Morality doesn’t need a middleman

Doing good. We all want to do it, aside from a small number of people with a highly me-centered worldview. For I see the essence of morality as act toward others as you'd want them to act toward you.

When there's no sense of mutuality, of relationship, of reciprocal give and take, morality (such as it is) is reduced to act toward others however you want. It's all about me, me, me.

So goodness, like Tango, takes two. Otherwise, it's selfishness.

However, most religious believers want to complicate morality by adding in a middleman.

God. Or a stand-in for God, such as Jesus or someone else considered to be god in human form (there are quite a few modern candidates for this honor including Sant Mat gurus and Meher Baba).

The idea is that unless you're doing something for the sake of God or the guru, it isn't really good.

So you could be volunteering at soup kitchens, giving money to charity, and taking care of a sick neighbor. But if you weren't thinking, "This all is for you, _______ [name of divinity]," it wouldn't rate high on the goodness scale.

Pretty strange. Christopher Hitchens' The Portable Atheist includes an essay by George Eliot that critiques the dogmatism of a Christian fundamentalist of her day, a Dr. Cumming. (Eliot was the pen name of Mary Ann Evans.) Elliott quotes Cumming:

The "thoughts" are evil. If it were possible to human eye to discern and to detect the thoughts that flutter round the heart of an unregenerate man – to mark their hue and their multitude – it would be found that they are indeed "evil."

We speak not of the thief, and the murderer, and the adulterer, and such-like, whose crimes draw down the cognizance of earthly tribunals, and whose unenviable character it is to take the lead in the paths of sin; but we refer to the men who are marked out by their practice of many of the seemliest moralities of life – by the exercise of the kindliest affections, and the interchange of the sweetest reciprocities – and of these men, if unrenewed and unchanged, we pronounce that their thoughts are evil.

To ascertain this, we must refer to the object around which our thoughts ought continually to circulate. The Scriptures assert that this object is the glory of God; that for this we ought to think, to act, and to speak; and that in thus thinking, acting, and speaking, there is involved the purest and more endearing bliss.

…If the glory of God is not the absorbing and the influential aim of their thoughts, then they are evil; but God's glory never enters into their minds.

Now, one would expect this sort of fundamentalist message from a Christian.

But Eastern religions can be just as obsessed about thinking of God all of the time, no matter what you're doing (leaving aside the not-so-minor problem, common also to Western faiths, that it's tough to think about something imaginary).

I thumbed through a few issues of a Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) newsletter and found these thoughts from a representative of this India-based spiritual organization.

While working, whatever you do to earn your livelihood or maintain your home and family obligations, remember God and your Master throughout the day as your main preoccupation…Serve others with your spare time and work in the name of the Lord.

When I was hot and heavy into RSSB, I used to try to do this. But as mentioned above, I found it difficult to do. And distracting, because doing everything "for the glory of God" or "in the name of the Lord" is the antithesis of chop wood and carry water.

That is, when I was washing dishes I'd do my best to visualize this as being for the Master's (guru's) benefit. But he wasn't in the house – just me and my wife were.

So adding in an imaginary middleman between me and whatever I was doing eventually came to seem entirely unnecessary, and more than a little weird.

I knew people who'd say, "Thank you, God" or "Thank you, guru" when they'd find an empty parking space on a crowded street. What's up with that? Why not simply pull in and park?

Similarly, some RSSB initiates would go to considerable trouble to travel hundreds of miles, or even halfway across the world to India, in order to do volunteer work for their religious organization.

They seemed to feel that doing good didn't count unless it was done without a thought of the guru in mind, who is a stand-in for God in many Eastern faiths. George Eliot persuasively argues otherwise:

Dr. Cumming's theory, as we have seen, is that actions are good or evil according as they are prompted or not prompted by an exclusive reference to the "glory of God." God, then, in Dr. Cumming's conception, is a Being who has no pleasure in the exercise of love and truthfulness and justice, considered as affecting the well-being of His creatures.

He has satisfaction in us only in so far as we exhaust our motives and dispositions of all relation to our fellow beings, and replace sympathy for men by anxiety for the "glory of God."

…A wife is not to devote herself to her husband out of love to him and a sense of the duties implied by a close relation – she is to be a faithful wife for the glory of God; if she feels her natural affections welling up too strongly, she is to repress them; it would not do to act from natural affection – she must think of the glory of God.

Observing both myself and other God/guru obsessed devotees, I began to see how this misdirecting of natural impulses leads to a three's a crowd syndrome.

Meaning, religious believers reach a point where just about all of their human interactions include a third party: a conception of the divine entity to whom their fealty truly lies. They actually believe that Jesus, God, or the guru is present with them and is aware of everything they're doing or thinking.

Which, of course, also is the case with another supposedly omnipresent being: Santa Claus.

George Eliot speaks about how destructive it is to have an imaginary middle man intrude himself in such a fashion:

The idea of a God who not only sympathizes with all we feel and endure for our fellow men, but who will pour new life into our too languid love, and give firmness to our vacillating purpose, is an extension and multiplication of the effects produced by human sympathy; and it has been intensified for the better spirits who have been under the influence of orthodox Christianity, by the contemplation of Jesus as "God manifest in the flesh."

But Dr. Cumming's God is the very opposite of all this: He is a God who, instead of sharing and aiding our human sympathies, is directly in collision with them; who, instead of strengthening the bond between man and man, by encouraging the sense that they are both alike the objects of His love and care, thrusts Himself between them and forbids them to feel for each other except as they have relation to Him.

He is a God who, instead of adding His solar force to swell the tide of those impulses that tend to give humanity a common life in which the good of one is the good of all, commands us to check those impulses, lest they should prevent us from thinking of His glory.

Well, screw that. And to hell with that God. Or guru.

There's already enough divisiveness in the world. No need to add to it by interposing a conception of a non-existent being between us and what we do.

Comments

[Rakesh Bhasin]

One always argues with oneself before arriving at any conclusion on any matter. It is nobody else but ones inner mind which is the middle man.

Middle man has lived with people of all ages, caste and creed right from the beginning.

For a disciple, his Guru is not a middle man, it is his ultimate. Those who consider their spiritual master as middle man, they continue to hang in the middle throughout their life.

[Edward]

It is always frustrating to see simpletons interpret participation in the divine by limiting attention and haming perception to those qualities observable in people.

Since there is no separation from the divine, no action is mediated. A god that is omnipresent can not be mediated, ipso facto.

How ridiculous. Desire is never selfish.

[Roger]

Edward, what is haming perception?

[Brian]

Rakesh, your comment implies that the idea of the guru is nothing more than illusion, and that it is to be given up.

Otherwise, a disciple remains divided both from himself, and from reality. If this is what you're saying, I agree.

This is why it's necessary to "kill the Buddha." And the guru. Along with God. All these ideas...ridiculous.

So much imagination. So much fantasizing. "God is with me." "Jesus is by my side." "The guru is nearer to me than my hands and feet."

Like you said, when we give all that up reality is right before our eyes. God-free. Buddha-free. Guru-free.

[High Flyer]

I'll have a Buddha Free Burger with an Un-Godly Cola, and even a Wha Guru Chew for desert.... ummm delicious.

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Dear Brian,
It looks that I have messed up somewhere in my expression which is usual for me. You have got me slightly wrong.

Middle man is our inner mind to whom we seek every advice now and then.

I was somewhere between the lines trying to point towards the fact that, "DHUN AVE JO GAGAN KI SO MERA GURUDEV." i.e. sound current/internal energy which is contolling the functions of every living and non-living entity is my ultimate.

I do not know that I am clear now either.

with regards,

[Brian]

Rakesh, now I better understand what you mean.

But still, if someone wants to merge or get in touch with ultimate internal energy, shouldn't the goal be to eliminate the mind barriers that stand between us and the ultimate?

It seems to me that an idea or concept of something imaginary would block us from genuine reality. So if you're thinking of someone who isn't really there,how does this aid in perceiving the ultimate?

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Dear Brian,

I appreciate your interest in persuing the matter.We are nothing else but mind only so long as we are separated from the ultimate.

Everything is a separate entity because of its internal energy. On change of the state of matter, the internal energy also changes because a new entity is formed.

No skill on this earth can be learnt without but through a skilled person only. How did the first person got skill to do that job? -remains difficult to explain.

You wrote: if someone wants to merge or get in touch with ultimate internal energy, shouldn't the goal be to eliminate the mind barriers that stand between us and the ultimate?
----- on this human platform we are mind only.There are no barriers between us and the ultimate. Only a skilled hand has to be contacted who can teach us the technique to merge with ultimate. If this is not done while living, otherwise after death it is automatic. There is nothing to be afraid of. This doll of flesh and bones will perish. It has its own shelf life. Somethings are so simple that we can believe them. No stress is required while persuing any course of workout to merge with ultimate source of energy while living.

I hope that I have not raised more querries in the reply.

with regards,

[Komposer]

brian,

I understand much of what you say in your post, but I am not so sure your complaints really contradict RSSB thinking.
you write:

When I was hot and heavy into RSSB, I used to try to do this [keep the master in mind]. But as mentioned above, I found it difficult to do. And distracting, because doing everything "for the glory of God" or "in the name of the Lord" is the antithesis of chop wood and carry water.

In my interpretation, I am not sure "remembering the master" must literally mean imagining an imaginary person there with you. Couldn't it also mean tapping into a certain feeling within while going about your business, staying present, remembering that whatever you are engaged in is a fleeting involvement, not to be taken too seriously?

You write:
The idea is that unless you're doing something for the sake of God or the guru, it isn't really good.

Again, I don't think this is true about RSSB. I have read in books that the generosity and love you feel from an act of charity is the reward itself.

Basically, I understand very much what you're saying, but I think a slightly different interpretation allows for "chop wood carry water" to be perfectly in sync with sant mat teachings. Simply being present and focused is not a contradiction to a sant mat lifestyle in the least.

[Sita]

Sometimes it seems to me that when diciples do things for their Guru,they don't see their fellow diciples or humans.All they think about, is their Guru, and that, in their own way of feeling/interpretation,bhakti..
I see often that by thinking of the Guru, it can stand in between to peoples hearts even..
The lack of feeling,listening to the need of another being can occure.
When Guru or God is there really(!)..
One don't have to ''think''about that,it's maybe just there..
Further more I don't agree,that we are only mind as Rakesh says we are/have soul,what is Love and all sorts of things in all creatures.
with love,Sita

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Dear Sita,

I have said that on this human plateform we are mind only. Spiritually awakened people have a concept of soul and mind. Still rare people realize the difference between soul and mind. Rarest of the rare people in their lifetime are able to liberate soul from mind after traversing the Parbraham stage, where the influence of Brahma, creator/incharge of this universe ceases to exist.

So long as we are in this universe of duality we can continue to call ourself , mind or soul or both.

with kind regards,

[Pearls Before Swine]

The following quoted statements from R. Bhasin are blatant nonsense and abstract mental speculation presented with pretense of being factual knowledge. Here is why:

"We are nothing else but mind only so long as we are separated from the ultimate."

~ Who is this "we"? What separation? What is "ultimate"? ... These are nothing more than mental constructs.

"Everything is a separate entity because of its internal energy."

~ Separate from what? What "internal energy"? Internal in relation to what?

"How did the first person got skill to do that job?"

~ What "first person? First person in relation to what or to whom? And what "skill" are you referring to?

"on this human platform we are mind only.There are no barriers between us and the ultimate."

~ This statement is self-contradictory. Who is "we"? What is "mind"? What is "ultimate"? These are just more meaningless abstractions.

"a skilled hand has to be contacted who can teach us the technique to merge with ultimate."

~ Who needs to "merge", and why? Why do you feel that you need a "techinque", and must "merge" with something? and what is this "ultimate"? You speak as if this is meaningful, but this is incredibly abstract nonsense. Where is the value in such vague abstraction and mental speculation? Are these your own ideas, or did you acquire them from another source?

"If this is not done while living, otherwise after death it is automatic."

~ What is "automatic"? What is "after death"? And why do you feel that you must do or have "done" something?

"No stress is required while persuing any course of workout to merge with ultimate source of energy"

~ What is "ultimate source of energy"? Why do you think that you need to "workout" or "merge"?

"on this human plateform we are mind only."

~ OK... but what is "mind", and what other "plateform" is there?

"Spiritually awakened people have a concept of soul and mind."

~ Sorry, but "spiritually awakened" people have and need NO such concepts. "soul and mind" are merely words.

"rare people realize the difference between soul and mind."

~ You say "rare people"? And what is this "difference"? What is "soul", and what is "mind"? You pretend to be so sure of yourself, but your statements are molre or less meaningless and sometimes contradictory. Do you really understand and know what you are actually saying, or are you just repeating some words and ideas that you have acquired from elsewhere?

"the rare people in their lifetime are able to liberate soul from mind after traversing the Parbraham stage, where the influence of Brahma, creator/incharge of this universe ceases to exist."

~ What is this "soul" that you think you need to "liberate"? Why do you think that something needs to be liberated? And who is going to liberate and from what? From "mind" you say? What is "mind"? And what is "Parbraham stage"? And where is this "Brahma, creator/incharge of this universe"? How can something exist and then "cease to exist" if it is "incharge of this universe"? This confused and contradictory, and is apparently based upon some sort of abstract religious belief. I am amazed at how some people can think that this kind of absurd nonsense is rational and meaningful.

"So long as we are in this universe of duality we can continue to call ourself , mind or soul or both."

~ IS this universe "of duality? How do you know what the universe is? And why do you feel a need to call yourself "mind or soul"? Why do you feel such a need to superimpose such baggage of abstract beliefs and mental constructs upon your life?

~ Isn't life spiritual enough? Why do you find a need to cloud it over with so much unnecessary obstruction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearls_Before_Swine_(band)

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Pearls Before Swine,

If you the questions, you have the answers as well. Kidly elaborate them.

with regards,

[Deepak Kamat]

Rakesh,

I think Sant Mat cosmology of brahmand, parabrahm and sach khand is untrue. It is just a hazy description of the inner. The inner realms cannot be described, it is anami (nameless), agam (inaccessible) and alakh (untouched).

Useless mental concepts and millions have wasted their lives trying to think in those terms. However, I must say, I believe in destiny. If you are bound to slip into or rise into the mystic planes. You will succeed even without efforts. In case, you are not destined for it, you will fail despite your efforts.

Even Sawan Singh had indicated that the Sant Mat cosmology was untrue. I don't know why you are continously peddling the sant mat jargon still.

[Edward]

Roger,
A hame is what you put on a horse to keep it tied to a cart. Haming perception is reducing freedom of imagination, hallucinatiory or otherwise.

[Where Angels Fear to Tread]

This Rakesh fellow made some particular but somehwhat vague statements, but with an air of knowledge and authority. But when hne was asked simple questions and for clarifications about his statments, he now completely evades all questions and refuses to clarify or elaborate upon his own statements.

Therefore his evasion supports the previous contention of his statements being more or less meaningless nonsense, and thus Rakesh himself now has no more credibility.

If he wishes to be taken seriously, then he must clarify his statements. If he can not defend and elaborate upon those statements, then his statements have no value or meaning, and thus should be ignored as nothing more than the prattling and idle chatter of a FOOL.

[Rakesh Bhasin]

To Pearls Before Swine & Where Angels Fear to Tread,

I have written nothing unusual. But questions like "the difference between soul and mind" has to be felt by a practioner. I regret my inability to explain.Withdrawl of conciousness from the sole of the feet to eye center is automatic at the time of death which is however achieved during meditation while living. These are not unkown things.

I agree that most of the times I think faster than I write. Therefore, such mistakes creep in. Moreover, I can spare only 10-15 minutes a day out of my busy schedule. I am extremely sorry in case anybody feels that I evade giving clarifications of my own statements.

I am the last man to put my words with an air of knowledge and authority. It may be part of my poor expression. Henceforth I shall take care of it.

If I address reply to some specific person, my reply is as per other person's background.

Like my words to Sita.

I shall take care in next posts.

with regards,

[Aunty Gravity]

"questions like "the difference between soul and mind" has to be felt by a practioner."

~ Another evasive and meaningless response.

"Withdrawl of conciousness from the sole of the feet to eye center is automatic at the time of death which is however achieved during meditation while living."

~ There is no "consciousness" within "the feet", the "eye center", or any other part or organ of the human biological organism. There never was. All such body parts etc are only apparent objects in the field of sensory perception. Consciousness is not located anywhere. All spatial locations are only appearances within consciousness.

"These are not unkown things."

~ Regardless of what you THINK, or what you think that you KNOW, fundamentally you do NOT know what anything IS.

"I am extremely sorry in case anybody feels that I evade giving clarifications of my own statements."

~ In this case, being sorry doesn't resolve it. You evaded the questions. Out of quite a number of relatively simple questions, you only vaguely answered two of them. If you are going to make authoritarian statements and assertions, then you should be prepared to clarify and defend them. But you have not done so. Therefore your original statements and assertions are not credible or valid.

"If I address reply to some specific person, my reply is as per other person's background."

~ How could you possibly know what their "background" is? You are only assuming that you know. How could you know the "background" of other people on an internet blog unless you just happen to know them personally? I think you are making a lot of assumptions, both about spiritual topics such as your statement: "Withdrawl of conciousness from the sole of the feet to eye center is automatic at the time of death which is however achieved during meditation while living", as well as about other commenters and their "background".

~ That kind of unexamined and uncritical thinking is typical of people like yourself who support and follow religious dogma and spiritual guru-cults.

[Stuart Resnick]

Looking carefully into the cause of suffering, we may see that it's always rooted in I/my/me. So how to let go of this "I"? As this post suggests, a simple and direct way is to try to be helpful and kind towards whoever you happen to be with. If you're with your wife, be a good husband; if you're with your kids, be a good father; if you're with a friend, be a good friend.

Sure, there are all sorts of religious and philosophical systems that make it more complicated, but "help other beings" is really all the direction we need.

Some people want more. So they make ideas about "God," then forget that these ideas are all mind-created, and believe that this "God" is really out there. By focusing on this "God," they get so enraptured that they forget about I/my/me, because there's nothing in their minds but God. So it's another method for removing suffering, by letting go of I/my/me.

It seems to work for lots of people, so good for them. It seems less appropriate for more intelligent humans, those of us who find it more difficult to forget that our ideas and imaginings of what "God" is are all created by thinking. The method of helping whomever you meet, moment to moment, feels a whole lot more simple and direct. But I guess everybody has different sicknesses, so we need different medicines.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

[Rakesh Bhasin]

To Aunty Gravity,

Given below are my replies to your above objections:

"questions like "the difference between soul and mind" has to be felt by a practioner."

~ Another evasive and meaningless response.
Ans: If you are not a follower of any technique of meditation, I simply can not help it.
"Withdrawl of conciousness from the sole of the feet to eye center is automatic at the time of death which is however achieved during meditation while living."

~ There is no "consciousness" within "the feet", the "eye center", or any other part or organ of the human biological organism. There never was. All such body parts etc are only apparent objects in the field of sensory perception. Consciousness is not located anywhere. All spatial locations are only appearances within consciousness.
Ans: When all the parts of the body of a person stop working, we say that the person has become unconscious. One is conscious becouse of the sensory organs only. You can give any name to this consciousness. I do not know this blog is turning out to be a place for polemics rather than exchanging thoughts and helping each other.
"These are not unkown things."

~ Regardless of what you THINK, or what you think that you KNOW, fundamentally you do NOT know what anything IS.
Ans: I accept what you say. But write the correct perceptions at your end.
"I am extremely sorry in case anybody feels that I evade giving clarifications of my own statements."

~ In this case, being sorry doesn't resolve it. You evaded the questions. Out of quite a number of relatively simple questions, you only vaguely answered two of them. If you are going to make authoritarian statements and assertions, then you should be prepared to clarify and defend them. But you have not done so. Therefore your original statements and assertions are not credible or valid.
Ans: If you feel that my original assertions are incredible and invalid. I do not know that my words are binding on anybody. Kindly suggest what you feel better and more acceptable.
"If I address reply to some specific person, my reply is as per other person's background."

~ How could you possibly know what their "background" is? You are only assuming that you know. How could you know the "background" of other people on an internet blog unless you just happen to know them personally? I think you are making a lot of assumptions, both about spiritual topics such as your statement: "Withdrawl of conciousness from the sole of the feet to eye center is automatic at the time of death which is however achieved during meditation while living", as well as about other commenters and their "background".
Ans: I have been conversing with Sita for quite sometime. I have a fair idea of her spiritual background.
~ That kind of unexamined and uncritical thinking is typical of people like yourself who support and follow religious dogma and spiritual guru-cults.

Ans: Passing such remarks is not difficult. I shall love to not to mind it, as it reveals a lot about you.

With regards,

[Deepak Kamat]

Aunty Gravity is Tao in disguise/ swamianami. Great post.

[Jeremy]

Thanks for a wonderful post. This is how I used to be when a Sant Mat initiate. Now I realise what a swindle it was! Talking to a colleague the otehr day, also an initiate, I was astounded how many times she invoked the master's name, as if everything she did ir that happened to her was dues to him. None are so blind as those that cannot see!!!!!