I have a "Brian Hines, Author" Facebook page. And an extra copy of Steve Hagen's book.

Last week I got around to fixing two typos in my Break Free of Dogma book. That took some emailing back and forth with the folks at ebookpbook, as they had designed my 2019 collection of selected posts from the early years of this blog, 2004-06. 

After getting print and Kindle files with the typos corrected, I uploaded them to Amazon and basked in the good feeling of finally having a typo-free book. Which led me to think, "Now is the time to do some promoting of Break Free of Dogma," something I hadn't done much of before.

Being familiar with buying ads, or boosted posts, on Facebook due to my political advocacy of local progressive candidates here in Salem, Oregon, I wanted to start that way. 

And that meant fashioning a Brian Hines, Author Facebook page. Since I'd done that several times, it went smoothly. The toughest part was getting our dining room table set up for a cover photo to be taken by my wife. Here's the iPhone result. Not bad. It fits nicely on my Facebook page.

Only two of my four books would fit in the photo. Hopefully they aren't jealous of the books that were chosen to frame my face. I've given Facebook $100 to plug a post about Break Free of Dogma with atheists, agnostics, and free thinkers in the United States. 

If you want, give my Brian Hines, Author Facebook page a like by clicking on, not surprisingly, the "Like" button under the cover photo. 

In the course of re-reading the first part of my book to make sure there weren't any unnoticed typos, I came across a January 2005 post where I mentioned Steve Hagen's book, Buddhism Plain and Simple. I bought another copy a few weeks ago, having forgotten that I already had one. 

I'm glad that I did.

After 15 years of increasing churchlessness, my view on reality has become considerably more godless than when I first read Hagen's book. So reading it again was like the very first time. (Of course, even if my views hadn't changed, my memory of the book would have been dim.)

The 2005 post was called "Religious questioning is natural." Here it is. I've added a few extra paragraph breaks to make the post easier to read. (Blogs were called weblogs way back when.)

Like most bloggers, I love getting email. Making connections with like-minded (or unlike-minded) people from anywhere in the world is a wonderful reward for the time and effort that goes into a weblog.

Recently I got a message from another member of the spiritual group, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), that I’ve been involved with for thirty-five years. This is how my correspondent ended his email:

I do not know whether you will feel the following questions too personal to answer, but if you do not mind , will you mind answering them?: Are you or were you ever a satsangi? What is your spiritual philosophy these days? Can you comment at all on the Sant Mat Gurus, especially Maharaj Gurinder Singh? How do you recommend one seeks the Ultimate Truth?

By “satsangi” he meant specifically an initiate of the mystical path known variously as Sant Mat, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, Science of the Soul, Surat Shabd Yoga, or Radha Soami. Satsangi is a generic word that literally means “one who associates with truth (sat).”

Since many spiritual groups in India and elsewhere consider that they are on the path to knowing truth, you can be a “satsangi” of various denominations—to use a rather ill-fitting Christian term. “Satsang” is a meeting of satsangis, a service if you will.

I was asked good questions, some obviously much easier to answer than others. Though personal, I didn’t mind making a stab at answering them and have shared my response below.

I realize my language will seem foreign to many people. But substitute, for example, “Pope” for “Master” and “Catholic Church” for “Radha Soami Satsang Beas” if my message seems too distant from your own experience.

My basic point is universal: after you’ve belonged to a religious or spiritual organization for more than a few years, it’s natural to be more critical of it. The more knowledgeable you become about a church, faith, philosophy, or theology, the more flaws you’ll find.

The ultimate reality we call “God” can’t be confined within any manmade system. Religions try to put bounds around boundlessness, but this is a futile exercise. Truth always finds a way to express itself. So I encourage people to trust their direct experience over abstract concepts.

When something seems wrong about the spiritual path you’re following, likely it is. If it appears that you can drop some inessential ritualistic practice, almost certainly you should. Keep what works for you; discard what doesn’t.

Here’s my mildly edited response to the questions I was asked:

Dear ________:

I am indeed a Sant Mat (RSSB) initiate, dating way back from the class of 1971. I now am inclined to shy away from labels such as “satsangi.” My wife is a non-initiate and I have found that this satsangi/non-satsangi distinction is unproductive, just as the Christian/non-Christian distinction is.

Sometimes a satsangi will phone us; my wife answers and hears the greeting, “Radha soami.” She then says, “Hello.” The caller again says, “Radha soami.” She refuses to go further with the conversation until the person communicates like a normal human being rather than a cult member.

I’ve become a bit of a Sant Mat “heretic,” just as you seem to be. Maybe more than “a bit of” in fact.

My quest these days is to discern the essential in spirituality. The rest seems to be in the realm of religion, not mysticism or what I like to call spiritual science. There is a lot of religiosity in RSSB even though this path supposedly isn’t a religion. When blind belief and faith are elevated over direct experience and questioning, I call that a religion.

I still feel a lot of fondness for RSSB/Sant Mat and continue to attend satsang most Sundays. But I’ll admit that I go more for the socializing than for the satsang. Our post-satsang coffee shop conversations go on for considerably longer, and with considerably more enthusiasm, than the 45 minute satsang.

My spiritual philosophy keeps evolving in the direction of Advaita and non-religious Buddhism, assuming those terms really mean anything, which I suspect they don’t. Immersing myself in the teachings of the Greek philosopher Plotinus exacerbated my existing tendencies in that direction.

I think you would enjoy my book “Return to the One,” though since I’m the author, I’m obviously horribly biased. Plotinus’ philosophy is remarkably close to that of Sant Mat, with the notable exception of not mentioning the need for a living “guru.” Or, for that matter, a dead guru.

I’ve been reading several books by Steven Hagen, who I like a lot.

His “Buddhism Plain and Simple” reverberates with me, as does “Buddhism is Not What You Think: Finding Freedom Beyond Beliefs.” I don’t agree with everything Hagen says, but I very much appreciate his attempt to get beyond the religiosity of Buddhism and reach the essential core, which he says is simply seeing.

I empathize with your frustration with Sant Mat meditation, and RSSB in general. We’re different people, so my experience may have no relevance to your own.

All I can say is that I’ve been energized by taking a fresh look at what seems to work for me in meditation, and what doesn’t, regardless of whether it is 100% Sant Mat certified. The goal in Sant Mat meditation, after all, is to do nothing. No mantra, no visualization. Just being there as soul, pure consciousness, and experiencing whatever is there.

This is perfectly compatible with Hagen’s plain and simple Buddhism, and also with Ramana’s plain and simple Advaita. Ramana is another teacher whom I’ve enjoyed reading, finding in him the core of mystic practice without the distractions of complex concepts and suppositions.

Re. Master Gurinder Singh, since I don’t know who I am, I certainly would make no claim to understanding anyone else. Only Master Gurinder Singh knows who Master Gurinder Singh is.

Since he doesn’t make any claims of godliness for himself, one can either surmise (1) that he is a humble god-man, or (2) that he isn’t a god-man. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter which is true. It’s my own experience that I’m concerned about, not the Master’s.

That is, my current approach to spirituality is basically this: I’ll do my best to meditate and discover what lies beyond appearances.

I believe that if the cosmos is One, and I’m part of it, that whatever the essence of me is, also is the essence of the cosmos. Wherever this journey leads, I’ll believe in what I see and experience directly. Everything else is just a hypothesis: Guru is God, spirit creates and sustains the universe, soul can unite with spirit, and so on.

I muse about this stuff on my Church of the Churchless weblog. I haven’t arrived at any real answers yet, but I’m enjoying the questioning. Trust yourself. If I have faith in anything, it is that the Truth with a capital “T” is able to burst through any and all barriers, and it makes its presence known in all sorts of highly individualistic ways.

My guess is that you already know what spiritual path attracts you, and you are just looking for validation.

I could be wrong, but I do this all the time myself, so the process is familiar to me. I look for books and people to affirm what I already am quite sure of, deep down. If I didn’t already know what I was looking for, I wouldn’t be attracted to it when I saw it.

Warm greetings, Brian

Like most bloggers, I love getting email. Making connections with like-minded (or unlike-minded) people from anywhere in the world is a wonderful reward for the time and effort that goes into a weblog.

Recently I got a message from another member of the spiritual group, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), that I’ve been involved with for thirty-five years. This is how my correspondent ended his email:

I do not know whether you will feel the following questions too personal to answer, but if you do not mind , will you mind answering them?: Are you or were you ever a satsangi? What is your spiritual philosophy these days? Can you comment at all on the Sant Mat Gurus, especially Maharaj Gurinder Singh? How do you recommend one seeks the Ultimate Truth?

By “satsangi” he meant specifically an initiate of the mystical path known variously as Sant Mat, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, Science of the Soul, Surat Shabd Yoga, or Radha Soami. Satsangi is a generic word that literally means “one who associates with truth (sat).”

Since many spiritual groups in India and elsewhere consider that they are on the path to knowing truth, you can be a “satsangi” of various denominations—to use a rather ill-fitting Christian term. “Satsang” is a meeting of satsangis, a service if you will.

I was asked good questions, some obviously much easier to answer than others. Though personal, I didn’t mind making a stab at answering them and have shared my response below.

I realize my language will seem foreign to many people. But substitute, for example, “Pope” for “Master” and “Catholic Church” for “Radha Soami Satsang Beas” if my message seems too distant from your own experience.

My basic point is universal: after you’ve belonged to a religious or spiritual organization for more than a few years, it’s natural to be more critical of it. The more knowledgeable you become about a church, faith, philosophy, or theology, the more flaws you’ll find.

The ultimate reality we call “God” can’t be confined within any manmade system. Religions try to put bounds around boundlessness, but this is a futile exercise. Truth always finds a way to express itself. So I encourage people to trust their direct experience over abstract concepts.

When something seems wrong about the spiritual path you’re following, likely it is. If it appears that you can drop some inessential ritualistic practice, almost certainly you should. Keep what works for you; discard what doesn’t.

Here’s my mildly edited response to the questions I was asked:

Dear ________:

I am indeed a Sant Mat (RSSB) initiate, dating way back from the class of 1971. I now am inclined to shy away from labels such as “satsangi.” My wife is a non-initiate and I have found that this satsangi/non-satsangi distinction is unproductive, just as the Christian/non-Christian distinction is.

Sometimes a satsangi will phone us; my wife answers and hears the greeting, “Radha soami.” She then says, “Hello.” The caller again says, “Radha soami.” She refuses to go further with the conversation until the person communicates like a normal human being rather than a cult member.

I’ve become a bit of a Sant Mat “heretic,” just as you seem to be. Maybe more than “a bit of” in fact.

My quest these days is to discern the essential in spirituality. The rest seems to be in the realm of religion, not mysticism or what I like to call spiritual science. There is a lot of religiosity in RSSB even though this path supposedly isn’t a religion. When blind belief and faith are elevated over direct experience and questioning, I call that a religion.

I still feel a lot of fondness for RSSB/Sant Mat and continue to attend satsang most Sundays. But I’ll admit that I go more for the socializing than for the satsang. Our post-satsang coffee shop conversations go on for considerably longer, and with considerably more enthusiasm, than the 45 minute satsang.

My spiritual philosophy keeps evolving in the direction of Advaita and non-religious Buddhism, assuming those terms really mean anything, which I suspect they don’t. Immersing myself in the teachings of the Greek philosopher Plotinus exacerbated my existing tendencies in that direction.

I think you would enjoy my book “Return to the One,” though since I’m the author, I’m obviously horribly biased. Plotinus’ philosophy is remarkably close to that of Sant Mat, with the notable exception of not mentioning the need for a living “guru.” Or, for that matter, a dead guru.

I’ve been reading several books by Steven Hagen, who I like a lot.

His “Buddhism Plain and Simple” reverberates with me, as does “Buddhism is Not What You Think: Finding Freedom Beyond Beliefs.” I don’t agree with everything Hagen says, but I very much appreciate his attempt to get beyond the religiosity of Buddhism and reach the essential core, which he says is simply seeing.

I empathize with your frustration with Sant Mat meditation, and RSSB in general. We’re different people, so my experience may have no relevance to your own.

All I can say is that I’ve been energized by taking a fresh look at what seems to work for me in meditation, and what doesn’t, regardless of whether it is 100% Sant Mat certified. The goal in Sant Mat meditation, after all, is to do nothing. No mantra, no visualization. Just being there as soul, pure consciousness, and experiencing whatever is there.

This is perfectly compatible with Hagen’s plain and simple Buddhism, and also with Ramana’s plain and simple Advaita. Ramana is another teacher whom I’ve enjoyed reading, finding in him the core of mystic practice without the distractions of complex concepts and suppositions.

Re. Master Gurinder Singh, since I don’t know who I am, I certainly would make no claim to understanding anyone else. Only Master Gurinder Singh knows who Master Gurinder Singh is.

Since he doesn’t make any claims of godliness for himself, one can either surmise (1) that he is a humble god-man, or (2) that he isn’t a god-man. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter which is true. It’s my own experience that I’m concerned about, not the Master’s.

That is, my current approach to spirituality is basically this: I’ll do my best to meditate and discover what lies beyond appearances.

I believe that if the cosmos is One, and I’m part of it, that whatever the essence of me is, also is the essence of the cosmos. Wherever this journey leads, I’ll believe in what I see and experience directly. Everything else is just a hypothesis: Guru is God, spirit creates and sustains the universe, soul can unite with spirit, and so on.

I muse about this stuff on my Church of the Churchless weblog. I haven’t arrived at any real answers yet, but I’m enjoying the questioning. Trust yourself. If I have faith in anything, it is that the Truth with a capital “T” is able to burst through any and all barriers, and it makes its presence known in all sorts of highly individualistic ways.

My guess is that you already know what spiritual path attracts you, and you are just looking for validation.

I could be wrong, but I do this all the time myself, so the process is familiar to me. I look for books and people to affirm what I already am quite sure of, deep down. If I didn’t already know what I was looking for, I wouldn’t be attracted to it when I saw it.

Warm greetings, Brian

Comments

[Sonia]

Wow, Brian, you’ve changed a lot over the past 15 years. :)

My husband has always been an unwaveringly devoted Satsangi. He doesn’t waiver on anything. I respect him for that, but we all learn differently. My way is often two steps forward and one step back. But at least it’s progress, and for all you know I might be walking faster than the average person. (So, there’s math involved again... lol)

Anyway, my point was actually that he’s also an ardent practitioner of Stoicism. So, now I’m going to have to read your book ‘Return to the One’.

I find that I’m actually a much more productive, self-disciplined and better behaving person when I practice Surat Shabd yoga. That’s what I’ve learned over the past few years. Everyone has a different experience. But eventually we go with what works. And for me “it works”. It’s almost to the point where I’m like, it doesn’t matter what RSSB says or does (although they really are doing a lot of good now) I know that sitting in meditation each makes me better. I don’t have to go to satsang or do anything else, I just have to do my meditation. It took me a long time to reach that conclusion. It’s like I never considered it an option till just a few days ago when I had this experience. And then I realized that it doesn’t have to be all or nothing.

Anyway, my mind will always generate questions. And even though I really enjoy my “Satsangi” friends and family, they can drive me crazy from time to time. And I do the same for them I’m sure.

Gurinder is very charming and funny. He has said some pretty harsh things to people which upset. But, Jesus Christ, I’ve literally nailed him to the cross so I’m by far more guilty of “attack”. I’d go to hell for that alone in any religion. Thank God Sant Mat is not a religion. I wouldn’t even call it a philosophy. It’s a practice.

Regardless, the Surat Shabd Yoga helps me. Stoicism works for my husband and Mindfulness meditation has helped you.

It’s all individual. Tolerance is the key to maintaining healthy relationships among people who have different belief systems.

[Tim Rimmer]

Hi Brian - enjoyed reading your response to the ‘satsangi’, though a bit surprised you say you still go to satsang on Sunday! I was going to post this on another recent thread, however I think it could fit here.

"nobody is born or dies”

IMO this is one of the coolest things said about the nature of our ‘reality’. I read a similar version of it in some of the online pdfs of Nisargadatta’s teachings many moons ago. Thanks Turan for your recent quote and also to you Osho for linking it to the so-called new Sant Mat teachings.
In my view this saying really and profoundly simplifies things and points to what we actually are, rather than what we believe ourselves to be. It both frees your mind and does your head in at the same time. Of course most of us may only get a hint or brief taste of what the likes of Nisargadatta is on about here. Yet, to me if we really get this, it fundamentally changes one’s head/heart and fires a massive broadside into traditional teachings based on notions of separation, reincarnation, time etc.
That there is no enduring self, that the self is a mental construct, is ‘impermanent’ etc, means ultimately there is no-one/thing there to be born or die. Seems to me we are that that does not change, always ‘is’. What ‘this’ is will continue to be a hot topic on this blog— Awareness is a good name for it. Some even call it soul.

Going back to RSSB I think Osho is right when he says that the teachings have ‘fundamentally’ changed - at least for those followers who can still think for themselves. Have a look at the book ‘From self to Shabd’, it even has a chapter entitled ‘The illusion of a separate self’.
Big gun Gnanis like Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi are now mentioned and the author writes things like:
‘The misconception that we exist as a separate individual is a big hurdle on the path of spirituality’ p.15 and
‘the formless consciousness in you is your true guru’ p.70

Can’t recall these guys being quoted anywhere previously in RSSB lit, and in my view the speak considers consciousness as much as it does the shabd. Do timeless teachings evolve? I guess some would say who cares? Well I still do because the newer version aligns more with my own experience. However, it appears older RSSB dogma is potentially locking people in dualism. That GSD could also (eventually?) be heading to court doesn’t help.

BFN

[Brian Hines]

Tim, the blog post I shared was from January 2005. I stopped going to satsang not long after.

[Tim Rimmer]

Copy that Brian - thought something wasn’t quite right - still, dropped the ball!
Best wishes to all

[zenjen]

" I now am inclined to shy away from labels such as “satsangi.” My wife is a non-initiate and I have found that this satsangi/non-satsangi distinction is unproductive, just as the Christian/non-Christian distinction is.

Sometimes a satsangi will phone us; my wife answers and hears the greeting, “Radha soami.” She then says, “Hello.” The caller again says, “Radha soami.” She refuses to go further with the conversation until the person communicates like a normal human being rather than a cult member."

Sounds like you are now dominated by your wife. Surely there does not have to be this kind of angry full of hatred attitude towards satsangis? Whats happened to being kind to others? Is this the snobbish attitude of atheists who self righteously defend their own beliefs? Isn't there enough hatred in the world already?

[Brian Hines]

zenjen, I find your comment deeply offensive. Why are you so negative about my wife's demand to be treated like a normal human being, rather than a cult member? She isn't a satsangi. Yet when I was secretary of our sangat and Laurel would accompany me to RSSB meetings, she would be treated by some satsangis like an infidel, an outsider, a poor soul doomed to never reach God.

You don't know Laurel. You don't know me. You have no idea how loving, caring, and compassionate my wife is. She's a retired psychotherapist/social worker who worked for decades trying to make peoples' lives better. Yet you have the nerve to call her, and me, a snobbish atheist.

Examine your own heart, not ours. I can't tell you what to do, because I don't know you either, obviously. I just know that you are flat out wrong about my wife. The idea that Laurel dominates me, or anybody else, is absurd.

Comments like yours show what is wrong with the Internet. People like you feel they have a right to make absurd personal observations about people they have never met and know nothing about.

[The other Jen]

Brian I didn’t see anything wrong with zenjen’s comments. She was just asking to not discriminate and just treat everyone with love and respect. Your reply to her is definitely devoid of that too.
She shouldn’t have said you are dominated by your wife I think that’s what ticked you off. Don’t worry many man feel less macho when told this. Your not the only one. You are in the macho men category. 😉

[Spence Tepper]

Zen Jen and other Jen
What's your problem? Why make any personal snide remarks at all?

[The other Jen]

Spence I clarified the dominated by wife remark shouldn’t have been made as its touchy but it’s not a bad thing. With regards to making personal remarks... ah hello read the title of the blog post it’s even got his name in it so it’s a personal one.

[Spence Tepper]

The other Jen
If you are going to promote universal kindness and brotherhood light a candle and avoid snide remarks. Dominated by your wife is a snide remark. Men, macho men, use it to denigrate other men who are choosing not to go along with them.
It draws into question your own sex, 'Jen' or should I say, 'Jinesh'?
What do you have against women?

[Jesse]

"The ultimate reality we call “God” can’t be confined within any manmade system. Religions try to put bounds around boundlessness, but this is a futile exercise. Truth always finds a way to express itself. So I encourage people to trust their direct experience over abstract concepts."

This is one of the fundamental issues I have with religion in general, but Abrahamic religions in particular, as well as their offshoot branches in anglicized Indian religions like Sikhism and Radha Soami's Beas version. Speaking of God is automatically an act of immeasurable ego, and saying that God must fit within the limits of a tradition or ones own theological or logical predilections is nothing more than a coping mechanism.

God defines us. We do not and cannot define it.

"Men, macho men, use it to denigrate other men who are choosing not to go along with them."

It's still that way, Spence. Weak men in recent times have been benefitted by a culture of luxury and decadence that allows pathetic worms to pay police to defend them from the consequences of their actions, even as they destroy everything in an attempt to protect their stolen comforts into perpetuity.

This softness doesn't really exist outside of the Disneyland cultures of western Europe and America, and it will be a relic of the past in those places soon as well.

Haven't you ever see the meme? "“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

The hard times coming now are the direct, and accurately predicted, result of western male weakness. It's not something to be proud of. Though on the other hand, I can't really say much since like all things, it just is what it is. Baby boomers owe everyone an apology though. The pain coming onto the youth is gonna be so severe that your whole generation will be hated for millennia to come.

[zenjen]

"It draws into question your own sex, 'Jen' or should I say, 'Jinesh'?
What do you have against women?"

Hmmm and this isn't a snide remark? Its definitely a vicious attack imo. The other Jen and myself are not against women. Oh, but thats okay, I forgot, because males are having such a difficult time, so now they are allowed to put women down and be praised for their behaviour?

[Sonia]

Hmmm and this isn't a snide remark? Its definitely a vicious attack imo. The other Jen and myself are not against women. Oh, but thats okay, I forgot, because males are having such a difficult time, so now they are allowed to put women down and be praised for their behaviour?
Posted by: zenjen | May 16, 2020 at 06:22 PM

Please take comfort in the fact that God is most certainly a woman. What men think is unimportant. We’re here to show them the way. We’re here to keep their egos in check. We’re here to make sure none of them start believing they are God. LOL

[Sonia]

I feel sorry for Radha. She was led to believe her husband had dominion over her. The truth is, men and women are equal. The “soul” is a part of God so cannot possibly be “lorded over”.

We should see this clearly by now.