Descartes famously wrote that even though we could be mistaken about everything else, since God could be a cosmic joker who hides the truth from us, the one thing we can't doubt is that we are a creature who doubts -- and thinks, and in general has conscious experiences.
You know, the "I think, therefore I am" thing.
It's hard to argue with that. Sort of. Because we can imagine what Descartes could not, given when he lived: that, among other 21st century possibilities, we are creatures who are characters in a computer simulation crafted by an advanced alien civilization.
Part of the simulation includes the capacity to imbue certain characters, human beings in our case, with a conception that they are having conscious experiences. Also, that they are free to choose one thing -- a thought, action, whatever -- rather than another thing, even though the simulation is both doing the choosing and creatingnthe sensation of free will.
Which, in characters like Robert Sapolsky, Sam Harris, and other deniers of free will, is overridden by a sensation of not having free will, just to make the simulation more interesting.
But even if we don't believe that we're characters in a simulation (I consider this unlikely), there's still good reason to consider that much of what we mentally experience isn't actually what is happening in our deeper mental reality.
Thomas Metzinger explains this in the "Meditation and Nonmeditation" chapter in his provocative book, The Elephant and the Blind, which is about the experience of pure consciousness.
According to the reports of about 500 people who described such an experience in sufficient detail to be included in Metzinger's book, pure consciousness or pure awareness (same thing) happens spontaneously. It can't be forced, since any forcing introduces a subject-object duality that destroys the possibility of experiencing pure awareness in its simple unified clarity.
In other words, we can be it, but we can't observe it.
However this raises the question of where an experience of pure awareness comes from if it is uncaused, which is what's implied by the notion of spontaneity. Metzinger says:
On a physical or functional level of description, to call something "spontaneous" means to describe it as uncaused and lawless -- and therefore doing so without argument or evidence could be seen as a form of hand-waving or deliberate obscurantism.
If we try to be intellectually honest, set all metaphysics aside, and stay as close as possible to contemplative experience itself, then the term "spontaneity" can only refer to a phenomenological kind of spontaneity.
There is an experience of spontaneity, and this is what has to be taken seriously. As always, jumping to strong metaphysical conclusions is a way of not taking your own experience seriously.
That last sentence is interesting. It deserves careful consideration.
I'm not capable of doing that right now. So I'll simply agree with Metzinger in an intuitive fashion that he does seem to be correct in saying that when we make more of our direct phenomenal experience than is contained within the experience itself ("I felt a great sense of peace. That must be the presence of God!") we're discounting our experience in favor of a metaphysical or conceptual conclusion.
Here's what Metzinger says in the following paragraphs. This fits with my understanding of why we believe we have free will, though there's no evidence of this other than the belief.
The phenomenological fact that nondual MPE [Minimal Phenomenal Experience] often appears spontaneously and effortlessly, that it has an "ahistoric" quality and cannot be fabricated by applying a mental technique, can be explained with reference to the fact that most of its enabling conditions in the brain are fully unconscious.
We do not experience them. Science may be able to find and isolate these causally enabling conditions, but the brain itself doesn't represent them in its conscious model of reality. There is a parallel case in the phenomenology of volition, of suddenly "willing" something.
Many people proceed from the phenomenological fact that, say, the consciously experienced intention to now move their right arm and reach for a beautiful flower seems to spontaneously occur in their mind, "out of the blue" as it were, and interpret this as proof of free will in a strong sense: as demonstrating the existence of what philosophers call "ultimate origination."
Ultimate origination would mean the capacity to start a new causal chain of events in your mind by an uncaused act of will, an act coming from outside the network of dependent origination. But for the experience of free will, as well as for the experience of spontaneously occurring pure awareness, the same principle holds:
From the fact that you experience something as uncaused, it does not follow that it actually was uncaused.
...Some intelligent systems control their own behavior based on a model of themselves as agents in a strong sense. To successfully control their own behavior -- which may be bodily or mental -- they use a conscious image of themselves as an entity that possesses the capacity for goal selection and ultimate origination.
Other intelligent systems don't do this. The difference is important.
We can think of embodied systems intelligently moving through the world, automatically updating and constantly improving their inner portrait of reality, controlling what they will know and what they will not know.
But some of these systems -- for example, self-aware human beings -- sometimes may use a model of themselves as an epistemic agent, now achieving the same goal by using a special computational device. They would experience themselves as possessing free will, as being agents capable of initiating new causal chains out of the blue.
These systems would have an ego in a strong sense.
There is nothing in philosophy or science, no postulates, theories or laws, that would predict the emergence of this experience we call consciousness. Natural laws do not call for its existence, and it certainly does not seem to offer us any evolutionary advantages. There can only be two explanations for its existence. First is that there are evolutionary forces at work that we don’t know of or haven’t theorized yet that select for the emergence of the experience called consciousness. The second is that the experience is a function we serve, a product that we create, an experience we generate as human beings. Who do we create this product for? How do they receive the output of the qualia generating algorithms that we are? We don’t know. But one thing’s for sure, we do create it. We know it exists. That’s the only thing we can be certain about. And that we don’t have a dominant theory to explain why we need it.
So here we are generating this product called consciousness that we apparently don’t have a use for, that is an experience and hence must serve as an experience. The only logical next step is to surmise that this product serves someone else.
Posted by: sant64 | July 24, 2024 at 12:51 PM
The argument that a God does exist carries more weight in my opinion.
For example, if you think about the beginning where some believe that a big bang set out events that led to the shaping of the universe and then plankton.
In contrast, a monotheist can argue that the big bang wouldn't have occurred without there first being some core elemental. Such as aether. Because nothing exists without time and space, not even a 'Bang' of such.
Secondly, and bang would need some oxide to feed it. Giving rise to another elemental. In Taoism, the five elements are seen only as part of the ultimate power. Then there are Yin and Yang two greater opposing forces fight like Angels vs Demons. Then even all five elements oppose each other. One fighting the other, or being eliminated by another.
To me, that equates that something even more powerful must be at work. The Dao to true Daoists is the Supreme Creative force, that which all life is pacified by. Without It, there would be no sky, for birds to fly. Not waters for crustaceans to evolve in. No land, nor dirt to walk by. Or for trees to grow, and no fire from dry timber wood.
So to me that which science is still an infant to knocks at the door of the unknown, for the delta, or that which only lies within the sphere of the Divine.
Posted by: Karim W. Rahmaan | July 24, 2024 at 10:31 PM
Not to sure what Metzinger means with ‘pure awareness’ or ‘pure consciousness’. These terms seem to echo some of the Buddhst, Advaita or non-dualist’s references to ‘suchness’, ‘this is it’, ‘the present moment’ etc. So, I’m happy to go along with his ‘pure’ tag as a description of spontaneity – uncaused and lawless.
Presumably, such spontaneity is there when the analytical and concept forming brain/mind is quiet, and interestingly, it is not something to be cultivated. In fact, in Zen, Advaita etc., to chase after it is to miss it – as in the story of Joshu and Nansen on ‘Ordinary mind is the way’.
Although, regarding consciousness and awareness, I favour the theory that consciousness and awareness are subtly different. Consciousness has an evolutionary origin – yet arising from awareness. The story goes that primordial life had its origins in creatures with no brains just mouths, simple organisms that lived on the sea floor and consumed microscopic creatures as they passed by; it was basically a stomach on a stick. Over millions of years such creatures evolved to hunt and avoid being hunted; cells had formed a brain, a brain with senses, an awareness of itself existing and able to differentiate between ‘me’ and ‘not me’.
Over time, as brain became more complex, this simple physical awareness evolved into consciousness and eventually into self-consciousness and refining the sense of me into an assumed me, a self with an apparent separate identity. Then, our problems really began, consciousness, the mind, the self etc., providing the basis of much of the spiritual and metaphysical explanations, hopes and wishes that attempt to assuage our fears and insecurities regarding inevitable death and whether life has meaning – too much mind!
The non-dual take on awareness is that it is the matrix from where all form arises. A Zen sutra says emptiness is form, form is emptiness. Metzinger makes a good philosophical case for meditation and experiencing pure awareness but for me it is overly complicated. I much prefer and understand Joan Toliffson’s approach to the subject.
From Joan Toliffson’s ‘Outpourings’: - True Meditation: ‘The Art of Going Nowhere,’ there are a couple of quotes that (to me) sum up meditation – and perhaps the end of meditation as we know it!
“As you walk the spiritual path, it widens, not narrows, until one day it broadens to a point where there is no path left at all.” Wayne Liquorman.
“Meditation is not about manufacturing a state of mind that’s clear, calm or full of insight. It’s about interfering less and less with what is actually here.” John Tarrant.
Posted by: Ron E. | July 25, 2024 at 03:19 AM
Fucking weirdo.
This time our resident troll has copy-pasted his comment from here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/
----------
“From the fact that you experience something as uncaused, it does not follow that it actually was uncaused.”
Sums it all up.
Not discounting those experiences. Far from it, given that holy grail is something I myself pursue, as part of my own meditation practice. …But yeah, all we have here is a bunch of people, meditators, reporting that they’ve experienced pure awareness. That’s all we have, their report of their experience of pure awareness. Nothing more. Most certainly no evidence that pure awareness (whether spontaneous or caused) is actually a thing.
----------
That was very interesting, the distinction between strong ego and weak ego.
I do have one question, though. Is the weak ego thing merely Metzinger’s speculation, or is that actually scientific fact?
That is: That there should be biological entities, including us humans, that model our reality and react to the model not reality itself, and what’s more hallucinate a sense of free will, that is scientific fact, we know that now. But is it true that there’s other animals, other living beings, that also actually create a model of reality that they then react to (as opposed to reacting directly to the stimuli they receive from their environment), and yet despite that model thing they’ve got going they do not possess, at all, either consciousness or (the illusion of) free will? Is that latter true, basis actual science? Or is that merely Metzinger’s (not unreasonable) speculation?
These quotes did not clarify that. If Metzinger does spell that out elsewhere in that chapter, or maybe elsewhere in this book, then maybe you could tell us, Brian.
(I think that would be interesting to know, in and of itself. But also, if the answer’s a Yes, along with a clear explanation and defense of that answer: then it would provide us a fairly complete framework demonstrating the evolution of consciousness and of [the illusion of] free will; much like today we have, for example, a fairly complete account, across species, of how exactly we came to evolve the exquisitely complex organ that is the eye.)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 25, 2024 at 10:00 AM
That explains it, actually. I mean, sant64’s aversion to ever addressing others’ comments, and particularly responses and rebuttals to his own (often very thought-provoking) comments. I’d found it very curious why someone who’s clearly highly intelligent, and capable of such nuanced thinking (regardless of whether I personally happen to agree with that thinking), is nevertheless so completely lacking in intellectual integrity, that he continues to drum mindlessly those same thoughts, entirely unconcerned about clearly presented rebuttals that show his POV to be wanting. The two didn’t seem to match up, that depth of intellect and that nuanced thinking on one hand --- again regardless of whether I myself agree or disagree with his POV --- and on the other hand that lack of integrity and that complete disregard for whether that thinking actually holds up. …But then, I shrug and move on, after asking him directly one time, or maybe two or three times, because, hell, not my business, and let him do his own thing, why not, as long as Brian doesn’t mind.
Well, this is a very simple resolution to that conundrum. All of those thoughts are merely his mindless paraphrasing, and often direct copy-paste jobs, of the nuanced thinking of others, not his own; nuanced thinking that he doesn’t actually understand, other than agreeing dumbly with the conclusion they arrive at. And then he passes them off as his own thoughts. I can’t read his mind, and nor can I divine his motivations with 100% accuracy; but I suspect he does that in order to appear smart; and more importantly to appear to have perfectly rational bases for his beliefs, even though he does not actually understand those bases or any of that thinking himself.
And in as much as he does not actually understand any of what he actually posts, because they’re merely thoughtless paraphrases and/or thoughtless copy-paste jobs: then obviously there’s no question of his being able to engage with actual discussions and rebuttals around those comments. Therefore, he pretends never to read others’ comments, and goes on mindlessly drumming his own tune --- except it isn’t his own tune at all.
People are weird. Some people.
No wonder he supports Trump, the patron saint of the half-witted and the dishonest.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 25, 2024 at 10:27 AM
Lol. Good catch, AR!
Posted by: umami | July 25, 2024 at 10:53 AM
That's thanks to you, umami. And also thanks to manjit, who alerted us to the fact that what'd you'd caught him at wasn't just an isolated instance, but instead what he (very weirdly) tends to do repeatedly.
Otherwise I myself had neither noticed this ever, so far, and nor would I ever even begin to suspect that someone might be doing that. Because, I mean, who does that, right? Still can't quite wrap my head around the kind of person, and the kind of thinking, that would do this. ...On the other hand, I can't quite wrap my head around the kind of person that supports Trump either, or his equivalent elsewhere; and yet there's heaps of them around, unfortunately. That earlier comment of mine was my way of trying to make some sense of what so far had been a complete mystery, but is now starting to maybe make some sense, maybe admitting of some method in the craziness.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 25, 2024 at 11:14 AM
@AR
.>>On the other hand, I can't quite wrap my head around the kind of person that supports Trump either, or his equivalent elsewhere; and yet there's heaps of them aroundhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon
Read the alinea starting with ...After leaving the white house.
Posted by: um | July 25, 2024 at 11:55 AM
Hey, um.
I guess this kind of person it isn't very difficult to understand. Someone who stands to gain directly from supporting Trump, whether on a petty scale, or on a grander scale, as here. People like that are simply unprincipled and amoral and plain greedy, nothing mysterious about their motivation. ...Also, I suppose, the out-and-out racists and sexists and religious fundamentalists, who see in Trump someone who is one of them, or at least someone who will opportunistically enable them.
But not everyone among the millions who support Trump answer that description, not every one of them is that kind of extreme-despicable scum. There's many who are generally decent people, who are not dishonest in their everyday life (I think it is important here to distinguish between the lack intellectual integrity on one hand, and actual dishonesty on the other, the kind of dishonesty that means actually stealing and pilfering and enriching oneself illegally and dishonestly). So, how is it that so MANY people support Trump, or people like him elsewhere? That's a riddle, right there.
I expect the answer is a complex one. Probably a mix of many different things, and not all of those things will apply to all people. ...But I guess that's what I meant, when I said I don't quite understand the kind of person that supports Trump, or his equivalent elsewhere in the world.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 25, 2024 at 12:20 PM
@AR
Ask them AR.
If you want to understand without asking them or depending on their capacity to formulate their motives, think of what has befallen on the masses.
People highly depend on the welfare of their surroundings on the government. In older days people had little to no information as to what the government was doing.
These days information is globalized and they are day in day out bombarded with information . Most of the time that information is not is"negative".
Have a sip of coffee and ponder what that does with people, day in day out to be bombarded with alarming information and at the mean time seeing the downfall of their own com unity welfare ..I do not think I have to draw your attention to what is going on in your country related to the possibilities of earning one's own living, healthcare, housing, safety in cities etc etc etc.
No need for a com plot theorists to make the masses understand .. that ..whoever was in office, they were not able to prevent that downfall.
In such a general atmosphere of worries about all sorts and levels of welfare ..people will run after each and every one that has some charisma and holds a carrot of cure before them.
I do listen to what Metzinger had to say in German and there he explains that those that belief that there is a solution are fooling themselves and the rest giving them false hope.
You see AR humans cannot look after the welfare of the earth and ALL that think they can are making things worse.
Trump, in my book is just one of those people that make the masses believe that he has that power.
Globalization, AR is an CURSE ..we humans are not made for it it.
But ..ask the people and they will inform you abou their existential fears.
Posted by: um | July 25, 2024 at 12:44 PM
@ AR
After your coffee, take a walking stick and find yourself an ant nest.
When you see ants in good order coming and going from their nest.
Disturb with your stick, say the entrance of the nest ..
Than see what happens.
Observe the panic ... that is what is going on with humanity
Poor people ... as there is nobody around that could prevent it, nor cure it ... no scientist, no religious figure. no old school politician ...they lift their arms and there is no god hearing upon them.
If there is fire in the "cinema"...get with your back against the wall and see to it that you cannot be tremble by the panicking people.
Posted by: um | July 25, 2024 at 12:54 PM
@ AR
You have no idea proundly we are conditioned to hear upon others.
It starts when we learn language from our parents ..THEY make you see the world
Then we go to school, where for another decade at least we are taught to hear upon teachers.
And it goes on and on.
See in this blog how this works out when this or that EXPERT is discussed
If all of an sudden people are faced with the fact that these experts do not have that knowledge that power, that they are as vulnerable etc ast they are ..they are in great problems.
So used to find solutions in the lime light of the streets that they do not dear even to go back to their own house, let alone enter its darkness where they are all on their selves and nobody else to help them
Humanity is in a psychological crisses and there is not even an psychiatrist that will be able to help them.
Posted by: um | July 25, 2024 at 01:07 PM
Agreed about the existential fears, and how that often leads them to the arms of Trump (and his equivalent elsewhere).
But my point is, Trump (and his equivalent elsewhere) do not actually offer succor for the lacks that drive their discontent and their fears. If anything they end up making things worse. They cynically make use of the people's fears in order to enrich themselves, and to get to and hold on to power themselves. And the people at large seem completely unable to understand this transparent charlatanry, and they end up supporting the people who are least able to do anything for them.
Which, to complete the circle, brings me back to what I'd started out saying, as far as that much: it is something of a mystery why people are so gullible, and so easily taken in by transparent dishonesty. There's no single answer, naturally; but probably the one single thing that does come closest to offering a general answer, is lack of critical thinking. Not necessarily lack of information per se; but the lack of critical thinking, the lack of the ability to sift the wheat from the chaff, the lack of the ability to understand and call out BS. All of which, I suppose, is at heart an indictment of our education system.
Like I've said in the past, the likes of Trump, and his equivalent elsewhere in the world, aren't difficult to understand. Shameless dishonest crooks like him have always existed. What is kind of difficult to understand is how, in this day and age, they manage to befool such large swathes of folks.
(But then that exact same thing can be said about religion as well, no? That same pretence of offering succor to very real troubles, while actually offering nothing at all, and often making things much worse. And yet, despite the proliferation of information all around, people still keep falling victim to this ridiculous BS. And, incongruously enough, religion continues to thrive, even in this day and age.)
...But of course, all of that is a far more general and abstract discussion around what had started out as a specific call-out of a specific instance of BS.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 25, 2024 at 01:15 PM
@ Ar
You refuse to look at the common people. and what makes them human.
It is an psychological issue.
And the PSYCHE is ..inside the house AR ..pointing at Trump is just an distraction.
Yes ... but as I wrote in the past people in general were convinced that there was a difference between an office and the person carrying the mantel of that office. People trusted these institutions.. These days nobody respects these institutions anymore just focusing on the people in office.
Add to it the media and you will soon discover that they cannot longer trust the establishment ...and ... believe it or not .. this is for a part also the offshoot of the anti au authority movement that started in 1968.
You have no idea how stupid, please do forgive me the use of this word, it is to under- mine authorities on whom you depend.
You see in our language we als use the word "gezag" for authority, which is a word derived from english or french. "gezag" is derived from saying. It means that those in authorit has the RIGHT of the last word. He needs not to be questioned as that right is GIVEN to him, her or that office. It is an mutual agreement. If ..if one day somebody refuse to heed that "lats word" that bond is broken and then AR ...if things are to be done, it can only be done with the use of POWER
So the undermining of authority is begging for forces as described in Orwello book to rise.
Posted by: um | July 25, 2024 at 01:38 PM
God help us, not that looking inside your house thing again, um.
I get it that people lack things. Hell I myself lack lots of things, that I'd enjoy having. As do you, as do most people. I get it that unscrupulous politicians and priests and the like, leverage that lack of the people, and pretend to offer them succor, while offering them nothing at all; and in the process grab power and hold on to power, and/or enrich themselves personally.
What is less easy to understand is why so many people so easily fall prey to scams of this kind. Particularly in this day and age, when information is so easily available. ...And, like I said, the answer seems to stare us in the face. Misinformation and disinformation proliferate, as well as information. What seems missing, the crucial thing missing that stops people from sifting the real from the illusory, the wheat from the chaff, is critical thinking.
How's any of that refusing to look at the common people? That's looking squarely at the common people --- hell we're all common people ourselves, you and I and most people here --- and trying to understand what leads so many of us common people into the arms of the likes of charlatans like Trump and unholy priests and preachers and the like. And the answer that suggests itself is, a lack of critical thinking. Not necessarily a lack of information, nor even a lack of money and such other advantages necessarily --- because so many people have these and yet are misled --- as it is a lack of critical thinking.
...And our discussion, as so often happens, seems to have spiralled off into a complete tangent from whence we'd started out from; with each exchange seemingly steering us off by degrees, until, like the game of Chinese Whispers, we end up talking about something entirely unrelated. (But, heh, pleasure nevertheless, absolutely. Cheers, um.)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 25, 2024 at 02:00 PM
@AR
I do understand that my command of your language and my way of formulating and addressing issues at hand is uncomfortable for you and possibly all..it is like a dirty hand, crooked fingers pointing at the moon.
For me, my answers are pointing at the real centre of things, the very heart oif what we all are facing.
Unfortunately I am not able to bring it before you in the guise of an Metzinger
I am sorry I reacted, I will do my best not to further annoy you with my nonsense.
Posted by: um | July 25, 2024 at 02:08 PM
No no, not what I meant to convey, at all, um! Not annoyance, really, so much as ...well, just a wee bit of consternation, maybe, at seemingly ending up talking, once again, about unrelated random things. But, like I said, pleasure nevertheless.
Apologies, didn't mean to be brusque!
Okay, even though this is completely unrelated to what I'd started out talking about; but still, it's an interesting enough subject in its own right, why not. This subject: Why so many people gravitate towards the transparent charlatanry and bulkshytte peddled by the Trumps and the Popes and priests and preachers of the world.
I've given you my analysis already. I think the answer is a lack of critical thinking; and I've explained why exactly I think that. And the solution that suggests itself, given that answer, is better education more focused on critical thinking --- except I realize that's easier said than done, and further will yield tangible results with a sizeable lag measurable in decades, so there's a chicken-and-egg circularity in there, I realize that.
----------
I'll refrain from voicing my own opinion now, and listen to you instead. Tell me, then. Why do you think people support the Trumps of the world in such large numbers, and the flock to the priests and preachers as well, even in this day and age?
(Do reference what I've said already, though, please. Sure, people lack stuff. But these charlatans, they don't actually fulfill that lack, they only pretend to, while actually making things worse. So why do people keep falling for their shtick, in this day age? And how might we remedy that?)
All yours, um. I won't interrupt.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 25, 2024 at 02:43 PM
@ Ar
There is more to humans that motivates them than critical thinking AR.
I gave my best in pointing towards what that would be and even excused myself being aware that I am not an Al Ghazali, that first got an academic degree in order to debate with some scholars of his day before he would participate in a debate with them
Posted by: um | July 25, 2024 at 03:07 PM
That's okay, um, I'm not looking for a debate at all! This is a subject only tangentially related to where we started out from, a subject that you yourself raised. So I'm inviting you to tell me fully what you had in mind, is all. No debate, no rebuttals, none of that.
Just trying to understand you, is all. I can't do that unless you tell me, fully and clearly, can I? These indistinct cryptic hints won't do, I'm afraid, in the absence of telepathy! ...It's cool, um, we're just talking, not debating! And talking about the subject you raised yourself. All I'm doing is giving you space to clearly explain what you mean, is all.
(Only if you want to. If you don't want to, then that's fine too. Whatever you're comfortable with.)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 25, 2024 at 03:40 PM
We must not forget what the simulation hypothesis really is. It is the ultimate conspiracy theory. The mother of all conspiracy theories, the one that says that everything, with the exception of nothing, is fake and a conspiracy designed to fool our senses. All our worst fears about powerful forces at play controlling our lives unbeknownst to us, have now come true. And yet this absolute powerlessness, this perfect deceit offers us no way out in its reveal. All we can do is come to terms with the reality of the simulation and make of it what we can.
We fear the reality of God more than we fear a meaningless universe.
Posted by: sant64 | July 25, 2024 at 06:14 PM
Yet another copy-paste from that same link.
Words fail me. Wow, just wow.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 25, 2024 at 06:54 PM
WITH THE THREE MASTERS
So now I've finished books II and III in this series. I guess I'll read book I too if I ever find a copy.
Gotta say I've never come across any Sant Mat book that paints a worse picture of this religion. The irony is that this obviously wasn't the author's intention. But what he sees as the glory of Dera days strikes me as mostly dark and disconcerting.
Still, there are pluses. It would be hard for anyone to deny that Sawan, Jagat, and Charan served as gurus with genuine sincerity and unbounded effort, even when gravely ill. As an organization, it cannot be said that RSSB doesn't deserve the highest marks for integrity.
But all that aside, I saw a lot of weirdness. Perhaps it's ironic of me to use that term, but then a true belief in God apparently strikes some people as weird. And boy do Sawan and Jagat take RS theology seriously. It's clear that both these gurus really and truly believe what they're preaching. I would say far more than Charan and Gurinder actually.
Why do I think that? Partly because of Sawan's fondness for telling people the spiritual status of recently deceased satsangis. Or even friends of satsangis who've passed away, of whom Sawan declares that he put "under his protection." Sawan also protects communities of satsangis during the partition. I wonder, was Sawan just saying these things to make the bereaved feel better, or to foster hope to the assailed communities? Or did Sawan really believe he had such powers? Hard to say, but a bit remarkable that specific claims of being divinely powerful and knowing ended with Sawan.
The problem I had with Jagat is that all his reported satsangs seemed to focus on one thing: hell. Before I read WITH, I'd not been aware that any RS guru spoke of hell! But Sikh hell seemed to be foremost on Jagat's mind. And who goes there, according to Ram's anecdotes which I guess were the prevailing zeitgeist of the Dera in those days? People who aren't initiated, and initiates who didn't do their bhajan.
Overall, Ram's Sant Mat is a story of a religion where there are countless ways to go wrong, and anything less than pristine perfection will result in dire consequences upon the satsangi's death. Eat a bit of egg? Your decades of meditation just went down the drain bub. Look at a woman in your last moments? Hey sorry, Master can't help you, cause you just prolonged your stay in samsara, likely to be born again in some lower form of life. So by all means, if you're a dyin', keep your family out of the room. Unless they're satsangis. And your mother, she's sick you say? Don't even visit her lest she hug you and imparts karmic disturbances that might quash your hopes of salvation.
Yes, this medieval outlook is found throughout WITH. Really otherworldly, and really severe. 1930s RSSB was no joke. Judging from Gurinder's comments to the sangat regarding their picayune dilemmas, do I dare suggest that today's RSSB is a pale comparison?
Perhaps Gurinder has it right, and Sawan had it wrong. Or vice versa. I don't know. But, assuming Sant mat itself has validity, they both can't be right. Either Sant mat requires a total life dedication a la 1930s RSSB as it was taught by Sawan and Jagat, or the far more relaxed approach of Charan and Gurinder is sufficiently authentic and effectively salvic.
Posted by: sant64 | July 25, 2024 at 07:05 PM
"Still, there are pluses. It would be hard for anyone to deny that Sawan, Jagat, and Charan served as gurus with genuine sincerity and unbounded effort, even when gravely ill. As an organization, it cannot be said that RSSB doesn't deserve the highest marks for integrity.
But all that aside, I saw a lot of weirdness. Perhaps it's ironic of me to use that term, but then a true belief in God apparently strikes some people as weird. And boy do Sawan and Jagat take RS theology seriously. It's clear that both these gurus really and truly believe what they're preaching. I would say far more than Charan and Gurinder actually."
Posted by: sant64 | July 25, 2024 at 07:05 PM
Good read.
The later Gurus were very serious. The only part you possibly haven't read yet, is that the former Gurus are even more serious.
Posted by: Karim W. Rahmaan | July 25, 2024 at 08:09 PM
I said former when I meant latter.
Anyhow, I must reiterate what I mean when I said a belief in God to me carried more weight.
Just think, here RSSB proposes a chance to learn a technique which can give insight to that which lies beyond common science. Something which even Seth Shiv Dayal said could take a lifetime to learn. So that right there suggests that double 30 years may be needed before we begin to cross the threshold. Even come to gain the benefits of what the meditation offers.
So for me, that says this won't be easy. Not in the least. And say I fail at gaining inner experience, I'm still left with the world I know, all the people, biology, or other sciences unexplored. So what do I lose from that perspective?
Nothing, but time I possibly would have waisted behind the boob*tube television. So if instead I chose to learn the meditation the way it is prescribed, without going around the good teacher and commandeer it off the web? What would I lose? To me if it turns out to be Truth, then I only have everything to gain.
On this blog I heard of people speak of the promises. Specifically, to visit other worlds of existence and ultimately meet our Maker before we actually die. But I never hear of the other benefits. They never come up.
1. Becoming a good human
2. Healing the world
3. Understanding nature
4. Fulfilling purpose in this link of life
etc.
No, these never enter the minds of those who skimmed read the books. Or forgot those at one point or another. Or perhaps just got too strained and overwhelmed themselves or lost faith in their own potential as Human beings.
So still, what I can gain far outweighs the time I'd waist anyway. A mere 2 1/2 hours of less tv time, web surfing time, sleepytime?
Posted by: Karim W. Rahmaan | July 25, 2024 at 11:53 PM