know, satsangis are -- generally -- not supposed to reveal certain experiences.

This is for the good of the satsangi.

However, I may be able to figure something out.

Let me think about it over night.

You know, I was once blessed with the company of an advanced satsangi who told certain experiences(this was many years ago).

Anyway, the sangat went completely nuts!

I mean crackers!

Some of them still talk about it -- to this day!

Ram Singh

[tao]

Ram Singh,

Why don't you, and why can't you, learn to post a comment properly? Are you stupid or what?

You continue to post comments without using a id/name. Simply put your name "Ram Singh" (or whatever name or pseudonym you choose) in the appropriate box that says " Name: ". Otherwise, as T. Bob told you, it is a bit more difficult for others to select your comments from the menu for reading.

Furthermore, you wrote: "Well, as you probably know, satsangis are -- generally -- not supposed to reveal certain experiences. This is for the good of the satsangi."

That's the same old lame excuse that fools like you always use. And no one in this forum who has any common sense buys that absurd garbage anymore. It's really just an evasive manuever because you really have nothing to show.

TO ALL:

This gentlemen, Tao, has not a clue how boring he is.

He is oblivious (oblivious is the key word here)that he is advertising -- by his adhomein attacks -- his inability to mount a cogent argument.

He writes

Are you just plain dumb?

Actualy, I belong to five or six(but whoes counting)high IQ societies.

He writes:

"This here Church of the Church less blogsite is NOT some Santmat or Radha Soami believer site where satsangi folks get together and reminisce about their misfortunes realted to how they found the path. This is really more a site where the author of the site and various other folks occasionally discuss and comment as to how they woke-up and grew out of and beyond 'the path' and its dogma."

Get a grip!

I'm smilling because this guy is NOT going to "grow" out of his dogma anytime soon!

I suppose he has found a little home here.

God bless him.

By!

Your brother,

Ram Singh

"It's really just an evasive maneuver because you really have nothing to show."

Actually I do and I was.

You preempted that!

Still how would my experiences help you?

God bless you brother!

Ram Singh