The beauty of "We don't not care" rather than "We don't care"

Sometimes a television program can get a moral point across in a few minutes of entertainment that is more clear and convincing than a lengthy ethical treatise.

That happened to me last night when my wife and I were watching an episode of season 3 of Ted Lasso on AppleTV+.

Before I share a clip of that scene, a bit of background. 

Colin, one of the soccer (football, to most of the world) players on the professional team Lasso is coaching, inadvertently revealed that he was gay, homosexual, to the team captain, Isaac, when Isaac saw some photos on Colin's phone.

Isaac then gave Colin the cold shoulder, ignoring him and even acting nasty toward him during the first half of their soccer match. I thought Isaac was being homophobic. Not true. We later learn that Isaac was upset that Colin hadn't told him he was gay.

At halftime, after the team had played poorly, a fan yelled that they were all a bunch of faggots -- a derogatory term for a male homosexual. That set Isaac off. He charged into the seats, accosting the fan, which led to him getting a red card and being ejected from the game.

During the team's halftime meeting, Lasso asked why Isaac acted that way. Someone said that maybe it was because Isaac was gay. But Colin then revealed to the team for the first time that he was gay.

The reaction from team members: "We don't care." That spurred Ted Lasso to relate one of his folksy stories in order to convey a message to his team. 

What struck me about this little speech was how while "We don't care" was supposed to express support for Colin, that actually was a weak gesture for their gay teammate. 

Sure, we don't care that you're gay is much better than we dislike that you're gay, but it's way worse than we care about you and will support you. Which is why Lasso put it as "We don't not care." Because they actually do care about Colin.

The meaning I took away from this is that we shouldn't sit on the sidelines when someone or something we care about is being attacked or threatened or denigrated or ignored.

To give a churchless example, it isn't enough to say that we don't care if someone has a spiritual belief different from our own. That's a wishy-washy sentiment of neutrality, really. Rather, as the tagline on this blog says, we should wholeheartedly support and care about spiritual independence. 

This is why I started this blog about nineteen years ago: I was fed up with religious fundamentalism that believes in only one way, the fundamentalist way. I wanted to do something about dogmatism and blind faith, which I consider to be dangerous both for individuals and cultures.

But this doesn't mean accepting everything someone says about their chosen belief system, in the same way that even though Colin is supported by his teammates in his gayness, they can still criticize Colin for all kinds of other things, including how he plays in a soccer match.

On this blog, I care about truth. Even as I support commenters in choosing their personal spiritual or religious beliefs, I can critique those beliefs when they appear to be objectively untrue -- because truth is important to me.

And naturally they can critique my blog posts for not being true or making sense. 

When caring is present, rather than not caring, a lot can be forgiven. In the Ted Lasso episode, Isaac and Colin drift apart. Then they come together again after Isaac goes to Colin's house and apologizes for the way he acted.

This is tougher to do in cyberspace, since that lacks the physical intimacy of face-to-face communication. Still, caring, really caring, is equally important in our social media and internet encounters.

Yes, I often fail to keep this in mind when I feel strongly about something I care about, and someone else has another way of looking at it. However, deep down I know that they care as much as I do. We just care about different things in different ways.

If we can agree that we all care about caring, hey, that might be as good as it gets in this often crazy realm of cyberspace. The most important thing is to keep on caring, because apathy is much worse. 

Passionate disagreements can be bridged. Apathy, not caring, is a void that can't be bridged.

Comments

[SantMat64]

Anyone who took initiation from Charan Singh must have been aware that he did not support the idea that homosexuality is normal.

Here's an excerpt from Quest for Light:

EXTRACTS— 1965 TO 1971 (127 )

"Homosexuality for men as well as Lesbianism
for women is condemned not only by Western society,
but every decent person in the world abhors the very
idea of such a thing. No decent and respectable per¬
son would condone this weakness. Get rid of this
guilty feeling by giving up the habit. All you need
is firm determination and strong will power. Tell
your mind that from now onward you will not indulge
in this debasing experience. Do not allow the mind
and the senses to humiliate you in the eyes of others
by doing these things which your own conscience tells
you is wrong. If you honestly and sincerely make
the effort, the Lord will help you to overcome this bad
habit. The strength and the will to do so is to come
from within you. Lay more emphasis on Simran and
never allow any such humiliating desire to come into
your mind. The additional Simran and reading of
some Sant Mat book every day would help to give you
the needed strength. "

Since Quest for Light is one of the main texts of study for those seeking initiation in RSSB, it must be that everyone who took initiation from either Charan or Gurinder knew these guru's position on homosexuality and agreed with it.

If you didn't agree this view of the guru, then why did you take initiation from him and stay within this terribly anti-homosexual organization for over 30 years?

Here's the thing about offering moral lessons, otherwise known as moralizing: The moral message doesn't come off very well if it's obvious you spent half your life believing otherwise. You can't just point your finger at the guru. You first have to admit that you yourself were wrong.

[umami]

Where there's Kam, there is no Nam. Heterosexuality isn't a loophole.

[manjit]

Hi YN (you'll always be YN to me ;) - just a few short hours ago I mentioned this very quote in a private email to somebody, and lo and behold, here it is in it's full, errrrm, "glory" :-/ I may entirely disagree with your often entirely detached from reality political and social beliefs, but I appreciate you raising this little known or commented upon quote from the, widely believed to be, deeply compassionate & non-judgmental embodiment of "Dayal" the All Merciful, beyond the realm of that pesky judge, Kal. I think this is one of the most damning quotes from any RS guru ever, in regards evidencing their time & culture bound humanity, ignorance, prejudice, and evident lack of non-judgmental love.

Online conversations about RS have been going on for decades now.....does anybody wonder why it's the same old, rapidly aging, western posters discussing it? Has there even been a single, independent, western seeker under the age of 40 whose got initiated by any RS group in the last 10 years?! Surely one or two must have got initiated by accident at least? Regardless, they're certainly not posting here, or RSS, or on Twitter, or Reddit, or any other social media......one can only presume they're 4th lifers and are all deeply absorbed in shabd meditation, tripping the light fantastic with the radiant form of Gurinder, to post online, anywhere, ever..........Either that, or they see through such myths when confronted with the mundane humanity of such "Perfect Living Masters" with quotes like these, and realise there's nothing to see here, just another archaic religion with outdated and ignorant views, fronted by eminently dubious & immensely rich family dynasties.....

Hi Umami - you write "Where there's Kam, there is no Nam. Heterosexuality isn't a loophole."

Neither is false equivalency a loophole:

"Homosexuality for men as well as Lesbianism
for women is condemned not only by Western society,
but every decent person in the world abhors the very
idea of such a thing. No decent and respectable person
would condone this weakness. ....... Do not allow the mind
and the senses to humiliate you in the eyes of others
by doing these things.......
never allow any such humiliating desire to come into
your mind. "

https://effectiviology.com/false-equivalence/

SHANTI!

[Brian Hines]

SantMat64, in no way is it necessary to believe everything a guru says to find the guru's teachings useful in other respects. I never agreed with Charan Singh's absurd attitude toward homosexuality. Not when I was a member of RSSB and not now.

The only excuse I could make for Charan Singh is that his views were common in less morally enlightened times. Here in the United States, and maybe more so in India, homosexuality was viewed as deviant in the time Charan Singh grew up and lived as an adult.

Now we know better. There are many varieties of human sexual expression, all normal. I know several people who are gay or lesbian. They're wonderful people. Their sexuality is simply one aspect of who they are, as it is for everybody.

I'd urge you to consider what evidence there is for what Charan Singh wrote so many years ago. I'm confident you'll find that there's no evidence to support what he said. Decent people don't abhor homosexuality. They embrace and love people who are homosexual, because people are just people. The ties that bind us are much stronger and more real than the mostly illusory differences that divide us.

[SantMat64]

Perhaps I was too harsh. I agree with this essay's general message of charity to others. As the Catholics would say, "charity to men of goodwill." And in line with that, I've found it useful to assume that the parties I disagree with belief they're acting for the greater good.

But I do feel that the idea that we have a moral obligation to "support" things we disagree with is a bit tricky, as "support" is a very broad term. Moreover, this idea of owing support is being used all over the place today for various political agendas, and the human tendency to offer support, exploited.

For example, a few years ago the SCOTUS legalized gay marriage. Why did they do that? The main reason was that they determined that the majority of Americans realized that adults who are gay have no choice in the matter and there wasn't a compelling reason to deny them the same rights as hetero citizens.

Some people objected to this change, saying that legalizing gay marriage would result in a societal slippery slope. Activists laughed at that charge as totally alarmist and unfounded. But boy, it sure hasn't taken long for the the slippery slope prophecy to come to pass. Now we're expected -- by the Federal government no less -- to support men pretending to be women to be allowed in women's locker rooms, showers, bathrooms. We're sending these men into women's prisons where they get busy doing right what you'd expect. We're allowing men to compete in women's sports, where they invariably win and ruin the athletic hopes of legions of girls. We're allowing same sex content, some of it graphic, into the children's section of our libraries. Big box companies are marketing gay pride wear for toddlers. And our hospitals are calling things like puberty blockers and breast removal the "standard of care" for underage teenagers. All of that sprang from SCOTUS's decision to legalize gay marriage coupled with the political and corporate greed that promoted it. Why did so many go along with these extremely radical changes? Because they were cudgeled with the support hammer -- "It's all about love and equality!" And emotional blackmail -- "We must do this or they'll commit suicide!" That was a lie btw, as countries that have come to their senses and stopped "helping" children have seen no up tick in suicides, and the regret of these poor girls who had their breasts sawed off is something we're going to be hearing about for a long time to come.

Sometimes it's right not to support others.

But of course this is only my opinion, and I allow that in this ostensibly free society of ours, the people have the right to choose any number of absurd, even harmful things. But I'm under no moral obligation to support any of the above.

Quite frankly, I think Charan Singh was right about homosexuality, and I think he was right to discourage it. The key reason is that I don't believe that we know how people develop their sexual orientation. While some people say they always knew they were gay (and I believe them), I believe same sex attraction can be caused by trauma, or simply be a passing episode of puberty. I was one of those who briefly had same sex attraction in my teens. Something told me never to act on it, and it faded away never to return. Had I instead grown up in an environment where I was encouraged to act out on my desires, who knows how I would have turned out.

And since I'm being frank, I also believe that as much as I wouldn't blame a person for being gay, I wouldn't want that fate for myself. I doubt if most gay people would either. There are many different kinds of handicaps one could be born with, and sorry, those born with a club foot or a hare lip are not equal to those who escaped those defects. Even after the AIDS generation, there's a huge amount of diseases that gay men are prone to and that they die young from.

No one can tell me I'm morally obliged to support something that's emotionally and physically harmful. That's where homosexuality will always stand with me. An adult choice, fine, so is smoking. Something that should be taught in grade school, never.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

"But of course this is only my opinion, and I allow that in this ostensibly free society of ours, the people have the right to choose any number of absurd, even harmful things. But I'm under no moral obligation to support any of the above."

Posted by: SantMat64 | June 16, 2023 at 07:20 PM

Good quote earlier from Quest for Light. Also, a honest point here.

I was curious, since I often bump heads with others initiated by Charan or Gurinder. Did you yourself apply for instruction into the RSSB version of yoga? And how do you fare on all these philosophies e.g. duality, non-dual, and bhakti-marg?

[manjit]

SantMat64 wrote: "Quite frankly, I think Charan Singh was right about homosexuality"

Ha, ah, the irony! I remember all those many years ago when you first posted this on the RSS forum that I thought you shared the basic common sense & decency view that Charan's comments were vile, ignorant, judgmental, lacking empathy or understanding, and very dangerous, which they clearly are. You certainly kept your views tightly hidden away then! :) Of course, it had become obvious to me since then with your staggeringly swift decline into the deeply delusional, disconnected from reality, implicitly hateful, racist & homophobic beliefs that folks like Trump peddle to win votes, that you did actually agree with Charan's view.....it's just so tragically cliché and passé! Nonetheless, thanks for posting this. I think it is a wonderfully, errrrm, "revealing" quote for any potential new, independent, "seekers"....;) Human, all so human.

And when I say cliché and passé I mean this quite literally. Just like your favourite climate scientist (who says that either climate change is a myth, or we'll work it out somehow, but how stupid is it for humans to worry or do anything about it like actually caring for the environment....basically, low IQ idiocy), or possibly Guru as you (predictably) share almost exactly the same views as him on every political or societal subject, Scott Adams.......Was his recent idiotic, racist, jabbering rant about black people a surprise? No, of course not! Just like your views, the cause of your anger and your inability to deal with the modern world and how it is changing (for the far, far better!) so rapidly.....it is all very obvious, all very predictable, all very boring, banal and ugly. But, like you say, adults are free to make their own choices, and bigotry, prejudice, hatred, a feeling of self-martydom (oh woe is me, the well-off old, hetero, white man.......the burden we carry is so great, boo hoo.....they even released a TV show with a transgender black woman last week, when will this madness end, what has the world come to!! :) is your "choice", apparently (good to know everything is determined by karma and we have no free will or choice whatsoever, as per Gurinder, unless it pertains to sexuality! Absurd much?).

In the spirit of Brian's original blog post, here's how Scott's fellow cartoonists reacted (yes, Scott is a cartoonist....apparently hate and bigotry, and an ability to draw shitty sketches, makes you an expert on climate science and race relations! :):

https://apnews.com/article/dilbert-scott-adams-cartoonists-respond-109cb1a6dea03e931e2e6e3814bc743a

These cartoonists don't just not care, they don't not care.

Speaking of which, it's interesting to note that I have only really witnessed ONE seemingly still connected with RSSB person (of course, I've seen a few Ruhani satsangis leap at the opportunity to criticise Charan's vile and dangerous comments, which are entirely devoid of understanding, empathy, compassion, wisdom or love! Guess it's easier for them. Hmm, so it's not the RS philosophy per se which condones bigotry and judgement under the guise of non-judgment, so I wonder what it is....it's almost like some sort of tribal, religious or cultic brainwashing which over-rides our capacity to think for ourselves, stay true to our own, inner, principles? Nah, not possible.....) come out and state at least their disappointment and surprise with this quote, here on this blog, but I forget their name. Brian here has at least said Charan's comments were "absurd". I think they're far worse than that, personally, given the context of who he represents (an infallible, perfect human being who transcends cultural and societal mores, and whose only authority is an All-Merciful and Loving god, and of whom he is the sole representative on earth....coming from such a mouth, these ugly and small-minded views carry far more weight than they deserve, and can be extremely dangerous for any LGBTQ unlucky & slow-witted enough to believe these words came from anything other than a human being with as much flaws and cultural indoctrination as the rest of us).

I think it is very, very telling the lack of comments from RSSB initiates (we all know there are no seekers left, just younger Indian family members of older satsangis, waiting to be herded into the initiation tent when they reach the right age :). The silence is deafening.

Trump, racism, homophobia, RS/SB, climate change denial.......these are all the last death throws of an older, dying generation. They're not going out gracefully, it seems!

The younger generation doesn't buy this idiotic, self-entitled, self-centred, self-ish, self-martydom bullshit.

SantMat64 wrote "That's where homosexuality will always stand with me. An adult choice, fine, so is smoking. Something that should be taught in grade school, never."

Wake up dude, this is more delusional nonsense! Don't make an entire lifetime of swallowing such idiotic ideas! :) YES, smoking should definitely be taught in schools!; smoking is dangerous, here's what it does to your body inside & out. YES, homosexuality and other sexualities should definitely be taught in school; some people have different types of sexuality, in many cultures and throughout history they have suffered tremendous micro & macro aggressions, simply because dumb humans don't like differences, and are prone to hateful, ugly & violent world-views at the drop of a hat. We should not discriminate or bully people because of this, basically we are all the same with different preferences.

Your exceptionally idiotic phrasing of this suggests that homosexuality is being "taught" at schools as a practice, as opposed to encouraging empathy, compassion, tolerance and understanding. You need to get your head out of that ugly black hole of right wing media and their obvious lies and distortions.

PS - thanks for sharing about your experience as a youth, that was very courageous of you. I will refrain from making personal comments about that could feed into your somewhat uptight and angry views today.

As the skies of large parts of the US glowed red, and fires rage all over the continent, perhaps you should consider transgender marketing and the issue of transgender people in women's sport isn't quite the most urgent and pressing issue in the world, and consider just why it bothers you so much. I mean, it is quite obvious, but I'm not your therapist so you'll, as you say, have to live with the choices you make in life.

As for me, who is heterosexual, I think the world, society and culture would be an infinitely poorer place without the beautiful & exuberant variations and varieties of gender and sexual fluidity.....we are lucky to have such glorious expressions of human consciousness and sexuality....truly beautiful to behold, and I think the way the world is changing for the younger generation, where race or sexuality doesn't matter, where empathy and tolerance is "cool", and where gender and sexuality is so fluidly and beautifully expressed, is just stunning to behold.

We just need a couple of generations of oldies to pass away so we can get there faster ;) (of course, we've screwed them by placing our ecological future in the hands of dumb cartoonists and even dumber narcissitic presidents! But, they seem a wiser generation that us so good luck to them).

Hi Karim! You wrote: "Good quote earlier from Quest for Light. Also, a honest point here."

Hehe, indeed, indeed. Keep on posting dude......you might just be the last RSSB initiate from outside an Indian family ever!! :)

RAO!

[umami]

"I think this is one of the most damning quotes from any RS guru ever, in regards evidencing their time & culture bound humanity, ignorance, prejudice, and evident lack of non-judgmental love."

manjit,

I agree with you there.

Well, what do you suppose happened next with that guy? My guess, he went right back to sleeping with men, complaining all the while that Master didn't understand his needs!

Furthermore, it's weird that MCS made arguments against homosexuality on the basis of Western society, when by Western society eating meat and drinking alcohol are perfectly fine! What to say of following a guru and wasting so much time on meditation? Brainwash, obviously.

All four vows go against the grain in one way or another, if not society then human nature. Keeping them can be a struggle, and MCS's words never helped--not me. After a while I tuned out the words, because they had no effect.

I don't think it matters what they say, flowery and wise or bland and ignorant. Words are nothing. One must find one's own motivations.

It's like the stories about saddhus hiding in the forest. The minute they come out and get cash in their hands, it's party time! Words are like the forest. We can't rely on them.

If nothing else, the vows have been an interesting exercise.

[manjit]

Hey SantMat54, I think you mentioned fairly recently you were drawn back to Christianity?

I always found this very American version of Christ-ianity very amusing (albeit also very ugly), that of the gun-toting, war-mongering, disconnected from nature, wall across the neighbor's border building, money gathering, misogynistic and homophobic Christ-ian....quite a spectacular deviation from the person of Christ! :-o

Here's post I wrote on Spence's blog a few years ago, another perspective:

"The whole "adulteress" and Jesus's "he that is without sin" affair can, and indeed I suggest should, be read within a different hermeneutic entirely.

The book of Jesus, the New Testament, opens with Matthew describing Jesus's genealogy. Only four women are mentioned. One of these, Rahab, was a prostitute. Another, Tamar, pretended to be a prostitute to seduce a man so she could have his children without his knowing. Another, Ruth, was probably a lesbian and very sexually provocative. The other one, Bathsheba, committed adultery and was impregnated by another man, who then killed her husband so he could have her to himself. These are traditional and well-known Biblical stories, referenced obliquely in the very beginning of the New Testament in the book of Matthew, which is generally considered to be gospel most aimed at Jewish readers.....hence, those familiar with the implications of Jesus's genealogy.....a scandal in plain sight.

Further to this, we have 2 versions of Jesus, both quite sexually "free" or "liberated":

The orthodox Bible of mainstream Christianity - here we have (ironically given the absurd shenanigans of many puritan, judgmental, hateful Christians in mainstream Christianity!) a transparently homo-erotic mystic, whose beloved was a male, who encouraged his followers to become "eunuchs" (again, much cultural significance to the use of the term), and possibly/probably engaged in pederasty. If any of this sounds unpalatable to any Christians, I exhort you to again read the New Testament.....slowly, carefully, and with as close to an open mind as you're able to muster. It is obvious, the Jesus of the 4 canonised Gospels is gay, or at least has homo-erotic tendencies (to whichever degree our modern cultural labels and associations with sexuality etc even relate to how they framed their own desires, mysticism, eroticism etc back then, ie. I do not believe Jesus considered himself "gay").

But we also have the second, ironically heretical Jesus - the Jesus of the gnostic canons. Here, Jesus is shown as somebody who associates and even "loves" (nod nod wink wink) women of "ill-repute", such as Mary Magdalene. The Biblical town of Magdala was almost a euphemism for people of "ill-repute", which suggests even the name Mary Magdalene has hidden, secret connotations.....in plain sight.

You could go on and on. But the point is this, hidden amongst the worldly, literal (law makers and adjudicators) interpretations, the ethical and humanistic interpretations (Jesus was compassionate), there is also another more "secret" hermeneutic which casts a whole different light upon this story of the adulteress and casting stones.

It is the hermeneutic of the lived & living mystic.

There are no laws & no rules for the mystic. They are not attorneys.....they are too busy breaking the laws and getting into trouble!

Their law is ecstasy........an ecstasy that often overflows into sensuality. A love for the prostitute, for the adulteress (often, gasp, consumated!), for the abused, for the marginalised, for the vulnerable, for the poor, for the sexually transgressive....for it is in these liminal spaces where the ego has been deconstructed, sometimes forcefully by society, family or trauma etc, that the ecstatic in-rush of the "Divine" can occur more easily.

This is not a "compassion" or "love" or "morality" that is learned, considered, conditioned or defined by this or that theology or belief. It is a spontaneous, ecstatic outpouring of love, or forgiveness, or compassion, or care for equal rights for womens, gays, the abused, handicapped, poor people etc, or even a sensuality that may or not be expressed through physical acts of sexuality. But always a transgression of worldly, demi-urgic laws and systems of control and oppression, of judgement and punishment. Just check the lives of any real mystics, and they are all touched by these acts of cultural, social, conceptual or sexual transgression. The "laws" are made by "attorneys" way after their deaths, "attorneys" who will never know the ecstasy and sensuality of mystics like Jesus. That is why religious people like to judge & stone people to death for their transgressions, and mystics are put to death for their transgressions.

This is a reading of Jesus not readily accessible to everyone......it is a mystic's reading. Only one in ecstasy can understand another in ecstasy, the rest is commentary.

Actually, writing all this I notice there is a huge, huge debt in these ideas of mine to the wonderful Jeffrey Kripal, whose extremely brilliant and highly recommended body of work has been quite influential to me over the past 10 or so years!"

Bookstore:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Serpents-Gift-Gnostic-Reflections-Religion/dp/0226453812

Free PDF:
https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%93%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%81/%D0%98%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F/ENG/Kripal%20J.J.%20-%20The%20Serpent's%20Gift.%20Gnostic%20Reflections%20on%20the%20Study%20of%20Religion.pdf

Spence's blog and my comment:
https://atheistnbeliever.blogs.com/atheistnbeliever/2018/12/christ-the-master-attorney.html?cid=6a022ad3c659ec200b022ad3ac153b200d#comment-6a022ad3c659ec200b022ad3ac153b200d

[Spence Tepper]

Every effort to liberate ourselves from enslavement of any kind is a worthy pursuit.So if society's rules of conduct are oppressive to your pursuit of happiness, it is natural to try to create protected conditions where you may pursue your desires in peace.

Many people feel very uncomfortable in their body, their culture, their place in the world. They believe they are meant for something else, and getting that will bring them happiness.

Spirituality simply extends that idea to say that these hankerings actually have a spiritual basis.

If a woman needs to become a man to better pursue happiness, that is progress, and it may be their fate.

If a non-binary person needs to live outside the binary constraints of their culture, that is progress, and possibly their destiny.

From a spiritual perspective this is all just acknowledging one's legitimate experience in this prisonhouse.

According to some spiritual traditions we have been men, women, creatures, and every possible shade between in every economic condition, every health condition; we have been ugly and beautiful, loved and hated. We have fit in, and we haven't fit in. To become even vaguely, intuitively, even subjectively aware of the past is to feel out of place in the present.

That growing awareness is a glimpse into a greater truth and is itself truthful. To feel like a man in a woman's body may be a fact of eons of previous life as a man.

In spirituality, the core philosophy is that we are far more than these shells. Liberation is there for us to pursue.

If that is true then any effort to be free of the constraints we feel will take us one step closer to that greater freedom.

It is to be encouraged, supported and celebrated.

[manjit]

Hi Umami - thanks for the thoughtful and sincere comment.

I don't like to speculate what happened to that person - or any of the countless LGBTQ leaning people who read that in an official, must read publication for all seekers - and I'm not sure it serves any person to do so here. I appreciate the predominant delusion in dewy-eyed RSSB satsangi's minds would be this person went on to escape the clutches of kam and kal, sublimate their sexuality into adoring Charan's form, and is currently lounging on a dweep in So-Hang somewhere, Amrit-cocktail in hand, shaking their head knowingly at the terrible state of the world today where Kal has so indoctrinated the masses that the mainstream view of "decent people" is to no longer ignorantly & uncompassionately to so cruelly judge people as to "humiliate" them. Tut tut, that pesky Kal with his (are they a he, perhaps they identity as a she? We shouldn't presume :) evil indoctrination of tolerance, freedom, variety, love........

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your authentic comment....that's the thing with authenticity, it's far more interesting than mindless dogmatism repeated ad nauseum. I still your remember your "am I allowed to believe in evolution" comment......priceless! :)

Hi Spence - nice thoughts re. sexuality. But I'm not sure to what extent preaching one way or another re. sexuality and acceptance of it, on this forum, given the audience (presumably 50 plus westerners, and Indian religious satsangis just waiting to hear more about their Perfect Master, as there is no other discussion going on, anywhere, about RSSB!) will make any difference to anyone?

I think a far more interesting, original, fresh and authentic discussion would be is how you relate or reconcile your experiences and related beliefs, as you've courageously shared here, specifically in relation to your very RS-centric beliefs and experiences with the "radiant forms" of Charan and Gurinder which you consider "transcendent", with Charan's quote here? And Gurinder's deeply troubling, almost certainly fraudulent, and certainly un-Sant-ly behaviour with obscene sums of money which he and his family still apparently benefit from?

How do you reconcile your "transcendent" experiences, RS teachings surrounding the infallibility, if not in a physical sense at least on a mental, emotional, and non-judgmental and loving sense, of the "Satguru", which in your case would be Charan and Gurinder, with what you wrote above in contrast to Charan's comments, for eg? Etc etc. But you carry on, seemingly in-coherent as it is from my perspective at least.....;)

PHAT!

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Manjit
You asked
"I think a far more interesting, original, fresh and authentic discussion would be is how you relate or reconcile your experiences and related beliefs,..."

My opinion is informed by my experience. If we are all souls imprisoned in these bodies, that are clones regurgitated from the past, filled with remnants of millions of years of ancient existence, naturally we want to be free of the blind limitations of the past. It's very parochial to attempt to apply some cultural ethics... Unless they are the ethics of liberation. Those apply universally to all of us. And if meditation practice becomes a pathway to insight then all we can have is thanks for our teachers, all cultural context aside.

We are all living in a mystery and must make personal decisions with limited information. Everyone's view of Sant Mat, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Atheism, is always a personal version.
Never the same for any two people. So it is no surprise that conflicts appear when you look down through a couple of layers and across multiple perspectives. But there is no conflict within a single layer. And each layer functions quite well in its own system to serve the purpose of those who hold beliefs, positive or negative.

Be happy you can see what you do. Own it. It reflects oneself,one's own conditioning. Often the one who only sees narrow thinking doesn't get to see the spiritual results of practice. To see all of it puts things into a very personal and subjective, individual frame.

So, at that point there is no conflict. Each version operates with reliable consistency for the individual from their single dimension.

Anyone serious about liberation is just going to attend to those aspects of life

One thing I can say with some confidence. We don't always suffer the consequences of our actions. We suffer the impressions of our actions, and our persistent addiction to those impressions. Life after life the addict doesn't suffer the result of their addiction only. They also suffer more addiction.

Liberation starts there. Our own thinking is our immediate and daily prisonhouse. More action may not be the answer. I suggest meditation may be the answer to liberation. Trigger other pathways within yourself to see things differently.

Then you are always using your own experience, but in raising the platform of that experience, having a better experience, a more enlightened perspective.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

"If a non-binary person needs to live outside the binary constraints of their culture, that is progress, and possibly their destiny."

Posted by: Spence Tepper | June 17, 2023 at 10:44 AM

Finally, someone here HAS been studying. Great perspective on what duality really is Mr. Tepper. I thought for a second that no one here would be able to catch me on this one. Perhaps 777, he's been super helpful as an elder.

"Hi Karim! You wrote: "Good quote earlier from Quest for Light. Also, a honest point here."

Hehe, indeed, indeed. Keep on posting dude......you might just be the last RSSB initiate from outside an Indian family ever!!"

Posted by: manjit | June 17, 2023 at 07:06 AM

Outside the Indian family -couldn't be? As my father told me we had quite a bit of Indian in us. Why yes, Red Indian.

[manjit]

Hi Spence... thanks for your reply!

But I think I'm going to have to agree with Brian on this one, you don't half preach a lot of (derivative) flowery and misdirectional words to avoid the crux of the matter or question asked!

But, in all sincerity, good luck to you my friend!

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Manjit
You asked me to try to explain a number of confusing pieces of information from my perspective.

My focus is on meditation practice so that sets my perspective. Whatever helps me make progress gets top billing. Stuff I can't explain I acknowledge, but only in the context of my own practice.

I'm not trying to misdirect your from yours. It's OK to have different perspectives. It's a fact.

[manjit]

That's a wonderful response, hard to disagree 🥹

May Quetzalcoatl shower Blessings Upon You!

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

Here's an excerpt from Quest for Light:

EXTRACTS— 1965 TO 1971 (127 )

"Homosexuality for men as well as Lesbianism
for women is condemned not only by Western society,
but every decent person in the world abhors the very
idea of such a thing. No decent and respectable per¬
son would condone this weakness. Get rid of this
guilty feeling by giving up the habit. All you need
is firm determination and strong will power. Tell
your mind that from now onward you will not indulge
in this debasing experience. Do not allow the mind
and the senses to humiliate you in the eyes of others
by doing these things which your own conscience tells
you is wrong. If you honestly and sincerely make
the effort, the Lord will help you to overcome this bad
habit. The strength and the will to do so is to come
from within you. Lay more emphasis on Simran and
never allow any such humiliating desire to come into
your mind. The additional Simran and reading of
some Sant Mat book every day would help to give you
the needed strength. "

Posted by: SantMat64 | June 16, 2023 at 09:32 AM

Again, I see no malice in this particular letter to it seems, a struggling initiate and or satsangi. In Quest for Light.

I know Brian asked for more evidence on the subject. There's heaps of it. In scripture here, from in the Bible, the God of Abraham speaking to Moses; (to tell to the people)
"22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you"
-Levectus 18:22-24

Clearly it states, homosexuality for men as well as lesbianism.. Is an abomination. Maharaj Charan Singh Ji drew many of his lectures using quotes from the Bible. There's no malice in that, just the truth that it takes a man and it takes a woman to replenish the human species. No malice, just Life Sciences.

Many other quotes turn up from my Qur'an. But they're more about the Casting Out/and God's Wrath part. But why blame God/Allah? He's given us everything we need on this planet necessary for survive. But still some feel the need to fulfill unnecessary and unproductive carnal desires, and extravagant appetites. For every action, there is a reaction.

I think that was the point Maharaj Ji was trying to get at. As Maharaj Ji did say it was a "weakness" or "confusion". That spells deep concern for that struggling satsangi's spirit, love beyond that of a father.

What father heavenly, or earthy, wants his children to do unnecessary deeds?

To be born, a mother and a father is needed to sperm an ovary's egg. Scientifically necessary.

I wasn't shat out a man's anus. (pardon my French)
Nor was my father unfrozen at some sperm bank.

Children need both natural mother and father. Or they'll be raised by the streets or worse. Look at the generation who were cutting themselves, & bleeding themselves. To what end? Necessary for what reason?

The opioid crisis grew, just because of bad parenting, unruly kids without both mother and father. I see meth heads all the time looking for their next hit. But for what reasoning? In the next 72 hrs they'll need an even stronger fix! For God knew what He was doing, admonishing the over use of sexuality.

No malice, not even from our heavenly Father, just love of Him for His children.

At least that's what I got from Hazur Maharaj Ji's quote.

[Appreciative Reader]

It is disturbing to see these rabidly homophobic comments on here. I didn't expect this here of all places, and certainly not this degree of brazenness.

SM64, your sexuality is your business, not mine; but since you put out this stuff here about yourself, I'd suggest that you're probably bi. No need to get scared, lots of people are, in some degree. It seems to me entirely obvious that it is this latent homosexuality that is at the bottom of your homophobia, and your apparent monomania around the trans question, that sees you circle back to that same topic no matter the subject actually being discussed.

I wish you'd take it easy. Being gay is no big deal. And certainly being bisexual is no big deal either. To the best of my knowledge I am not bi; but I'd imagine being bi is very cool, in fact BETTER than being either straight or gay, in as much as it opens you up to a wider range of experience. I'm not being flippant here, and mean that literally: to be bi is to be open to both sets of sexual experience, while to be either straight or simply gay is to be open to just the one!

And there's no reason to imagine your life would necessarily be any different if you'd embraced your bisexuality. After all we straight folks don't go slobbering over every single girl or woman, do we, nor do we jump into the sack with every girl or woman who might be willing. There's no reason to imagine that one's ...character, would change, just because one recognized and embraced one's bisexuality. That ...simply doesn't make sense.

Karim, I have to say, to point out words from scriptures (whether RSSB, or biblical, or Quranic) that support homophobia, is no more than to expose the hateful and decidedly unholy nature of these texts, and these doctrines. Far from making a case against homosexuality, what that actually does is make for a compelling argument against these dysfunctional belief systems themselves.

I mean, duh! Does this really even need to be spelled out? What is this, the effing middle ages?! Like I said, I'm very surprised to find people expressing these homophobic views here, and so entirely brazenly.

[Spence Tepper]

There is no need to judge anyone. But if you can't see this for yourself, then even in those ancient texts, Jesus says,
[1] Judge not, that ye be not judged. [2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
Matthew 7

And St. Paul also writes, "I don't even judge myself."
and further...
"For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?"
1 Corinthians 4.

Christ also says that we should not judge the perceived weaknesses of anyone else, for these just point to our own...

"[4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote (speck of dust) out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam (a plank of wood) is in thine own eye? [5] Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Matthew 7:4-5

We are in no position to judge anyone. What they are, God and Live, Reality gave to them. Let them celebrate their ability to be themselves.

This judging thing goes right against what these very people who founded these religions spoke of.

But you can see that this is a habit very hard to give up. We judge each other all the time, even here. It's a habit that gets in the way of focusing on what great things are within each of us.

If someone celebrates what they have found as a truth in them, then let's celebrate with them.

If we are going to judge anyone, we can judge ourselves. But as for what St. Paul wrote, we aren't even capable of that. So, we should just foster loving kindness for all.

[Appreciative Reader]

That's an interesting nuance, this difference between "We don't care", and "We don't NOT care"!

I'd say that "We don't care" is probably the better option, the better attitude. In the sense that that is the attitude that would be natural in a more tolerant world, a world where "tolerance" per se wouldn't even be called for, where homosexuality (and bisexuaity) would be seen as just as natural as heterosexuality. A world where absurd hateful superstitions from the past, and borne of ignorance, are no longer taken as anything other than historical oddities, much like the legends of Olympus, that no one in their right mind takes seriously. A better world. In such a world, "We don't care" would make perfect sense. And to that extent, "We don't care" is by far the better option, in as much as it indicates a so much better world.

But of course, wishes aren't horses. Doesn't make sense to do the ostrich thing. We don't actually live in such a world, do we. This small microcosm of commenters right here makes that much very clear. As does a cursory look at the real world out there. So yeah, doesn't make sense to try to force-fit that "We don't care" attitude in a world that isn't yet ready for it. In this imperfect world we find ourselves in, it is "We don't NOT care" that does make sense, agreed completely.

Cool nuance. Agreed, leaving it at "We don't care", as many of us sometimes do, is actually shortsighted. We can do better than that.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

"Karim, I have to say, to point out words from scriptures (whether RSSB, or biblical, or Quranic) that support homophobia, is no more than to expose the hateful and decidedly unholy nature of these texts.."

Posted by: Appreciative Reader | June 19, 2023 at 07:07 AM

So all the sudden the atheist now believes in the holy?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/atheist

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/holy

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, Karim.

It seems to me your comment is focused on my use of the word “unholy”, is that right? I thought this was completely obvious; but if not, then let me clarify: I did *not* mean to suggest that the scriptures you quoted --- RSSB, and Biblical, and Quranic --- are inspired by some demonic force, I did *not* mean to suggest they’re literally demonic, devilish, satanic, absolutely not. Informal figurative usage of “unholy”, is all.

You’ve rightly pointed out, quoting chapter and verse, that these scriptures do say, unequivocally, that homosexuality isn’t …natural? kosher? a sin even? Agreed with you, as far as that, as far as the fact that these scriptures do say that. But the conclusion that very clearly suggests itself to me, basis that argument, is that these scriptures are therefore not only arrantly wrong, factually speaking; but also downright harmful, a direct source of intolerance and exclusion. In that sense, and meant informally, figuratively, they’re “unholy”, is what I was trying to say.

---

And the tone of your comment makes clear that you may not have much liked or appreciated my comment. No offense intended, Karim. I do understand and appreciate that this kind of criticism of what one holds in respect may not be welcome! I wouldn’t, in general, denigrate your private personal faith, you know. Neither in general; and particularly not in your specific case, given your inspiring backstory, which I respect, about having overcome great odds in life, in part by drawing support from your faith. But when you present specific arguments here basis your faith, then presumably you intend to open such argument up for discussion. And in this case, given that your arguments appeared to directly support intolerance, intolerance of homosexuals in this case, then it seemed to me right to speak up against this closed-minded argument and POV.

[Harry]

To appreciate

1. IDENTIFY how can (man and man) create life?

And how can (women and women) create life

Harry Saab
📯📯📯📯📯🎺🎺🎺

[umami]

Homosexuality caused by air pollution. "We could explain that males started courting each other after a short ozone exposure."
https://news.yahoo.com/scientists-discovered-alarming-side-effect-100000446.html