Swarm theory supports spiritual independence

What makes a bee hive, an ant colony, a school of fish, or the stock market so adaptive? These swarms of individuals manage to do the right thing most of the time, yet they're leaderless.

There's a lesson here. Independence leads to wiser collective decisions. Top-down control, the modus operandi of almost every religious organization, is maladaptive.

A fascinating National Geographic article, "Swarm Theory," says:

Crowds tend to be wise only if individual members act responsibly and make their own decisions. A group won't be smart if its members imitate one another, slavishly follow fads, or wait for someone to tell them what to do. When a group is being intelligent, whether it's made up of ants or attorneys, it relies on its members to do their own part.

It's interesting that selflessness, losing the ego, being a part of something bigger than yourself, becoming a drop in the spiritual ocean, is an almost universal religious theme.

Devotees often dress alike, think alike, act alike, feel alike. They engage in seemingly ant-like behavior, as I wrote about in "Sand, servitude, and satguru." The usual belief is that submission to a higher authority is the way to become a part of the whole (or Whole) rather than just a part.

Yet living entities that are truly part of a collective, a swarm, don't act that way at all. Independent individual decisions each contribute to adaptive group behavior.

One key to an ant colony, for example, is that no one's in charge. No generals command ant warriors. No managers boss ant workers. The queen plays no role except to lay eggs. Even with half a million ants, a colony functions just fine with no management at all—at least none that we would recognize.

Thomas Seeley is a biologist at Cornell University who studies bee decision-making. These "dumb" creatures turn out to be smarter than a lot of human organizations. The bee rules are: (1) Seek a diversity of options, (2) Encourage a free competition among ideas, and (3) Use an effective mechanism to narrow choices.

This is pretty much the scientific method. It's also much closer to how effective businesses are managed today than the traditional "I'm the boss" approach.

Even when I was a Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) true believer, my scientific outlook on spirituality led me to question some central tenets of this mystic-religious faith.

One of which was: Spiritual experiences can't ever be disclosed. This supposedly was to prevent the ego-expansion that would occur if a disciple were to let out "I saw God today" and started being revered by other disciples.

However, it also had the convenient effect (for the organization) of preventing disciples from comparing notes and arriving at a collective decision about whether the meditative and other practices enjoined by RSSB produced the desired results.

An ant colony or bee hive couldn't last for very long under this sort of injunction. If all the bees believed, "I just found some juicy flowers, but I can't tell anyone," the hive's food supply would rapidly dwindle. It's by each foraging bee independently communicating what's been found that a collective intelligence forms.

This goes a long way toward explaining the rigidity of fundamentalist religious organizations. Their top-down decision making, in which all of the authority is vested in the top levels of a hierarchy, who themselves are guided by strict dogma and hidebound holy texts, prevents the group from evolving to be in more of an accord with reality.

Religions are good at doing the same old thing. Preaching to the faithful, proselytizing, maintaining firm boundaries between Us and Them. Mechanical production lines are similarly good at churning out the same product.

But if situations change, or if the product turns out to need improving, that's when independence becomes a huge asset.

In fact, almost any group that follows the bees' rules will make itself smarter, says James Surowiecki, author of The Wisdom of Crowds. "The analogy is really quite powerful. The bees are predicting which nest site will be best, and humans can do the same thing, even in the face of exceptionally complex decisions."

Investors in the stock market, scientists on a research project, even kids at a county fair guessing the number of beans in a jar can be smart groups, he says, if their members are diverse, independent minded, and use a mechanism such as voting, auctioning, or averaging to reach a collective decision.

Not surprisingly, the article touts the Internet as a key way in which people can behave more like bees. Open information sharing leads to more intelligence.

This humble blog is an attempt to contribute to more informed choices in the religious arena. People's comments on my posts, and the comments on those comments, are very much like the waggling and dancing that bees do when they return to the hive.

"I experienced this. I went there. This is what I found." As truly-told information from many individuals is aggregated and spread among the hive, wiser decisions are made.

So every time someone honestly shares their take on some subject under discussion here, they're helping to produce a swarm intelligence.

That's how swarm intelligence works: simple creatures following simple rules, each one acting on local information. No ant sees the big picture. No ant tells any other ant what to do…no leadership is required.

…Think about a honeybee as she walks around inside the hive. If a cold wind hits the hive, she'll shiver to generate heat and, in the process, help to warm the nearby brood. She has no idea that hundreds of workers in other parts of the hive are doing the same thing at the same time to the benefit of the next generation.

"A honeybee never sees the big picture any more than you or I do," says Thomas Seeley, the bee expert.

…If you're looking for a role model in a world of complexity, you could do worse than to imitate a bee.

Comments

[Ram Singh]

"However, it also had the convenient effect (for the organization) of preventing disciples from comparing notes and arriving at a collective decision about whether the meditative and other practices enjoined by RSSB produced the desired results."

Well, I was up for sharing but tao put a stop to that.

Till we meet again.

God bless!

Ram Singh

[mysti]

I can think of another collective which functions very efficiently - the Borg. :)

The injunction not to share inner meditational experiences on the sant mat path seems to be a pivotal point with those who have become disinclined to continue with their commitment to it.

Maybe if we were all trying to reach a certain goal as a collective, if the aim was to raise our consciousness as one big happy master groupie club, then I would understand the benefit of sharing spiritual experiences. But the path is such a very individual affair, we have such widely disparate spiritual needs, that what is profoundly significant to one, may hardly register on the Richter scale to another.

In addition, what we experience inside is essentially deeply personal and private, and to my mind, sharing these things would be somewhat akin to sharing with strangers the most intimate moments that we experience with our life partner. The spiritual experiences cannot easily be divorced from the personal relationship that each of us develops with the spiritual master or shabd within, and sharing the former exposes something which a satsangi may regard as very sacred and precious.

There is nothing to stop any of us from talking freely about what does work best for us, what attitude and approach has the most pleasing results for us on the path. Surely that has more usefulness than point by point descriptions of inner sights and sounds?

[researcher seeker]

Islam does not have a central authority and that is working our pretty well for the world unless of course you happen to work in a tall building or you are a woman that hates dark clothes.

Maybe bees thrive on instinct and we humans are moving beyond instinct? Once a blade of grass now a bee and a future that looks promising to move up to human status or maybe what you are suggesting once a human then a bee then a blade of grass.

Personally I do not want to share my queen bee with 10,000 other males but if one looks on the bright side when she begins to tell you every little detail about her day of shopping you have 9,999 other males to con into taking your place.

Maybe an evolution of consciousness demands the struggle to awaken to our true identity.

Maybe everything is right on track but we are too ignorant to see this perfection in action or not.

The Internet appears to maximize our creative individualism but maybe it is doing just the opposite and joining us together into a oneness of thought of love and intelligence and compassion and understanding of self and others, improved awareness, etc.

Human society has evolved from small clans to large clans to tribes to nations then maybe to a world order to an oneness of thought. There appears to be a direction towards this oneness of thought. Admitting moving at a snails pace but maybe this isness has lots of patience after all if you are infinite what’s a few billion years.

how many maybe's was that?

[Mystic Wing]

This is an interesting, thought-provoking post. Initially, I was a bit put off by the suggestion that mimicking swarming insects is a viable life strategy. Doesn't seem exactly conscious.

But to simply respond to our immediate reality, and trusting the next person to do the same, rationally and with good intent—surely that is a path to good things.

Thanks for the post.

[jason]

there's unlimited info on failure of any
follower of RS to have a spiritual experience. Even the guru can't give a
discription of his own.

they (the guru) always have a prescription tho. Did you read the last news letter ? It's always something like "try 10 times harder"

Every living thing requires some kind of benefit to continue it's endeavour. Just at least a tiny, tiny scrap of some nutrision.

That's why everyone gives up.. there's no reward, ever. Not even a discription from the guru. Just repetitive dogma.

[researcher seeker]

"That's why everyone gives up.. there's no reward, ever"

with spiritual seeking looking for a reward may be the problem. the motivation behind the seeking may be the key to finding joy and compassion for self and others.

I suspect that selfless motivation in our seeking might be this key to unlock the doors of compassion.

must admit sometimes seeking can become very frustrating. the universe's clock does not seem to be on our time.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Ram Singh,

Please do not blame tao for your lack of "spiritual guts." There are others waiting to hear what you say you have experienced.

Robert Paul Howard

[Brian]

Mysti, I agree that in actuality spiritual experience is almost always deeply personal and private. However, this isn't how Sant Mat in general, and RSSB in particular, views the spiritual quest/path.

This is called a Science of the Soul. There is indeed a collective goal and a collective means of getting there. A central teaching is that there is only one way to return "Home," to Sach Khand, the ultimate spiritual reality.

This is the path of Sant Mat, which involves initiation by a "perfect living master" who is one with God. The stages through which a disciple passes on this path are described in detail, along with the sights and sounds associated with each higher metaphysical region.

So I disagree that Sant Mat/RSSB isn't a collective undertaking. This is why I feel that the individual experiences disciples have on this collective path should be communicated if this truly is to be a "science."

What sort of science conducts experiments but never communicates the results? I'd say you're right in emphasizing personal differences and unique approaches to spirituality.

But in saying that, you're no longer talking about Sant Mat/RSSB. For this philosophy espouses an impersonal "one size fits all" approach to spiritual development.

If you don't believe this, find an approved satsang speaker and talk him or her into taking a new approach at his/her next RSSB "sermon."

Have this person say, "There are many ways to meditate, all of them effective. Choose the one that feels right to you. If you don't like the mantra given to you by the guru, pick your own. And don't worry about meditating for two and a half hours each day. Make it for as long as you like. If you want to drink a glass of wine before meditating, feel free. You might find that it relaxes you and helps you enter into a peaceful state of mind."

You said, "There is nothing to stop any of us from talking freely about what does work best for us, what attitude and approach has the most pleasing results for us on the path."

Well, if this is the case, the above-mentioned satsang speaker should be welcomed to say whatever he/she wants to. I'll bet, though, that this would be the last satsang given before a stern warning comes from the local secretary or regional representative.

[researcher seeker]

"A central teaching is that there is only one way to return "Home," to Sach Khand, the ultimate spiritual reality."

that statement alone should bring out the red flags.

I bet that way is the way they teach or their master teaches.

the ego knows no boundries. the ego is almost unlimited in it's self deception.

karma appears to be the only/best way to eliminate this self deception.

[Tucson Bob]

Somebody figured out a long time ago that many westerners like things to be "scientific". Hence, the usage of the name "Science of the Soul". I believe Yogananda's Self Realization Fellowship also uses the term "science" in it's literature. It's easier to get sceptical westerners on board this way. More $ in the coffers, you see. Otherwise, why would they bother with such BS? It's just good old fashioned marketing.

Anyway, this is very misleading as the process is not scientific at all. In science, doing A and B consistently results in C. However, in the case of these spiritual paths, doing A and B does not consistently produce C, or even C-. Many devotees have spent decades doing A and B according to the scientific instructions, but C seems to never result. Do you think the 'masters' would ever admit, if they had the power to ascertain it, that those devotees scurrying about with baskets of dirt on their heads (service to the master), gazing lovingly at their God in human form, have no realization at all? For if they did realize anything, they'd be out of there in a heartbeat. They would know that gazing at a chipmunk would effect realization just as quickly without having to get dirt in their eyes in the process.

There is something captivating and romantic about a robed figure in a white turban. It fits nicely into our image of something godlike or holy. Save your plane ticket money and put a little turban on your cat. Make cleaning it's litter box your seva (service).

Look, I know I sound pretty sarcastic here. Really, I'm just funnin' around and don't mean any harm. Believe what you want to believe, but...

What's amazing to me is how long we hang on to these deceptions before we wise up.

[mysti]

Brian:

"What sort of science conducts experiments but never communicates the results?"

The sort of science where the results are primarily for the spiritual benefit of the practicing "scientist".

Sant mat practitioners do not attend to the meditative practice in order to benefit or enlighten the community, they do it to take care of their own spiritual wellfare.

While satsangis do share a common method and goal in their practice, many aspects of the practice cannot be quantified or compared, even if sharing of inner experiences were encouraged. Primary keys to fruitful practice are love, humility, and surrender. How do you quantify these?

[Bisbee Bill]

Hey Tao,

Please apologize to Ram Singh for calling him a stupid fool so he can tell us what that sound sounds like.

[researcher seeker]

Tucson bob

Maybe wising up is not so much about wisdom as it is about ego.

Our egos want us to think we are very wise and rational and scientific and not filled with deception. From the ego’s point of view it is always the other person that lacks understanding and lives in delusion not us.

Who is that other person? Someone that does not share our beliefs. How convenient.

I have read that Hitler went to his grave believing he was right and the German people had let him down.

[Brian]

Well, mysti, love, humility, and surrender may indeed be the keys to practice, but what is all the practice for? This was one of Tucson Bob's points.

Disciples practice for decades, yet they never learn "how to play." Meaning, they don't merge with spirit/shabd, rise up to spiritual regions, and behold the astral/causal form of the guru.

That's what the goal of the practicing is. Read the RSSB literature. It's all explained there. The goal isn't love, humility, and surrender. If it was, Buddhism or Christianithy would be touted as an equally valid spiritual path.

My oft-repeated point is that if a mystic-religious philosophy holds out specific experiences as resulting from specific practices, then those experiences should be openly shared and discussed.

The result of the experiment should be disclosed. Why not? If the experiment has been successful, the disciple should have risen above ego. So what's the big deal in revealing, "I saw this; I heard that; I realized such and such."

The masters/gurus themselves have described their spiritual experiences in great detail. So why shouldn't the disciples? A skeptic would say, "Maybe it's because nobody is having the experiences. And maybe the gurus themselves never had them either."

Like I said before, if RSSB taught that the goal of meditation is an entirely personal experience that differs from person to person, I'd feel differently. However, the RSSB teaching is that there are distinct inner regions that the meditator encounters in his/her godward journey, with precise sights and sounds seen and heard.

So disciples should be experiencing much the same thing. The question is, are they?

[Tucson Bob]

Researcher Seeker,

So, your ego doesn't approve of another ego telling other egos how it sees things, yet your ego still needs to tell another ego how your ego sees things?

[researcher seeker]

Brian
Plug rebirth or reincarnation into your seeking the answers to why disciples don’t always see and feel what the master does and that may be of help to you or not.

How many lives did the master meditate before these sights and sounds came to him or her?

Effort does not always equal results when it comes to mystical experiences because there are too many unknown variables yet to be discovered.

Humility, love, and surrender are more than keys to practice they are required respites along the "long" journey to these higher regions of spiritual thought.

[researcher seeker]

tucson bob

reread what I stated and not sure I stated I did not approve.

was hoping it would be taken as an observation and not as a judgment.

if it was a judgment than it was my ego doing its thing.

those without ego centered or bias behavior please stand for all to see.

[Catherine]

Ram- this was in a different post I know.
You missed the Mathematics point which was that Mathemeticians also have qualifications that are easily assessed- exams results through school and teachers comments, exam results through university; provable performance through pupils results. There is no need for faith at any stage as there is with Gurus.

On a different tack, Dr. Phil's best known line is ' What's in it for you?'

[Mystic Wing]

Tucson:

I think you very often confuse the religion with religious experience, and are way too eager to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Frankly, your disparagment of all things hinting of mysticism sounds like the petty envy of somebody who hasn't had any experience of the numinous, and is damned resentful about it.

More's the pity. I genuinely hope you one day have the kind of experience some of us know is real.

I am no fan of spiritual charlatans seeking to make a buck off the naive. But let's not imagine that this means there is no validity to a spiritual instinct.

[Roger]

Mystic Wing,

Could you describe in detail a religious experience that you have had? Would love to learn what you have experienced. You said that some of us know is real.

Thanks, Roger

[Tucson Bob]

Mystic Wing,

You obviously have missed some of my many comments on this blog over the past year or two and don't know me very well. I have no response to your comment above.

[Louie]

Roger,

Here ya go ,,,

http://www.om-guru.com/html/saints/gopi.html

The above experience actually jives w/ my
idea of what "quantum non-locality" would feel like,, hee hee...

People do have "spiritual experiences" i believe. I don't know what they are, if brain mal-functions or supra-functions or if it's some kind of next level evolution and those people really are perceiving an omni present God consiousness but, i believe strongly that people do have the experiences they claim.

I also believe you don't have to follow any path to have them. That might help but apparently many people have had them spontaneously.

I want to have that experience too. RSSB doctrine could be a hinderance to some. We're so programmed that we can never have them unless.. x,y,z or unless we do a, b, c...etc, that were all freakin complexed and screwed up...

Truth for me is,, do what feels natural, worship god (whatever that means to you personally) directly, guru, or in the way you find that suits you.

[Roger]

Louie,

Thanks for your comment. Religious and spiritual experiences occur in the minds of people all the time. That is no big deal. If someone makes an "experience" claim, then one should be able to answer numerous probing questions regarding the experience.
This site is a good place to ask the questions.

[researcher seeker]

Why all the anxiety and fear from his mystical experience.

Maybe it happened to soon for him and he was not ready for it emotionally or psychologically in this incarnation.

Maybe it was a hallucination rather than a true mystical experience although it appeared mystical but hallucinations can do that.

Example Susan blackmore the atheist claims to have had an NDE from an overdose of drugs but it did not give her the same acceptance of a reality beyond this life like NDE’ers usually have. Maybe hers was a hallucination rather than a true out of body or whatever NDE.

One would think that a mystical experience would be like a NDE experience and for most people an NDE is a very positive experience for them and for most removes their fear of death.

Most if not all the mystics I have read talked more about bliss than anxiety in their lives by their mystical lives and experiences.

[mysti]

Brian:

>>>The result of the experiment should be disclosed. Why not? If the experiment has been successful, the disciple should have risen above ego. So what's the big deal in revealing, "I saw this; I heard that; I realized such and such."

What's the big deal? Well, for a start, it is not that easy to rise above ego. The teachings suggest that we do not rise above the trappings of the mind until we go beyond the second inner spiritual region. If there is a disciple in a local group who has attained this state and starts to talk about it, what do you think may be the consequences? Wouldn't they be hounded day and night to give details about this and that experience, asked endless questions about the future, who will I marry, when will I die, when will I see master inside,
when will my cat have kittens, and so on, and so forth? And then you also have the situation where this one disciple is elevated above the others in the minds of many of the struggling souls, and before you know it, they are paying more attention to what this disciple is saying rather than the master or the books.

That's just one scenario. Now imagine that you are attending a satsang where everyone starts talking about their experiences. You have one person who has only been meditating for 6 months, but they already behold the master within and easily pass through the eye center and into the first region beyond. You have another person meditating for two years who rattles on about the delights of Trikuti. There are the group of strugglers who report hit and miss experiences, but who are by and large pleased with their progress. There are a
few who don't meditate at all and therefore decline to share. One other person has been on the path as long as yourself, and they confess that their practice was dry for 30 years, but then suddenly there was a shift in awareness and they were drawn up and experienced inner sights and sounds of which they had only previously read about.

So you're finally sitting at this satsang where everyone is sharing, and my question to you is, what have you gained from it? Has anything been said that isn't found in the books in numerous places? Have you heard anything new which would be instrumental in changing your whole perception of sant mat and your standing within it?

And what about the disciples who have had early experiences but have not yet reached the stage where they are grounded in humility? Might not they imagine that they are somehow more blessed or special than others, and might not their inflated ego stand as a barrier to further progress?

There are so many consequences to consider, I think I have barley touched on them.

If someone has lost interest in following the path, then I think it would hardly matter what anyone else has experienced. The mind is extremely adept at finding rationalizations for its decisions, and it would have no trouble finding loopholes in even the most vivid descriptions of inner experiences by others. On the other hand, if their mind is receptive, then these revelations are not necessary to their continuing dedication to the practice. So what would have been the point of the whole excercise?

[tao]

Bisbee Bill

Wake-up dude.

As Roger has mentioned, up to now it's quite obvious that Ram Singh is lacking in "spiritual guts" (substance). When he is pressed to share his own experience, he is evasive and utterly fails to offer anything to show or to substantiate his own claims - and therefore also the claims of Santmat & the RS mat.

And that's exactly why I still call him a stupid fool. He stupidly and foolishly thinks that the same tired old RS rhetoric is somehow going to fly here in this forum. He is sorely mistaken.

Until Ram Singh answers the questions that others have put to him, and he actually presents something of real substance regarding his supposed experiences and claims, then he is nothing more than empty talk.

[Mystic Wing]

Roger:

Don't mean to sound like I'm some kind of enlightened guru. The limited experience I've had arrived after 30 years of meditation experience, and was quite unlike anything I had previously known. The best way to explain it is to say that non-dual awareness can indeed be a reality, where all boundaries between self and world are no longer operant, yet full awareness is still present.

It became quite clear to me that this is the state sought by mystics. And on a more empirical level, it was also quite clear that it has nothing whatsoever to do with traditional reason or logic—which came as something of a shock to me, since I was a highly logical, cerebral person by nature.

I am by no means skilled in reaching this state routinely, and have no technique to give you for doing so. I can tell you, however, that the feeling I have in these infrequent moments is always one of surrender, rather than effort. Also associated with it is a recognition that there is nothing whatsoever to fear.

Tucson:

Perhaps I would have a different sense if I reviewed years worth of your posts. I was reacting to the hostile tone I sometimes feel in your comments, and I apologize for this.

[Roger]

Mystic Wing,

Thanks for your comment. I have some questions. These are not attack questions. I am not attacking you.

Please give me your defintion for, "Enlightened Guru."

You mentioned, the limited experience was quite unlike anything that you previously had known. How do you know what you previously knew?
The word, Know, how do you define it?

The "State" sought by mystics. Is there no way to describe this state? If not, then is it possible that one can misinterpret what that State is when it occurs in an infrequent moment?

When this state occurs, why the need to surrender? Does surrendering do something spiritually?

Again, I am not attacking you. I am just trying to learn more about your thoughts and ideas.

Thanks,
Roger

[Tucson Bob]

Mystic Wing,

No problem. Reviewing my posts would get tiresome really fast.

The problem is with written words, in that they lack vocal tone, facial expression, hand gestures, etc., and so certain subtleties are missed. Also, a set of words can be interpreted different ways by different people due to their conditioning and predispositions.

As far as Sant mat is concerned though, I have to admit a certain disdain and hostility for which I make no appology. I see the organization as dishonest and deceptive from the very top, perpetuating the myth of a soul that needs to be saved from the jaws of "Kal" and rebirth (what is there that was born that could ever die? A concept?), that needs to get to somewhere other than where it already is, and that a 'master' has the power to take charge of all this! Spiritual naivite' is taken advantage of and innocent people and their seva dollars are being led down the primrose path to nowhere. After a lifetime of avoiding egg whites, rennet and chardonnay they may discover they were all along right where they were trying to get to and all those vows were just an unnecessary game. The master should fire himself and come clean... "Sorry guys, you're on your own. If you see a Buddha by the road, strike him with a stick!!"

There are teachers who help us in life, but beware of the 'perfect master' that requires our worship for our own good which turns out to be for his/her good.

We are all 'perfect masters' just as we already are, right now, whether we know it or not. The cockroach can say this too.

[Ram Singh]

Dear Catherine:

Please forgive my late post.

It seems every time I want to post I am prevented in some way, by some distraction at home.

I had some other post to others but the same thing happens.

Another thing, I may have to make my own website where I can answer all these inquiries about Sant mat.

That way I can go at my own pace without detraction.

This may also include some of my experiences on the path.

I come from a school of Socratic inquiry where both the questioner, and the one answering, tries to get to the Truth.

Badgering ones opponent is not conducive to this end and is generally shunned by philosophers as a sign of a lost "argument" -- by the offending party -- in the pursuit of Truth.

Perhaps I am in the wrong place.

Catherine Writes:

"Mathematicians also have qualifications that are easily assessed"

Qualifications?

I think I already explained that in order to appreciate his true qualifications we would have to acquire those same qualifications.

In the case of a Master or Sat guru his qualifications would be Self/God realization.

As for an assessment of the Master, how does one assess Love?

Sant mat proper is really the Path of Love.

Love -- believe it or not -- is also the highest wisdom and including the path of knowledge... in fact, Bhakti is an emanation of the Lord Himself. (whatever name you want to give to the supreme power)

... And an emanation of God -- ultimately -- is God

So we must first cultivate Bhakti or Love in our hearts.

This can happen in the company (satsang) of Saints and True devotees who are Love incarnate -- so to speak.

Now, to be frank, I am not recommending any particular Guru or Satsang.

Wherever Love and Devotion can be cultivated is a good place.

One way to make an “assessment” of a Master, Saint, or Guru is to see whether His company (Satsang) develops the quality of Bhakti within yourself.

Love is the True guide or Guru.

Love is the Path

Ram Singh

PS: "what's in it for me" is what's in it for any Lover... trials and tribulations.

But a true lover discards the "good" advice of their "friends" and goes to her beloved anyway.

One who is wounded in the pain of separation is forever wounded with a wound that can only be assuaged by the beloved.

One who puts their foot on the path of Love loses all... only Love remains.

Ram Singh

[JP]

Love is also a word that has often been terribly abused ...

[tao]

Ram Singh said:

"I come from a school of Socratic inquiry where both the questioner, and the one answering, tries to get to the Truth."

-- Then why is it that you do not answer the questions that are put to you? You have not answered the questions. You have merely parroted standard Santmat & RS doctine and dogma (which most of us are already extremely familiar with, and so you are not telling anything new). The few so-called answers that you have offered are not your own answers, they are just more Santmat dogma. So it does not appear that you are really here for "the pursuit of Truth".

R.S. said: "Perhaps I am in the wrong place."

-- That's up to you of course. But if all you can post here is standard RS dogma, then what's the point?

R.S. said: "I already explained that in order to appreciate his true qualifications we would have to acquire those same qualifications."

-- And what "qualifications" are those? Why do you assume that "he" (?) has any such qualifications? And do you have the "same qualifications" that you speak of in order for you to "appreciate" his qualifications? Again, what qualifications are those?

R.S. said: "In the case of a Master or Sat guru his qualifications would be Self/God realization."

How do you determine that? How do you knolw if someone actually has "Self/God realization"? You yourself have stated that in order to know that and appreciate that, that one must have acquired those "same qualifications". Which means that for you to say that so-and-so has "Self/God realization" as you seem to be doing, you yourself must also have acquired such Self/God realization. If that is true, then why are you pursuing Sant mat? If you fail to answer these questions, then we will know that your posture and position is hypocritical.

Or let me put it to you this way: I myself abide in and as genuine Self/God-realization. That is my "qualifaication". Therefore, I can easily tell (by what he says and teaches, by how he behaves, and by direct personal encounter) whether or not someone is also Self-realized. In this particular case, I can say with all certainty that G. S. Dhillon, the current leader of the Radha Soami Mat, is definitely NOT Self-realized )according to your own criteria). He is not even anywhere close to being Self-realized. As you have said and implied, 'it takes one to know one', and yet there is no evidence to indicate that is the case at all with G.S.D. (nor was there any evidence that Charan Singh was either)

R.S. said: "As for an assessment of the Master, how does one assess Love?"

-- You are assuming that your so-called "Master" is an individual full of love. And even if someone does apparently emanate "love" (an abstract quality), that does not automatically make them a genuine "Sat-Guru"

R.S. said: "Sant mat proper is really the Path of Love."

-- That is merly your opinion. I would strongly disagree. I would say that Sant mat is a path composed far more of blind-faith in guru, cosmology, and theological dogma, not of "love". Where is the love? I does not flow from the leader/master, and it definitely does not emanate from disciples/satsangis. I have been around hundereds if n ot thousands of satsangis and I have rarely, if ever, seen any of them as being genuinely loving persons, towards either the guru or towards their fellow satsangis.

R.S. said: "Love -- believe it or not -- is also the highest wisdom and including the path of knowledge"

-- Thats merely your opinion.

R.S. said: "Bhakti is an emanation of the Lord Himself."

-- Your phrase "the Lord Himself" is just another mere dualistic theological assumption, concept, belief.

R.S. said: "And an emanation of God -- ultimately -- is God"

-- What "emanation" is that? What "God" is that?

R.S. said: "So we must first cultivate Bhakti or Love in our hearts."

-- You say: "we must first cultivate Bhakti" ... but that's merely your opinion again. In truth, there are no such absolute requirements.

R.S. said: "This can happen in the company (satsang) of Saints and True devotees"

-- Again, this is just more mere parroting of standard Santmat/RS dogma.

R.S. said: "Wherever Love and Devotion can be cultivated is a good place."

-- Who is there to "cultivate" love?

R,S. said: "One way to make an “assessment” of a Master, Saint, or Guru is to see whether His company (Satsang) develops the quality of Bhakti"

-- That's a catch-22. It does not prove anything. And just because someone thinks that they have "bhakti" does not prove anything about the teacher.

R.S. said: "Love is the True guide or Guru. Love is the Path"

-- Mere words.

R.S. said: "what's in it for me is what's in it for any Lover... trials and tribulations."

-- That sounds pretty lame to me. Sounds like attachment and duality.

R.S. said: "a true lover discards the "good" advice of their "friends" and goes to her beloved anyway."

-- That's even more lame. An emotionally infatuated disciple does not make the focus of their infatuation, a true sat-guru.

R,S. said: "One who is wounded in the pain of separation is forever wounded with a wound that can only be assuaged by the beloved."

-- That is the doctine and mood of dvaita (duality). Therefore that is avidya, ignorance.

R.S. said: "One who puts their foot on the path of Love loses all... only Love remains."

-- In truth, there is no "One", there is no "foot", and there is no "path". Only the Self is "love".... without subject, without object.

[Ram Singh]

Tao writes:

"As you have said and implied, 'it takes one to know one'."

Yes brother, I said, that it takes one to know one.

And sometimes the Satsangi DOES experiance the power of the Masters and Saints.

It has been MY experiance that the Saints are ocians of love.

I am very sorry you haven't experianced Love or Bhakti with the RS gurus.

As I said before, I may have to make my own website where I can answer all these inquiries about Sant mat.

That way I can go at my own pace without detraction.

This may also include some of my experiences on the path.

Good luck!

Ram Singh

[Mystic Wing]

Roger:

If you wade through all this and find this last response...

1. "Enlightened guru" was used somewhat tongue in cheek...what this meant was that I make no pretense about having achieved any kind of ultimate consciousness.

2. I use "know" in the sparest possible terms: to have bare awareness of a condition or phenomenon. In the same way I might say "I know it is Monday." And yes, of course it is possible to mistake a sensation as something it is not. Everyone's life is laden with such experiences—the snake that turns out to be a rope.

3. Of course one can describe a state. But naturally this will be an approximation of the actual experience. What I described was the bare bones of the sensation occasionally brought about by good meditation. Interestingly, it quite often follows me along after meditation, providing several days worth of profound joy.

4. I do believe that surrendering in this way is a spiritual act. I can't explain exactly why this is, but it is what I am aware of. This came as quite a surprise to me, since for most of my life I assumed that any spiritual achievement would naturally require intense, fierce effort. The only genuine effort, it seems now, is in abandoning the presumption of ego.

Thanks for entering into this dialogue. I'd also be curious to know if you genuinely discount the possibility of mystical experience, and if so, why?

[Tucson Bob]

To any devoted follower of Radha Soami Mat I ask the following:

First, I present what Tao has said above...

"I myself abide in and as genuine Self/God-realization. That is my "qualifaication". Therefore, I can easily tell (by what he says and teaches, by how he behaves, and by direct personal encounter) whether or not someone is also Self-realized. In this particular case, I can say with all certainty that G. S. Dhillon, the current leader of the Radha Soami Mat, is definitely NOT Self-realized )according to your own criteria). He is not even anywhere close to being Self-realized."

How can we know Tao's spiritual claims and observations concerning Gurinder Singh Dillon are true or not? How is other evidence for Gurinder Singh's status any more valid or invalid?

Should we worship Tao instead of Gurinder Singh now that this revelation has been made clear? Should we now call Tao "Bubba Tao Ji"?

Maybe you don't believe that Tao is really a realized being because he cusses a lot, is confrontational, and occasionally makes typographical errors. But this doesn't have to mean he isn't realized, or does it? How do we know? The guru of Swami Muktananda used to curse, throw fruit, and babble incomprehensibly at his followers who still believed him to be a God-man.

I think I'll go with Tao. He seems to have presented as good a case, or better, for his status as realized being as anyone discussed here.

[mysti]

tao:

>>>>Until Ram Singh answers the questions that others have put to him, and he actually presents something of real substance regarding his supposed experiences and claims, then he is nothing more than empty talk.

I wonder if it would make any difference if Ram Singh or anyone else shared their personal spiritual experiences from the sant mat practice.

It seems to me there is little a satsangi can say on this forum which would invite a more positive attitude about RS in those who stand vocally against it. The mental barriers have been raised for one reason or another, and it seems that every attempt by a satsangi to breach this barrier only serves to strengthen it.

[mysti]

Tuscon Bob:

>>>>How can we know Tao's spiritual claims and observations concerning Gurinder Singh Dillon are true or not?

I think this is something that everyone needs to determine for themselves, if they are so inclined.

Tucson Bob writes:

"Maybe you don't believe that Tao is really a realized being because he cusses a lot, is confrontational, and occasionally makes typographical errors. But this doesn't have to mean he isn't realized, or does it?"

These outer actions have nothing to do with realization.

A realized soul can pretend to be angry, and "perfect" spelling has nothing to do with realization.

Humility is the biggest test, yet, even here only a very advanced soul can know the inner state of another.

If tao, or anyone, says they have become Self-realized... I am delighted.

If they are Self Realized I am very happy for them.

Their claim doesn't damage me in the least.

Why would it?

I would say Self Realization is the A B C's of the Path.

However, one who is overly concerned with who is -- or who is not -- "realized" may have fallen into error.

It has been my experience that realized Souls are very loving and forgiving by nature.

Why point out the shortcomings of others?

Ram Singh

[Ran Singh]

WELL, THERE YOU GO. TAO MISSPELLS AND I FORGET TO WRITE MY NAME IN THE BOX!

Tucson Bob writes:

"Maybe you don't believe that Tao is really a realized being because he cusses a lot, is confrontational, and occasionally makes typographical errors. But this doesn't have to mean he isn't realized, or does it?"

These outer actions have nothing to do with realization.

A realized soul can pretend to be angry, and "perfect" spelling has nothing to do with realization.

Humility is the biggest test, yet, even here only a very advanced soul can know the inner state of another.

If tao, or anyone, says they have become Self-realized... I am delighted.

If they are Self Realized I am very happy for them.

Their claim doesn't damage me in the least.

Why would it?

I would say Self Realization is the A B C's of the Path.

However, one who is overly concerned with who is -- or who is not -- "realized" may have fallen into error.

It has been my experience that realized Souls are very loving and forgiving by nature.

Why point out the shortcomings of others?

Ram Singh

[Tucson Bob]

Ram Singh says: "These outer actions have nothing to do with realization."

What does? What could? Concepts and ideation? Realization is not a 'thing' that has anything to do with anything. It is not an object.

Ram Singh says: "A realized soul can pretend to be angry, and "perfect" spelling has nothing to do with realization."

Well, I don't know what your master says, but mine says don't follow anyone who can't spell right, but throwing fruit along with vituperative blatherings is a sure sign of divinity. Go with that every time.

Ram Singh says: "Humility is the biggest test, yet, even here only a very advanced soul can know the inner state of another."

Humility is a test of what? This is important. There is no 'where' to advance to. No 'thing' to become. Where is the hole in Brian's wheel going to go or become?

Ram Singh says: "I would say Self Realization is the A B C's of the Path."

Self realization needs no path. As long as you are on a path you will never get there.

Ram Singh says: "However, one who is overly concerned with who is -- or who is not -- "realized" may have fallen into error."

Well, if you're going to follow someone for the rest of your life because they say they are perfect and can administer your eternal salvation, you damn sure ought to be "overly concerned" that they are who they say they are!

Ram Singh says: "It has been my experience that realized Souls are very loving and forgiving by nature."

My dog is very loving and forgiving by nature. Is she a realized soul? Well, you're right. She is.

Ram Singh says: "Why point out the shortcomings of others?"

Believe it or not, I'm trying to help, but I admit that I probably sound condescending and sarcastic. This is part of my personality, the character I am in the play, but not what I really am which is no "thing" at all. Anyway I appologise for that bad Tucson Bob and his arrogant ways if they happen to offend anyone. But think a little about what he says just in case there's a little truth in it. Just in case.

[Catherine]

Ram, children and even some domestic pets create feelings of Bhakti in most mothers.

You do not have to study Maths to know that a Mathematician is qualified. Their qualifications are documented every step of the way (over decades by the time they teach). It is not even necessary to enter the study of Mathematics; people can just look at the certification. Not so with Gurus.

[Roger]

Mystic Wing,

Thanks for your reply.

I take a neutral stance with regards to mystical experiences. I am neither for or against. I enjoy asking questions, regarding religious and spiritual issues. Analyzing the answers and building some sort of understanding as to where people and their ideas are coming from.

I do not belong to any religious or spiritual group. My inquiry process is more of a hobby, I guess.

My big problem is that I am not very good at being a follower. So following a guru or minister is not where I will find myself.

As far as the good feeling that comes from a spiritual experience, I have some concerns. Not really big ones though. I know dozens of persons that describe the same good feelings, after engaging in ordinary activities. Ordinary activities, such as bowling or playing a round of golf.

I wonder if there is some confusion in what a spiritual experience is? Is one really deriving an emotional response, that has been labeled spiritual.

[Tucson Bob]

Roger,

When people talk about spiritual experiences, this is what they are talking about:

http://www.om-guru.com/html/saints/gopi.html

Still, an experience is just an experience. Grand or small, it's all the same though.

[Roger]

Tucson Bob,

I wonder if the Spiritual experience is actually ones need for some kind of spiritual "Security-Blanket."

I'm guessing we all need some kind of Security blanket. Or at least, those that will admit to it.

All of these claims or experiences are created as a result of such a need.

Again, I am just guessing. I have no solid conclusions.

Thanks for your response,
Roger

[Tucson Bob]

Roger,
Yes. Throw away the blanket. Everything is contained in this very moment 'now' that is always present but 'seems' to pass because we think about it. No need for anything more.

[Ram Singh]

Bob writes:

"Well, if you're going to follow someone for the rest of your life because they say they are perfect and can administer your eternal salvation, you damn sure ought to be "overly concerned" that they are who they say they are!"

Fortunately I never did follow anyone because they, or others, said "they (were) perfect and can administer (my) eternal salvation."

I never was that foolish.

Apparently some of you were.

You have traded in being a blind follower for being a blind non-follower!

The Masters advise us NOT to be a blind follower.

Your reading of the literature is superficial.

Who told you to follow a body around?

The body is not the Guru and your insistence that it is shows where you are spiritually.

Even your intellectual understanding is poor.

The body Master has a certain duty.

There is only one "Guru" and He dwells within.

At initiation we are connected with the Guru or sound current.

This currant is the life force and is within every living thing.

That life force or shabd is the guru that administers eternal salvation.

The Master does not bring anything from outside; nor is one advised to follow anybody around.

A satsangi who makes contact with the sound currant doesn't have to go anywhere; follow anybody, or belong to any particular group or church (I never belonged to one, so in my case it's moot)

Nor is there any Sant mat literature that says one does.

One is absolutely free.

The vows one takes at initiation are vows that a practitioner of yoga WANTS to follow.

Catherine writes"

"Ram, children and even some domestic pets create feelings of Bhakti in most mothers."

Than they should direct those "feelings of Bhakti" toward God (whatever name you use for that power) who is the source of Bhakti.

That will help the mother, the children, and the pets too.

Ram Singh

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear folks,

I shall worship none of you - or those you refer to.

Robert Paul Howard

[Tucson Bob]

Well Ram, I think we're getting nowhere fast which is nearly always the case in these types of discussions. One player tries to one-up the other, then the other gets defensive and tries to one-up back and round and round we go. One last comment just for kicks:

Ram Singh said: "At initiation we are connected with the Guru or sound current."

Whatever you are is what the guru is even before you ever met him, so how can you be connected to what is already present, what you already are? You are the guru! You are complete! You are Sat Purush Anami Radha Soami now! There is nowhere to go. Nothing to become. Nobody can show you who you are, and if they tried, it would be what you really are doing it to itself! That is the origin of duality, the appearance of the creation, the source of maya or illusion, the game of hide and seek we appear to be in.

That which is searched for is the searcher, and the searcher is that which is searched for. And nothing of the kind exists as an object.

This is the final answer, the complete answer that cannot be understood. Understanding is a process that uses the mind objectively. What you are is completely non-objective, no 'thing'. You are neither that nor this. One just is and doesn't know it. Such is what one finds when one wakes up.

[Roger]

Ram,

I have some questions. These are not attack questions.

Do the masters ever advise us to be a blind non-follower?

Why does a guru need the title, Master?

Why the need to take vows at initiation? Who instructs one that the vows are important?

What is it about a contact with a Sound current, that denotes a spiritual experience? How does this Sound lead to salvation?

Same goes for the Light experience. If I am initiated, and experience a sound and some light, why or how does that become a certified spiritual experience of salvation?

The statements that you are making, do they come from the literature? Literature is something that was written by someone. What is so special about that particular someone?

Again, I am not attacking you.

Thanks,
Roger

[Roger]

In my above comment, I meant to ask,

Do the masters ever ask us to NOT be a blind non-follower?

If one follows the literature regarding their spiritual activities. Does that mean that one is a follower of the author of that literature?

Thanks again,
Roger

[Catherine]

Roger and Tucson; my thoughts and questions too. So for the record, if I was travelling the sound current all the time and hob-nobbing in sach khand ( cloud cuckoo land ) whenever I wanted to, how do I ultimately know that this is the highest destination? How do I know that even though I experience it as such, that it is not a program that I have logged into my brain through expectation? How do I know that, if there is anything to it at all, I am not being taken to another of the billions of universes? And the answer is... I don't.

The real question is, Why do I have to escape so earnestly? This is just the beginning of the questions. Look at the Sant Mat doctrine itself- not progressive at all.

And Ram... you write as if you are teaching great wisdom that we haven't heard before... and before that... and then again. The words, expression, tone, anecdotes, fatherly attitude, all... we have heard many times before and believed, like you, loooong ago. Your virtue is in the fact that you write in, despite the fact that it goes against Gurinder's explicit instruction.

My conclusions are that I should be alert and face my own music! The music that I make myself right here with my feet on the ground and my eyes open. Actually, I think I'll just rescue myself. Good comment RPH.

[Roger]

Catherine,

I enjoyed reading your comment. Your conclusion makes much sense.
Many best wishes to you,
Roger

[tao]

Ram Singh,

Since I have never met you in person, all I can go on is the comments that you write and post here.

As is quite evident in your numerous writings and comments under various topics, you clearly know little or nothing about real philosophy and the santana dharma, you also are obviously not awakened or abiding in the state of "Self-realization", your mind is full of dualistic concepts, beliefs, and spiritual dogma which are clearly not derived from any direct experience of genuine Self-knowledge, your unsubstantiated and therfore bogus claims about the saintliness and holiness and enlightenment of RS gurus, and your vain attempts at preaching and parroting RS guru-cult doctrine and dogma, hold no weight at all. You can post RS guru-cult doctrine and dogma endlessly, but it is only empty words and hollow claims.

My brief tongue-in-cheek testimony of so-called "Self-realization" was only to make a point clear that it does indeed 'take one to know one'. And so therfore, since you are obviously a follower of Santmat and therefore necessarily not an awakened/realized Sage, you are just not qualified to know or to determine or to claim that the Santmat cult leaders are "Self-realized". I myself claim nothing.

And btw, "Self-ralization" is far more and far beyond being just merely "the A B C's of the Path". Self-realization has absolutely nothing to do with "path". So clearly, you really know almost nothing about what "Self-realization", as it is commonly referred to, is really all about.

Ram Singh said: "Humility is the biggest test..."

If that is true, then what are you doing here preaching rigid dogma? You are just another Radha Soami hypocrite. You are nothing more than a parrot. Your notion of humility is superficial. You know nothing of real humility or awakened realization. The so-called "Self-realization" that you banter about here is a myth. There is no one exiting to become "realized". The RS gurus are not "realized", nor are they uniquely holy and saintly. They are no different than any other men. Sant Mat or Radha Soami Mat is just another cult religion.

So I will reiterate three things that Tuscon Bob said:

"Humility is a test of what? This is important. There is no 'where' to advance to. No 'thing' to become. Where is the hole in Brian's wheel going to go or become?"

"Realization is not a 'thing' that has anything to do with anything. It is not an object."

"Self realization needs no path. As long as you are on a path you will never get there."

These is the essential things. There is no "path" other than your own being. Your own life is really your only "path". But it is not even a path. No path is ever necessary.

A path for what? to where? and for whom? All belief in "path" automatically implies duality and therfore ignorance (avidya). To follow any "path" is avidya.

To simply abide naturally and effortlessly in/as one's true essential nature is atma-jnana. All so-called paths, religions, and associated cult-gurus are false from the get-go. Nothing of the sort is ever needed. Nothing is lacking.

Tat Tvam Asi.

PS: Only genuine 100 percent certified sanctfied and mystified Sages commit typos... Why? Because they never ever look back - because there is no one there to look back. Life is just happening. There is no one to be in control. There are no "Sants", there are no "Masters", there are no "Satsangis", there is no "Sach Khand", and there is no "Self-realized". All of that is but an illusion, a myth, a kind of dream.

Life, is simply just happening.

All belief in "path" automatically implies duality and therefore ignorance (avidya). To follow any "path" is avidya."

Your concern with duality VS. Non-duality is itself dualistic thinking.

I will tell you a story you might find interesting.

A man gets a thorn in his hand, so in order to remove it, he takes a thorn in his other hand and removes the first thorn.

He then discards both thorns.

Ran Singh!

[tao]

To Ram Singh
(who insists on not using an ID to identify his comments):

Fyi, I do not hold any such "concern with duality VS. Non-duality", as you have mistakenly presumed.

I merely pointed out that generally YOUR comments about Santmat RS etc. clearly reflect a basic and rather dualistic perspective, and that such duality is simply avidya or ignorance. And it is your own dualistic thinking that posits "duality VS. Non-duality". In fact all such thinking, concepts, beliefs, dogmas, paths, practices, etc. are duality. And therfore any involvement at at all with Sant mat or RS mat is entirely predicated upon duality and therefore ignorance. You can't say that you are beyond "duality vs non-duality" and still involve yourself in Santmat/RS. You can't have it both ways. Sant mat and RS is based in duality.

And btw, I have heard the little 'thorn' story before, and it just doesn't fly when it comes to non-duality (advaita) and self-knowledge (atma-jnana).

[Ram Singh]

Roger writes:

"Do the masters ever advise us to be a blind non-follower?"

The masters do not advise us to be a blind non-follower or a blind follower.

"Why does a guru need the title, Master?"

It's a relationship between the Master and Disciple.

The Master is also a Disciple.

In fact, a True Disciple IS a Master.

"Why the need to take vows at initiation?"

The same reason one takes vows when one gets married.

One who wants to get married is willing to take the vows.

Same goes for initiation.

"Who instructs one that the vows are important?"

The Master explains the importance of the vows -- from a spiritual point of view -- before initiation.

We decide whether we can practice them.

"What is it about a contact with a Sound current, that denotes a spiritual. experience?"

The Sound current is pure Spirit so naturally contact with it "denotes a spiritual experience."

"How does this Sound lead to salvation?"

It is the only power that can captivate and subdue the restless mind.

It removes the mind from the deception of the senses.

The Soul is then freed or liberated from servitude of the mind (mind becomes a servant and soul becomes the Master -- that is called liberation or salvation.

"If I am initiated, and experience a sound and some light, why or how does that become a certified spiritual experience of salvation?"

I already answered this.

It "becomes a certified spiritual experience of salvation" when the soul is set free from the domination of the mind.

"The statements that you are making, do they come from the literature?"

Answers to ALL your questions can be found in the literature.

"Literature is something that was written by someone."

Yes.

"What is so special about that particular someone?"

He has written a book so that those seekers, who can read, can study in book form the basic teachings.

Ram Singh

[Ram Singh]

TO ALL:

I am working on a web-site.

I have written some things but I still am not sure how my experiences can help anyone.

I will post a link if, and when, I think it's appropriate.

Ram Singh

[Tucson Bob]

I am responding to Ram Singh again because I feel this question is critical in accepting any path, faith or religion.

Ram Singh said: "The masters do not advise us to be a blind non-follower or a blind follower."

What else can you be but blind regarding the master's status until you KNOW the master is or isn't a master? I'm not talking about what the books or other devotees say, but what YOU know from first-hand personal experience of the master's ability to take you to what he says is the highest region, and that that region, once reached, is indeed the highest?

This is a question that was always in the background with me, but I ignored it or rationalized it away. If I were to consider a spiritual path now, this would be the fundamental issue. How do I know it is true?

No dogma allowed here, no parroting books. Answer straight from the heart, please.

If you answer, "I don't know for sure, I can't know for sure, I could be wrong, but the teachings and the master have something about them that I can believe in, and it feels right and rings true for me, so I choose to believe in it." This is an honest answer. Isn't it the only possible honest answer?

When you come to terms with this reality and admit it, and still decide your path is for you, no one need say anymore about it.

[tao]

Tucson Bob has said: "When you come to terms with this reality and admit it, and still decide your path is for you, no one need say anymore about it."

Yes, I quite agree.

[Roger]

Ram,

Thanks for your answers. Unfortunately, your responses just create more questions.

Tucson Bob and Tao,

Your above comments hit the issue on the nail. We all have to find our own way. Believe in what we think is best. However, keep an open mind and continue to ask questions.

Best wishes....Roger

[Ram Singh]

"Thanks for your answers. Unfortunately, your responses just create more questions."

You are welcome Roger.

Bob writes:

"This is a question that was always in the background with me, but I ignored it or rationalized it away."

Dear brother,

I will reply to your post soon and we won't ignore or "rationalize" anything away.

I am taking care of a friend that just had an operation, so I am a little distracted at the moment.

Ram Singh

[Ram Singh]

Bob writes:

"What else can you be but blind regarding the master's status until you KNOW the master is or isn't a master?"

Yes, with out personal inner experience we are more or less a blind follower (or a blind non-follower).

In fact: we don’t even understand what "Master" or Guru means.

At the time of initiation you were given instructions by some "body”... either the "body" of a Representative or the "body" of the outside master. These instructions included a way to contact the REAL Master -- the radiant form.

It is MY experience that one who contacts the Shabd Guru in the Radiant Form is in a position to know what the word MASTER means.

It is also MY experience that he is in a position to know what true Satsang is.

In short, he has personal experience (not based on books or hearsay)as to who the Master is -- through his own Self discovery.

It is MY experience that such a one may be initiated through a representative, go inside (shortly after initiation) and contact the Shabd Guru or the Radiant Form: Without EVER even meeting the outside guru!

In view of the above one can see how one may follow the body master around for years -- and even be a family friend or member -- and not know who the True Master is.

Brother, I would like to discuss one more thing with you “from the heart” as you say.

Take two initiates that were initiated around forty years ago.

One went in and contacted the Shabd Guru a few months after initiation -- without even meeting the outside Master.

But the other initiate has yet to contact the Shabd form after forty years -- even after Meeting the body Master and going to the Dera.

Is the first initiate “superior” to the first?

What follows is only my belief -- rather than MY experience as outlined above.

I do NOT believe the first initiate -- who went in and contacted the Shabd Guru -- is Spiritually superior to the second initiate, who did not.

I believe that for one initiate to think they are spiritually superior to the other would be a grave mistake on the part of the one so entertaining such a thought.

I hope this has cleared up any misunderstandings or bad feelings.

On a more personal note:

If you were to come to my home I would regard you with the same deference that I would show my Master.

It would be my blessing to serve you in every way.

I would cook for you, and try to make you comfortable in every way.

I would give you my bed -- while I slept on the floor.

I tell you this from the heart.

I am not telling anybody what or what not to believe.

I am tolerant of others but am (ironically)vehemently intolerant of intolerance!

If these discussions are going to create dissension, or ill will, I would prefer that we each respect each others point of view -- without imposing it on the other.

I would rather find common ground between us.

We each may have different views based on our own experiences -- and still respect the views of the other.

I hope you will take this post in the friendly way that it is meant.

Your brother,

Ram Singh

[Tucson Bob]

Ram Singh,

There have never been any bad feelings as far as I'm concerned, but sometimes when one asks challenging questions or presents differing points of view it can be taken that way.

I get from your last comment that you personally have had sufficient experience with the "radiant form" of the master to support your faith.

There are a number of us here that would very much like to know, based on this experience, what the word "master" means.

And thanks in advance for the hospitality, but I've never let anyone give me their bed. I'll make up for it by eating plenty of food. Hold the mushrooms, please!

[tao]

Ram Singhs comments to Bob (in quotations):

R.S. wrote: "Yes, with out personal inner experience we are more or less a blind follower (or a blind non-follower)."

Even with so-called "personal inner experiences" people are still blind followers or non-followers. Inner experiences are subjective and do not prove anything. And having "personal inner experiences" does not prevent one from being a blind follower. So to say or imply that one is not a blind follower just because of having some "personal inner expweriences" is incorrect.

R.S. wrote: "In fact: we don’t even understand what "Master" or Guru means."

No. That is also incorrect. You only speak for yourself. All that reall says is that YOU don’t "understand what "Master" or Guru means." Don't include everyone else ("we") in your ignorance about the true meaning of Guru. You have hereby admitted, and it is fairly obvious, that you really do not understand what is the meaning and nature of Guru.

R.S. wrote: "At the time of initiation you were given instructions..." "These instructions included a way to contact the REAL Master -- the radiant form."

Mere initiation and instructions are far from true Knowledge. And then you say "a way to contact", which clearly implies duality. And then finally you assert "the REAL Master -- the radiant form", which is nothing but words and concept and perceptual phenomena. The Guru is hardly mere concept or perceptual phenomena. Again, you are doing nothing more than repeating and parroting the same old Santmat/RS dogma which does not prove or substantiate anything, other than reveal how bereft you are in understanding of the real nature of Guru.

R.S. wrote: "It is MY experience that one who contacts the Shabd Guru in the Radiant Form is in a position to know what the word MASTER means."

That is nothing more than an idea and a belief. All talk of "Shabda Guru" and "Radiant Form" are merely exotic terms referring to what amounts to nothing more than concepts and subjective perceptual phenomena. Whatever may be your own personal experience of inner perceptual phenomena, it does NOT validate or substantiate your claim to having any real knowledge of the true nature of Guru. It is merely perceptual phenomena, and nothing more. It does not put you "in a position to know" anything. And the word "MASTER" is just a word. Nor are the ideas and concepts that you have apparently associated with that word any evidence of your claims either. Your claim is just a claim. It is irrelevant what inner phenomena you think and you say that you have experienced. Subtle and abstract inner phenomena that you may have experienced in meditation prove absolutely nothing.

"It is also MY experience that he is in a position to know what true Satsang is."

The true and literal meaning of "true Satsang" simply means: 'in association with truth'... or more specifically it means: 'association with Being' or 'abiding in Truth'. On the hand, the particular Santmat/RS interpretation and version of "Satsang" which you appartently subscribe to, is very much warped and skewed towards the bolstering and the perpetuation of the RS guru-cult and its dualistic dogma.

R.S. wrote: "In short, he has personal experience (not based on books or hearsay) as to who the Master is -- through his own Self discovery."

Again, "personal experience" proves nothing. Nor does it establish any truth about the real nature and meaning of the Guru. You are again merely parroting the same old standard Santmat/RS dogma. Your claims of subjective experience are not offering anything of substance.

R.S. wrote: "It is MY experience that such a one may be initiated through a representative, go inside (shortly after initiation) and contact the Shabd Guru or the Radiant Form: Without EVER even meeting the outside guru!"

Again, this is merely your supposed "experience". And the rest of your statement is simply standard RS dogma which has no evidence to it or basis in fact. It is nothing but pure abstraction and personal belief.

R.S. wrote: "one can see how one may... ...not know who the True Master is."

You talk about "the True master", but you have yet to actually describe or clearly define what is the true meaning of Guru. Until you do so, you are merely 'beating around the bush' of Santmat, and parroting dogma and belief.

R.S. wrote: "I believe that for one initiate to think they are spiritually superior to the other would be a grave mistake on the part of the one so entertaining such a thought."

No one is superior to anyone else. Not even the Guru. We are all equally characters in a dream. We are all manifestations of the divine mother, part of the earth, and units of primordial awareness.

R.S. wrote: "If you were to come to my home I would regard you with the same deference that I would show my Master."

Well good for you. Very good.

R.S. wrote: "We each may have different views based on our own experiences -- and still respect the views of the other."

One can intelligently criticise and yet still respect. Each is at his or her own level of understanding and perspective, and also we all sometimes learn things from each other. However, the regarding of, and the preaching about, that the so-called RS "master" as being somehow spiritually superior, or a "perfect master", or "the shabda incarnate", or or any other such nonsense and myth is just not showing respect to other ordinary people. We are all ordinary people. The guru mystique is just that, a mystique. You can believe whatever nonsense you want, but that doesn't make it so. The truth of the matter is tha Santmat & RS is a prime example of the 'romanicising of the esoteric'. If you don't understand what that means, then go study Mircea Eliade.

I would also advise that you need to broaden your rather narrow-minded understanding by some study of the sanatana dharma as is best exmplified in Siva, Dashinamurti, Sri Sankara, Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, Sri Atmananda, Ananda Mayi Ma, Sri Nasargadatta Maharaj, Buddha, Vimalakirti, Hui Neng, Huang Po, Lin Chi, P'ang, Padma Sambhava, Manjushrimitra, Saraha, Tilopa, Milarepa, Garab Dorje, as well as the Astravakra Gita, the Yoga Vaisistha, the Ribhu Gita, the Avadhut Gita, the Heart Sutra and Diamond Sutra, and so on and so forth as revealed from time immemorial.

For you to simply continue parroting RS dogma and guru-cultism on this blog site is rather pointless and boring. It just doesn't make for any good, relevant, or interesting discussion. If you want to preach standard Santmat dogma, then why don't you just go to RS satsang meetings. This is hardly the appropriate place. That should be quite obvious by a quick review of the general over-all thrust of Brian's blog articles. This is the Church of the Churchless, NOT the Radha Soami Satsang and sangat.

[tao]

To Ram Singh:

It is now quite obvious that your only agenda here is to repeatedly preach Santmat & Radha Soami guru-cult dogma.

Why?

Do you think that you are going to convince anyone? Do you think that you are going to win anyone over? Don't bet on it. Most of us are here because we got away from all that.

So why do you insist on coming here and pushing the same old dogma upon people who have moved away from and beyond it?

Do you think that we lack knowledge and education about Santmat? Do you think that this is an RS satsang venue?

You speak of your own experiences, but when others have asked you to relate those experiences, all you do is preach more dogma. So I don't believe that you only wish to share your so-called "direct" experiences and experiential point of view. You have given no evidence of that, even after others have specifically asked you to share those experiences. So it is obvious that you are here for one thing only: To promote and defend Radha Soami guru-cultism and dogma.

If that isn't so, then please do show us some real substance besides mere the same old ambiguous doctrine and dogma, and evasion and avoidance of the hard questions.

[Tucson Bob]

Tao has presented some interesting and challenging viewpoints regarding Ram Singh's Sant Mat beliefs. I hope Ram will put as much effort and thought into his response as Tao did in his.

Here is a link to a writer who has delved deeply into Sant Mat philosophy especially as it compares to non-dual teachings such as those of Ramana Maharshi. He is an initiate of Kirpal Singh and has a wealth of insights and experiences that should be of interest to anyone involved with Sant Mat. It is rather long. Get comfortable and a cup of tea. One could skip down to Part 2 to get right into his discussion on Sant Mat:

http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.citymaker.com/page/page/4362737.htm

[Roger]

Tucson bob and Tao,

I enjoyed your discussions regarding the Radiant form. I find it interesting that others have mentioned this as an expected result of meditation. In addition, the color, Gold, is mentioned. Some sort of Golden form appeared during meditation.

I figure, in a true spiritual world, there is no real value to the color gold, silver, platinum, etc. These are all man-made symbols of great value.

Thanks again for the comments.

[Osho Robbins]

Ram Singh,

Your posting of 9th August:

I would give you my bed -- while I slept on the floor.
I tell you this from the heart.
I am not telling anybody what or what not to believe.
I am tolerant of others but am (ironically)vehemently intolerant of intolerance!
If these discussions are going to create dissension, or ill will, I would prefer that we each respect each others point of view -- without imposing it on the other.
We each may have different views based on our own experiences -- and still respect the views of the other.
I hope you will take this post in the friendly way that it is meant.

Ram Singh,
I totally respect where you are coming from. However,unfortunately the grim reality is that MOST RS followers are not as open minded as yourself.

I speak from personal experience. So many times I have had a "friendly" discussion with Master Gurinder Singh. My discussions are very open and in the spirit of truth. I never use any words to give anyone any cause to think that I am being offensive in any way. However, I state my viewpoint clearly. I refer to GSD as my friend, because that is how I choose to relate to him. I speak to him on the same level - human to human. Otherwise we cannot have a real discussion.
However, the sangat in general gets upset - even to the point that I have received threats. Not that I am afraid - but these are hardly the actions of open-mineded people. They are dogmatic and closed and see me as a threat. The Muslims place a 'fatwah' on those who offend them. The RS followers are not far behind.

It would be nice if people can discuss openly without offending. Let me give you an example of the difference between 'open' and 'closed'. The people on this blog will gladly hear any viewpoint and at the same taime state theirs. Not always politely - but who cares? Some people use offensive words for effect. I do too sometimes. It does not mean I am offended. Now compare this to the facebook group "RadhaSoami" which is mainly 150 RS "Young Hopefuls" as I call them. They are just kids yet - and naive. They have a lot to learn - their journey has not even began yet. And is shows. If you make the slightest remark that slightly disagrees with their beliefs or challenges the blind following - they will propmtly delete the post and if you continue - ban you from the site. Is this tolerence and open-minded?
Also just look how RS Sevadars behave - they are often pushy and fixed - not flexiable and helpful. They don't really care to be of service - they are more concerned about discipline and rules.
Ram Singh - your ideals are lofty and commendable - but the reality is very different.

[Marty]

It is interesting that I was citing -earlier this year some personal observations about peoples behavior that I was connecting to bee and insect characteristics -to some friends, while relating some personal experiences and sometimes occuring human drama -having to do with pherenomes, and senses that I think affect people in ways they don't understand, some good, some unfortunate -and some people -more than others. But often predictable once you understand the phenomenon, and the triggers. Let me get back to you more on this . Thanks for this blog -and the opportunity to expand my collection of ideas and contribute something, also. (Hey; SWARM THEORY....)!?!? Marty