Let's add a new L-word to "Who is the guru?" possibilities

Back in 2006 I pondered the question, Who is the guru? 

By "guru," I meant someone who is (1) alive today, and (2) considered by his/her devotees to be, if not actually God in human form, darn close to this exalted level of divinity.

This is, obviously, a different sort of religious personage than, say, a Christian minister. Or even the Pope. It is easy to visualize them sincerely believing that they are God's representatives on Earth, while recognizing that they are entirely human.

In some Eastern religions, though, the distinction between God and guru is minimal. Even nonexistent.

The Indian guru I was initiated by in 1971, Charan Singh, was considered to have attained a state of God-realization by his followers. 

No longer believing this, my "Who is the guru?" post was an attempt to make sense of the fact that Charan Singh, along with his successor Gurinder Singh, could sit on a podium in front of tens of thousands of adoring disciples who looked upon them as not only godly, but as God.

I’ve been thinking about the four options concerning who Jesus was, according to biblical scholar Bart Ehrman: a liar, a lunatic, the Lord, or a legend. When it comes to a long-dead historical figure like Jesus, these options make sense. But what about a modern-day guru who is similarly proclaimed to be God in human form?

I was initiated by such a guru, Charan Singh Grewal. I sat at his feet, literally. I had two personal interviews with him. I heard him speak many times. I saw him worshipped by tens of thousands of devotees as a divine incarnation. 

And yet, I still don’t know what to make of him. Or his successor, Gurinder Singh Dhillon. Who is the guru? A philosophically-inclined friend of mine likes to say, “There’s only one question to ask a guru who is supposedly God in human form: Are you who people claim you are?”

But given Ehrman’s four options, the answer wouldn’t be all that revealing. If the guru was a liar, you couldn’t believe what he said. Ditto if he was a lunatic. And even if he truly was the Lord, and said as much, what reason would there be to believe him? Plus, one could argue that a God-man would be so humble, you’d never hear a claim to divinity pass his lips.

With living gurus the legend option doesn’t come into play. They’re alive and kicking, not legendary. Quite a few men (and a few women) of recent vintage are considered by the faithful to be manifestations of God. For example, Meher Baba, Ramakrishna, and Lokenath. 

So I muse over my recollections of Charan Singh and Gurinder Singh, trying to decide whether they’re best described as liars, lunatics, or the Lord.

I ended up preferring a fourth option, loyalist.

Is there another L-word that better fills the bill? One springs to mind: loyalist. Perhaps when a successor is appointed to fill the shoes of a highly-regarded guru, loyalty both to his predecessor and to the surrounding organization prevents the newcomer from crying out, “Hey, I’m not God! I’m just a man filling the role of a guru.”

This theory got support in a video David Lane made about Charan Singh, as described in a 2013 post, "Charan Singh was a loyal guru." 

But a essay by Michael Shermer in his Scientific American "Skeptic" column suggests another possibility. In "Lies We Tell Ourselves: How Deception Leads to Self-Deception," Shermer says:

Trivers’s theory adds an evolutionary explanation to my own operant conditioning model to explain why psychics, mediums, cult leaders, and the like probably start off aware that a modicum of deception is involved in their craft (justified in the name of a higher cause). But as their followers positively reinforce their message, they come to believe their shtick (“maybe I really can read minds, tell the future, save humanity”).

Click on the link above to read the full piece by Shermer. I'll also include it as a continuation to this post. 

Desperate to find an L-word to add to the liar, lunatic, Lord, or loyalist possibilities, the best I could come up with after a brief look at some online thesauruses was to substitute "legerdemain" for self-deception. 

It seems to fit, as rarely used as the word is.

1. sleight of hand.

2. trickery; deception.

3. any artful trick.

So let's add a likely option that answers the question, "Who is the guru?" Legerdemainist. Which actually is a word.

The guru tricks himself into believing that he (or she) is God. Or God in human form, after being viewed as divine by fawning followers. This act of self-deception further bolsters his standing among devotees, as Shermer explains.

As Abraham Lincoln well advised, “You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” Unless self-deception is involved. If you believe the lie, you are less likely to give off the normal cues of lying that others might perceive: deception and deception detection create self-deception.

Interesting. Read on to peruse Shermer's entire essay.

Lies We Tell Ourselves

In Andrew Lloyd Webber’s 1970 rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar, a skeptical Judas Iscariot questions with faux innocence (“Don’t you get me wrong/I only want to know”) the messiah’s deific nature: “Jesus Christ Superstar/Do you think you’re what they say you are?”

Although I am skeptical of Jesus’ divine parentage, I believe he would have answered Judas’s query in the affrmative. Why? Because of what the legendary evolutionary theorist Robert Trivers calls “the logic of deceit and self-deception” in his new book The Folly of Fools (Basic Books, 2011). Here’s how it works: A selfish-gene model of evolution dictates that we should maximize our reproductive success through cunning and deceit. Yet the dynamics of game theory shows that if you are aware that other contestants in the game will also be employing similar strategies, it behooves you to feign transparency and honesty and lure them into complacency before you defect and grab the spoils. But if they are like you in anticipating such a shift in strategy, they might pull the same trick, which means you must be keenly sensitive to their deceptions and they of yours. Thus, we evolved the capacity for deception detection, which led to an arms race between deception and deception detection.

Deception gains a slight edge over deception detection when the interactions are few in number and among strangers. But if you spend enough time with your interlocutors, they may leak their true intent through behavioral tells. As Trivers notes, “When interactions are anonymous or infrequent, behavioral cues cannot be read against a background of known behavior, so more general attributes of lying must be used.” He identifies three: 

• Nervousness. “Because of the negative consequences of being detected, including being aggressed against … people are expected to be more nervous when lying.” 
• Control. “In response to concern over appearing nervous … people may exert control, trying to suppress behavior, with possible detectable side effects such as … a planned and rehearsed impression.” 
• Cognitive load. “Lying can be cognitively demanding. You must suppress the truth and construct a falsehood that is plausible on its face and … you must tell it in a convincing way and you must remember the story.”

Cognitive load appears to play the biggest role. “Absent wellrehearsed lies, people who are lying have to think too hard, and this causes several effects,” including overcontrol that leads to blinking and fidgeting less and using fewer hand gestures, longer pauses and higher-pitched voices. As Abraham Lincoln well advised, “You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” Unless self-deception is involved. If you believe the lie, you are less likely to give off the normal cues of lying that others might perceive: deception and deception detection create self-deception.

Trivers’s theory adds an evolutionary explanation to my own operant conditioning model to explain why psychics, mediums, cult leaders, and the like probably start off aware that a modicum of deception is involved in their craft (justified in the name of a higher cause). But as their followers positively reinforce their message, they come to believe their shtick (“maybe I really can read minds, tell the future, save humanity”). Trivers misses an opportunity to put a more positive spin on self-deception when it comes to the evolution of morality, however. As I argued in my 2004 book The Science of Good and Evil (Times Books), true morality evolved as a function of the fact that it is not enough to fake being a good person, because in our ancestral environments of small bands of hunter-gatherers in which everyone was either related to one another or knew one another intimately, faux morality would be unmasked. You actually have to be a good person by believing it yourself and acting accordingly.

By employing the logic of deception and self-deception, we can build a bottom-up theory for the evolution of emotions that control behavior judged good or evil by our fellow primates. In this understanding lies the foundation of a secular civil society.

Comments

[x]

A guru is often a charlatan, but sometimes he or she is some shlub who has undergone a religious/mystical experience, and has become so profoundly convinced of his/her enlightenment, that desperate, searching people are drawn to him/her.

Everyone's happy! The "experienced" presumed guru is delighted to teach and guide those who are drawn to him/her, and his/her followers are delighted to have someone to follow.

Don't rock the boat, Brian!

[x]

You actually have to be a good person by believing it yourself and acting accordingly.

It seems to me that goodness is usually questioning, uncertain, inquiring, and disinclined to believe anything...least of all that one is good.

[777]

I told you many times here

I explained the Faqir Chand uttering

The real Guru in the beginning is not aware at all
and often tries to escape
Even using expressions like " My whole life is ruined now "

But, . .
if it's what they call the MAUJ - COMMAND - THE WILL OF GOD , one cannot escape
What has to happen, has to happen

Such a REAL Guru is regularly so inundated with synchronicities° and serendipities
AND REAL MIRACLES
that He bows at a certain moment in obedience

These things starting all around Him and people "on the list" , including Brian and David
fall in Love
Don't say here that you didn't

It's just the super clever and only possible way for the Great Designer
to have it happen(ed) and automatically slowly and gentle destroy
the egos as well of the Guru
and in lesser degree of the followers , one little bit at the time

It's such a fabulous scheme :
Each second lovely things happen around Guru and in a lesser way around initiates

Strange that you find this so difficult to understand
and I'm happy that David understood .

Further of course there are the unbelievable very regular "views" of the truth inside , starting when the ego is at a degree that it will not immediately start doing the 6 siddis ( miracles )

777

[Appreciative Reader]

Actually there is a legitimate halfway house that the Guru can—conceivably, that is—very well occupy. Somewhere in between charlatan and GIHF. And that’s best described by not an L-word, but a Y-word : Yoda!

Think of a world that’s uniformly ignorant of advanced math and physics. And in that dark ignorant world if you—somehow—find someone with an Einstein’s particular knowledge and talents and understanding, why then he’d be a veritable Yoda to such geeks as are drawn (for whatever reasons) to a knowledge of advanced physics. He’d be no God, but he’d still be grand enough that the poetically-inclined student or fan may call him (with self-conscious hyperbole) GIHF.

Thusly, with spirituality and the Guru.

(Two disclaimers : First, there are always those whose may, later on, find themselves believing literally in what was no more than hyperbole for another person. And two, I’m only imagining here a conceivable way by means of which you arrive at people who’re seen as GIHF ; whether that actually is or has been the case is something I have, naturally, no idea at all!)

So, is some particular Guru really of Yoda standard (as opposed to plain charlatan)? Has any Guru ever really been Yoda standard? Is Yoda-hood in spirituality (in other words, Guru-dom) really possible? Is there, in fact, really any such concrete thing as spirituality (as distinct from people’s idea of what it might be)?

I think the only honest answer to these questions (except, perhaps, the very first one, which can sometimes admit of a negative answer fairly easily)—at least at this particular time—is “We don’t know!” (With, usually, an under-the-breath additional comment implied : either “And we don’t give a rat’s ass!”, or “But we’d love to find out!”)

[Brian Hines]

Appreciative Reader, we return to our familiar theme... the appropriateness of taking "we don't know" seriously.

Let's see -- what else can we say "we don't know" about.

We don't know if cats perfectly understand human language, but just aren't revealing their knowledge.

We don't know if fairies are causing the flowers to bloom in our gardens, using biological processes as a "cover story."

We don't know if, during deep sleep, our brains are copied and then beamed aboard alien spaceships, where experiments are performed on them.

Likewise, we don't know if some people have supernatural Yoda-like powers. So... who cares?

Again, there is an infinite number of things that could be true, yet aren't. Shouldn't we spend our one and only lives focusing on things that are, rather than might be? And trying to better understand what is, rather what isn't?

[777]

Brian : "Shouldn't we spend our one and only lives focusing on things that are, rather than might be? "

It depends on your taste :)

777

[Appreciative Reader]

Brian,
If you won’t mind a bit of cruelty-to-animals on your blogsite, I think I’m going to flog that poor almost-dead horse one more time. :-) (Make that cruelty to people as well : the readers of your blog, who will read that bad joke!)

First, a trivial nitpick : Our hypothetical non-charlatan Guru need not possess any extraordinary “powers” to qualifiy for Yoda-hood. As with Einstein in my example (or for that matter an exceptionally talented musician, to take another example), a great deal of knowledge and understanding of both theory and practice would be ample. (Always assuming there IS something to learn and practice, which is of course a different discussion.) The important thing is that this must be combined with (a) an intense desire to learn about (and or appreciation of) the topic in question (physics, music, spirituality, whatever) on the part of the student or fan ; and (b) a general background of ignorance of the subject matter in the world at large, so that the Guru’s particular talents (in physics, in music, or in spirituality) are highlighted in even starker contrast than would otherwise be the case. But that, like I said, was just a trivial nitpick.

Second : The answers one gets (or implies) are sometimes a function of the questions one asks. What if we add these questions to your list? (a) Are diseases caused by weird teeny-tiny creatures that we cannot see and have never seen that flit around from person to person spreading disease (this, asked back in the early seventeenth century)? Or, (b) Is life brought to us from outer space, and/or might organic compounds occur naturally everywere, including in space (rather than their having been formed from the respective elements and non-organic compounds, given the right ambience, on Earth)? When questions like these are added to the list, then the rhetorical question asked takes on a very different slant, doesn’t it?

And third : The Leprechaun argument, which you make here. (Which goes : “If I am to remain agnostic about God--and, more generally, about the supranormal--ought I then not also remain agnostic about invisible Leprechauns, that is, about random implausible explanations and speculations?”)

I’ve put this in italics, because this is the crux of what I want to say here. This last question I’d like to discuss at some length, Brian, if I may.

Now I realize I’m asking about something very basic. The Leprechaun argument seems to be one of the commonest arguments leveled against blind faith. I welcome the effort to erode the basis of pointless and irrational blind faith, but the argument itself I don’t think I am able to find reasonable—despite knowing that very many respected speakers and writers have made use of it.

(And before I launch on trying to explain why I find this argument lacking, let me emphasize again what I’d said to you in my last email, that I have no especial attachment with this position of mine. It’s not one I have held very long, and it comes from nothing but my own thoughts and my own reasoning—largely led by not-very-intense reading, comprising primarily what I’ve read in your blog and from links and comments here. I fully realize I may be mistaken, and I’ll be as happy to be proven wrong as to be proven right. All I’m looking for is an intellectual position that appears consistent and reasonable to me.)

Let me try this analogy.

Say you’re some federal investigative authority who’s sent out with your team to some less-than-mainstream part of the country, to settle a long-festering criminal investigation that’s snowballed over time into big news. There’s been a very high-profile murder, and there are three different suspects, with lots of people (including alleged witnesses) who’re fully convinced that their particular candidate is the one who “done it”. The local police is on it, over weeks (perhaps months), but they’ve not been able to get to the bottom of it. Your job is to go there and find out if indeed one of those three accused did it, and to basically solve the case.

So what do you do? Certainly your priority is to find out what actually happened (and not so much to pander to what different local cliques insist has happened), but until such time as you’ve actually solved the case, a detailed examination of the allegations of those three cliques (and the cases against three respective candidates) is a bona fide part of your job, isn’t it? You do need to examine those allegations and probe their validity (or otherwise).

Nor can you say : I won’t focus on those three, singling them out as it were, because then I’ll have to focus on every random person in this district! Certainly you can focus attention on anyone you wish (given good reasons), but it is not a random process. It’s not a random selection of suspects and candidates. You’re examining some specific narratives precisely because those narratives are championed (rightly or wrongly) by a large number of people—along with other narratives that you independently find promising. But random candidates and suspects aren’t a valid part of the process (or the argument).

This is not an either-or thing. You’ll also conduct your investigation along other lines. But until you can conclusively show that one of those three hasn’t done it (or unless you solve the case directly by proving that someone else altogether has done it, or perhaps by proving that it was not a murder after all but a natural death or accident), you can’t let those three off the hook (irrespective of details like whether or not you formally accuse them). You can’t let them off the hook, and exclude them from your investigation process, until you’ve investigated them to your satisfaction.

Thus with our “investigation” of the supranormal. We can’t just ignore, without first examining them to our satisfaction, the widely-held views out there. The “Leprechaun argument” is something that, well, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Now you may say, I have already examined these three candidates (read, these particular claims of divinity or claims of the supranormal), and found them wanting. Fine. That may be the case. But that is very different from the Leprechaun argument.

You may also say, Why would I waste my time with examining all these specific claims (which appear asinine despite being so widely supported)? In other words, why would I focus my investigation on those three specific suspects? Think about it : you may not want to pander (and/or be seen to pander) to public pressure, but can you honestly (as a conscientious investigator) afford not to examine those leads? You can remove them from your investigative process only when you’ve first satisfied yourself that they are indeed asinine and unsubstantive, and not before. Which is the same as the earlier case (the previous paragraph), and very different from the Leprechaun argument.

And finally, you may also say : Why would I waste my time with this at all? I have my life to lead. I have better things to do with my time. You’re basically saying, this investigation sucks, and/or it bores me to death, and I’m recusing myself. Which is fine too, but this also is very different from the Leprechaun argument.

I’m saying, the Leprechaun argument makes no sense to me. Not quite a red herring, but something very near to it.

An investigation of Leprechauns can be a legitimate subset of a general investigation of the supranormal if and only if there are very large numbers of people who seem to firmly believe that Leprechauns are gods or gods’ angels or conduits to godhood or whatever ; or if for some independent reason (independent of what others think) you yourself are convinced that there’s a good chance of Leprechauns having something to do with the supranormal. Otherwise you can safely ignore Leprechauns (as well as unicorns and faeries, along with other random ideas and speculations) without that having any bearing on how you study other legitimate (potential) aspects of the supranormal. (And whether you wish to study the supranormal at all, or whether you want to study Leprechaun stories and legends independently of their link to the supranormal, well, those are separate, independent themes which speak to your personal predilections, and have nothing to do with a study of the supranormal per se.)

Sorry! Long comment, that. As often happens with me, I’m afraid! Also, I seem to have put forward here a point of view that’s directly in opposition to the point of view you’ve put across in your comment there. That doesn’t happen normally, but like I said, my intention is just to get the itch out of my mind, the itch that comes from hearing an argument from authoritative sources, which I seem to find lacking. To get the itch out, that is, by having my argument proved either right or wrong (it’s all the same to me, I’ll be equally happy either way), but in a way that makes sense to me. Hope you don’t mind! :-)

[777]

APP_R said :

""To get the itch out, that is, by having my argument proved either right or wrong (it’s all the same to me, I’ll be equally happy either way), but in a way that makes sense to me. Hope you don’t mind! :-)""

You are not honest and it's visible

You might be a detective or Prof in comparable religion
You ignore completely the killer who told you were the knive is
and take hallucinates and non-authorities to spend your time and ink on here

You ignored my statement that you are
absolutely not your body
and that you can easily prove that

Your " I’ll be equally happy "" even, is a false statement
and you are proving that with each line

You can't be without that "itch"

777

[Appreciative Reader]

@777 : my first reaction on reading your comment was both confusion (because what you said made no sense) as well as consternation/irritation (because unlike the Buddha, equanimity is not my first reaction when told to my face, with zero reason and zero provocation, that “you are not honest”). That sounded entirely offensive, and entirely pointlessly so.

But on re-reading, I think I understand what you’re saying. Sort of. I’d said to Brian (in my comment up there, to which you were responding) that I’d be equally happy having either position proved logically ; and you, I think, made a sort of tangential extrapolation of that “I’d be equally happy” part to say that I was wrong, and that I’d be far happier (in your opinion) if I could actually experience what there is to experience, than otherwise. That’s convoluted, but it makes sense, sort of. (I mean, it may or may not be right, but it does make sense coming from someone who believes it to be right.)

Have I read you correctly, 777? Correct me if I’m wrong there. (And if I’m wrong in so reading you, then do explain what you meant by that comment of yours.)

- - - - - - -

I enjoy talking to people about their bona fide spiritual experiences. (That is, what they themselves think are their bona fide experiences—as opposed to merely second-hand information/propaganda.) Without necessarily actually believing myself (nor dismissing with ready disbelief). I find such first-hand accounts of direct experience both interesting and inspiring.

I do “practice” myself, a great actually these days. While striving to remain firmly agnostic, firmly grounded in reality, and firmly skeptical. I haven’t had any extraordinary experiences myself, beyond a deep sense of peace and extraordinary happiness, and an extraordinary clarity of perception (occasionally and temporarily felt). I enjoy these feelings when they come, but see no reason to read too much into them. After all, even a thorough workout or a good run can sometimes have similar (if more muted) effects.

I’m sorry you thought I ignored your statement. I did read it, actually. But hey, I’m far too insignificant a person for it to make any difference at all, one way or the other! (Unlike some others who you read on this blog, I am no “professor”, nor particularly learned, or anything like that. Just a random person who’s benefited immensely from reading Brian’s blog, is all.)

For what it is worth, I find value in all accounts of personal effort and personal experiences on the spiritual path (even as I take them with a pinch of salt). Don’t take offence at that last qualification, because I also take my own “practice” and “experiences” (such as they are) with a generous garnishing of salt. In this kind of diet, there’s no such thing as too much salt! At least that’s my motto. (Meanwhile, one carries one doing what one does. And waits for what might unfold to unfold. Or not.)

[777]

AP PrIciated Reader

You are not alone.
From so many commenters on this blog I have that impression
that they are not sincere seekers but jiglers with words
and sometimes sheer liers;
meaning they don't want any elevation, clearness or spirituallity
even revelation

I first came here , told some here , more than to friends, family because my Love Charan Singh Ji,
someone who has saved me entirely
was so rude incredibly nasty attacked with sheer gossip and complete lies
and knowing there are also real seekers
of truth entering here and they might believe all that

I decided with the help of anonymity to tell a little bit
not even 1 per mille , one per million of what rssb and their Gurus is,
what they establish
And what can happen
What it gives
Also I explained how to interpret what might have happened with the faqir Chand, ( that man is mentioned so often )
and what or how a God in human form might live His Life

So now after almost 2 years I think, almost EVERYBODY ignored
and SPECIALLY ignored the 100% objective physical and completely 'impossible' periodes in my life on which I offered material info about a local journal
the date included
a happening so provable , , , ,
google hinessight+777+vivaldi
and impossible

So you were "at the wrong place at the wrong time"
by making incredibly complex , , , That whhich is simple, . . .
receiving the bullet which in fact was for many here who don't want to hear any truth

Bliss, Peace Love and specially sweet Sound be on You

777

[observer]

777, good on you for keeping going with your comments (your dharma) :)

I'm watching and listening and sometimes a comment of yours will uplift me quite a lot. I'm very questioning now and too sceptical maybe.

Now thinking I shall try to be like I was when first initiated and full of wonder and love for the guru... I miss that magical thinking...

[Appreciative Reader]

WTF, 777, that’s crazy fundamentalist talk! Do you even realize how crazy what you said sounds?

Before you start feeling outraged and angry and sorry for your much-persecuted self, please read all of my comment.

I appreciate that your rudeness was not directed at me, but at the hordes of godless uncaring insincere irresponsible wretches that besmirch this blogspace (of whose company you had mistakenly thought me ; but you now realize I’m a virtuous pious soul). Thanks for your implied compliment and your goodwill, but…

I happened to share what I did about my “practice” in the course of my comment, but now I’m regretting it. It seems that that is what has made you see me as a friend as opposed to an enemy. But why do you need to make enemies at all? Why do you need guns and “bullets” at all, and what right have you to be shooting “bullets” anyway?

Your reply makes it evident that I was wrong in my interpretation of your earlier comment to me. You’re saying, if there’s someone here who will speak of “all this” merely as an intellectual exercise, without necessarily “seeking”, you will then call them a liar. How weird and twisted is that! First, that’s factually incorrect : not sharing your particular interests is not “lying”. Any dictionary will tell you that. As well as being factually incorrect, what you said is also rude, offensive. Why would you go dissing somebody just because their interests are different from yours?

Do you see what I am saying? Your thoughts as expressed in those two comments of yours are the exact definition of fundamentalist-speak!

I have for quite some time simply lurked on here, without actually commenting, partly because I didn’t want to speak out of total ignorance (I’m still very ignorant, but probably slightly less so now than a year or so back), but also because commenting sometimes results in exactly this kind of pointless back-and-forth. But having started with this conversation, I think I need to see it through.

I’ve arm-wrestled with the “militant atheist” point of view on this blog (as represented by commenters like x/cc) a few times, simply because I felt it unfair that “believers” should be spoken to rudely and dismissed out of hand. But if faced with comments like yours, I cannot blame the atheist for his asperity and his abrasiveness. If some red-faced fundamentalist shouts out his rants at the atheist, gleeking spittle all over his face, well then he’s quite justified in pushing back, hard.

Your experiences are all good and fine, 777 : but do you see the absurdity of your feeling offended at someone not sharing your particular interests, and do you see how entirely out of place your own rudeness is to people whose only fault is that they think differently than you and have different interests?

Do you not see how weird your stance looks? Think of a fitness freak, or someone who’s fond of some particular type of literature, who suddenly starts abusing others and calling them liars just because those others don’t care to actually put in the effort to work out in a gym or don’t care for literature, or because they aren’t particularly interested in this person’s words of wisdom as regards powerlifting or literature. Doesn’t that conjure up the image of a nutjob? Why on earth would you want to be that kind of a person?

- - - - - - -

I am generally very uncomfortable speaking less than cordially with people. I would normally have apologized at the end of this little speech, and asked you not to take it in the wrong spirit. But you know what? I won’t this time. If someone’s prepared to go abusing others for no good reason (and yes, I do realize it wasn’t I who was the object of your near-invective, but those godless “others” on here : but the principle of the thing still applies), then there’s no reason why they can’t take the occasional tough talk without wilting or feeling hurt.

And you know why I’m getting so hyper about what you said? Because a world where people try to force their religious thoughts on others is a truly frightening world ; and we need to always be on our guard, each one of us, lest we slip back into that hellish way of thinking.

- - - - - - -

All that said, I am still interested in your accounts of your experiences. Very much so. Thanks for the search-string link you gave me in your comment, and I’ll be sure to check it out.

Also : I’m not into RSSB myself, but I take your wishes to me at the end in the spirit in which they were meant, and thank you for your heartfelt wishes.

[x]

That's what you get, AR, for trying to decode 777's messages from beyond.

[777]

AR
'm almost half way and will answer paragraph's wise :

So on : the leading phrase :""Why would you go dissing somebody just because their interests are different from yours?""

It might be my english but I don't think that :
Although I oppose going near the Great Designer flagging our intellect,
and know ( not 'believe' but know as in " have seen " ) that IQ is that part of the mind, called 'ahankar' which is translated often by sense of "I AM", . . "proud", , ,
eevn less than that
primordial sin : the idea that we exist , , , while we do not
(please take the code book mr X )
In short : intellect is DOOMED at the long run because it's zero with Love
Now on the planet with this type of brain we have it makes some sense : because we can bring a spoon to our mouth, throw a stone on Mars
but there are Beings, Jeevas, call them Souls able to use IQ for creating "big bangs" like ours , . . hundreds p second

These beings are less proud of their achievements than human beings because being able to read ,
because they know they can do their tricks as a far away proxy of the central Power

Now , . . why referring to these called "Powers of God" by the catholics
to accentuate the unbelievable way discussions here are based seemingly on IQ ( that's where everybody is proud of ) at the same time continuesly
offering : 1+2= 5, not even 4,

So while referring to science and all the time Einstein and Higgs included all the time they ignore The Buddha's first and only comment
"Thy shall never change, diminish your conscience"
a tip also from the bible concerning the mill stone

So , , often , , particularly when I do NOT speak of the super sound of "May The Force be with You" and use kindergarten logic simple but clear
all speakers grow silent / numb
and repeat their doubts from where AS IF NOTHING CLEAR WAS OFFERED

IS 1+1=2, IS THAT PREACHING

777

to be continued after reading more of your comment

[Appreciative Reader]

Dear 777,

I know I’d said I wouldn’t apologize to you for my earlier less-than-wholly-cordial comment to you, but I do.

Quite irrespective of the merits of your comment or mine, I should feel terrible if my words might end up making you feel bad. Perhaps they don’t, of course : but I should hate it if they did.

I spoke in haste. I have no business trying to spread around my piddling little store of wisdom. At least not in that sanctimonious tone, which I fully regret.

My best wishes to you.

P.S. Afraid I haven’t had time to check out your links yet, but I will. Meanwhile, can you elaborate on those super beings you write about? I’d be interested in knowing how exactly you know of these supermen and superwomen. Have you encountered them in the course of your spectral trips? I’m not mocking you or anything here (I say this because the written word is unable to convey tone of voice and therefore intent particularly well unless actually spelt out), merely taking you at face value and reserving judgment, and asking for more details (including any evidence -- and that includes subjective evidence -- that you might have). I’d enjoy reading a factual description of such first-hand experience.

[Jim Sutherland]

Hi All: its been awhile since I've checked here to see who is winning the most Converts among the Exers and from 777's Camp. For a fresh review of what motivates a "real" Guru to do what they do, for any not familiar with these letters, Ratnagarro posted for Free on Scribd "Hazur's Foreign Correspondence Letters 1911 - 1934" . These are 200 pages of early letters to Americans starting in 1911 ending with Dr. Julian Johnson getting initiated by Dr. Brock, then moving to India. Reading these letters might renew exers faith. I liked the following on one of Sawan Singh's letters: page 122 and top of page 123 in Hazur's Correspondence. He writes: "The Supreme Creator and the individual spirit in creation are connected together through the Sound Current , but Kal , also the creation of The Supreme Being, separates the individual spirit from the Current by coming in between , as minds and forms. Thence the individual feels disconnected, but not so the Creator."

So I can understand that, and why Meditation can reconnect us. So, by that, "we" spirits were never created. We are Eternal not in any Time/ Space dimension. Only mind/forms are created by Kal, also created, so are interconnected in Spirit.

Also, what are Dr. Iswar Puri's motives at 88 years old to be traveling the world giving Satsangs for Sawan Singh, and initiating Seekers once a year every April at At his Master's Bhanda? He has over 60 Lectures on Youtube that describes the Sant Mat Path the clearedt I have ever heard it in English!

Cheers,
Jim

[John Soulman (pseudonym)]

Hello Brian trust all is well in your karmic dance of life

My first visit to your website was ‘accidental” ... in that had read your Sant Mat recommended book and was searching to see what else you had written

As a result of reading your website at the time ... felt an impulse to respond to one of your articles (cannot remember which one now)

My response was simply that had been a long time initiate ... had satisfied self from inner experiences ... that what was in the Sant Mat books is genuine.

So to now ... this am during meditation had a “knowing” to go to your website to read the articles in the last few years ... here is my response

Though it is not advisable to share ones inner experiences ... am about to do so to give non believers a different perspective ... given out of love not ego !

This experience in 2004 was 7 years after my initiation by Beloved Babaji’s representative on 26/7/1997 ... had diligently followed Beloveds guidelines ...

have had other inner experiences prior-since but this is the one that is not so personal .

Experienced such indescribable Joy-Bliss ... Beloved Babaji’s Blessing in Meditation ... such energy surges from the feet up ...

my whole body racked by spasms ... tingly heat ... eventually lost all bodily feeling ... like being paralysed ...

such ringing inside my head ... colours-flashes of very bright white .

Saw self from above self … from above the planet trailing a silvery thin cord ...

self was in the form of an embryo attached to the earth with a mothers birth cord...

Rushing starriness ... moon ... then went straight through the sun ... then beautiful landscape ...

rocky gentle river, fir trees, meadows, high snow flecked mountains ... like in the Canadian Rockies ...

Beloved Master took off his turban ... he smiled as he flicked his beautiful, glistening shoulder length black hair ...

no trace of grey in hair-beard ... thought how beautiful-radiant ... reminded me of Master Jesus ...

Through the whole experience was doing simran … felt so Contented, Joyful, Blissful ...

then seemed to zip back into my body ... like a genie into a bottle ... once again could move ... elapsed time 1 hour 20 mins ie 10 pm

NOTES:

It’s wonderful how Master answers one through the books … subsequently read what Master Sawan Singh wrote which substantiates this experiences …

"When by repetition of the names, with attention fixed in the eye focus, you have become unconscious of the body below the eyes ... your attention will catch the sound current ... select the church bell, and discard all other sounds ... slowly your soul will leave the body and collect in the eyes ...

When the concentration is complete, it will appear as if you are separate from the body... the starry sky will appear in time ... fix your attention in the bright star and continue repetition ... When approached it will burst, and your attention will penetrate through it ... the starry sky has been crossed ... in the same manner the sun and the moon ... after the moon, Masters radiant form appears, fix your attention, and hand yourself over to Master .

Conclusion:

~ Based on my 17 years of experience ... if initiates do not have inner experiences ... there are probably 3 reasons

I They are not doing the daily time required ... at initiation made the commitment to do 3 hours daily ... once made did not have to make a daily decision

II They are not doing it properly ie falling asleep ... not concentrating etc

III They do not go with the FLO ... Faith Love Obedience ...

Meditation is Devotion ... there should be no expectations ... Beloveds Grace will come when the time is right

~ Have a private spiritual website www.spiritus.com.au established 1999 ... which at Beloved Babaji’s request ... has had all references to RSSB removed

also a worldly website www.CRAG1.webs.com

Trust this note + websites will help some

: SPIRITUS Community Ambassadors helping seekers after Truth www.spiritus.com.au:

: CRAG Community Reformation Action Group:community awareness advocates www.CRAG1.webs.com :

: We are prodigal Souls : immortal essences of Supreme Soul : having a transitory human experience : holographic puppets playing our role in Beloveds interactive
karmic dance of Life:

: Our soul journey: Awareness > Awakening > Understanding > Detachment >Transparency > Patience > Forgiveness > Compassion > Love > Surrender >
Gratitude > Contentment > Peace > Joy

: Peace be with you in the Light of Beloved God’s Unconditional Everlasting Love: Beloved BE:

[William]

Hi Brian
I was listening to a talk on the topic of What is a Guru? by Alan Watts. You may well find it interesting. Here's the link that will bring you to the pertinent part of that talk. https://youtu.be/sAq2NY0Tjf8?t=1m54s

[777]

Hi Crag
So nice to hear positivity on rssb
You stated that with discipline all promises come true
I stated that even without the discipline the Grace and Merci is collosal
It’s fabulous
I visited your site
http://crag1.webs.com/banksters.htm

Yes, . . They type F12 on the keyboard to create a trillion+
Your explanation proves that indeed these murderous banksters tripled the
available planet*assets of 250 Trillion
500 thin air , which can never be restored to end the crisis
on
http://crag1.webs.com/vaccinesgenocide.htm

On Autist forums and sitesI often , I often ask
if somewhere on the planet
the old-fashion-way of manufactuting vaccins
with very short expiration dates ( like 3 days )
directly from the cow ( vacca es - vache fr )
like the milkmaid who was never sick and told Pasteur

if that old-style vaccins are still available

Actually indeed , for export & 10 yr expiration time reasons - they add so many
ir-realistic stuffs like barium and formaldehide ( not mentioned on yr page )
and just these additions multiplie the number of deaths / autists by 1000

777

[Averil]

Hello Brian

You have been attacking Sant Mat and the Gurus for many years now. Brian, surely by now Sant Mat should be out of your system as you are no longer a follower. Its almost as though you need confirmation from others that leaving the Path was definitely the correct decision you made or are you trying to collect followers of your belief system.
I have friends, family and co-workers who follow so many different paths and some not. I love and respect them for what they believe and don't try to convert them to what I follow and believe.
Surely you can now move on and re-discover yourself and where you are going to and what you believe in and start practicing what you stand for. Leave all other religions and belief systems to the followers.
It is almost as though you cannot let go of Sant Mat.

[Brian Hines]

Averil, actually I write rarely about RSSB and Sant Mat. And I hardly ever think about the gurus or their teachings (except when someone like you brings up the subject). All that just isn't a part of my life anymore. I guess you have been focused on posts from the past, along with a few from recent years.

So thanks for the advice, but I've been "practicing what I stand for" my entire life and have continued to do so. I've let go of Sant Mat, but you obviously haven't.

That's fine. Each to his or her own. If beliefs make us happy, sometimes it's OK to keep on believing in them, even if there is no evidence that they are true.