Why do otherwise intelligent and reasonable people lose touch with reality when religion is involved?
I've been wondering about this whenever I read comments on this blog from fervent defenders of Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas who is deeply involved in financial fraud totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.
They ignore obvious facts. They offer up ridiculous excuses for inexcusable behavior. They keep repeating falsehoods even after the truth has been repeatedly pointed out to them.
Today I read further in Martin Hägglund's excellent book, "This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom." (Which I wrote about here recently.)
In his Responsibility chapter, Hägglund discusses at length Soren Kierkegaard's discussion in his "Fear and Trembling" of the Old Testament story of Abraham and his son, Issac. Somehow Abraham was willing to kill his beloved son because God wanted him to.
Basically, Hägglund argues that Abraham was motivated by religious faith, not secular faith. In my previous post I included some quotes from his book that explain the central difference between these kinds of faith.
Secular faith is committed to persons and projects that may be lost: to make them live on for the future. Far from being resigned to death, a secular faith seeks to postpone death and improve the conditions of life. As we will see, living on should not be conflated with eternity.
...The object of religious faith, by contrast, is taken to be independent of the fidelity of finite beings. The object of religious faith -- whether God or any other form of infinite being -- is ultimately regarded as separable from the practice of faith, since it does not depend on any form of finite life.
So it seems clear that those who attempt to excuse the RSSB guru of all wrongdoing, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, are acting much like Abraham.
Because the guru is considered by devotees to be God in human form, their religious faith is separable from any and all actions in this finite world that Gurinder Singh Dhillon might take, no matter how wrong those actions might be. These devotees have blind faith in the godliness of the guru.
Here in the United States, President Trump famously said during his election campaign, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."
This sounds a lot like religious faith. It also sounds a lot like the RSSB devotees who apparently would forgive any actions of their guru, no matter how despicable.
Here's some additional excerpts from Hägglund's book that I read today. They cast additional light on the distinction between religious and secular faith.
Religious faith, by definition, doesn't care about other people, or anything else on Earth. Like Abraham, those in the grip of religious faith are willing to sacrifice anyone and anything, including their own secular sense of right and wrong, in the name of an imagined eternity.
Thus religious faith is dangerous. It leads people to kill, torture, maim, hurt, do anything that they envision their God or godlike human commands. Caring, love, compassion -- these are characteristics of secular faith, which I'm proud to embrace.
Hägglund describes these two sorts of faith:
Religious faith:
Moreover, the inwardness of religious faith disarms the real risks of objective uncertainty.
A marriage is objectively uncertain in the sense that it can actually break and leave me shattered. Eternal happiness, however, is objectively uncertain in the sense that it can neither be proved nor disproved.
As long as I keep faith in eternal happiness, it cannot be taken away from me, since the only criterion for its existence is my own faith that it will be given to me.
No external criteria can refute my hope for eternal happiness, and nothing external to my own will can force me to give it up. Eternal happiness cannot be given to me by the finite, but for the same reason it cannot be taken away from me by the finite.
It has nothing to do with anything in the external world, but is entirely a matter of my inward relation to my absolute telos. [ultimate object or aim]
Secular faith:
In contrast, secular faith necessarily remains vulnerable.
As long as you keep secular faith, you can be defeated by loss. Affirming your life-defining commitment as a parent -- and loving your child wholeheartedly -- does not protect you from the pain of conflict, the bereavement of broken hopes, or the possible devastation of losing your child.
On the contrary, it is because you are keeping faith with your child -- and holding on to your life-defining commitment as a parent -- that you are all the more vulnerable to these experiences.
Such vulnerability is the condition for any form of responsiveness to -- and responsibility for -- what happens to the one you love. By being devoted to someone who is finite, I have to be responsive to what befalls him or her, even if the events are adverse to my own hopes and desires.
I am committed to fight for him or her to live on and flourish, but also bound to recognize if and when there is defeat.
...Given that your relation to the past and the future depends on faith, you may be deceived by what you think is certain, mistaken by what you take for granted, and shattered by what you never expected.
Your vulnerability to those risks is due to the existential commitment of secular faith. Because you are existentially committed to someone or something, you can feel the pain of being deceived, mistaken, or shattered.
Faiths and beliefs are temporary glue which one has to initially stick to taking the religious or spiritual offers as gospel ttruth upto a few sincere steps from any spiritual sect. Any further essentially demands real experience to ground or transform that faith into an empirical fact.
Definitely it may require considerable patience and perseverence to gather concrete evidence of same inside of us as an active reality of the Self - our consciousness - our soul floating in astral and causal regions due to. RSSB.path here ( yet to explore).
While I think initial meditative experiences may have similar or common progress symptoms.or billboards towards the inside due to any form of meditative practice, about which some of us interpret these as brains' extraordinary potential to move beyond logics of this world. Also some of us on this blog holds testimony to subtle inner experiences and to paint it as a plain and exclusive belief stuff seems difficult to accept even though the inner facts have even been challenged by Baba Fakir's theory.
We are in trouble if we think beyond life and that may prompt us to peep into beyond life phenomena thru the available options - the best of which has been the RSSB path.
Posted by: Meditator | June 16, 2019 at 03:04 AM
I find it interesting that we are constantly surprised where, in spite of overwhelming evidence, people still support and cling to their adopted view or belief. In simple psychological terms it is cognitive dissonance:- 'The mental discomfort that arises where a situation in which a person’s belief clashes with new evidence is perceived by the person.'
But we don't always have to rely totally on science. It is quite possible to see these processes in ourselves as they happen. It requires just one principle – honest enquiry. Unfortunately we are almost incapable of applying this principle to ourselves on account of the fact that our minds are generally dishonest.
The mind cannot help being dishonest. Its very function is to protect and maintain its contents – its conditioning – at any cost, including truth. It certainly does not always want the truth. Truth would expose its insubstantial nature. It would expose the insubstantial nature of the information from which we derive the sense of self. The whole naked illusion would be revealed – although the mind would still be functioning as our source of information necessary for day to day living.
Exposing the mind would mean exposing the self – the me, I, ego structure. For this composite structure it would feel like death and no one, no mind/self structure would entertain that. Hence the quite natural rejection of evidence.
And here's a thought – perhaps such nakedness of the mind structure is enlightenment!
Posted by: Turan | June 16, 2019 at 09:04 AM
How apropos. As soon as I think I’ve gotten this whole RSSB thing out of my head it pops up in my dreams. Had a really strange dream last night. One that left me thinking for quite some time.
There is no risk in the belief or faith in concepts like love, goodness, an all forgiving benevolent higher power that is only there to encourage you to be better.
But gurudom is different. It’s akin to being a drug addict. Despite the fact that I suffered from panic attacks as an “RSSB-er”, I never actually had one when I was in the same room as GSD. It was the whole attachment thing that gave me panic attacks and having finally broken away from it all is, for me, like “getting clean”. My self-worth and survival is not dependent upon what one man thinks of me.
Ideals are good. Something to strive for. Hero worship is bad. That level of psychological dependence on another person is anything but healthy.
Getting away from it completely is like going to rehab.
Posted by: Sonya | June 16, 2019 at 12:06 PM
DEVOTION is a one way street.
Once you enter, you cannot reverse.
At least not unless you let go of the basis of your devotion.
The issue here is - the foundation and the reason for that devotion is HUGE.
The whole spiritual future of the disciple hangs on it.
Most disciples will simply not risk their whole spiritual future.
They don't care if the scandals are true or not.
It's irrelevant, because the guru is going to take then to Sach Khand and they don't want to lose the ticket. After all, they have spent their whole life paying for the ticket.
The ticket is not for sale.
And - they have heard all the stories of the gurus who tested the faith of the followers.
naturally - the guru is just testing their faith and they are not going to fail.
Those who love have left logic way way behind.
They don't care about logic because they claim love and love is beyond logic.
If you listen to any devotional songs such as Bulleh shah's - there is no logic.
listen to this mix of the nooran sisters based on Bulleh shah (it's Punjabi)
can you see any logic in it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-JsttFuRvE
The lover is not a logician and he doesn't care about truth - he has love instead.
He cannot be convinced because he lives in a different world.
Posted by: Osho Robbins | June 16, 2019 at 12:12 PM
@Osho,
Very well said. I just don’t understand why there has to be a divorce between love and logic. Shouldn’t both love and logic represent truth? A little logic keeps you from joining a kool-aid drinking Haley’s comet cult...
Sometimes we fall in love with people who are bad for us and become blind to their faults. We marry them and later discover they have another family somewhere else. That was a silly example (although some people have actually had that experience) but you get the point.
Posted by: Sonya | June 16, 2019 at 05:09 PM
Trump's comment about shooting someone and people still being loyal has a bit of context to it.
1) It was a joke, and it got a huge laugh from the audience
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTACH1eVIaA
2) The point behind the joke was that the loyalty of Trump's base was far greater than that of other candidates.
3) The reason why Trump's base was exceedingly loyal was because "they're smart." That is, their intelligence in seeing that his ideas for leading the country were better than the other candidates.
There's nothing inherently wrong with loyalty. Loyalty is part of what hold society together.
Of course, it's wrong to be blindly-loyal to a criminal. But endlessly calling someone a criminal doesn't make him one. We just went through 2 years of the media and the DNC assuring us that the president was had colluded with Russia and was therefore a traitor. Turns out there was no evidence of that. And so today, 51% of the public supports Trump. This could be blind loyalty, but it might be something else.
As for Gurinder. To me, things don't look good (I'm more disturbed by Talwar's accusations than anything else). And yet I don't see any reason for why the RSSB sangat shouldn't continue to stand with Gurinder, and wait for conclusive evidence that he engaged in wrongdoing.
Posted by: J | June 16, 2019 at 06:54 PM
@Sonya
you wrote - I just don’t understand why there has to be a divorce between love and logic. Shouldn’t both love and logic represent truth?
Love & logic are simply different worlds.
Logically nobody would ever fall in love. There are no logical advantages.
And you cannot reason with a person who has fallen in love.
Love cannot be explained logically.
John falls in love with Jane.
You explain to John that Sarah is prettier and more educated and more intelligent and has a better career.
Will he switch over?
No - he will say, "Yes - but I am in love with Jane"
It's a bit too late for logic.
I agree it would be a good idea if logic remained - but it doesn't -
unless of course - you're not really in love yet and you can still escape.
So caming back to RSSB - those who are on the threshold and not committed yet - they can leave. But the ones who have already long
decided that this is their path and given up - thet are in love with the path and their guru,
When you attack their guru - its worse than attacking them.
They will stand by their guru - no matter what happens.
They will never abandon their guru,
in real practical terms there is a hidden agenda.
There is a benefit and logic hasn't really gone. It's in the background.
that is why the lover is constantly checking to make sure the beloved
also loves him/her.
Normally it's assumed, because the lover puts the beloved on a pedestal.
The beloved can do no wrong.
The lover finds a reason for every action of the beloved.
in RSSB terms - the followers who are deeply entrenched - they cannot leave.
They are too far gone. They cannot think of a life without their path and their guru. The guru is their everything. You can point out all the blemishes.
They don't care - they don't see blemishes. The beloved is perfect.
Beauty is in the eye of the lover.
Majnu said "if you want to see the beauty of laila - you need my eyes"
Those who love the guru dont care about any financial fraud.
They will always stand by their guru.
You cannot weaken their faith with mere factual evidence.
When I go to the mic and have a conversation with their guru
even I am a threat unless I fully agree with him.
The moment I am seen to disagree or debate - I am the enemy
because they cannot bear to see anyone question their Lord.
Their guru is king and nobody is allowed to question him.
The true followers will defend him with their life.
Darshan Das was shot while giving a public satsang.
The paathi saw the man with the gun first.
He immediately put himself in front of the guru and took the first bullet.
Logically that makes no sense. Why die? But to him - nothing except the
guru matters.
you can call it delusional - but not to the lover.
check out this footage from gordon ramsay.
the guy believes in his pizzas and gordon is saying
"but you have no customers"
still the guy insists he will franchise his pizzas soon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuFXyuH1voM
Posted by: Osho Robbins | June 16, 2019 at 10:04 PM
J, maybe I'm calling for Gurinder to be jailed because being an early Trump supporter, I didn't get to take part in the witch hunt and calling for him to be killed, his children raped, etc like much of America did, especially many of the influential drug addicts of hollywood who we're supposed to think are saying important things. There was something primal in that media created mob that I feel I missed out on, so I'm taking part here by being Gurinder's Pharisee.
Funny thing is that I've become a Trump hater in the last few months, though for all different reasons (hint, I don't think masses of unknown people invading my country should get automatic air conditioned full service hotels with swimming pools before being confirmed as citizens). I believe our acting president at the moment is Jared Kushner who despite being a formal member of an active genocidal ethnic supremacist group who celebrate with parades the shooting of children, medical workers and journalists, rarely gets a bad word spoken about him in the press, and nearly everything he advocates for the genocidal foreign country he is likely a dual citizen of comes to pass while Trump's domestic agenda has been 100% thwarted.
I could easily give Trump a pass for hiring Kushner, just as I could for his hiring of psychopaths Bolton and Pompeo, but I think hiring them makes him guilty even if he had good intentions, which at this point I have no reason to believe. He's probably being bribed.
Being a good leader means carefully selecting your inner circle, and both Trump and Gurinder seem to have a knack for surrounding themselves with criminality. There are times and circumstances when association is a crime. These guys aren't just having tea with criminal fraudsters and war hawks.
People here have likened Gurinder to Jesus saying that Jesus dined with all the bad people of his time. But let's remind ourselves that Jesus didn't hire them all and ask them to continue doing their sinful activities for his personal monetary benefit. Assuming Jesus ever existed. Same goes for all "saints" of all religion, even the highly recommended ones on the underground A-list who throw feces like apes.
Posted by: Jesse | June 16, 2019 at 10:59 PM
When you project Love on one .person it is true what you say Osho.
But when you just feel ,know, recognise Love in your Heart...
Love becomes different..
More Clear..
Recognising..
Understanding..
Always Love for Everyone..
Differentiation makes no difference..
Because one sees things clearly..
So Love for one person..is different..
from
Seeing Love everywhere..
Not easy in this world with stupid ''children playing''..they have to learn soo soo much..
Like we all have as long as we are here on the planet..
Posted by: s* | June 17, 2019 at 12:13 AM
@Osho
Good point. There’s nothing logical about being “in-love”. And I think there’s a big difference between loving someone or thing and actually being in-love with that person or thing.
Posted by: Sonya | June 17, 2019 at 12:28 AM
@Sonya
Good point. There’s nothing logical about being “in-love”. And I think there’s a big difference between loving someone or thing and actually being in-love with that person or thing.
"Loving Someone" would be an action. Something you enact. Like a duty. In the same way a disciple may choose to love the master. He chose the path and now he must create love. That's the "act" of trying to create love. There is a reason and a motive behind it.
"Being In-Love" is when it has happened. It's too late to run for the exit now. Now you are in the hotel California - you can check out any time you like - but you can never leave.
Leaving is no longer an option because you cannot imagine your life without the beloved now.
There is also a stage of "infatuation" which feels like "in-love"
Usually infatuation does not last - it is a temporary stage.
Like when you first hear about the guru and then are excited at the prospect of meeting this amazing person.
Sheena's journey in her book shows these stages. When she first hears of the master - she wants it more than anything. Then she meets him and that bond is created over time.
Even when her friends are telling her she is an idiot to go back after all that has happened - still she returns. She was "in-love" and reasoning with her at that point was impossible.
She managed to escape only because she saw behind the curtain. The great wizard of Oz was just an old man.
Ultimately the purpose of the guru is to get you to leave. Once you mature and grow up - find your own feet.
He was only there because you needed that for a while.
Every child has that connection with their mother. The child learns love only from the connection with their mother. The child grows up and leads his own life - he doesnt remain with his mother forever. It's a stage. he grows and moves on.
Posted by: Osho Robbins | June 17, 2019 at 01:45 AM
Osho,
Yes, ideally one would find their own feet and move on, but some things keep coming back like a bad dream. 😂
Just when I think I’ll never see GSD again, there he is...
Posted by: Sonya | June 17, 2019 at 07:40 AM
The references to Russia, Israel and immigration remind me of the band Foreigner. Once, in a general satsang, a speaker quoted lyrics from "I Want to Know What Love Is." Dangerous move, considering thoughts could turn to "Hot Blooded."
Posted by: anami | June 17, 2019 at 08:04 AM
Religious faith, by definition, doesn't care about other people, or anything else on Earth.
Thus religious faith is dangerous. It leads people to kill, torture, maim, hurt, do anything that they envision their God or godlike human commands. Caring, love, compassion -- these are characteristics of secular faith, which I'm proud to embrace.
This is an extremely prejudiced and narrow minded view of Religious faith.
Is it only religious people who portray the negative qualities you list above?
Likewise, the positive qualities are only the purview of the non religious?
I think the Author of the book reinforces Religious faith as the best way forward.
Gotta have sumthin to believe in, as the song goes!
Posted by: Michael | June 17, 2019 at 09:41 AM
Sometimes one just looses Love.
What actually IS it??..
One can feel it and one can loose it..at times.
Maybe it's gift when it's there..
Posted by: s* | June 17, 2019 at 10:29 AM
Anami are you just mentioning band names that you know I'd hate? I saw those Rush lyrics, man. You're walking on thin ice!
And to whoever up there that said "There’s nothing logical about being “in-love,” It seems better to reduce it to "there's nothing logical."
Posted by: Jesse | June 17, 2019 at 12:55 PM
Jesse--
Yes, no pun intended.
Posted by: anami | June 17, 2019 at 02:05 PM