My inside look at RSSB books

It's interesting that currently churchless me once was so involved in writing books for a decidedly churchy organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB).

A couple of years ago I blogged about "How writing a book rewrote me." This was the third, and last, major RSSB book project that I was involved with.

The end result was "Return to the One: Plotinus' Guide to God-Realization." But it wasn't published by RSSB, even though the plan all along was that this would be the first in a Mystics of the West series.

I have to give credit to Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the guru who heads up Radha Soami Satsang Beas, for wanting to study the teachings of Western philosophical mystics like Plotinus – even though the effort came to a crashing halt.

Early on in the book project, Gurinder Singh mailed me a list of possible subjects for a Mystics of the West book. I chose Plotinus because I was intrigued by him and resonated with the approach of Greek philosophy – open-minded non-religious, and rational, as noted in my earlier post.

Also to Gurinder Singh's credit, when I was in India in 1998 I asked him, "If I find a conflict between the teachings of Plotinus and of RSSB, what should I do?"

His reply: "Stick with Plotinus."And that's what I did.

Which is one reason why I ended up publishing the book myself. I wasn't willing to compromise my description of Plotinus' marvelous mystic philosophy to fit with how the RSSB Publication Department powers-that-be wanted the book to turn out.

Our disagreements came down to a few areas that might seem fairly inconsequential, but were important to me. I talked about one issue in the other post – whether there is such a thing as a "Western mind." (Since I have one, I'm convinced that there is.)

Also, RSSB wanted to include quotations from a previous RSSB guru, Charan Singh, after each chapter title – to show that West and East were on the same wavelength when it came to spirituality.

I was OK with this, but just for the version of the book that would be published non-commercially by RSSB. I saw no reason, none at all, to mix up RSSB teachings with Plotinus' philosophy in the commercial version that would be sold to the general public.

This related to another disagreement I had with RSSB Publications staff. They wanted me to include a mention of my involvement with Radha Soami Satsang Beas, so that readers would know "where I was coming from."

I even was asked to thank Charan Singh (the guru who initiated me in 1971) in the introduction for making it possible for me to write the book – supposedly, I guess, by infusing my consciousness with enough wisdom to grasp Plotinus' not always easily graspable teachings.

I balked at that too.

I told RSSB that I've always had a better than average ability to understand complex subjects and write about them fairly clearly. That preceded my involvement with RSSB meditation. It's an integral part of my makeup, not a gift from my guru.

And on the "where I'm coming from" front, my position was that if a knowledgeable reader couldn't tell that I'd been a member of an Indian-based mystic/meditation group for thirty years, then there was no need to mention this.

I mean, I sent drafts of the book manuscript to scholars who were experts on Plotinus. I got lots of suggestions and criticisms back, but nobody ever suggested that my interpretation of Plotinus was slanted in a particular fashion.

Yet RSSB wanted me to talk about how my immersion in the organization was related to my "take" on Plotinus. I kept saying that I'd never seen a similar mention of an author's personal philosophy in any of the scholarly books I'd read about Plotinus.

It simply was taken for granted that the author had done his or her best to write about Plotinus teachings, not his own way of looking at the world.

Sure, "Return to the One" includes a lot of Brian Hines along with Plotinus. That's inescapable, because I wrote the book, not a robot. However, I successfully separated the "me" aspects of the book from the "him" (Plotinus) aspects.

At the moment my book is #2 on an Amazon search for "Plotinus," right behind Plotinus' Enneads. That's satisfying. It's the most readable book about an influential Greek philosophy who should be more widely read.

I wish Radha Soami Satsang Beas had been less concerned about infusing the book with a RSSB slant. But this is par for the course with RSSB publications about mystics who aren't in the direct Radha Soami Satsang Beas guru lineage.

There's a decided tendency – and I can't go into this in detail in this already lengthy post – toward slanting a mystic's teachings to more tightly fit with RSSB dogma.

This would be somewhat understandable, though still not acceptable, if an overtly religious organization was doing it. But RSSB bills itself as a "science of the soul," and scientists need to be as objective as possible in their writings and research.

A key tenet of the RSSB philosophy, which is shared by all sorts of mystic teachings, is that words can't encompass ultimate reality. Given this, I always found it difficult to understand why RSSB books were so concerned with saying things the same way, and describing metaphysical principles in consistent language.

Might as well end by quoting myself (from the "Infinity is Ineffable" chapter).

Our whole approach to the One will be thrown off course if we believe we can travel to enlightenment through words or thoughts. It isn't a matter of, say, pondering the Buddhist Dhammapada for my whole life and then realizing that the Christian Bible contains a more correct description of divine reality.

This would be like me believing that God is square and then finding out that God actually is a circle. Since I was looking for some sort of spiritual shape, I wasn't far off the mark and might simply observe, "Oops, I made a slight mistake; now I know better."

But if God is formless and nameless, far removed from any shape or word, then a much more radical change of direction is needed. A person's entire consciousness must be transformed if he or she is to experience God. A way has to be found of experiencing emptiness, of entering into the nothingness that is the threshold to the One.

Comments

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Brian,
In RSSB, the main emphasis on reading books is only to the extent that they provide an atmosphere so that an initiate can attend to meditation better. You are after all a professional writer. How could you fore go your royalty etc.,I have seen the front cover and contents of your book. To me it is still a costly book. It must be a master piece, no doubt about it.

A gist of the book may be provided in pdf form for the benefit of poor people like me.

with regards,

[tAo]

Rakesh has apparently totally missed the point that Brian was making.

And that seems to be a common problem for typically narrow-minded followers of the RS organization such as people like Rakesh.

And Rakesh also seems to have misunderstood that the proposed RSSB version of Brian's book was quite separate from the commercially published book that is now selling for a higher price on Amazon.

And where does Rakesh get the idea that Brian has had to "for go" his royalties? So it appears that Rakesh has not even read what Brian has written in this latest article.

And last but not least... if that (as Rakesh has indicated and which anyone familiar with RS already knows anyway) "In RSSB, the main emphasis on reading books is only to the extent that they provide an atmosphere so that an initiate can attend to meditation better", then why was and is RSSB so concerned with influencing, affecting, and interferring in the writing and content of Brian's book?

The answer to that is this: Because the RSSB cult organization has a particular agenda which is NOT simply to encourage meditation, but rather to also push their philosophical dogma, their bias, and their cult belief system, and to insert it into all their publications, as well as to deliberately influence and control the minds and ideas of their followers. RSSB is not interested in philosophy (such as Plotinus) just for the sake of philosophy, but rather to specifically promote their dogma and their belief system.

[poohbear]

Gurinder Singh has the right idea in that spirituality is universal, and he attempts to promote the idea. RSSB being an organisation of volunteers unsurprisingly, seems to fall short of the mark.

The publication of books is reasonably flawed. There are historic mistakes in the books. There are quotes attributed to the wrong source. Also many of the books have a spiritual message embedded in a cultural context of India as it was 500 years ago. Even the words of Soami Ji 150 years ago do not readily resonate in the 21st Century intellect in the west.

Then there are the dogmatic rantings of Dr Julian Johnston from his particular pulpit. Even the more modern discourses of Charan Singh have not always been acurately translated. Much of the time he is adressing a peasant audience. How can the 21st Century tertiary educated person relate to the local metaphors he uses?

Brian, I read your book when it first came out. I found it accessible which is probably its more important function. I have Plotinus', 'Enneads', but as we know, it is not an easy read. One needs to be in one's best scholarly frame of mind to tackle it, and that state doesn't visit me too often.

Books about spirituality have their purpose. Obviously they are not an end in themselves. I don't care to count the number of this type of book I've read over the past 40 years, but fortunately they have only ever remained tools of the trade. I like books that get it right, and books that get it wrong. Understanding both sides is useful.

Similarly, I read Brian's blogs. He gets a fair bit right and a fair bit wrong in my opinion, but I doubt that he ever sets out to write about absolute truth (whatever that is). Chewing the fat across the globe can be both relaxing and stimulating. I don't expect much more than that.

[Brian]

tAo, nice response to Rakesh. Yes, if the purpose of RSSB books was just to encourage people to meditate and find out the truth for themselves, that'd be one thing.

Which would be different from obsessing over saying things just the right way, which is much more religious than mystical.

Genuine mystics are like someone dancing around and pointing "That way! That way!" They could communicate that message in countless ways, verbal and non-verbal.

Their intent isn't to describe what lies "That way," but to get people to see it for themselves. I wish RSSB books would loosen up, along with RSSB satsangs, and do more of what Rakesh suggested -- encourage people to see directly, not trust in dogma.

[tucson]

"I wish RSSB books would loosen up, along with RSSB satsangs, and do more of what Rakesh suggested -- encourage people to see directly, not trust in dogma."

--For those unfamiliar with RSSB there are certain core fundamental beliefs upon which RSSB stands:

a) Each of us has a soul that is ensnared by karma. Because of this we suffer.

--This requires the belief in a soul, even though it can't be seen, measured or identified in any way. Let's see, my soul begins and ends here, yours begins and ends there. Has anyone been able to demonstrate this?

b) The master is perfect and all-powerful.

--Even if the master steps on dog poo or picks his nose, this is just a lesson for his disciples and not evidence of his imperfection and lack of omnipotence even if he is one hell of a nose-picker as I heard Kirpal Singh was.

c) If by divine grace the lost soul is fortunate enough to find, or more correctly, be found and be initiated by the master, the master will manage the release of the soul from this bondage via his grace and the purifying effect of hearing shabd, the sound of god.

--Reason must be suspended here as there is no way anyone could determine if this is true unless they already experienced it, in which case there would be no need for a master.

d) This is most important: Only a perfect master can accomplish this for the lost soul.

--How do you know a master is perfect?
Again, to know it you would have to be perfect (attained the highest spiritual region) yourself and then it would seem you wouldn't need a master..would you?

e) Only "marked" souls are destined for this release. There is no other way for a soul to go back home to God.

--That's the way it is...if you're not marked, you're fucked. I admit this exact vernacular is not found in official RSSB books, but that's the gist of it. By the way, I have occasionally wondered where this "mark" is and what it looks like. Not to worry, the master can see it and that's all that matters.

--One might think, why is god so mean that he only marks certain souls while others are left to wallow in misery for eternity? What did they do wrong? Sometimes god doesn't seem very nice. Of course it is said that it was the soul's choice not to be marked. So, it's all their fault.

As a side-note, there is a third character in this play. His name is Kal and he/it is bad. He is a selfish SOB who wants to keep souls under his dominion and trapped by karma. He is also known as "mind" or the "negative power" and he is very tricky. Disciples of the master are told not to listen to him (think) because he will lead them astray and delay spiritual progress. Any doubts that come to the disciples mind about RSSB are tricks of Kal and should be ignored.

The dogma of other Sant Mat branches differ a little from one-another, but if RSSB were to allow free thinking and open questioning of the above precepts, soon this branch of Sant Mat would dissolve under the weight of it's absurdity. But then again, many absurd religions have flourished for centuries. I wonder who the Sat Guru (Pope) will be in the year 2286?

[komposer]

Hi everyone,
Thanks for the good discussion. The basic problem with Sant Mat today is that the dogma has become so fixed...
There seem to be so many contradictions. On the one hand, satsangis are told not to expect anything when they meditate, yet have heard for many years about five regions, lights, sound, bliss, love. This is a lot to expect, and if it doesn't come, then what? I have met so many satsangis who seem disillusioned about not getting what they expected, and who is responsible for this disappointment? I think this is one reason why Brian is so focused on the "now" and reality, because the now eliminates expectations.
But a dogma is different from experience. I wonder how Soami Ji would have reacted to this huge organization and dogmatic thought. I still have to say that I believe in the experience that Sant Mat (and other traditions of concentrated meditation practices points to), but I am disgusted with a lot of the scaffolding around it...

[DJ]

Alas, Plotinus and the other Neo-Platonists were never mystics but a school of western philosophers who only WROTE about metaphysics! There is nothing in either Plotinus' famous book Enneads or the biographical information about him that comes from Porphyry's introduction to the book that claims he practiced "mysticism" Its intellectually misleading to refer to Plotinus as a "Western Mystic"!

[Brian]

DJ, I assume you haven't actually read the Enneads. Or my book about Plotinus. If you had, you'd know that Plotinus speaks in the first person about what he has experienced.

For example, in Ennead IV-8-1:

"Often I reawaken from my body to myself: I come to be outside other things, and inside myself. What an extraordinarily wonderful beauty I then see! It is then, above all, that I believe I belong to the greater portion. I then realize the best form of life; I become at one with the Divine, and I establish myself in it."

Again, these are Plotinus' own words. You can argue about whether he was telling the truth, or what he meant by the Divine, but the same applies to every mystic.

So I completely disagree that Plotinus wasn't a Western mystic. The only way he wasn't is if nobody is a mystic -- which might well be the case. But if you agree that mystics exist, Plotinus surely was one.

[DJ]

Brian,
I stand corrected. I verified the passage you quoted in my copy of The Enneads translated by Stephen Mackenna. I never came close to reading The Fourth Ennead because I found the First to be so dry and academic I gave up. I'll start reading it again from the 4th!

[Brian]

DJ, I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't read the Enneads. Just not all of them. Even Mackenna's translation doesn't include all of the Enneads, which can indeed be deadly boring. Still, there's nothing like the original. But Armstrong's more definitive and complete translation isn't easily available.

[tucson]

"I still have to say that I believe in the experience that Sant Mat (and other traditions of concentrated meditation practices points to), but I am disgusted with a lot of the scaffolding around it..."

--I understand what you are saying, but what would this experience be? Where would it take place? There is this conceptual staircase to some conceptual paradise where we will be happy and free from taxes and toothaches. I remember a satsangi friend of mine being concerned if there would be any tennis or surfing in Sach Khand (highest region in RSSB) which he really likes to do. For him, paradise would be crummy without those things, and I would have to agree... 8 ft. Trestles on a warm, sunny day is indeed mighty fine, or even 60 ft. at Jaws if you're up to it. Maybe the waves in Sach Khand are endlessly high and tubular! How many virgins are in that heaven? Whooo-eeee.

This dream of paradise keeps us from really being present in the reality that is now. I think this, right now is the formless, nameless, unknowable place. Our conditioning gives it form, like Don Juan's assemblege point or "tonal", but it is really the wild and wooley "nagual", unfathomable, unknowable, indescribable.

Even the masters say it is Alakh, Agam, Anami..formless, unknowable, and nameless. "Just trust me", says the master, "and I'll take you there."..to this formless, unknowable and nameless place. How can anything be taken to a place that isn't anything? No 'where' to run, no 'where' to hide, it is in plain view this open secret.

I don't think It gives a hoot if there is rennet in your cheddar or what you do, because whatever that may be, It's doing it. But at some point, in seeing that everything is what you are, it is less likely you will find yourself feeding at some other creature's expense. Still, that's how nature operates, and sometimes it's necessary.

Now get out and vote!

[komposer]

Tuscon, you write:

This dream of paradise keeps us from really being present in the reality that is now. I think this, right now is the formless, nameless, unknowable place. Our conditioning gives it form, like Don Juan's assemblege point or "tonal", but it is really the wild and wooley "nagual", unfathomable, unknowable, indescribable.

You make sense here, in that I think a lot of people use fantasy to avoid reality, even (especially) fantasy that's about reality! I catch myself avoiding reality all the time...

And it also makes sense what you say about our conditioning giving it form...
And you say that all those regions may be right here right now. And I could buy that also. My only complaint against your point of view, as I have read in many of your comments, is that I think you make it seem remarkably easy to let go of our conditioning and just be in that experience right now. Perhaps for you it is. But for me, it's not so easy to just "let go" and be in the now. My mind is so full of crap that some concentrated process seems necessary to poke through the conditioning and habit perceptions which give shape to my experience...

[tucson]

"I think you make it seem remarkably easy to let go of our conditioning and just be in that experience right now."

--I think it's simple, but not easy. It is simple to jump off a twenty story building (like Neo in the Matrix), but not easy.

"Perhaps for you it is."

--Nope, but it happens sometimes.

"My mind is so full of crap."

--mine too.

"some concentrated process seems necessary"

--I think this is good, but not with an idea of gaining or accomplishing something. Just do it to do it.

--Surrender to the idea that you can never comprehend your endless, immortal, unborn self. That is, it can't be encapsulated. You need nothing for this realization or any effort. It is as nautral as just being here. You want to find a way out of your perceived predicament, but that is impossible because now is eternal and you can't walk away or towards it.

--It is not an experience. It takes two to have an experience..the experiencer and the experienced. In reality they are one. This is nothing special. It is just coming to terms with and surrendering to what is and letting yourself be lived. You can't do anything about this because it's what you are anyhow.

[Rakesh Bhasin]

There was internet problem and today only I have read all the comments. These comments are not at all different from my expectations. You are all aware that RSSB does not believe in advertizement. Even master's programme is not published in the dailies.

When Charan Singh was in USA in 1963, one of the representatives suggested that his programme may be announced on TV so that more people may attend his discourse. He immediately replied in negative and did not allow for TV announcement. Instead he replied that a true seeker always finds by himself.

What to talk of books, even weekly satsangs or discourses of the master are also only to create atmosphere for meditation.

Those who have done something and have gained
something know the truth. I stand nowhere.....In a courtroom, the lawers speak so much after counsulting a large number of books and quote precedence, but the words of
judge prevail. As the judge has experience and holds the authority.

Almighty is the judge, if we believe in Him.

Even the best books on the earth can not make a doctor, an engineer etc., etc., how can one expect a spiritulist to come out from the books written under the banner of RSSB or otherwise.

Reaction awaited, especially from tAo in a terse manner.

with love

[tAo]

Thanks and praise goes to Tucson for his excellent and right-on-target expose and outline of the inherent problems and contradictions within the Radha Soami path and teachings, and with Sant Mat in general [see Posted by: tucson | February 05, 2008 8].

Which also relates to Rakesh and his recent comments:

Rakesh would do well to read Tucson's comment that I mentioned (or re-read it) and give it some very serious thought and consideration. Because for some unknown reason, Rakesh again seems to be completely oblivious to the crucial points and issues that Tucson has articulated, enumerated, and elaborated upon so concisly. It's as if Mr. Rakesh does not even properly understand the Radha Soami belief system that he so mindlessly and unquestioningly buys into.

Rakesh says that Charan Singh had said that: "a true seeker always finds by himself". -- Well that's an evasive load of crap imo. It's a game of avoidance that puts all the burden upon the seeker. It's inherently dishonest. And so is the idea that only the "marked souls" get salvation, and the rest are all doomed to remain suffering in samsara and chaurasi. That notion is blatant cultic manipulation through fear, it is utterly false elitist garbage, it is reprehensible, and it is definitely not a teaching befitting any true sage.

"books, even weekly satsangs or discourses of the master are also only to create atmosphere for meditation."

-- Again, as far as this "atmosphere for meditation" point goes, Rakesh is still completely ignoring the rest of the RSSB agenda that Brian, Tucson, myself, and others have indicated. So I don't hink Rakesh is paying much attention here. And I think its obvious that he is merely parroting the same old shallow RS dogma.

"Those who have done something and have gained something know the truth."

-- So then, who are they? and... WHAT IS "the truth"???

"but the words of judge prevail. As the judge has experience and holds the authority."

-- What "experience" is Rakesh referring to? And what so-called "authority"? ... But I am sure that Rakesh will ignore or evade this question as he usually does.

"Almighty is the judge, if we believe in Him."

-- What does believing have to do with it? Either the is an "Almighty", or there isn't. According to Rakesh, thius "Almighty" is only the judge IF we "believe in Him". So since I choose NOT to be JUDGED by some make-believe God, then I chgoose not to believe. That way, according to Rakesh, I won't have to be judged. Hah! So much for Rakesh's "Almighty judge".

Religion and the religious minded... how lame and pathetic. Is that "terse" enough for you Rakesh?

And please do go re-read and contemplate Tucson's right-on Feb 5 comment (of which I completely agree).

PS: I for one, am getting a wee bit tired of Rakesh's repeated parroting of the same old same old RS dogma. That kind of stuff belongs in the RS satsang meetings, not here.

[Deepak Kamat]

Tao, Tucson and Brian make a devestating combination in that order.

While Brian proposes, Tucson seconds and then Giant Tao comes and tears into shreds all the arguments of the pro-RS lobby (Rakesh Bhasin).

Ha Ha. I Deepak Kamat (ex-Satsangi and agnostic) am enjoying this game. I wonder how long Rakesh Bhasin can last in this game. He cannot because RSSB structure itself is fraudulent.

If Rakesh Bhasin is honest, he will have to give up. Or else, he should shut his ears, close his eyes and shut his mouth like an honest (cultish) satsangi. Then, he has to do dhyan for half an hour, simran for one and half hours and dhun for another half an hour. This, he has to do everyday at the crack of dawn. And if he does not, a bulldozer from RSSB will come to drag him to Sach Khand.
Good story. Ha Ha. Ha. But I know I used to be scared at the same story a few years ago.
If Gurinder Singh Dhillon has any honesty left, he should speak the truth about the cult.

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Dear Brian,

Does a churchless need to be an anti-RSSB? There are thousands and thousands of students studying in various universities pursuing their degree in the same subject. But they get a degree only based upon the result of the examination, the name of the institute has nothing to do with it.

Like wise RSSB or no RSSB, is not going to make much of a difference. You are branding me as parroting the same RSSB.

May I ask you, what are you parroting? I would rather say people here are parroting differently on different occasions and to different people. Only tAo has maintained his critical approach. My appreciating remarks for him also hurt him a lot.

Let us be a real churchless and do not insinuate a niche of your own a very small bunch of so "called" CHURCHLESS group.

Wishing you the best of everything on this earth,

[Deepak Kamat]

It seems as if Rakesh Bhasin is insisting on consistency when he says that "people here are parroting differently on different occasions". As they consistency is the virtue of the little mind. It is.

Now, why should I be consistent. I was a staunch satsangi some times ago. After I realised the fraudulent nature of RSSB, I am an ex-satsangi now. Why should I be consistent. If truth is not in favour of consistency, I prefer to be consistent. Only fools are consistent. I agree. Wise men change with situations.

[tucson]

Rakesh Basin wrote: "Does a churchless need to be an anti-RSSB?"

--I don't think Churchless is anti-RSSB, per se. It is pro-truth, whatever that may be. It so happens that the host is an ex-RSSBer, so due to familiarity this particular cult is frequently discussed and lambasted here. But this just as easily could be a forum where members of other religions and cults discuss the merits and demerits of their particular group. They just don't show up very often. I imagine if Brian were an ex-prominent follower of some other guru, people from that group would be stopping by more often than others.

[tAo]

Deepak, Thanks for a rip-roaring Hah Hah Hah!!!

Rakesh, You don't have to be "anti-RSSB" in this forum, but do try not to be such a damn radha soami PINHEAD... and also try to answer my questions once in a while. Otherwise, I am not going to continue to waste my time on guys like you who do not answer or respond, and who can not defend their claims and dogma with any evidence except for merely parroting more dogma. Do you think that I ask you questions for no reason? Or are you just being evasive? I suspect the latter.

Anyway, I have already wasted enough time on your pretentious radha soami jive. Later for you dude.

[Rakesh Bhasin]

I will love to have a reply of my question from Brian- "Does a churchless need to be an anti-RSSB?"
.......................................
Tucson,

If this is the spirit of this blog, I am really happy to note. But browsing this blog at any corner does not testfy your well worded statements. Any how, things are accepatable.
.......................................

Dear tAo,
I do not delibrately avoid your querries. To some of your questions, the answers are so obvious at least to me that they escape my notice. Henceforth, I shall be extra cautious. I would also request you put your questions in a rather simple manner.
......................................

I have gone through Tucson's comments and find that he has highlighted very insignificant narrations which have been made her and there in the literature for an illiterate Indian congregation to prompt them to sit for carrying out surat-shabad yoga. It is not be all and end all.
..........................................

Please excuse me for the time being I shall sit again to write. I am not avoiding it.

[tucson]

Rakesh,

When I was involved with RSSB, the points I highlighted were presented to educated westerners and educated Indians as well as the unsophisticated "hill folk". Why should a "perfect" master have to lure innocent people with absurd myths in order to get them to practice yoga?

Why not put it this way...

Dear people. These are the teachings of RSSB:

--You are lost in the creation, trapped in a web of karma causing an endless cycle of pleasure and pain.

--Perfect masters are sent by God to get you out of this predicament and take you to a spiritual region beyond all this trouble.

--Only perfect masters can do this.

--I am a perfect master.

--The yoga method I teach is the only means to this end.

--Trust me.

[Deepak Kamat]

This is to inform Rakesh and everyone.

I have seen the Perfect Master (Gurinder Singh Dhillon) making factual errors in the satsang.

I had been to GSD's satsang soon after 9/11 to Beas.

This is what GSD said. He said "Jehad is inner. We should not confuse the inner jehad with the outer jehad. This is what the religion says."

NOw only a fool can say this -- not the Perfect Master.

As I am a journalist by profession, I could find out that it was an absolute error.

Jehad in Islam is not just inner. It is chiefly in the outer domain.

The Koran exhorts the Muslims to go all out against their enemies and the infidels. The perpetrators of 9/11 were quite right in executing jehad as it was at par with Koran which is a barbaric medieval faith.

I wondered whether Anami Purush had not read the Koran enitrely. He better read Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Anwar Shaikh and Will Durant besides reading the Koran first hand.

This factual error by Gurinder Singh Dhillon convinced me that the Masters were indeed fallible as they lacked even the intellectual calbre that I possessed.

This was the beginning of the seeds of doubt that prompted me to have a revised view of Sant Mat. It is good that I got out as I had the intelligence to see through the factual errors and quotes grabbed without giving credit to the original.

I wish Rakesh Bhasin would drop his beliefs and have an objective look at Sant Mat. There are so many factual errors and gross prejudices that any intelligent man will have to laugh or cry.

Frankly, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Deepak Kamat]

I forgot to mention. I am only against the RS dogma. NOt against meditation per se.

I still meditate everyday and the 5-names do come to my mind out of habit. Besides, the Radha Soami meditation is not original. The shabd technique is mentioned both in Patanjali Yoga Sutras as well as Vigyan Bhairava Tantra. Simran (the chanting of mantras) has a long tradition in India as well as in other parts of the world. Besides, the technique of meditating on the Master's form (dhyan) is also old.

So the RS meditation is a mix of three different techniques -- all of which are mentioned in Vigyan Bhairava Tantra.

In fact, RSSB is just cut and paste from other traditions. Nothing original about it.

[Deepak Kamat]

Thank God for the Internet, or else, I would have been still parroting the old RS dogma like Rakesh Bhasin.

[Komposer]

Deepak writes:

I forgot to mention. I am only against the RS dogma. NOt against meditation per se.

I still meditate everyday and the 5-names do come to my mind out of habit. Besides, the Radha Soami meditation is not original. The shabd technique is mentioned both in Patanjali Yoga Sutras as well as Vigyan Bhairava Tantra. Simran (the chanting of mantras) has a long tradition in India as well as in other parts of the world. Besides, the technique of meditating on the Master's form (dhyan) is also old.

So the RS meditation is a mix of three different techniques -- all of which are mentioned in Vigyan Bhairava Tantra.

In fact, RSSB is just cut and paste from other traditions. Nothing original about it.

--I find Deepak's comments amusing. How can Deepak call himself an ex-satsangi when he does sant mat meditation every day? And by the way, no sant mat guru ever claimed to teach an original technique--on the contrary, they claim the technique is as old as can be, and that it has been taught in a variety of cultures throughout history. So the originality slam holds little water.
His criticism of GS referring to inner jihad as being a factual error leads me to believe that Deepak doesn't understand the concept of "metaphor." It seems, in sum, that Deepak's reaction against sant mat is not so much a reaction against "Sant Mat dogma" as he puts it, but against his own constructions about Sant Mat to which he was once deeply attached, and which he now rejects. I think this is a very healthy process, but sorry Deepak, I think rather than you being an ex-satsangi, I think this purging process, if it has destroyed some irrational beliefs and immature expectations of the path, has actually probably made you a better satsangi. Ooops.

[Deepak Kamat]

Komposer,

For your information, RSSB claims that it's concept of meditations (simran, dhyan and dhun) are the last words. It is not. It is mentioned in several other treatises.

Regarding jehad, I mentioned that the "perfect Master" made a mistake about the core concepts. In RS dogma, a Satguru makes no mistake.

I never rejected meditation as it makes me more centred. I only rejected dogma and the irrational beleifs. Ex-satsangi is only a label. I am not concerned with labels. What I do is something similar to Zen meditation (sitting quitely doing nothing). Even if the 5-names come to my mind, I just watch. I don't judge.

How does it make me a satsangi. I am not. I am in Zen.

[tucson]

Deepak wrote: "Regarding jehad, I mentioned that the "perfect Master" made a mistake about the core concepts. In RS dogma, a Satguru makes no mistake."

--I agree. In RS dogma the satguru is in command of his disciples' karma. He administers it as he sees fit for the benefit and highest good of the disciple. There is no mention that he makes mistakes, only that it "appears" he makes mistakes when it is actually in the disciples' best interest. After all, he is perfect and is obligated to fulfill his duty to take the dsciple home to the "throne" of God in Sach Khand. Somehow, the master via his "inner radiant form", is able to simultaneously comprehend all of his disciples' karmas and attend to them as needed, even if the number of disciples is in the millions.

When the outer form of the master makes a mistake about jihad, trips on a step, farts, forgets his shawl or someone's name, ardent followers simply write this off as part of being in the human form. RS dogma states that perfect masters do not perform miracles and appear normal just like any of us. It is the real inner guru that has the power, while the physical guru shlops around like the rest of us. To me, this seems like a convenient contrivance and excuse.

It would seems to me (what do I know?) that if some aspect of this master is conscious and in command of millions of followers' karmas, he should be able to remember someone's name and what they talked about at their previous meeting and where he put his shawl. But maybe he was temporarily distracted by inwardly administering 10 or 20,000 disciples' karmas that were in critical need of immediate attention. That's a lot of sword thrusts he's busy turning into pin-pricks. Come on, give the poor over-burdened perfect param sant satguru a break!

[Brian]

Rakesh, you asked if someone churchless needs to be anti-RSSB. I consider myself "churchless," but not anti-RSSB. Not really.

I mean, there are things I like about RSSB, and things I don't like. Things I agree with, and things I don't.

In the past, I didn't allow myself to seriously entertain the doubts. I focused almost entirely on the likes and agreements.

I'm not really all that different now. I just am more open about my attitude, both with myself and with others.

As in science, it isn't anti-scientific to criticize a theory. In fact, that's the essence of science: skepticism, criticism, questioning.

So since RSSB calls itself a "science of the soul," it could be argued that those who question the unproven tenets of RSSB are the most devoted to seeking the truths that RSSB purports to point toward.

I firmly believe that progress in spirituality comes from questioning and moving toward the unknown, not from blind faith and acceptance of what's already in hand.

[Zion]

Philosophical hair splitting will lead nowhere. I actually think that deep down you all still Care very much about RSSB and the only reason you come here is to find consolation in other’s words/company and feel better that “…You see, I was right in leaving that cult. At least I’m not the only one who has done so”. Misery loves company as they say. It is said that those who know always keep quiet and those who don’t always want to impress others with their constant clattering of meaningless empty words that sound good. So be silent and let "the show" go on.

[Brian]

Zion, I always find it interesting when someone, like you, advises that silence is the best policy -- and posts a public comment using many words.

If I should be silent, shouldn't you? Or do you know me better than I know myself? And does your advice only apply to me, or also to yourself?

Facts, known from the inside of me: I'm not at all miserable. I'm happy. I don't look for reassurance in what others say. I like it when people agree with me, but this has very little effect on my life. Which again, is most pleasant.

I'm curious about this: how do you know that "those who know always keep quiet." Does this mean that someone who never speaks or writes anything "knows"? You just wrote something. Apparently this means that you don't know.

So how is it possible that you can offer such contradictory advice? If you knew, you would keep quiet. Since you didn't, I have to assume that you don't know.

If you are to be believed, every single holy book and every single holy person who ever uttered a word, or taught in some other communicative fashion, doesn't know. I find this easy to believe, by the way -- that people who claim to know about higher realities, really don't.

But again, when you undercut everyone else who speaks, your own speaking is cut away also. Anyway, thanks for the advice. As you can see, I'm not taking it.

[tAo]

Rakesh,

Contrary to your assumption that "the answers are so obvious at least to me that they escape my notice", the "answers" and especially YOUR answers (to my questions) are not at all "obvious"... because so far, they are non-existant! My questions were simple. I would not have asked YOU any questions if YOUR answers had been so "obvious" as you say.

I tend to think that the problem with you is that you have and hold certain assumptions that you automatically and blindly regard as being real and factual, but in fact they are not. And others do not necessarily share in those same assumptions. Thats why I asked you to define what you mean. You say that the answers are "obvious". But the answers, meaning YOUR ANSWERS, are not obvious at all. Don't make such assumptions. Just answer the simple questions.

Apparently, like many followers of spiritual and religious dogma, you do not ask yourself the hard questions. Perhaps you are just not accustomed to scrutinizing and examining and questioning your assumptions and spiritual dogma and beliefs.

You also said: "I would also request you put your questions in a rather simple manner." -- But if you had actually read and considererd my questions, you would have seen that they were indeed put in a very "simple manner".

So I'll try again...

Rakesh had previously written: "Those who have done something and have gained something know the truth."

-- So again... WHO are they ? ("Those who have done something and have gained something") ...and... WHAT IS "the truth" that you speak of ???

Rakesh had previously written: "but the words of judge prevail. As the judge has experience and holds the authority."

-- So again... What "experience" are you referring to? And what so-called "authority" are you referring to? What "judge"? And whose "authority"? What makes you think that there is some supposed "authority"? An authority about what?

Rakesh had previously written: "Almighty is the judge, if we believe in Him."

-- So again... What does believing have to do with that? Either there is an "Almighty", or there isn't. And also, what exactly do you mean by this so-called "Almighty? What does that mean to you?

According to you, this "Almighty" is ONLY the judge, IF we "believe in Him". According to you, that means that if one does NOT "believe in Him", then there can be no judge or judgement. Sounds rather absurd to me.

Imo, there is no so-called "Almighty" judge or judgement. We can and do judge ourselves and each other, but that does not amount to much ultimately. Life just happens naturally. It's not ruled by some Over-Lord, some "authority", or some hierarchy. That notion is nothing but antiquated fear-based religious superstition, which has been used for centuries to control and manipulate ignorant religious followers and believers. Religion uses it, and the Radha Soami and Sant Mat cults use it as well.

This kind of mentality is still prevalent ans lingering, but thankfully, it is now slowly on its way OUT. I say what I say and do what I do in order to hasten its demise.

Its time to wake up Rakesh. Its time to free yourself from such nonsense.

The folowing site is not directly related, but a thoughtful review of it may help to really open up your eyes to the bigger picture:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

I strongly encourage all readers to study it well, and to apply it to ALL other Religions and also to spirituality in general, including Radha Soami and the other branches of Sant Mat.

[tAo]

Help to Liberate Humanity from darkness and evil:

Go to FaithFreedom.org

Home: http://www.faithfreedom.org

Articles: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm

FAQ: http://www.faithfreedom.org/faq.htm

Gallery: http://www.faithfreedom.org/gallery.htm

Links: http://www.faithfreedom.org/links.htm

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Brian,
I have got your points in their letter and spirit. By saying this, you have clarified your stand and it has encouraged me to be a regular visitor to this blog.

You wrote:
"As in science, it isn't anti-scientific to criticize a theory. In fact, that's the essence of science: skepticism, criticism, questioning."

- I fully agree with you. I add that in a real scientific publication, from the literature available so far, the arguments of both sides of the theory i.e. anti and pro, are put forth lucidly along with our own data and interpretations, it is left to the reader to make his own opinion. Nothing is said so vociferously that it breaks the nerve of the other person. It is not a pointer towards your writings. But a step needed to improve this blog as such (imo).

with love,

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Dear tAo,

You are the last person on this blog whom I can not bypass by any means. While responding to you I always feel sheepish and like a soldier who is without any weapon in the battle field.

You have reiterated:
(1) Rakesh had previously written: "Those who have done something and have gained something know the truth."
-- So again... WHO are they ? ("Those who have done something and have gained something") ...and... WHAT IS "the truth" that you speak of ???

Ans- One among WHO, was my father who will very reluctantly share his spiritual experiences and my lips are closed beyond it to say anything. In order to satiate your inquisitive desire, I will prefer to bear your wrath rather than disclosing my father’s spiritual journey details. Please do not ask me beyond it.

(2) Rakesh had previously written: "but the words of judge prevail. As the judge has experience and holds the authority."
-- So again... What "experience" are you referring to? And what so-called "authority" are you referring to? What "judge"? And whose "authority"? What makes you think that there is some supposed "authority"? An authority about what?
Rakesh had previously written: "Almighty is the judge, if we believe in Him."
-- So again... What does believing have to do with that? Either there is an "Almighty", or there isn't. And also, what exactly do you mean by this so-called "Almighty? What does that mean to you?
According to you, this "Almighty" is ONLY the judge, IF we "believe in Him". According to you, that means that if one does NOT "believe in Him", then there can be no judge or judgement. Sounds rather absurd to me.
Ans: Judge is not a person like you, me or head of any spiritual organization on the earth. It is the all pervading power that is sustaining everything through centripetal and centrifugal forces which can also be thermodynamically called providing internal energy. The day this force will retrace from us, our physical body will be a corpse which may be ascribed to short oxygen supply or slip in heart beat. Therefore I said that “in a courtroom, the lawyers speak so much after consulting a large number of books and quote precedence, but the words of
judge prevail. As the judge has experience and holds the authority.
Almighty is the judge, if we believe in Him.

[tAo]

My Dear Rakesh,

I am not here to make you feel that I am your battlefield enemy. I wish to cause you no such distress. I am sincerely sorry and apologise if anything I have said here has made you feel that way. I do not wish to hurt your feelings. You are my brother, and now my acquaintance, and hopefully my friend. And if I ever am able to return to India again, I shall certainly try to come to your place and pranam and embrace you. From my heart, I wish you all the best always.

What I am doing is I am simply trying to get you to look more closely at your ideas, presunptions and beliefs. But perhaps I have been too sharp. So I shall now soften my edge and leave you to your chosen path. You will come to your own conclusions naturally in your own time. Just try to depend upon your own direct experience, and not upon the ideas and beliefs of others.

Here are a few responses to your answers:

(1) "Ans- One among WHO, was my father who will very reluctantly share his spiritual experiences and my lips are closed beyond it to say anything."

-- But what does your father's experience have to do with "the truth" that you spoke of? I am not interestd in his experiences. Experiences are all subjective.

(2) "Ans: Judge is not a person like you, me or head of any spiritual organization on the earth. It is the all pervading power that is sustaining everything through centripetal and centrifugal forces which can also be thermodynamically called providing internal energy. The day this force will retrace from us, our physical body will be a corpse which may be ascribed to short oxygen supply or slip in heart beat. Therefore I said that “in a courtroom, the lawyers speak so much after consulting a large number of books and quote precedence, but the words of judge prevail. As the judge has experience and holds the authority. Almighty is the judge, if we believe in Him."

-- It does not matter whether we believe or not believe. Life, including awareness itself, just happens. Life runs its course. What is in our hands is to simply share the good feeling and fellowship with each other. This so-called "Almighty" is merely an abstract idea in your mind. What is important is you, me, and all of us. WE are what is happening, not anything else.

God (or whatever term one prefers) is having a conversation with Itself. That conversation is us. It's never about somewhere else. This here and now... Is It.

Therefore, all it takes is to just...

Be Nice, Rejoice, and Enjoy.

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Dear tAo,

Your words have melted me to the extent which remains inexplicable for me. I am really thankful to you from the core of my heart. You are most welcome to India, and of course more so to my small but beautiful house maintained by my well self-disciplined wife & family.

Your words have been taken well by me and I shall ever depend upon my own direct experience, and not upon the ideas and beliefs of others. In fact, I have been doing so till date.

Thank you once again.

Yours
in the path of truthfulness,

[tucson]

That was really nice Tao and Rakesh. Good to hear, and one of the most positive outcomes of any discussion I have read on this blog. Thank you.

But don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater", Rakesh. The ideas and beliefs of others can be helpful, as we have seen. No harm in being open to them, just do not accept them blindly.

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Dear Tucson,
It is nice to know that you have been able to fathom the depth of our mutual interaction i.e. between me and tAo. My sicere thanks to you for your good words.

I always keep within my heart the good things that I learn from others & do not expose them to others; and also keep silent when I do not like. I ALWAYS SAY IF YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND MY SILENCE, YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND MY WORDS.

I silently give much more weightage to others' words than my words;

once again, thanks to you.

[Anirudh Kumar Satsangi]

The universe was not born from a single concentrated point of energy. It was born from an infinite vast expanse of gravitational field or say it philosophically or religiously from an infinite sourse of spirituality. When the current of gravitational wave or prime spirituality descended down
it started creating various regions below it, initially of course of region of gravitational force or pure spirituality. Thereafter when the current further descended down it started creating regions of electromagnetic forces and further regions of weak and strong nuclear forces. Gravitation force is present everywhere in the universe but the matter (Weak and strong nuclear force) and electromagnetic forces are not. When the process of creation is reversed back, weak and strong nuclear force merged into electromagnetice force and electromagnetic force ultimately merged into gravitational force. Then only gravitational force remains and no traces of matter or electromagnetic force. This is how the cycle of universe continues.

This is how whole cosmos came into existence. This post is written in the background of creational process mentioned in Sar Bachan (Poetry)

[tAo]

yawn

[Joe]

Interesting theory Anirudh-can you put your money where your mouth is and show us your mathematical formulas that prove your Unified Field Theory? Even Albert Einstein was unsuccessfull in his attempt to prove Unified Field Theory.

[Account Deleted]

at the moment i m not in mood to rite much

i m here just to bow 2 rakesh ji
rakesh ji ur really a true wonderful santmat seeker ...i ever met in internet

its great 2 always read your comments..

no one in this blog is worthy than you

i damn care that anyones reaction on this comment

but its true...
no one is equal to your sensibility..
ur intellect...

keep it sir..

i would love to meet you one day..

rs.

[+Ao]

Manish,

This here is not a support group kind of site for Radha Soami satsangis. So please kindly take all your RS supporting, believing, following, and preaching comments... elsewhere.

Why are you here Manish? If all you are interested in doing here (by your own admission) is to promote Radha Soami, then you really belong somewhere else. It's rude for you to keep coming here just to advertise and promote RS fundamentalism, in spite of the fact that that is not the stated purpose of this site. Your intent in promoting Santmat & RS here is both boring and its also rather irritating.

Its about time that you acknowledge and respect what this site is about. If you wish to promote RS, then go to an RS satsang.