Those steeped in a Western monotheistic religion, such as Christianity or Judaism, might be surprised to learn that millions of people in the world today believe that God walks on Earth in a human form – divinely perfect.
Some Christians believe that Jesus was perfect, but his flawed humanity seems to be as important as his divinity. In like fashion, most Muslims consider that Muhammad was a flawless conduit for God's message as revealed in the Koran, but the Prophet himself isn't revered as God.
It's only in the Eastern religions, so far as I know, that a person is viewed as essentially identical with the Supreme Being. These are the "perfect gurus."
Comments on a recent Church of the Churchless post got me pondering this subject. As a long-time member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, a branch of Sant Mat, I'm intimately familiar with the whole perfect master thing. I've even sat down and talked with a couple of them, Charan Singh and Gurinder Singh.
One obvious fact about perfect gurus is that there isn't any outward sign of their perfection, as this essay describes. Their bodies are imperfect, as they get sick and age. Their minds are imperfect, as they forget things and make mistakes.
So where does the supposed perfection lie? On a different plane of reality – that of soul or spirit. Just as God can't be seen directly, neither can the guru's perfection. It has to be taken on faith.
And believe me, many disciples do.
This is easier to accomplish for native Indians, for example, because gurus are a staple of Eastern cultures. Western minds (like mine) have a more difficult time accepting that outward imperfection masks an inward perfection.
A few weeks ago my wife and I took a Rumba class with another couple. As often happens in dance classes, they got to bickering in a friendly fashion.
"Hey, you should be doing the move like this." "Well, I would be if you were doing your part right." And so on. After a while I saw they were in a big hug, cooing at each other like lovebirds.
"We're perfect partners for each other!" "Yes, we are!" In this case, "perfect" wasn't any sort of objective standard, but a quality of love. You can't argue with that.
However, when perfection is measured against a yardstick, that's different. Who can forget the iconic image of Bo Derek in "10"? (Though I've learned from comments on my most beautiful woman in world post that beauty truly is largely in the eye of the beholder.)
Gymnastics has more definite criteria for assigning a "perfect 10." Yet even here there are subjective disagreements among judges.
So how is it possible to say that a guru is spiritually perfect, when it's so tough to assess physical perfection? Where is the standard for judging how well someone is in harmony with ultimate reality?
This presumes that someone else – the judge – knows the nature of ultimate reality, a.k.a. God. Similarly, it takes a expert who knows the nature of an ideal diamond to assess the relative perfection of a gem.
For many years I've heard disciples speak of their guru as being a "perfect master," or "God in human form." I rarely, if ever, did this. It always struck me as the height of ego to make such a statement, following the adage It takes one to know one.
I'm so imperfect, in so many ways. We all are.
He among us who lacks flaws, let him judge who else is perfect. That person sure isn't me. And I'm also pretty sure it isn't all the devoted disciples who look upon their guru with eyes that see no imperfections in him.
(Regarding the masculine language, I liked the final question on this ExPremie.org page. The suggestion is to ask a guru, Prem Rawat, "Can you think of any Perfect Mistresses?")
As with the couple in our dance class, it seems that often starry-eyed disciples are so much in love with the guru they can't bring themselves to notice any flaws. This is akin to the infatuation phase of a relationship where everything the other person does is just wonderful.
After a few years of living together, those charming eccentricities turn into irritations. The love may be stronger, but the vision is clearer. Ditto with a guru-relationship, ideally.
I don't see any benefit to considering that another human being is spiritually, mystically, or divinely perfect. A student can benefit from a teacher's instruction without viewing him or her as infallible. In fact, it's questionable whether genuine learning can take place without developing an ability to critique what you've been told.
In my martial arts slanted Tai Chi class this afternoon, the teacher said, "I'm going to show you four moves; then you're going to have to figure out what comes next yourself." Now that's good instruction.
Believing someone is perfect and can do no wrong is a stepping stone to cultish behavior. Some gurus are notorious for abusing disciples, sexually or otherwise. Others exercise more subtle forms of control. Regardless, giving up one's capacity to question isn't healthy – mentally, psychologically, or spiritually.
Googling "perfect guru" today, I came across some interesting links in addition to those already shared.
--"The Perfect Guru" strikes me as a parody of perfection characteristics. Others take this piece quasi-seriously. You can decide for yourself.
--A chapter from "Stripping the Gurus" by Geoffrey Falk is about Andrew Cohen. It's titled "Sometimes I feel like a God."
--Here's a "History of Perfect Masters" by a Sant Mat student. See who's in and who's out. Sorry, Buddhists – the Buddha didn't make the list.
--Another "Lineage of Perfect Masters." Some overlap, but there's plenty of disagreement about who qualifies for the Perfect Master Club.
One of the reasons I have such a warm place in my heart for Faqir Chand and Nisargadatta.
My guru's are only real to me when they are real to themselves.
Posted by: Sagarananda | April 17, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Did you notice the photos of the "Perfect Masters" get progressively less good looking, ending with the ugly mugs of Darshan(who could pass for a skid-row bum)and Rajinder
Posted by: | April 18, 2008 at 07:36 AM
I've thought a lot about this too. It's hard to know what 'perfect' means in a way I can understand. You mentioned the dissonance that enters the equation when we account for the fact that it doesn't mean perfect bodies or minds. And considering the fact that we're all supposed to be already perfect in soul form (according to RSSB) than seeing perfection as it must be meant is perhaps impossible, if real. I do think part of the confusion for us Westerners comes from our notions of perfection, which are seriously related to your pic of the woman there. I know you put that there partly for comedy, but it is an insight--perfectionism in america has become 'perfect self-self-justification.' Get the outside looking good, and then stay the course, as W says. We unfortunately have become as a country anti-vulnerability, and equate perfection with bullet-proof, flawless, strong, etc.
But what does 'perfect' mean in a framework that praises submission as the highest value, meakness as a virtue? I suppose it might mean one who never self-justifies, because there is no more self-concept to justify. Rumi has written something like 'become all ear.' If we are only listening, receiving, in a state of submission, where is the 'I'?
Anyway, just wanted to chew the fat out 'loud' knowing that I really have no idea what perfection or a perfect master is.
Posted by: Adam | April 18, 2008 at 08:10 AM
Thanks for this website/blog.
I was born into a catholic/christian family.As i grew up i started questioning certain aspects of my religion.
Got married to a Radha Soami (no purposeful intention there)....did get to see the Beas dera..was impressed with the organizational dedication.
However on the spiritual aspects.... i have realized that we are all suckers and get sucked into some "organized religiosity " of some kind or another at different(susceptable) phases of our lives.
Thanks for having this blog. I hope it is kept open for meaningful and thoughtful discussions.
BTW. My wife is still a Radha Soami and i did get to meet Charan Singh( in 1981) and Gurinder Singh (1998)under non-satsang environments.
Posted by: David | April 18, 2008 at 01:09 PM
Adam said: "..I really have no idea what perfection or a perfect master is."
--There is a realization that all is perfect as it is whether your awareness contains a steamimg turd on a damp forest floor or a comprehensive super-conscious perception of the harmonious inter-relationship of countless galaxies. No master is more perfect than you are, as you are, right now.
Posted by: tucson | April 18, 2008 at 01:18 PM
you're amazing...love the turd insight.
Posted by: Adam | April 18, 2008 at 01:53 PM
Yes, I'm full of shit.
Posted by: tucson | April 18, 2008 at 02:51 PM
a real master excretes, eliminates, dumps, or gets rid of... real shit. and he does it quite perfectly.
but "perfect masters" ARE SHIT - and so they are full of shit, they are masters of shit... aka "Shitty Masters"
Posted by: tAo | April 18, 2008 at 04:26 PM
I haven't the foggiest idea of what the word perfect means. With my limitations as a human being clothed in skin, supported by a skeletal frame, with a mushy brain substance inside my head, there is no way I can work that one out. I only know what I know in a fractionated way. I made four visits to India re: RSSB and met with Charan, the most extraordinary person I've met in my life but having met - out of six billion on the planet so very few - to whom can I compare him with? Whether I like it or not and whoever reads this likes it or not, Charan gave me a gift (now a memory of a memory) - it was a transference - an interview with him as most initiates had at that time. I became him, he became me, we became one (sounds crazy). Prior to this I was depressed, miserable and bored at Dera, only wanting to get away from the place and then, whoosh, everything changed in a second. I walked in sheer bliss, nothing mattered, not the worst thing you can imagine mattered, gone those negative states, how could I possibly have felt like that. Everything and everybody was beautiful and "perfect". It didn't matter if I stayed on at Dera or not. I returned home and this blissful experience lasted weeks. No desire to do anything, reading, radio, tv, seemed as the silliest, most uninterestings things one could indulge in (normally I was - and am again - a voracious reader, an information seeker) . I just wanted to be. I was him and he was me. Over the weeks this state diminished, albeit unwillingly on my part but we exist in a functional world, family, work. etc. I discussed this with no-one, assuming most initiates had a similar experience (I have no idea if they have or haven't). I am happy for anyone to say it was simply a specific receptor within the brain that perhaps at an unconscious level was highly responsive or susceptible to a person whom, at some level, I believed to be a perfect master. It doesn't matter, what does matter is, is the experience was real, as real as sitting here now looking at the ocean in the distance and wind blowing the trees.
A perfect master? I have no idea.
Posted by: elizabeth w | April 18, 2008 at 05:49 PM
Very nice, Elizabeth. But be aware - they're going to come at you now with sarcasm, derision, and meanness. But, no matter, right?
Posted by: Pam Holten | April 18, 2008 at 06:36 PM
Thanks for sharing Elizabeth, that's very nice to read.
Don't get put off by any hot-air and noise that may be directed at you on this site, or let it dissuade you from sharing or 'believing'!
Posted by: Manjit | April 19, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Like a Math Master, the teacher can teach the student math, and coach you to further understanding and application of math.
A Perfect Master can teach you the perfection which is inside of You, and coach you to return constantly to that feeling; that experience of peace, joy, love in Your life.
A religion is a lineage of practice of teachings culturally based in the life time of a perfect master.
A living perfect master is someone teaching the Knowledge of Your inner self in your present lifetime.
Posted by: Judith Wells | April 19, 2008 at 02:57 AM
Elizabeth and Judith,
Nothing wrong with your comments. I'm not trying to find fault. Write more comments, when you choose to do so.
Posted by: Roger | April 19, 2008 at 08:31 AM
Judith, you didn't address the question of how one knows someone is a "perfect master." You say it is someone who teaches the knowledge of your inner self in your present lifetime.
If so, that includes an amazing number of people. Spiritual gurus/masters of all sorts. Psychotherapists. Counselors. Life coaches. Preachers. Ministers. I could go on and on.
What you're really saying, I suspect, is that a "perfect master" is someone who teaches a method of self-realization that you believe is the highest and best method.
In that case, "perfect" reflects what you believe to be perfect, a subjective criterion, and not anything based on an objective standard. Am I right?
If not, what is the objective standard by which a perfect master is determined to be perfect?
Posted by: Brian | April 19, 2008 at 09:18 AM
How do you know an apple is an apple?
....by tasting the fruit !
It is not the Master who is perfect (althoiugh all of us has that perfection, peace within us)..... it is the friut or jewel of the teaching that is the perfection we seek.
Posted by: Judith Wells | April 19, 2008 at 10:41 AM
The transference, that Elizabeth mentioned in her comment, was that a similar experience for you? Is this experience different from person to person in santmat?
Any further description or comment of this transference would be interesting.
Again, No big Deal....don't write anything if you don't want to..
I'm not attacking or sitting in judgement of you....
Posted by: Roger | April 19, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Judith, thanks for the clarification. Given what you said, this means that everything and anything in life can be considered "perfect," so long as it leads to an inner feeling of "Ah, this is so perfect."
Which was my point. You aren't talking about something objective, but rather a feeling of satisfaction when someone is fulfilled. There are many ways for this to happen, so there are many perfections.
Posted by: Brian | April 19, 2008 at 11:10 AM
As I recall, from the RSSB books and listening to Q&A at Dera:
Perfect Living Master (PLM) is supposedly a matured human whose attention never drops below the third eye...and therefore is never overrun by animal passions ---anger, lust, greed, attachment and pride.
Also: A true guru obeyed (also did not debate) the orders of his/her own Master. If appointed to be next guru, that person continues to carry out the will/orders of his or her own guru.
I have no idea if that above is possible or true.
Posted by: GRNOSEnothing | April 19, 2008 at 11:20 AM
In regard to Elizabeth's rapturous experience with Charan Singh..
What she described sounds very much like ecstatic experiences reported by humans throughout recorded time in response to many circumstances like falling in love, being in nature, performing rituals, ceremonies, meditating, taking drugs, etc. etc.
I am not attempting to diminish her experience, it's just that a master is not required, nor need he be "perfect" for such an experience to occur.
In Elizabeth's case, the catalyst was her relationship with Charan Singh. For the buddhist monk it may be the sound of water pouring from a bucket and, if the monk got excited about it, his master would strike him with a stick!
Posted by: tucson | April 19, 2008 at 01:03 PM
You liken a sant mat guru to a math teacher. But the problem with that is, is that a math teacher is clearly expert in math and so teaches the practical knowledge of math to the student who can reproduce the results. However, it is not know that a sant mat guru is an expert in meditation or its results. There is no evidence, as there is in math, that the sant mat guru has any ability or knowledge or experience at all, and there is also no evidence that his students are able to reach the same supposed knowledge and experience and results. That is the difference. So in this case, your little analogy is terribly faulty.
You said: "A Perfect Master can teach you the perfection which is inside of You, and coach you to return constantly to that feeling; that experience of peace, joy, love in Your life."
-- Where is this 'perfection' in your so-called "Perfect Master"? Why even use that term? It is simply misleading. Why not just say a "Teacher of Sant Mat"? Why do you, and people like you, insist on putting up a false and misleading label such as "Perfect"? You also said: "...can teach you the perfection which is inside of You". How is that possible? Why do you assume that inner perfection can be taught, and that your so-called "Master" is actually teaching it or able to teach it? Where is the evidence of this? Just mere book learning and words and ideas and satsang talks are not any evidence of results. What is the inner "perfection" and what are the results? Where are the results? Just merely saying: "that feeling; that experience of peace, joy, love in Your life" is not at all the goal as it is generally defined in sant mat. All of those nice qualities can be, and are achieved in many other ways besides sant mat. So for you to say that sant mat is simply just about achieving some nice "feeling" is not exacty true, and it is hardly any reason to label someone as being a "Perfect Master". How is the master "Perfect", and where and what is the evidence of this so-called perfection?
"a lineage of practice of teachings culturally based in the life time of a perfect master."
-- Just more of the same empty and hollow "perfect master" rhetoric.
"A living perfect master is someone teaching the Knowledge of Your inner self in your present lifetime."
-- And what exactly IS that knowledge? And how is this so-called "perfect master" actually teaching this so-callled "Knowledge"? Also, what is this "inner self" that you refer to? Please explain what you mean more clearly.
"How do you know an apple is an apple?
....by tasting the fruit !"
-- Alright... but what is the fruit that you say you are tasting? And how exactly are you tasting this fruit? Again, please explain.
"It is not the Master who is perfect..."
-- The why even use the term "Perfect Master"? Don't you think that is rather misleading, if as you say "it is not the Master who is perfect"? This really sounds like nothing more than double-talk. You are going to have to explain or define this better if you wish it to sound reasonable.
"it is the friut or jewel of the teaching that is the perfection we seek."
-- Alright... but then what exactly is this "fruit or jewel" that is perfect? And why is it necessary to seek it? Again, please explain more clearly so that we can better understand what you mean. Thank you.
Posted by: tAo | April 19, 2008 at 02:12 PM
"Perfect master" did not originate from me.
I am participating in this forum because people seem to be talking about the realm of the inner heart yet using a yard stick of concepts about mundane external qualities to apply to "the perfect master" and "students" to test validity.
There is no evidence; to satisfy the mind of one who does not participate in the practice of being still to focus inside...nor can there ever be.
Evidence comes from ones own direct personal experience.
Faulty: is the realm of analytical thought.
Truth, peace, God is the realm of the heart, soul.
The two are not compatable for comparison.
I have no wish or intention of sounding reasonable or debating philosophy.
I am simply expressing my knowledge and experience with the subject of inner perfection. (peace/joy in my vocabulary)
Truth, peace, joy, love, God are beyond reason.
The mind wants to grab hold of perfection/peace, disect and inspect it's validity then spit it out as being unworthy of further attention and go on to another quest.
I have explained with clarity but mind can not grasp what it can not experience.
Peace, perfection is just that ... a feeling ... and I believe all have fleeting experiences of that peaceful feeling because it is within all of us.
Some people seek and never find because they can not settle quietly and be present.
I am living my life feeling joy and peace everyday because of teachings I have gleaned throughout my life.
I can not prove it to you.
Nor, thank God, is it necessary to prove for peace to continue.
I suspect the answers to questions will come from within, through your own experiences as they have for others.
Posted by: Judith Wells | April 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM
If you are going to debate this topic it may be worth noting that the term 'Perfect Master' is a western term. Another example of an inadequate translation from the Indian language. It is therefore misleading. The Indian term as most people know, is - 'Satguru' which better translates as 'True Guide'.
The western world has a long history of getting it wrong when they write about other cultures and their ways. Much of what is observed is outside of a western frame of reference, so it gets pushed and shoved into a western frame of reference. Imperialist superiority has been around for a while. Nothing quite like it for misinterpretation of things foreign.
Posted by: poohbear | April 20, 2008 at 05:21 PM
On a very basic level; why would Gurinder send his son to Eton? Does he? Does his electronics business afford this? is this a school for the super-wealthy, entitled, accented few where the subtle skill of altitude is taught?
How does Gurinder run such a succesful business when he has so much property to see to around the world? On his visit this week to Johannesburg, he was only able to give an hour of his time to his initiates.
Posted by: Catherine | April 21, 2008 at 03:16 AM
"Perfect master" did not originate from me.
-- Don't be evasive. You yourself used the term.
"people seem to be ... using a yard stick of concepts about mundane external qualities to apply to "the perfect master" and "students" to test validity.
There is no evidence"
"to satisfy the mind of one who does not participate in the practice of being still to focus inside...nor can there ever be.
Evidence comes from ones own direct personal experience."
-- Personal subjective experience is not any evidence. And also, how do you know that others have not particapated in "the practice of being still to focus inside"???
"Faulty is the realm of analytical thought.
Truth, peace, God is the realm of the heart, soul. The two are not compatable for comparison."
-- Then don't make claims. Also, truth and peace are one thing, but this "God" and "heart and soul" stuff is quite another thing.
"Truth, peace, joy, love, God are beyond reason."
-- I disagree. Yes, "God" is not reasonable, but "truth, peace joy, love" certainly are. And so I think you are just 'romaticising the esoteric' (Mircea Eliade).
You said: "The mind wants to grab hold of perfection/peace, disect and inspect it's validity then spit it out as being unworthy of further attention and go on to another quest."
-- Wrong. No one here wants to "grab hold of perfection/peace, disect and inspect it's validity then spit it out as being unworthy". It's faith and belief in dogma and that we are dissecting and inspecting and spitting out. You are mistaken. No one here is arguing about "peace".
You said: "I have explained with clarity but mind can not grasp what it can not experience."
-- You have explained nothing. And I do happen have a great deal of experience.
"I suspect the answers to questions will come from within, through your own experiences as they have for others."
-- Well, I don't know who you are taking to, but I have no questions, and I am not looking for answers "within". And I need no "experiences" either.
Posted by: tAo | April 21, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Don't listen to Tao, he is just some guy on the internet.
He will say he is not looking for answers "within" and he needs no "experiences" either.
WHAT OTHER PROOF DO YOU NEED TAO IS ANTI SANT MAT. He is trying to tell you "And I do happen have a great deal of experience."
You don't know what experience he has. For all you know Tao is possessed by demons because he was a yogi and meditated without a guide and his body could be now possessed, you don't know. You just cannot tell.
BUT ALL I CAN TELL IS HE IS QUITE SURE ABOUT GOD NEVER EXISTING. LOOK WHAT HE HAS SAID:
"God" is not reasonable
YES HE SAID THIS, HE MAKES STUPID CLAIMS FOR NO REASON DON'T LISTIEN TO HIM.
HE HAS SAID:
"I suspect the answers to questions will come from within, through your own experiences as they have for others."
-- Well, I don't know who you are taking to, but I have no questions, and I am not looking for answers "within". And I need no "experiences" either.
Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, This man is not a seeker of anything. He is pure awareness and he will never be a seeker. To him, seeking God and what not is useless for God is absurd it is ridiculous.
He thinks soul and spirit is ridiculous HE IS A AGENT OF KAL SATAN.
Tao I don't even know you in real life but from this website I can tell you are positive that God doesn't exist, even though Sant Mat says that God and his Kingdom of soul spirits is beyond a Void of unimaginable darkness.
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IT IS NOT BEYOND THIS VOID? You don't because this void is too large anyways.
We cannot believe you or me.
Don't try to convince others, I would say, because You have no proof except your words.
Your words are not proof of anything.
Words can NEVER EVER be proof of such things that REQUIRE DIRECT EXPERIENCE.
No proof you have, you only have words, that tell us that there is no God there is no Soul spirit, and that there is no Kingdom God.
Well where is your proof? Factually you have no proof.
You have no proof for us.
I am not saying anything, you can disregard whatever I've said I don't care, or you can accept it, I don't care, Or you can accept Tao's words based on his words based on nothing, if you want, I myself DO NOT know anything, I haven't tried Sant Mat out yet, I have to make a living first.
Posted by: Sid | April 23, 2008 at 04:21 PM
What an incredibly immature, ridiculous, and fearful FOOL you are Sid.
It's both funny and also sadly pathetic.
The more nonsense you babble and post here, the bigger the idiot you make yourself into.
Posted by: tAo | April 23, 2008 at 05:27 PM
Hey Tao, you and Osho claim that God never existed. Why.
Posted by: Sid | April 23, 2008 at 06:33 PM
Sid, as another commenter just said, you really need to listen as much as you talk.
I just told you that proving something doesn't exist is virtually (if not completely) impossible.
You can ask for proof of the nonexistence of God all you want, and the response will be a big silence -- as it should be.
You also can ask for proof that fairies don't exist, or unicorns, or Zeus, or the Matrix, or the Devil -- and the universe will respond with more silence.
Truth is positive. Evidence has to be shown for a claim, such as that God exists. It isn't up to unbelievers to prove their unbelief.
Unbelief always is the default. I have no idea what will happen to me each day until it happens. Reality is what exists, not what doesn't exist.
Posted by: Brian | April 23, 2008 at 08:34 PM
I have been lurking on this blog for many months now, taking it all in digesting it, and not having much to say really.
But I must say this. Sid, what you have said is probably one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this blog. Tao is possessed by demons and is an agent of Kal, trying to lure Judith away? Seriously?
I do understand that you simply said that he COULD be, not that he was. But come on, it's just stupid to even consider the possibility and it is not a valid response to the discussion.
I personally think you should dump the idea that meditating without a 'guide' causes one to be possessed by demons. I am very young, and have not tried much meditation in general and I do believe in the supernatural, but even I can see that this is just a technique used to scare gullible folks. If you are truly that worried by encountering demons on the astral then look at all those new age websites and forums, they might provide you with techniques for protection. You don't need a guide.
Let's consider this guide. The 'guide' we are talking about is generally inaccessible for teaching his students (dare I say, his subjects) on a personal and daily basis. Just try writing a letter, the reply will be a generic one. Ideally, one should be able to talk to their guru in person as often as they want and get real pointers. Do people get this? Not commonly no. What kind of a guide is he if he's so inaccessible?
Ah yes, he guides from 'within' apparently. And yet, from what I'm reading people simply meditate on the 5 names and stuff, not sure if they visualise him, and generally don't seem to experience anything spectacular. And if so, are forbidden to share it. Could this be to suppress doubts? No one has ever said that amidst the occasional flash of light they see the face of the present RSSB guru who says, look my son/daughter this region is where the angels live (or whatever) and over there is A landmark, oh and please avoid location B because it's dangerous.
Could it be because he doesn't really do any guiding? Could all this stuff possibly be because he simply sits there being rich and powerful, running a business, and making people think he really does guide them in every way?
But then again, I, like Tao, could be another agent of Kal. You never know right? *rolls eyes*
Anyways, if I have made any factual inconsistencies regarding technique or theology then I apologize. I'm inexperienced and gain my knowledge through observing all my family and their friends who are satsangis and from reading what other people have to say on the internet. I don't really intend to get into sant mat officially. Why would I want to get into a path full of illogical people who make such wildly ridiculous assumptions as you have done, Sid? Where is the logic in that?
Right, now I will go back into lurking. You're all free to take down or agree with what I've said as you wish. I simply thought that this was something that had to be said.
Posted by: Rose | April 24, 2008 at 04:05 PM
Your comment was one of the best I have read here in a very long time. Thank you so much for articulating in a nutshell the essence of this particular issue.
In just one simple post you have pretty much nailed it very nicely and very concisely. And far better than my many frustrating attempts at "shredding" all the nonses and hypocrisy. *a wink & a smie*
Hopefuly you've put this particular rather ridiculous debate to rest finally. My genuine heart-felt thanks to you.
Posted by: tAo | April 24, 2008 at 08:22 PM
Rose, thanks for emerging, if only briefly, from your lurking lair. Your comment was nicely written and well thought out. You may be young, but you're pretty darn wise.
Most likely my ideas used to resemble the beliefs of the satsangis you know and (since some are family) love. In most respects they still do, since we're all humans under our beliefs.
The question is, do those unsubstantiated religious beliefs bring us closer to each other, or further? Do they unite, or separate?
And, is mystery any less mysterious when it is spuriously explained? Of course it isn't. So why not let mystery be mystery?
Posted by: Brian | April 24, 2008 at 09:16 PM