What makes a cult a cult?

The July 12 and 19 issue of The New Yorker has an interesting book review called "Beyond Belief: What makes a cult a cult?" Here's some excerpts:

If we accept that cult members have some degree of volition, the job of distinguishing cults from other belief-based organizations becomes a good deal more difficult. 

We may recoil from Keith Raniere's brand of malevolent claptrap, but, if he hadn't physically abused followers and committed crimes, would we be able to explain why NXIVM is inherently more coercive or exploitative than any of the "high demand" religions we tolerate?

For this reason, many scholars choose to avoid the term "cult" altogether. Raniere may have set himself up as an unerring source of wisdom and sought to shut his minions off from outside influence, but apparently so did Jesus of Nazareth. 

The Gospel of Luke records him saying, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." 

Religion, as the old joke has it, is just "a cult plus time."

Acknowledging that joining a cult requires an element of voluntary self-surrender also obliges us to consider whether the very relinquishment of control isn't a significant part of the appeal. 

..."Not passive victims, they themselves actively sought to be controlled," Haruki Murakami wrote of the members of Aum Shinrikyo, the cult whose sarin-gas attack on the Tokyo subway, in 1995, killed thirteen people. 

In his book "Underground" (1997), Murakami describes most Aum members as having "deposited all their precious personal holdings of selfhood" in the "spiritual bank" of the cult's leader, Shoko Sahara. Submitting to a higher authority -- to someone else's account of reality -- was, he claims, their aim.

Robert Lifton suggests that people with certain kinds of personal history are more likely to experience such a longing: those with "an early sense of confusion and dislocation," or, at the opposite extreme, an early experience of unusually intense family milieu control." 

But he stresses that the capacity for totalist submission lurks in all of us and is probably rooted in childhood, the prolonged period of dependence during which we have no choice but to attribute to our parents "an exaggerated omnipotence." (This might help to explain why so many cult leaders choose to style themselves as the fathers or mothers of their cult "families.")

...Yet our sense that joining a cult requires some unusual degree of credulousness or gullibility persists. Few of us believe in our heart of hearts that Amy Carlson, the recently deceased leader of the Colorado-based Love Has Won cult, who claimed to have birthed the whole of creation and to have been, in a previous life, a daughter of Donald Trump, could put us under her spell.

Perhaps one way to attack our intellectual hubris on this matter is to remind ourselves that we all hold some beliefs for which there is no compelling evidence.

The convictions that Jesus was the son of God and that "everything happens for a reason" are older and more widespread than the belief in Amy Carlson's privileged access to the fifth dimension, but neither is, ultimately, more rational.

In recent decades, scholars have grown increasingly adamant that none of our beliefs, rational or otherwise, have much to do with logical reasoning. "People do not deploy the powerful human intellect to dispassionately analyze the world," William J. Bernstein writes in "The Delusion of Crowds" (Atlantic Monthly). 

Instead, "They rationalize how the facts conform to their emotionally derived preconceptions." 

...The process by which people are eventually freed from their cult delusions rarely seems to be accelerated by the interventions of well-meaning outsiders. Those who embed themselves in a group idea learn very quickly to dismiss the skepticism of others as the foolish cant of the uninitiated. 

If we accept the premise that our beliefs are rooted in emotional attachments rather than in cool assessments of evidence, there is little reason to imagine that rational debate will break the spell.

The good news is that rational objections to flaws in cult doctrine or to hypocrisies on the part of a cult leader do have a powerful impact if and when they occur to the cult members themselves. The analytical mind may be quietened by cult-think, but it is rarely deadened altogether. 

Especially if cult life is proving unpleasant, the capacity for critical thought can reassert itself. 

Comments

[Appreciative Reader]

Agreed, absolutely. Christianity is a cult, no less than the weird cults that implode (or explode, as the case may be) so dramatically once in a while. In fact, if you look at early Christianity, really early Christianity, before Constantine made it mainstream, then it was fully as weirdo as any other --- except, probably, for the the taking sexual and/or financial advantage of disciples part, that last, AFAIK, was never a part of very early Christianity. (Although Christianity in the Middle Ages was conspicuously possessed of exactly those features as well, top to bottom, witness the absolute creeps that ascended to the papacy.)

Absolutely, there's no difference between mainstream religions and so-called cults, other than some incidental and, arguably, irrelevant features, mainly these: (a) as said in the main post already, how old it is; (b) how widely practiced it is; and, yeah, to an extent there's a (c) as well, that speaks to whether followers are directly taken advantage of, financially and/or sexually.

But there are one or two very rare instances of religions that, perhaps, and as far as I can see, don't quite belong to this list of cults. Which doesn't make them rational, but at least it does mean, as far as I can tell, that they aren't actively irrational and actively cultic, in that they don't ask you to shut yourself off from rationality or to plug your ears against critique or criticism. But leaving those vanishingly rare exceptions aside --- and indeed, whether those are bona fide exceptions, is a subject that is very much open to argument and contestation --- absolutely, all religions are cults.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Amy Carlson, the recently deceased leader of the Colorado-based Love Has Won cult, who claimed to have birthed the whole of creation "

..........Heh, that's crazy, right? Like, totally crazy, that kind of claim? A crazy claim that only the pathetically gullible would fall for, right?

But, when you think about it, not more crazy, not even the teeny tiniest bit more crazy, than saying, "My daddy created the universe, and his personal writ is what keeps the world running", is it?

If the former weirdo is acceptable, why on earth wouldn't the latter one be?

[neon]

RSSB is a cult too:
1. pictures of the leader in everyroom
2. own greeting with "radaswami" everywhere
3. everything is done by the leader
4. the leader can only do good things
5. all bad things that happen to us are our bad karma, all the good things are the leaders grace
6. indoctrinate the children from age 1 to bow down to the leader
7. the leader can do no wrong
8. the leader is god

[Uchit]

Great response neon!
it is a cult but also like to add that RSSB and Gurinder Singh Dhillon are a DEMONIC CULT:

1. Sangat are told to constantly repeat 5 secret holy words 247 and at meditation. These are names of satan ! Light of the devil. They lead to him!!
2. People are encouraged to look into GSDs eyes for so called dresshti/ darshan. This is nothing but submission and energy extraction at a subtle level
3. There are stars of Solomon on satsang house in Dera ! These are portals for demonic low vibration entities. Why are they in a building where initiation takes place ?
4. You, the sangat, have agreed to be possessed by these entities at the time of initiation
5. You have been tricked into worshipping satan/ lucifer as your god and saviour
6. You have agreed to sell your mind body and soul for slavery by the puppet master in exchange for a false promise.

Remember GSD is not who he says he is! He is just a front to a dark and evil soul

[777]

@chit said:
3. There are stars of Solomon on satsang house in Dera !

I never heard that
Can U mail me an image @
[email protected]

I'm curious because this star is my exact birth chart - making many rebbis jealous :)à
wiki : Tetrahaedron

ps
"Pepsi Cola Hydroxy Rank Xerox" given by a Saint would work likewise
but in case of Deities, . . they become hypnotised by their Power

777

[777 Some Clts are special]

I owe a lot to Sri Yukteswar
the Guru of Yogananda

A hundred years ago ( it seems now )
I went with my wife to
Dr. Piet Romein , head/representative of the Self Realization Fellowship
in Holland
after reading "Autobiography of a Yogi" ( is on the web )

so we came there and he did bees, showed us everything
showed also his house with many many big
portraits of Yogananda, Yukteswar, and older Gurus
living in the Himalayas

So, I ask after an hour
Do WE need to subscribe now

Piet says "NO"

You must go to this lady Nel Kuys
in Bilthoven ( 30 KM from Him )

He told that she was since always Krisnamurti's secretary
and great language - the only Sankrit reader / translator in Holland

He sais : You are wrong here >. Go to here

So we drove 20 minutes and saw so many nice plants around her house but
she wasn't there

On our way back to Rotterdam
we wondered so much about his refusal
to accept us in that 'fellowship'

The evening
I phoned her
and she said she had nothing to do with the Yoganandas
but she knew Piet Romein and wondered also

Next she said
After all my life being Krishnamurti's secretary
myself I found a Holy Guru in India
who gave me "5 words"

THEN before I could ask explanations
I started to tremble and could not stop it
I could not even speak anymore - I had
to disconnect without saying another word
( Ofc phoned back after 15 minutes )

BTW
I phoned back at the location I lived
I told about in the ChurchBlog ( CB)
where , when I started meditations and I repeated the second word
a great 6 x3 Meter iron fence there started to vibrate, so loudly
that I had to stop )
In a way A OBJECTIV THING but no witnesses
except my wife
and half a street there wondering
Let's call it also a kind of Serendipity

Please S*
U now know who I am
Please keep it secret

777

This blog now is perfect to describe
all so many serendipities that happened in our life
and some deleted by Brian as non- sense

-
Life is beautiful

Posted by: 777 | 12/25/2018 at 09:19 PM

[Dungeness]

@ "RSSB is a cult too:
1. pictures of the leader in everyroom
... etc."

This conflates followers' harmless rituals with far more nefarious
forms of cultic practice.

[s*]

Eventually everything is not outside but inside ourselves.
It is our own reaction on or about ´things´ ,teachings,what makes it good or bad for us.
We can always keep the good things and leave the rest ..

So I see all the good things the Path rssb has given me.
Also difficulties and fears..as long as I myself gave worth to ideaś.(teachings).

Life has lots of sides anyway.
I have good friends from youth in rssb sooo...and family..
So I can not leave everything totaly behind me.
But trough time things changes and so do we.

[Appreciative Reader]

"This conflates followers' harmless rituals with far more nefarious
forms of cultic practice."

.......Agreed. Dungeness. That is, no, to simply point out that RSSB is also a cult, as neon has done, is NOT to conflate, in any way, the relatively harmless rituals of RSSB with the "nefarious" practices of more toxic cults, but only to point out that they're all cults. But absolutely, agreed with your larger point, that there are religions and religions (or cults and cults), and some are more toxic than others. For instance, Christianity as practiced today by most mainstream denominations is far less toxic than, for instance, the toxic varieties of Islam (or, for that matter, the more toxic and fundamental brands of Christianity). Likewise, absolutely, RSSB, while a cult, is relatively harmless when compared with many (most?) other religions and cults.

It's a still a cult, as most/all religions are. But agreed, that some are more toxic, and others less so, is a fact that must not be lost sight of.

[💕🙏🏻💕Exciting Cult with Benefits 💕🙏🏻💕]

@readers

Later i confirmed here that I phoned the real Piet Romein about it.
After all he represented the Yogananda Fellowship
but he could not at all remember our visit ever happened
This is totally impossible ( see my wive s photo at my youtube account :
Ankhaton )
And Piet Romein was highly educated Doctor in Psychology.
He could not have forgotten our visit, specially the thé, the cookies and the bees!
during one hour and a half

So : this was MaharaJI Charan Singh Ji
multipositioned

What Cult ?

777

[Dungeness]

@ A.R. : "Likewise, absolutely, RSSB, while a cult, is relatively harmless when compared with many (most?) other religions and cults.
It's a still a cult, as most/all religions are. "

In my opinion, tagging RSSB as "still a cult" misses the
point. RSSB, accurately grasped, is a mystic path of
mindfulness and devotion with a true scientific approach,
not one subtly wielding scientism's heavy, exclusivist
cudgel. After all, the true mystic insists on experiential
proof of its insights and the rejection of blind belief.

The New Yorker book review is a statement of what
happens when a religion's (or mystic's) followers slip
down their own or another's rabbit hole into emotion-
ally fraught or dubious kneejerk judgments unsupported
by inner evidence. As a previous commenter S* aptly
opines:

"Eventually everything is not outside but inside ourselves.
It is our own reaction on or about ´things´ ,teachings, what
makes it good or bad for us."

[Manoj]

What makes a Cult a Cult?

Self proclaimed god man GSD is the very reason for many humans not being able to free themselves from this lying little leaches Radha Soami Cult.

Who lays down false doctrines and beliefs upon the world and then inforces them all through his religious self made selfish cult.

GSD hasn't much of anything to offer so  cooking up a Cult with many a malicious ways and altering it all along to fit his new lavis luxurious lifestyle of corruption and greed was his only way.

Not forgetting his slight of the hand for so many criminal and fraudulent activities .
Which should have landed him in jail with his long lost brother Ram Rahim.

Radha Soami is hidden behind the real truth which in reality is "Radha Krishna"
The love fallen couple, nothing godly to see here. Who uses his negative powers to keep himself hidden whilst getting his dirty laundry done by his agent Gurinder Singh Dhillion.

Repeatedly repeating kaal 5 names the individual loses his identity and his sanity too

The parsad thing is just to make the sheep feel happy for they're free seva, which GSD so quietly adores behind closed doors. Laughing all the while...free work$$$

"Fool them to do your dirty laundry as they say"

Nice pulling of the wool over your eyes!

"They say the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"

But we can all see Gurinder Singh Dhillion as now the final product, and he's so Exposed too

But in reality this little Devil GSD is staring you in your face, and that too in plain sight!!!

What a wicked game you played, but you're about to lose...

Karmas finaly riding in for you! Checkmate!!!

[Spence Tepper]

Anything that helps a person to see and acknowldge who they are honestly, to accept the reality of life botj within and around them, and accept full responsibility for their actions and their duty, that is not a cult. That is a healthy philosophy and lifestyle.

A cult isn't just a group that separates. Itself from others, though that is certainly one part of what a cult does.

A cult blames all other systems of belief as wrong and bad.

A cult makes its members feel ashamed to think anything outside that cult's beliefs.

A cult tells its members they are imagining things and doesn't want its members to look within themselves and discover who and what they really are.

Cults are all about enslavement.

But it starts with intolerance for other ways of thinking, feeling and living as all inferior. That's your biggest flag that you are facing a cult, whether of religion or anti-theism, even within Atheism.

Anytime someone dismisses your individual perspective and insights, even introspection, that is a cult.

[Spence Tepper]

If two people of different views can see the truth in each other's completely different perspectives, and honor that, you don't have a cult.

A cult only allows for one single truth and insists it knows it.

But that isn't even scientific..

"The opposite of one truth may not be false. It may just be another truth."
Niels Bohr

[s*]

Well Spence that is true for me..what you say here!
But!!!!....
Soamiji in earlier times.. SarBachan..bbrrrr
Only This Path was truth all others not at all.
There is lots of fear mongering in that book.
I did it away so I can not quote..
But..itś terrible

[s*]

And.. Babaji seems more a of freethinker now.( Oness)Like Advaita Vedanta..
Alltough the initiation rules are still the same..

When talking with him he seems very open..

Not sure.. because the 2 and a half hours of 2 hours simran and half an hour bhajan are still there in his q and a

[s*]

Personaly I love to meditate while walking and doing things.
Also sitting in stillness...

Not perse two and a half hours..
Just in my own way and time..

[Spence Tepper]

Hi S*
Any way that suits you is the best way.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi S*

Swami Ji said a few things that ring true, at least how I filter them. People can get stuck at a place and think they've found God, that they have the final answer, and claim that to others. But they are just speaking from their own position. He also said that even Saints don't often reach the highest abode. That means most all of us are in a place of exploration, life long. I like that. We are all students.

I also liked that he didn't like superstitions. He advocated investigation, but acknowledged we are in a tough situation to find a decent teacher because we are all, for the most part, students. I think the best students make the best teachers, though the jobs are a little different.

His delineation of the inner regions I've found to be so. God is not a personality, but a power. But anyone connected to that power becomes the personal, accessible translation of that power, to help us connect with it within ourselves. And that power is love. The subjective becomes objective! And Everything objective is a projection of the immense, infinite, and unspeakably incredible subjective sea of musical love.

A teacher.. Ie, they teach us, so we can learn and practice and have whatever they have achieved.

Those things I connect with.

As for the two hours, that really is YMMV (your mileage may vary)... So many days I didn't want to stop. I had the day free, and that was my adventure. Some days because it was bliss. Other days because I couldn't face that day. On those days I was lovingly told to do my duty, and God would be by my side.

[s*]

Thatś nice Spence how you tell this about Soamiji..
I have had traumaś :0( because of the teachings really.(that circel and the fear of doing things wrong)
Also the sadness that other people has to go trough all that sufferings..
Well thatś me..I can help it that it had that outcome/inpact on me.
Babaji talked a lot about Oness and did easy going about all that..altough the satsangs were the same as in earlier times fom Soamiji.

About love I learned from Maharaji..I loved him ,otherwise I would never come on this Path.
and
my parents were initiates.

I will never agree with the teachings when they are fearfull.

About Love yes thatś great..

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Dungeness:
"In my opinion, tagging RSSB as "still a cult" misses the
point. RSSB, accurately grasped, is a mystic path of
mindfulness and devotion with a true scientific approach,
not one subtly wielding scientism's heavy, exclusivist
cudgel. After all, the true mystic insists on experiential
proof of its insights and the rejection of blind belief."

-------

Oh, ok. You're right, I'd taken your comment at face value, and not read this subtext into it, that you now spell out.

As far as this, I squarely disagree that RSSB, as I've encountered it here on this blog, both from Brian's descriptions and from commenters' words, is scientific. To describe this as scientific is to firmly climb into pseudo-science camp.

I agree, potentially mysticism CAN be scientific, broadly speaking. As you point out. But that is not how I've seen it play out here.

Why not?

Well, first, those of you who've done the experiment for years and years and not availed of results, you don't declare the hypothesis failed, do you? As Brian has done? Had you done that, I'd have called your efforts scientific, broadly speaking.

Two, let's say some of you do encounter lights and sounds and whatnot. So far, fine. But to go from there to the extravagant cosmology and spiritual mumbo-jumbo that RSSB teaches, is a huge big enormous leap, that is entirely unwarranted, unless it can be clearly supported.

None of this is at all scientific. All of this is entirely cultic.

Albeit, like I'd said (and agreed with your more limited point), far more benign, far less toxic, as cults and religions go, than many/most others.

-------

And the part where GSD enriches himself off of his followers (after all those two gullible brothers had been his followers, perhaps still are, and there are other cases also, discussed here, like that guy who lent him a million dollars for his treatment or something), and most followers turn a blind eye to this and in fact keep contorting themselves up in an attempt to defend the indefensible, is where RSSB starts moving away from more--or-less-harmless territory into distinctly fully-fledged-cult territory.

Even so, probably less toxic than the cults where girls are raped, or people are killed. So there's that. But that's like saying that man serving time for embezzlement is better than that other man sitting in death row for mass murder. That's setting the bar super low.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative
Reading the comments here on this blog by those who have left the path it is clear that the version of Sant Mat as they heard it or followed it is a cult.

But it is quite different than what I heard and others I associated with, including the guy who brought me to the path,, as well as my own inner experiences.

I think we are bound by our own interpretations. So I accept that the version as you define it is a cult.

But the version I've experienced is a very healthy way to live, to gain strength to be honest, truthful and responsible.

So, the Sant Mat I've lived in for forty three years is most certainly not a cult. It is an exploration of inner reality that helps us function better with this reality we must live in, acknowldging our own shortcomings daily.

The effort to maintain focus within on the highest ideal we know, is an exercise that yields substantial benefit.

I was encouraged, in Sant Mat and by Satsangis, to learn and investigate any other forms of spirituality I found an interest in.

I was drawn to that open approach where we make up our own minds, after doing some of the work of personal investigation and even personal experimentation. I find it is a universally good principle to get to know things better. Much better than mere anecdotal reports and opinions. These are certainly helpful if they result in some actual investigation first hand.

If Truth, especially about ourselves, is our objective.

The question becomes, if we are looking for truth about our own selves, finding the strengths and weaknesses within ourselves, as part of our efforts to be better human beings, is that going to be found in someone else's reports? Won't it have to translate at some point to our own inner work, introspection, investigation and effort?

And f the answer is yes, then shouldn't that be our focus?

Not merely pointing to the ignorance of others, but taking the mote out of our own eye, through whatever means there is to see reality more clearly?

[Appreciative Reader]

"Hi Appreciative
Reading the comments here on this blog by those who have left the path it is clear that the version of Sant Mat as they heard it or followed it is a cult."

..........Hello, Spence. Those that have left, as well as a great many who're still there. The views of both groups, as they present it here, is mostly cultic. Most of them, that is.

.

"But it is quite different than what I heard and others I associated with, including the guy who brought me to the path,, as well as my own inner experiences. (...)
But the version I've experienced is a very healthy way to live, to gain strength to be honest, truthful and responsible. (...) So, the Sant Mat I've lived in for forty three years is most certainly not a cult. It is an exploration of inner reality that helps us function better with this reality we must live in, acknowldging our own shortcomings daily."

..........Fair enough, I can accept that.

.

"The question becomes, if we are looking for truth about our own selves, finding the strengths and weaknesses within ourselves, as part of our efforts to be better human beings, is that going to be found in someone else's reports? Won't it have to translate at some point to our own inner work, introspection, investigation and effort?

And f the answer is yes, then shouldn't that be our focus?

Not merely pointing to the ignorance of others, but taking the mote out of our own eye, through whatever means there is to see reality more clearly?"

..........No, yes, yes, and yes. Not that any of those questions have anything at all to do with what I'd said, about RSSB (as most followers seem to regard it) being a cult; but still, taking each of those four questions singly and by themselves, I agree with you, on each of those questions.

[Dungeness]

@ A. R." : "Well, first, those of you who've done the experiment for years and years and not availed of results, you don't declare the hypothesis failed, do you? As Brian has done? Had you done that, I'd have called your efforts scientific, broadly speaking. "

I think it's perversely easy to declare a hypothesis "failed"
when your expectations are unrealistic. Most mystics talk
of a Herculean effort, even a lifetime, to advance significantly
on an inward path. To break ordinary addictions is a withering
task. To probe each recess and dark corner of consciousness
itself and do so every moment beggars any description of the
passion and commitment that's required. A handful among
millions may reach the loftiest promised realizations.

It's a daunting portrait of a long, immensely demanding path.
Yet, Spence, 777, and others speak cogently of the health
benefits... a wonderful "fragrance" that comes of a growing
mental clarity and a lifestyle conducive to "truth, honesty,
responsibility". And finally, there's the hopeful, cult-busting
assurance of a mystic that "this is the method that has worked
for me. I hope it works for you as well. Drop it if not and keep
seeking. Promise me though, if you find something better,
you'll come back and tell me. I'll follow it also."

@ A.R. : "Two, let's say some of you do encounter lights and sounds and whatnot. So far, fine. But to go from there to the extravagant cosmology and spiritual mumbo-jumbo that RSSB teaches, is a huge big enormous leap, that is entirely unwarranted, unless it can be clearly supported."

Here though the cosmology and assorted mumbo-jumbo is what
mystics see within and not some inviolable catechism that must
be believed and parroted back for initiation. It's a soft ad for the
practice of mysticism. You must reject blind belief and confirm it
within. You may argue mystic descriptions differ but that doesn't
invalidate the experience or the reality behind them. Accounts of
things perceived in the physical world may differ substantially too.
Ultimately, it's more about the experience itself and not what's seen.
Of the former, mystics can only say "neti, neti".

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Dungeness
I appreciate your comments.
But just one point of Clarification.
Whatever is hurculean has nothing to do with me. . It's just work, and the work of a very lazy man.

When I can't sit for the full time, I push myself for five more minutes, get up, get some coffee, then return.

It's like running. You get to 10k starting with an 1/8 mile, and add incrementally. As you can tolerate it. Funny how bliss can be extreme even as the mind is fighting.

And on other days I don't want to leave...the mind is silent, exhausted, happy to just watch.

I'm in the airport today and we've had a five hour delay. The winds and the weather. But we'll still get there. And even if not tonight, then tomorrow.

But the winds and the jets are doing all the work, under the steady expertise of a masterful pilot.

It's really a shameful thing to think that all this time, all these millennia, I've wasted. Wasted. Wasted.

The 1 sheep being carried has nothing to be proud of.

The others who don't remember their home or Shephard, who can blame them of anything? They are doing exactly what they are supposed to.

If you see the cliff, you cringe to watch so many running gleefully towards it.

You reach out. But when they say "WTF are you talking about?" Who can blame them? I smile and say "yah... I guess it is crazy.."

[Dungeness]

@ Spence: "But just one point of Clarification.
Whatever is hurculean has nothing to do with me. . It's just work, and the work of a very lazy man. ...The 1 sheep being carried has nothing to be proud of."

Don't believe this self-described lazy guy ;) The sheep enjoying a ride still remembers the shepherd and thanks him every moment.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Here though the cosmology and assorted mumbo-jumbo is what
mystics see within and not some inviolable catechism that must
be believed and parroted back for initiation. It's a soft ad for the
practice of mysticism. You must reject blind belief and confirm it
within. "

-------

Hello again, Dungeness. I'm afraid it's you who've now missed my point, entirely.

Let me break down my earlier comment just a bit more, in order to clarify.

There are two elements to mysticism, RSSB style. The first is in seeing the lights and hearing the celestial symphony (as well as, I guess, seeing the bearded dude inside). Do you do that, or don't you? It's blind faith to accept that one does that, without having actually done that. Sure, one may experiment. But if decades of experimentation does not yield results, it makes sense to describe the experiment as having failed. (Although sure, that is a personal decision. Whether to throw in the towel, or to persevere on, is a subjective call, a personal decision, that no one but you can decide on, when it comes to yourself. To that extent, I don't really disagree with what your response.)

But here's the thing. There's an all-important second part to this. Having had those experiences, or having taken on trust others' accounts of having had those experiences, what do you make of them? How do you interpret their meaning, as well as their import? A likely analogy might be dreaming. Irrational folks (and that would include almost all folks in times past) might imagine their dreams, at least their more spectacular dreams, are representative of reality. Similarly, you seem to be assuming --- that is, RSSB seems to be assuming, and teaching, and you seem to be buying in on to their shtick --- that seeing something that looks like constellations inside means there's actually constellations inside that you're seeing, that that is what the actual cosmology amounts to. That's ...totally, totally unsupported. Not necessary impossible, but certainly wildly implausible, and therefore not to be countenanced as a likely explanation without a great deal more of evidence.

Like dreams, it could be anything really. It could be random stuff the mind throws up. It could be that excitation of certain portions of the brain produces those specific images. It could be the subconscious channeling stuff to the conscious. It could, quite simply, be a sign of crazy. It could be some kind of epilepsy-like thing going on. Or .... or it could literally be what RSSB teaches. While I'm not saying toss the RSSB explanation out as impossible, but which do you think is likelier, from the list? And how much sense does it make to accept the most implausible explanation as THE explanation?

That was the 'What'. Now let's get to the 'So what?'. You say this is some advertisement for the process. Why on earth should that be so? Why do you even think of seeing lights and hearing sounds and having visions of unshaven men as in any shape of form beneficient or desirable? To assume that without evidence is like claiming that dreaming of flying in pink flying cars is somehow desirable and is a skill that ought to be cultivated. What on earth for? Why do you even imagine that someone who's able to do this is in any way "successful", or saintly, or anything at all?

And no, the beneficient effects of meditation, that Spence often brings up, and that you echo here, is an out-and-out non sequitur, in this context. That only speaks to the general effects of general mediation. Not to RSSB mediation specifically, and certainly not to seeing lights and sounds while doing RSSB meditation. Any kind of stilling of the mind, via any kind of meditation, will achieve that.

You see what I'm saying? I'm not really dismissing any of this, you know. I don't know how much you meditate, but chances are I "sit" for longer durations than you do. I like doing it. And that's an experiment I choose to continue with, at this time.

But what you're doing is buying into unwarranted conclusions pushed by RSSB about, first, those experiences themselves; and two, about their interpretation; and third, about their significance.

And it's simply moving into Olympic-class contortions to label this as some kind of "science of the soul", and to claim that to call the RSSB shovel with iron oxide sticking to it a rusted spade is somehow "scientism".

-------

This argument entirely apart, while typing this comment out a question comes to mind, that I'd very much like anyone who actually knows the answer to, whether you, or Spence, or anyone else, to tell me.

How exactly do RSSB masters claim to know what they do about their theology? You know, the cosmology, and the GIHF thing, and the Kal thing, and the reincarnation thing, and the Karma thing, all of that? Without necessarily getting into testing the veracity at this time --- which is a separate discussion --- I'm asking, what is the actual mechanism by which they know it, according to them? So the founder of the faith taught this, and the gurus teach this. Great. So how did they know? How did the founder know? They saw the visions and heard the sounds, et cetera, great. From there, how did they arrive at the detailed theology?

Do you know? Does anyone know? This last part, this question in this last section, is not meant to be an argument --- although it may give rise to argument afterwards, but at this moment I'm not arguing anything, in this last section of my comment, all I am is curious, and all I am is asking. What is the actual mechanism by which the founder, and other gurus, claim to have arrived at the knowledge of the theology that RSSB teaches?

[um]

@ AR

I might be seen as a side step ...

Most in the family are vegetarians, some by birth and others by choice.

In older days vegetarians were often questioned outside the realm of their own house.
If i was questioned, I would react by asking if they had a cat and if so suggested they should strangle the cat and inform me how the cat would react.
Others in the family would ask the questioner upon finishing ... why do you bark at me?
And others would start an argument. and some would say I do not know, I was raised that way, if I was born in your family I would probably eat meat and if you were born in my family, you would be a vegetarian, what is your problem?

In the end they all mean, ... I never questioned you, why do you questjon me? ... do I owe you something?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You bring up a good point...But there is more to it..

You wrote
"Like dreams, it could be anything really. It could be random stuff the mind throws up. It could be that excitation of certain portions of the brain produces those specific images."

Yes. This is absolutely true. But it also applies to each person's daily experience of what they call reality.

When you look up at night and see the stars, how is that any different than seeing in much greater detail, with greater reliability, any inner view?

In both cases it comes through your brain. But it may be that in the internal case, if you are dreaming, that you are not in a position to discriminate what you are seeing.

And in the case of meditation, when you are in heightened consciousness, you see more, hear more, and your thinking capacity is so far advanced that answers arrive instantly even before you form the question....

Since we already know that meditation heightens cognitive functioning, but we don't know much more, then why not investigate?

The very lack of hard scientific evidence you point to is no reason to dismiss possibility. ,Especially when what evidence exists re many meditation practices points to heightened awareness, not degraded awareness.

At this point the science is not refined enough to discriminate much between practices. That suggests these are similar mechanisms, but there is not enough science to support the hypothesis that "they are all the same."

Again, there is more worthy of investigation.

The fact that one can see sky and stars brings up two avenues. The first, is this the same as the physical reality we see?

And the second, more open ended, what is this place we are witnessing? What else is there to discover here?

I prefer the latter.

[Spence Tepper]

Given what I just wrote, it is presumptive to dismiss any claims about those internal experiences, what they are, etc. We don't know. But we do know it is something.

So if so many through history have claimed to hear the Word of God, the divine Zephyr, the celestial Music, the trumpet of Gabriel, the flute of the mystic, the Name of God, I would suggest that this may well be a real thing, and if we could create the conditions to replicate it, while we would not know anything more about God, we would now have the laboratory to learn more about this so called divine Name of God. Perhaps they named these so because the experience of hearing that Name was ecstatic, peaceful, filled with personal insights.

So I would not spend too much time on the culture bound labels.

People have used "God" to explain everything. Rather, let's investigate those things to learn more about them.

Let's also not dismiss them with scientific terms and possibilities that have no actual investigation behind them.

Let's do science, man!

[Spence Tepper]

One minor point that Dungeness alluded to. The actual initiation ceremony does not include anything like a claim to believe anything. No claim for God in the initiation ceremony!

No claim of divinity!

No claims about the Master!

Unlike so many typical religions, the RSSB initiation has zero pledges to believe anything.

The only vow is your commitment to meditate, to be vegetarian, to avoid consuming anything made with drugs or alcohol, and to live to the highest moral standards (nothing specific detailed)...

Four views to practice. No vow to believe anything blindly. No vow to not investigate other practices at will.

The culture bound beliefs are one thing. But the actual vows give you something closer to the truth of the path.. Your own investigation, your own discovery.

[Sonia]

All,

I think it’s important to keep in mind that unlike all of the previous RS masters, GSD has never once described his inner experiences. And when asked to describe or give a hint about what to expect “inside”, he refuse. Again, this is completely different to previous masters.

GSD, says burn the books (probably Path of the Masters first). He gives no direction as what’s inside and says not to look for anything or expect anything from within.

Please think that over and please let me know your thoughts on the matter.

[um]

@ Sonia

>>I think it’s important to keep in mind that unlike all of the previous RS masters, GSD has never once described his inner experiences.
<<

As far as I know and remember, he speaks the same things as his uncle. Only the form is different. His uncle too, never spoke about his personal status, inner regions and the like ... besides answering questions put before him, the only thing HE had to say was ... do your meditation.

The central point as I rember it in the teaching is ...TO PRACTICE and leave anything that doesn't help aside.

The credo is ... there is an inner world to be seen like there is an outerworld ... if interested ... go and see for yourself.

All talk, in the end is just an excuse for lack of faith, effort etc

"Burn the books etc ...."if these things that are meant to be of help become a hindrance, the best advice is to burn them ...

[um]

@ Sonia

https://www.amazon.nl/Supreme-Quest-English-Edward-Michael-ebook/dp/B018UFBJXS/ref=sr_1_2?__mk_nl_NL=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&dchild=1&keywords=edward+salim+michael&qid=1629043852&sr=8-2&asin=B018UFBJXS&revisionId=a8454517&format=1&depth=1

Please do read the preface that is online. Michael, stresses openly what in fact is also to be found in the teachings of Beas ... to do it with heart and to the complete exclusion of everything else. If you put together what is scattered all over the place in books, Q&A, tapes letters etc it boiuls down to what Michael writes.

They do not want to discourage anybody and for that reason do not stress the effort side but in fact the path they offer is to be compared with answering an calling to go in a monasteries and live a monastic life.

In a monastery humans are the same as outside, do the same things, face the same things ... the difference is in the organisation of all human activity around one simple goal to the exclusion of everything else.

Evrybody that enters this path will have to face it soner or later, be it now or over 4 lives. ... hahaha

[Appreciative Reader]

In the end they all mean, ... I never questioned you, why do you questjon me? ... do I owe you something?

Posted by: um | August 15, 2021 at 07:51 AM
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, um.

Not sure what you're driving at, actually. Are you asking me why I question believers the basis of their belief? Well, that's we're all here for, isnt' it? What other reason for us to congregate here? We ask, and we discuss, because these things interest us. Both idle curiosity, as well as curiosity in connection with something that many of us are actually involved in, in some way, directly or indirectly. (Apologies if I've misunderstood your thrust. In which case perhaps you could clarify.)

[um]

@ AR

>>Not sure what you're driving at, actually. <<

:-))

[Appreciative Reader]

Since we already know that meditation heightens cognitive functioning, but we don't know much more, then why not investigate?...
The very lack of hard scientific evidence you point to is no reason to dismiss possibility. ...
Again, there is more worthy of investigation.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | August 15, 2021 at 08:13 AM

Given what I just wrote, it is presumptive to dismiss any claims about those internal experiences ...
let's investigate those things to learn more about them. ...
Let's do science, man!
Posted by: Spence Tepper | August 15, 2021 at 08:23 AM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

..........Sure, let's. I'm attempting that myself, in my own humble way.

But my point was, it seems wholly irrational to swallow these teachings whole. And, for that matter, irrational to teach them in the first place, as if they were fact.

Do you agree?

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

"The culture bound beliefs are one thing. ...

...So I would not spend too much time on the culture bound labels."

..........Fair enough, I agree with your approach.

But your approach is clearly different from how most apparently take to these teachings. And indeed how they're taught. Like I said, I was responding directly to what Dungeness had said.

In as much as your personal approach is different than, and also more reasonable than, what your garden variety RSSB acolyte believes, and also what RSSB itself teaches, do you, like me, find these literal teachings irrational?

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

Finally, would you like to hazard an answer to what I'd asked, that is, how the RSSB founder, and other subsequent masters, might have come to know/understand the detailed theology that RSSB teaches? Have they actually explained this anywhere, how exactly they came to know all of this?

They saw those visions, and heard those celestial notes, okay, accepted, but how did they move from there to that detailed theology?

(Sure, you yourself don't take those cultural labels literally. And you recommend others don't either. Understood. While not wholly unrelated, nevertheless that observation is a different discussion.)

[Appreciative Reader]

@ AR

>>Not sure what you're driving at, actually. <<

:-))

Posted by: um | August 15, 2021 at 10:26 AM
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry? I wasn't joking, I actually wasn't sure I understood.

Of course, not to beat this to death if you want to let it go at that, you know, drop it for now. No issues, if so.

[um]

@ AR

Atheists, skeptics, rationalists ... have one thing in common ... the curiosity for what religious people have to say.

Why this strange language of curiosity?

If I can have my beliefs without questioning atheists, skeptics and rationalist, why can they not be an atheist, skeptic and rationalist without questioning me??

Believers are the food of them

[Appreciative Reader]

Most aren't curious, actually, um. Most don't give a flip.

In my case, it isn't as if I'm an atheist first who happens to have become curious about these things. It's more that I was and am curious, first, indeed very interested, in mysticism; and that my search for meaning has led me to atheism as the reasonable position, basis what I've seen and known and understood so far. And my curiosity, and my interested, and indeed my research, continues ... it isn't as if I've given up on that, at least not yet, far from it.

You might as well ask people congregating on a football board or blog, and discussing about football there, why "everyone" is interested in football. Not everyone is interested in football; only some are; and some of those who are interested in football go to the football board precisely because they're interested in that game. Whether they believe in the prospects of some particular team, or indeed in the overall prospects of football as a sport, is a whole different discussion. Similarly here. At least where I'm concerned.

[um]

@ AR

You can never know whether this or that "food" is digestible for you by discussing and questioning the eating habits from others.

Curiosity would be to eat it yourself and see what it does to your welfare.

Again ... I never ever questioned anybody! Even in mondane situations as eating out in a restaurant, I navigatre on my own experiences.

My personal experiences Are good enough to guide me through life and they are not needed to make statements about others. If the food in a restaurant is not according my liking, after may be giving it another try, I will just leave and not turn again. The very fact that the food was not according my liking and or the service, can not and should not be used as an assessment of the qualities of the restaurant, it chefs or the service staff.

If a guru has no intellectual and/or emotional appeal upon me, that doesn't mean that he could not be the only real teacher and the opposite my likings are not to say that a particular guru is even a guru.

We are are solely responsible for our own life and we cannot put that burden on the back of others, outsourcing our personal resposibility .... the keys are not to be found in the street were there is more light and many people around to discuss with where these keys might be.

[#operationgururescue]

🎪 🐘

[Appreciative Reader]

"You can never know whether this or that "food" is digestible for you by discussing and questioning the eating habits from others.

Curiosity would be to eat it yourself and see what it does to your welfare."

..........Sure, um, agreed. At least, while nitpicks come to mind, but broadly speaking, I'm with you.

If I may use an analogy. If you're a foodie, and you get together and discuss food stuff with other foodies. You do that because you're interested. And yes, you do eat stuff yourself as well. But here's the thing: You may discuss a hundred different cuisines with people who partake of such, but you may limit yourself to personally eating just three or four, given your own particular predilections. That doesn't in any way invalidate your discussion around the other ninety-seven food traditions. Indeed, how you've arrived at the three or four types of food you yourself favor is precisely by sampling a small collection, and that sampling arrived at via precisely such discussions (whether first-hand interactions RL, or on boards and forums and blogs, or by reading books and listening to lectures).

I'm still not getting the point you're trying to get across. This particular burden remains mine, at least so long as I elect to shoulder it, and until such time as I relinquish it for good. (The burden we'd been discussing some weeks back was in a different context, that was about burden of proof. And your key analogy was sound in the context of our discussion at that time, but in this present context I'm not sure it makes sense. You're looking for the key. You're personally searching at three or four places. And you're decided on those three or four places by speaking with people who've seen keys in maybe a hundred different places. I mean, what better means can there be, than this? I mean, how else would you yourself suggest one do this, then, using your key analogy?)

[um]

@AR

Whatever you think, feel is rooted in yourself ... there it is born. That is the key.
Before ...., discussing teachers and teachings, one is best advised to seek one's own heart as to what are one's motives. Discussing with other people does not solve that problem.

But those who think it to be so, they have to face their own fate and, question and discuss until they find out that there is no end to what can be discussed and no end to the amount of people to discuss with and give up ... give up in order to start the search where they should have started in the first place.

But ... that is in itself a gain .. great gain.

[Appreciative Reader]

But why does it have to be either-or? (Refer my foodie analogy for a more detailed elucidation of what I'm asking.)

[um]

@ AR

What can I say but to repeat that the mind has to be satisfied before it gives in?
Whatever I or others say doesn't matter really and in a sense I feel sorry for reacting again.as as long as that fire is raging in you, nobody can and nobody should try to throw water on it.

You are intelligent, you already know... no need of others

[Appreciative Reader]

Oh, ok, I think I get you now.

You're not so much speaking of exploring specific options and individual methods and traditions (whether via discussion, or experientially), but referring to a different aspect altogether, namely, the realization that apparently visits the aspirant after mental effort has exhausted itself and been relinquished. Correct?

If that was your meaning, then okay, I understand, now, what you're saying. Cheers.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You asked...
"But my point was, it seems wholly irrational to swallow these teachings whole. And, for that matter, irrational to teach them in the first place, as if they were fact.

"Do you agree?

If it's irrational to you, I guarantee you won't believe it. So the key phrase is "...wholly irrational." Who believes something wholly irrational? Seems like a formula for internal conflict and ultimately, frustration.

Having written this, fantasy is quite attractive to many people. It's a part of what makes their lives pleasant. So, perhaps wholly irrational is a plus!

"You may be right.
I may be crazy...
But a lunatic may just be what your looking for....

Turn out the lights...
Don't try to change me...
You may be wrong,
for all I know you may be right...."

Billy Joel.

[um]

@ AR

EUREKA ... :-)

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You asked...
"In as much as your personal approach is different than, and also more reasonable than, what your garden variety RSSB acolyte believes, and also what RSSB itself teaches, do you, like me, find these literal teachings irrational?"

Fortunately, I didn't have to sign on to those things in order to get initiation. Those around me also were of a similar mindset...that we should see things for ourselves before drawing conclusions.

As mentioned above, nothing like the theory of Karma or the station of the Master as God in Human form is in the vows we took, which were just about meditation and harmless lifestyle.

Now having said that, if you had seen what I have seen, you would withhold judgement on most everything.

When even the table you are sitting at, and the image you are seeing is up for grabs..when things that seemed solid present themselves as clouds of particles in fields of transparent energy, ringing, vibrating with music, you may decide that it's better to learn and understand more, even about the simple things we all take for granted, than conclude these things are ludicrous. Because you didn't, in this case, read this in a book or hear someone else tell it to you. It has become part of your own daily experience, and personal reality.

Same rules of logic and reasoning apply, but with a completely different set of personal experiential data.

So, I have learned not to draw conclusions about stuff that is truly unknown to me. And what I do see, I've learned to acknowledge experientially, but not attempt to label with my limited intellect.

As for the teachers of these things... who can say. But anyone can share what they have experienced.

[Dungeness]

@ A.R. : " But if decades of experimentation does not yield results, it makes sense to describe the experiment as having failed."

Yes, I agree and commend Brian and anyone else who opts
out after decades of perceived failure. That's why I'll echo a
mystic's words again (actually Sawan Singh to Ishwar Puri) on
initiation: "This path has worked for me. I hope it will work for
you as well. Drop it if not and seek a path that does. Promise
me though, if you find something better, you'll come back and
tell me. I'll follow it also.".

But clinging relentlessly to hopes of a different outcome brings to
mind that popular trope about "Insanity is doing the same thing
over and over and expecting different results...". It's commendable
to reject blind belief too but, even so, becomes prejudicial if you
then attack mysticism in general as flawed and cultic based on
individual dissatisfaction with outcomes or whiffs of financial
scandal in news reports.

@ A.R : "How exactly do RSSB masters claim to know what they do about their theology? You know, the cosmology, and the GIHF thing, and Kal... I'm
asking, what is the actual mechanism by which they know it, according to them? So the founder of the faith taught this, and the gurus teach this. From there, how did they arrive at the detailed theology?"

Good questions. I have no idea and can't hazard any guesses.
Particularly without advancing significantly within or improving
mental acuity. I'm beset at present nearly 24x7 by a jumble of
mostly random thoughts, images, impulses, and a seemingly
infinite capacity for distractibility. These are the behemoths in
the center of my "living room". I'm heartened by the effects of
meditation and a certain incremental improvement in inner
awareness though. Hopefully, deeper insights come as well.