A guided meditation by Sam Harris about the open sky of consciousness

Below is a transcript of a guided meditation by Sam Harris that I listened to recently on his Waking Up app. I enjoyed it a lot. His guided meditations last either 10 or 20 minutes, depending on how much non-speaking time you choose.

So the words by Harris should be experienced, not just thought about. Of course, there's quite a bit to ponder in how Harris views consciousness and its contents.

What he says reminds me of what I read about Descartes and his famous Cogito, ergo sum, I think therefore I am,  in an intriguing new book by David Chalmers that I'm reading, "Reality: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy."

Chalmers writes:

More deeply, Descartes reasoned that he could not doubt that he's thinking. Even if he doubted that he was thinking, his doubt was itself a sort of thinking. To doubt that one is thinking is internally inconsistent: The doubting itself shows that the doubt is wrong.

Once Descartes knew he was thinking, it was a small step to knowing his own existence. Where there is thinking, there must be a thinker. So Descartes concludes: Sum! I exist!

Plenty of philosophers have tried to poke holes in Descartes's Cogito ergo sum. Some question the cogito part. How can Descartes be so sure that he's even managing to doubt? That is, how does he know that he's not a mindless automaton?

Others question the step to sum. Is it so obvious that thinking requires a thinker? According to the 18th century German philosopher Georg Lichtenberg, Descartes should have said, "There is thinking, therefore thought exists." 

That way, he could have known that thoughts exist, but he should not have been so sure about himself. 

...Speaking for myself, I don't think there's anything special about thinking per se. Descartes could have said, "I feel, therefore I am," or "I see, therefore I am." All of these are claims about his mind that he can be certain of and that aren't threatened by the evil demon.

At least, he can be certain about these claims if they're understood as states of consciousness, or subjective experience. If we understand "see" as referring simply to the subjective experience of seeing, then Descartes can be certain he is seeing.

In my view, the best statement of the cogito is "I am conscious, therefore I am."

Here's the guided meditation by Sam Harris. It echoes how David Chalmers views Descartes.

OK, just find a comfortable seat, and take a few deep breaths. See if you can recognize a sky-like nature of your mind, right at the outset.

There's just this vast, open, undefined, centerless condition in which everything is appearing, all by itself.

Sights, sounds, sensations, smells, tastes, thoughts, moods, emotions -- everything you can notice, along with the noticing itself, is simply springing into view in the space of awareness. 

Just drop back and rest as that. 

Any thought about the past is simply appearing in this space. Any thought about the future, any reaction to the present -- everything you can experience is a modification of this condition to which you are identical.

There's nothing to do here to meditate. There's nothing to focus on or to improve. Simply rest as this openness. Grasping at nothing, pushing nothing away.

It's as though you're watching a movie. And everything, including the watching itself, is on the screen. Just recognize as a matter of experience, you're identical to the screen.

You are the condition in which everything that appears, appears. You're not outside it. You're not on the edge of it. You're not merely observing it. 

You're it.

See if you can recognize what that feels like. That openness, that boundarylessness, that centerlessness. Notice how it transcends any object or process that appears within it. 

Does it feel like "I"? Or "Me"? How could it be a self? How could it be personal? How could it be happy or sad? 

At the moment you notice a thought, recognize the condition in which it already is unraveling. Rest as that. 

In the last minutes of the session, pay careful attention to the breath. See if you can refine your mindfulness, just for a minute. 

OK. Again, thank you for your practice. And I wish you much happiness for the rest of your day. I'll see you back here next time, for the next session of Waking Up.

Comments

[Appreciative Reader]

I've been checking up on Dzogchen. Of the stuff I watched, stuff that some general searches online threw up, here's two links that were best, best I mean of the random list that I've gone through so far.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSPWiEaOlfc : Sam Harris talks about the practice, including touching on the 'why' of it.

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf51n8V8vII : A more detailed take on the 'why' of the practice, while also touching on the 'how'. Someone called James Low, never heard of him, but he explains this quite well.

----------

I've loved these recent posts of yours on Dzogchen, Brian.

What I'm starting to think (my ever so slightly informed view, as opposed to my total ignorance about Dzogchen before these articles of yours --- and the former is so very self-evidently "slight" that it's quite possible that I'm totally mistaken in thinking this, and I'm entirely open to being corrected!) is this: The practices as well as the insight aren't entirely exclusive to Dzogchen, not by a long shot. I've personally come across, and even practiced, in ways that converge at many points with what Dzogchen seems to be about. Where Dzogchen stands out is in --- apparently, and going by my limited exposure to this stuff --- is in focusing primarily on this experiencing-the-no-self aspect of it. As well as --- apparently, and if Sam Harris is right --- in that it actually delivers, and without having to fall back on all kinds of woo.

Looks good, so far, this Dzogchen thing. Pinch of salt, always, as with all things, and especially all things of this nature: but absolutely, look cool so far.

[TENDZIN]

It's just so much easier and more effective to pray to a personal God that created you, loves you, will provide for you, and guides you in the right paths, a God that if approached humbly will confer serenity.

Certainly managing the mind with these kinds of meditations has value, but a limited one. Were that not so, we'd have seen mindfulness explode into the mainstream.

But it hasn't. Mindfulness is still little more than a present-day cultural fad in the West, and many of its teachers are like Harris, going from one mindfulness method to another in search of the one that reveals the golden pony under the pile of thoughts.

And never mind the West, what about the East? Even in Buddhist countries, there's virtually no interest in vipassanaesque meditation. People who go to temples go there to pray. That tells me something.

[Spence Tepper]

Any practice that raises thinking beyond mind is part of Dzogchen.
Any practice that does not is still in the realm of mind.

Now, what is mind?
Everyone defines it differently.
If you define mind as a functional part of the brain, it is only a part. Other parts are not in mind.
If you define mind as conscious awareness, it is only a part of the brain's functions. Other parts are not in mind.

Anything that raises your awareness beyond "mind" is part of Dzoghen.

But mind, just thinking about mind, self thinking about self is still within the realm of conventional mind. That's not Dzogchen.

Conventional thinking isn't going to raise consciousness beyond conventional thinking.

In Dzogchen the practice that helps raise consciousness includes purity of mind. That would be a luminescent mind. But that isn't a metaphor. It is an actual internal experience of light.

"In the Early Buddhist Texts there are various mentions of luminosity or radiance which refer to the development of the mind in meditation. In the Saṅgīti-sutta for example, it relates to the attainment of samadhi, where the perception of light (āloka sañña) leads to a mind endowed with luminescence (sappabhāsa).[7] According to Analayo, the Upakkilesa-sutta and its parallels mention that the presence of defilements "results in a loss of whatever inner light or luminescence (obhāsa) had been experienced during meditation"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_mind

It is the pure mind, or pure-er mind, that sees internal light. And the presence of "defilements" that results in the loss of that experience of light in meditation.

Here is a fairly simply hallmark of progress towards true Dzogchen, which is the state achieved as a result of the practice, not the practice.

If the practice, and the life around it to support it, doesn't at least lead to luminous mind, it cannot then lead to beyond self / beyond mind.

So, this should be, not a goal, but a milestone of actual progress beyond mind.

[Spence Tepper]

So, short course:
If you think that any practice must meet your conventional notions, it can't take you anywhere else.
if you want any practice to flatter your current thinking, then that is where it will take you.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Tendzin:

You wrote:

"It's just so much easier and more effective to pray to a personal God that created you, loves you, will provide for you, and guides you in the right paths, a God that if approached humbly will confer serenity."

For some people this is entirely true, and natural. Christ is in them, they are in Christ.

Others need something else.

What is easy is to take a step from where you are.
"The journey of 1,000 miles begins beneath your feet."
Tao of LeoTze

It can't begin anywhere else. I think people who are listening to these very watered down Western interpretations of Eastern spiritual writings are looking for something local, not foreign. Something accessible.

Unfortunately, the stars aren't local. But there is a stairway there that is.

For some Jesus is right here. And taught Dzogchen in his own way also..
"19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

"20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

"21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

"22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

"23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

"24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

"25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?"

No-Self...

[Ron E.]

Sam Harris’s guided meditation here is quite adequate and reflects much of how the mindfulness movement works. It may be helpful in enabling people to look into the question of ‘Who am I’.

It is basically Buddha’s teaching which simply said; - “I teach one thing and one thing only; that is, suffering and the ending of suffering.” It is a practical method of helping to understand the causes of suffering and to that end it focuses on the mind structure and thought patterns that underline much of our individual and collective struggles and conflicts.

By no means does it impinge on other religions – unless that is, they see it as a threat to their beliefs and concepts. One can be a member of other religions and still practice Buddhism.

[Roger]

" ..... mind structure and thought patterns ......"

--- All human thoughts are conditioned and therefore unique to each individual. Nobody else can have your thoughts and you can’t have the same thoughts of others. Of course, we can share beliefs, ideas, concepts, experiences, etc., but how we arrived at the thoughts about them will be unique to us. All human conflict happens when we think our thoughts are right and others thoughts are wrong, but thoughts are never right or wrong, they are just thoughts that may or may not be factually correct. Although thinking is compulsory for all humans whose cognitive functioning is operational, it’s not compulsory to believe the thought or act it out.

[TENDZIN]

@ Spence

But Jesus was the theist of all theists. That is, he wasn't an atheist teaching the way of No-Self. But if he was, Sam Harris might be the 2nd coming.

My point is that this denatured Eastern mindfulness approach to life really doesn't work for most people. I think this is important to point out. From what I've seen over the past 30 plus years, people keep putting presenting this stuff as a tremendously effective way of harmonizing the mind. It might be time to ask, who says so, and where's the evidence?

The popularity of the cell phone and the automobile are positive proof that these technologies provide value to people's lives. Likewise, the popularity of theistic religion over do-it-yourself mindfulness shows us something about what really works (humanistically) in the field of religion.

Sam Harris' mission isn't that mindfulness is just another way. He's adamant that theistic religion is terribly harmful in many ways.

And so he promotes Dzogchen as if it has great promise. All I can say is that Westerners have been trying to promote non-theistic mediation for many decades now, and the public isn't having it. There are many reasons for this I could go into, but the main one perhaps is that it's a laborious, dry, and largely unnatural method. I've been to the many meditation centers, I've seen it. Not much to see, not many happy faces.

I've also seen that, in general, people find greater and manifold satisfaction from a theistic approach. This is a fact that never enters into Sam Harris' calculations.

[Tim Rimmer]

Three things come to mind when I think about Descartes:

In response to pondering ‘I think therefor I am’ I used to say ‘Fair enough but what am I when I’m not thinking?’
The picture of the philosophising skunk - ‘I stink therefor I am.’
There’s an old YouTube clip of the song Parabola by the band Tool (always been a bit of a progressive metal head). In it the character is walking through a dark forest - and I’ve always reckoned it’s Descartes ‘forest of doubt’! Great ending to the video by the way.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Tendzin:

You ask:

"But Jesus was the theist of all theists. That is, he wasn't an atheist teaching the way of No-Self."

The path, or basically whatever is within us, is the same. It cannot be different for as long as human beings have been constructed in much the same way.

One light, many windows. Jesus had to explain this many times to the Temple Priests and Rabbis.

So, when people experience some of these preliminary things, they can be subjective experiences that lead to new concepts about who and what we are, and who and what this reality is.

As for Mindfulness, actually it is very popular, and there is quite a bit of medical research as to the positive effects of practicing it.

Nothing wrong there. But it will only take you so far.

Then there are Spiritual teachings that also attempt to describe the inner reality, but these are couched in culture-bound terms. And religious organizations, like any organizations, tend to become self-serving around these notions.

The proof is in the pudding. Practice will take you to a place. From there, anyone who practices sincerely, will start to see the limitations of that practice. Others who do not practice seriously will never get that far, thinking the one who taught them is giving them all the truth there is.

It is natural for those with little or no experience to see these things as all different, some good some bad.

But these are all different places on the same journey.

Sam Harris isn't actually teaching Dzogchen. The problem there is that people who haven't really done their research nor practice, buy his claim to that title.

But those people need a teacher to, so they get the teacher they are ready for.

When Christ gave the lesson of the Good Samaritan he pointed out that the one who was kind to a stranger was the better person than the priests and rabbis who were not willing to help a stranger.

Now, you may be familiar with Jesus' allegory. But in another place he says that Samaritan's don't know what they are worshipping, that their religion is false.

Still, he placed that Samaritan above the others for more important reasons.

The rules are not essential. What is in the heart is essential.

Then Christ is everywhere. Even in the stranger who practices a different belief.

Whomever fell away, they can also return.

[TENDZIN]

@ Spence

If it's true that all religions are the same, explain that to Sam Harris. He clearly doesn't believe it. Nor do I. Nor did Jesus or the Buddha, etc. All religions are the same" is a bromide that Sant mat has long peddled, one of those lines that sounds wonderful but is obviously not in any way true. There is a stark difference between what the Sattipatana sutta teaches and what the Gospel of John lays out.

Jesus is never said to have said anything remotely like "one light many windows."

Mindfulness practice is hardly very popular in the West or even the East. Compared to those who go to churches, temples, or mosques, mindfulness practitioners are hardly a blip. If you put all the Buddhist meditation centers together, all the zendos and the Spirit Rocks and the Goenka groups, it hardly amounts to the # of Jehovah's Witnesses in the US.

Excuse me, but so much of your response is just the same new-age bromides from the 1970s about how all religions are the same, but people of different unfoldment choose the path that fits them in their level of consciousness on the journey to the same destination of no destination, etc. Wow, I heard of a boatload of that during my years on a new age path. To be frank, I find it a big bag of nonsense, especially so when the person espousing it belongs to a cult that officially recognizes no other religion as its equal.

Yes, if a person considers themselves a Sant mat initiate, say in RSSB, then they've taken an oath signifying that they believe all religious teachers outside of RSSB are promoting false or denatured religions. That is what Charan Singh believed, and we know so because he said so. Or if you think that's harsh, it can't be denied that Charan repeatedly said that the only way to liberation is sant mat meditation.

I don't mind it if people who have no religious affiliations spout new age rhetoric about all religions being one, but I won't accept it from anyone who is a Satsangi of any RS group. Sant mat teaches that religions are different, very very different. They are different in what they DO for the practitioner. That is the point I was making about theistic v. non-theistic religions. I have done both, and from both my personal experience and what I've observed in others, theism produces more happiness and mental contentment than sitting watching one's thoughts per Dzogchen or Vipassana or some other meditation technology.

Anway, believe what you want, but if you have more of this 70s stuff to tell me then we're done here.

[Brian Hines]

TENDZIN, great comment. I heartily agree. There's a huge difference between religions. I used to believe there was a common denominator between them, but that was when I embraced the notion that Sant Mat was the highest and purest spiritual path, while only advanced mystics in other faiths understood the whole Inner Sound and Light thing.

I now accept that I was wrong. My commitment to Sant Mat/RSSB had screwed up my thinking, so I was looking at things from a narrow viewpoint where Sant Mat was the apex of the pyramid of religiosity and all other faiths filled din the rest of the pyramid.

You might be surprised to hear this, but I also agree that theistic religions tend to be more satisfying than non-theistic faiths like Buddhism. This seems to be why so many Buddhists look upon the Buddha as a divine being rather than a mere teacher. And why prayer wheels, repeating Namu Amida Butsu as a mantra, and such are more popular than following the breath in meditation.

My problem is that while I can occasionally pretend that I believe in a personal divine being, I really don't, so my occasional half-hearted attempts at embracing theism don't get me very far. Sant Mat can flow either way, since the guru offers personal devotion and the highest spiritual realm basically is impersonal. Good marketing, at least, in an attempt to appeal to a wide range of people -- bhakti/devotion types along with more detached intellectual types.

[Dungeness]

@ Tendzin [ Yes, if a person considers themselves a Sant mat initiate, say in RSSB, then they've taken an oath signifying that they believe all religious teachers outside of RSSB are promoting false or denatured religions. That is what Charan Singh believed, and we know so because he said so. Or if you think that's harsh, it can't be denied that Charan repeatedly said that the only way to liberation is sant mat meditation. ]

I disagree. Nowhere does Charan say that. Nowhere! Nor would
any authentic mystic. Perhaps he claimed that following light and
sound was the path to liberation but that's not exclusive to RSSB.
Various paths and lineages throughout history mirror that claim.
A cultist might assert his was the one true path. A true mystic will
not.

In fact, Ishwar Puri relates in a talk that Great Master told him at
initiation in substance: Here is a path's that's worked for me. I
hope it works for you but if it doesn't and if you find something
better, promise me you'll tell me because I'll follow it as well.
[ I can cite the exact talk if there's interest]

[um]

@ Brian / Tendzin

In the set theory a concept is a set of things that have something in common. These unique variations share the sameness.

A ford is certainly not an Mercedes but both are a unique variation of the concept car.

That is true for almost everything we can name.
Religion, is not an exception.

You gentlemen, are also a unique variation of humaness. There has never been a Brian and a Tendzin before you and there will also never be one after you gentlemen.
BUT ... both of you are human.

The same holds for meditation as an concept.

Some focus on the variation and others focus on the sameness.

Certainly the chines way of cooking is not the same as the american but they are both called a cuisine.

And ... language does not allow us to describe uniqueness other that in sameness.
To point at a cup before you you can say ... that is a white cup. ..but white is an set and cup is also an set, there is no way to describe that single unique object so simple

[um]

@ Tendin
About many windows ...

When I was asked to cook [meat] for a Tibetan Rinpoche so that all being his students could participate in a very rare initiation, I used the occasion and the freedom to discuss with him the difference between his path and sant mat.

He said look: I follow the path of Bodhidharma, if you are interested I will be glad to teach you about other things I have no knowledge.

Later I found that all that i approached with the same question, gave the same answer.

What works for them, is simple the best and no need to look for other ways.

The same I found when I was still making and flying fighter kites. Being and "normal" westerner I researched the different ways fighter kites are made in the many asian countries. One day I went to those Indonesian people from whom I came to know about fighter kites and wanted to discuss with them the different bridle techniques they show no interest to say it simple. He didnt understand how someone could be interested in other kites etc if their own kites etc did what they wanted and expected from it.

So the question of who or what is the best, seems a typical western thing. For others what they do is the sole thing, the best.

So, no mystic will say or can say, go to another, his way is better than mine. So For christ there was no reason to point at another path as he was just teaching HIS path. But ... that doesn't mean he was the only mystic ever to be around.

For every partner in a marriage the partner is the "best". It has to be otherwise one will not be able to generated the needed devotion and love to maintain the relation.

As soon as a person starts to believe or consider that there is something better to be had, the relation is broken and cannot be repaired.

Any spiritual path and any other bond that demands love and devotion, has to be followed to the complete exclusion of everything else, in order to be fruitfull.

Asking for the best, comparing is the sheer expression of the lack of that devotion and love...... and ....has nothing to do with the person to which that devotion and love should be directed.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hm.

We have you, Tendzin, saying in your comments that people are generally happier with theistic religions, and also implying that therefore that might be one point in favor or theistic religions. (As with many of your comments, whether politically tilted or otherwise, you are kind of big on implication; so that, while you don't spell that out in so many words, that this the sense one reads into this. You can correct me if you did not in fact mean to imply that.)

And then I was kind of surprised to find you agreeing, Brian, that theistic religions tend to be more satisfying. Which I guess is different than saying that people are happier with such, but still.

Two observations, then:

(1) First, where is the evidence that people are actually happier with theistic religions? Lots of people are into such, and some of them are happy, and some outright miserable. How on earth might one base this conclusion of which kind of religion makes people happier?

I guess one objective way of looking at this question would be to look at the so-called happiness indices. Of course, this approach isn't without difficulties, because for one thing I'm not quite sure about the validity of the index in the first place, and secondly because there would almost certainly be other extraneous factors, other than religion, in play here. All of that said, this is still the only objective measure that comes to mind, and while I haven't gone and checked, I suspect that we won't find higher indices correlated with theism, and if anything the opposite might hold.

1 (b) One qualification, as far as the above. At this time we're examining the effects of theism, not its truth value. But common sense would suggest that if you don't have compelling evidence about the truth value of something, then you'll need very strong reasons to suggest that people believe that something anyway. Therefore certainly if there is positive correlation between atheism or agnosticism with happiness, then that is the way to go; but further, in the absence of compelling reasons to conclude that theism makes ones happier than atheism, the default ought to be that one not go in for theism. Because one doesn't go believing things that aren't true. Unless you've good reasons, compelling reasons, to prefer one kind of belief/non-belief over another, I'd say that it's good and right that belief should follow what the truth value points towards.

(2) Finally, even if it does turn out that people are indeed "happier" with theistic religions, or are somehow drawn more to such ---- not that that is at all the case, in fact likely the opposite, but let's just assume that for now for the sake of argument ---- but that is still no grounds for suggesting that that is somehow a point in favor of theistic religions. Because the same reasoning will have you conclude that people are "happier", or are drawn more towards, say, junk food over a healthier diet, or towards drinking to excess over abstention or moderation, or [fill in any other example here, there's heaps and heaps of them one can think of]. One does not therefore suggest that those are points in favor of eating junk food or drinking without restraint etc etc etc. So then the implication that this is any reason to think theistic religions are "better" --- should such have been implied --- is entirely misplaced.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Tendzin
You wrote
"If it's true that all religions are the same, explain that to Sam Harris."

I think you may have missed what I wrote.

"The path, or basically whatever is within us, is the same. It cannot be different for as long as human beings have been constructed in much the same way.

" One light, many windows. Jesus had to explain this many times to the Temple Priests and Rabbis."

Human beings are constructed in the same way. Most everyone has heart, lungs and brain, and these are of similar construction.

Just as physical principles apply nearly universally.. You can go to any planet, asteroid or sun and the law of gravity works in much the same way wherever you go.

So whatever truth is within us is going to be pretty much the same, if that spiritual truth has any actual existence.

Now, there are cultural differences, different climates, different political situations, etc.. And these all can influence our psychology. So long as we must view the world through our psychology, define God and reality through our Psychology, we are going to view it from our one dimensional point in space and time.

But that one point is not the same for different people.

However, the truth we are trying to interpret cannot be any different. It is the same principle.

This is also what can be found in Jesus' teachings. There is only one God. Everyone worships, but their worship is subject to their psychology and that creates a limited perspective.

So they worship different idols, but there is still one God.

The same God that gave the Samaritan, following a false religion, a pure heart, and a greater ethic than the religous teachers of Jesus ' own religion, Judaism, is the same God in everyone.

But everyone interprets that God, through their psychology and conditioning, differently.

This is also why Jesus says it is only worship in the Spirit and in Truth that matters to God. That is Dzogchen, going beyond the limited blinkered, parochial limits of mind to witness that inner reality directly.

"19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

" 21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
John 4:19-24

Jesus says that God isn't flesh but spirit. That's an internal experience, and worship in spirit is an internal experience.

Worship in Truth is a direct experience.

The thinking mind can create descriptions of truth, but those are labels. To be in the actual truth, in this reality, is a direct experience.

So that is going to be the same for everyone who goes within themselves and beyond their psychology.

"Sister, we are all following Christ."
Maharaj Charan singh

[TENDZIN]

@ Brian Hines @ Spencer

Thinking about this topic last night, I can see that there are so many different approaches to evaluating one religious practice from another. I believe it was Katagiri Rosh who said one of my favorite Zen sayings, something like "whatever you think or say about anything, it's at best only half right." And so while I stand by my somewhat brusque and bumptious posts to you Spencer about how I disagree with your pov, I can understand and agree with many of your basic points.

For example, I think I could credibly argue that RSSB is one of the most tolerant and inclusive of religions. In many ways this is true. But I feel I could make just as strong an argument for how RSSB is blatantly hypocritical in its stance of religious impartiality and is actually just as parochial as any religion.

I can also agree with Spence that the effectiveness of religion is a totally personal matter, differing from person to person's taste, capacity, and who knows, karma. But I disagree with Spence's reply because it sidesteps the issue of what kind of religious practices has been shown to be most effective for most people. I feel this is a pertinent issue because I know I'm not alone here in finding a gap -- often a chasm -- between what a religion promises and what it ultimately delivers to the practitioner.

We know this is true about Sant mat, but I feel it's also true about certain forms of Buddhist practice. For many years I'd visit used book stores like The Bodhi Tree and it was guaranteed they'd have a large selection of used RSSB and Ruhani books. The backstory was obvious: someone had been enthralled with the promises of Sant mat lit but found that the actual path didn't deliver the goods in one or more or many ways.

And with Buddhism, we've heard much about the promise of that path. Again, from my experience and observations, it has just as much of a shadow side. I've gone on long enough so I won't go into details of that here, but I'm tending to agree more and more with what I heard from someone years ago on the ultimate value of meditation: At best, meditation is a healthy form of stress reduction and psychological integration; trying to permanently achieve anything more (Sach Khand or No-Self) is futile.

Of course, I may be totally wrong about that.

[spence tepper]

Hi Tendzin:

Ah the Bodhi Tree in West Hollywood...Fond memories of my mom taking me there for the opening!
And then off to HELP restaurant for a vegetarian dinner...or the Self Realization Fellowship on alternate Friday evenings...before they closed their restaurant.

You see, if you are raised on visits to the Bodhi tree, SRF, The Theosophical Society to hear the immense (physically and philosophically) Manly Palmer Hall, or Maharishi..or Krishnamurti in day trips to Ojai; studying ancient egypt; Alice Baily; attending seminars at the New Age Bible Center in Santa Monica, and living for a time at my own mom's spiritual commune in Topanga canyon, as a disciple of Alice Baily, and at another time, decades later, in a community of evangelical Christians in the middle of Wisconsin, having started as a Jew at University Temple on Sunset Boulevard, one can't help but see similar things behind different practices,.

I was raised in an environment that might be a little different from yours. Different parents, different time. And my inner experiences are different.

Before I came to Sant Mat in my late teens, I had exposure to many different systems and meditation practices through my parents. None could explain what I had experienced....

Except Sant Mat. As 777 likes to relate, what I experienced from the time I requested initiation was simply unbelievable.

But what Sant Mat offered was, actually, much less of a philosophy, as a practice. When Sawan Singh coined the term Science of the Soul, I took it literally. And from the perspective of an objective effort, a scientific effort, where my Master encouraged me to learn all about different schools of spiritual thought, as I also practiced and learned from that, I gained different results.

And hence a different perspective.

We can only each of us own our own perspective. And learn a little something more about each others'...there are insights in all.

Everyone's sincere and honest view from wherever they are is legitimate, from that real place.

[s*]

Interesting posts!!
This afternoon I go read it again better..
At first sight really interestingly ideaś etc..

[Uchit]

What is Santmat , but an idea that can be taken advantage of by greedy selfish, ego centric people to manipulate people for self gain and power. Look at RSSB, from the start it seems that Jamiel, the womeniser of young girls who was excommunicated by the agra gurus. It's been nothing but a careful plot to use the idea of santmat to trap millions into satan's lear. Look at the greed, the hypocrisy, the extraordinary effort to make the cult the fastest growing religion on the planet. The use of satanic mantra , the first word means the light of the devil , is a massive clue. The other being the excessive greed of the clown gurinder singh dhillon. He and his family are truly enjoying the riches of a billionaire lifestyle, while the poor sangat of India donate everything to the dera, such cruelty in your face. Gurinder your days are numbered.