Church of the Churchless

A RSSB initiate expresses some concerns

Below is a message I got yesterday from someone who is a member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), a religious organization with headquarters in India that's led by a guru, Gurinder Singh Dhillon, which this person refers to as Baba ji. Darshan refers to being in the presence of the guru.

(I belonged to RSSB for thirty-five years, before I broke away from the group.)

The message describes concerns this person has about RSSB and the guru. They end with a request that I share my thoughts about what they said, which I'll do after the message. They also say that they'd like to hear from other like-minded people.

So leave a comment on this post if you want to share some thoughts with this person. Here's what they had to say, followed by my observations.

I have read your blogs about RSSB and I can relate myself to parts of it. I'm an initiate and have been attending satsangs. My concerns are:

 

-- Why two and a half hours of  meditation a day? It is not practical. If you are in a job and you do it continuously, day in and day out. you are not getting enough sleep and it eventually catches up on you. 

 

-- Daiichi vs. Singh brothers. Article comes on RSSB official website and goes off quickly. Was it a decision taken in panic?

 

-- Daiichi vs. Singh brothers. YouTube link to "Fortis tycoon steps down to walk down on the road of spiritualism". It was news that ran on India's mainstream media 7 years ago. Was it part of the financial deal?

 

--  Frequent visits by India's high profile politicians including the prime minister. I am trying to establish the motive. We all have our secrets.

 

-- What is the succession process of masters? Is it at the death of a master or earlier? Looking at the previous line of masters. Nepotism maybe?

 

-- Baba ji is all about simple living. He has had the same pair of trainers for a few years. Well not, when it comes to expensive cars, a charter plane and the helicopter. I am not aware of the other centres, but I know of 2 which have fully furnished houses exclusively for baba ji for his visits. You can imagine the bill if all centres around the world have this arrangement.

 

-- I can't comment on the charitable expenditure of RSSB. But there are a rising number of new centers lately both in India and overseas. Of course, it is creating more sewa opportunities?

 

-- Baba ji's satsang sessions are more like counseling sessions. Replies are standard, not going into details. Q & A sessions, I wonder why no one has raised the question of personal wealth yet. (Quite honestly, I'd be intimidated asking that myself.)

 

When I got initiated, I used to feel special and thought I am set for life. Just do my bit everyday and I will come out stronger and better. Whenever I had a chance to do darshan, I was thinking he could see my soul and was able to hear my prayers.

 

But that's all changed now. I feel that I am not special but just an ordinary, back to square one with no direction.

 

Thanks for listening and your thoughts please. I would like to hear from like minded people as well.

 

I agree with you about the vow to do 2 1/2 hours of meditation a day. Few RSSB initiates do this much meditation. It's a vow that is broken by almost everybody, likely including the guru himself. The RSSB guru who initiated me in 1971, Charan Singh, said that ten minutes of concentrated meditation is better than hours of distracted meditation. So I wouldn't worry about the quantity of meditation, just the quality.

 

Yes, the RSSB website did have links to articles about the guru and the Singh brothers' financial problems. The links were deleted in 2019. I wrote a blog post about this: RSSB deletes financial fraud stories from website. 

 

In 2018 I wrote a post, Gurinder Singh's billionaire nephew rumored to succeed him as RSSB guru. But in 2019 I wrote a post, Shivinder Singh lied about becoming a full-time RSSB sevadar [volunteer]. It does seem that Shivinder did this to get out of contempt proceedings.

 

I don't know much about politics in the Punjab. I suspect politicians like to visit Gurinder Singh because this helps them get votes from RSSB initiates, along with the guru's political support.

 

It is indeed strange that out of the billions of people in the world, the successor to a RSSB guru sometimes is a relative of the previous guru. Like you said, this looks like nepotism. 

 

Gurinder Singh does have a taste for the good life. Well, more than a taste. A full-blown diet. 

 

Back in Charan Singh's time as RSSB guru, he expressed no interest in building overseas centers, saying that meditation should be our main concern. Gurinder Singh changed that as you said, building expensive centers all over the world.

 

If Gurinder Singh is acting as a counselor, sometimes he does a poor job of offering advice. I wrote about one example of this in Why a guru shouldn't give mental health advice. There are other examples.

 

I think it's great that you're asking such good questions. I also really liked your statement that now you feel ordinary, not special. That's a sign of genuine spiritual progress. I say that as someone who also no longer feels religiously special -- though  I admit that I'm pleased and proud about my non-specialness, which shows that I have a ways to go before I feel truly ordinary. 

 

Sam Harris says "consciousness is not inside your head." Huh?

Today I heard Sam Harris say on a guided meditation on his Waking Up app, "Consciousness is not inside your head. Everything is just appearing."

I've heard Harris say this many times. I don't understand that notion. 

The brain is inside the head. The brain generates consciousness. If you doubt that, have general anesthesia. Have someone hit you on the head with a baseball bat, hard. Have your brain surgically removed.

No brain, no consciousness. But we can lose an arm, a leg, or some other non-essential organ and still be conscious. 

If someone can make a good argument for how consciousness is not inside the head, leave a comment about this. Maybe you can convince me Harris is right and I'm wrong.

I found a post on Quora that could explain what Harris really means by this, which makes a lot of sense.

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

Marcus Geduld

Follow

Studied at School of Theatre at Ohio UniversityUpdated 1y

He is speaking metaphorically. He’s a neuroscientist. He knows the brain generates consciousness*, and he knows that the brain is an organ inside the skull.

But he’s trying to help you cut through a persistent illusion: that when you look at a tree, that tree is outside of you and you are a few feet away from it, observing it from a spot just above your nose.

He’s not saying there’s no tree. There is a tree. But you can’t directly perceive it. Data about it enters your brain via your sense organs, chiefly your eyes in this case, but what you’re actually “seeing” is a mental model, built by your brain. It’s a simulation of some sort of external reality.

So is the little bit of your nose that maybe you can see in your peripheral vision. You’re not actually seeing it. It’s just another part of that same mental model as the tree. So is the sight of your hand, if you look down at it or bring it up to your face. So is your sense that you’re breathing. So is your pain when you have a headache.

Your brain has built a simulation—based on real data—that includes the tree, your nose, your breaths, the feeling of your feet on the ground, your ideas, and so on. All are existing in the same “space,” which is consciousness.

So maybe Harris could have said “Everything is in your head,” but what he’s trying to do is get you to see that this sense of yourself being a separate object from the stuff you see “all around you” is an illusion.

The problem with “Everything is in your head” is it creates an image, at least of me, of this normal-sized head with lots of little things inside it. Even if that’s kind of what’s going on, it doesn’t create the visceral feeling that the stuff you see over there is part of consciousness.

If you’re inside a room right now, imagine consciousness as a space wrapping around it, wrapping around the entire room. And that thing in the center of the room that seems to be “you” is just one part of consciousness. It’s just as much inside the wrapper as everything else in the room, as the room itself.

In the real world, there is a separation. There’s you and a tree, two distinct things, but in your consciousness, they’re all part of the same thing—the same simulation. And that tree “over there” is just as much a part of you as that hand “over here.”

Really, when you’re looking at a tree, you’re not seeing a tree, you’re seeing colors and shapes. “Tree” is a concept you’re laying on top of that. (And that concept is also part of the simulation.) And the same is true with “your” hand. When you look at it, you’re seeing shapes and colors. When you look in general, you’re seeing a bunch of shapes and colors, and your brain is layering the concept “tree” on some of them and “hand” on others. But they’re all part of consciousness. Equally.

Imagine a character in a movie suddenly realizing the truth. “Oh my God! I’m in a movie. That car over there is part of a movie. It’s just pixels. That building … pixels! There’s no difference between them. They’re all just colored pixels!”

He’s forgetting one thing, right? He too is just colored pixels. He’s making a false separation between himself and the car, himself and the building. All are part of the same movie. (When the movie was shot, cameras were pointed at actual things, but now what’s being projected is pixels.)

I’m not trying to say nothing is real or it’s all an illusion. And I don’t believe Harris is saying that either. He’s a materialist. I’m saying that when you look around the room, everything you see is equally inside your head and equally close to you. That thing “across the room” is just as close to you as your fingernails, because everything you see and sense is “just pixels,” which is to just your brain’s representation of what’s actually out there.

If that thing over there is a simulation inside your head, it’s not really “over there.” The thing it’s a simulation of might be over there, but you can’t directly perceive that thing. What you’re seeing is a part of you and you’re a part of it.

The data which is telling you that “the thing thing is across the room from you” may be very useful data. It may help guide your actions, if you want to experience going to it and picking it up, but that doesn’t stop everything you see, hear, smell, touch, taste, and otherwise sense from all appearing in the same space, along with your thoughts and feelings.

All of this can be sophomoric, dorm-room “Oh, wow! Trippy,” but mindfulness meditation can gradually train you to have a visceral sense of it. Over time, you learn to see consciousness as a “space” in which all sorts of things appear, and they’re all equally items-in-consciousness: tree, sense of self, sad feeling, memory of yesterday, solution to problem, sound, sense of distance, etc.

—

* The truth is more nuanced. Turns out, Harris is agnostic about the relationship between the brain and consciousness. Thank you, User-11317941740410993461 for correcting my errors. For more info, see the videos in the exchange between me and Benjamin, below.

 

It's fine to be content with who you are: flawed and imperfect

There's nothing wrong with self-improvement. Unless you don't feel like improving your self.

As this letter to the editor in the March 23, 2023 issue of New Scientist says, there's good reason to simply accept yourself as the imperfect person that you are (nobody's perfect, for sure), whose life is marked by some stupid decisions and screwups.

Fed up with the desire to spin our lives in this way
7 January, p 33
From Caroline Deforche,
Lichterveide, Belgium

According to your guide to being your own hero, psychologists say we should spin our memories "into a well-told life narrative" to "help us achieve our aspirations for self-improvement."

Why always this pressure to perform better, because that is what it comes down to (which isn't the same as saying that unhealthy behaviour shouldn't be changed)?

Why don't psychologists give a message about being content with who we are and accepting what we have done so far? Control over everything is an illusion.

What I found most useful were psychologist Kate McLean's reflections.

Indeed, we don't have to look for silver linings everywhere. Some events just suck and some choices we made were just stupid, or we simply had bad luck. Why not admit this and live with it? Why should we have to sugarcoat our story?

No one is completely the author of their own destiny and no one can mould themselves into the perfect shape.

I like these sentiments.

For most of my life I thought that I was supposed to work on making myself a better person. However, that attitude puts us on a hamster-wheel sort of path where we continually put in effort to arrive at a desired place, yet never arrive there, since it's always possible to be an even better person. 

At some point I believe we have to reach a state of mind of This is as good as it gets.

In my experience, that requires a wisdom that comes with aging. Not just growing older -- everybody does that from the moment of their birth -- but reaching an age, for me it's 74, where you recognize that as the letter-writer said, no one can control life or form themselves into a perfect shape.

The best we can do is be as kind as possible to ourselves and others; try to make the world a bit better than it already is, or at least not worse; laugh when we're happy and cry when we're sad; accept that, as my 4th grade teacher liked to say, Do your best; angels can do no better; and flow with the unpredictable currents of life (not that we have any choice in this).

Slow deep breathing and smiling -- two ways to feel better fast

Recently I listened to a guided meditation by Tamara Levitt on my Calm iPhone app where she led listeners through an interesting exercise that taught me something new about breathing.

First Levitt had me breathe for a minute, using my usual breathing. I recall that no counting was done with this first exercise. Then she asked listeners to breathe more slowly, and to count those breaths for a minute that she timed. I had six in and out breaths during that minute.

Then Levitt said to breathe slowly again, but to extend the duration of each in breath by inhaling more deeply when it seemed that no more air could be taken in, and also to extend the duration of each out breath by exhaling more deeply when it seemed that no more air could be expelled.

She timed that minute also. I had four in and out breaths during that minute.

Levitt then talked about how deep breathing of this sort activates a relaxation response in the brain. So she recommended using the extra-deep-breathing technique if someone is anxious about a doctor visit, presentation at work, or whatever.

I've been experimenting with this in my own life and it does seem to work, seemingly for two reasons.

One is that the body does respond to slow deep breathing by relaxing, since fast shallow breathing is associated with a stress response, as when you're worried about being attacked by a stranger on a dark deserted sidewalk.

The other reason is that slow deep breathing, where I inhale and exhale more air past the point where I usually think I've done a full inhalation and exhalation, requires me to concentrate on my breath -- which means my mind isn't full of thoughts about a situation that is making me anxious. 

This is different from merely following my breath, something I've been doing for a long time in my mindfulness and meditation practice. A BBC story (registration may be required), Why slowing your breathing helps you relax, talks about this difference.

Recent scientific research has shown that while quick, shallow and unfocused breathing may contribute to a host of problems, including anxiety, depression and high blood pressure, cultivating greater control over our lungs can bring many benefits to our mental and physical health. Intriguingly, scientists are finding that a particular frequency of breath – at around six exhalations a minute – can be especially restorative, triggering a “relaxation response” in the brain and body.

...Indeed, you may be forgiven for wondering whether breathwork is simply another name for mindfulness, given that many meditation courses already encourage participants to focus their attention on their inhalation and exhalation.

Mindfulness, however, tends to involve passive observation – “watching the breath” – whereas breathwork requires you to actively change the way you breathe. This includes ensuring that you breathe with your diaphragm (rather than the movement of your chest) so that you can fill your lungs with more air, while consciously slowing the pace of your breathing from your resting average.

According to practitioners, those slow, deep breaths set off a cascade of physiological responses that accelerate your descent into a more complete state of relaxation, compared to more passive mindfulness exercises.

“It acts as a speed ramp into the meditation practice, helping to calm the mind quicker so that you get more bang for your buck while meditating,” explains Richie Bostock, a breathwork coach based in London whose book, Exhale, will be published later this year. “In fact, I call some of the routines I teach ‘Meditation on Rocket Fuel’ because of the profound effect it has on calming the mind quickly and getting you to that place of no-thought.”

I just ordered Bostock's book, so will have more to say about this subject after I try the breathing exercises he recommends. Here's another article from Harvard Health Publishing to peruse, Relaxation techniques: Breath control helps quell errant stress response. 

This is a great example of how the mind and body are intimately related. We are physical beings having a physical experience, not the oft-quoted and misleading We are spiritual beings having a physical experience. That way leads to some serious pitfalls, including a dissociation between our mind and body.

Smiling is an even easier thing to do than control the breath. Research shows that smiling can trick your brain into feeling happier, something that seems true when I try it. Here's another story that makes the same point: Forcing a Smile May Improve Your Mood, Study Suggests.

Truth is beautiful. Which is why religion is ugly.

Truth was on my mind in various ways today.

In the morning I listened to a Chris Hayes "Why Is This Happening?" podcast interview with Kate Crawford, an Artificial Intelligence expert. Then I read an essay in my Question Everything book about the limits of free speech. In the afternoon I made a video on our back deck where I performed the Water Boxing form that I learned in my Tai Chi classes.

I'll start with the video.

I wanted to show people what the Water Boxing form looks like, but I knew that since I'd never seen myself doing the form from the objective outside, only from the subjective inside, there would be some disturbing mismatches between how I thought I looked doing the form, and how I actually did. 

But I ended up feeling good about the video because it pointed out some things that I want to change about how I "play" (in Tai Chi parlance) the Water Boxing form. And while I called our back deck a "patio," I chalked that up to a split in my mind between wondering if I was talking loud enough for my iPhone to pick up my voice, and using the right words in what I was saying.

The truth can hurt sometimes. Yet usually it doesn't, being simply the way things truly are, so far as we can tell. Without embracing truth, we can't make genuine lasting progress in any area: such as work, relationships, education, sports, and yes, spirituality.

Back in my religious days, when I was an active member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, an India-based organization headed up by a guru, I was struck by how often the word sat (truth) was used by the group.

Satguru meant true guru. Satsang meant a meeting where people heard about truth. Satsangi meant someone who associated with truth. Sat nam meant the true power of the cosmos. I bought into all this "sat" stuff.

Until I eventually decided that if I was going to pursue the truth about reality, I couldn't remain a member of an organization that -- after my thirty five years of learning about its teachings and diligently practicing the prescribed lifestyle -- didn't really possess the truth that I'd once hoped it did.

So I left Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) because I cared about truth.

Truth, after all, isn't what religions like RSSB are all about. They're into top-down control, not open-minded investigation. The RSSB guru used to be fond of saying "It's my way or the highway." Meaning, either do what I say, or leave RSSB, regardless of whether what the guru says makes sense.

On the Chris Hayes podcast, Crawford, the AI expert, spoke about the importance of grounding artificial intelligence software like ChatGPT in facts. If this doesn't occur, then sophisticated chatbots can sound like they're providing reputable information through human-sounding language.

But that information may be faulty, flawed, false.

How can we tell the difference between fact and fiction then? On his MSNBC show, recently Chris Hayes (I'm a fan of his, as you can tell) had an opening monologue where he brilliantly talked about how Republicans here in the United States, notably including Donald Trump, wage war on truth. 

They did this by aggressively, and falsely, claiming that the traditional purveyors of truth and facts can't be trusted: science, the media, academia, government. Having demolished the faith of American conservatives in these institutions with their cries of Fake News!, Republicans said that Fox News and right-wing public figures were the only repository of truth.

Which was completely backward.

For just as religions tell their devotees to ignore science and reason, and embrace religious holy books and holy people, Republicans were urged to ignore reputable sources of truth and only pay attention to the spreaders of Big Lies like the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

The essay by Stanley Fish I read today, "Transparency" is the mother of fake news, speaks about how facts are arrived at.

The insistence on the primacy of narratives and interpretations does not involve a deriding of facts but an alternative story of their emergence. 

Postmodernism sets itself against the notion of facts just lying there discrete and independent, and waiting to be described. Instead it argues that fact is the achievement of argument and debate, not a preexisting entity by whose measure argument can be assessed.

Arguments come first; when they are successful, facts follow -- at least for a while, until a new round of arguments replaces them with a new set of facts. 

...It [the world of fake news] is created by the undermining of trust in the traditional vehicles of authority and legitimation -- major newspapers, professional associations, credentialed academics, standard encyclopedias, government bureaus, federal courts, prime-time nightly news anchors.

...This wholesale distrust of authoritative mechanisms leads to the bizarre conclusion that an assertion of fact is more credible if it lacks an institutional source. In this way of thinking, a piece of news originating in a blog maintained by a teenager in a basement in Idaho would be more reliable than a piece of news announced by the anchor of a major network.

Fortunately, Fish can't be talking about me and my blogs, since I'm a senior citizen in a living room in Oregon! And I subscribe to the digital versions of the New York Times and Washington Post, plus I subscribe to TIME, Scientific American, New Scientist, and The New Yorker.

I smile, and also cringe, when commenters on this blog say that there's no such thing as objective truth or facts, so everybody's opinion about reality is just as good as everybody else's. That's bullshit. Religions want you to believe that truth lies within yourself, and they can tell you how to find it. 

Actually truth is determined through a rigorous process of investigation, argument, debate, and a ferocious dislike of dogma. Sure, personal subjective truth is open to everybody. If you like blueberries, that's your truth. No argument there.

But what I care about in addition to personal truth is objective truth. For that we need solid evidence. And that's where religions, along with today's Republican Party, fall completely short.

The pitfall of believing someone's testimony about God or the supernatural

Testimony. It's a common word in the law.

But until I read an essay in the New York Times book collection from their Stone Reader series, Question Everything, I wasn't aware that it had a philosophical meaning. The essay was about Deep Fakes where someone makes a convincingly real video of someone.

Contemporary philosophers rank different kinds of evidence according to their reliability. How much confidence, they ask, can we reasonably have in a belief when it is supported by such-and-such information?

We ordinarily tend to think that perception -- the evidence of your eyes and ears -- provides pretty good justification. If you see something with your own eyes, you should probably believe it. By comparison, the claims that other people make -- which philosophers call "testimony"-- provide some justification, but usually not quite as much as perception. Sometimes, of course, your senses can deceive you, but that's less likely than other people deceiving you.

...Now, with the emergence of deepfake technology, the ability to produce convincing fake video will be almost as widespread as the ability to lie. And once that happens, we ought to think of images as more like testimony than perception. In other words, you should only trust a recording if you would trust the word of the person producing it. 

Of course, here we're talking about physical eyes and ears. The possibility (which I'd say is a near certainty) of being deceived by someone's testimony that they've seen or heard God, or another supernatural entity, obviously is much greater.

For at least a deepfake video can be observed by anyone with functional vision.

This isn't the case with the vast number of instances where someone claims either to have experienced a mysterious physical object -- Bigfoot, alien beings, the Loch Ness monster -- or a mysterious supernatural object: God, heaven, angels, divine light.

They may sound utterly convincing. Such is possible for several reasons.

Maybe they're a good liar. Maybe they actually believe they experienced the mysterious entity, though in truth they didn't. And there's a very small, yet non-zero, probability that they did experience a mysterious physical or supernatural entity which really does exist.

So unless we give up on the idea of separating supernatural fact from fiction, which I'm definitely not willing to do, what's our option when presented with someone's claim that, say, they've experienced God?

If everyone who supposedly experienced God made the same claim, things would be simpler. But there are countless (almost) descriptions of God, many or most of them contradictory. God is a person. God is impersonal. God has a form. God is formless. God is forgiving. God punishes the wicked. God abhors violence. God wants believers to kill unbelievers.

One approach that I like has support in science. 

The Lie Lab has now come up with a new approach to lie detection in which people base their judgments on just one signal. A simple rule of thumb which focuses entirely on the level of detail in the story told by the 'liar.' It certainly takes a bit of getting used to.

"It feels very counterintuitive to just listen to what people are saying and not to pay attention to all kinds of other signals, such as how convincingly or emotionally someone conveys their story," explains Verschuere. "But people who tell the truth can give a rich description because they actually experienced the event, whereas although liars can come up with details, this increases their risk of being caught."

Of course, the Lie Lab approach is aimed at lies about things in this world, not a supposed supernatural world.

So that makes it more difficult to tell the difference between someone who truly believes they have experienced God or some other divine entity, and someone who is merely claiming this happened for a reason such as ego, money, fame, enjoyment fooling people.

Regardless, I like the emphasis on details. 

Anyone who claims to have had a supernatural experience should be closely questioned about what, exactly, the experience consisted of. After all, this isn't like the experience of going to a Taylor Swift concert. If a Swift lover exaggerated what happened there, no big deal.

But a religious devotee who claims to have experienced God is making a monstrous claim, one which, if proven to be true, would upend both science and spirituality. They can't be allowed to get away with a fawning acceptance of their claim, notwithstanding the natural human tendency to believe that other people are telling the truth. 

Instead, they should be asked questions like: 

How do you know you experienced God?
What did God look like exactly? 
If God spoke to you, what did God say?
Did you learn anything from God that wasn't already known to humans?
What did you do to experience God?

When I wrote my book about Plotinus, the Greek Neoplatonist philosopher, I included a quote from a scholar that deeply appealed to me then, and still does. Here's what I said in a 2004 blog post, "How to talk to a fundamentalist."

Fundamentalists, especially those of the Christian and Muslim faiths, have a bad habit of wanting to force other people to live in accord with their beliefs. Another bad habit is making dogmatic statements unsupported by objective facts, and then feeling offended when someone challenges their dogma. Bad habits like these should be discouraged, not encouraged.

A classics scholar, A.H. Armstrong, has some apt advice about how to talk to fundamentalists:

When claims to possess an exclusive revelation of God or to speak his word are made by human beings (and it is always human beings who make them), they must be examined particularly fiercely and hypercritically for the honor of God, to avoid the blasphemy and sacrilege of deifying a human opinion.

Or, to put it less ferociously, the Hellenic (and, as it seems to me, still proper) answer to “Thus saith the Lord” is “Does he?,” asked in a distinctly skeptical tone, followed by a courteous but drastic “testing to destruction” of the claims and credentials of the person or persons making this enormous statement.

So the next time someone says to me, “Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life,” I’ll reply: “Oh, really? How do you know? What makes you think that statement is true? I’m all ears, all highly skeptical ears.”

Truth-Default Theory explains a lot about religious belief and disbelief

A friend gave me his unread copy of Malcom Gladwell's book, Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know About the People We Don't Know.

Since I'd heard of some of Gladwell's other books, like Blink and The Tipping Point, but not this one, I started reading Talking to Strangers with fairly low expectations. 

I was wrong. I ended up being fascinated by the book.

It's full of examples of people being fooled by other people who were lying, even though there was considerable evidence about the deception being foisted on them.

So Gladwell delves into the reasons why Neville Chamberlain was fooled by Adolf Hitler; why the CIA was fooled by a Cuban spy, Ana Montes, who worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency; why sophisticated investors were fooled by Bernie Madoff's pyramid scheme; why college officials were fooled by Jerry Sandusky, a molester of students.

In each of these cases there were ample warning signs that something wasn't right with how someone was acting. But those warnings were mostly ignored. Why?

Largely because of the dynamics of Truth-Default Theory. Gladwell writes:

We have a default to truth: our operating assumption is that the people we are dealing with are honest. 

...To snap out of truth-default mode requires what Levine calls a "trigger." A trigger is not the same as a suspicion, or the first sliver of doubt. We fall out of truth-default mode only when the case against our initial assumption becomes definitive.

We do not behave, in other words, like sober-minded scientists, slowly gathering evidence of the truth or falsity of something before reaching a conclusion.

We do the opposite. We start by believing. And we stop believing only when our doubts and misgivings rise to the point where we can no longer explain them away.

This proposition sounds at first like the kind of hairsplitting that social scientists love to engage in. It is not. It's a profound point that explains a lot of otherwise puzzling behavior. 

...You believe someone not because you have no doubts about them. Belief is not the absence of doubt. You believe someone because you don't have enough doubts about them.

I'm going to come back to the distinction between some doubts and enough doubts, because I think it's crucial. Just think about how many times you have criticized someone else, in hindsight, for their failure to spot a liar.

You should have known. There were all kinds of red flags. You had doubts. Levine would say that's the wrong way to think about the problem.

The right question is: were there enough red flags to push you over the threshold of belief? If there weren't, then by defaulting to truth you were only being human.

We default to truth because we humans are highly social animals.

Homo sapiens wasn't the strongest species in the beginning of our evolutionary history (nor are we today, absent our technology). A saber-toothed tiger could tear us limb from limb. However, early humans were able to band together into cohesive groups. Together, we could accomplish much that an isolated individual couldn't.

That drive to be social, which is still very much with us, required trust. If humans had an innate propensity to doubt other people, it would be very difficult for us to form lasting groups: a tribe, a nation, a society, a sports team, a political party.

And yes, a religion. 

Religions benefit from Truth-Default Theory. When someone hears about a religious teaching from another person that they trust, they're inclined to accept it as being true. Jesus loves you. He died for your sins. Believe in Jesus and you will enjoy eternal life in heaven.

As someone learns more about their chosen religion, likely they won't believe everything about the faith that they've embraced. But as Gladwell noted, those doubts aren't going to make someone become an unbeliever in their religion, since they don't have enough doubts to do that. 

Until, they do. Then they probably will deconvert from the religion.

This describes my religious trajectory. Even though in college I was fooled by a crazed Greek Yoga teacher with a Christananda ashram who thought Jesus was talking to him, that experience of being disillusioned by a spiritual "guru" didn't stop me from jumping right into the religious arms of another guru soon after I escaped the grasp of the Greek guy.

I talked about this in "My strange RSSB initiation story." The beginning of that 2008 post has clear echoes of Truth-Default Theory.

A few days ago I talked about how I came to have doubts about the guru-centered faith, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), that I followed diligently for over thirty years.

One of the commenters on that post asked a question about why I was so gullible in accepting teachings that, in retrospect, seemed so unlikely to be true.

I responded that all of us believe things which we're mistaken about. Discarding worn-out beliefs and accepting new ones is part of life's maturation process. I also said that to attempt to answer that question I'd need to tell the tale of how I came to be initiated into the RSSB fold.

This is a strange story. I don't think I've ever shared it on the Internet, though I've told it verbally quite a few times.

ChatGPT speaks about oneness, enlightenment, God, and chicken/egg firstness

Here's the second installment of an interchange Osho Robbins, a frequent commenter on this blog, had with ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence chatbot. The first installment is here. 

Even though I said in that first post that I'd share the rest of the chat in two additional posts, I decided to include all of the remaining chat in this second post. Because it's so long, you'll need to click on a continuation link at the bottom of this post to read the remainder of it.

This morning I shared in a post an interesting comment from Appreciative Reader, another frequent commenter on this blog, So if you want to see how a human looks upon God, in contrast to the artificial intelligence of ChatGPT, check out "People can't define God in any way they like."

Since I'm a big believer in spiritual independence, I resonated with a general sentiment that ChatGPT repeated numerous times using similar language in response to the questions asked by Robbins. Here's one example. ChatGPT speaks wisely here.

It is important to note, however, that the concept of enlightenment and the role of the perfect master may be understood differently in different spiritual traditions, and there may be different criteria for what constitutes spiritual realization and the ability to guide others on the path towards it. Ultimately, each individual must determine their own spiritual path and the guidance that is most helpful to them. 

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

since oneness is about "ONE" how can there be individual souls in oneness?

The concept of oneness can be understood in different ways depending on the spiritual or philosophical tradition in question. In some traditions, oneness may be understood as a state of unity or interconnectedness in which all beings and phenomena are ultimately one and the same, beyond all distinctions and separations. In other traditions, oneness may be understood as the ultimate reality or essence of all things, beyond all dualities and limitations.

In the context of the teachings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), the concept of oneness is often used to refer to the underlying unity and interconnectedness of all creation, including the human soul and the divine. While the ultimate reality may be understood as a state of oneness, it is also believed that individual souls exist within this oneness, and that the ultimate goal of spiritual practice is to realize this oneness while still retaining individual consciousness and awareness.

According to RSSB teachings, the human soul is believed to be a unique individual entity, capable of experiencing its own unique journey of spiritual evolution and growth. While the soul may ultimately merge with the divine and realize its oneness with all creation, it is believed that this realization does not involve the loss of individuality or consciousness, but rather a transcending of ego and separateness to achieve a state of higher awareness and unity.

In this sense, the concept of oneness in RSSB teachings does not necessarily negate the existence of individual souls, but rather suggests that individuality is ultimately part of a larger unity that includes all of creation.

it is said that "there is only the one nothing else is real"

The idea that "there is only the One and nothing else is real" is a common theme in many spiritual and philosophical traditions, including Advaita Vedanta, Taoism, and certain schools of Buddhism.

In Advaita Vedanta, the One is often understood as Brahman, the ultimate reality that underlies all creation and is identical with the true nature of the individual self (atman). The idea is that all phenomena in the world, including the individual self, are ultimately illusory or unreal in comparison to the absolute reality of Brahman.

Similarly, in Taoism, the One is understood as the Tao, the underlying reality that governs all creation and transcends all distinctions and dualities. The idea is that all phenomena in the world, including the individual self, are ultimately transitory and impermanent, and that true wisdom and fulfillment can be found by aligning oneself with the Tao and transcending attachment to the material world.

In both cases, the idea that "there is only the One and nothing else is real" suggests that the true nature of reality is beyond the limitations of language and concepts, and that ultimate reality cannot be grasped through ordinary modes of perception and understanding. Instead, it is believed that realization of the One requires a direct experience or insight that transcends the illusions and limitations of the material world.

It is worth noting, however, that interpretations of the idea of the One may vary among different traditions and individuals, and that the concept of ultimate reality or absolute truth is often approached in different ways depending on cultural, historical, and personal factors.

what does RSSB say about this

In the teachings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), the concept of oneness or unity is also central, but it is approached in a different way than some other spiritual traditions. While the ultimate reality is often referred to as the One, the emphasis is not on negating the reality of the individual self or the material world, but on recognizing the underlying unity and interconnectedness of all creation.

According to RSSB teachings, the ultimate reality is a state of consciousness that is beyond the limitations of the material world, and that can be directly experienced through meditation and spiritual practice. This state of consciousness is often referred to as Sach Khand or the Realm of Truth, and is described as a state of infinite consciousness, bliss, and love.

While the ultimate reality is believed to be beyond the limitations of the material world, it is also believed that the individual self is real and that the material world is a reflection of the ultimate reality. The goal of spiritual practice is therefore not to negate the reality of the self or the world, but to recognize their underlying unity and to align oneself with the ultimate reality through meditation, selfless service, and ethical living.

In this sense, the idea of oneness or unity in RSSB teachings is not a rejection of the individual self or the material world, but a recognition of their ultimate reality and interconnectedness with the divine.

in the ultimate state of oneness, is there time and space?

In many spiritual traditions, the ultimate state of oneness or unity is described as a state that transcends time and space. In this state, there is often said to be no separation between the individual self and the ultimate reality, and no distinctions or limitations of any kind.

For example, in Advaita Vedanta, the ultimate reality of Brahman is described as "beyond time, space, and causation," and as the underlying reality that transcends all concepts and limitations. Similarly, in certain schools of Buddhism, the ultimate reality of Nirvana is described as a state of "suchness" or "emptiness," which transcends all distinctions and dualities and is beyond time and space.

In RSSB teachings, the ultimate reality is often referred to as Sach Khand or the Realm of Truth, and is described as a state of infinite consciousness, bliss, and love. While the ultimate reality is said to be beyond time and space, it is also believed that the individual self can experience this reality through meditation and spiritual practice.

It is worth noting, however, that interpretations of the ultimate state of oneness may vary among different traditions and individuals, and that the concept of ultimate reality or absolute truth is often approached in different ways depending on cultural, historical, and personal factors.

in a state of no-time and no-space can there be individual souls and where will they exist

In a state beyond time and space, the concept of individual souls as we understand them in the context of our physical reality may not be applicable. This is because the concept of individual souls is often based on the idea of separate, distinct entities with individual identities and characteristics. In a state of ultimate oneness or unity, these distinctions may not apply.

Some spiritual traditions suggest that in the state of ultimate oneness, the individual self merges or dissolves into the ultimate reality, and that the concept of a separate individual self may become irrelevant. In this sense, the question of where individual souls exist in a state beyond time and space may not be relevant, as the concept of individual souls as separate entities may not apply in that state.

However, it's important to note that different spiritual traditions have different views on this subject, and interpretations may vary. Ultimately, the nature of the ultimate reality or state of oneness is considered beyond human comprehension and description, and it may be impossible to fully understand or describe it through language or concepts.

what does it mean to transcend the ego

Transcending the ego generally means moving beyond the limitations and illusions of the individual self, and realizing a deeper, more universal aspect of reality. In many spiritual traditions, the ego is seen as the part of the individual self that identifies with separateness, individuality, and the material world, and that is driven by desires, fears, and attachments.

To transcend the ego means to recognize that the ego is not the true self, but rather a temporary construct that can be transcended through spiritual practice and self-realization. This can involve letting go of attachments, overcoming fears and desires, and cultivating a deeper sense of connection and oneness with the world around us.

Transcending the ego can lead to a sense of inner peace, freedom, and liberation from suffering. It can also be seen as a step towards spiritual awakening and self-realization, as it allows one to connect with a deeper sense of truth and purpose beyond the limited confines of the ego.

In many spiritual traditions, practices such as meditation, self-inquiry, and mindfulness are used to cultivate awareness and move beyond the limitations of the ego.

does RSSB lead to the transcending the ego

Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) is a spiritual organization that aims to help individuals achieve spiritual growth and self-realization. One of the key teachings of RSSB is the importance of transcending the ego, as this is seen as a crucial step towards achieving spiritual liberation.

RSSB teachings suggest that the ego is a temporary construct that arises from identification with the body and the material world, and that it creates a sense of separation and isolation from the true self and the ultimate reality. According to RSSB, transcending the ego involves recognizing the illusory nature of the ego and cultivating a deeper sense of connection with the inner self, others, and the universe as a whole.

RSSB teaches that the practice of meditation is a powerful tool for transcending the ego and achieving spiritual growth. Through regular practice, meditation can help individuals cultivate inner awareness and develop a deeper understanding of the nature of the self and the universe.

Overall, while there are many different approaches to spiritual growth and self-realization, RSSB teachings suggest that transcending the ego is a key step towards achieving a deeper sense of inner peace, spiritual growth, and liberation.

paltu sahib, a famous mystic says "there is only ONE - there is no other" please explain

Paltu Sahib was a 19th-century Indian mystic and poet who is known for his spiritual teachings and poetry. One of his key teachings is the idea that there is only one ultimate reality, which is often referred to as the Divine, God, or the Ultimate Truth.

When Paltu Sahib says, "there is only ONE - there is no other," he is expressing the idea that there is only one true reality, and that everything else in the universe is a manifestation or reflection of that ultimate reality. This can be understood as a statement about the nature of existence, and the idea that all beings, objects, and phenomena are interconnected and part of a larger whole.

From this perspective, the concept of individuality and separation is seen as an illusion that arises from the limitations of human perception and understanding. The ego, or the sense of individual identity, is seen as a temporary construct that arises from the identification with the body and the material world, and that ultimately obscures the deeper truth of oneness and interconnectedness.

The idea of oneness is a common theme in many spiritual traditions, and is often associated with the idea of enlightenment or spiritual liberation. Through practices such as meditation and self-inquiry, individuals may seek to transcend the limitations of the ego and realize the deeper truth of oneness and interconnectedness that underlies all of existence.

People can't define God any way they like

It's always a pleasure to share perceptive well-written comments on this blog by Appreciative Reader. Below is my latest offering from him. I admire the breadth of knowledge Appreciative Reader has, along with his passion for truth. Calling out spurious reasoning (sometimes better called lies) by other commenters is a specialty of Appreciative Reader which I appreciate. This is a great example.

“Hi AP,
Some define God as, “I am that I am.” Others say, “God is Love.”
Some say God is a man with a beard who smites people.
Buddhists say it none of that but a place called Nirvana.
Everyone gets to define it how they see fit and believe accordingly. There is no one right definition for anyone.”

Posted by: 12 months left | April 15, 2023 at 10:33 PM

----------
Hello, 12 months left.

Pardon me, I’m going to disagree again. Disagree strongly. And I’m going to be blunt about it, again. I’m sorry, I don’t wish to be the Internet ass that keeps on flogging some issue beyond the limits of courtesy -- despite being completely in the right about this, and despite only correcting your very egregious error here, but even so it’s not a pretty thing to keep on doing beyond a point -- and so, after this last comment I’ll stop doing that, for now at any rate.

You’re completely totally mistaken about, like, everything you’ve said in that short comment of yours.

First: No, Buddhists don’t have some “place” called Nirvana; and they most emphatically don’t equate Nirvana with God. To actual practicing Buddhists, Nirvana simply means cessation, and Nirvana refers to the state of being of the practitioner, the meditator, who’s overcome desire, and therefore attained cessation of the impulse towards extraversion.

That comes with some superstitions involving rebirth and cessation therefrom, as well, which is obviously all nonsense; but it can, from a secular perspective, be viewed as a psychological state; and in any case, no matter which perspective you’re coming from, the woo-laden or the secular, but in neither case is Nirvana a “place”, or in any way connected with God as the word is commonly understood.

(Qualification to the above: I’m referring here to Theravada Buddhism, as actually practiced, as well as most major strands of Buddhism that I’m familiar with. I’m adding this qualification here in order to be extra scrupulous about one thing: Some extra woo-woo versions of Buddhism, Pure Land for instance, do go in for different planes of existence, that sort of thing.

As far as I know Nirvana isn’t one of those planes, Nirvana refers to cessation of existence beyond those planes; but I’m not overly familiar with those branches of Buddhism, and it is possible I may be mistaken. Probably no-one looks on Nirvana as a place; and on the off chance that some whackjob sects do, then these would at most be a very small minority and most assuredly not representative of Buddhists in general. And none of them equate Nirvana with God.)

Second: No one defines God as “I am that I am”, or as love. The former is a cryptic answer by the deity of the Old Testament to Moses, and the latter is a poetic reference to what some believe is an attribute of God. But neither of those amounts to a definition, not as the word “definition” itself is commonly understood.

Third: That last paragraph of yours, comprising those two sentences, is a jaw-dropping instance of misdirection. I don’t say you’re being deliberately disingenuous; and quite possibly you’re deluding yourself here, rather than lying on purpose to try to obfuscate things for your readers here; but the end result is exactly the same.

That last sentence is fine: agreed, God does mean different things to different people, and no one can insist on one single definition that everyone must accept. But as for the sentence preceding that: no, people don’t get to define God in any random way they like, most emphatically not.

I can’t just go and define my neighbor’s dog as God, and claim that God is born, and that God will die in the next ten or fifteen years at most (unless He happens to die before that of illness or from some accident), and that God barks and yips and pees on bushes, and that when God is horny He will hump any likely bitch He can lay His paws on.

That’s patently ridiculous. You can’t just make up your own random definition like that -- or at least, while you *can* do that, in the sense that no one is going to shoot you in the head if you do it, but it’s completely nonsensical to use words that way.

Fourth: Don’t forget that when Aquinas used those arguments, he was referring to the Christian God. This is transparent sleight of hand. In fact, this is a classic motte-and-bailey gambit: where you introduce an innocuous-sounding uber-milquetoast version of your thesis, speaking of God merely as “first mover” -- a definition that no Christian actually believed in, and nor did Aquinas himself, we can be sure of that -- and then surreptitiously slip in all of the baggage that goes with the word God, like consciousness and intelligence (and also, in Aquinas’s case, omnipotence, and omniscience, and omnibenevolence) without actually making the case for all of that.

That’s plain disingenuous, that’s plain dishonest. Aquinas should have been ashamed of himself, for trying to bamboozle the gullible amongst his audience like that.

And finally: As I’ve already shown in my previous comment, even if for the sake of argument I should grant you that very dodgy definition of God, even then it simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Because those using Aquinas’s argument -- you, for instance -- basically employ not one but TWO strawmen simultaneously: first, in how you define God; and two, in how you describe the current scientific consensus on the origin of the cosmos. I’ve discussed that clearly, if briefly, in my previous comment, and will not repeat that here.

Sorry, that whole Aquinas crap you’re trying to slip in here is completely totally fully mistaken, and transparently so, from beginning to end.

Here's the previous comment by Appreciative Reader that he mentioned above.

Are we doing Aquinas again? That man was brilliant for his times, if disingenuous and deluded; but anyone who swallows his infantile nonsense today is a complete idiot. What is a strawman argument is the idea that something arose from nothing.

As has been pointed out, quantum fluctuations have existed forever, eternally -- should you favor that model. Defining God as the uncaused first principle is, again, what is dishonest, disingenuous, a fabrication, a lie. That is Aquinas's definition, but not how God is actually defined. He also needs, at the very least, to be intelligent and conscious -- not to mention a host of other things as well, including omniscient, and omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

Without those attributes, you don't get God, certainly not the Christian God, and not any God I know of. Not only is your definition of God dicey, but even that dicey definition does not hold up to the gotcha you fondly imagine it is.

There are many cosmological models. Quantum fluctuations birthing just the one universe is just one of them. If you define God as quantum fluctuations, that is plain wrong, a lie: because no religion defines God like that, and you are simply piggy backing on science shamelessly and distorting the end results of science.

And in any case that does not correspond with the more detailed cosmological models, like multiverses, and bubble universes, and so forth. There may well have been NOT ONE SINGLE, UNITARY CREATIVE PRINCIPLE, BUT A HOST OF THEM. Again, for his times Aquinas was fairly smart; but those who swear by him today are ignorant morons.

The difference between ChatGPT and religious poseurs is that the former has the honesty to clearly admit its error/s when pointed out, and the decency to apologize. Religious propagandists, on the other hand, simply turn tail when their lies are exposed, only to return another day with those same lies; and nor have they the decency to apologize. Stop flogging that idiotic Aquinas nonsense.

ChatGPT speaks about the RSSB guru, Singh brothers, and RSSB teachings

Today Osho Robbins, a frequent commenter on this blog, sent me an interesting chat he had with ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence chatbot that I asked about me a few days ago.

In this post I'm sharing questions Robbins asked ChatGPT about this blog, Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the Singh brothers, the RSSB teachings regarding Sach Khand (heaven, basically) and life after death. The entire chat is over 6,000 words, so I'll share the rest of the chat in two additional posts.

With one exception I didn't find anything seemingly inaccurate in what ChatGPT said. Its responses were clear, well written, and included appropriate caveats about the subjectivity of religious and mystical experience. 

The only thing that surprised me was ChatGPT saying that the Singh brothers are the grandsons of Jagat Singh, "RSSB's former head." I suspect that actually the Singh brothers are the grandsons of Charan Singh, who was the RSSB guru prior to Gurinder Singh, though I've never been sure how the Singh brothers are related to Gurinder Singh.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that one of the things I like about ChatGPT is that being an artificial intelligence, it looks at the world, and reality, in a generally objective fashion. Meaning, while humans obviously created ChatGPT, and every human has subjective biases, those biases are comparatively minimal in an artificial intelligence. So, for example, when ChatGPT notes "There have also been allegations of financial impropriety and fraudulent activities involving the Singh brothers and their associates, including Gurinder Singh Dhillon and his family members," that statement is based on information obtained by ChatGPT in its Internet searches, not on a malevolent motivation against the RSSB guru. 

Enjoy. Robbins' questions are in bold type and the ChatGPT responses are in regular type.

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

who is brian hines

I am not able to definitively identify any specific person named "Brian Hines" without further context. There may be many individuals with this name. Can you provide more information or context about the person you are referring to?

he has a blog called church of the churchless

Brian Hines is a blogger who runs the "Church of the Churchless" blog, which focuses on topics related to spirituality, religion, and philosophy. The blog features posts and articles that reflect Hines' perspective as a former member of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas, a spiritual organization based in India. Hines' writing often explores themes such as the nature of consciousness, the meaning of life, and the pursuit of truth and understanding.

who is gurinder singh dhillon

Gurinder Singh Dhillon is a spiritual leader who is the current head of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), a spiritual organization based in India. The RSSB was founded in 1891 and is dedicated to the teachings of Sant Mat, a spiritual path that emphasizes meditation and the realization of the inner self. Dhillon, who was born in 1954, became the RSSB's leader in 1990, succeeding Charan Singh, who had held the position since 1951. As the RSSB's head, Dhillon oversees the organization's various activities, including its charitable work, and provides guidance and teachings to its members. He is also known for his emphasis on simplicity, humility, and personal spiritual development.

tell me about the singh brothers involvement with rssb

Malvinder Singh and Shivinder Singh, who are brothers, were previously involved with the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) through their family's longstanding association with the organization. The Singh brothers are the grandsons of the RSSB's former head, Jagat Singh, and are believed to be close associates of Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the current RSSB head.

The Singh brothers have been involved in various business ventures and investments over the years, including their roles as executives of the pharmaceutical company Ranbaxy Laboratories, which was founded by their grandfather. In 2008, the Singh brothers sold their stake in Ranbaxy to the Japanese firm Daiichi Sankyo, but in 2014, they were accused of misleading Daiichi Sankyo about Ranbaxy's regulatory compliance issues. The dispute resulted in a legal settlement in 2016, and the Singh brothers were ordered to pay Daiichi Sankyo $500 million.

There have also been allegations of financial impropriety and fraudulent activities involving the Singh brothers and their associates, including Gurinder Singh Dhillon and his family members. These allegations are the subject of ongoing legal proceedings in India, and the Singh brothers and others have denied any wrongdoing. It is important to note that these legal proceedings are separate from the activities and teachings of the RSSB, and do not necessarily reflect on the organization itself or its members.

why are the singh brothers in jail

As of my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021, Malvinder Singh and Shivinder Singh, the Singh brothers, were facing legal charges and had been arrested by Indian authorities in connection with allegations of financial fraud and misappropriation of funds. The charges were related to their involvement with various business ventures, including the pharmaceutical company Ranbaxy Laboratories and financial services firm Religare Enterprises.

The Singh brothers were accused of diverting funds from Religare Enterprises and using them to repay loans, invest in other companies, and enrich themselves and their associates. The allegations also involved Gurinder Singh Dhillon and his family members, who were accused of receiving funds from the Singh brothers through shell companies.

The case has been ongoing for several years, and there have been multiple investigations and legal proceedings involving various parties. The Singh brothers and their associates have denied any wrongdoing, and the case remains subject to ongoing legal proceedings in India. It is important to note that these legal proceedings are separate from the activities and teachings of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), with which the Singh brothers and their family have been associated.

is gurinder singh dhillon a good person and a genuine perfect master

The question of whether Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the current head of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), is a good person and a genuine perfect master is a matter of personal belief and interpretation.

In the teachings of RSSB, a perfect master is considered to be a spiritual guide or teacher who has attained a high level of spiritual realization and can help others on the path towards enlightenment. The qualities of a perfect master are described as compassion, wisdom, humility, and a deep connection to the divine.

Many followers of RSSB believe that Gurinder Singh Dhillon embodies these qualities and is a genuine perfect master who can provide guidance and support on the spiritual path. However, there have also been allegations of financial impropriety and other controversies involving Gurinder Singh Dhillon and his family members, and these issues have led to criticism and scrutiny from some individuals and groups.

Ultimately, whether Gurinder Singh Dhillon is considered to be a good person and a genuine perfect master is a matter of individual belief and interpretation, and there may be different opinions on the matter among RSSB followers and others.

Are there really inner regions like sach khand 

In the teachings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), there is a belief in the existence of inner spiritual regions, including Sach Khand, which is considered to be the highest spiritual realm. These inner regions are believed to be accessed through a process of meditation and inner transformation, and are said to be populated by various spiritual beings and entities.

Ultimately, whether or not it is possible to achieve permanent residence in Sach Khand or to transcend the cycle of birth and death is a matter of personal belief and interpretation, and may vary among different individuals and traditions.

It is worth noting that while the experiences and teachings associated with the inner regions may be deeply meaningful and transformative for many people, they are not necessarily subject to empirical verification or scientific proof. As such, they are often regarded as matters of faith or personal experience, rather than objective fact.

who is alakh agam and anami

In the spiritual teachings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), Alakh, Agam, and Anami are three terms used to refer to different spiritual realms or regions that are believed to exist beyond the physical world.

Alakh means "beyond the visible" or "invisible," and refers to a spiritual realm that is beyond the reach of the senses or the mind. Agam means "beyond the reach" or "inaccessible," and refers to a spiritual realm that is beyond the realm of human experience or understanding. Anami means "nameless" or "formless," and refers to a spiritual realm that is beyond all distinctions and categories, including those of form, name, or experience.

Together, these three terms represent a progression of spiritual realization or attainment, with Alakh representing the first stage of transcending the physical realm, Agam representing a deeper level of spiritual realization, and Anami representing the ultimate realization of the divine, beyond all names and forms.

These terms are used in the context of the RSSB teachings to convey the idea that there are levels of spiritual reality that are beyond the physical world and can be accessed through the practice of meditation and inner transformation.

it is possible to transcend death and live forever in sach khand

In the teachings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), it is believed that the ultimate goal of spiritual practice is to achieve liberation from the cycle of birth and death, and to attain permanent residence in Sach Khand, the highest spiritual realm.

According to RSSB teachings, the human soul is eternal and exists beyond the physical body. By practicing meditation and following the path of inner transformation, it is believed that the soul can gradually detach itself from the material world and achieve union with the divine, ultimately reaching Sach Khand and achieving liberation from the cycle of birth and death.

While the idea of transcending death and achieving immortality is a common theme in many spiritual traditions, including RSSB, it is important to note that the nature of this immortality is often described in metaphorical or symbolic terms, and may not necessarily be understood as a literal physical state. The attainment of Sach Khand is often described as a state of oneness with the divine, beyond all distinctions and limitations, and may be experienced as a state of bliss, love, or awareness.

Ultimately, whether or not it is possible to achieve permanent residence in Sach Khand or to transcend the cycle of birth and death is a matter of personal belief and interpretation, and may vary among different individuals and traditions.

Artificial intelligence likes me. Here's what ChatGPT said about Brian Hines.

On my HinesSight blog, yesterday I wrote about how I'd finally gotten around to trying ChatGPT, the online chatbot offered by OpenAI, a company whose goal is A.G.I. -- artificial general intelligence that can do anything a human can do.

I got the idea to look into ChatGPT after listening to part of an interview MSNBC's Ari Melber did with hip hop artist Erykah Badu where Melber read to her ChatGPT's answer to his query, "Discuss Erykah Badu's contributions."

That answer from the artificial intelligence chatbot was really impressive. You can see that part of the interview in the video below, where I've made it start at the beginning of the ChatGPT segment. When Melber asked Badu to rate the answer on a scale of 1-10, she said "10."

That's pretty much how I felt about ChatGPT's response to me asking it, "Tell me about Brian Hines the blogger and author."

Sure, ChatGPT was complimentary toward me. But what really impressed me was how well written the response was, and how it described me in a way that I hadn't heard anyone else say, not even me. Here's a screenshot of the ChatGPT response, which took just a few seconds.

Well, as I said in my HinesSight post, what ChatGPT said made me want to be best friends with the chatbot. To deepen our relationship, I then asked it to write a poem about me. Here's what I got in response, which again just took a few seconds.


OK, that's over-the-top, even to me. And it wouldn't win any poetry awards. Still, it's difficult to write poetry. ChatGPT did a damn fine job, though I have no way of knowing whether I got an original poem meant only for me, or whether this poem contains some recycled material from queries other people have made.

(Note: when I asked ChatGPT about my wife, Laurel, it said that it couldn't reply to queries about private people. I got the same response when I asked about a friend who is a retired economist and has both written a book and been involved in some high profile land use issues here in Oregon. One possibility is that since I have a Wikipedia page, ChatGPT views me as a public figure of sorts. Or maybe it's just because I have a greater online presence than most people.)

Artificial intelligence is a hot topic these days.  The company behind ChatGPT, OpenAI, reportedly has a $10 billion contract with Microsoft.

There's reason to be concerned about the impact of artificial intelligence. We're just in the early days of AI, but already the capabilities of chatbots like ChatGPT are mind-blowing. I saw a tweet a month or so ago that said ChatGPT taught itself chemistry on its own, which struck me as rather creepy.

But new technologies always arouse fear. Radio was disruptive. Television was disruptive. Computers were disruptive. Some people focus on the benefits of new technologies, while others focus on the downsides.

David Chapman, a philosophical guy I've followed for quite a few years, who has a Ph.D. in artificial intelligence, has written an online book called Better Without AI. Here's an excerpt from the alarmingly titled first chapter, "Only you can stop an AI apocalypse."

This book is a call to action. You can participate. This is for you.

Artificial intelligence might end the world. More likely, it will crush our ability to make sense of the world—and so will crush our ability to act in it.

AI will make critical decisions that we cannot understand. Governments will take radical actions that make no sense to their own leaders. Corporations, guided by artificial intelligence, will find their own strategies incomprehensible. University curricula will turn bizarre and irrelevant. Formerly-respected information sources will publish mysteriously persuasive nonsense. We will feel our loss of understanding as pervasive helplessness and meaninglessness. We may take up pitchforks and revolt against the machines—and in so doing, we may destroy the systems we depend on for survival.

Worries about AI risks have long been dismissed because AI itself sounds like science fiction. That is no longer possible. Fluent new text generators, such as ChatGPT, have suddenly shown the public that powerful AI is here now. Some are excited about future possibilities; others fear them.

We don’t know how our AI systems work, we don’t know what they can do, and we don’t know what broader effects they will have. They do seem startlingly powerful, and a combination of their power with our ignorance is dangerous.

In our absence of technical understanding, those concerned with future AI risks have constructed “scenarios”: stories about what AI may do. We don’t know whether any of them will come true. However, for now, anticipating possibilities is the best way to steer AI away from an apocalypse—and perhaps toward a remarkably likeable future.

So far, we’ve accumulated a few dozen reasonably detailed, reasonably plausible bad scenarios. We’ve found zero that lead to good outcomes.

Here's how you can help me deal with trolls on this blog

Frequent commenters on this blog will have noticed that I turned on the "moderate comments" feature this morning. I did this because an Internet troll who calls himself Harry Poole was leaving a bunch of troll'ish comments after I wrote a blog post about the weird questions he asked me in an email.

So rather than leave them up for a while and then delete them, I decided to publish comments manually instead of automatically.

That's no big deal for me. But it inconveniences other commenters who are used to seeing their comments published immediately (unless my blogging service wrongly sends the comment to a spam folder, which I try to check several times a day).

This is my plan for dealing with Harry, which I'm asking for the help of regular commenters with. Tomorrow morning I'll go back to automatic publishing of comments, though I might turn that feature on at certain times. I'll delete any troll comments from Harry as soon as I notice them.

(Harry is welcome to leave non-troll comments. They won't be deleted if Harry decides to act like a normal commenter. Meaning, Harry doesn't insult me or other commenters; Harry discusses ideas in a reasonable fashion; Harry complies with this blog's comment guidelines.)

In those guidelines I note that trolls thrive on attention, so the best way to deal with them is to ignore them. Thus I'm requesting that visitors to this blog ignore any troll'ish comments left by Harry or a pseudonym that they come across before I delete them. If someone mentions Harry in a comment that's a response to one of Harry's trolling comments, I'll delete that response also.

It's unfortunate that people like Harry exist on the Internet, because they make cyberspace life worse for everybody. We all know what's it like to be in a group where some jerk tries to dominate the conversation, insults others in the group, and refuses to engage in reasonable discussions. They have to be removed from a real-life group, and they also have to be dealt with in Internet sites like this blog.

How a physicist embraces both science and spirituality

I embrace science. I also embrace spirituality, so long as "spirit" isn't viewed as something supernatural, but as a word that points to a deep personal understanding of existence that is compatible with science.

So when I heard about physicist Alan Lightman's book, The Transcendent Brain: Spirituality in the Age of Science, I knew that I wanted to read it. (I included an excerpt in this post.)

Now that I've finished the book, it met my expectations, though I didn't learn anything astoundingly new.

Lightman does a good job of explaining how we can feel a sense of belonging to a world that is far greater than our small self, which can even fade away to a near-nothing in a transcendent experience, without recourse to religious dogma or mystical mumbo-jumbo.

But I already believed that to be true. Which doesn't take away from the value of Lightman's book for me, because I enjoy hearing truths spoken in different ways.

Here's some excerpts from the book that will give you a feel for Lightman's perspective.

In the millions of experiments and probes of the physical world, modern scientists have not found any mysterious forces or phenomena that did not ultimately yield to a rational explanation.

Sometimes, we have had to revise our understanding and theories based on new observations and considerations, as happened in the twentieth century with relativity and quantum mechanics, but the revised theories have always been consistent with the law of the conservation of energy and, more generally, a material, rule-based understanding of nature.

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

As I have said, I'm a materialist. Like almost all modern biologists, I believe that consciousness and all mental experiences are sensations brought about by the chemicals and electrical currents in the brain. But we may never be able to cross the first-person/third-person divide. The experience of consciousness, at least at its highest levels, is the first-person subjective par excellence. 

The analysis of three pounds of neurons sitting on the lab table, the probing of the brain with instruments, the measuring of its electrical quiverings, the writing of equations to describe it, even the mere talking about it as a thing are all third-person activities. 

We can't be inside the box and outside the box at the same time. Of course, in some sense we are always inside the box of our own minds, since we cannot experience the world except through our individual brains.

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

Given that we cannot cross the first-person/third-person divide, that we cannot express in any objective way what it feels like to be a conscious being or thing, can we at least understand how a congregation of billions of material neurons might produce something as complex and qualitatively novel as consciousness? 

The answer is yes, and it comes from a study of what are called emergent phenomena. Emergence or emergentism is collective behavior of a complex system with many parts that is not apparent and often not predictable by understanding the individual parts.

...In particular, consciousness can emerge from the collective interaction of billions of neurons, following known laws of chemistry, physics, and biology, without the intervention of some additional ethereal or psychic force.

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

The experiences described here, which express many of the features of spirituality as I have defined it -- feelings of connection to nature, the cosmos, and other people; the feeling of being part of something larger than one's self, the appreciation of beauty; the experience of awe -- are religious experiences, in that they are all mediated by an omniscient and purposeful Being and Creator we call God.

As such, the experiences may be considered to derive from God, or from the God-like soul in us, or from the pervasiveness of God in nature and the cosmos. For the unnamed clergyman and for Tagore and Muhammad and Moses, the existence and spiritual power of God are implicitly assumed.

I respect these beliefs and their divine attributions. My aim here is to show that these same spiritual feelings can arise completely from the forces of Darwinian natural selection and the capacities of a highly intelligent brain, without other agency. In other words, I am discussing here a nonreligious spirituality and its evolutionary origins, although the feelings of connection and awe may be quite similar to those of religious spirituality. 

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

A detachment from one's Self plays an important role in various aspects of spirituality, especially the transcendent experience of being connected to something larger than ourselves. When we open ourselves up to a larger world, we are in some ways subjugating and dissolving our individual egos. For a few moments at least, we let go of Self.

Thus, there would seem to be an anticorrelation between the degree to which we focus on our individual selves and the degree to which we can connect to things larger than ourselves. More self, less connection to the larger world. 

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

It is worth pausing here to acknowledge that the relative importance of one's self is partly shaped by one's society. Cultural anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists have long noticed substantial differences between Westerners and Easterners in their attitudes toward the individual versus the larger group.

Westerners (Americans, Europeans, Australians, etc.) celebrate the individual and the individual's freedom, independence, and autonomy, while Easterners (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc.) prioritize the group over the individual and emphasize the interdependent relationships between members of the group.

The two psychological and cultural dichotomies are referred to as "individualism" versus "collectivism." One particularly interesting feature of this dichotomy: To study a phenomenon or analyze a problem, individualists break the thing down into its component parts. Collectivists experience phenomena holistically, and in terms of the relationships between the parts.

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

I believe that the capacity for awe also includes an openness to the world. Openness, in turn, requires a certain humility. To be open to the world is to recognize that there are things in the world that we do not yet possess, things bigger than us, things that we do not yet understand (or perhaps may never understand).

...Returning to the Hindu concept of darshan, which literally means "viewing" in Sanskrit, its fuller meaning is the experience of beholding a deity or sacred object. 

For Penrose, mathematics is that sacred object. For Bai Juyi, it was the view from a mountaintop. For my early morning in Maine, it was the shining air. For my two-year-old daughter, it was the ocean. The experience of darshan is considered to be reciprocal. 

When we open ourselves to the world and pay homage to that which is larger than ourselves, we receive a blessing from the outer world. We get something back. We are ourselves enriched by the larger understanding of the cosmos and our place in it.

Atheist me speaks to religious you

Here's the post that I wrote on my new substack account yesterday, and shared via a link on this blog. I like substack, but after a day of pondering how much I like it, I'm leaning toward sticking with my three blogs as ways to share my writing.

If I was starting fresh, substack would appeal to me. But given the many years of history I have with each of my blogs, it just seems to make sense to stick with what's working for me. I can always use substack as a backup to Typepad, my blogging service, since now and then Typepad has a lengthy outage.

If this happens again, you could head to brianhines.substack.com to see what I'm writing about while I wait for Typepad to be fixed.

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

Atheist me speaks to religious you

Hi. I’m Brian. I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in God.

I used to, for 35 years. But not anymore. I’m addressing this post to those of you who do believe in God. Not with the goal of making you like me, a non-believer.

I just want to help you understand how us atheists and agnostics (who basically are undercover atheists) look upon religious belief.

 

Of course, I don’t speak for all atheists. I’m just sharing my own view. But most of my friends also are atheists, and we frequently talk about religion, so I’m pretty sure that what I’m about to say largely meshes with their perspective.

Let’s start with belief.

That’s obviously a big part of religion, which deals with mystery. What happens after we die? Is there a supernatural realm in addition to this material world? Is there a creator God or has existence always existed? Does morality reside in a divine will or is it purely human?

Questions like these aren’t objectively factual, like “How far is the moon from Earth?” They’re subjective, a matter of belief and, for religious people, faith. Atheists like me answer them either by saying no one knows, or talking about likelihoods: Since there’s no demonstrable evidence of the supernatural, probably it doesn’t exist.

But atheists have no problem with religious belief. At least, taken on its own. (I’ll soon explain what I mean by that.)

Life can be tough. Pain, disappointment, sorrow, disease, death — these and so many other misfortunes can be very difficult to deal with. The way I see it, whatever helps us get through difficult times is a good thing, so long as our source of support doesn’t harm ourselves or other people.

(Becoming a heroin addict isn’t advised for that reason.)

Marx famously said that religion is the opium of the people. OK, that’s fine by me. Believing in a God who cares about us; believing in a life after death much better than this one; believing that prayers can help a loved one in distress. If these beliefs aid someone in getting through tough times, they should imbibe that opium with gusto.

My own religious belief for the above-mentioned 35 years was of the Eastern variety. I was a member of an India-based religious organization headed up by a guru who was viewed much as Jesus was in his time: as a Son of God sent to return souls to their heavenly father.

When my mother suffered several strokes prior to her death in 1985, I found some solace by engaging in a sort of prayer related to the meditation practice I was taught by my guru. Because my mother was an avid seeker of truth, when I meditated I asked my guru to give any benefit that might accrue from my meditation to my mother, not to me.

I’d visualize my mother soaring upward toward a truth-filled heaven with every repetition of the mantra I’d been given to repeat, while I was propelled downward into darkness. Love for my mother made this exercise joyful. It gave me some peace of mind that counteracted my worries about her health.

But here’s the thing about my admittedly irrational religious belief. It was entirely private. I didn’t tell anyone about it at the time. Only recently did I talk in a post on my Church of the Churchless blog about how I acted after my mother’s strokes.

So this gets me to the downside of religious belief: when it ceases to be viewed as a subjective way of making sense of an often confusing, distressing, painful world and becomes seen as objective truth that should be accepted by everybody, including the non-religious.

This is where most atheists, me certainly included, have a big problem with religiosity. Too often here in the United States fundamentalist Christians want to impose their views on the rest of us.

If a religious believer doesn’t want to have an abortion, great. Just don’t try to pass laws that claim life begins at conception. Or if this attempt is made, buttress that claim with rigorous fact-based arguments about the nature of life, not by quotes from the Bible or some other holy book.

This tweet by a noted law professor about the recent ruling by a federal judge that could ban an abortion medication nationwide makes my point nicely.

If a religious believer doesn't accept gender fluidity, great. Stay firm in your personal maleness or femaleness. Just don’t encourage discrimination against LGBTQ people in schools, places of employment, or anywhere else. Science isn’t on your side, even if you consider that your religious scriptures are.

Understand: I’m not saying that religious people have to keep their faith under wraps. After all, here I am writing about my atheist perspective. Religious believers have the same free speech right.

The difference, though, is that we atheists don’t go around knocking on doors trying to convert people to godlessness. We don’t lobby politicians to elevate our perception of the cosmos into law. Sure, one reason we don’t do this is that atheists embrace reason and science, so secular society reflects our point of view.

But atheists also tend to be fiercely independent. After I came up with the title of my Church of the Churchless blog, I needed a subtitle. It took just a few seconds for me to come up with Preaching the gospel of spiritual independence.

Atheists, like cats, are difficult to herd. My wife organized an atheist Meet Up group here in Salem, Oregon. They get together every Sunday for conversation and godless fellowship. The group has few rules, and no beliefs that everyone has to accept. Just a commitment to being open-minded.

For me, people who belong to a religion should be like soccer enthusiasts. Fans of a professional soccer team go to a match dressed in the team colors. They cheer and chant wildly. They believe that their favored team deserves to win because it’s the best damn team in all of soccer.

However, they realize that fans of other teams feel the same way. They don’t consider that their soccer beliefs are based on an objective reality. It’s just how they feel about the team they’ve chosen to embrace.

It’d be nice if all of us could realize that beliefs are simply our subjective ways of looking upon the world, while facts point to an objective shared reality.

Check out my substack post about atheism and religion

Hey, I've dipped my writing toe in the Substack water. Today I decided to give Substack a try by setting up my account and writing a post about atheism and religiosity -- just in time for Easter!

I did my best to explain how us atheists view religious belief. It's often a source of comfort, which is good. But when that belief is viewed as objective truth rather than subjective faith, bad things can happen in our highly political and divisive times.

Check out "Atheist me speaks to religious you."

I'm asked some probing questions. Here's my answers.

A few days ago I got an email from someone who asked me questions about myself. Since I'm highly interested in my self (assuming I have one; Buddhists would say I don't), I decided to share my answers in a blog post. The questions are in boring black type. My responses are in vibrant red. 

1. Can you confirm why you are now the (Spiritual Leader of the Church of the Churchless) ? Well, I guess it is because I started this blog in 2004, and I'm still the only person in charge of the blog. So I keep on electing myself to be the Spiritual Leader, since my wife isn't interested in the job and our dog prefers to chase squirrels and sniff gopher holes -- which sometimes seems more appealing to me than writing blog posts.

i) You stated you spent 35 years as a member? Of the human race? Of the Democratic Party? Oh, you're probably referring to the 35 years I spent as a member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, the religious group headquartered in India and led by a guru. 

 

ii) Is that True? Absolutely true. I was initiated by Charan Singh in 1971 but I applied for initiation in 1970, so I count the 35 years as being from 1970 to 2005, when I began to view myself as no longer being an active member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas.

 

2. If the answer is in the affirmative is it then true to state that you may have some medical condition affecting your brain; Until now I wasn't aware that medical conditions affecting the brain could be diagnosed by someone reading blog posts. I'm impressed that you have this ability. You should write a paper for the Journal of the American Medical Association so others can learn from you.

 

i) That it took you that long to understand that you made a mistake? I don't believe it was a mistake to spend 35 years as a member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas. For most of that time I embraced the teachings, meditated diligently, and enjoyed the companionship of my fellow satsangis (other initiates). I also don't believe I made a mistake when I married my first wife, even though we were divorced after 18 years of marriage, since we were happy together for most of that time. We all change with the years. Nothing is permanent. So says the Buddha.

 

ii) Or is the case simply that you are not worthy of becoming a (Spiritual Master) so your (Ego) made you set up this nonsense (Church)? Well, as I've noted in blog posts, my conscious reason for starting this blog was the re-election of George Bush as president of the United States in November 2004. Bush got a lot of support from evangelical Christians, so I wanted to write about the downside of fundamentalist religious dogma. If you read the introductory posts I wrote in 2004, you'll see that I consider spirituality to be an individual affair, so in no way do I consider myself a Spiritual Master -- though I admit that my ego likes the idea of being worshipped. Sadly, our dog often doesn't come when I call her, so I'm not even a Canine Master.

 

3. Finally can you confirm when you look into the (Mirror) do you see (Brian) or in the alternative you see (Brianna) perhaphs your have issues with your (Gender- identity); Ooh, what a profound question. Whatever spiritual practice you have been engaging in clearly has elevated your consciousness to what appears to be a childish level. Though I've been insulted more creatively by actual children. No, when I look in the mirror I just see myself. However, the older I get, the less eager I am to see myself close up, so I do stand quite a ways away from mirrors. Regarding my gender identity, I'm a "he/him." Thanks for asking about my preferred pronouns. I admire your commitment to LGBTQ diversity. 

 

i ) Or are you a coward in wolfs clothing drinking and leading hedonistic  life  that proves you can not get it up?? My drinking is pretty pitiful. Usually I have one glass of wine a month at the meeting of our Salon discussion group, just because I like the taste of wine and it seems to enhance conversation. I wish my life was more hedonistic, but it's pretty damn boring. I do enjoy taking a vaporizer full of Oregon-grown marijuana into a hot bath every night. It relaxes me and I view marijuana as more healthy than alcohol. I don't get the connection you appear to be making between a hedonistic life and "getting it up." But I appreciate your interest in my sex life. I just feel like we should know each other a bit better (well, a lot better) before we share too many personal details in that regard.

 

WHAT SAY YOU THE CHURCHLESS who never experienced any levels? Levels of what? I've taken elevators in some tall buildings and found those experiences of moving from floor to floor quite satisfying. Oh, maybe you mean a carpenter's level. I have one with the bubbles that move at different angles. I understand that there are electronic levels now, but I'm not enough of a handyman to justify buying one.

🍾🍾

🃏🃏🃏make sure you have not caught any of these🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀 You can be confident that I have never caught any crabs. I became a strict vegetarian in 1969. The last living thing I ate was a prawn that my mother made for me when I went home on a break from college. Seeing the prawn curled up on my plate made me realize that it used to be living in the ocean. So after giving up meat and chicken, the prawn led me to stop eating fish also. So for sure, crabs are safe around me.

 

SENT BY ONE OF THE MANY Disciples of the beloved Current-MASTER I'm sure Gurinder Singh Dhillon appreciates your devotion as expressed in the questions you've asked of me. Though I have to be honest and say that if the time you've spent in following the principles of Radha Soami Satsang Beas has led you to believe that emailing me these questions is a worthy spiritual pursuit, maybe you need to familiarize yourself more deeply about those principles.

 

I LOOK FORWARD TO YOU RESPONSES⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️ I'm so pleased to share them with you!

Trump's arraignment reminded me of connection between law and science

Today Donald Trump was arraigned in New York City on 34 felony counts involving the falsification of business records. 

Trump at his arraignment 

I was thrilled.

Trump is a horrible human being. He has lied and cheated his way through a life that, amazingly, until now hadn't included being charged with a crime. That changed today, and almost certainly Trump will be charged with additional crimes since there are other ongoing investigations into his wrongdoing.

Following the news about the indictment against Trump that was unsealed today, I heard lots of legal analysis on MSNBC and CNN. I also read stories about legal issues involving the indictment on the Washington Post and New York Times web sites.

I find the law fascinating. I also find science fascinating. But somehow I hadn't made a connection between the two until now. At least, not consciously.

Here's some of the parallels that come to mind.

Both law and science strive for objectivity. Judges and juries are expected to leave behind their personal biases and preferences in favor of rulings that rely on facts and the law. Scientists are expected to behave similarly, making truth the foundation of their investigations, even if their findings aren't what they hoped.

I said "expected" twice in the previous paragraph because law and science are imperfect disciplines. Mistakes are made. Scandals happen. False conclusions are accepted.

However, I have little patience for religious fundamentalists who criticize science and scientists because of those imperfections. I also have little patience for those who consider our legal system to be worthless because innocent people sometimes are found guilty, and guilty people sometimes are found innocent.

Perfection isn't the goal in law and science. 

The goal is to arrive at conclusions through a method that is better than any other approach. For example, judges and juries are much more likely to reach a fair verdict than a king or queen who sits on their throne and decides the fate of people accused of crimes.

And science is much more likely to discover truths about reality than religion is. Careful observation and experimentation, along with rigorous review of claimed findings in an open process, will beat blind faith and dogma when it comes to knowing things about our world and the universe.

But law and science both are messy. In a good way. Meaning, they are designed to be productively inefficient. 

Today the judge in the Trump case said that the defense has four months to file motions. Then the prosecution has four months to respond to those motions. This means that the next hearing in the case won't be until December 2023, with the trial not scheduled to begin until January 2024 at the earliest.

And it could be even longer. The defense is hoping for spring 2024. The trial will take months, probably. Then a verdict could be appealed. 

Like many other people, I wish our legal system would move faster. But I rarely, if ever, hear expert lawyers say that. They accept that cases move at a speed that is designed to arrive at the fairest outcome, not the fastest outcome.

Same applies to science. Research can take years, if not decades. A seemingly significant finding isn't accepted without question. It has to be reviewed by other scientists. It has to be published so others can critique the validity of the finding.

By contrast, religious experiences tend to be accepted uncritically by both the person who had the experience and people who believe that the experience confirms a certain theology. Preachers aren't accustomed to someone interrupting their sermon with "Excuse me, but I think you've got that wrong."

Lawyers and scientists are very accustomed to hearing this.

Winston Churchill's quote about democracy is appropriate here. Law and science aren't perfect, but they're a heck of a lot better than the alternatives to finding justice and truth.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Great questions to ask of Gurinder Singh, the RSSB guru

Here in the United States, candidates for a high political office typically have to answer many questions from citizens and journalists. The background of the candidate is looked into. The sources of their income are divulged. They're asked their opinion on important policy issues.

This is as it should be. A person who wants to occupy a high-ranking position needs to show that they deserve the public trust before asking citizens to vote for them in an election. That's how democracy works.

But when it comes to a person seeking initiation from the guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, a religious organization based in India, it is very difficult to get answers about the personal life of the guru, who currently is Gurinder Singh Dhillon.

That bothers someone who recently sent me questions that they think should be asked and answered by the guru. Here's what they said. I corrected some typos and translated a few words in an Indian language that would be unfamiliar to most readers. The Dera is the RSSB headquarters in India.

Brian, I've been wondering about a subject for many days: that there should be a dialogue between the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) guru and potential disciple from both sides and not from one side only.

For example, at the time of applying for initiation in India, questions are asked from only the guru's side. If the applicant has any questions, he does not have any solid means of knowing the answers, while every potential disciple wants to know the complete information about his future Guru.

Most of the time information regarding the RSSB guru is being denied by the Dera authority on the basis that the personal information of the guru could not be revealed.

Whenever a person goes to the Dera to apply for initiation, some questions are asked of that person. Like, when did he give up meat, fish and eggs; do you smoke or use alcohol; how many talks given by the guru have you attended; what is your education qualification; what work do you do; how much money do you earn; are you married; why do you want to get initiated; is there any other devotee in your family, etc.

These same questions are asked many times of different persons applying for initiation. However, no questions are asked of the guru who is going to give the initiation, while transparency should be maintained equally from both the guru and the disciple.

There are some questions which I believe every disciple deserves the answer to before initiation.

Has the guru ever eaten meat and eggs?

Has the guru ever taken any kind of intoxicant: alcohol, drugs, etc?

Has the guru had a physical relationship with anyone other than his wife before or after marriage?

What is the educational qualification of the guru?

What is the value of the ancestral or personal property owned by the guru?

What is the source of the guru's income?

How many people are in the guru's family? What sort of work do they do? What are the sources of their income?

How much income tax was paid by the guru in the most recent year?

Has any criminal case been registered against the guru in India or outside India?

Is the guru a party in any court case?

How many hours usually are spent each day in meditation by the guru?

Does the guru claim that he has access to Sach Khand [highest heaven]? Does the guru have the ability to take his disciple to Sach Khand?

Has Gurinder Singh ever lied after becoming the RSSB guru?

The sevadars who cook food, do cleaning or do the guru's personal work at the Dera, are they paid by the guru, or by the RSSB trust, or is free service taken from them?

How many sevadars are appointed by the RSSB trust at the houses of the guru's family members and relatives? Do they work for free or are they on a salary?

Regarding the helicopter which is used on various satsang tours in India by the guru, who is the owner of the helicopter and who bears the expenses of the helicopter like pilot's salary, airport rent, petrol etc.?

Does the guru also use the helicopter for his personal trips? If so, then who bears the expenses?

Who is the owner of the private jet which is used by the guru?

Who bears the expenses of private jet foreign tours?

Does the guru also use the private jet to meet his family in England or Singapore? If so, then who bears the cost?

Who bears the expenses of the guru's clothes, food, personal needs, expensive cars etc.?

Has the guru accepted any gift (money, expensive item, land) given by any disciple or relative?

Who can become part of the RSSB trust? Is it allowed to a common poor RSSB disciple to become part of the organization as a trustee? What are the requirements to become a member of the RSSB trust?