Church of the Churchless

At the heart of religion...a lie

Sometimes it's fine to tell a lie. Everyone does so at one time or another.

But when lying is a permanent condition, a way of life, it eats away at the foundation that supports each of us.

Reality.

This is the big problem with religiosity -- lying. Believers lie continually.

Whenever they say some bit of dogma is true, knowing that they don't know such to be the case, the best word to call this isn't faith, but lying.

For many years I did this myself.

I gave talks, wrote books, had conversations with people, all the while proclaiming that this-and-that was the truth, yet having no good reason to back up my dogmatic assertions.

In these days of economic meltdown, we get outraged when a financial con artist promises lofty profits but doesn't have an honest way of producing them.

However, when religions do the same, claiming that salvation can be had without any proof that believers are reliably delivered the goods, we shrug our shoulders and meekly embrace the duplicity.

The only true statement about God or ultimate reality is...I don't know. Say more, and there's just one appropriate response: "You're a liar."

Many people try to tread a middle way, admitting unknowing of particulars while professing faith in generalities. I did this for a long time, until the strain of maintaining the hypocrisy blew out my belief gaskets.

Christians will say, "I don't know when Jesus will return on clouds of glory in the Second Coming, but I know he will."

Buddhists will say, "I don't know how meditation will lead to my enlightenment, but I'm certain that this is the right path."

Guru-worshippers will say, "I don't know when the grace of the master will descend upon me, but I have faith that he is indeed God in human form."

This is thinly disguised fundamentalism. Narrow-minded dogma covered with a veneer of pseudo-humble openness. Lies packaged in a box labeled "I don't know."

Yet inside there is indeed knowing -- of the false variety.

If someone claims to know that something is true, and they really are clueless, that's a lie. Again, it can be called by another name, such as faith, but that doesn't change anything.

If you ask me whether I can fix your car that won't start, and I'm mechanically a moron (which pretty much is the case) yet tell you "Sure, I can get you going again," I'm a liar.

There's no difference between me and a religious leader who responds to a request for soul-repair with "Sure, we save souls all the time," yet realizes that those are just empty words, a promise that never has been demonstrably fulfilled.

Late this afternoon I took the dog for our customary walk around a nearby lake.

My iPhone captured the foggy mood of the Oregon moment, which nicely reflects my metaphysical frame of mind these days.

Not being able to see very far. Yet enjoying the reality of spiritual mist more than the imagined clarity of my previous true believing.

I'd rather be honestly lost in fog, than living a lie of "I can see to the heavens."

Chapter 4 of RSSB expose: belief system critique

Here's the final installment of material sent to me by an email correspondent, Unknown, who assembled writings by a high-ranking Radha Soami Satsang Beas official (who called himself Waking Now) that appeared online some years ago after Waking Now became disillusioned with what he came to view as a cult.

Previous postings of Waking Now's writings are here, here, here, and here. This installment, which mostly is a critique of the RSSB belief system, is my favorite.

Whether or not someone agrees with Waking Now's conclusion that living one's life is best accomplished without submitting to the dictates of a guru figure, it's interesting to learn about the belief-to-disbelief trajectory of someone who was so deeply involved with the highest level of a religious organization for so long.

I was initiated by one of the RSSB gurus mentioned by Waking Now. I still have a great deal of fondness for Charan Singh, whom I was able to see in person during a two week visit to India in 1977.

Several decades later I was pleased to be able to write a book for RSSB, Life is Fair, on a subject that reportedly was dear to the heart of Charan Singh (when I was asked if I wanted to work on this project, I was told that the now-deceased guru had wanted to be able to hand out a small book that described the karmic rationale for vegetarianism).

So I have some understanding of how difficult it must have been for Waking Now to dissociate himself from the Radha Soami Satsang Beas organization in an effort to come closer to truth, reality, and his own self.

I don't feel that revealing the human side of a guru diminishes his value as a spiritual guide or teacher. Rather, it makes me feel closer to Charan Singh, or anyone else who has been raised to an undefensibly high godly platform.

Read on. As before, Waking Now's writings can be read by clicking on the continuation to this post, or by downloading this PDF file.
Download RSSB Chapters 6-7 PDF

Alan Watts tells me who I am: Everything

At the age of sixty, I seem to be coming full circle -- back to one of my favorite 60's personalities, Alan Watts.

I've been reading or re-reading quite a few of his books lately. Most recently, "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are."

For a long time I thought of Watts as a philosophical light-weight, a popularizer of Eastern wisdom who possessed more wit than substance. But now he seems to me to get things almost exactly right, which shows how I've changed.

I saw Watts once in person. He gave a talk at San Jose State College my freshman or sophomore year, probably 1966 or 1967.

I was sitting in the front row of the meeting hall, where the doors were open to the warm California air. Watts had started speaking from the lectern. A dog ran in, stopped, looked up at Watts, and began to bark like crazy.

Watts glanced down at it. Almost instantly, in one smooth flowing motion, he picked up his water glass and threw the contents at the dog. Watts had a good aim.

The dog shook his head, trying to get dry, and trotted out the door. Watts kept on speaking, barely missing a beat.

I learned more about Zen and Taoism from that non-verbal episode than from everything else he said that night, all of which I've forgotten.

So...who is Alan Watts? Who am I? Who are you? It just takes a few pages before The Book points to an answer.

This feeling of being lonely and very temporary visitors in the universe is in flat contradiction to everything known about man (and all other living organisms) in the sciences. We do not "come into" this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree.

As the ocean "waves," the universe "peoples." Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the entire universe. This fact is rarely, if ever, experienced by most individuals.

Even those who know it to be true in theory do not sense or feel it, but continue to be aware of themselves as isolated "egos" inside bags of skin.

I like how Watts rarely cites religious or mystical literature in support of his arguments. He just lays out how he sees things, using common sense, science, and everyday experience to make his case.

Even though The Book was first published in 1966, scientifically it has held up well. If anything, modern neuroscience supports more strongly now Watts' contention that we aren't passive imbibers of reality, but rather its creator (in a very real sense).

Apart from your brain, or some brain, the world is devoid of light, heat, weight, solidity, motion, space, time, or any other imaginable feature. All these phenomena are interactions, or transactions, of vibrations with a certain arrangement of neurons.

Thus vibrations of light and heat from the sun do not actually become light or heat until they interact with a living organism, just as no light-beams are visible in space unless reflected by particles of atmosphere or dust. In other words, it "takes two" to make anything happen.

So we aren't the passive recipient of God's creation. Dualistic notions such as creator/creation, spirit/soul, mind/body, good/evil, universal/individual, and the like are a limited view of how things truly are.

Which is...who knows? There's no way to say, because sayings concern objects and the Whole Shebang ("how things truly are") can't be an object since it is everything. 

Watts honors it with capital letters: IT.

The problem is that IT is so much more myself than I thought I was, so central and so basic to my existence, that I cannot make it an object. There is no way to stand outside IT, and, in fact, no way to do so. For so long as I am trying to grasp IT, I am implying that IT is not really myself.

If it were possible, I am losing the sense of it by attempting to find it. This is why those who really know that they are IT invariably say they do not understand it, for IT understands understanding, not the other way about. One cannot, and need not, go deeper than deep!

Religion, then, is useless. It's a quest for what hasn't been lost. A pointless exercise. So is every other form of spiritual pursuit, unless carried on in a spirit of play.

It's fine to engage in spiritual practices, Watts says, just as it's fine to dance or play the piano. There aren't really reasons for doing these things (or anything, for that matter). You just do it.

Or, do IT.

I like Watts' final sentences. Not because I understand them. Because I don't.

To come on like IT -- to play at being God -- is to play the Self as a role, which is just what it isn't. When IT plays, it plays at being everything else.

Chapter 3 of RSSB expose: palace intrigue and waking up

Here's some additional interesting Radha Soami Satsang Beas-related material written by someone ("Waking Now") who was a high-ranking member of the organization. It was sent to me by my email correspondent, "Unknown."

I added some of this new information to the end of a previous post, Chapter 2, since it related to the subject of that post (business practices). Scroll down to the boldfaced "Note:" in the addendum to that post and you'll find the new stuff.

Whether or not you're familiar with this particular Indian guru-based organization, I think you'll find Waking Now's concluding comments of interest.

He speaks of his realization that he'd become caught in a limited form of spirituality that was at odds with broader Indian philosophies. I've had similar feelings myself, so resonated with words like these:

There is a difference between seeking on one’s own to understand life, and getting caught by a Guru to become a follower and believer.

In the first case, one remains alert and aware and fresh and finds joy in the discoveries.

In the second, one starts moving on the Royal Road to Dumbness, losing the appreciation of the beauty and vitality of one’s life.

For me, there is no enlightenment experience to run after.  Our daily life is the wonderful enlightenment experience. When we are fully attentive to it.

The question is when, if ever, do we sink into this understanding that there is nothing to achieve, and then, relax into our everyday life.

Different people have different episodes which cause all ‘notions’ of enlightenment given by others to just fall away.  Then they settle down.

There is no one who has traveled down the road we are traveling because the ‘road’ to our awakeness is the whole space around us.

As before (previous material from Unknown is here, here, and here), read on by clicking on the continuation to this post or by downloading a PDF file.
Download Chapter 4-5 RSSB PDF

Churchless review of Rick Warren's inauguration invocation

There's no reason religious talks shouldn't be subjected to the same critical standards as any other piece of writing. So here's my take on Rick Warren's invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration last Tuesday.

I'm viewing what Warren wrote and spoke as non-fiction. From his point of view. Naturally I see religiosity in general, and Christianity in particular, as being decidedly fictional.

But Warren, and billions of like-minded believers, consider what he said to be gospel truth. Most of it, at least, depending on what brand of Christianity someone subscribes to.

So let's see how the invocation stacks up against reality. My comments are in red.
---------------------------------
Warren said:

Let us pray.

Should have added, "if you feel like it." Doesn't the constitutional right to worship, or not, as you see fit apply at an inauguration ceremony?

Almighty God -- our Father. Everything we see, and everything we can’t see, exists because of you alone. It all comes from you. It all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory.

Absolutely no evidence of this. So all the Christian'ist assumptions that follow are based on a foundation of nothing.

History is your story. The Scripture tells us, ‘Hear, Oh Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.’ And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.

Good ecumenical try, throwing in a dash of Judaism and a bit of Islam. How about throwing a bone to us non-believers, along with Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, Sikhs, and other heathens? In addition, what's with this "loving to everyone you have made"? Ever noticed how much pain and suffering there is in the world, Rick? You just said that everything comes from God. Where's the compassion and mercy in allowing innocent children to be blown to bits or burned to death?

Now today we rejoice not only in America’s peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time, we celebrate a hinge-point of history with the inauguration of our first African-American president of the United States. We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. And we know today that Dr. King, and a great cloud of witnesses, are shouting in heaven.

Up until the last sentence I was giving a thumbs-up to this entire paragraph. But how does anyone know that Dr. King and a bunch of witnesses (who are they, anyway?) are raising hell in heaven during the inauguration? Should have said, "And it gives us joy to imagine today..."

Give to our new president, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect him, his family, Vice-President Biden, the cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders.

First sentence, fine. Second sentence makes me wonder why it's necessary to ask God to give special attention to some people, and not to others. This contradicts the earlier statement that God is loving to everyone.

Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race, or religion, or blood, but to our commitment to freedom, and justice for all.

Leave out the "oh God" and you've got a nice sentiment that doesn't let people off the hook to do their own remembering. If I don't remember my commitment to freedom and justice for all I guess God didn't help me enough.

When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.

Ooh, my ex-Catholic soul, which experienced confession in my youth, likes the forgiveness talk. It's cool to be able to screw up, then simply be forgiven by God. But from a more mature perspective, it'd be better to put the responsibility on individuals to be humble and respectful to other people and all the earth, omitting the option of being forgiven if they don't do this.

And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes -- even when we differ.

OK. Agreed.

Help us to share, to serve, and to seek the common good of all. May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy, and a more prosperous nation, and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day, all nations and all people will stand accountable before you.

Once again, you get a nice universal message ball rolling, then smash it into a dogmatic religious wall. You lost me, Rick, with the standing accountable crap. Cause and effect, yes, that's real. Judgment by a personal God, that's just your imagination.

We now commit our new president, and his wife Michelle, and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care.

Who the heck are you to commit anyone into anything? And what's with "we"? You were standing in front of more than a million people, many of whom don't share your Christian beliefs. Say "I" when you spout a personal opinion or desire.

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life -- Yeshua, Isa, Jesús, Jesus -- who taught us to pray:

Well, I like that you finally said "I" instead of "We." And it's fine that you feel Jesus changed your life. Just recognize that countless other people have had their lives changed by Buddha, an angelic presence, whiskey, golf, motorcycles, a good book, heart-pounding sex, and any number of other influences.

Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever.

Amen.
---------------------------

We Pastafarians who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster prefer, "Ramen."

Chapter 2 of RSSB expose: business practices

Here's the next installment of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas-related material that I'm receiving from my email correspondent, Unknown.

(Previous posts on this topic are here and here.)

As noted previously, this material mostly consists of writings by Waking Now, a senior RSSB functionary who came to have doubts about this Indian guru-centered organization and left it in the early 1990s.

When I read this chapter of the Waking Now compilation being put together by Unknown, I thought of how the Dalai Lama wants the Tibetans in exile to be governed.

Democratically.

About 550 Tibetan political leaders and activists have come from as far away as Canada, Australia and Brussels to discuss the future of the Tibetan movement. Its spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, has long advocated a democratic decision-making process, but Tibetans' reverence for him has inhibited many of them from speaking out in any way that might challenge his authority. "This is the problem with having God as your leader," says Tsering Shakya, a professor of modern Tibetan history at the University of British Columbia.

Interesting, in light of what Waking Now has written, which can be downloaded as a PDF file or read by clicking on the following continuation to this post.
Download Chapter 2-Business Practices PDF

Meaning of life is right now, or never

What's the meaning of life? For many people, me included, this is a vitally important question. Finding the answer to it is a big part of what gives life meaning.

But wait...something is wrong here.

If what gives life meaning for me is a search for the meaning of life, I've got a couple of problems.

(1) If I ever find the answer, then life won't have meaning for me any longer, because the meaning was in my searching, not my finding. (2) Maybe I won't ever find the answer, in which case my life has been meaningless, though the time I spent fruitlessly searching for the meaning of life counts for something, I guess.

What I'm doing here is thinking philosophically. Or at least, thinking.

Lots of religious believers and spiritual seekers consider this to be wasted activity. They disparage thinking, viewing it as the antithesis to faith, intuition, insight -- the real way to God or ultimate truth.

Well, I beg to differ. Along with Julian Baggini, a philosopher whose book ("What's It All About?") I blogged about recently.

In that post I talked about Baggini's view of ego loss and selflessness. I liked how he cuts through a bunch of often-unexamined religious crap with clear thinking and common sense.

Thinking may not get us to the promised land, but it points us in the right direction, helping prevent us from wandering off into a wilderness of mumbo-jumbo and foundationless beliefs.

Here's some additional Baggini thoughts about the meaning of life (drawn from his initial chapters) that struck me as right on.

First, even if God created the cosmos, the meaning of life doesn't necessarily follow from its ultimate origin.

Knowing that the laptop on which I'm typing these words came from an Apple factory in China says nothing about the meaning my beloved MacBook has for me. Baggini says:

Consider wild berries that are gathered for food by humans. The story of their origins -- how they evolved -- is not the story of what purpose they serve for humans who come along and eat them, unless we say that God created wild berries so that we could eat them.

This is a kind of answer I would resist for reasons I will shortly explain. For the moment we simply need to note that we cannot assume that answering the question about something's origins tells us about its future or present purpose.

Second, and this relates to "how they evolved" in the quote above, the meaning of life isn't dependent on its being wired into the universe by someone or something else, such as a personal God.

Meaning is within each of us. Even if someone subscribes to a religiously-inspired faith concerning what life is all about, that belief is rooted within his or her own mind, not elsewhere.

So there's no reason why a meaning we arrive at on our own is any less valid than a meaning that supposedly is dropped down from the heavens into our laps.

We would prefer to live our lives in "bad faith," pretending that how we live and ought to live are not down to our choice but a product of fate, outside forces, or supernatural design.

...Why should we think that assigned purposes are inferior to predetermined purposes, and that only the latter can make life meaningful?

...The fact, then, that we can find no purpose or meaning in the origins of human life is no reason for supposing human life has no purpose or meaning.

Third, and most important in my opinion, a quest for the meaning of life has to end somewhere and sometime. And that might as well be here and now.

Some people believe that life will be truly meaningful when they get the next best material thing: house, car, computer, vacation, jewelry, healthy body, child, whatever.

Some people believe that life will be truly meaningful when they get the next best spiritual thing: enlightenment, salvation, satori, heaven, nirvana, grace, whatever.

Both types of people are forever chasing a string of "because's" that never comes to an end. They do this or that because it supposedly will lead them closer to the Meaning of Life promised land. Yet each step is followed by another step, not a standing still.

I have rejected the view that life's purpose can be understood by looking backwards to its origins. But that doesn't mean the only alternative is looking forward to its ultimate end. Just as the restaurant staff are fulfilling their professional purposes in the present simply by doing their job, couldn't we fulfill life's purpose in the present simply by living our lives?

...So if life is to be meaningful, the "why/because" series cannot extend indefinitely into the future. At some point we have to reach an end point where a further "why" question is unnecessary, misguided, or nonsensical. Otherwise the purpose of life is forever beyond our reach.

...As we have repeatedly seen, at some point we have to reach the stage where a "why" question can be met with an answer along the lines of "Are you nuts? Why wouldn't anyone want that?" If not, the "why/because" series just extends into the indefinite future.

...Yet so many of us do look towards some idyllic future when we have "made it" as providing purpose for what we do. This is a mistake and at its root is a failure to realize that if what is being worked towards is worthwhile in itself, then so are many other things that are within our grasp right now.

Chapter 1 of RSSB expose: business dealings

My correspondent, "unknown," has followed up on his or her previously posted critique of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB).

Unknown's new material primarily concerns some RSSB business dealings, and how a few senior members of this India-based spiritual organization came to have doubts about it.

I've copied in the correspondence, which came to me by email, below. Here's a PDF version:
Download RSSB Business Practices-Chapter 1 pdf

I feel the need to explain why I think it's worthwhile to put this material up for public viewing.

Basically, I believe that it's desirable to freely share ideas and information so long as the privacy of individuals isn't infringed upon, and what's being shared isn't libelous.

Neither seems to be the case here.

This material apparently was on the Internet for a while, then removed. Once public, always public... that's the rule in this age of Google caches and file copying.

Naturally I can't vouch for the truthfulness of what "Waking Now" relates. However, it has enough of a ring of truth to be believable. If anyone wants to challenge the accuracy of Waking Now's allegations, they're free to comment away.

Lastly (before getting to Chapter 1), I feel that it's healthy to remind ourselves that perfection isn't a quality found in either organizations or individuals -- assuming it's even possible to operationally define what this word means.

Some RSSB devotees are going to feel that it's wrong to post any sort of criticism of this group. They consider that because the organization is led by a "perfect guru," then everything RSSB does must be above reproach.

This is a fundamentalist religious attitude, no different from that of Muslims who say "no cartoons can be published of Prophet Muhammad!" or of the medieval Catholic church, which punished heretics who dared question the holy faith.

Radha Soami Satsang Beas claims to be a spiritual science. Science progresses by testing hypotheses, examining all of the data related to a problem, disseminating research results and discussing them openly.

So here's some information about RSSB. Consider it; ignore it. Your choice.

Self, no-self...what's the difference?

Maybe I have a "self." Maybe I don't.

There doesn't seem to be any way to tell. Which makes me wonder, who the heck cares, if there's no evident difference between self and no-self?

I've enjoyed the comment conversation between Manjit and me on this blog's "Losing your self is so egotistical" post. We've been going at it discussing whether there's a self to lose.

Something related to my brain and laptop-typing fingers -- sure seems like a self -- keeps arguing that unless we're one with the cosmos, there's a separate sense of identity.

Manjit prefers to see this as a non-issue. Since there's no such thing as a self, there's no way to lose it.

Well, if that's the case, why have I been able to read big thick books by Ramana, Nisargadatta, and a bunch of others about how to go about realizing the truth of non-duality?

I mean, this sure doesn't seem to be the same thing as not being able to lose my unicorn, since I don't have one.

People don't travel to India and spend years meditating in a dark closet trying to come to the realization that they don't have a unicorn and shouldn't be worrying about what happens to it.

Yet there's a huge spiritual industry associated with losing the self. Or, as some put it, becoming aware that there never was a self to lose.

Gurus... books... seminars... retreats... web sites... what's the point of it all?

Here's how I've come to see this self vs. no-self question: if there's no way to tell the difference between someone who considers they have (or are) a self and someone who doesn't, we're in the realm of words, not reality.

I want to see a Who Has a Self? reality show. Put a bunch of people together. Film them interacting and doing everyday stuff. Viewers vote on who has a self and who doesn't.

If the public thinks someone is full of themselves, they get booted off Selfless Island.

Of course, we have to wonder whether the vote would be just a subjective opinion or an accurate reflection of reality. Are some people -- perfect gurus, realized souls, enlightened beings -- truly selfless, having seen through the illusion of duality?

And the big question: If so, how would anyone know? 

"Anyone" includes themselves. Because usually non-dual teachings say there's no obvious sign of having attained a selfless state.

No capacity to perform miracles. No freedom from normal human frailties. No extra-sensory perceptions. No knowledge unavailable to self-filled humans.

Often this issues comes up in books about, or by, some supposed guru or spiritual master. Why does he or she still get angry, irritated, depressed, or forgetful? Why does he or she not show any unique qualities that scream out, not leaving any doubt, Realized Being Here! ?

I've heard many first person stories similar to this one: a guru who is considered to be God in human form angrily throws a book manuscript at the would-be author. This is viewed as an act of grace, a "tough love" lesson.

Yet a neutral observer would say, "Gee, that bearded guy in the turban sure acted angry for no reason."

So I'm still looking for evidence that there's a difference between selfless and selfed people (including the non-dualists who straddle the self-no self divide).

Sure, there are wonderful devoted Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and others who serve the world in a seemingly selfless fashion. But there also are plenty of ordinary people with the same compassionate, centered, caring characteristics.

Sam Harris makes some good points in "A Contemplative Science." The brain just does what it does. There's no evidence of an immaterial "ghost in the machine," or self.

If we flow with experience, understanding that there's no hard and fast distinction between us and the cosmos, inside and outside, self and non-self, things seem to go more smoothly.

But this is a far cry from the religious claims of those who elevate the elimination of ego (or the realization that such doesn't exist) to sacred status. I'll end with this Harris quote:

Needless to say, any truths uncovered about the human mind through meditation cannot be "Buddhist". And if meditation ever becomes widely adopted as a tool of science, it will be quickly stripped of its Buddhist roots. There are, after all, very good reasons we don't talk about "Christian physics" or "Muslim algebra".

Physics and algebra are genuine domains of human inquiry, and as such, they transcend the cultural conditions out of which they arose. Today, anyone emphasizing the religious roots of these intellectual disciplines would stand convicted of not understanding them at all.

In the same way, if we ever develop a scientific account of the contemplative path, speaking of "Buddhist" meditation will be synonymous with a failure to assimilate the changes that will have occurred in our understanding of the human mind.

A critique of Radha Soami Satsang Beas

Over on this post "unknown" has left several interesting comments about an Indian mystical-spiritual organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) that I, and quite other Church of the Churchless regulars, have been associated with.

Being thoughtful and well-written, I didn't want the comments to be submerged within a post on another subject. So I've copied them in below (with some mild editing to correct some typos and clarify formatting).

I'm a believer in open discussion of any and all topics relating to religion, spirituality, mysticism, meditation, philosophy ... whatever.

Some will disagree with these ideas. Some will say "right on." Others will have no opinion or be disinterested in the whole subject.

The important thing is to share, discuss, debate, question. Shining a light on a corner of reality ends up making it more visible. Truth has a way of winning out, though sorting fact from fiction can be difficult.

Here's a compilation of what "unknown" has shared so far.
---------------------------

After 20 years of wasting time in a dark room with my thumb in my ear seeking self induced sounds and sights as proof of spiritual progress, a series of events revealed the obvious for me.  Debating unverifiable abstractions as a way to test the authenticity of the so called ‘Masters’ and their doctrines is a circular waste of time.

One need go no further than ‘follow the money’.  The Dera is structured as feudal work farms where the serfs, the impoverished underclass of India, provide legions of labor, including child labor, for example the ongoing construction projects, the vast agricultural enterprises etc in exchange for the Darshan [sight] of the Master and a few bare necessities in abject poverty.

There was a Radhasoami Satsang Beas book ‘Origin and Growth’ (that Gurinder asked to have removed from circulation). [In] there is a hidden principle which states “it is the basic principle of Sant Mat and especially of the Radhasoami faith, that the Satguru, being God Incarnate, has absolute authority and power to deal with His Parmarthi (religious) property of every kind in whatever way He likes.  All Bhaints (offerings) made to Him by His followers and all properties inherited by Him from his Satguru become His personal properties and His power to use such properties is not restricted in any way.”

In reality, beneath the charade of modesty and simple tastes these ‘Masters’ have built  billionaire fortunes largely at the expense of those most desperate and vulnerable and by perpetuating a cynical fraud that has been especially exploitative toward India’s underclass and harmful to many in other walks of life.

As for the meditation, an ex representative explained it best: ‘I think it is heartless to delude people into imagining that a neural show represents the experience of God. The emphasis in the Indian spiritual tradition is finding out who you are at the core, not getting caught up in specific experiences.  Zen clearly advises against the mental hallucinations during meditation.

RSSB has a good marketing program going.

Promise what is tantalizing but unattainable.  As long as people are caught in tantalizing images, there will be no dearth of customers.

Not only does the RS Guru play upon the natural human fear of death but also entices blatantly by promising company on the ‘inner spiritual journey’.  When the seeker is hooked and enters the fold, he or she finds innumerable qualifications which make the experience of ‘the inner spiritual journey’ with ‘the Master always with them’ almost unattainable.  Then starts the push to alternative group highs in ritual meeting and project activities”.

---------------------------

To further clarify on a few points re. RSSB deceit:  The Radha Soami ‘Masters’ are very skilled at avoiding the public relations pitfalls of many Gurus who publicly indulge themselves which has made the scam/charade much more deceptive.

As with any cult, when the mind is trained to gymnastically avoid rational critique it always lays the groundwork for abuse and crimes against humanity and creation. Cognitive dissonance makes mankind a dangerous animal and religion, with its subversive power agendas, is always cultivating that fatal human flaw in addition to primary primordial motivators of the human psyche…the need for meaning and security.  If nothing else, a careful reading of history documents mankind’s horrific tradeoffs and abdication of personal responsibility in exchange for a sense of ‘meaning and security’.

Specifically, in supporting RSSB, or ‘looking the other way’ in choosing not to address the feudal system impacting many thousands of India’s underclass and other gross exploitations, one is choosing a feel good panacea to prop up a superficial spiritual self image instead of honestly addressing  the obvious. 

Earlier posts regarding the utter self absorption and counter productiveness of this kind of ‘spiritual progress’ caught my attention.  It is so true.  Consider the hierarchical nature of Sant Mat, specifically RSSB.  The more Seva you do, the more exposure to intimate audiences with ‘God Incarnate’ you are eligible for which feeds your ego….hence ‘I am special, I’ve had a semi private audience….etc’  It becomes a game of ego gratification masked as spiritual progress, climbing the ladder and politics in direct correlation with how much work you do or how much you donate.  I have a great deal of personal experience on this subject, it is not speculation.  But if one is observant and not disconnecting rational critique, it is easy to see.

A very high ranking ex-representative intimately connected with Charan Singh made this account:

“RSSB-House of Sawan”

About a year ago, I was reading a report on the Net from a newspaper in Pakistan.

The report said that a NGO (non-governmental organization) engaged in teaching good health habits to women and children encountered a lot of difficulty in a particular village when they tried to speak with the women in their home.  The women were afraid and did not wish to have anything to do with them.

When the NGO women persisted and tried to find out the reason for this unusual behavior, they learnt that the families lived in homes which were on land belonging to a Feudal Landlord.  They labored in his fields and houses, but if they displeased him, they would be forced to leave their homes but they had nowhere to go.  So although they would like to learn good health habits, they were afraid that by talking to outsiders they might incur their Lord’s wrath and be out of hearth and home.

They said that when their families first started working for the Landlord, he had told them that they could build their homes to live there but if they left the place or were forced to leave, they would have to leave their houses behind but could take only their portable belongings with them.

Then it struck me.

Had I not seen similar rules somewhere else?   And I remembered the booklet, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, Origin And Growth.  I looked it up and saw in the copy of Great Master’s Will, 1937:

“A number of satsangis have built houses in the Dera Baba Jaimal Singh with my permission and on land belonging to me and in my possession on the condition that they and their descendants can reside in the Dera only as long they have faith in the Master…and are considered to be suitable persons for residing in the Dera, otherwise they have no rights to live at the Dera and I or my successor shall be authorized to eject them any time we liked  In the event of their ejectment, the satsangis concerned or their assignees will have no right of any sort to the land or materials of the building.

I am the sole owner of the Dera and all properties connected therewith…”

Sd. Sawan Singh    reference: ex-representative, intimate of Charan Singh

For anyone who had not been to Dera or heard first hand accounts; it is vast almost beyond description….it is now a city with hundreds of thousands of acres agricultural lands, railroads transporting legions of indentured servants (who have built their impoverished huts on Dera lands and have nowhere else to go or are slaves for Darshan) to agricultural and construction projects…..all profitably benefiting a hierarchy of astronomical wealth.  Gurinder’s investments are now worldwide including large commercial projects in Mumbai (Bombay).  

In order to understand these points, one must abandon insistence on a quaint version of the humble Guru and energetically scrutinize, logically evaluate.  It is interesting that the seeker and initiate is assigned to be at war with and to disregard his own mind, when in reality one is completely ensnared in charade once bereft of our mental faculties.

---------------------------

Hello all,

After 20 years with RSSB and shortly after Gurinder was appointed myself and spouse left the path in disgust after a series of events revealed the crass deception of it all.  The arrival at ‘eureka’  also enabled us to finally articulate what had become a subliminal discomfort with the whole Sant Mat agenda and nagging inconsistencies which ultimately take a toll on one’s ‘life force’. 

Because if the integrity doesn’t resonate with you on a deep level, then you are simply going thru the motions or trying to keep yourself psyched up and enthused with group highs (Bandaras, pep rallys and the like) which provide temporary elation produced by group psycho dynamics only and all charlatans/illusionists know the simple tricks of orchestrating group highs and ‘sleight of mind’ which are powerful temporary deceptive techniques.

Or worse than constantly trying to keep oneself motivated and enthused by trekking to group highs and work camps, many blame themselves for the lack of ‘inner experiences’ during meditation….the promised Shangri-La accompanied by your ethereal guide bla, bla, and fall into depression, despondency and harsh self criticism.

My spouse and I consider ourselves extremely fortunate to have left RSSB undamaged after such a length of time because we know a good number of people whose lives have deteriorated at great deal in attempting to climb the ladder in a corrupt cult organization.

And some people who were merely eccentric in early years, with this predisposition have become totally dysfunctional in mainstream or the world at large in their later years with the cult.

Tragically, we have seen much worse than that too.  A number of individuals have taken their own life as a direct result of Sant Mat influence and despondency over lack of attainment.  The specifics of the cases and the suicides are very dramatic, and well known to a large Sangat, involving individuals who were pillars and long established, but due to privacy of surviving relatives, it’s best not to be more descriptive.

Suffice to say, it is recklessly irresponsible and in fact criminal to advocate for anyone susceptible to disorders such as clinical depression or schizophrenia to practice a 2.5 hour daily assignment of sitting in the dark internalizing and trying to conjure inner lights and sound, hallucinations and delusions.  It is criminal to prescribe that and especially unsupervised.

Does anyone really think that Gurinder or any of these ‘Masters’ could pick out their initiate from a supermarket check out line??  Much less be supervising them on the inner planes as an inner guide and directing their karma???  It’s all a delusional fantasy, like ‘my imaginary friend’ of childhood.  And yet with those who are prone to mental instability, promoting these delusions can be deadly.

We have a folder of accounts from a very high profile representative in the 80’s (anonymous), an Indian who is also the son in law of an individual, now deceased, who was one of highest ranking within the organization and was known to all and who disavowed RSSB prior to his death.

As this site is exploring the subjects in intelligent fashion, I’d be glad to email more of the documents to Brian to be offered for discussion because the ex-representative’s writing style, knowledge of Indian spiritual culture and ability to get to the essence is so compelling and would be possibly productive for those trying to evaluate Sant Mat.

He did post briefly years ago at the ex-satsangi site under the name ‘Waking Now’ but later requested his posts be deleted.  Here is one of his posts addressing the Guru delusion.

Re: A look into the Beas Dera culture

Gurudom, the feudal kingdom of the Guru in which his subjects (mass-initiated disciples) have a real teaching relationship with him is fundamentally dishonest.  The relationship is one of power but the marketing words suggest a real (fantasy) spiritual one (love, they say).

Gurudom has appropriated the benefits extolled in poetry of the wonderful Indian tradition of learning in which a small number of students (chelas) have the intimate company of their teacher (Guru) for a number of years and learn ways of being to allow them authentic expression, and converted that hallowed tradition into a Mass movement.

The masses are inducted into the Gurudom through a psychologically stressful initiation ceremony and encouraged to develop fantasy relationships with the Guru Emperor to project specific mental states touted to be godly ones with little or no real formation of character other than that of slaves.(I will write about this later)

And what do the masses need to be kept in line, bread and circus as the French say, for which ample opportunity is provided in food services, construction projects coming to fruition and choreographed mass meetings for continued indoctrination.

---------------------------

Hi Roger, et al,

Gurinder requested 'Origin and Growth' be removed from circulation but as public record it came up on google and addresses some specifics of RSSB administration and Great Master's will.

It is notable that through the documents it makes it clear that all religious and ancestral properties is owned by him.  It also references that certain activities be conducted for the benefit of the Sangat.  The context is it is a religious family business (hence no non-family member is appointed Godman).  Any board or committees serve entirely at the pleasure of the Master and a dissenter can be dismissed at any time.

I may have some information on the arrangement by which homes are built on Dera lands  Primarily it is a life estate (it the occupant continues to serve and have faith in the Master) and the property reverts to the Dera.  As for the impoverished shanty towns built on Dera Lands to serve agricultural and construction needs and other tenants....they are basically indentured servants and vulnerable often with nowhere else to go.

http://www.geocities.com/rssbdata/oag.htm

Reality isn't black and white

While it might look like Taoists are big on black and white, this yin-yang symbol actually speaks otherwise.
 
Yes, there are dualities in the universe. Lots of them: male/female, positive/negative, wave/particle, good/bad ... and on and on and on.

But it's those little circles that tell the most meaningful part of the story -- how there's yin within yang, and yang within yin. The farthest reach of black blends with the beginning of white, and vice versa.

If we think in terms of this or that, we're not seeing reality rightly.

The world appears in shades of gray to eyes attuned to how things are, rather than how we imagine or conceive them to be.

I got thinking about this last night when I was writing a post on my other blog, "iPhone shows money can buy happiness." That sounds so materialistic, so non-spiritual, so crude.

Haven't we been told from an early age, "Remember, money can't buy happiness"? But here I am, three days into owning a 3G iPhone, and I'm happier than I was before.

Sure, we can debate the definition of happiness ad infinitum. We can parse words and argue about whether my feeling of iPhonish satisfaction is genuine. We can delve into the writings of great thinkers -- religious, philosophical, moral -- and compare my thoughts with theirs.

But the plain fact remains, as evidenced by my direct inner knowing, that I'm happier now than before I handed over my VISA card to an AT&T employee and bought an iPhone.

Sometimes money buys happiness. Sometimes it doesn't.
Sometimes meditation brings peace of mind. Sometimes it doesn't.
Sometimes religion has something to teach us. Sometimes it doesn't.
Sometimes trust in a guru leads to wisdom. Sometimes it doesn't.

Most questions about what life is all about, whether these be political, scientific, spiritual, or any other variety, are best considered from a sometimes frame of mind.

Even when there's no evidence of any exceptions to the rule, which is the case with solidly proven laws of nature. Science never closes the door to a possibility of a rule being broken.

Whereas, fundamentalist religion and moralism does.

Which is crazy, because here there's no evidence of truthfulness, as there is in science. Yet believers cling to dogma as if it was a life preserver that could be depended upon, instead of realizing that swimming freely in the ocean of Maybe and Sometimes is a better way to stay afloat.

Why? Because reality has a lot more buoyancy than imagination.

I can tell myself, "Brian, money doesn't buy happiness. You've got to crawl into your meditation closet, shut your eyes, and get to work on eliminating that damn ego of yours which keeps on desiring stuff. Then you'll experience the bliss of merging with the cosmos."

Nice thoughts.

Yet when I find myself happier after getting some new techno-toy, I have to trust my direct experience rather than an idea of what would, could, or should be experienced.

Along this line, I feel that each of us knows what kind of person we are. But often we deny that knowing, because it conflicts with a concept we have of ourselves -- which may be an idealized "me" that doesn't bear much resemblance to the real thing.

Last year I agonized over whether I should get a maxi-scooter (a Suzuki Burgman) to commemorate the post-sixty phase of my ongoing "midlife crisis."

I ended up ordering one, then canceling the order. In a way, whether I ever get a high-powered scooter isn't all that important compared to the intuitive knowing that coursed through my psyche when I signed a credit card slip for a $500 deposit.

I'm a scooter/motorcycle person.

This was me, a guy who wanted to ride fast again on two wheels, accepting the danger that this entails, because it's damn fun.

I'm also an iPhone person. I love gadgets, especially high-tech ones that do amazing things. They make my life happier and more fulfilling.

Such doesn't mesh with the Buddha's teachings. Or Jesus'. Or Plato's.

Well, they were themselves, and I'm me. I can learn a lot from other people about some things.

When it comes to me, though, I'm my best teacher. And since spirituality is billed as a path of self-discovery, the guru I've got to bow down to is myself.

Mostly. There's no black and white here, or anywhere.

Losing your self is so egotistical

"Losing your self." "Ego-loss." "Becoming one with the cosmos." These words sound good, but do they really mean anything? And even if they do, is that thing desirable?

For a long time I was an active member of a religio-mystical organization (Radha Soami Satsang Beas) that put a lot of emphasis on soul drops merging into God's ocean.

Again, a superficially pleasing image -- brings to mind a super orgasm of consciousness, a final busting loose of boundaries into a cosmic Ahhhhhhhh...

But here's the thing: if nobody is around to merge, or bust loose, or have a soulful orgasm, what's the point?

More: how can it be said that anything has even happened, if there's no entity aware of the happening?

Plotinus, the Greek mystic philosopher, addressed these questions when he said that it'd be crazy if, after strenuously striving to understand the nature of God, someone ceased to exist right at the point of attaining that goal.

That's one problem with the notion of losing your self to find your self, a philosophical enigma wonderfully discussed in the "Lose your self" chapter of Julian Baggini's "What's It All About?"

Once again I am going to be brisk with an idea that many will feel deserves more serious attention. But this whole notion is just incoherent. If one genuinely lost one's sense of self, one would not be able to report any feeling of oneness with the universe. Rather, at the end of the meditation, one would report coming back to awareness after having lost any sense of consciousness, a bit like the way one feels after waking up. Any euphoric feelings during such a form of meditation have to be had by oneself or else there can be no feelings at all.

And this is great; Baggini nails it:

A further problem with this idea is that it suggests the meaning of a person's life is not to have a life at all. You reach your highest potential by losing your sense of self altogether -- in effect, by ceasing to exist. We end up with another impressive-sounding paradox: the meaning of your life is for you to lose all sense of that life. Well, that can be arranged -- it's called death.

So it's clear that ego-loss doesn't actually entail losing a sense of I-ness, or awareness of existing as an entity separate from the cosmos. Like Baggini says, loss of awareness is called death, not enlightenment.

However, wouldn't lessening one's sense of ego or separateness be a good thing? This could be desirable for a couple of reasons.

(1) It brings us closer to reality if the universe actually is founded on unity rather than multiplicity. (2) It enables the self to flourish by decreasing anxiety and other negative emotions caused by a sensation of me, me, me.

Reason #1, of course, doesn't carry with it any guarantee that coming closer to the monistic truth is going to be pleasant. It could be painful and unpleasant to merge into cold, dark, uncaring emptiness.

This isn't how religious, mystical, and spiritual teachings view ego-loss. Rather, it's seen in the Reason #2 sense -- as something that's going to lead to much reduced suffering, and maybe even total elimination of psychic pain.

Here's how Baggini sees the situation. Makes sense to me.

The reason I am being a little brutal here is that I think there is a terrible dishonesty among some of those who claim that what they are trying to achieve is a lessening of attachment to ego. The clear truth is that people who find this path satisfying are living contented lives.

In other words, they like their "spiritual practices" because they make them feel more content, at peace, or whatever, than alternatives they have tried. So despite all the fine words about losing their egos, they are in fact simply engaging in another form of self-gratification. This isn't materialistic or harmful to others, so we tend to look upon it quite kindly. But it is not in any sense a way of life which shows disregard for self-interest.

Absolutely.

I've spent a lot of time around people (one of whom was me, for many years) who believed they were engaging in "selfless service" to a guru or God through inward meditation and outward forms of volunteerism.

Yet their selves got a lot of satisfaction from this. And they considered that all this bhakti (love) would help them get closer to cosmic truth.

So there were a heck of a lot of benefits to the self in all of this supposed selflessness. A final quote from Baggini:

Whichever way you look at it, this is about satisfying the self, not lessening concern for it. It may be a worthwhile form of life, but it must be seen for what it is.

Is karma a bunch of crap?

While there's much in the realms of religion, spirituality, mysticism, and metaphysics that is out-and-out ridiculous, I've considered the notion of "karma" to be pleasingly quasi-scientific.

Heck, I even wrote a book about karma: Life is Fair.  This was back in my true believing days. Now I'm not nearly as confident that much of what I said in the book is true.

However, when karma is viewed as synonymous with "cause and effect," it's reality is evident.

This is how the world works: causes resulting in effects that produce causes resulting in effects ... and so on ... and so on ... and so on ... ad infinitum.

Eastern religions such as Buddhism see karma in an expanded sense, though.

Through reincarnation chains of cause and effect are considered to persevere between lifetimes. Causes in one incarnation can bear fruitful effects in another life.

This leads to some disturbing conclusions, which I used to find acceptable but now turn me off.

Here's an example from "The Monk and the Philosopher," where devoted Buddhist Matthieu Ricard is explaining karma to his rather skeptical father, Jean-Francois Revel.

In terms of the kinds of suffering for which we're apparently not responsible ourselves, those that are imposed on us by others and natural disasters or diseases, we've already talked about how they can be understood.

Such wrongs are due neither to divine will, nor to fixed destiny, nor to chance, but to the long-term consequences of our own actions. They're arrows we've shot ourselves, coming back to us.

I understand that the whole notion of karma can be quite disconcerting. Whatever happens to us, it teaches, is never just by chance. We've created the causes of our present sufferings ourselves.

...From within a different metaphysical framework, of course, it would be difficult to see how our present happiness and suffering could be the result of our distant past. But in the context of a religion like Buddhism that accepts the idea of numerous rebirths, it all makes sense.

Well, not really.

I'll go so far as to accept, for the sake of argument, that reincarnation could be true.

This still leaves the Buddhist conception of karma far out on an unreasonable limb. And Buddhism itself supplies the saw that seemingly dumps karma into a Crap Container.

Which is, the central Buddhist (and believable) idea of emptiness. Ricard says:

But if you look at things from the point of view of absolute logic, the laws of cause and effect couldn't operate with entities that had any permanent and solid existence. So nowhere in the whole phenomenal world is there a single fixed, independent, intrinsicially existing entity.

Such as a person. Who reincarnates. And who supposedly carries along karma from life to life that is an arrow shot from his own hand, returning to him.

Hmmmm.

That karma-carrying consciousness sure sounds like a fixed, independent, intrinsically existing entity. It sows causal seeds and it reaps a crop of effects, all by itself.

This doesn't make sense in a world of complex interrelating causes and effects.

Ricard's father, Revel, points out that Tibetans couldn't be karmically solely responsible for China's invasion of Tibet because "the hatred comes from the Chinese; the Tibetans didn't have it."

Yet this comment elicits the arrow-returning analogy quoted above. Ricard, the Buddhist, clearly believes that Tibetans brought upon themselves all the suffering wrought by the Chinese takeover of their country.

That's crazy, both metaphysically and logically.

Even if one accepts the reality of reincarnation, how could the Chinese be empty vessels into which the Tibetan karma is poured?

Meaning, karmic law issues an edict: "Tibetans hated in past lives, so now you Chinese must have a similarly hateful urge to invade Tibet and wreak havoc upon the country."

Yet Ricard has said that every person creates his or her own karma, so how could Tibetan karma cause an urge to take over Tibet to pop up in the minds of Chinese? Such is akin to the notion that when I married my wife, it was her karma that made me love her.

Hey! What about my karma? Don't I get to have karma also?

You can see that with a little clear thinking, any sort of reasonable foundation for the Buddhist notion of karma starts to disintegrate.

It's tough to posit an interrelated cosmos with no independently existing entities, as Buddhism does, and also claim that individuals are solely responsible for what happens to them in life.

Cause and effect: yes.
Karma: no, if the word is taken to mean that whatever befalls us is the result of an arrow shot from our own hand.

There's effectual arrows flying all over the place, released from countless causal bows. A lot more like this than the simplistic Buddhist idea.

Julian Barnes deals with death...irreligiously

The prospect (what a comforting word, so much better than "certainty") of dying can scare me to death.

So I just had to read Julian Barnes' book, "Nothing to Be Frightened Of." Because it's theme is death, and I want to believe that the title is true.

Barnes is a terrific writer. I don't want to summarize some favorite quotations from his book. I want to share them as wonderfully written.

So, here they are. Enjoy.

-----------------------------------------
Julian Barnes:

I don't believe in God, but I miss Him.

"What's all this about death, by the way?" she continued. I explained that I didn't like the idea of it.

Hadn't Camus said that the proper response to life's meaninglessness was to invent rules for the game, as we had done with football?

And here is the bet [Pascal's] made to sound almost not like a bet: "Go on, believe! It does no harm." ... But there are times, probably, when "it does no harm"-- except for not being true, which some might find irreducible, unnegotiable harm.

If I called myself an atheist at twenty, and an agnostic at fifty and sixty, it isn't because I have acquired more knowledge in the meantime: just more awareness of ignorance.

Adulthood brings approximation, fluidity, and doubt; and we keep the doubt at bay by retelling that familiar story, with pauses and periods of a calculated effect, pretending that the solidity of narrative is a proof of truth.

But Montaigne is a compendious writer, and if this argument fails to convince, he has many others. For instance: if you have lived well, used life to the full, then you will be happy to let it go; whereas if you have misused life and found it miserable, then you will not regret its passing. (A proposition which seems to me entirely reversible: those in the first category might want their happy lives to continue indefinitely, those in the second might hope for a change of luck.) Or: if you've truly lived for a single day, in the fullest sense, then you've seen everything. (No!) Well, then, if you've lived like that for a whole year, you've seen everything. (Still no.) Anyway, you should make room on earth for others, just as others have made room for you. (Yes, but I didn't ask them to.) And why complain of being taken, when all are taken? Think of how many others will die on the same day as you. (True, and some of them will be as pissed off as I am about it.) Further, and finally, what exactly are you asking for when you complain against death? Do you want an immortality spent on this earth, given the terms and conditions currently applicable? (I see the argument, but how about a bit of immortality? Half? OK, I'll settle for a quarter.)

You may have your own personal idea of God, but does God have His own personal idea of you? Because that's what matters. Whether He's an old man with a white beard sitting in the sky, or a life force, or a disinterested prime mover, or a clockmaker, or a woman, or a nebulous moral force, or Nothing At All, what counts is what He, She, It, or Nothing thinks of you rather than you of them. The notion of redefining the deity into something that works for you is grotesque. It also doesn't matter whether God is just or benevolent or even observant -- of which there seems startlingly little proof -- only that He exists.

What will it be like when Christianity joins the list of dead religions, and is taught in universities as part of the folklore syllabus; when blasphemy becomes not legal or illegal but simply impossible?

God is dead, and without Him human beings can at last get off their knees and assume their full height; and yet this height turns out to be quite dwarfish.

Perhaps the most important divide is less between the religious and the irreligious as between those who fear death and those who don't. We fall thereby into four categories, and it's clear which two regard themselves as superior: those who do not fear death because they have faith, and those who do not fear death despite having no faith. These groups take the moral high ground. In third place come those who, despite having faith, cannot rid themselves of the old, visceral, rational fear. And then, out of the medals, below the salt, up shit creek, come those of us who fear death and have no faith.

I would want my afterlife, if one's on offer, to be an improvement -- preferably a substantial one -- on its terrestrial predecessor. I can just about imagine slopping around half-unawares in some gooey molecular remix, but I can't see that this has any advantage over complete extinction. Why have hopes, even timid ones, for such a state?

My brother does not fear extinction. "I say that confidently, and not just because it would be irrational to have such a fear" (sorry -- interruption -- irrational? IRRATIONAL? It's the most rational thing in the world -- how can reason not reasonably detest and fear the end of reason?).

Religion tends to authoritarianism as capitalism tends to monopoly.

I wonder if we can somehow farewell ourselves in advance. Can we lose, or at least thin, this resilient sense of specialness until there is less of it to disappear, less of it to miss?

People say of death, "There's nothing to be frightened of." They say it quickly, casually. Now let's say it again, slowly, with re-emphasis. "There's NOTHING to be frightened of." Jules Renard: "The word that is most true, most exact, most filled with meaning, is the word 'nothing.'"

As a young man, I was terrified of flying. The book I would choose to read on a plane would be something I felt appropriate to have found on my corpse.

I think my sense of death -- which appears exaggerated to some of my friends -- is quite proportionate. For me, death is the one appalling fact which defines life; unless you are constantly aware of it, you cannot begin to understand what life is about; unless you know and feel that the days of wine and roses are limited, that the wine will madeirize and the roses turn brown in their stinking water before all are thrown out for ever -- including the jug -- there is no context to such pleasures and interests as come your way on the road to the grave.

Theorists of mind and matter may tell me that my death is, if not exactly an illusion at least the loss of something more inchoate and less personally marked than I pretend and desire it to be; but I doubt that this is how it will feel to me when the time comes.

I have always mistrusted the idea that old age brings serenity, suspecting that many of the old were just as emotionally tormented as the young, yet socially forbidden to acknowledge it.

Flaubert said: "Everything must be learnt, from talking to dying." But who can teach us to die? There are, by definition, no old pros around to talk -- or walk -- us through it.

Wisdom consists partly in not pretending any more, in discarding artifice.

RSSB guru does karaoke. He must be God.

In the Sant Mat faith, the guru is considered to be God in human form. Believing disciples, of whom I used to be one, are fond of looking for signs of his divinity.

Since obvious miracles aren't evident, nor other overt indications of godliness, it's necessary to look upon the guru with devotional eyes to see his saintliness shining through.

The current Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) guru is Gurinder Singh Dhillon. I've seen him quite a few times, including some personal interviews.

He strikes me as a fine intelligent, well-spoken, personable guy. I liked him.

But is Gurinder Singh God? My bet is "no."

However, I still enjoy digesting evidence regarding this question -- which arises in every philosophy (generally Eastern) that elevates a spiritual or religious teacher to the ultimate height.

Recently I heard some news about goings-on last month at the Dera, RSSB's headquarters in India.

Reportedly Gurinder Singh emphasized "doing nothing" in meditation. I can resonate with this advice. It's pretty much what I've experienced the past thirty-eight years in my own daily meditative practice.

When I went to the Dera in 1998 I heard Gurinder Singh express the same sentiment. He was asked a question about meditation and replied, "How difficult is it to do nothing?"

That's just about the only thing I can remember him saying during the two weeks I was in India.

Must have made an impression on me. Nothing has a way of slipping through the cracks of one's psyche.

Now, obviously an emphasis on nothingness, the via negativa, doesn't point toward divinity -- much less prove that the emphasizer is God. But it shows that in this regard at least, Gurinder Singh's philosophy is akin to the teachings of some highly respected sages.

Meister Eckhart. Plotinus. Saint John of the Cross. Ramana. Rumi. Lao Tzu. Buddha. To name a few.

They all stressed the mystery, ineffability, and interiority of ultimate reality. If you can sense it, describe it, or understand it ... that isn't IT.

Which makes another bit of news about Gurinder Singh more than a little incongruous, in light of his "do nothing" theme.

I heard that at the Dera Christmas party, where skits traditionally are performed, there was a whole lot of singing, dancing, and laughing going on. First with Gurinder Singh as part of the audience. Then the guru took the stage himself.

And proceeded to do karaoke. Enthusiastically.

I'm not sure what songs he sung. Some Beatles tunes were among them, I believe. ("Nowhere Man" would have been an appropriate via negativa theme song.)

When I told my wife about Gurinder Singh doing karaoke she said, "He sounds like a regular person." That was my basic reaction also.

If everyone who grabs a microphone and sings along to some oldies and goodies is God, then we've got a surfeit of saints roaming the Earth.

Yet my understanding is that most of those in attendance on a party-on December Dera day viewed the guru's performance as another manifestation of God tending to his sheep by feeding them with his karaoke'ized presence.

Well, I admittedly tilt toward the rational side of the spiritual spectrum.

But I still don't see how "doing nothing" fits philosophically with disciples gazing adoringly at a turban-clad guru singing his heart out on stage and thinking, "Ah, my sweet Lord."

This is the enigma and the paradox of faiths that simultaneously try to (1) make God into a formless all-pervading conscious energy, and (2) a thoroughly human guy or gal.

Maybe there's a way to reconcile these seeming discordancies. I doubt it, though.

When religious believers try to have things both ways -- God as universal ultimate reality and God as personal best friend -- what we get is confusion, not truth, in my thoroughly personal opinion.