Church of the Churchless

Religion and mysticism are mostly conceptual

Reality can't be captured in concepts.

After all, it's extremely unlikely that the human brain has evolved to be able to completely capture the nature of the reality that fashioned both the human brain and everything else in existence.

But this doesn't take away the utility of concepts for making sense of the world.

"Tree" is a useful way of describing the general nature of vegetative entities that vary tremendously in size, appearance, and such, yet share common characteristics.

However, trees are part of the natural world. They are obviously real. 

Concepts that refer to entities which can't be observed by the human senses, or leave no trace via the effects they cause in the world (the quantum realm is an example of something unseen, yet decidedly real because of observable quantum effects) have less value.

Of course, I just made a value judgement about the value of concepts like "unicorn," "fairy," "devil," "god," "soul," "heaven," and other notions whose only discernible reality lies in the human mind.

Or better put, human imagination.

For many years I enjoyed a fantasy that I shared with billions of other religious believers: that the concepts of the faith I embraced at the time referred to things that were real, even though there was no evidence of them.

Karma. Astral plane. Divine light. Soul travel. Grace. God. Radiant form.

These and so many other concepts were repeated so often in books, talks, and other communications of the religion that I followed (Radha Soami Satsang Beas, or RSSB), members of RSSB come to view the concepts as something as real as gravity or earthquakes.

What helped me deconvert from this religious and mystical fantasy was a realization that I was tired of living so much in the world of abstract concepts. I longed for substance, of being grounded in here-and-now reality rather than floating in there-and-then spiritual stories.

A thoughtful comment by Ron E. on a recent blog post stimulated these reflections about concepts.

He made some good points in the comment about how religious and mystically inclined people chase after concepts that point to nothing substantial. They're merely ideas that stimulate other ideas in the minds of people who enjoy a good religious or mystical story, even if the story is almost certainly fiction.

Here's what Ron had to say.

Gillihan makes the point that “...We are constantly thinking: even if we decide to stop thinking, our minds will keep doing it anyway. It's what they are good at. If they aren't telling us stories in words, they're crafting made-up scenes or pulling up images from our memory banks. Our minds are actually so caught up in thinking that we don't realize we're thinking.”

Maybe then, we can point to thinking as being the main cause of much of our perceived problems. Leaving to one side at the moment that thinking and the abilities we have for planning and generally improving our lives are beneficial, some aspects of thinking definitely have their down sides.

I’m thinking!! how we accept certain words as truths, as being able to explain something that is purely inference. I’m thinking of terms such as spirit, mind, soul, self, ego, spiritual etc. All these terms are concepts, ideas that do not exist in the natural world unlike body, brain, sight, sound, pain, joy and so on – yes, the physical world.

It seems that we invent many words and spend the rest of our lives trying to think (or meditate) our way into experiencing the states that we believe they describe.

When it comes to mental phenomena it is of course convenient to label the cognitive processes, but perhaps we need to remember that they are just terms describing what the body and brain does naturally.

Otherwise, we can easily become slaves in believing that there is something ‘spiritual’ or ‘other worldly’ about them – and off we go chasing the myths we believe they describe.

Mystical experiences need testing if they become a worldview

As I've noted before, and surely will do so again, one of the pleasures I get from this blog is reading intelligent comment conversations on posts that I've written. Or in this case, on an Open Thread where the comments are the substance of the post. 

Below is a comment that Appreciative Reader left on an Open Thread in response to a comment by manjit. If you want to read manjit's comment, click on that link and scroll up to the preceding comment.

Appreciative Reader has a knack for saying things in a way that I've never come across before. I'm not saying that his ideas are totally unique, just that how he expresses those ideas often is wonderfully clear and creative.

He's correct in noting that every personal experience is subjective, so not rational, logical, or scientific. The world's greatest physicist, along with everybody else, is engaged in a totally ineffable experience when eating a strawberry. 

So mystical experiences are simply a subset of all experiences.

They can't be put into words, or pictures, or numbers, or anything else, just as any other experience can't. I make this point frequently on this blog: nobody can question someone else's personal experience, because they aren't the person having the subjective experience.

However, once someone claims that their mystical experience has a meaning beyond the personal, that's when I tend to agree with Appreciative Reader that reason, logic, and science come into play. He just has a fresh way of saying this, as you can read below.

That said, I'm not totally convinced that his thesis is correct about a worldview needing confirmation by reason, rationality, logic, or science. I put raspberries on my cereal every morning. The taste of those berries is "mystical," in the sense that no one but me knows how they taste to me.

But it seems a stretch to say that the fact that I buy raspberries whenever I do our weekly grocery shopping makes raspberries part of my worldview, and so requires confirmation by reason, rationality, logic, or science. 

Anyway, Appreciative Reader and manjit have made me ponder things that I usually take for granted. So their comment conversation has benefitted me in that regard. I guess I tend to see a dividing line between symbolic and non-symbolic sorts of experiences, which is a bit different from how Appreciative Reader sees things.

Yet maybe we're seeing similarly. So long as I simply enjoy the taste of raspberries in a subjective, non-symbolic fashion, I'm in the realm of unquestionable personal experience. However, as soon as I try to describe their taste in some way, now I'm in the realm of questionable interpersonal experience.

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

Dear manjit,

As ever, pleasure to read your thought-provoking comment.

You think Brian’s approach pseudo-scientific. I’m afraid I don’t agree, at all. I’m kind of curious why you think *that*, but I’ll let it pass, because there’s way more meat in your comment, that I’d like to address, and that I’ll be glad if you’re able to answer, whenever you are able. (I’ll bookmark this thread, so that I don’t miss it, should you end up responding after awhile.)

I’ll resist the temptation of addressing much of your comment, in the interests of (relative!) brevity, and instead focus on just two things, on which your thoughts will be of great interest to me.

The first, and most important, of where we disagree is where you say this: “I think one of your incorrect understandings of mysticism is that there is anything rational, logical or scientific about it.” I’m very interested in how you can possibly have arrived at that conclusion, especially in context of how I see this, which is as follows:

I agree, the mystical experience itself is not rational or logical, in and of itself. Nothing subjective ever is. If we’re content to experience whatever mystical experience we have, and simply stop at that, then, agreed, there’s no reason for reason, rationality, logic, or science to intrude in there. But the moment we incorporate that experience into our worldview, immediately it is subject to all of these things.

And nor is this peculiar to mystical experience, I’d say this applies to any and every subjective experience. You see the sun rise in the morning. Or, say, you feel that kind-of-painful-yet-pleasant pump in your bicep after working out.

Both of those mundane, non-mystical experiences, if you’re content to register them, and simply let them be, then that’s the end of it; and there’s no call to bring in logic, reason, rationality, or science into it. However, the moment you incorporate these experiences into your worldview, even in the slightest bit, then your surest way to arriving at a worldview, a model, that comports best with reality, is by following logic, and reason, and science.

Likewise with mystical experiences, surely? If you’re content to simply have those experiences, and then leave them be, well then, sure, that’s the end to it.

But if you go worldviewing your way with those experiences, no matter how much or how little, no matter how concretely or how vaguely --- even if only negatively, in questioning the veracity or the completeness of what we know about the world --- well then, right then, right there, is when it becomes subject to rationality and to science.

(To be clear, I’m not saying mystical experiences might not occasion reason to question, maybe even revise, our worldview. They well may. My point is, the moment you do even that much, the moment you do anything other than simply register that experience, completely passively and completely without any thoughts about it at all; the moment you incorporate that experience into your worldview [no matter how much or how little, no matter how concretely or how vaguely], right then, right there, is where science becomes the surest way of ensuring that that worldview, that model, those thoughts, comport best with the actual reality.)

Which is why I cannot see how you can possibly state, as you did, that there’s nothing rational, logical or scientific about mysticism.

My other point of disagreement is where you say this (and I’ll quote that paragraph of yours in full here):

“One man's "loose-jawed goggle-eyed imbecelic dogma" is another's belief that the universe was created ex-nihilo, like a rabbit out of a hat, or that life & consciousness are the product of the random, purposeless, accidental bumping together of inert matter, as if putting some oil and pigment in a bag, giving it a good shake for 10 seconds, then throwing it at a canvas could create a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa, and assorted other credulous and magical beliefs. Humanity has a long history of conflating the cultural status quo with reality itself, and implying anyone who challenges it is a "loose-jawed goggle-eyed imbecelic" dogmatist. Very often they're more right than wrong. However, very often they're more wrong than right.”

Well said, that. I agree with much of what you’ve said there. But the essence of it, the actual point of it, that is what I disagree with completely; and, again, wonder whether you might not end up changing your mind about this on thinking a bit more about it.

Haha, agreed, things popping into existence out of nowhere does sound crazy. That goes for lots of things, and indeed most things QM [quantum mechanics], agreed, absolutely. But why do we imagine that reality must necessarily comport with our native intuition about what makes sense?

After all, our intuition itself is shaped by our evolution, and is no more than what we needed to deal to best survive while running around naked in the wilds of Africa. Whether something *sounds* reasonable to our intuition, can hardly be the touchstone for evaluating whether something is *real*.

So then, if not intuition, then how *do* we make sense of the world around us, and within us? By following the evidence. By using reason and logic. In short, science. Even if that, for the present, leads us to such apparently goggle-eyed and imbecilic --- read “counter-intutive” --- explanations, as well as non-explanations, like things popping in out of nowhere, and quantum superposition, and the rest of it.

That is, there is a huge huge huge difference between the “goggle-eyed imbecilities” that science reveals to us, and the other extravagant explanations we think up about the world by means other than scientific. And what's more, basis what I’ve said just now, perhaps you’ll agree that if there’s apparently a double standard at play here, then it’s entirely warranted, in fact it is the only thing that *is* warranted, in this context.

   -- Appreciative Reader

Why a guru shouldn't be worshipped

Recently someone sent me a link to "The Guru Has No Turban" by Greg Leveille.

It's well worth reading if you've ever believed that a guru should be worshipped as a divine being. Or worshipped for any other reason, like their supposed perfection.

The article is centered on the Sant Mat teachings that I followed for thirty-five years.

Leveille appears to believe in a basic truth of those teachings -- that it is possible to know a formless Celestial Awareness -- but rejects the Sant Mat notion that the guru is greater than God, because God isn't available to help us while the guru is.

So he manages to balance some justified skepticism about gurus while embracing a mystical approach to meditation.

I like this part of his article.

If you read about (or follow) five or more spiritual groups during your lifetime, there’s a good chance you will hear a high percentage of these common myths that Kabir and other advanced teachers have complained about.

“Only the guru can take you to Heaven.”

“Only the guru can save you.”

“Everything that the guru says is the absolute truth.”

“A true guru never has to think or use the mind.”

“Once you’re initiated, the true guru will always be inside of you.”

“The true guru is God in a human form.”

“A perfect master will always be there when you die.”

“Guru worship is essential.”

“The guru is greater than God.”

“You can’t see or feel God inside or outside of you”

“But you can always see your guru inside and outside of you.”

“My guru died, but he can still help me while I’m alive.”

“He died, but he can still perform miracles and take me to heaven.”

“The mantra won’t work unless it’s blessed by the guru.”

“Your life is wasted without initiation by a perfect guru.”

“A perfect living master (PLM) will help you clear all your karma.”

“A perfect master will take you to heaven within 1-to-4 lifetimes.”

“A PLM is responsible for all of the miracles that you experience.”

“Gurus never make mistakes.”

“Until you meet your perfect master/guru within you and talk with him, then you cannot go to heaven.”

“You have to serve, honor, love and worship your guru above and beyond everyone and everything else.”

I also enjoyed the short quote Leveille included from David Lane's 2011 book.

This is the description that Amazon used to introduce David’s Book, The Guru Has No Turban.

“One of the more celebrated, if inappropriate, honorifics we have bestowed on our chosen gurus is the term "Perfect Master." It may be one thing to call a teacher a master (he or she may know more than us in a certain subject), but it is quite another to call such mastery "perfect." The first and most troublesome problem is one of definition: what do we actually mean by "perfect"?

My sense is that we fundamentally misunderstand the honorific and we do not fully understand the implications involved when applying such terms to living human beings. My argument is a very simple one: The guru is not perfect, at least not in the ways that we may assume.

But despite the fact that we can easily demonstrate the limitations and fallibilities of our gurus, we somehow hold on to the naive concept that a guru can be an all-knowing and all-powerful being.”

So true. I'm not sure why guru-worship has such a hold on so many people.

In my case, I was attracted to the idea that it was possible to traverse supernatural regions of reality in the company of a Perfect Living Master who had been sent by God to collect certain souls whose destiny was to return to heaven, known as Sach Khand.

I went to high school and college in the 1960s. The Beatles were a big part of my musical life. The teachings of Sant Mat in the guise of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) seemed like the ultimate Magical Mystery Tour. 

And you didn't need LSD or any other psychedelic. Just a guru who could take you on that tour and a willingness to accept the vows required to be initiated by the guru, which included several hours of daily meditation.

But that was then, and this is now. I have a very different attitude toward Sant Mat and RSSB after spending most of those thirty-five years deeply devoted to the teachings, yet eventually realizing the truth of what Leveille says in his article about gurus.

He's much more positive about mysticism than I am. However, I resonate with much of what Leveille says at the end of his piece.

Not everyone is ready to tread the inward mystic path of divine awareness. If, as a spiritual seeker, you’re drawn to some other type of yoga, mindful awareness, or guru-bhakti path, then that is perfectly fine.

If you follow your heart, you can’t go wrong.

Divine awareness is a long and winding road that eventually causes everyone to choose and then to grow from different spiritual experiences along the way.

However, those souls who have begun to feel the inner pull of divine awareness are ready to follow this very precious path. It’s the secret path of many of the greatest ancient Taoists as well and most modern Sant Mat, Sufi, Celestial Awareness, and direct consciousness teachers. It’s the path that Lao Tzu, Kabir, Hafiz, Soami Ji, Shiv Brat Lal, Faqir, and Captain Ji followed as well.

These are teachers who don’t want to be worshiped. These are teachers who help you to discover and follow the divine awareness within you.

Truth is all-important, in mysticism and everywhere else

Sometimes a comment is left on one of my blog posts that leaves me with a WTF (what the fuck) feeling. Meaning, I can't begin to understand where the commenter is coming from.

Here's a recent example that starts off with a quote from a post of mine.

>>If mystics claim to find a new reality, they need to prove it<< WHY? WHY do they need to prove it? No mystic owes anything to anybody.

Wow. The answer to that all caps Why is one-word obvious. Truth.

Truth is why a mystic needs to back up their claim of finding a new reality with solid proof. Reality belongs to everyone. Reality is the home of everyone.

No one gets to spread falsehoods about my home, which is your home, which is everybody's home -- reality.

Now, I understand that truth is taking a beating these days.

Here in the United States, a majority of people who belong to one of our two major parties, the Republican Party, have shown they don't give a shit about truth.

They wrongly claim that election fraud is widespread. They wrongly claim that the Capitol insurrection on January 6 wasn't carried out by Trump supporters. They wrongly claim that Georgia's new election laws are intended to expand voter turnout rather than suppress it.

Obviously I don't claim to always speak the truth or live the truth. Like everybody else, I make mistakes all the time when it comes to understanding things. 

But I've always pointed myself toward truth, even if I fail to reach it much of the time. Intention is all important when it comes to truth. Much can be forgiven if someone sincerely aims to embrace truth, rather than pushing it away.

One of the first posts I wrote when I started this blog in 2004 was called "Just have faith." Here's an excerpt that I still heartily agree with.

Here's how to tell the difference between true faith and false faith: Imagine that you are standing in the middle of a bare windowless room. Two doors lead out of the room. Both are closed, but can be opened with a turn of the doorknob. The doors are marked with signs that describe what awaits on the other side: (A) Reality, (B) Belief

After you open a door, you have to walk through it. The door then will shut and you never will be able to leave the place you have entered.

Choose Reality and you will know things as they really are, from top to bottom of the cosmos. You will know whether or not God exists and, if so, the nature of this ultimate divinity. You will know whether death is the final end of your existence or if it is the beginning of another form of life. You will know whether there is a meaning to the universe beyond what human beings ascribe to it.

Or, choose Belief and you will know only what lies within the confines of your current suppositions about the nature of the cosmos. For the rest of your life you will be confident that what you believe to be true, really is. Any evidence to the contrary will not make an impact on your mind. You will remain doubt-free, faithful to the beliefs you now hold about God, creation, life, death, and the purpose of human existence.

Which door would you choose to walk through?

Before answering, consider carefully the potential ramifications of your choice. Reality is an unknown, a mystery. It could be frightening or fabulous, painful or pleasurable, warmly loving or coldly uncaring. Do you want to embrace absolutely real reality? Or would you rather hold on to your beliefs about what is real?

Someone with the type of faith extolled by the Church of the Churchless would unhesitatingly choose Door A and boldly stride into Reality. For their faith is not in anything particular, but is a faith that truth can be known, should be known, and, indeed, must be known.

Getting back to the comment about mystics not owing anything to anybody when it comes to making a claim about having found a new reality, back in 2006 I talked about the need for questioning such claims in "With God, from 'I believe' to 'I know' is a huge step."

Here's the core of that blog post. The A.H. Armstrong quote comes from my book, "Return to the One."

If you say to me, “When it comes to God, I don’t know,” we’re comrades in unknowing. Grab a chair and belly up with me to the clueless bar.

If you say to me, “When it comes to God, I believe…,” we can have an interesting conversation. I probably won’t agree with you, but I enjoy learning about other people beliefs, or lack thereof, in a higher power.

If you say to me, “When it comes to God, I know…,” we are going to have a really interesting conversation. For once you say “know” rather than “believe,” my skeptical radar sets off a Dogma alert! Dogma alert! siren inside my psyche.

I don’t expect reasons for beliefs. They’re your business. Just like sex, whatever turns you on. Go for it. But also just like sex, beliefs need to remain personal if they are to be unquestioned.

As soon as you say, “I believe _____, and you should too,” there’s going to be a stiffening of my argumentative spine. I’m pleased to be given advice by someone who is more knowledgeable about something than I am. However, that something needs to be objectively real, not imaginary.

And beliefs aren’t real, even though lots of religious people seem to think that they are.

Going further, some people actually claim that they know the nature of God or ultimate reality. Now, this requires some serious questioning. A claim like that, why, it’s amazing. I mean, in the entire span of recorded history there hasn’t been a single clearly evident, unquestionable, plain-as-day revelation about God or the divine.

So if you tell me that you know for a fact that God exists, or that God is such and such, or that God is realized in this particular fashion, then I’m going to be super-duper interested in how you’re able to back up that astounding assertion.

I want you to lay your cards on the table. Face up. All of them. Show me your four aces. And let me know in detail, exactly, precisely, how you were able to come up with that winning hand.

Of course, I know that this won’t be possible. If you’re just bluffing, and don’t really know about God, then you’ll be empty-handed. But even if by some miracle you truly are God’s bosom buddy, you still won’t be able to lay any material proof on the table.

I’m pretty confident about that, because nobody else ever has been able to do so, and I’m willing to bet that this run of “busts” will continue.

So, please, please, please. Pretty please with blind faith crumbs on top. If you write or talk to me and go beyond “I believe…” when speaking about God, bring your best stuff. Show me the money, as the saying goes. The proof.

I’ve shared this quotation before, but it’s worth sharing again. To my mind, classics scholar A.H. Armstrong hits just the right tone.

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 person making this enormous statement.

If mystics claim to find a new reality, they need to prove it

I've been enjoying the recent comment conversations between some of the Church of the Churchless regulars. Meaning, frequent visitors to this blog.

Having featured a comment from "Appreciative Reader" in a blog post a few days ago, I generally find myself agreeing with this person's perspective.

Which I'm not going to attempt to summarize, since that perspective is nuanced.

Instead, here's my take on a theme that features in the above-mentioned comment conversations: how someone can tell the difference between genuine and spurious mystical experiences.

My first assumption -- which seems inarguable to me -- is that while mystics and mystic-sympathizers like to say that mystical experiences can't be put into words, that's the case with all experiences.

Every experience is had by a subjective consciousness. I have my experiences. You have yours. Other people have theirs.

None of us has direct access to anyone else's experiences. They are directly experienced by the experiencer alone. This direct experience means there's a huge difference between saying "I ate a raspberry" and experiencing the sensation of eating a raspberry. 

No amount of words ever add up to a direct experience. I can feel happy and say to myself, "I'm happy today," but those three words don't begin to capture my experience of happiness.

So let's put to rest any notion that mystical experiences are special in regards to their ineffability, their inability to be described to others in anything but an abstract manner. Again, this is the case with all personal experiences, without exception.

Further, I don't consider these sorts of experiences to be genuinely mystical:

Feeling at one with the universe; being awestruck at the wonder of existence; having a sense that all is right with the world; intuiting that death is not the end of the road, but a turn in a never-ending journey.

Lots of people have profound experiences that alter how they look upon life. Heck, probably most people do. We humans are meaning-making creatures. Finding meaning is a favorite thing to do.

Let's turn then to the question of what distinguishes a genuine from a spurious mystical experience. 

The way I see it, mysticism rests on this hypothesis: there's a realm of reality apart from this physical universe, or if you will, the physical cosmos -- since there could be much more to physical reality than our single universe, as unimaginably vast as it is.

Thus a genuine mystical experience would occur through contact with a realm of reality separate from the physical universe. 

If mysticism simply led to an experience of a different aspect of physical reality, this would mean little or no difference between mysticism and science.

For example, if it were possible for a human mind to have ESP, Extra Sensory Perception, this capacity wouldn't be mystical, since it would occur via the physical brain and operate in this physical world.

That discovery of ESP would be groundbreaking, really big news. However, it would add to the store of knowledge of how humans experience the physical world, not a non-physical "spiritual" realm.

So based on my own personal experience of pursuing a mystical approach to meditation for thirty-five years (an approach I now have discarded), I can confidently say that the goal of mysticism is to experience a new reality, a reality beyond the confines of physical existence.

The question then becomes, how is it possible to tell whether such a "spiritual" reality exists, and if it does, whether someone has experienced it?

Words such as "I saw and heard God" aren't enough, obviously. Even if those words are uttered sincerely, people can be mistaken about what they experience -- the familiar "mistaking a stick for a snake" analogy.

Further, psychotic people can see and hear God. People who have taken LSD or some other psychedelic can see and hear God. People who are deeply religious can see and hear God. 

This doesn't prove that God exists. It proves that people have experiences that lead then to believe God exists. 

Similarly, people have experiences of a realm of reality beyond the physical. This doesn't prove that such a realm exists. It proves that people have experiences that lead them to believe the realm exists.

Thus it seems to me that if a mystic claims to have found a new reality, that person needs to provide some solid proof of that discovery before it can be taken seriously. Otherwise, that person is just one more of countless humans who have claimed to experience a realm beyond this physical universe.

Excuses won't cut it. 

"Impossible to put into words." Again, all experiences are impossible to put into words. So not being able to describe a mystical experience doesn't make it genuine.

"Can't bring anything back from that reality." OK, I can't bring anything back from the dreams I have at night either. That doesn't make dreams anything more than my subjective experience.

"It's a matter of faith, not of proof." Fine, have as much faith as you want, tons of it. Just know that I have no faith in your faith as a guide to reality. Faith leads people widely astray when it comes to knowing what is real.

I'll end by saying that I'm absolutely fine with people trying to have mystical experiences. I've been there and done that -- for thirty-five years. 

I'm also absolutely fine with people talking about their mystical experiences. I've read countless (almost) books along this line, enjoying each one. 

Just know that talk is much different from proof.

In my first book about relating the new physics with ancient mysticism, I observed that the Nobel prize committee would laugh at someone who wrote to them saying something like:

"I've discovered the Theory of Everything that others have sought for but never found. I'm unable to provide proof of my discovery, so you'll just to believe me. Nobel Prize, please!"

Narratives and cognitive structures aren't "traps"

What never fails to amaze me is how religious believers and mystical enthusiasts will use the power of their human mind to criticize other people who use their human mind to criticize religion and mysticism.

The plain fact is that there's no way to communicate with other people except through mental capabilities such as language, reason, and such.

So unless someone wants to remain in their own private internal world -- and everyone who comments on this blog has indicated this isn't what they want to do -- narratives and cognitive structures are the only way to interact with others.

That doesn't have to be done through language, of course, though words are a powerful means of communication. Paint a picture. Dance. Perform music. 

There are lots of ways to communicate a narrative. But underlying all of them is a message to be shared, and someone else to share it with. Absent that, each of us lives in an isolated subjective realm.

Below is a comment on a recent post from "Appreciative Reader." I liked it so much, I felt it deserved to be featured in a blog post.

One of the points made by Appreciative Reader is what I restated ahove: if a person wants to communicate with others, it makes no sense for them to denigrate language, narratives, and cognitive structures.

After all, that denigration is occurring by means of -- no big surprise -- language, narratives, and cognitive structures. This is like someone standing on a sidewalk, yelling at passers-by, "No one should be standing on the sidewalk!"

Dude, you really should practice what you preach before you do your preaching. Here's the comment from Appreciative Reader.

Hello, Dungeness. Long time!

I’m afraid I’m hogging the comments section of this thread. But I’m going to permit myself one more longish comment, because I disagree in the strongest possible terms with your POV, and I would like to articulate my disagreement clearly, and invite you to see if you wouldn’t, in light of what I’m going to say, like to revise your view.

-------

Now at one level, obviously, I agree with um, and with you as well, as I’ve already said earlier on. If personally you don’t care to engage with narratives as far as some particular field, or even more generally, then that is, at one level, merely a question of your personal predilections, and as such your business and no one else’s. No question of “disagreement” with an essentially personal choice of that nature.

-------

But the part where you generalize that kind of approach, when it comes to mysticism? The part where you seem to see narratives and cognitive structures as “traps”? I’m sorry, that’s something I find entirely nonsensical. Here’s why.

The beauty of the scientific method is this, that it helps us navigate through, and discover more and more about, and make use of, reality as we find it. Irrespective of the nature of that reality.

What you’re resorting to is basically magical thinking. Faced with any and every thing, the closed-minded God-believer will say, “…because God!”, without thinking through what that means. What you are doing is the exact equivalent of that, except instead of “…because God!”, you’re using the more sophisticated but essentially similar “…because mysticism!”.

And you know what, even in a world of actual magic, that kind of magical thinking is …I’m sorry, nonsensical.

What is Rowling’s Hogwarts after all? It’s a system of understanding, and cataloging, and analyzing, and then channelizing the magical forces in a (fictional) magical world. No real magician (as in, real magician in a hypothetical or fictional world where magic reigns) would simply put up his hands and say “…because magic!” and leave it at that.

The real magician will find out how exactly the magic operates, essentially use the scientific method and empiricism on that magical world, much as we apply the scientific method to QM [quantum mechanics, I assume] for instance. Unless he is able to do that, he can never even become a magician.

So, I’d say your view, that narrative-building as far as mysticism—even granted, for the sake of argument, that mysticism is a thing (which after all in a larger context is by no means a given)—as something that is essentially beyond cognitive understanding, is …well, blinkered, not clearly thought through.

-------

Of course, in a mystical world, or in a magical world, or in our everyday mundane world, whether you personally engage with some particular narrative, or any narrative, that like I said is a whole different matter. That is your business and yours alone.

I can choose to live in this world without having formulated any detailed narrative, any detailed personal worldview, about the nature of QM, or for that matter even gravity, or the universe, and still manage to live a full enough life, as long as those aspects are not important to my everyday functioning.

But to see all narratives as “traps”, and to see mysticism, should mysticism be a thing (or for that magic, should magic exist) as something essentially beyond cognitive understanding, that kind of POV simply does not hold up to examination.

-------

I’m reminded here of the fable, parable, whatever, of someone-or-other finding a piece of truth on the way. And the Devil looks on at what’s happening, smiling. The Devil’s minions are super worried, and grovel their miserable way up to their horned scarlet master, asking him in wheedling tones why he’s not worried, because that piece of truth can take that man forever out of the Devil’s reach.

And the Devil smiles knowingly, and says, This has happened before, and this will happen again, and all that poor fool will do is go cataloging that piece of truth, and never actually leave my dominion.

I guess the message within that fable, parable, whatever, is what you’re channeling here, right? Well, okay, at a personal level that message does make some kind of sense. If I wish to live in this world, using things like computers and GPS and computers and whatnot, then, if I get caught up in compulsively understanding the mechanism of each and every thing I see and would use, then that bottomless rabbit hole would end up being what my entire life will devolve into.

I’ll never actually use those things, I’ll never find the time to live my life. Which is clearly dysfunctional, unless that kind of inquisitiveness is, A, somehow limited and focused, and B, somehow channelized, into a profession perhaps, such that I draw some kind of personal benefit from it.

To that extent, and also to the extent that it is, like I’d said earlier, a matter of one’s own predilections, this kind of attitude, of not wanting to get into cognitive structures and narratives, might work, at a personal level, as long as one doesn’t get too deep into whatever-it-is, and as long as one is …well, lucky enough to get by despite one’s ignorance. The channelizing of one’s energies away from cognitive understanding might then even be beneficial, at a personal level.

But to generalize that argument, as you are doing, and to think of cognitive structures and narratives as “traps” is, …I’m sorry, that makes no sense at all.

UPDATE: Here's a response from Dungeness.

Brian, since my name is invoked in your commentary, I hope you'll include my
response to this off-point screed about my remarks. I certainly didn't generalize
any attack on cognitive structures and narratives at all. Gosh, I didn't build up
or advance any "narrative" except that it's entirely dubious to opine that
an inner transcendent experience can be "proven" hallucinatory or bonafide
through cognitive means either by skeptic or believer.

Here's my full response:

@ But to generalize that argument, as you are doing, and to think of cognitive structures and narratives
@ as “traps” is, …I’m sorry, that makes no sense at all.

Wow, that's quite an indictment AR. I was responding to your targeted question
of whether a transcendent inner experience was a "hallucination or bona fide". I
only asserted that the cognitive trap was trying to make sense of a transcendent
experience in an attempt to validate it as "hallucination or bona fide". Language and
logic as we know them fall short in that Solomon-esque endeavor to validate an
transcendent experience. I only suggested a different lens and a mystic's discipline
were needed. Perhaps in lieu of "needed", "helpful" would be a more acceptably
non-denominational term.

I never "generalized" this to "cognitive structures and narratives". That's overreach.
By the way, I explicitly lauded scientific rigor and never suggested we abandon it
either. At a practical level, the clarity, heightened awareness, and health benefits
of a mindfulness discipline only enhance science and its path of discovery.

@ Faced with any and every thing, the closed-minded God-believer will say, “…because God!”, without
@ thinking through what that means. What you are doing the exact equivalent of that, except instead of
@ “…because God!”, you’re using the more sophisticated but essentially similar “…because mysticism!”.

To equate mysticism with magical thinking and close-mindedness is dismissive and
misses the mark also. Ironically, mysticism, in contrast to the blind faith of religion,
insists that you confirm premises experientially within via a disciplined practice of
mindfulness. Mysticism acts collaboratively and complementarily with science.
There's no place for magical thinking.

"We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive
where we started And know the place for the first time." --T.S. Eliot

Spiritual independence should be celebrated every day

Tomorrow, the fourth of July, is Independence Day in the United States. It commemorates the signing of the Declaration of Independence from Britain's King George on July 4, 1776. 

Here's another blast from my blog post past that I wrote on July 4, 2005. Some of my views have changed over the past fifteen years, but I still like the basic theme of this post.

Celebrate your spiritual independence

The fourth of July is when we in the United States celebrate our country’s declaration of independence from Great Britain. It’s also a good day for anyone in the world to celebrate his or her independence from Small-Minded Religion.

Religions don’t start out this way, though: small-minded. Without exception the source of each great religion can be traced to people who somehow were able to break the bounds of normal human consciousness and experience truths beyond the sphere of everyday existence.

Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Nanak, early Hindu sages: all shared with humankind a remarkably original revelation or philosophy. While culturally they necessarily followed in the footsteps of historical predecessors, their spiritual attainments broke new ground.

As is the case with mystics in general. It’s difficult to make contact with the divine. Reading holy books, worshipping in holy places, obeying holy men and women, carrying out holy works—these things are easy to do. They’re within the capability of almost anyone.

Such is the province of small-minded religion, where the limitless experience of great mystics is reduced to narrow confines. Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and their spiritual brethren refused to be constrained by the accepted religious teachings of their day. This is why they are called “great”: they stood above shallow traditions, possessing a vision that pierced the clouds of conventional wisdom.

In short, they were spiritually independent. But independence only grows well in the wild. It doesn’t thrive when transplanted into the rows and furrows of garden-variety religion, for the priestly classes consider spiritual independence to be a vice, not a virtue.

The strange thing, of course, is that the revered founder(s) of every religion possessed the very quality that “protectors of the faith” now assiduously attempt to stamp out in followers. Namely, an aversion to following. More precisely, an aversion to following any practice that doesn’t lead to direct experience of the highest truths.

Jesus overthrew the small-minded dogmas of the Judaism of his time. But when Meister Eckhart attempted to overthrow the small-minded conceptions of the Catholicism of his time, he was condemned by the Pope as a heretic. Thus spiritual independence becomes a vice after an original independent spiritual vision has become codified into a rigid theology of do’s and don’ts, rights and wrongs, approved truths and condemned heresies.

In my opinion, anyone who reads widely in the diverse literature of the world’s religions, and approaches these writings without preconceived notions of truth and falsehood, must almost necessarily come to this conclusion: There are many ways to the One, or God. For given the marvelous variety of spiritual and mystical experience, it must be that either (1) all but a few of those who report direct contact with the divine are deluded, or (2) divinity appears in a myriad of guises.

I lean strongly toward the second option. I find it extremely difficult to believe that only one person, or one religion, or one spiritual practice leads to the One. If ultimate reality is viewed as a mountain, with the highest truth lying at the summit, then many paths can be taken up the slopes. Only at the very top do the paths converge at unity; diversity otherwise marks the way.

So independence is the hallmark of genuine spirituality. An independent seeker of God, the One, allows divinity to reveal itself without constraints, without preconceptions, without manmade boundaries. There are no hard and fast rules in spiritual mountaineering; you make your way from where you find yourself, blazing your own trail—because your experience belongs to no one but you.

Certainly others can help support and guide you, but obviously they aren’t you. Only you can honor, preserve, protect, and, most importantly, expand, your spiritual independence.

Along these lines, as an addendum to this post I’ll share an excerpt from a 1974 essay, “Live Not by Lies,” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Writing in the Soviet Union shortly before he was arrested and exiled to West Germany, he speaks of spiritual independence in a much more political context.

But I liked how he spoke of the choice that must be made for truth or falsehood, spiritual independence or spiritual servitude, regardless of the consequences. The applicability to those who desire to be free not of political domination, but of religious domination, is clear (a seeming typo has been changed, “talk” to “walk”).

The fourth of July is when we in the United States celebrate our country’s declaration of independence from Great Britain. It’s also a good day for anyone in the world to celebrate his or her independence from Small-Minded Religion.

Religions don’t start out this way, though: small-minded. Without exception the source of each great religion can be traced to people who somehow were able to break the bounds of normal human consciousness and experience truths beyond the sphere of everyday existence.

Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Nanak, early Hindu sages: all shared with humankind a remarkably original revelation or philosophy. While culturally they necessarily followed in the footsteps of historical predecessors, their spiritual attainments broke new ground.

As is the case with mystics in general. It’s difficult to make contact with the divine. Reading holy books, worshipping in holy places, obeying holy men and women, carrying out holy works—these things are easy to do. They’re within the capability of almost anyone.

Such is the province of small-minded religion, where the limitless experience of great mystics is reduced to narrow confines. Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and their spiritual brethren refused to be constrained by the accepted religious teachings of their day. This is why they are called “great”: they stood above shallow traditions, possessing a vision that pierced the clouds of conventional wisdom.

In short, they were spiritually independent. But independence only grows well in the wild. It doesn’t thrive when transplanted into the rows and furrows of garden-variety religion, for the priestly classes consider spiritual independence to be a vice, not a virtue.

The strange thing, of course, is that the revered founder(s) of every religion possessed the very quality that “protectors of the faith” now assiduously attempt to stamp out in followers. Namely, an aversion to following. More precisely, an aversion to following any practice that doesn’t lead to direct experience of the highest truths.

Jesus overthrew the small-minded dogmas of the Judaism of his time. But when Meister Eckhart attempted to overthrow the small-minded conceptions of the Catholicism of his time, he was condemned by the Pope as a heretic. Thus spiritual independence becomes a vice after an original independent spiritual vision has become codified into a rigid theology of do’s and don’ts, rights and wrongs, approved truths and condemned heresies.

In my opinion, anyone who reads widely in the diverse literature of the world’s religions, and approaches these writings without preconceived notions of truth and falsehood, must almost necessarily come to this conclusion: There are many ways to the One, or God. For given the marvelous variety of spiritual and mystical experience, it must be that either (1) all but a few of those who report direct contact with the divine are deluded, or (2) divinity appears in a myriad of guises.

I lean strongly toward the second option. I find it extremely difficult to believe that only one person, or one religion, or one spiritual practice leads to the One. If ultimate reality is viewed as a mountain, with the highest truth lying at the summit, then many paths can be taken up the slopes. Only at the very top do the paths converge at unity; diversity otherwise marks the way.

So independence is the hallmark of genuine spirituality. An independent seeker of God, the One, allows divinity to reveal itself without constraints, without preconceptions, without manmade boundaries. There are no hard and fast rules in spiritual mountaineering; you make your way from where you find yourself, blazing your own trail—because your experience belongs to no one but you.

Certainly others can help support and guide you, but obviously they aren’t you. Only you can honor, preserve, protect, and, most importantly, expand, your spiritual independence.

Along these lines, as an addendum to this post I’ll share an excerpt from a 1974 essay, “Live Not by Lies,” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Writing in the Soviet Union shortly before he was arrested and exiled to West Germany, he speaks of spiritual independence in a much more political context.

But I liked how he spoke of the choice that must be made for truth or falsehood, spiritual independence or spiritual servitude, regardless of the consequences. The applicability to those who desire to be free not of political domination, but of religious domination, is clear (a seeming typo has been changed, “talk” to “walk”).

Placebo effect seems to explain most "miracles"

We humans love to believe in strange stuff. We're the only animal, most likely, with the ability to conjure up stories about what doesn't physically exist. 

Sure, my dog does seem to dream, moving her paws and making noises while asleep, but I strongly suspect her mind is fantasizing about chasing a squirrel or cat, not about God, heaven, angels, or some other supernatural entity.

Because religious stories are so deeply embedded in human culture, it's difficult for believers to find a detached vantage point to assess claims of miracles, extrasensory perception, mystical visions, and such in an objective manner.

This has been evident in comments on three previous blog posts about Faqir Chand, an Indian guru who ended up being deeply skeptical of gurus.

This blog has been fortunate, though, to have David C. Lane leaving his own comments on those posts. Lane had a lot of contact with Faqir Chand before Chand's death in 1981. He also is responsible for books about Chand's life and teachings being published, in line with Lane's academic interest in gurus.

Several of Lane's essays are included in a book about Chand, "The Unknowing Sage: the Life and Works of Faqir Chand." They can be read online.

I highly recommend this one, Inner Visions and Running Trains: Faqir Chand Meets the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

Way back in my college days, 1968 probably, I read the Tibetan Book of the Dead because I was a philosophically-inclined imbiber of psychedelics: LSD, mescaline, psilocybin. Once I took mescaline with a guy who said he had seen a Clear Light while high, but was afraid to enter into it.

So he was traveling around the country searching for the Meaning of It All. That guy was the one I took mescaline with in the Santa Cruz mountains, as described in "The universe is a paper bag turned inside out."

In his essay, Lane does a good job of using the Tibetan Book of the Dead to help explain key aspects of what Faqir Chand came to believe near the end of his life, which was an evolution from his earlier acceptance of traditional Sant Mat/Radha Soami mystical teachings. Lane writes: 

What strikes the reader almost immediately after reading both the Bardo Thotrol and The Unknowing Sage is the remarkable similarity between both texts.

Whereas the Bardo Thotrol is written mostly in second person and third person, listing instructions for the departing soul, The Unknowing Sage is in first person, presenting the reader with Faqir Chand's frank autobiographical admissions about his meditative life.

Yet, in both texts the respective philosophies coincide: 1) the illusory nature of religious visions; 2) the limitations of knowledge, both rational and transmundane; and 3) the principle that the ego/self/soul is the real cause of man's unenlightened state.

Chand lost interest in inner sights and sounds after he realized that these can't be the ultimate truth that he searched for his entire life, yet failed to find.

Why? Not for me to say, but my impression is that in line with Buddhist teachings, Chand realized that behind every perception is a perceiver. Until one knows the knower, so to speak, all knowledge is open to question. Lane writes:

Thus, it was through a series of remarkable events that Faqir began to question the authenticity of his inner visions. Instead of accepting whatever appeared to him during his voyages out of the body Faqir doubted them and attempted to find the source from which all such visions arise.

Faqir's adventures began to dovetail at this point with the underlying philosophy of the Bardo Thotrol: "That all phenomena are transitory, are illusionary, are unreal, and non-existent save in the sangsaric mind perceiving them. . . That in reality there are no such beings anywhere as gods, or demons, or spirits, or sentient creatures -- all alike being phenomena dependent upon a cause. . . That this cause is a yearning or a thirsting after sensation, after the unstable sangsaric existence."

Eventually, Faqir dismissed his visionary encounters as nothing but subtle obstructions of maya. It was at this point that Faqir's meditation took a new turn: instead of enjoying the bliss of inner sights and sounds, Faqir turned his attention to the source from which these manifestations arose. And in so doing, Faqir no longer became attracted to visions of Krishna, Rama, or even his guru, Shiv Brat Lal.

The placebo effect helps to explain what is going on with inner visions, supposed miracles, and other phenomena so beloved by believers in mysticism.

We know that pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures have physical effects. It also is well known that placebos lacking direct physical effects also can lead to bodily changes. This shows the power of the mind/brain  -- which isn't all that surprising, since the mind is the brain in action, and the brain is a physical entity, along with the rest of the body.

So arguably religions and mystic philosophies are akin to placebos. Gurus, God, holy people, incarnations, and so on are the "sugar pills" that believers wrongly believe possess supernatural powers.

Their effects on people don't stem from religion/mysticism being objectively true, but rather on the fact that people believe they are true. This seems to be in line with most of Faqir Chand's observations about miracles, which David Lane has shared in a recent document. 

Someone tells a doctor, "The medicine worked." The doctor replies, "Yes, but that was an illusion. The pills you took were a placebo. Your own mind is responsible for the positive effects you got from the pills." But in the spheres of religion and mysticism, few leaders have the courage or discernment to tell people that it's all in their own mind.

However, Faqir Chand did. In fact, he went even further. Not only did Chand reveal that inner visions were the result of a devotee's faith and desires, he apparently came to a Buddhist-like conclusion that the self which has those visions also is an illusion. 

Thus Chand evolved into a "clear light" perspective described by Lane in this fashion:

What exactly this emptiness or luminosity is cannot, by definition, be described. In the Tibetan Book of the Dead the emphasis is on recognizing one's true nature, that which is no-thing in particular but rather the field in which all things arise -- itself being visionless, though producing visions; itself being structureless, though exhibiting structure; itself being non-existent, though producing existence. The clear void light is absolutely paradoxical, since the "I" cannot grasp it, nor can the mind by its subject/object dualism conceive it.

This is at odds with the traditional Radha Soami philosophy that Faqir Chand had earlier espoused, which led to him being seen as a heretic by those who believed in the inherent reality of mystic visions.

Thus Faqir, following his Tibetan counterparts, eschewed even the pure light and sound which was beyond form, and attached himself to no-thing, allowing himself, as he so astutely put it, to "hang on the gallows."

But in so doing, Faqir broke with Radhasoami tradition, which advocates surat shabd yoga (lit., "uniting the soul with the divine inner sound"), and eventually became regarded as a "heretic."

Near the end of his life, Faqir grew closer to the philosophical principles of Buddhism, particularly Mahayana, as outlined in the Bardo Thotrol. Indeed, if one were only to look at his later writings, one would come away with the impression that Faqir came from a lineage of Tibetan lamas.

Getting back to miracles, almost certainly they don't exist. But this doesn't take away from the everyday "miracle" of existence. We are. The world is. That's miracle enough for me -- and also for David Hume. See the first part of this video:

Here's another take on Hume, channeled by the Philosophy Bro. Excerpt:

Sometimes people claim even crazier shit than, “OJ is innocent.” What could possibly be crazier than that?

Fucking miracles. Occasionally someone insists that somewhere, for some period of time, the laws of nature stopped working and something absolutely batshit insane happened, like the sun danced in the sky or a bro rose from the dead, and he expects you to take him at his word.

“No, seriously, bro, I swear. It fucking happened. I saw it!” as if you don’t have the right to be incredulous at such a fucking outlandish claim. And then he gets pissed off at you for not believing him - “How could you know? You weren’t there! You didn’t see it!”

So then you have to put on the patient gloves and kindly explain why he should get the fuck out of your face. “Okay dipshit, look. There’s a ton of shit I haven’t seen. In fact, there’s a ton of shit *no one* has seen, like a man coming back from the dead. So you’ll excuse me if I look for alternate causes when everyone in the world has, for thousands of years, reported with just about 100% accuracy - ‘dead people: still fucking dead’ and then suddenly you claim that maybe a hundred of you saw something different.”

After all, I only know that everyone everywhere has stayed dead because we all agree that’s true. I only know the sun doesn’t fucking dance because I’ve seen it do the exact same thing every day of my life: not fucking dance. So has every single person in the world.

It’s like we’ve repeated this experiment billions of times, and now you’re telling me that one bro saw something different? It’s you against every single person in history. Is it possible you were deceived or mistaken? Doesn’t that seem more likely? The evidence doesn’t look good, champ.

But what if it’s true? What if it really did happen? What would it take to render a miracle probable?

Look, I’m all about the possibility that the future won’t be exactly like the past - I’ve built my entire career on the idea - but again, it doesn’t look good. So far, no miracle has even close to enough people testifying for it, much less trustworthy people.

You say a hundred people witnessed the miracle? Funny how that miracle would entirely confirm the religious beliefs of all hundred of them - what a strange coincidence!

Besides, people want to be fooled. They love believing in the supernatural, in shit that seems impossible. Maybe it’s not a miracle that Jesus appeared in your ham sandwich - maybe it’s just that, given all the ham sandwiches made in history, one of them was bound to look sort of like a guy in flowing robes with long hair eventually.

Some people refuse to accept reason and leave their superstitions behind, but that doesn’t mean I should have to believe their bullshit.

Faqir Chand believed in removing people from church

Faqir Chand is my kind of guru.

Though he started off with traditional ideas of what being a guru was all about, Chand came to realize that the mystical powers devotees attribute to gurus are merely manifestations of their own mind.

And as you can read below, Faqir Chand favored removing people from church, rather than bringing people into a church. Exactly how I feel! Churchlessness is the way to go.

This is my third post about Chand's philosophy, the previous posts being here and here. 

I've been focusing on Faqir Chand recently because I know that quite a few visitors to this blog are interested in the "guru game."  I stopped playing it about 15 years ago, but I realize how alluring it can be, and how difficult to give up.

Chand is sort of like a halfway house for those addicted to guru devotion. His teachings contain both some praise for gurus and also a lot of criticism.

In my current churchless frame of mind, I don't need any convincing that supernatural visions and mystical powers don't exist, being the product of delusions, illusions, or outright fraud. However, in my true believing days I would have benefitted from Chand's philosophy, since he ended up as a guru who exposed how gurus deceive devotees. 

I much appreciate the numerous comments David Lane has been leaving on my blog posts about Faqir Chand, since he is an expert on Chand. Other people who have a stake in the guru game have written some comments about Chand that are untrue, so I'm glad Lane has been correcting the Chand'ian record.

Here's some comments from David Lane that I found especially interesting. I've boldfaced portions that struck me as deserving of emphasis. 

Several years ago we had long discussions on Faqir Chand on RS [Radha Soami] studies and what he taught. I have long tended to favor the later Faqir writings and his most iconoclastic views, especially when he pointed out how little we actually know.

However, MBW and others pointed out that a close reading of Faqir shows he had a multi-leveled approach. Where for those in the beginning stages would indeed do dhyan, simran, and bhajan, and even have deep devotional feelings towards their chosen Istha-deva/guru.

But after this was achieved, Faqir would then stress realizing that the whole game was a projection of one's own mind and that we should let it go. I know this from personal experience as Faqir knew when he first met me that I was attached to Charan Singh and was in a very devotional frame of mind.

He then predicted the following (direct quote from the book published by Manavta Mandir called The Master Speaks to the Foreigners):

"There are two schools of thought. The aim of one school is to bring people into its circle. They bring people into their church. But I remove the people from the church also. To be in a Church is a blessing but to die in a Church is a curse. You cannot understand my views as yet, because you have to do a lot of work in your worldly life as yet. The present devotional ideas which you have now, will change after some years and then in the old age you will come to this line. This is my prophecy about you."

I think, of course, Faqir was right.

One begins to see through the "dogma" of RS and realize that much of what we believe is our own projection, our own desires. We think at first the guru is perfect or all knowing. Later, we mature a bit and see the humanness of it all. Which I think is a healthy and altogether wise thing to realize.

Now, at one end of Faqir's writings there is the advocacy of more typical Sant related ideas and then at the other, more radical end, there is a realization to go beyond it. This one can see in Faqir's classic HANGING ON THE GALLOWS metaphor:

"So, when did I realize the element? Since I have come to understand that I do not go anywhere. So, who goes in their inner visions? It’s their own mind, their own faith. So what do I do now? Because I was searching for my final abode or source, I leave the mind. When I go within and meditate, I leave the shapes, forms and colors. There is no form of the guru, no shape, nothing else. Only light and sound remain.

The entity that is inside me listens to the sound within and sees the light, that entity is something else entirely. The sound is something else. The light is something else. You listen to the sound within – you are separate from the sound. You see sun or moon inside, see light within. Light is separate from the one witnessing the light. When I search for that entity or witness, I CEASE TO EXIST."

Now, it should be acknowledged that Faqir was also quite traditional in some ways, especially on his views relating to sex. I have a couple of great stories relating to this that I should share one day. I will say this, however. Only someone like Faqir would say in open satsang at the age of 89 or so that the night before he had a "wet" dream and said that even at his age such things happened.

I can well imagine how the sangat "heard" that one! It was Faqir's transparency on his humanness that makes him so valuable, not whether he was enlightened or not (since that it is a theological question and open to endless debate).

In my conversations with Darshan Singh, for instance, I noticed he told me things in private that he would most likely NEVER say in public. So I am not in the least surprised that these gurus (from Charan to Kirpal to Darshan to whatever) would confess honestly about not knowing of their respective appearances.

We even have Charan on record saying he was unaware of appearing to a woman in her prayers. Sawan in Spiritual Gems saying something similar as well. Faqir's point is an obvious one and we have overwhelming proof that these gurus know much less than is advertised.

No need to mention a current guru losing 700 million dollars (jk)! I think of Faqir as an existential guru. As Faqir said near the end, "In the process of evolution, I appeared or manifested. Similarly, you also appeared. I did not exist before, and I won’t exist again."

Or, more poetically, "In that place there is no happiness or unhappiness, no truth or untruth, neither sin nor virtue. There is no day or night, no moon or sun, There is Radiance without Light." P.S. if you wish to understand the "humanity" of Faqir, his last letter from the hospital before he died is remarkable for its utmost honesty..... will post that later.

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

Dear Dogribb, Faqir even criticized his own guru as not being as forthcoming as he should. While Faqir acknowledges that there are various levels of instructions, the most radical part of Faqir is when he wishes to question why these gurus were not as forthcoming as they should be. Here is a quote from a 1980 satsang in London,

"Today’s gurus – they don’t tell us anything. They keep repeating – Shabad, Shabad, Shabad, Guru, Guru, Guru. Look at the lives of Gurus. Nirankari guru died and gave his throne to his son. The Beas ones put their grandson on the throne. Hansa established his son as a successor. In this world, may Paramatma or supreme lord save us from these gurus. These gurus have fooled us and looted us. They did not tell the truth."

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

Since Ishwar Puri is fond of making stuff up about Faqir Chand that is completely not true, I think it is important to set the record straight.

(1) Faqir Chand did not appoint anyone of his family as successors. Instead he appointed several of his disciples to carry on his teaching, including Dr. I.C. Sharma (whom I have met on several occasions), Yogini Mataji (Tripta Devi), and Bhagat Munshi Ram.

(2) As for Faqir's son, Faqir told Mark Juergensmeyer this: "My own son is well placed. He draws about Rupees 2500 per month. He is a big metallurgist, Russia returned." He never worked as a guru. Ishwar simply made that story up.

(3) As for Yogini Mataji, she refused to continue being a guru and wouldn't initiate anyone and went into relative seclusion. Here is the only movie I know that has film of her....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NYQXjIRBfs

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

What may look like a miracle (and I am sure it seems like such to the person who has such experiences) is, according to Faqir, isn't due to any guru as such, but rather the intense faith and devotion which (using Faqir's own words) becomes "creative" and produces the desired effect.

Faqir gives a number of quotes relating to this. Here is just one:

"The individual worships, adores and makes offerings to some living guru, image, god, or goddess according to his own faith, belief and devotion; in return he gets the fruit of his own devotion and faith. The guru, of the worshipped, gets credit and involves himself in the false prestige and fame. While the worshipper achieves his end, or motive due to his own faith and belief. In fact, the guru or the worshipped does nothing to fulfill the desires of the devotee; it is all the faith of the latter."

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

I don't think visions of Faqir or related incidents are miracles at all. Rather, they are merely projections by various individuals who then ATTRIBUTE such things to Faqir or to other gurus. The mind is a great conjurer and it is us (usually after the fact) that then attribute this or that apparition to one guru or another.

A good example of how this works is provided by Faqir Chand himself, where to his great credit he tries to see if he could come up with a rational explanation for why he had a vision of his guru Shiv Brat Lal before ever meeting him and even then getting the "correct" address of his ashram.

Here is Faqir's narrative:

"In the meantime I got a permanent job in the Indian railways and was posted as Assistant Station Master at Baganwala. But my craving to see the Lord did not diminish; rather, during this time it reached its peak. Once I wept for twenty-four hours continuously for a glimpse of the Lord. Doctors were called in. They administered medicine to me. At about five o'clock in the morning I saw in a vision the form of Maharishi Shiv Brat Lal. He drew water from a nearby well and helped me take a bath, and then told me his address in Lahore."

Now on the surface that seems somewhat remarkable given that Faqir consciously wasn't aware of Shiv Brat Lal (he was then a relatively obscure guru) and got his address correct.

But later Faqir reasoned that because Shiv Brat Lal was a prolific writer, then he may have come across one of his writings or magazines and in so doing got a picture of what he looked like and also the address which was listed in one of those writings.

These two things (picture of Shiv Brat Lal and the address)--though not consciously remembered--manifested in his dream-vision and Faqir took that as a wondrous sign. Faqir deflated the miracle.

I suggest that what seems paranormal looks less paranormal the more information we get about what really happened. I know from my own life that this is true, since I have written extensively about how my own Teaching Assistant, Michelle Lopez, had a vision of Charan Singh dying almost exactly at the time he died.

It is a remarkable story, no doubt, but one that I believe can be explained rationally without having to invoke miracles and the like.

I also got a chance to go through much of Faqir's correspondence which he shared with me back in 1978 where there were many letters about him appearing to so and so and how it was amazing. Faqir would at each turn tell me that he knew nothing about it.

Thus, these stories about Faqir are not miracles, though the disciples may believe such. They are what the mind can produce under stressful circumstances.

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

Dear S, Concerning Charan Singh and not knowing about him "appearing" to a woman in her prayers. It is an interesting story. Here is what happened.

Back in 1984 I published a two part article entitled "The Enchanted Land" for FATE Magazine. It described my visit with several shabd yoga gurus, including Charan Singh, Partap Singh (Tarn Taran), Yogini Mataji (Tripta Devi), Faqir Chand, etc.

Well, the chief editor of FATE magazine wrote me an urgent letter and said that a Catholic woman from Oklahoma was trying to [get] in contact with me. They asked for my permission for her to call me. I said yes, not knowing exactly what all the fuss was about.

It turns out this woman, who was deeply Catholic, was praying one morning when she had an unexpected vision of a spiritual being with a turban and a long beard who told her that she would learn more about him the next day. She then reads the current issue of FATE magazine (I think she looked through it at the magazine store) and in it she saw a picture of Charan Singh that was embedded in my article.

She was wonderstruck since she claimed that it was the same person she had a vision of in her prayers. She wanted to talk to me about it so we had a long chat on the phone. She knew absolutely nothing about Radhasoami or Sant Mat or even eastern philosophy.

I wasn't sure what to make of it (being skeptical by nature), so I suggested she write Charan Singh directly about it and see what he said concerning it. She did and Charan wrote a 4 page letter back to her (a bit unusual, given that his letters were not more than a page or two).

She then contacted me and we went over the letter line by line. In that letter and in no uncertain terms Charan explained that he was UNAWARE of appearing to her or to others who claimed such things. He suggested that it was a product of her own mind and he had nothing to do with it. Hope this helps.

Faqir Chand

More straight talk from Faqir Chand about inner visions

Here's a follow-up to yesterday's post, "Faqir Chand was a guru who exposed how gurus deceive devotees." That post stimulated some comments in which questions about Chand were raised.

Pleasingly, David Lane responded with some highly informative comments.

Lane is responsible for a book about Chand's life and philosophy, after asking the guru if he would write his story before he left this world.  So Lane is deeply knowledgeable about all things Chand'ian.

Lane's comments are shared below.

Naturally they will be of most interest to those interested in the Indian spiritual paths of Sant Mat and surat shabd yoga. But since Faqir Chand doubted the validity of inner visions, which figure prominently in traditional Sant Mat, Chand's views on this subject are of general spiritual interest also.

Here's the first comment from David Lane. I've corrected a few typos in the comments.

Dear Spence, you write the following: "Further, he was pressed to assume the role of true Master when he knew he hadn't attained that. But as his teacher assigned it, he had no other choice but to accept it. From that he presumed the other gurus hadn't attained anything either"

Actually, this is not what transpired.

Rather, Faqir talked directly with Charan, Kirpal, and many other shabd yoga gurus and asked them in private whether they too were "unaware" of their appearances to their respective disciples.

Each of them also acknowledged that they did NOT know. It was from such experiences that Faqir formed a larger hypothesis.

But even here, to Faqir's great credit, he asked other gurus to correct him if he was wrong. But they never did on this point. Here is a direct quote from the Essence of Truth by Faqir on this point:

"Sh. Jagan Nath is present here. He offered me Rs 403/- for the Manavta Mandir. He told that I awakened him at 1:30 A.M a day before. But I did not go to awake him nor do I know any things about it. Possibly, other mahatmas and Gurus might have the knowledge of such instances of manifestations of their forms. At least I remain unaware. Many of the present Gurus have admitted before me that they remain unaware about such instance."

You also write, "his projection on what other people have experienced is also just his projection."

This is not entirely accurate since Faqir sought out what other gurus had experienced and it was from their own confessions to him in private and elsewhere that Faqir formed a more general view. In addition, even to the very end of his life Faqir pointed out that he could be wrong and welcomed others to correct him.

It was a very refreshing quality of his.

A few little tidbits that are not widely known:

1. After Faqir was appointed by Shiv Brat Lal to be his successor and a guru, he went to Sawan Singh since he didn't feel right about doing it, since he would speak the truth about what he knew. Sawan Singh then garlanded him and backed him in his ministry. However, after 1942 Faqir stopped initiating anyone and instead gave satsangs about his realizations.

2. In the 1940s Faqir even gave satsangs at the Dera when Sawan was alive.

3. Jagat Singh and Faqir Chand were friends. Faqir also knew Charan and Charan would visit Faqir whenever he came to Hoshiarpur.

4. Faqir refused to live at his own ashram since he didn't feel it was right for him to get free room and board. Instead he lived a number of blocks away and would take a bicycle rickshaw to the ashram in the morning.

5. One time when Faqir was sick and had to stay over at his own ashram, he paid for his stay.

Faqir Chand was so forthcoming and so disarmingly honest that it would make even his closest followers uncomfortable.

Hope this helps a bit.

And here's the second comment from David Lane.

Dear Brian, thanks for blogging about Faqir Chand. He is a very interesting subject.

Before I go on, I think it is important to realize that all these gurus (of whatever stripe) are human beings, with all the different quirks and distinctive personality traits that go with it.

Having met lots of shabd yoga gurus during the past forty years, I found Faqir Chand unique.

You could ask him any question and he would never shy away from it. Moreover, Faqir (to his great credit) consistently said that he could be wrong and that his point of view was not final. That was entirely refreshing to me.

I say this because one can see a progressive quality in Faqir's writings from the earlier days to near his death.

So here are some answers to the questions that both Spence and Brian posed:

1. First, Faqir came to believe that all the inner regions were ultimately illusory and that even the inner sounds were illusory. As Faqir said in London in 1980:

"Like I said yesterday, I have realized that all these stages of Sahasraradala Kamal, Trikuti, Sunn, Maha-sunn are the play of this mind. Visions are based on the thoughts one keeps. This play of whatever one sees within (i.e. visions) is based on samskaras (impressions and suggestions). They are not the same for everyone. Visions or images vary from person to person."

2. Faqir was appointed a guru by Shiv Brat Lal some 21 years before his guru's death. As he himself confessed:

"Hazur Data Dayal Ji called me in his room. I was already waiting for the moment. I went inside. Lo! His Holiness with a strange blend of affection placed in my hands one coconut, five [coins], made a frontal mark on my forehead and bowed himself to my feet saying, 

'Faqir, you are yourself the Supreme Master of your time. Start delivering spiritual discourses to the seekers and initiate them into the path of Sant Mat. In due course of time, your own satsangis will prove to be your True Guru,' and it is through your experiences with them that the desired secret of Sant Mat will be revealed to you.'

Touched by these words, I experienced both joy and sorrow within me. Hazur noted both expressions on my face and asked for clarification.

I humbly said, 'Your Holiness, I am myself ignorant of the Truth, how can I lead others on this sublime path? And when the thought that I have become a degree holder and would deliver discourses and initiate people flashed within my mind, I felt that I had become something and thus a spark of joy.'

Hazur then said, "Faqir, you may be suffering from ninety-nine shortcomings, but one sure virtue of Truth which is within you will lead you to your goal in life. You will not only redeem yourself but will help many others to attain release."

In 1981, Faqir said,

"Further R. S. Dayal writes that he heard the conch-shell sound and the omkar vibration inside. I have explained in a book why a meditator hears inside him sounds of bell, conch, omkar, flute and sitar. All these are manifestations of the mental plane.

Since this knowledge came to me, I ceased to be caught up in the whirlpool of the mind and transcended it. Now, I took upon all these manifestations as mere maya. Therefore, now, even if I try to catch these sounds, I do not get them, because their value, as something real, has vanished for me who has transcended the mind."

3. Faqir stopped initiating anyone formally after 1942, but he continued to give satsang and tried to argue that we should go beyond the mind, even beyond light and sound, and find the source from which all this appears.

Faqir explained his own way of speaking:

"I believe that the intensified faith of these devout persons becomes creative and produces these results. Many so-called gurus misappropriate the credit for similar happenings, which take place in their disciples, whose own true faith should be held responsible for those results.

By the lack of moral, courage and honesty on the part of pseudo-gurus, credulous disciples are kept in the dark and fleeced under fake pretenses.

I alert the faithful but simple minded satsangis, to beware of such sneaks and their false claims. I had been commanded by my Gurudev [Shiv Brat Lal] to introduce plain speaking into religion, so I am duty bound to proclaim the truth behind these miracles, and to save the simpletons from exploitation.

If I do not reveal the truth, I can, by keeping satsangis in the dark, extract from them large sums of money by claiming fake credit, for the miracles that no doubt do happen."

Brian is correct to ascertain that Faqir argued for something beyond light and sound, and in this way dovetailed with the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

He called it hanging on the gallows.

Here is a quote:

"What conclusion did I reach? When I found out that I do not manifest or appear within anybody, then I also leave the mind (and all its appearances). Then remains light and sound. Every two or three months or sometimes every three days, when I go and search for that entity that listens to the sound, then my being disappears.

What remains? Nothing.

Now I think to myself – if I have become something by reaching that place, if I can do something, then I should be able to remove all the problems that the world is facing right now.

If they could, the ancestors from the past would have removed their problems or difficulties. Baba Sawan Singh would have removed his troubles. Swamiji would have alleviated his disease. Kabir had kidney problems for ten years in the old age.

So what did I understand? What is my realization of this supreme element (Tatva)?

I am a bubble of the supermost consciousness. In the process of evolution, I appeared or manifested. Similarly, you also appeared. I did not exist before, and I won’t exist again. Only one element will remain from which this bubble came into existence.

That element is Sound. It’s name is Naam.

That Naam is not the sound of bells or conch. It’s not the sound of Veena. It is the principle sound (Saar Shabad). This is what the bani of saints mentions – Saar Shabad.

So after reaching this, what happened to me? What did I gain? I found peace. What did I gain at this age of ninety-four? Peace."

Will write more tonight..... particularly in response to Jay (hi Jay, always good to read your ideas!).

Faqir Chand

Faqir Chand was a guru who exposed how gurus deceive devotees

I used to follow a guru. Now I don't. So I don't need any persuading that gurus are completely unnecessary to live a spiritual life or to meditate in a satisfying fashion.

But if you're someone who still clings to the idea that gurus possess special wisdom or powers, the message of Faqir Chand could help you wean yourself from those erroneous assumptions.

Until I ordered a book about Chand from Amazon about a week ago, what I knew about him came from a few essays and videos by David Christopher Lane, who brought this book into being: "The Unknowing Sage: The Life and Work of Faqir Chand." 

In the summer of 1980 Lane asked Chand if he would write his life story before he left the world. Chand agreed. Good timing, since Chand died on September 11, 1981, leaving a description of both his life and spiritual philosophy that makes up the bulk of "The Unknowing Sage."

Basically, Faqir Chand came to an understanding that bears a lot of resemblance to Buddhism: the essence of spirituality is realizing that you are not an individual "self" (or soul). Without that realization, any mystical or inner experience, no matter how profound, leads one astray, since it merely is a reflection of your own mind and possesses no objective reality.

Instead, Chand viewed himself as a "bubble of super consciousness." However, the bubble doesn't possess any mystical powers, not does it know the secret of the universe. So after practicing surat shabd yoga for many years, at the age of 92 Chand said "I do not care for the sound and light too."

He goes on to say:

Now, after having a long experience of my life, I feel that most of the past mahatmas and the present gurus by keeping the secret Truth unrevealed/undisclosed have been unfair to the public and have often exploited them. They have taken undue advantage of the ignorance of the people.

They have built their own big buildings. They have made air-conditioned rooms for themselves. These gurus enjoy themselves and the poor people being ignorant give their hard earned money to these gurus at the cost of their comforts and those of their children.

I love Faqir Chand's frankness and commitment to speaking the truth. I plan to share more quotations from him in other blog posts. For now, here's how "The Unknowing Sage" starts out.

This introduction is unsigned, but I assume it was written by David Lane. It's a good overview of Chand's unknowingness that he attained near the end of his life. I've boldfaced parts for emphasis.

Faqir Chand [1886 to 1981] was a remarkable Indian sage who spent over seventy-five years practicing an ancient meditation technique, popularly known today as surat shabd yoga, which attempts to induce a consciously controlled near-death experience,

Mastery of this experience, according to adepts of the tradition, enables one to experience regions of light and sound beyond the normal waking state, providing glimpses into higher realms of consciousness. 

After the end of World War One, Faqir Chand was recognized by his own guru Shiv Brat Lal and others in the movement to be an advanced shabd yoga mystic. According to Faqir's own account, he could almost daily leave his body at will and experience exalted states of awareness. 

Nevertheless, Faqir Chand was not satisfied with these attainments and sought something higher and more permanent. 

Eventually Faqir realized that no matter how subtle or blissful a meditation experience may be, it did not in and of itself constitute the ultimate in spiritual realization. Rather, the ultimate truth was that no experience could capture or contain the transcendental mystery of Being.

In the highest stages of development man does not develop a keep sense of omniscience, but a radical and irrevocable understanding of unknowingness. 

In sum, one realizes that he or she is nothing but a mere bubble in a sea of existence that is infinite in all directions. As such, the bubble simply surrenders its entire being to that Power which is, in truth, living it.

Thus Faqir Chand became quite outspoken about how gurus, masters, prophets, and mystics, posing as all-knowing beings, have deceived millions of followers by duping them into believing that they have omniscience and omnipotence when in fact they have neither.

What enlightened sages possess, rather, is access experientially to a higher spectrum of awareness, which, in turn, reveals not final or absolute truth, but a growing awareness of how truly mysterious life really is. As Shiv Dayal Singh, the founder of Radhasoami, poetically put it: "Wonder, Wonder, Wonder: Wonder hath assumed a form."

Coupled with Faqir's tacit realization of unknowingness, he also exposed for the first time in the Sant tradition how visions of religious personages are the products of one's own inner development. 

For instance, when one undergoes a near-death experience and beholds a Jesus or a Nanak or an Angel in the middle of the light at the end of a long, dark tunnel, it is not the esteemed figure who is himself orchestrating the encounter. Rather it is the neophyte who is projecting the sacred personage on to the light from his/her own biological and cultural history,

The light may indeed be a transcultural phenomenon, part and parcel of a higher order of awareness or merely a neurological event, but the interpretation of who resides in that light (Is it Jesus?  Is it Nanak?) is entirely a personal affair, shaded by the nuances of  an individual's sojourn for tens of years on a planet we call Earth.

Faqir is perhaps best known for his frank admissions of ignorance surrounding his miraculous appearances to disciples during times of need. He unilaterally confessed that he was never aware of appearing to his devotees.

Nor did Faqir Chand claim that he had understood the secret of Reality.  As he said on many occasions, echoing the words of such greats as Lao Tzu, Socrates, and Nicholas of Cusa: "How can I make any claims about attaining the Ultimate. The truth is that I know nothing."

Hence, Faqir Chand raised the slogan of "Be-Man," arguing that to become a human being, endowed with discrimination and compassion, is a great thing in itself. To be spiritual, Faqir would assert, necessitates that one become a true man (or woman) first.

The Mt. San Antonio Philosophy Group, while not advocating any one position in philosophy or religion, established the Faqir Chand Library Series in honor of vichar, "clear thinking." As the late Sardar Bahadur Jagat Singh, a contemporary of Faqir's once stated, "Clear thinking is 90% of spirituality." 

Future volumes in the series will include works in both science and religion that promote the Chandian spirit of honest and frank criticism. this volume, The Unknowing Sage, represents the first comprehensive study of Baba Faqir Chand's life and work in English.

Mystical experiences aren't objective reality. They're experiences.

Following up on my previous post about John Dewey's marvelous little book, "A Common Faith," here's some of what Dewey has to say about mystical experiences. I've boldfaced some passages that particularly appeal to me.

Dewey's main point, which I totally agree with, is that by themselves, mystical experiences prove nothing about God or the supernatural.

The possible causes of those experiences must be carefully studied before any conclusions can be drawn about them, especially given the wide variety of mystical experiences, many or most of which have no commonality.

Dewey writes:

It is more to the point, however, to consider the region that is claimed by religionists as a special reserve. It is mystical experience. The difference, however, between mystic experience and the theory about it that is offered to us must be noted.

The experience is a fact to be inquired into. The theory, like any theory, is an interpretation of that fact.

The idea that by its very nature the experience is a veridical [truthful] realization of the direct presence of God does not rest so much upon examination of the facts as it does upon importing into their interpretation a conception that is formed outside them. 

In its dependence upon a prior conception of the supernatural, which is the thing to be proved, it begs the question.

History exhibits many types of mystic experience, and each of these types is contemporaneously explained by the concepts that prevail in the culture and the circle in which the phenomena occur.

There are mystic crises that arise, as among some North American Indian tribes, induced by fasting. They are accompanied by trances and semi-hysteria. Their purpose is to gain some special power, such perhaps as locating a person who is lost or finding objects that have been secreted.

There is the mysticism of Hindoo practice now enjoying some vogue in Western countries. There is the mystic ecstasy of Neoplatonism with its complete abrogation of the self and absorption into an impersonal whole of Being. 

There is the mysticism of intense aesthetic experience independent of any theological or metaphysical interpretation. There is the heretical mysticism of William Blake. There is the mysticism of sudden unreasoning fear in which the very foundations seem shaken beneath one -- to mention but a few of the types that may be found.

What common element is there between, say, the Neoplatonic conception of a super-divine Being wholly apart from human needs and conditions and the medieval theory of an immediate union that is fostered through attention to the sacraments or through concentration upon the heart of Jesus?

...There is no reason for denying the existence of experiences that are called mystical. On the contrary, there is every reason to suppose that, in some degree of intensity, they occur so frequently that they may be regarded as normal manifestations that take place at certain rhythmic points in the movement of experience.

The assumption that denial of a particular interpretation of their objective content proves that those who make the denial do not have the experience in question, so that if they had it they would be equally persuaded of its objective source in the presence of God, has no foundation in fact.

As with every empirical phenomenon, the occurrence of the state called mystical is simply an occasion for inquiry into its mode of causation. There is no more reason for converting the experience itself into an immediate knowledge of its cause than in the case of an experience of lightning or any other natural occurrence. 

Reality requires a broad scientific look, not narrow mystic visions

Put on your philosophical wading boots. I'm about to jump into the deep end of some interesting, but sort of complex, questions about the nature of reality as seen through the eyes of quantum physics.

But rest assured that, in accord with the focus of this Church of the Churchless blog, I'll be drawing some inferences about what makes sense, and what doesn't, when it comes to religious, mystical, and spiritual claims about reality.

This might take a few blog posts, so I'll do my best to keep this initial post as short and simple as possible.

(Which means, it is going to seem lengthy and complex to many readers; sorry about that, it's the nature of the philosophical beast we're trying to come to grips with.)

I'm about two-thirds of the way through a fascinating book, "What is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics," by Adam Becker. Becker is a science writer with a Ph.D. in astrophysics.

The key word in the title is meaning. Here's why.

Historically, the prevailing view of quantum physics is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation, which often is pithily summed up as "shut up and calculate!" In other words, most physicists don't worry about the underlying meaning of what is known about the quantum world.

They're content with the fact that the mathematics of quantum mechanics are amazingly accurate and precise, which is why we've experienced such fantastic accomplishments in fields such as computer technology, lasers, medical imaging, and so much else.

Now, I'm going to quickly jump into the religious/mystical side of life, to avoid readers of this post heading off to another corner of the World Wide Web. 

In Becker's "More Things in Heaven and Earth" chapter, he discusses a useful analogy to illustrate the core philosophical debate between the "shut up and calculate" folks, and the "let's dig deeper for underlying meaning" folks. This is basically the distinction between logical positivism and realism.

Before we get into that analogy, I need to say that I'm not arguing for a simplistic direct connection between logical positivism and mystical ways of thinking, versus realism and scientific ways of thinking, because the situation is murkier than that. Here's some quotes from Becker:

The logical positivists were understandably opposed to philosophical castles in the sky and the tortuous prose they were often defended with. But the logical positivists weren't merely against metaphysics -- they believed they could actually dismiss metaphysical claims as meaningless.

Meaning, they held, was a matter of verification: knowing what a statement means is equivalent to knowing how to specify it using your senses. According to the positivists, when you say "it's hotter outside that it is in here," you really mean "if you go outside you will feel hotter than you do in here."

The statement's meaning is the method of verifying it empirically -- and if there's no way of verifying a statement against your senses, then that statement has no meaning.

...But idealist and theological claims aren't the only kinds of statements that make no contact with the senses.

There are also more straightforward claims like "the couch is in the living room even when nobody's there," that can't be confirmed directly. Statements like these about the existence and persistence of material objects independent of perception are realist claims -- they're statements about a real world that exists whether or not there are any humans around,

These statements are fundamental to science. Yet some of the positivists, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, dismissed realist claims as meaningless too, because they can't be verified by experience. All that is meaningful, on the positivists' account, are statements about perceptions, along with the purely logical statements of mathematics. 

Obviously mysticism isn't a mathematical enterprise. But leaving that aside, over the fourteen years I've been writing on this blog I've heard countless (more or less) stories of how someone had a vision of God, or of Jesus, or of a guru, or of divine light and sound, or whatever. 

When I and other skeptics would ask for evidence that those mystical experiences were real, typically the response would be along this line: "I know what I experienced, and it felt genuine to me, so you should believe that it was real."

This is basically a positivist argument.

Of course, unlike scientific positivism, there really isn't any way for other people to reproduce that experience -- though believers in mystic visions like to say things like, "You just need to meditate in this fashion for a long time, and have faith in God/guru/angelic beings/whatever."

I'm going to turn now to Becker's analogy, which hopefully will make my point more clear. He uses something most of us are familiar with, a TV remote control that has stopped working, to illustrate the distinction between positivism and realism.

Quine's paper, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," took aim at the core of the positivist program, the verification theory of meaning. Quine pointed out that there was no way to verify single statements -- all attempts to verify a statement inevitably involve the assumed truth of other statements, which are themselves subject to the same problem.

For example, say the remote control for your TV isn't working, and you can't turn the TV on. You suspect that the batteries in the remote are dead. You can verify this by replacing the batteries and trying to turn on the TV with the remote again. You do this, and the TV turns on.

Does that mean you were right? No.

It's entirely possible that the batteries in the remote control weren't dead at all. Maybe the remote had a short and will only work intermittently, no matter what batteries you use. Or maybe the old batteries were in backward, and you didn't notice; you just popped them out and put in new ones pointing the right way.

Or maybe something more exotic is going on: maybe the remote always worked, but when you tried it before, the TV mysteriously shifted its picture to the infrared and its sound to the ultrasonic, so you couldn't see or hear it; the TV happened to go back to normal after you changed the batteries, but not because you changed them. 

The last idea is clearly preposterous -- how could that happen? -- but the point remains that in testing out the new batteries in the remote, you've assumed a wide variety of basic facts about the world, all based on previous experience, and any of which could, in principle, be wrong.

This isn't merely true of suppositions about batteries in remote controls; verification of any statement behaves this way 

Looking out the window and saying, "It's raining outside," assumes that your view through the window's glass gives you an accurate picture of the outside world, and that your eyes are functioning property, and that the dimmed light and falling droplets  are in fact caused by a rain cloud and not an alien spaceship blotting out the Sun and dropping some exotic substance onto your front lawn.

So you can never verify a single statement: you're always stuck verifying the entirety of your knowledge about the world, or at least a very large fraction of it. As Quine put it, "Our statements about the external world face the tribunal of sense experience not individually but only as a corporate body."

With the verification theory of meaning left gasping for air, Quine dismissed the idea that it's meaningless to talk about unobservable things. Unverifiable statements must have meaning, because no individual statement is verifiable.

Thus the "metaphysics" so dreaded by the positivists came roaring  back: rather than speaking simply of sensations, Quine contended that it was perfectly intelligible to speak of physical objects with existence independent of the speaker.

So this gets me back to the title of this post: reality requires a broad scientific look, not narrow mystic visions.

I'll talk about this more in another blog post, because this one is plenty long already. For now I'll simply observe that without using these terms, for quite a few years I've been engaged with positivist believers in mystical experiences who don't want to take a broad realistic view of the cosmos.

For example, a supernatural experience typically demands that someone assume that human consciousness can function outside of the physical brain; that there are spiritual realms of existence beyond the physical universe; that there are "laws of nature" unknown to science, and so on. This sort of worldview requires a very different understanding of reality than is known either to science or everyday experience.

Which is why I no longer believe in it.   

Why I don't believe in anyone's supposed supernatural experience

Today I got an email from someone who said:

Well, here in your blog itself, you have all of these people sharing their experiences.  Huge voluminous paragraphs detailing all kinds of dramatic experiences, with stars and moons and spatial flight and GIHFs [God In Human Form] popping up with personal guidance and what-have-you.  My question is : Why do you ignore them now, now that you do see these experiences spoken of, quite plainly?

This was my response.
----------------------------
As you might expect, I consider that people who say they’ve had experiences of a supernatural reality are either deluding themselves, or other people. Both are possible, of course, if someone believes they’ve had a genuine experience, then tries to convince others that it was real. 

I’m reading an interesting book, Selfie. 

The author notes that culture is a key ingredient in human experience. This is obvious, of course, when it comes to so-called mystical experiences. How often do Christians have a vision of Krishna? Very rarely, if at all. 

Likewise, how often do Sant Mat devotees have a vision of Jesus? Very rarely, if at all.

The only way I could begin to accept that “supernatural” experiences are real would be if everyone who reported that sort of experience had virtually identical descriptions of it. But they don’t.

 

A few minutes of Googling turned up some examples. Here’s some people who had visions of Jesus.

 

http://www1.cbn.com/700club/ron-zaucha-vision-jesus

 

https://www.godisreal.today/jesus-vision/

 

And there’s people who have visions of fairies, with whom they interact.

 

http://www.fairycongress.com/seeing-fairies/

 

So why should I believe Sant Mat devotees who claim to have visions of the radiant form of their guru, or some supernatural realm that's part of the Sant Mat dogma? Why should their visions be given more credence than the people who have visions of Jesus or of fairies?

 

Now, some would say that ALL supernatural experiences must be accepted as real, because there are myriads of kinds of supernatural realities. I guess this would be similar to an alien visiting Earth and landing in a tropical forest, while another alien landed on a pole and saw snow/ice. 

 

OK, that’s possible. However, a big difference is that Earth is part of physical existence, so the various parts of our planet can be explored, photographed, etc.  

 

And I’d argue that going that "believe everything" route requires giving up any semblance of a rational, evidential, factual take on reality. We then would end up accepting all sorts of conspiracy theories, alternative views of science, crazy ideas of every variety. 

 

So I choose to not believe in the objective reality of anyone’s description of a supernatural experience, rather than believe in all of them. There’s no evidence that a supernatural reality even exists, much less that humans are able to experience it via some sort of elevated consciousness.

 

     -- Brian

I respond to criticism of my book that I no longer fully believe in

As noted in a post three weeks ago, I've gotten God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder back in print, even though I no longer believe in much of the mystical/spiritual aspect of the book. 

Spencer Tepper, a frequent commenter on this blog, bought a copy of the book, which I appreciate. I also appreciate a comment he left where he critiqued some of what I said in the first part of God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder.

It's a bit strange that I feel the need to defend a book that I don't totally believe in, but Tepper focused on a topic that I do consider to be absolutely true: that materiality is different from spirituality -- at least as spirituality is viewed through the lens of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) or Sant Mat, which was the perspective from which I wrote the book back in the 1990s. 

So it's sort of weird that Tepper is criticizing part of a book that was welcomed by the current RSSB guru, who arranged for several thousand copies of my book to be bought by RSSB, which greased the wheels for its initial publication by Threshold Books. 

I say this because Tepper is an RSSB devotee, albeit seemingly not a standard one, since his views differ from the RSSB teachings in certain important respects. Anyway, here's Tepper's comment, and my responses in blue. 

Hi Brian I'm working my way through your book and it did strike me in a completely different way today. It is elegant in its prose. But it's logic, at least in the first few pages, seems hopelessly flawed. You wrote "Materiality can be observed and measured with the physical senses of sight. hearing, touch, small, and taste. This distinction is important because it separates material science from spiritual science."

Yes, I consider this to be true. If something is material, meaning part of the physical universe, it isn't "spiritual" in the sense I'm using that term. The mystic philosophy of Sant Mat (which, again, is what I based the spiritual aspect of my book on) teaches that there are five regions of reality beyond the physical. The goal of Sant Mat meditation is to raise one's soul consciousness to those regions, aided and guided by spiritual light and sound.

This may be a case of reductum ad absurdum. The "material sciences" measure many things well beyond the range of the physical senses. From the distant cosmos to subatomic waves of pure energy, to brain waves and the firing of dendritic interlaces, science extends our vision and understanding. And in distinction to your claims, it often does so measuring indirectly.

When Tepper reads more of my book, he'll see that I note that science uses instruments to aid the human senses. Telescopes aid the eye, for example. And other instruments allow humans to detect electromagnetic frequencies beyond the range of the senses. But the measurements Tepper refers to all have to be cognized by one or more of the physical senses. How else would scientists know about the results of their experiments and observations? I talk a lot about quantum theory in my book, and this area of science deals almost entirely with indirect measurements, since there isn't agreement about the nature of the quantum realm.

We learn about gravity from objects that fall or move in space, not a direct measurement of gravity waves. When you wrote this you faulted, I believe falsely, the physical sciences for being unable to measure spiritual events because they have no apparent measurement in physical reality. Today you fault spirituality for exactly the same reason. Despite your development, your reasoning remains based in the same argumentation.

I don't understand what's being said in the comment above. Gravity waves are a physical phenomenon. Human senses interpret the observations made by highly sensitive machines that are able to detect gravity waves emanating from deep space. Given my definition of spiritual events, which is that used by Sant Mat, it isn't possible for a physical entity to detect a non-physical entity, such as the shabd or sound current posited by the RSSB teachings.

These days I regularly point out on this blog that there is no demonstrable evidence of a spiritual reality. This is consistent with what I said in my book, because physical reality is distinct from any spiritual reality that might exist. Thus any spiritual reality can only be known by an experiencer of it, since as I say in my book, that reality would be non-symbolic -- incapable of being described in words, symbols, images, numbers, or such.

Earlier you constrained science to what could be measured at the time. Today you constrain spirituality because of those same constraints. But in both cases the argument is premature. Your argument extends well beyond your evidence. Even thoughts are correlated to biochemical events. What happens to us is connected to this world.

I totally agree, given my current materialist perspective. However, mysticism as taught by the RSSB gurus has a different perspective: that soul consciousness is separable from the human brain, and it is possible to be aware of spiritual realms of reality that have no connection with this physical universe.

Spirituality and all the classic experiences noted repeatedly in mystic literature and mythic symbols throughout recorded history must at some point find measurable correlates. You quote Max Planck "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and, therefore, part of the mystery we are trying to solve."

Tepper is wrong on this point. Most mystical literature teaches that God, and associated"heavens," are incapable of being described symbolically. They must be experienced, not talked about. The Planck quote cited above supports this notion. Spiritual mystery can be comprehended only by becoming it, or at least grasping it in a non-conceptual fashion. So it is entirely wrong to claim that mysticism seeks "measurable correlates" of mystical experience.

This echoes the same argument for analogous reasoning made by Thomas Aquinas, when he wrote that God cannot be understood by deduction, since God is not a reducable element that can be manipulated, but is in fact greater than this creation. And this echoes Kant's argument that reason cannot accurately extend too far beyond its premeses of common experience to explain metasphysic experience.

Agreed, in the sense that I noted above: mysticism teaches that reasoning can't reach into spiritual realms of existence, a point I stress repeatedly in my book.

But as the tools of science are honed in studying mystic experience we certainly can and will gain greater insights into it. All the modern research into meditation and its physiological effects are evidence, hard evidence of this. I think the same flaw in reasoning from your book pervades your current thinking. You once dismissed scientific inquiry as too limited to capture the full range of reality. Your argument then seemed to be 'If science can't test it today, science must be too constrained to witness true mystic experience' . You now dismiss mystic experience for the same reason.

I disagree, given the RSSB/Sant Mat form of mysticism I based my book on. Again, the RSSB  teachings aim at merging the drop of the soul with the ocean of shabd, the sound current that is believed to be the source from which lower levels of creation spring. This is very different from meditation approaches that aim at making the mind (which is the physical brain in action) more relaxed, concentrated, and such. Tepper's definition of "mystic experience" isn't the one I use in my book, which is the same as that taught by the RSSB gurus.

You seem to now be saying 'If mystic experience can't be tested it must be false, non-existent.' Brian, I hope you can see both of these are unscientific and fallacious claims, based as they area on a single false premise: Your arguments are too final for either science or statements of divinity, based as they are on flawed human limitations, either in meditation or science. But in both cases development invalidates that argument.

Tepper clearly hasn't finished reading my book. What he says above is the exact opposite of what I say in the book. God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder is founded on the premise that there are objective, yet non-symbolic, realms of reality that lie beyond the bounds of material science. So I say over and over in the book that it isn't possible for material science to find signs of a spiritual reality.

You site [sic ] Joe Rosen's definition of science based in the study of what is reproducible and predictable (reliable). All meditation practice and specifically the internal experiences that accrue must at some point meet these same criteria in order for the practitioner to conclude they are witnessing truth. Your approach to criticizing science as a means of creating a space to defend meditation is based on a flaw that had to crumble at some point.

Yes, I correctly describe what material science is all about. Spiritual science is not material science. As I say in my book, if there are spiritual realms of reality that are non-physical, a physical science can't be aware of them. This is why I say that non-symbolic contemplative meditation is the only way of (possibly) contacting a spiritual reality. The fact that there is no agreement among the world's religions and mystical teachings about what a spiritual reality is like now leads me to believe that no such reality exists. 

I wonder why you would choose to write this book without first having a thorough grounding of spiritual experience that met the conditions for reliability and repetitive reproducibility at your volition, so that you could test it, and get beyond imagination and subjective experience.

Well, I spent 35 years meditating every day for several hours, as instructed by Charan Singh, the guru who initiated me in 1971. I consider that a "thorough grounding" in the Sant Mat mystical teachings. I conducted the experiment of  contemplative meditation with fortitude, diligence, and attention to detail. Tepper is free to engage in judgmentalism, and he appears to consider himself superior in spiritual wisdom. Maybe he is. But there is no way to know, because I continue to believe that genuine spirituality isn't capable of being communicated in words or any other symbols.

I'll end by noting to Tepper that this book was reviewed and read by numerous "higher-ups" in the Radha Soami Satsang Beas organization, and was approved by the guru Gurinder Singh himself. So even though Tepper believes that my book doesn't accurately reflect the mystical teachings of Sant Mat, the guru and other leaders of Radha Soami Satsang Beas considered that it did.

Militants kill 305 Sufis in the name of God. Religions are crazy.

All terrorist attacks are despicable and difficult to comprehend. But when Muslim militants killed 305 Sufis, members of their own religion whose supposed crime is viewing Islam differently -- that's freaking insane. 

Back in my true believing days, before I saw the atheist light, for several years I became a huge fan of Rumi. I bought just about every English language book about Rumi and his teachings. Rumi was a Sufi. So this helps explain my outrage at the killings in the Sinai Peninsula. 

Here's some excerpts from a New York Times story, "Who Are Sufi Muslims and Why Do Some Extremists Hate Them?"

Sufism is a mystical form of Islam, a school of practice that emphasizes the inward search for God and shuns materialism. It has produced some of the world’s most beloved literature, like the love poems of the 13th century Iranian jurist Rumi. Its modern-day adherents cherish tolerance and pluralism, qualities that in many religions unsettle extremists.

But Sufism, often known as Islamic mysticism, has come under violent attack in recent years. On Friday, militants stormed a Sufi mosque on the Sinai Peninsula, killing at least 305 people in what officials are calling the worst terrorist attack in Egypt’s modern history. The attack followed several assaults on Sufi shrines in Pakistan over the past year carried out by Sunni extremists. (The vast majority of Sufis are Sunni, though some are Shiite.)

What is this form of Islamic belief, and why has it come under assault?

...Sufism, known as tasawwuf in the Arabic-speaking world, is a form of Islamic mysticism that emphasizes introspection and spiritual closeness with God.

While it is sometimes misunderstood as a sect of Islam, it is actually a broader style of worship that transcends sects, directing followers’ attention inward. Sufi practice focuses on the renunciation of worldly things, purification of the soul and the mystical contemplation of God’s nature. Followers try to get closer to God by seeking spiritual learning known as tariqa.

...Sufism has shaped literature and art for centuries, and is associated with many of the most resonant pieces of Islam’s “golden age,” lasting from roughly the eighth through 13th centuries, including the poetry of Rumi.

In modern times, the predominant view of Sufi Islam is one of “love, peace, tolerance,” Mr. Knysh explained, leading to this style of worship becoming synonymous with peace-loving Islam.

...The Islamic State targets Sufis because it believes that only a fundamentalist form of Sunni Islam is valid.

Some fundamentalists see the reverence for saints, which is common in Shiite Islam, as a form of idolatry, because in their view it shows devotion to something other than the worship of a singular God. Some consider Sufis to be apostate, because saints were not part of the original practice of Islam at the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who died in 632.

...Imam Feisal said that attacks on Sufi worshipers, besides being a “major sin,” are the result of the politicization of religion in the region over the past few decades. Egypt, in particular, he said, is a place where that politicization has fueled extremism.

“When religion becomes politicized,” Imam Feisal said, “it is not good.”

How could a guru who knows he is a fake be a "good person?"

Here's a mildly-edited email from someone who asked me some provocative questions about Charan Singh, a Radha Soami Satsang Beas guru who I was initiated by in 1971, after which I followed his teachings for about 35 years. 

This person apparently sent me an email, rather than posting the message as a blog post comment, because he thought I might be offended by what he said about Charan Singh. 

Since I'm not -- and in fact enjoyed the message a lot -- I'm sharing it here. Following the message, I share my response to the questions about Charan Singh.

Dear Brian,

I was just now going to put in a comment asking you something, but I thought it might be better to write an email instead.  It is clear that, notwithstanding your disillusionment with RSSB, you still have a great deal of affection and respect for your Guru, Charan Singh.  And what I’m asking may seem disrespectful to Charan Singh, at least apparently, although I need hardly add that disrespecting him is not my intention at all.  

Anyway, whatever, I thought it better to write a private email to you, asking you about this, instead of posting on your blog a public comment that apparently calls out someone you still hold in affection and regard.

You say this in response to a reader in the Comments section : “Jen, currently I believe Charan Singh was a good person who did his job as Guru the best he could.  I don’t believe he possessed any divine qualities.  He was appointed to be the RSSB guru.  As a faithful disciple, he carried out that role diligently.”

How do you square those two apparently contradictory views about Charan Singh?  How could he have colluded in this hoodwinking of innocent followers, and still have been a “good person”?

See, a follower or a disciple can be mistaken.  But surely Charan Singh himself knew that he was not the “God in Human Form” (if indeed he wasn’t)?  There is no question of doubt there.  I may be unsure of YOUR status as the Big Sound personified, but not about MYSELF, surely?

This recalls a piece you’d written long back, about Jesus being one of the four Ls (Legend, Lord, Lunatic, or Liar).  With Charan Singh, the Legend option does not hold, right?  So if he wasn’t the Lord, and if he wasn’t a Lunatic, then he surely has to be a Liar?  A cheat?  And a liar is not a good person, a cheat is not a good person!  Unless you mean it in the sense of smuggler-or-thief-or-killer-or-swindler-with-a-heart-of-gold, something like that?  (And I’m guessing you don’t really mean it in that back-handed and snide way!)

Had he been fully honest, Charan Singh would have left people in no doubt at all that he was not “God in Human Form”.   An honest person in his place would have screamed from the roof-tops, a hundred times, a thousand times, again and again till people listened, that he was NOT “God in Human Form”.  You know, like Jiddu Krishnamurty dismantled his Star organization, and relinquished his gilded God-throne.  But no, what did Charan Singh do?  He colluded with that GiHF trope, implicitly if not explicitly he left his devotees with that idea, that he was indeed GiHF, that he was indeed some kind of a superhuman.

You say he “carried out the role diligently”, “as a faithful disciple”.  Why would he do that?  Before he became Guru, I can understand his acquiescing to the organization’s dictates ; but what about after he became Guru?  Why on earth would he agree to continue with the bullshit, after knowing fully well that it was bullshit fair and square?  A full-on disciple might collude in something that seems unclear or wrong to him, because he thinks he himself is mistaken or unknowing, and he’s assuming (or hoping) that his Guru is the Big Sound, or Son of God, or whatever.  

But after someone has been appointed the Big Sound (or Son of God) himself, then he can have no doubt that he is living a lie, can he?  Maybe in the initial days or first few months, he may still be in doubt, maybe he’s thinking, ah, early days yet, perhaps I’ll be hit with divine light soon now.  But when well into his tenure as Guru, he still does not clearly and decisively declare to one and all that he is NOT who his followers think he is, then he is either truly divine (or thinks he is, although he isn’t actually, which would point at delusions, at psychiatric illness), or else he is a dishonest dissembler.

How do you reconcile your opinion that Charan Singh was not divine, with your assessment of him as a “good person”, given your opinion that he was NOT GiHF?  Your position does not seem quite logically consistent, at least not when one takes those words at face value.

P.S.  Like I said earlier, I mean no disrespect at all to Charan Singh.  Nor is this an idle question. (Not, of course, that there’s anything wrong as such with idle questions!)  I myself currently follow (or try to) three different spiritual traditions (just their respective meditation techniques, without necessarily subscribing to all the surrounding mumbo-jumbo of theology and rituals).  One of these three traditions is theistic, and makes claims for one individual as the Big Noise (much like RSSB does).  

Now I try to keep a fully open mind (or so I hope), even as I seek my (experiential) answers via these three traditions, and this gentleman is, to my mind, either truly a Big Noise, or else he is not quite honest.  I don’t see a third way out (other than the “lunatic” option).  Hence my question to you about how you see your ex-Guru Charan Singh.  I’m seeking your personal answer to a question that is very close (at least potentially) to my own personal position, so as to help me arrive at my own personal answer to my own personal question.

Well, here's my basic answer to the question posed to me: How could Charan Singh have colluded in this hoodwinking of innocent followers, and still have been a “good person”?

I've pondered this quite a bit over the years.

Charan Singh was supposed to be God in Human Form, someone who possessed divine powers, such as being able to transcend ordinary space/time and journey to higher regions of reality, along with possessing the ability to communicate with each and every disciple through his astral or causal "radiant" form.

I agree with the message above that it is virtually 100% certain that Charan Singh wasn't who the guru was claimed to be. And since Charan Singh knew himself from the inside, seemingly he would have known that he wasn't God in Human Form with divine powers. 

So how could a seemingly kind, honest, and generous Indian man, Charan Singh, allow himself to essentially live a lie for the 39 years he served as the Radha Soami Satsang Beas guru?

I've come to two possible hypotheses. They're described in blog posts. One is that Charan Singh was a loyalist, as I said back in 2006 in "Who is the guru?"

So I muse over my recollections of Charan Singh and Gurinder Singh, trying to decide whether they’re best described as liars, lunatics, or the Lord.

None of the three appellations seem to fit, lunatic least of all. Each of them clearly was/is of sound mind (Charan Singh died in 1990). They could be liars, but their essential good-heartedness and decency argues against this. On the other hand, their evident imperfections prevent me from grabbing onto the “Lord” hypothesis.

Is there another L-word that better fills the bill? One springs to mind: loyalist. Perhaps when a successor is appointed to fill the shoes of a highly-regarded guru, loyalty both to his predecessor and to the surrounding organization prevents the newcomer from crying out, “Hey, I’m not God! I’m just a man filling the role of a guru.”

The other possibility involves another L-word, as I said in a 2015 post, "Let's add a new L-word to 'Who is the guru?' possibilities."

But an essay by Michael Shermer in his Scientific American "Skeptic" column suggests another possibility. In "Lies We Tell Ourselves: How Deception Leads to Self-Deception," Shermer says:

Trivers’s theory adds an evolutionary explanation to my own operant conditioning model to explain why psychics, mediums, cult leaders, and the like probably start off aware that a modicum of deception is involved in their craft (justified in the name of a higher cause). But as their followers positively reinforce their message, they come to believe their shtick (“maybe I really can read minds, tell the future, save humanity”).

Click on the link above to read the full piece by Shermer. I'll also include it as a continuation to this post. 

Desperate to find an L-word to add to the liar, lunatic, Lord, or loyalist possibilities, the best I could come up with after a brief look at some online thesauruses was to substitute "legerdemain" for self-deception. 

It seems to fit, as rarely used as the word is.
1. sleight of hand.
2. trickery; deception.
3. any artful trick.

So let's add a likely option that answers the question, "Who is the guru?" Legerdemainist. Which actually is a word.

The guru tricks himself into believing that he (or she) is God. Or God in human form, after being viewed as divine by fawning followers. This act of self-deception further bolsters his standing among devotees, as Shermer explains.

As Abraham Lincoln well advised, “You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” Unless self-deception is involved. If you believe the lie, you are less likely to give off the normal cues of lying that others might perceive: deception and deception detection create self-deception.

Naturally I have no idea if Charan Singh actually tricked himself into believing that he was God in Human Form and possessed divine powers. But Michael Sherman's essay offers some good reasons why this could have been the case.

Everybody is prone to self-deception. Why not gurus also? 

A Sant Mat follower returns to Jesus (and wants to hear from others who have done this)

Here's a message I got from someone who tried to follow both Sant Mat and Christianity. After developing doubts about the Science of Spirituality branch of Sant Mat (led by guru Rajinder Singh), she returned to her faith in Jesus.

Below the woman says, "If anyone has any information about Science of the Soul that is not commonly known or discussed, I would be interested in hearing their stories. Especially from those that have chosen to leave the path for Christianity."

Even if this doesn't describe you, the woman is interested in comments -- whether positive or negative -- from anyone who reads her story. Here it is:

I have been following the posts about Science of the Soul and Radhasoami at this website for a few months trying to glean information about aspects of Sant Mat that are not discussed in Satsang. I was initiated by Darshan Singh in the early 80s and was a devoted follower for many years---but after time I started having niggling doubts which caused me great anguish and soul searching.

I was a Christian before I started following Sant Mat, and for a time, I tried to follow both paths, as Sant Mat always stresses that it is not a religion, but a scientific method for experiencing God. I found this to be totally unrealistic, and one day I found myself weeping because I thought I would have to abandon my first love which was Jesus.

People on the Path had told me that Jesus was a "lesser" Master, and certainly was of absolutely no use in this lifetime due to the need for a living Master. I can't remember when I was more depressed.

Finally I read Sar Bachan, and that book so appalled me, that I began to slowly disentangle myself from Sant Mat. This was difficult as my husband was a group leader, and was dismayed by my increasing doubts about the Path. I found that I could not live without faith in Jesus Christ, and became more and more depressed. Finally, I made the break and left Sant Mat, and returned to my faith in Jesus.

Do I think Jesus is the ONLY way?---I put that thought on the shelf of "things-I-leave-to-God-to-sort", but given the number of holy people in other paths, I have a hard time believing that.

One of the minor things that began to trouble me about Science of Spirituality, was the extravagant wealth of the Master (Rajinder Singh.) Although the preaching is about letting go of material things and focusing on the spiritual, he was living in a mansion, driving expensive cars, and draping his wife in diamonds, while many of his followers suffer in want.

Followers rationalize that he earned this money, but why is he living such a blatantly materialistic life style while espousing non-materialism? I heard him once say that one did not need to worry about trashing the environment, because the quicker it was destroyed, the sooner the cycle of births and deaths could end, and the Golden Age could be ushered in (this is NOT an exact quote, but the gist of what was said during Satsang.)

There seems to be a rationalization for any behavior or comment that is uncomfortable, and this troubles me. It also appears that Rajinder's son is slated to become the next Master which goes against Kirpal's own words that the mastership cannot be inherited. As of now, the succession has gone from Kirpal to his son, to his grandson, and perhaps in the future his great-grandson.

If anyone has any information about Science of the Soul that is not commonly known or discussed, I would be interested in hearing their stories. Especially from those that have chosen to leave the path for Christianity.

I still have a great love and respect for the followers of Sant Mat (my husband is still very devoted, but has reluctantly come to terms with my change of heart), but I wonder how honest they are about their "inner experiences." I never had any that were anything spectacular (although the few ones I had were Christian in nature), but perhaps that is the reason for all the secrecy?

Oh, and the teachings about chastity, even in marriage. They nearly ruined my relationship with my husband. How can they be healthy.

Anyway, I welcome any comments, positive or negative. I have found my home with Jesus. I am not "religious', but merely want to follow Christ and surrender all to Him. As far as what others want to do, I leave all that in God's hands. Those hands are compassionate and loving.

Tough talk about Rajinder Singh from a disillusioned ex-disciple

Recently I got an email from someone who was initiated by an Indian Sant Mat guru, Rajinder Singh, and now realizes that this supposed divine being isn't really what he claims to be.


This person gave me permission to share the message, which I've done below with some mild editing in line with the person's wish to remain anonymous.

I'm always pleased to hear about someone's disillusioned experience with a religion or religious teacher. This is a wonderful thing, waking up from an illusion. 

Feel free to share your thoughts about what this person says in a comment, as my correspondent would like readers of the following message to do.

Hi Brian, I’m glad I found your blog. I also contacted the ex satsangi group but did not get a reply. 

You can post my message on your blog if you like, I’d like people to comment, but please leave out the information about where I am from and my name. This posting may be interesting because there is a lot about other Sant Mat Gurus here but not so many from the Darshan-Rajinder line.

I have been initiated by Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaja in 2013 - long distance initiation, did I really believe that?! I saw him for the first time in the last two weeks. Seeing him in reality after watching his videos for 2 years was nice at first, but I had a very bad experience when my son was initiated.

I took part on the initiation together with my son, who was taken away from me and made to listen to the sound current for 40 mins. until he started to cry. The satsangi told me later he was having experiences! How ignorant is that?! He was simply in pain from fingers stuffed in his ears!

Also, the person responsible for the foreigners here is starting to push us around. This made me realize after 2.5 years of daily up to 2.5 hrs meditation and more in workshops, that I do not want to follow guru god Sant Rajinder Singh Ji any more. 

I am quite confused now - my poor boy has to watch as I have to explain to him what happened and why I misbelieved so much before. All the questions that Sant Mat has answered: Who am I? Why is there suffering? Where do we go after death? are now wide open again for me and I think I have to be very careful to not stuff that hole with another scam.

From my Satsang friends I hear all the "It was Karma", "You have to overcome it“, "This was best for your son", "Stand up during Darshan and talk to the Master" - shit and I can’t believe it.

If I stand up during Darshan, the first thing that will happen is that everyone around me will get annoyed and angry because they think after 3 hours of waiting it’s them who should be close to him. The second thing to happen is that I can’t speak calmly in such a situation and english is not my mother tongue. And I am quite sure the third thing will be a response like "Your son will be fine" or "Have faith" and I’m not sure I can control my anger when that happens.

There are many thoughts in my head now, also emotions, and sometimes I catch myself doing Simran without wanting it.

There are so many things I give myself permission to think now.

Kirpal, Darshan, and Rajinder, these were/are the current godmen, and it JUST SO HAPPENS that they are one family? Please. Also, you would think that there is a woman in that line somewhere - for god, gender is nothing, right? Then why are all of the Masters men? Yes there is Mira Bai but women are really under-represented.

I never had experiences of any kind, never even felt the "sense currents" collect at my third eye, even after 2 hours of perfectly sitting still and being totally concentrated. During initiation Rajinder asked who saw a sun, the moon, a Master within, and we only meditated 25 mins. half of the Indians raised their hands.

What?! I am sure there are so many not meditating properly, and they saw the radiant form of the Master, and me, after two years of meditating everyday, nothing? Not even a flash of light? No, not even as HE touched my third eye.

Also, this science thing - it’s like Freud, and I never liked Freud's way of forcing people to believe him. If you say anything against it, you just have to develop further "in the right direction", otherwise you are "in denial". One way or another, it’s your responsibility. But at the same time "we are nothing" and "Master is everything".

I am mild in judgement to myself because I only needed this one week in his presence to realize he is just a man like everyone else. He might even be a saint. But he is not God. He does not know what is going on in our minds.

Well, I can’t prove that. But as you are allowed to have a hypothesis and check it, my hypothesis was that my son would feel at least in peace during meditation, that he would be appreciated and taken good care of. But Master ignored him and the Satsangis around him made him cry. For me, this is enough proof that there is something wrong in this Satsang and I don’t want to go there any more.

The next problem I have to deal with is what will I believe in in this life.

I know many readers think, you don’t have to believe in anything, you have yourself. I did not write this to get an answer. I write this, because I am in that state now where you are kind of lonely and insecure and you don’t have a mass of sheep around you assuring you that you are doing the right thing, and this feels new and a bit sad. But I’ll get through it, because I’m a grown person and 2 years of being wrong is something that I can overcome.

One thought for SEVA: I was always wondering how holding a satsang is better and holier SEVA then feeding the hungry or playing with orphans. Even working in the SEVA kitchen is basically just feeding yourself.

Maybe I will write some words for my own comfort, hoping that it will help someone else, too: you don’t need to spend your whole money traveling the world and sitting and waiting for hours for a Master to be close to god. By the way, before I joined Sant Mat, I was wondering how all this flying is ok?! It is very harmful for the environment that all the Satangis fly all the time!!

And also, I am vegan and never understood how Master can promote dairy. If you know a little bit about milk production: you can be sure that cows and baby cows are exploited and killed. And then the Satsangi answer: well, if Master blesses a dairy, the cow will sure be reborn at his Lotus feet in the next life! - yeah. you be sure of that.

Sitting in a chair in an atmosphere that you like is enough. You don’t need to sit in meditation for hours to be at peace and know that you are a good being. It is enough to just scan your system, ask yourself how you feel, what you think, and what would serve you right now. Sleep? Talking to a good friend? Writing down some thoughts? You don’t need hours of studying holy scriptures.

You already know what is present in your life, where you want to put time in and where you don’t want to put time in. There is a reason why there are so many people on earth (if you believe that god created us). Wanting to make them all equal and making them do the same thing is ignoring an important trait of human nature.

We are all different children of god, we are all equal, and Masters are not above or below us. And: it is me who has the responsibility and the power to build my life. Nobody else. That I can control only very little in this life is a fact that I have to deal with on my own. Everything else is denying my personal responsibility. This might be scary, but again, is another thing that sane grown-ups are capable of handling.

Warm ex satsangi greetings, _________

My response to someone's mystical experience of "heaven"

Once in a while someone emails me a description of a marvelous mystical experience they've had. Usually the person is a devotee of the organization I belonged to for about 35 years -- Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB).

RSSB is led by a guru who is considered to be God in human form, in much the same way as Jesus is viewed by Christians. Except, the guru is alive. Once initiated by the guru, supposedly he places his "radiant form" within the disciple's consciousness. 

Then the radiant form leads the mind/soul of the disciple through various higher stages of reality until they reach Sach Khand (roughly, heaven) together. At least, that's the way it is supposed to work. Demonstrable evidence of this actually happening is, charitably, slim.

More accurately, I'd say, non-existent.

Still, there are quite a few personal tales like the one below. I'm assuming the person who contacted me is fine with his experience being shared since he speaks of "wanting to give non-believers a different perspective."

By and large I agree with what Sam Harris said in his critique of Eben Alexander's claim that he almost died and went to heaven.

As many of you know, I am interested in “spiritual” experiences of the sort Alexander reports. Unlike many atheists, I don’t doubt the subjective phenomena themselves—that is, I don’t believe that everyone who claims to have seen an angel, or left his body in a trance, or become one with the universe, is lying or mentally ill. Indeed, I have had similar experiences myself in meditation, in lucid dreams (even while meditating in a lucid dream), and through the use of various psychedelics (in times gone by). I know that astonishing changes in the contents of consciousness are possible and can be psychologically transformative.

So I also generally assume that when someone shares a profound mystical experience, he or she actually had the subjective perceptions, feelings, and such being described. But this is a long way from what the person wants me and others to believe about the experience.

Namely, (1) that it reflects objective truths about reality that exist outside of the person's brain/mind, and (2) is an experience that should be as meaningful to others as it was to the person. 

Regarding (1), lots of people have described their experiences of seemingly supernatural realms beyond the physical. For example, a brief bit of Googling led me to a Jesus Evidence web site containing some detailed descriptions of heavenly encounters. 

I found myself walking in this beautiful place where I felt safe, secure, and a great love and peace over me. As I began to look around I saw a river, clear and transparent almost crystal. The green grass was as deep as an emerald stone, the sky was so beautiful as the light was so bright. Then I looked to see who was holding my hand. It was Jesus. His eyes were like fire and ever so kind, so full of the purest of love that you could ever imagine. His hand was so big compared to mine. It had light coming out of the scar where the nail had gone through his hand. He took me to this wonderful place where I saw lots of children. As the other children gathered around Jesus and myself, He talked to us.

So are we supposed to believe all of these many varieties of spiritual/mystical experiences, some of them, none of them? My view is, none of them, unless there is convincing evidence that what a person experienced points to hitherto unknown truths about objective reality.

Dreams can seem real while we're having them. So can hallucinations. Ditto with drug-induced visions. The brain/mind frequently conjure up subjective sensations and perceptions that don't exist outside of a person's cranium.

Again, though, this doesn't take away from the reality of the experience as experienced by the experiencer.  As you can read below, the person who contacted me is convinced that he had a blissful vision of the guru and supernatural realms.

Which leads to the second issue: whether anyone else should view a mystical experience as deeply meaningful. Put differently, if another person had the same experience (leaving aside the question of whether it is subjectively or objectively true), would it seem as profound to them?

I suspect not.

I say this based on a lifetime of having people tell me things like, "You've got to see this TV show; you'll love it!" After which I watch it, and don't love it at all. Same is true in reverse, of course. I enjoy things that other people find distasteful.

Riding a motorcycle or scooter, for example; this makes me profoundly happy, while the few times I got my wife to ride with me, she hated the experience.

Now, I think that if I had experiences like those described below -- in a dream, say -- I'd find them enjoyable and interesting. But there's no way to know whether they'd be as meaningful to me as they were to the person who emailed me. 

Since I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, having a vision of him probably wouldn't mean a whole lot to me. But to a Christian, likely it'd be a Wow! experience. 

Thus my reaction to the description below basically is:

It's great, guy, that you had such an enjoyable experience. Hope you can understand why, without solid evidence, I can't believe that this is anything but your personal subjective experience, not a reflection of objective reality. It was deeply meaningful to you, but you're you, and everyone else is who they are. 

Here's the message I got:

Hello Brian trust all is well in your karmic dance of life.

Feel - know that must put the negativity of your website into perspective .

My first visit to your website was ‘accidental” ... in that had read your Sant Mat recommended book ... was searching to see what else you had written.

As a result of reading your site at the time ... felt an impulse to respond to one of your articles (cannot remember which one now) 

My response was simply … that had been a long time initiate  ... had satisfied self from inner experiences ... that what was in the Sant Mat books is genuine.

So to now ... 

this am during meditation had a “knowing” to go to your website to read the articles in the last few years ... here is my response.

Though it is not advisable to share ones inner experiences ... am about to do so to give non believers a different perspective given out of love not ego! 

This experience in 2004 was 7 years after my initiation on 26/7/1997 by Beloved Babaji’s representative ...had diligently followed Beloveds guidelines ... have had other inner experiences prior-since but this is the one that is not so personal .

Experienced such indescribable Joy-Bliss ... Beloved Babaji’s  Blessing in Meditation ... such energy surges from the feet up  my whole body racked by spasms ... tingly heat ... eventually lost all bodily feeling ... like being paralysed ... such ringing inside my head ... colours-flashes of very bright white .

Saw self from above self … from above the planet trailing a silvery thin cord ...  self was in the form of an embryo attached to the earth with a mothers umbilical cord...

Rushing starriness ... moon ...  then went straight through the sun ... then beautiful landscape ... rocky gentle river, fir trees, meadows, high snow flecked mountains ... like in the Canadian Rockies ...

Master took off his turban ... he smiled as he flicked his beautiful, glistening shoulder length hair ...no trace of grey in hair-beard ...thought how beautiful-radiant ... reminded me of  Master Jesus ...

Through the whole experience was doing simran … felt so Contented, Joyful, Blissful ...then seemed to zip back into my body ... like a genie into a bottle ... once again could move ... elapsed time 1 hour 20 mins 10 pm

NOTES:

It’s wonderful how Master answers one through the books … subsequently read what Master Sawan  Singh wrote which substantiates this experiences  … 

"When by repetition of the names, with attention  fixed in the eye focus, you have become unconscious  of the body below the eyes ... your attention will  catch the sound current ... select the church bell, and discard all other sounds ... slowly your soul will leave the body and collect in the eyes ...

When  the concentration is complete, it will appear as if  you are separate from the body... the starry sky will appear in time ... fix your attention in the  bright star  and continue repetition ... 

When approached it will burst, and your attention will penetrate through it ... the starry sky has been crossed ... in the same manner the sun and the moon  ... after the moon, Masters radiant form appears, fix your attention, and hand yourself over to Master .  

Conclusion:

~ Based on my 18 years of experience ... if initiates do not have inner experiences ... there are probably 3 reasons 

I They are not doing the daily time required ... at initiation made the commitment to do 3 hours daily ... once made did not have to make a daily decision 

II They are not doing it properly ie falling asleep...not concentrating etc

III They do not go with the FLO ... Faith Love Obedience ... Meditation is Devotion ... there should be no expectations ...

Beloveds Grace will come when the time is right

At beloved Babajis request all references to RSSB were removed … 

Trust this information will help some

Alan Watts talks about the source of spiritual authority

Over on my "Let's add a new L-word to 'Who is the guru?' possibilities" post, William left a comment today:

Hi Brian
I was listening to a talk on the topic of What is a Guru? by Alan Watts. You may well find it interesting. Here's the link that will bring you to the pertinent part of that talk. https://youtu.be/sAq2NY0Tjf8?t=1m54s

Since I enjoy reading Watts' books, saw him speak in person back in the 1960's, and like his audio recordings, I watched about half of the You Tube video today.

Here's the link William sent, which starts at about the two minute mark.

 

I resonate with almost everything I heard Watts say, agreeing that the only authority a guru, master, or other religious personage has flows from the devotees who choose to elevate that person to a position of spiritual leadership.

Otherwise, where could any authority come from?

There aren't qualifications for becoming a guru, as there are for professions such as medicine, law, engineering, and so on. Anyone can claim to be a spiritual adept. Usually it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find objective evidence that what the "guru" claims to know about the cosmos is actually true, and/or that the guru can do what he or she claims, supernaturally speaking.

So Buyer Beware is excellent advice for anyone looking to purchase some spiritual authority.

DMT, a natural psychedelic chemical, could produce "spiritual" experiences

Someone sent me an email with a link to an article whose title was so intriguing, I was eager to read the piece: "The psychedelic drug that could explain our belief in life after death."

DMT (Dimethyltryptamine) is the most powerful hallucinogenic drug around. The class A psychedelic is so potent that under the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances its manufacture is strictly for scientific research and medical use and any international trade is very closely monitored. But it also naturally occurs in the human body.

Now a Senior Psychologist at Greenwich University, Dr. David Luke, is trying to undercover a link between DMT and 'near death experiences' to explain elves, tunnels of light and centuries old folklore. On July 8th he’ll talk about his research at an event in conjunction with SciArt collaboration Art Necro at The Book Club in London.

I'd heard of DMT before, having quoted Sam Harris in a post about Eben Alexander's ridiculous claim that while in a coma, supposedly with no brain activity, he experienced heaven. I called the post "Heaven is NOT real, no matter what Eben Alexander says." Harris said:

...Everything that Alexander describes here and in his Newsweek article, including the parts I have left out, has been reported by DMT users. The similarity is uncanny.

...Does Alexander know that DMT already exists in the brain as a neurotransmitter? Did his brain experience a surge of DMT release during his coma? This is pure speculation, of course, but it is a far more credible hypothesis than that his cortex “shut down,” freeing his soul to travel to another dimension.

Anyway, the article about research into DMT is well worth reading. Back in my college days I used LSD and mescaline. I had some profound experiences, but nothing like what DMT can produce.

A pioneering medical doctor in the 1990’s called Rick Strassman , started injecting people with DMT as part of a medical research project. About 50 to 60 participants were given high doses and they reported some extremely bizarre phenomena.

Approximately half of the participants on a high dose reported being in other worlds and encountering sentient entities, i.e. beings of an intelligent nature which appeared to be other than themselves. The experience was so powerful that participants were convinced of the reality of experience with these other beings.

...The beings themselves took on various forms. Sometimes they took on the form of little elves or imps or dwarves, sometimes they’re omniscient deities, other times they’re angelic beings. But they’re specifically not humans.

Well, the brain/mind works in mysterious ways.

No one knows why ingesting a chemical that the brain produces on its own causes people from different backgrounds and cultures to have similar experiences of sentient beings. But since this phenomenon has a physical cause, it's difficult to argue that DMT is a passport to a supernatural reality.

Let's add a new L-word to "Who is the guru?" possibilities

Back in 2006 I pondered the question, Who is the guru? 

By "guru," I meant someone who is (1) alive today, and (2) considered by his/her devotees to be, if not actually God in human form, darn close to this exalted level of divinity.

This is, obviously, a different sort of religious personage than, say, a Christian minister. Or even the Pope. It is easy to visualize them sincerely believing that they are God's representatives on Earth, while recognizing that they are entirely human.

In some Eastern religions, though, the distinction between God and guru is minimal. Even nonexistent.

The Indian guru I was initiated by in 1971, Charan Singh, was considered to have attained a state of God-realization by his followers. 

No longer believing this, my "Who is the guru?" post was an attempt to make sense of the fact that Charan Singh, along with his successor Gurinder Singh, could sit on a podium in front of tens of thousands of adoring disciples who looked upon them as not only godly, but as God.

I’ve been thinking about the four options concerning who Jesus was, according to biblical scholar Bart Ehrman: a liar, a lunatic, the Lord, or a legend. When it comes to a long-dead historical figure like Jesus, these options make sense. But what about a modern-day guru who is similarly proclaimed to be God in human form?

I was initiated by such a guru, Charan Singh Grewal. I sat at his feet, literally. I had two personal interviews with him. I heard him speak many times. I saw him worshipped by tens of thousands of devotees as a divine incarnation. 

And yet, I still don’t know what to make of him. Or his successor, Gurinder Singh Dhillon. Who is the guru? A philosophically-inclined friend of mine likes to say, “There’s only one question to ask a guru who is supposedly God in human form: Are you who people claim you are?”

But given Ehrman’s four options, the answer wouldn’t be all that revealing. If the guru was a liar, you couldn’t believe what he said. Ditto if he was a lunatic. And even if he truly was the Lord, and said as much, what reason would there be to believe him? Plus, one could argue that a God-man would be so humble, you’d never hear a claim to divinity pass his lips.

With living gurus the legend option doesn’t come into play. They’re alive and kicking, not legendary. Quite a few men (and a few women) of recent vintage are considered by the faithful to be manifestations of God. For example, Meher Baba, Ramakrishna, and Lokenath. 

So I muse over my recollections of Charan Singh and Gurinder Singh, trying to decide whether they’re best described as liars, lunatics, or the Lord.

I ended up preferring a fourth option, loyalist.

Is there another L-word that better fills the bill? One springs to mind: loyalist. Perhaps when a successor is appointed to fill the shoes of a highly-regarded guru, loyalty both to his predecessor and to the surrounding organization prevents the newcomer from crying out, “Hey, I’m not God! I’m just a man filling the role of a guru.”

This theory got support in a video David Lane made about Charan Singh, as described in a 2013 post, "Charan Singh was a loyal guru." 

But a essay by Michael Shermer in his Scientific American "Skeptic" column suggests another possibility. In "Lies We Tell Ourselves: How Deception Leads to Self-Deception," Shermer says:

Trivers’s theory adds an evolutionary explanation to my own operant conditioning model to explain why psychics, mediums, cult leaders, and the like probably start off aware that a modicum of deception is involved in their craft (justified in the name of a higher cause). But as their followers positively reinforce their message, they come to believe their shtick (“maybe I really can read minds, tell the future, save humanity”).

Click on the link above to read the full piece by Shermer. I'll also include it as a continuation to this post. 

Desperate to find an L-word to add to the liar, lunatic, Lord, or loyalist possibilities, the best I could come up with after a brief look at some online thesauruses was to substitute "legerdemain" for self-deception. 

It seems to fit, as rarely used as the word is.

1. sleight of hand.

2. trickery; deception.

3. any artful trick.

So let's add a likely option that answers the question, "Who is the guru?" Legerdemainist. Which actually is a word.

The guru tricks himself into believing that he (or she) is God. Or God in human form, after being viewed as divine by fawning followers. This act of self-deception further bolsters his standing among devotees, as Shermer explains.

As Abraham Lincoln well advised, “You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” Unless self-deception is involved. If you believe the lie, you are less likely to give off the normal cues of lying that others might perceive: deception and deception detection create self-deception.

Interesting. Read on to peruse Shermer's entire essay.

Modern mystics, why should anyone believe your "vision"?

After more than ten years of blogging on this here Church of the Churchless -- 2,410,012 page views; 2,036 posts; 29,750 comments -- I'm still asking this question.

Why should the claims of "modern mystics," who claim to have personally experienced God, spirit, heaven, or some other manifestation of divinity, be taken more seriously than the countless similar claims that have been made by innumerable others throughout recorded history?

I keep on asking this question in various ways, both in blog posts and replies to comments, because it seems to me that those alive today who would have us believe in their supposed brush with the divine shouldn't be given any more credence than those who are dead and gone.

Among the well-known major figures, Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses, along with less familiar Christian, Islamic, and Judaic mystics, saints, seers, and such. 

On my book shelves also sit books filled with stories of other Eastern mystics and yogis such as Yogananda, each of whom spoke about encounters with supernatural phenomena. Largely, those stories contradict each other, while being in conflict with one or more of the major religions.

The divine is personal. Or impersonal. It is part and parcel of creation. Or detached from it. It takes great effort and/or grace to realize. Or simply opening one's awareness.

Broadening beyond supernaturalism, Zen, non-religious Buddhism, and Taoism teach that what is most real about the cosmos is entirely natural, capable of being found in the most commonplace things. Even "shit and piss," according to Chuang Tzu.

It's clear that after thousands of years of searching for the Divine Meaning of It All, many humans have claimed to have discovered signs of it.

Problem is, those signs don't match up.

And there is no demonstrable evidence of it. If some sort of non-physical, possibly timeless, higher dimensional realm of reality exists, it sure lacks any way (or desire) to make itself known with even a minimal degree of certainty.

Yet people today -- as tomorrow, and the next day, and the next -- keep on claiming that they have experienced what can't be proven to exist outside of their own minds.

Comments from them regularly appear on my blog posts. I occasionally get emails from them. Whenever I do, my question arises again:

Why should the claims of "modern mystics," who claim to have personally experienced God, spirit, heaven, or some other manifestation of divinity, be taken more seriously than the countless similar claims that have been made by innumerable others throughout recorded history?

If anyone can enlighten me on this, I'm open to the illumination.

What is meant by a "fake" guru?

A few days ago I wrote a blog post called "Kumare: truthful movie about a fake guru." Here I want to do some additional pondering about what it means to be fake. 

This is a subject of more than theoretical interest to me.

Back in my college years, 1969-70, I studied yoga and meditation with a long-haired, charismatic teacher who looked a lot like the movie's Kumare (even though my teacher was Greek, and Vikram Ghandi, who became "Kumare," is Indian.)

My weird story of how I switched from the first guru to another guru can be found here.

l changed gurus after discovering that the Greek guy was fake in various disturbing ways. I'm also no longer involved with the second guru, finding after he died that fakeness pervaded his teachings and organization in other sorts of ways.

But what does fake and true mean when it comes to gurus? This isn't an easy question to answer, one of the reasons Kumare is such a fascinating movie.

Kumare' students liked him a lot. Kumare was an excellent listener. Kumare was accepting and non-judgmental. Kumare stimulated his students to deal better with their problems and pursue their goals more avidly. Kumare created a warm, positive, energizing atmosphere in his yoga classes.

What of that is fake? Nothing. 

My wife, a retired psychotherapist, was impressed with how Kumare/Ghandi utilized good counseling techniques in his one-on-one interactions with students. Clearly he served as a friend and shoulder to lean on for them.

Which also is how I viewed my first yoga teacher.

"Yogiraj," as he called himself, stabilized my scattered, psychedelic, hippie self of that time. I became a vegetarian. I stopped using drugs. I became adept at Hatha Yoga. I started meditating daily. None of that was fake. A few days a week I still do some of the yoga postures that I learned so many years ago.

My yoga teacher's fakeness came from him almost certainly not being who he claimed to be: someone with supernatural knowledge/power. (When he told me and other students that he communes with Christ in his basement, not figuratively but really, we all said "goodbye.")

Kumare's fakeness, on the other hand, was of a different variety. He never claimed to have any unique powers. In fact, his core guru-message was You don't need a guru; you are your own guru.

However, most or all of Kumare's students looked upon him as someone special. Well, in fact, he was. As noted above, Kumare/Ghandi came across as a kind, warm, gentle, understanding person. In that sense he indeed was special.

Yet not unique. Lots of people have those qualities. But few here in the United States look as exotic as Kumare did. 

(At least to American eyes. I remember mentioning to a friend who had, like me, been to India, "I wonder how Indians manage to not be continually distracted by the amazing street scenes of colorful saris, flower clad animals, gaily decorated trucks, and all that, endlessly going by in a stream of buzzing confusion." He sensibly replied, "Hey Brian, to Indians that's normal. They would find our lifeless strip malls exotic.")

So the way I see it, Kumare was truthful when he told his yoga students, "You are your own guru." What they wanted, they already had.

It just took a guy with a fake Indian accent, pretending to be someone other than he was, to give them the feeling that they could lose weight, have a better romantic relationship, succeed in business, be more compassionate, or whatever.

This sort of fake truthfulness is akin to what someone feels when they go to a Lady Gaga concert. Uplifted by both the singer's message and stage presence, they might tell their friends, "Lady Gaga is amazing! I had the most wonderful experience watching her!"

Well, actually the concert-goer is the amazing one. As are we all.

Because whatever we feel, whatever we experience, whatever we believe, whatever we think -- those feelings, experiences, beliefs, and thoughts are all manifested by a human brain. Our own brain. Yours, mine, everybody else's; each of us fashions a world through the largely mysterious workings of human consciousness.

Truth and falsehood aren't really germane concepts within that inner world. What is, is. What is felt, is what I feel. This is the truth Kumare expressed to his students: no one else creates your reality. You do. 

This morning I was browsing through Raymond Smullyan's "Who Knows? A Study of Religious Consciousness" and came across an apt passage.

I know a very remarkable lady who is a painter, poet, and playwright. She is devoutly religious and calls herself a Christian Buddhist. (She believes that Jesus was a Buddha.)

...To my great surprise, she once told me that God exists purely in the mind! (That reminds me of my fantasy that God exists purely as an ideal!) Sometime later, I asked her how her vision differs from atheism.

She replied, "Atheists also believe that God exists purely in the mind, but the atheists believe that God is therefore unreal, whereas I believe that things existing in the mind can be real." 

Of course they are. Thoughts, feelings, beliefs, experiences, perceptions -- heck, everything that exists in the mind is real, since it is produced by a real brain. 

However, not everything existing in the brain relates to something existing in the world outside the brain. This gets us into some deep philosophical/ espistemological waters that I'm not going to dive into this late at night, and this far into an already lengthy blog post.

I'll just end by saying that gurus are justifiably called "fake" if they claim to have some knowledge of a supernatural world, or even knowledge of the natural world, that they actually don't have.

Since Kumare never made such a claim, he was fake only in his presentation of himself as an esoteric Indian yogi, instead of the regular New Jersey guy he actually was. But insofar as he pointed his students toward an embrace of the reality existing within themselves, and as themselves, he was a truth-teller.

Kumare: truthful movie about a fake guru

"How do you know I'm not a fake? Maybe I just have the gift of gab."

There's a guru in India whom I'm familiar with, Gurinder Singh, who used to frequently say this. Maybe he still does.

At the time I was associated with the organization Gurinder Singh leads, his disciples would look upon those statements as a sign of some sort of humility/ Zen'ish koan/ anti-mystical mystic utterance.

Which, interestingly, is almost exactly what students who flocked to a genuinely fake guru, Kumare, a.k.a. New Jersey-born Vikram Ghandi, felt when at every yoga class he taught he told them "The only guru you need is inside yourself" and "I'm not a guru."

In the Nightline video embedded below, Ghandi says that when he told his students this, people thought it was a riddle. Ghandi also says:

If we wake up on a desert island with no scripture, we still could live perfectly happy lives.

A non-religious Amen to that, brother.

A few nights ago my wife and I watched "Kumare," the documentary Ghandi made. We streamed it via Netflix. Clicking on the link will reveal quite a few other online places the film can be watched.

Do it. It's inspiring. And fascinating.

"Kumare" reveals the power of belief in a unique fashion. The movie shows real people being drawn to embrace a fake guru who also is a real person. What Kumare teaches in the movie is similarly both false and true. He makes up rather absurd yoga postures and practices, yet his students benefit a lot from them.

This short (about five minutes) Nightline piece about Kumare and Vikram Ghandi will give you a good feel for the movie. [After embedding a You Tube link, I discovered that ABC news demands that the video be watched on You Tube; so you'll be led there if you click on the "play" arrow. Or click here.]

 

Ghandi is a convincing guru. Naturally he speaks perfect English, being born in the United States. He used his grandmother's accent as the model for his Kumare-talk, which he pulls off flawlessly.

A New York Times review of the movie captures the philosophical spirit of Kumare.

“Faith begins as an experiment and ends as an experience.” That quotation from the Anglican priest William Ralph Inge, which begins the documentary “Kumaré: The True Story of a False Prophet,”evokes the film’s ambiguous exploration of religion, teaching and spiritual leadership.

...Initially, Mr. Gandhi recalls, “I wanted to see how far I could push it.” He is shown presiding at one gathering with a picture of himself between portraits of Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden. But his earnest followers, including a death-row lawyer, a recovering cocaine addict and a morbidly obese young woman, are sympathetic, highly stressed Americans who pour out their troubles.

As Mr. Gandhi warms to these people, who demonstrate an unalloyed faith in his wisdom, the film becomes a deeper, more problematic exploration of identity and the power of suggestion, and its initially sour taste turns to honey. The meditations, mantras and yoga moves he invents, however bogus, transform lives, as his followers discover their inner gurus and gain a self-mastery.

For all his deceptiveness, Mr. Gandhi is not an egomaniacal prankster but a benign teacher whose “mirror” philosophy involves uniting the everyday self with the ideal self. A goal of this practical program of discipline and reflection is to cultivate an inner guru so that you don’t need someone like Kumaré.

“Kumaré” builds up to the big reveal, in which Mr. Gandhi, with great trepidation, presents himself to his flock as himself, without mystical trappings and speaking in his regular voice.

The film’s message lies in a paradox expressed early in the film. His impersonation was the biggest lie he’s ever told and the greatest truth he’s ever experienced. It is a thought worth pondering.

Spiritual sages were clueless about how the brain works

Almost every religious prophet, mystic guru, spiritual sage, revered master, elevated yogi, or other supposed knower of what lies beyond everyday appearances shares a common denominator: 

They were essentially clueless about the human brain with which they made their pronouncements about divine reality. 

So they had no idea about how the knower of their purported knowledge works.

I'd realized this before, but the factiness of this fact hadn't really hit me until I started reading Patricia Smith Churchland's "Brain-Wise: Studies in Neurophilosophy." 

In the Introduction, Churchland reminds us how neuroscience has only come into its own very recently. By contrast, advances in physics, astronomy, and such were able to be made much earlier.

By the end of the nineteenth century, physics, chemistry, astonomy, geology, and physiology were established, advanced scientific systems. The science of nervous systems, however, was a much slower affair.

...The crux of the problem is that brains are exceedingly difficult to study. Imagine Hippocrates observing a dying gladiator with a sword wound to the head.

...Remember, in 400 B.C. nothing was understood about the nature of the cells that make up the body, let alone the special nature of cells that make up the brain. That cells are the basic building blocks of the body was not really appreciated until the seventeenth century, and neurons were not seen until 1837 when Purkyne, using a microscope, first saw cell bodies in a section of brain tissue.

...Figuring out how neurons do what they do requires very high-level technology. And that, needless to say, depends on an immense scientific infrastructure: cell biology, advanced physics, twentieth-century chemistry, and post-1953 molecular biology. 

...Bit by experimental bit, neuroscience is morphing our conception of what we are. The weight of evidence now implies that it is the brain, rather than some nonphysical stuff, that feels, thinks, and decides.

That means there is no soul to fall in love. We do still fall in love, certainly, and passion is as real as it ever was. The difference is that now we understand those important feelings to be events happening in the physical brain.

It means there is no soul to spend its postmortem eternity blissful in Heaven or miserable in Hell. Stranger yet, it means that the introspective inside -- one's own subjectivity -- is itself a brain-dependent way of making sense of neural events.

The ancients did as well as they could with the knowledge they had.

Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Taoist sages, Hindu seers -- everybody who sought to understand reality before the advent of neuroscience did so with a big handicap:

Not knowing the nature of the knower, the human brain.

So we live in exciting times. We're nowhere near the end of the path that leads to full knowledge of the knower. Heck, we may have barely taken a few steps along that path.

But we're vastly more knowledgeable than everyone who has lived before these modern times. Including those revered as spiritual, religious, and mystic adepts. Many of them left us marvelous inspiring insights into the nature of life, living, and the cosmos. 

However, we mustn't forget that those accomplishments lacked one important bit of understanding: how the human brain works.

Charan Singh was a loyal guru

It's a reasonable theory: that a guru who supposedly is "god in human form" isn't a liar, lunatic, the Lord, or a legend.

He or she is a loyalist, someone who carries out the role of a divine person because he or she is loyal to the person/organization who elevated them to their gurudom.

This was what I argued in "Who is the guru?" 

Is there another L-word that better fills the bill? One springs to mind: loyalist. Perhaps when a successor is appointed to fill the shoes of a highly-regarded guru, loyalty both to his predecessor and to the surrounding organization prevents the newcomer from crying out, “Hey, I’m not God! I’m just a man filling the role of a guru.”

A new video by David Lane, a.k.a. neuralsurfer, adds weight to this hypothesis. It's called "Charan Singh and the Way of Surrender."

 

David addressed this question in a response to someone on his Radha Soami Studies discussion group. Here's part of what he said.

Charan didn't opt out of the role for a whole variety of reasons (family loyalty, I believe, being number one), and from my perspective (American, individualistic, atomistic) I think he should have done a radical Faqir Chand move and stopped the madness...

He should have said, in my opinion: GAME OVER.

He didn't.

Now I have had a number of Indian T.A.'s [teaching assistants] working with me for years and the more I got to understand how tight an Indian family can beit gave me a deeper understanding of the pressures inherent in such a complex......

Clearly, one can argue that Charan's loyalty to family (or, more precisely, HIS PERCEPTION of such loyalty) is what led to him to accept the role of guru and not really buck the system.

It may be partially understandable on some level, but let's be clear (and I agree with Gloria on this point), IT IS NOT ENLIGHTENED. It has nothing to do with "truth" as a spiritual path.

OPB's "Rajneeshpuram" reminds me of Oregon's guru weirdness

From 1981 to 1985 Oregon, where I live, was graced (if that's the right term) by the arrival of an Indian guru, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, whose followers founded a community in central Oregon: Rajneeshpuram.

Last night my wife and I watched a recording of Oregon Public Broadcasting's hour long documentary of how the Rajnesshees rose and fell, "Rajneeshpuram." The full program can be watched online. I recommend it to anyone interested in the goods and bads of cults.

That clearly is what Rajneeshpuram was, a cult.

However, it's unclear to what extent the guru, who later changed his name to Osho, was involved with the sleazy stuff that happened. The documentary shows Bhagwan as quite detached from the running of the commune, which he left to Ma Anand Sheela -- a charming but dangerous Indian woman.

As the main planner of the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, she served twenty-nine months in prison for assault, attempted murder, telephone tapping, immigration fraud and product tampering.

Aside from all that, along with other nasty behavior, I guess you could say she was "spiritual." Whatever that means. Sheela was devoted to her guru. And also devoted to herself and her band of women who ran Rajneeshpuram. 

I'd forgotten about a lot of the goings-on that were shown in the documentary. It's well worth watching. You have to see the video footage of what went on at Rajneeshpuram to believe what happened before Sheela went to jail and Bhagwan left the United States as part of a plea bargain.

During the time Rajneeshpuram was being built into a thriving community of up to 7,000 people (starting from a virtually deserted 64,000 acre ranch), I recall seeing red-clad devotees around Salem and Portland. 

They seemed normal enough. Yet in the documentary you see these acolytes of Bhagwan/Osho actively participating in some decidedly weird behavior. The Rajneeshees took over the nearby town, Antelope, by force of numbers. They they ran the town, including the school, like the religious cult that they were.

Having been a member of an Indian guru-centered group myself from 1971 to 2005 (Radha Soami Satsang Beas), I could easily identify with some of the Rajneeshee's behaviors and attitudes. Bhagwan owned several dozen Rolls-Royces, which he liked to drive himself.

The documentary shows Bhagwan slowly driving by long lines of red-clad devotees, their faces beaming with adoration, hands clasped together in the traditional Indian greeting. Bhagwan would take both hands off the wheel and return the gesture -- an action that shocked a local resident who encountered the guru in one of his Rolls-Royces on a public road, waved at him, and got the no-hands driving move in response.

Excessive guru devotion makes people behave in strange ways. I can testify to that, having been one of those people. However, my guru only drove around in normal cars, though disciples would line up for his "darshan" (sight of him) in just the same way Rajneeshees did.

A few years ago my daughter gave me one of Bhagwan/Osho's books. It was about fearlessness. I read some of it. I liked it. The guru's philosophy is pretty appealing. However, it's difficult not to judge Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh by what happened at the community where he lived while all the crimes and political shenanigans were going on.

That said, I kept thinking while watching "Rajneeshpuram," Gosh, I wish the community was still in existence -- in the wonderful form that could have been. 

Rajneeshpuram seemingly started off weird in a good way. People came from all over the world to be part of a unique way of living. Some sold their possessions and donated them to the cause, wishing to join a community founded on love, devotion, service, and spirituality.

Nothing wrong with that.

And especially there was nothing wrong with the excellent vegetarian food served at Rajneeshpuram. I would have loved to be able to visit Rajneeshpuram in its hey-day (something I never did). The documentary shows several restaurants at the town center that looked highly tempting to my vegetarian taste buds. Organic gardening and a dam transformed the central Oregon high desert into a oasis of sorts.

Some Rajneeshpuram-related videos apart from the documentary can be seen here. There's four minutes of a Bhagwan talk at the bottom of the page. He definitely had the Indian guru thing down. Bhagwan's sense of humor is appealing, but his cluelessness about the shady political manipulations isn't.

 

Inner planes of creation... revealed (on a poster)

Impressively artistically cool. True? That's a whole other question. 

This arrived in my email inbox today. Could have come from God. If She uses a pseudonym email account.

Which seems to belong to Tassos Z. Who adapted the image from the Way of Mystics site. 

Mystical experiences. What's the big deal with them?

Mystical experiences were on my mind today, after someone left a comment on a blog post inquiring about whether I'd gone inside while meditating or heard sacred sounds.  

I replied. But then I thought, "What's the big deal with supposed mystical experiences?"

Most religions, forms of spirituality, and philosophical systems don't pay much attention to them. Most Christians or Buddhists aren't out to see fantastical scenes of the astral plane, or bliss out on a supernatural light and sound show.

Their goals are to become better people; to learn what reality is all about; to be of service to humanity; and other thoroughly non-mystical aspirations. 

I don't agree with most of Christian dogma, and much of the Buddhist viewpoint. However, I've come to appreciate that if any good is to come from pursuing an organized form of spirituality, it should manifest as evident goodness in how the practitioner relates to other people and the outside world.

For many years I was a member of an India-based organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), which emphasized meditation aimed at hearing divine sound and seeing divine light. Quite a few other offshoots of the Sant Mat movement preach the same gospel.

I had a few experiences along those lines, but I can't say they had any spiritual significance.

Lots of people hear bell tones, ringing, and such inside their head. They're tinnitus sufferers. And even if inner sounds or lights arise from some other source, like sensory deprivation via lengthy meditative withdrawal from perceptions of the outside world, what's the big deal with them?

When I was in college during the 60's (decade, not my age), I had many mystical experiences. You can too. Just find some LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, peyote, or other psychedelic substance, ingest it, and wait a little while.

I experienced amazing insights into the nature of existence. (See here and here.) So what?

Did those experiences have any lasting effect on my personality, my character, my relationships, or anything else? No. Likewise, do non-drug-aided mystical experiences have any similar lasting effects? Sometimes, it seems, judging from the number of "I almost died and saw Jesus" books on the market. 

However, those almost died and went to heaven purported experiences are much different from meditating and hearing some sounds, or seeing some lights. In my thirty-plus years of talking with lots of fellow RSSB meditators, I can't recall anyone who said he/she had become a markedly different person after a mystical experience(s).

My observations of high-ranking RSSB disciples bore this out. Those who had been in the organization the longest, and who presumably had the most meditation to their karmic credit, didn't demonstrate laudatory qualities lacking in ordinary people.

This included the guru himself, who is considered to be the very essence of divine light and sound. I found him to be an interesting, charismatic guy, but not any wiser, ethical, or compassionate than countless other human beings.

Again, what's the big deal with mystical experiences if there's no sign that those who purportedly have had them are any different from, or better than, ordinary folks?

David Chapman makes this point in his typically creative fashion in "Wholeness, Connection, and Meditation: Competing Visions." Excerpt:

      And as for connection:

• Monism promises “total connection with the Absolute Infinite” (or with “the whole universe,” as though that were a single thing). But meaningful connections can only be made with specific, finite beings in this here-and-now world.
• To achieve unity, internalizing meditation deliberately cuts you off from everyday reality, which is supposedly a distraction and not spiritual enough.
• You are supposed to “turn inward,” to find a “profound inner experience” that connects you with the divine reality. This is nonsensical. Experiences are not connections; connections aren’t inside you; you can’t connect yourself with all things by cutting yourself off from them.
• In practice, monists’ relationships with other people, and with their physical environment, usually become godawful messes. Monist practice makes you self-obsessed, unreliable, and unwilling to deal with mundane practicalities. 

Mystical experiences prove nothing

Whatever I say in this post -- and as a blogger I never know what that is until I say it -- it won't be anywhere near as good as what David Chapman has said in his "Are Mystical Experiences Metaphysical Evidence?"

So the best thing you could do is stop reading what I've written, and read Chapman now. The second best thing would be to click on the links I've given after you peruse this post.

But if you've ever believed that a mystical experience means something beyond the obvious, that someone has had some sort of experience, I strongly urge you to read Chapman's post.

Today, tomorrow, some day. Whenever. Just do it.

His post is that good. Chapman is an excellent writer, thinker, and interpreter of meditational/mystical phenomena, Buddhist or otherwise.

This is how he starts off:

Here is an extraordinary spiritual teaching:

• Mystics, across many different cultures and religions, all describe their insight experiences similarly.
• This couldn’t happen unless their accounts were accurate.
• So we must believe what they say.

What is extraordinary about this teaching is that it [is] so widely accepted, and yet so obviously false. As I’ll explain:

• If mystics all gave similar descriptions of their experiences, it could just mean that they are all mistaken in the same way.
• But, in fact, mystics from different cultures give wildly different descriptions, which generally reflect their cultural background.

This is one of the points I made in my previous post, "Atheism challenges personal spiritual experiences." Chapman says:

What mystics really care about is the metaphysical aspect. That, many claim, is essentially the same in all cultures. Mystics report:

• The discovery that they have no real self; the discovery of their True Self.
• Direct perception of the transcendent reality behind appearances; direct perception of fact that there is no transcendent reality behind appearances.
• Total separation from the world; total unity with the world.
• Finding that they are utterly insignificant in the presence of the glory of God; finding that they are God; finding that God has removed himself from the universe; finding that there never was a God.
• A perfect conceptual understanding of religious doctrine; a perfectly non-conceptual understanding of the reality beyond doctrine.

Uh, wait. It is not obvious that these are all the same…

Yeah, that's putting it mildly. The meaning of mystical experiences is all over the map. No consistent conclusions can be drawn from the widely divergent descriptions of these experiences.

Read all of Chapman's post to learn what meaning he derives from this meaninglessness. And take a look at the comments on his post. They're almost as interesting as what Chapman says.

Mysticism is as real as fundamentalist religion

Yesterday David Lane left this comment on a recent blog post:

Yes, good point you make here about the epistemology of "knowing" in fundamentalist religion versus mysticism. Here is a link to something I wrote that dovetails with your point:

https://sites.google.com/site/msacmagazinesparttwo/home/POLITICSOFMYSTICISM.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

Because I always enjoy what David has to say, I clicked away and found an interesting six page PDF-file essay, "The Politics of Mysticism."
Download Politics of Mysticism

Here's some excerpts -- the formatting is a bit screwed up, since I copied text from the PDF file. No big deal, since you really should read the whole thing.

Perhaps  the  most  problematic  issue  confronting   transpersonalists  is  the  veracity of  inner  experiences.  For   many  involved  in  new  religious  groups  mystical  encounters,  like  near-­‐‑death  and  out-­‐‑of-­‐‑body  excursions,  offer  evidence  of their  respective  guru'ʹs  rightful  position  or  succession.   This  has  been  especially acute  in  several  Sant  Mat  related  groups,   particularly  Kirpal  Singh'ʹs  Ruhani Satsang,  where  mastership  disputes   are  often  resolved  by  resorting  to  one'ʹs inner  meditation  experiences.  But   there  is  a  rub  in  all  this  that  for  the  most part  lies  uninspected  by  those   newly  initiated.  

No  doubt  a  religious  devotee  may  use  such  experiences  as  proof  for   the authenticity  of  his/her  guru  or  group,  but  what  he/she  fails  to  realize   is  that  there  are  thousands,  if  not  millions,  of  people  who  also  claim   personal revelations  which  convince  them  of  the  truthfulness  of  their   chosen  path.  Even Elvis  has  hundreds  of  devotees  who  reported  seeing   his  radiant  form  at  the end  of  a  long  dark  tunnel  when  they  underwent  a   near-­‐‑death  experience.  So if  someone  in  Memphis  can  see  Elvis  in  their   meditation,  are  we  then  supposed  to  believe  in  the  spiritual  mastership   of  Elvis?  Don'ʹt  get  me  wrong,  I am  the  first  to  admit  that  the  King  had   some  great  songs  during  his  career, but  just  because  a  crew  of  devoted   fans  have  glimpses  of  him  in  the  alleged after-­life  does  not  constitute   documented  proof  of  his  spiritual  attainment.

...What  is  the  primary  difference  between  a  fundamentalist  Christian   and  a  mystically  inclined  yogi,  especially  when  it  comes  to  evaluating   their  ultimate truth  claims?  Both  think  they  have  uncovered  the  truth.   The  former  by  the revealing  "ʺWord"ʺ  of  the  Bible;  the  latter  by  the   manifesting  inner  "ʺWord"ʺ  of the  higher  regions.  Yet,  in  both  cases,  the   neophyte  is  subject  to  doubt,  to skepticism,  to  deception,  since   revelations  of  truth  (both  inner  and  outer)  are manifold.  The  Muslims   have  their  Koran;  the  Sikhs  have  their  Guru  Granth Sahib;  and  the   Christians  have  their  Bible.  And,  for  the  mystics,  yogis,  and sages  who   turn  inward  what  do  we  find?  The  Hare  Krsnas'ʹ  see  Lord  Krishna; the   Saivites  see  Lord  Shiva;  and  Ruhani  Satsangis  (depending  upon  your   affiliation)  see  Sant  Rajinder  Singh,  or  Sant  Baljit  Singh,  or  Sant  Sadhu   Ram. 

But,  as  the  argument  goes,  the  devoted  mystic  will  say  that  his  or  her   experiences  are  authentic  (because  of  the  utter  certainty  of  the  encounter)   and  the  experiences  of  others,  especially  if  they  belong  to  a  rival  group   which  splintered  off  after  a  succession  dispute,  are  misguided,   secondary,  or illusory.  So  what  we  actually  have  in  effect  here  in  in  terms   of  truth  claims is not  essentially  different  than  that  of  a  fundamentalist.

"The Beginning of Infinity" -- inspiring science

I don't know whether physicist David Deutsch's optimism expressed in his new book, "The 'Beginning of Infinity," is justified. I'm only about a quarter of the way through it, so maybe his later chapters imply more of a downer that what I've read so far.

His basic thesis, though, is both inspiring and believable. There are no limits to knowledge. Human life -- individual or collective -- is a never-ending journey on the path to more.

Whenever there has been progress, there have been influential thinkers who denied that it was genuine, that it was desirable, or even that the concept was meaningful. They should have known better.

There is indeed an objective difference between a false explanation and a true one, between chronic failure to solve a problem and solving it, and also between wrong and right, ugly and beautiful, suffering and its alleviation -- and thus between stagnation and progress in the fullest sense.

In this book I argue that all progress, both theoretical and practical, has resulted from a single human activity: the quest for what I call good explanations.

Though this quest is uniquely human, its effectiveness is also a fundamental fact about reality at the most impersonal, cosmic level -- namely that it conforms to universal laws of nature that are indeed good explanations. This simple relationship between the cosmic and the human is a hint of a central role of people in the cosmic scheme of things.

(Note: from what I can tell, when Deutsch says "people" he really means evolved conscious beings, who could be aliens quite different from us.)

For a long time I was so much into supposedly ineffable meditation and mysticism, I rejected the idea that good explanations are the key to understanding reality. But I've changed, and reading Deutsch's book is changing me further.

I mean, think about it: what's the difference between a fundamentalist religious belief in God that can't be challenged because it is faith-based, and someone's claim that "I know what ultimate truth is, but I can't explain it to you"?

The astrophysicist Martin Rees has speculated that somewhere in the universe 'there could be life and intelligence out there in forms we can't conceive. Just as a chimpanzee can't understand quantum theory, it could be there are aspects of reality that are beyond the capacity of our brains.'

But that cannot be so. For if the 'capacity' in question is mere computational speed and amount of memory, then we can understand the aspects in question with the help of computers -- just as we have understood the world for centuries with the help of pencil and paper.

As Einstein remarked, 'My pencil and I are more clever than I.' In terms of computational repertoire, our computers -- and brains -- are already universal.

But if the claim is that we may be qualitatively unable to understand what some other forms of intelligence can -- if our disability cannot be remedied by mere automation -- then this is just another claim that the world is not explicable.

Indeed, it is tantamount to an appeal to the supernatural, with all the arbitrariness that is inherent in such appeals, for if we wanted to incorporate into our world view an imaginary realm explicable only to superhumans, we need never have bothered to abandon the myths of Persephone and her fellow deities.

So human reach is essentially the same as the reach of explanatory knowledge itself.

India's "godmen" face questions about their wealth

Interesting story in the Washington Post about how spirituality has become a lucrative profession for Indian gurus and yogis. 

For centuries, their image was as barefoot ascetics who spent their lives in solitary Himalayan meditation.

But now India’s gurus, “miracle workers” and spiritual leaders, often collectively known as “godmen,” have become savvy, powerful figures who control vast philanthropic and business empires, dabble in politics and manipulate the media.

There's no mention of Gurinder Singh Dhillon, guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas. But he's another good example of the trend toward making lots of money while preaching detachment from material pursuits. (See here, here, and here.)

Physicists are becoming mystics (sort of)

Unseen dimensions of reality. Trillion year cycles of cosmic birth and rebirth. Laws of nature utterly unlike ours. Mysterious connections between the physical universe and other realms.

These sound like the airy-fairy notions of mystics who have been smoking something stronger than tobacco in their hookas.

But they're all serious hypotheses of modern physics.

Their cosmological implications are described by noted physicist Brian Greene, author of "The Hidden Reality," in a Hovering Universes in Nearby Dimensions chapter I read this morning before meditating.

Inspirational stuff for my churchless non-soul. Having written (plug alert!) a book about mysticism and the new physics back in 1995 -- "God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder" -- I've kept up my interest in what science can tell us about The Big Questions of Life.

However, there's a big difference between the 1995 me and the 2011 me: now I'm much more inclined to stick with the science and not infer far-out mystical conclusions from scientific theories.

After all, physics and cosmology are plenty way out there all on their own. If someone is longing for a big dose of blow-your-mind conjectures about the nature of ultimate reality, modern science has the goods.

Here's some Greene quotes from the above-mentioned chapter:

-- "The more precise methods rectified this failing, revealing a string/M-theory universe with ten dimensions of space and one of time, for a total of eleven spacetime dimensions."

-- "Like strings, higher-dimensional branes can be big...To grasp what I mean, picture first a long string, as long as an overhead electric cable that runs as far as the eye can see. Next, picture a large two-brane, like an enormous tablecloth or a gargantuan flag, whose surface extends indefinitely."

-- "If a three-brane is enormous, perhaps infinitely big, the situation changes. A three-brane of this sort would fill the space we occupy, like water filling a huge fish tank."

-- "Space, at least the space we directly inhabit, would be far more corporeal than generally imagined. Space would be a thing, an object, an entity -- a three-brane. As we run and walk, as we live and breathe, we move in and through a three-brane. String theorists call this the braneworld scenario."

-- "Some braneworlds might be much like our own, filled with galaxies, stars and planets, while others might be very different. On one or more of those branes there might be self-aware beings who, like us, once thought that their slice -- their expanse of space -- was the entirety of the cosmos."

-- "In string theory's braneworld scenario, we would now recognize this as a parochial perspective. In the braneworld scenario, our universe is just one of many that populate the Brane Multiverse."

-- "Our reality could be a floating slab in a higher-dimensional expanse, but we'd be permanently imprisoned, unable to venture out and explore the grander cosmos... Another braneworld could be hovering millimeters away, but because light can't travel across the gap, we would never see the slightest hint of its presence."

-- "In a braneworld scenario, then, gravity provides our only means of probing beyond our three-dimensional spatial expanse."

-- "Like particles and strings, branes can surely move through the surrounding environment they inhabit. And so, if the universe we observe and experience is a three-brane, we could very well be gliding through a higher-dimensional spatial expanse."

-- "Perhaps, then, when two branes collide they wipe out whatever structures may have coalesced during either of their histories, from galaxies to planets to people, while setting the stage for a cosmic rebirth."

-- "The essence of this cosmology thus involves worlds that repeatedly cycle through time, generating a new variety of parallel universes called the Cyclic Multiverse."

-- "Steinhardt and his co-workers estimated the time scale for a full cycle of the colliding cosmic tango -- birth, evolution, and death -- and came up with about a trillion years. In this scenario, the universe as we know it would merely be the latest in a temporal series, some of which may have contained intelligent life and the culture they created, but are now long ago extinguished."

-- "In this scenario, all of our contributions and those of any other life-forms our universe supports would be similarly erased."

-- "And if you ask about the beginning of the entire cycle of universes, the answer is simply that there was no such beginning, because the cycles have been repeating for eternity."

-- "The braneworld scenario, and the multiverses to which it gives rise, is one resulting area of investigation with the capacity to profoundly remake our perspective on reality."

Well, that's for sure.

Currently there's no experimental or observational evidence that substantiates the existence of braneworlds. Scientists are searching, though. If gravity is found to subtly leak away beyond our universe, this would point to a higher-dimensional space where it leaked to.

Regardless, I love how physics is coming up with theories that are as "out of the box" as any mind-expanding mystical musings. Even nicer: science has reasonable reasons for its far-out hypotheses, whereas mystics, by and large, don't.

Let's put the mystery back into mysticism

I love mystery. It's something that can't be explained and isn't understood. I also love mysteries, books that center on a mystery which -- almost always -- is explained.

But until it is, it isn't. A mystery remains mysterious until it is understood.

"Mysticism" sort of sounds like "mystery." However, according to the Great God Wikipedia, it's more about communing with or being aware of an ultimate reality/truth. So a mystic supposedly understands a mystery of some cosmic significance.

Like...

Whether metaphysical realities exist. What happens after we die. If consciousness is possible without a physical body. How the universe began. Whether there is a master plan to human life, or if it is unguided.

Since Homo sapiens is still debating and discussing such queries with as much Who knows? as our species did thousands of years ago, it's obvious that the Big Questions of Life are as much a mystery now as they ever were.

So let's be honest. Let's allow mysteries to be what they are: mysterious. When a mystery is explained, when it is understood, it becomes something else: knowledge.

Not just private knowledge, since this doesn't unravel a mystery. We all have subjective intuitions where the nature of the cosmos becomes absolutely crystal clear to us.

For a moment. And usually unexplainably.

To dissolve a mystery, it must be explained as well as understood. There are lots of prophets who only are acclaimed in their own minds. You can hear them muttering on downtown street corners and find them in mental hospitals.

Or being worshiped by devoted followers. False purveyors of answers to life's mysteries are commonplace. Frequently they're called "mystics" who supposedly have understood what the rest of us haven't.

OK. Then show us the goods. Lay out the explanations for those Big Questions of Life. Let's see how persuasive they are, how much demonstrable evidence there is for them.

If this is done -- and my book shelves are filled with many of those answers -- it becomes clear that the explanations are all over the philosophical and metaphysical map. Christians don't agree with Hindus who don't agree with Muslims who don't agree with Buddhists.

Mystery wins out. As it always has. As it likely always will, to some degree. We're not ever going to be able to explain everything in existence, especially existence itself.

Beyond the knowledge space illuminated by human understanding lies darkness. Mystery. I used to be fearful of it. So I grabbed onto answers, even if they didn't really answer the questions I was asking (and still am asking).

As Socrates taught, knowing that you don't know is a big part of wisdom. Maybe the most important part. Empty minds can be filled. Minds who think they are already crammed with knowledge can't be.

Yesterday I came across a blog post about "Scientility." This awkward word has been proposed as a science-friendly substitute for "spirituality," as when someone says, "Wow. I just had the most amazing spiritual experience."

Almost always, it is anything but. Not spiritual, not other worldly. Physical. Yet on-the-edge physical, out there closer to Mystery, where the unknowings roam.

Francois Choquette came up with scientility. Good for him. I like his intention, though his new word doesn't wow me. Here's part of how he describes it. (Go here for the full description.)

Scientility: Describes the sensation that a scientist or amateur of science experiences when he/she observes an amazing phenomenon, for which his/her qualifications or knowledge makes them experience it [with] a greater degree of appreciation and joy than people without that knowledge.

...Richard Feynman said it best, but didn't have the word scientility to describe it:
"I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull."

I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts."

Mystery always is with us. The more we know, we more we know we don't know. As the saying goes, “The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder.”

It's lovely to stand on the edge of what we understand and look toward what we don't. There's nothing to see, of course. Which is the beauty of it. Mystery is the open vista that lies beyond our fenced-in bits of knowledge.

When mysteries are falsely believed to have been understood -- the bane of religiosity, sprituality, and mysticism -- we close ourselves up in a cage of our own making. Free yourself.

The sheer strangeness of everything

Sanity is consensual.

If there's someone else who sees the world in the same way I do, that gives me at least a little bit of confidence that I'm not way out in weirdo-world -- though I'm not saying that would be a bad thing.

This morning I came across a passage in Stephen Bachelor's new book, "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist," that echoed sensations I have frequently these churchless days, and tried to describe at the end of my "Mysticism doesn't have to be mystical" post.

Here's how Bachelor says it:

One evening at dusk, as I was returning to my room along a narrow path through the pine forest, carrying a blue plastic bucket slopping with water that I had just collected from a nearby source, I was abruptly brought to a halt by the upsurge of an overpowering sense of the sheer strangeness of everything.

It was as though I had been lifted onto the crest of a great wave that rose from the ocean of life itself, allowing me for the first time to be struck by how mysterious it was that anything existed at all rather than nothing.

"How," I asked myself, can a person be unaware of this? How can anyone pass their life without responding to this? Why have I not noticed this until now?" I remember standing still, trembling and dumb, with tears in my eyes. Then I continued on my way before night fell.

This experience made me uncomfortably aware of a chasm between what I was studying and something that had happened to me in my own life that struck me as vitally important. The Buddhist texts with which I was familiar did not seem to speak about, let alone value, such experiences as the one that had just shuddered through me.

Mysticism doesn't have to be mystical

For most of my life -- age 18 to 55, or thereabouts -- I've been an avid embracer of mysticism.

During my psychedelic period, I wasn't only aiming at getting high via LSD, mescaline, and such. Along with many other flower children, I also was trying to experience a higher form of consciousness.

We'd ponder the Tibetan Book of the Dead, then see if we could experience some of the bardos via a pill rather than meditation.

After a few years I stopped using drugs and devoted myself to meditating several hours a day with the same intent: learning whether our everyday way of viewing reality was truly "normal," or whether consciousness could be enlightened and perceive the cosmos from a more elevated perspective.

Looking back at those many years of mystic practice, I've come to realize how confining a mystical belief system can be -- even one that called itself a "science of the soul," supposedly far different from dogma-ridden religions. 

"Belief" and "mystical" are notions that don't get along very well. At least, not the way I've come to look upon mysticism.

Words, concepts, ideas, beliefs, and other thought-based forms of cognition are a big part of being human. But we Homo sapiens also are able to intuit, grok, commune, directly experience, and otherwise relate to reality suddenly, immediately, at one fell swoop, rather than bit by bit, step by step, understanding by understanding.

Mystics are out to find something hidden.

But if you presuppose what that "something" is, if you believe you know what the mystery is that a mystic practice supposedly will reveal, how mystical is that? Sure sounds a lot more like a religion than mysticism to me.

As the Grand Exalted Wikipedia proclaims, mysticism has many different meanings. I'm not saying that I have a better one. In fact, I'm mainly saying that I don't have any one.

And that's why I feel that I'm much more of a mystic now that I'm churchless. I've stopped believing. I still meditate, but I have no (or little) idea why I'm doing it or what I'm going to gain from it, if anything.

I just meditate because I like meditation, in pretty much the same way I eat strawberries because I like strawberries. Intellectually I understand that both things -- meditation and stawberries -- are good for me in certain ways.

However, the taste of each is what I enjoy, not the thinking about them.

When I believed in a supposedly mystical set of spiritual teachings, I never genuinely felt like a mystic. There always was a big bunch of expectations, suppositions, do's and don'ts, injunctions, rules, and rituals standing between me and the Great Unknown.

Dropping that stuff brought me closer to whatever it is I am, but don't know; to whatever it is the cosmos may be, but I'm clueless about.

I no longer believe that I have to look within myself, closed-eye inwardness, for mystic inspiration. The outside world is just as mysterious to me as my unknowing consciousness.

Much of the time while I'm bustling around doing my daily stuff, I have a feeling that seems deeply mystical to me -- much more so than the pseudo-mysticism I used to embrace, which actually was highly conceptual since it required an acceptance of teachings far divorced from immediate experience.

Mysticism doesn't have to be mystical.

By which I mean, mysticism doesn't have to be viewed as a voyage to some far-off hidden level of reality that lies way beyond the horizon of everyday life.

Yes, some people look upon mysticism that way. Which is fine. As the Wikipedia article says, some forms of mysticism are dualistic, while others aren't. There's a lot of choices:

• Nullification and absorption within God's Infinite Light (Hassidic schools of Judaism)
• Complete non-identification with the world (Kaivalya in some schools of Hinduism, including Sankhya and Yoga; Jhana in Buddhism)
• Liberation from the cycles of Karma (Moksha in Jainism and Hinduism, Nirvana in Buddhism)
• Deep intrinsic connection to the world (Satori in Mahayana Buddhism, Te in Taoism)
• Union with God (Henosis in Neoplatonism and Brahma-Prapti or Brahma-Nirvana in Hinduism, fana in Sufism)
• Theosis or Divinization, union with God and a participation of the divine nature (in Catholic Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy)
• Innate Knowledge (Irfan and Sufism in Islam)
• Experience of one's true blissful nature (Samadhi Svarupa-Avirbhava in Hinduism and Buddhism)
• Seeing the Light, or "that of God", in everyone (Quakerism)

My personal mystic experience has been along the lines of Taoism: "deep intrinsic connection to the world," though those words naturally don't reflect whatever the heck it is I feel whenever I feel whatever I'm feeling.

The best way I can express it is... gratitude... awe... wonder... bemusement... at the marvelous fact that for the moment I'm existing as part of an existence that every other existent person and thing shares.

Here I am. Here we are. Here it is.

For me, that's mysticism. And it isn't at all mystical. I simply have come to see the same world with different eyes. Unknowing eyes. Unbelieving eyes. Unreligious eyes.

If you're attracted to another form of mysticism, like the "complete non-identification with the world" mentioned above, that's great. Let's just agree that mystics come in all varieties -- including those who don't feel that mysticism is mystical.

Mystic atheism is a cool non-belief

I've found a new way to describe myself philosophically: mystic atheist. Along with agnostic, humanist,Taoist, and existentialist. 

Maybe I'll make up a non-business card with this title, since it fits with my non-belief system. The card would stimulate some interesting conversations when I handed it out, I bet.

Thanks for discovering mystic atheist go to two people: one guy who emailed me about another guy. The first wanted to tell me about "Kissing Hank's Ass," a marvelous irreligious fable that I'd already blogged about several years ago.

The second is James Huber, who wrote the piece. When I followed the email link to his web site, I noticed a couple of other writings that looked interesting. "Mystic Atheism" then led me to "Materialistic Enlightenment."

Interestingly, I'd mentioned "Mystic Atheism" in my 2006 blog post about "Kissing Hank's Ass." But I guess I wasn't ready to appreciate it's profundity back then.

Now that I've reached a higher stage of mystic atheist materialistic enlightenment, I'm better able to resonate with Huber's insights -- an excerpt from which you can read a few paragraphs down in a continuation to this post.

I love how he speaks about a "presence" that he sensed when he was experiencing some form of religiosity or spirituality. Eventually he realized that this presence was the common denominator between all religions and spiritual paths:

Everyday physical reality.

What I understood in that shining moment were that all the mystic experiences I had ever had could easily be unified with a single, simple principle: they're all 99.9% bullshit. What truth they hold is simple, ordinary, reality. They look exotic and mysterious because they go to great lengths to hide reality. The truth at the center of all religion shines through despite the metaphysical trappings, not because of them.

Read on, and you'll find out that God spoke to Huber, revealing that God doesn't exist. Ah, that's my kind of enlightenment.

Why be shy about sharing mystical experiences?

I'm an admirer of Taoism. I resonate with these lines in the Tao Te Ching:

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know.

Makes sense.

How could the essence of the cosmos be encompassed by words? The human mind wasn't around at the big bang some 14 billion years ago, so it's difficult to see how a verbal explanation could capture the fullness of ultimate reality.

But silence has another side: speaking. Yin and yang are manifestations of the Tao. Too much of anything, for too long, is unnatural. We've got to have balance.

So I don't understand or agree with the reticence of many mystics, gurus, sages, and such to talk about their "inner" experiences (or lack thereof) of a supposed enlightened state of being.

Another Tao, tAo, is a frequenter commenter on this blog. Today he shared some interesting thoughts on this post.

Referring to gurus in the Sant Mat tradition who are considered by their devotees to have traversed higher spiritual regions of the cosmos, tAo said (with some typos corrected):

you see this is also where i disagree with you slightly. you say that this is "their claim". but they have not claimed any such thing. if you or anyone can produce any book or lecture where they have made such a claim, i will be willing to consider it. but i have not seen it. i have read all the books and i don't remember ever reading them making that claim. they talk all around it, but they don't actually claim to have experienced it. that is the thing that tricks most people (like yourself) into ASSUMING (and then believing) that these so-called masters have experienced what is described in the literature. but the truth of the matter is that they never actually admit that.

Good points.

I've been to India twice. I've attended numerous talks by two gurus, Charan Singh and Gurinder Singh, who are considered to be "God in human form (GIHF)." Like tAo, I've read every book published by the Radha Soami Satsang Beas organization (and there are lots of them), many of which were written by GIHF gurus.

But until today it hadn't fully dawned on me how rare it is for a direct claim of an inner mystical experience to be made by them. Not only rare, it may well be non-existent.

Why is this?

Well, two possible reasons leap out. (1) The gurus have never had a mystical experience of some spiritual domain of existence. (2) The gurus don't want to talk about their experiences.

Skeptics and true believers, not surprisingly, favor different hypotheses. Having been in the latter camp myself for several decades, I can understand how silence can be viewed as being akin to godliness.

"Ah, this shows how divinely humble the guru is," a devotee will say after hearing the guru respond to "Are you really God?" with "I'm no one special. I'm just a servant of my own guru."

Nice sentiment. But what if he is actually telling the truth? He hasn't had any special mystical experiences, and he doesn't have any special knowledge about the cosmos.

This is the problem with assuming that those who know do not talk, because those who don't know also do not talk -- since they have nothing to say. If you ask me how to fix the brakes on your car, I might smile and shrug my shoulders while pointing to the auto repair shop down the street.

If you believe that I'm a master mechanic who wants to hide his expertise under a mantle of enigmatic mystery, you'd be wrong. I'm simply clueless about most matters related to automotive inner workings.

The most honest thing for me to do would be to explicitly say, "I've got no idea how to fix your brakes. And for sure you don't want me to learn how on your car."

Of course, someone knowledgeable about brake jobs should be equally eager to offer you some advice. Either way, silence would be a cop-out, impolite, an unnecessary deception. Why not acknowledge one's experience, or inexperience, about something?

Often you hear that gurus don't want to speak about their mystical experiences to avoid being idolized by devotees, or out of a sense of humility.

But they already are put on a pedestal by their followers. And aren't enlightened beings supposed to be beyond the vagaries of an ego, which entails worrying about the proper level of humbleness to project to other people? What's the matter with simple straightforward honesty?

"Yes, I have experienced such and such. It's hard for me to describe those experiences. Yet if you want me to try, I'll do my best. What questions do you have?"

This would be a refreshing response from a guru, mystic, or sage. As would, "I'll be straight with you. I've never experienced anything out of the ordinary in my meditation. I'm sorry to disappoint my devotees, but I don't know what you think I do."

Naturalness is appealing to me. Fakery isn't.

Most gurus and spiritual leaders look like they're playing the role of a guru or spiritual leader. This is to be expected, but it also is off-putting to me.

In normal human conversations, people aren't evasive. If I ask someone, "Have you ever been to Paris?" they don't respond with "What is the reality of the one who is asking this question?" or "If I told you, how would this benefit your own international traveling?"

They just answer the simple freaking question! "Yes." "No." There's nothing difficult in uttering one of those two words.

Likewise, gurus should be able and willing to answer this question: "Have you personally experienced the mystical states that your teachings describe?" And entertain follow-up questions if the reply is "Yes."

There's no "Perfect living master" or "God man"

Most religions believe that it's possible for a perfect human being to walk the Earth who is intimately connected with divinity, if not identical with it. (Almost always they're male, so this is why I said God man in the title to this post.)

As noted in a previous post, there are numerous candidates for this supremely elevated GIHF (god in human form) position.

As some Vedanta folks point out, there are quite a few historical contenders for a GIHF appellation. Jesus, Buddha, Rama, Krishna, Moses, Muhammad, Chaitanya, Ramakrishna are cited, though some of these names are questionable candidates. (Buddha didn't teach there was a God, and I don't think many Christians recognize Moses as God in human form.)

Problem is, there's no evidence that a perfect living master, which is how guru-based faiths often refer to a God man, has ever existed.

So just as it is reasonable to say "There's no one-eyed, one-horned flying purple people eater" (remembering this song shows how old I am), it's also reasonable to say "There's no perfect living master or God man."

If anyone disagrees with me, state your reasons in a comment.

Just make them convincing. You're going to need to define "perfect" and "god" for starters, so we can compare the attributes of a GIHF candidate with the characteristics of a supposed ultimate divinity.

As noted in "God-man or Asshole? The guru conundrum," true believers often try to wriggle out of the lack of evidence for human perfection by claiming that imperfection is a sign of it.

Meaning, if God was obviously manifest in a person, everyone would accept his (or her) divinity instantly, no faith or effort required. Since God doesn't want things to be this easy for humanity -- don't ask why -- perfect living masters/God men keep themselves hidden.

Well, it could also be argued that so do one-eyed, one-horned flying purple people eaters. Along with fairies, leprechauns, goblins, and angels. And anything else that the human mind can imagine, but doesn't exist in reality.

Ah, another term that needs defining: reality. 

It's often said that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. Most people, including me, would agree. I've learned to always say "Oh, so cute!" when someone shows me a baby (or puppy) photo.

That may not be my honest reaction, but I understand that to a new parent or dog owner their precious little bundle of wonderfulness is unalloyed perfection -- at least until the kid starts saying "No!" or the puppy chews up the couch.

So I also understand that devotees of a supposed God man, living or dead, view him as ideal in much (or exactly) the same way a lover says to his beloved, "Honey, you're so perfect for me!"

But this is much different from saying that someone is more than human, possessing transcendent divine qualities that, for one reason or another, aren't obvious.

I've visited this subject before in some blog posts other than those mentioned above:
If a satguru isn't God, what is he?
Who is the guru?
Top ten signs you're a fundamentalist satsangi

I keep returning to it for several reasons.

One is that a belief in someone's divine perfection forms the foundation of rigid religious dogmatism. The Bible, Koran, Adi Granth, or other holy writing can't be challenged because its human source supposedly was error-free.

Another is more personal: for over thirty years I diligently adhered to meditative and other practices enjoined by a "perfect living master," Charan Singh. He set himself forth as possessing extraordinary capabilities, including but not limited to...

-- Existing in various ethereal forms (astral, causal, spiritual) in addition to the physical
-- Placing his "radiant form" within the psyche of each disciple at the time of initiation
-- Being able to know what was happening in the lives of disciples, and even changing their destiny (karma) at times
-- Guiding the disciple through higher regions of reality and communicating with him or her throughout the process

There are many other purported God men who make, or have made, other sorts of claims (see here, here, and here). These are mostly examples from the "Eastern" side of religion and mysticism; the "Western" side has its own GIHF candidates.

If reality has any meaning beyond the utterly subjective ("truth is in the eye of the beholder"), some or all of these guys aren't who they claim to be: God.

I've come to the conclusion that all is the word of choice in the preceding sentence. Again, if someone likes some, argue your case. Explain how it's possible to tell the difference between a "perfect" and "imperfect" master.

And answer a more basic question: What is the demonstrable evidence that any human has achieved perfection or godliness?

Mysticism is all about doing...nothing

I used to work hard at meditation. I did a lot of mantra repetition, several hours at a stretch. This was supposed to get me into an elevated state of consciousness where mystical sound and light phenomena would appear.

Now, my approach is to do as little as possible when I meditate each morning. I think of it as the lazy guy's way to enlightenment (assuming enlightenment exists -- a whole other question).

It's nice to know that a noted student of mysticism, Robert K.C. Forman, says that I'm on the right track.

Here's an excerpt from his book, "Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness" (which I've blogged about before).

The word mysticism, like religion, truth, and modernity, is pivotal but murky. It can denote the unintelligible statements of an illogical speaker, a schizophrenic's vision, someone's hallucinations, a drug-induced vision, the spiritual "showings" of a Julian of Norwich or a Mechthilde of Magedeburg, the unspoken, silent experience of God that Meister Eckhart called the "Divine Desert," or the Buddhist Nagarjuna's empty shunyata. 

...Roland Fischer has put forward a "cartography" of states of conscious arousal which includes all of these so called "mystical" states. Hallucinations, acute schizophrenic states, and the visions and auditions of a Julian of Norwich fall on the ergotropic side of the chart. These are states of hyperarousal: cognitive and physiological activity are at relatively high levels.

On the trophotrophic side are hypoaroused states, marked by low levels of cognitive and physiological activity: here we find HIndu samadhi, mushinjo in zazen, the restful states associated with The Cloud of Unknowing's "cloud of forgetting," or Eckhart's gezucket.

...I propose reserving the term mysticism for trophotropic states. I will call ergotrophic phenomena such as hallucinations, visions, auditions, etc. "visionary experiences."

Forman is interested in exploring the nature of consciousness. He used to be (and maybe still is) the Executive Editor of the Journal of Consciousness Studies, a well-respected publication that I once subscribed to.

The contents of consciousness are different from consciousness itself. This seems almost indisputable. I've been conscious of countless different things throughout my life. Throughout, though, these things have appeared in a seemingly single consciousness.

As many "ergotrophic" mystics have said, if we reduce or eliminate the contents of consciousness, then consciousness pure and simple (or at least purer and simpler) will be evident.

Many people, including some commenters on this blog, place a lot of importance on what happens during meditation. Someone recently said that if you're not hearing inner sound or seeing inner light, you're not experiencing the Real Thing.

Others, and increasingly I'm among them, consider that it doesn't really matter what phenomena pop up in one's consciousness, because this doesn't lead to a genuine realization of what consciousness itself is.

And clearly consciousness is King when it comes to understanding the nature of reality, because if we aren't conscious of something, it doesn't exist for us.

Here's how I started off my previous post about Forman's book:

It’s astounding, really. We all confidently say, “I think…,” “I believe…,” “I feel…,” “I see….” Yet we don’t know who or what the “I” is. So how confident should we be about all those statements we make, to others and to our own self, when the nature of the statement-making entity is a mystery?

Do we construct reality or discover it? In some sense both, most likely. Forman says that modern philosophical constructivists and the ancient Buddhist scholar Paramartha agree on quite a bit.

But -- and this is the critical point -- on the fundamental claim that experiences are constructed by language, concept, and past experiences, they agree profoundly: every ordinary experience of an object is in significant ways shaped, delimited, and controlled by our previously learned, habituated perceptual and cognitive categories. And this, it goes without saying, is the key claim in the modern-day constructivist's account of mysticism.

How many devout Christians have a vision of Buddha while meditating?

When I was a member of an India-based spiritual organization, initiates were instructed to meditate upon the face of the guru. If some being appeared within one's consciousness during meditation, and it wasn't accompanied by the guru's form (the reality of which was to be tested by repeating a mantra), then that being was supposed to be ignored as a fake.

This is a good example of constructing reality out of concepts and expectations. The scientific method is a way of determining the relative extent to which a purported truth has been manufactured, or discovered.

However, when an experience is personal and one-of-a-kind, it can't be subjected to a research study.

So Forman's goal is to demonstrate that mystical knowledge isn't subject to constructivist criticisms. He does a good job of this.

To summarize the argument so far, we have said that constructivists claim that mystical experience, like any experience, results from prior shaping of expectations. This shaping, they say, is of the intentional object. But, we noted, there is no mental or sensory intentional object in the pure consciousness event and thus nothing to shape.

...Mystical experiences don't result from a process of building or constructing mystical experience, we've suggested, but rather from an un-constructing of language and belief. It seems to result from something like a releasing of experience from language.

Fairly frequently, commenters on this blog who subscribe to a particular belief system call me a quitter for having forsaken my faith in certain spiritual dogmas. That's absolutely wrong, given Forman's definition of mysticism.

By letting beliefs, expectations, effort, and such go, what remains is consciousness pure and simple (or like I said before, purer and simpler).

A frequently-heard adage is "self-realization before god-realization."

My churchlessness has adapted this to "self-realization, then see about realizing god." Meaning, we're going to have a much clearer view of reality if we get straight who we are before we start jumping to conclusions about a possible external divinity.

And this self-realization doesn't take any effort, according to Forman. It's right in front of our eyes. In fact, it is our eyes -- along with everything else we are.

Really, we know our minds, and indeed we know what it is to be a thinking, feeling conscious being, by virtue of the fact that we have a mind, or are conscious. It is a peculiarly diaphanous element, consciousness: hard to define, hard to contact, hard to know.

But it is only by virtue of our firsthand, first-person acquaintance with this ineffable and sui generis phenomenon that we know anything at all, and certainly know anything at all about our own minds.

We do not know it as we know the color of the desk or as we know another's fears. We know it in a peculiarly direct way: by virtue of being it.

Mysticism good. Religion bad. So says Sam Harris.

My churchlessness was wonderfully energized by Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" when it came out in 2004 -- the same year I started this blog.

Harris has a philosophy degree from Stanford and is working on a doctorate in neuroscience, so he's got a balanced perspective on soft beliefs and hard facts.

This morning I picked up The End of Faith and reread the almost-final "Experiments in Consciousness" chapter. I'd remembered that he'd said positive things about mysticism after trashing religion, and was curious to revisit his thoughts after five years or so.

My conclusion: right on, Mr. Harris.

At the core of every religion lies an undeniable claim about the human condition: it is possible to have one's experience of the world radically transformed...The problem with religion is that it blends this truth so thoroughly with the venom of unreason.

The challenge for us is to begin talking about this possibility in rational terms....It is difficult to find a word for that human enterprise which aims at happiness directly -- at happiness of a sort that can survive the frustration of all conventional desires.

The term "spirituality" seems unavoidable here -- and I have used it several times in this book already -- but it has many connotations that are, frankly, embarrassing. "Mysticism" has more gravitas, perhaps, but it has unfortunate associations of its own.

Neither word captures the reasonableness and profundity of the possibility that we must now consider: that there is a form of well-being that supersedes all others, indeed, that transcends the vagaries of experience itself.

Harris then launches into praise of "mysticism" that is as strong as his condemnation of religion. And he makes great good sense.

Over on this post we've been having an interesting comment conversation about whether Taoism and Buddhism (Dzogchen variety, particularly) can be considered metaphysical belief systems.

I've been arguing, "no." I'm pretty sure Sam Harris agrees. His description of his bookcase sounds a lot like mine, when he says:

I have selected a passage at random from a shelf of Buddhist literature. The following text was found with closed eyes on the first attempt from among scores of books. I invite the reader to find anything even remotely like this in the Bible or the Koran.

Harris has a lot of evident fondness for Buddhism. Me too, along with Taoism -- writings about which occupy center stage on my own bookcase.

Both philosophies are firmly rooted in the reality of everyday human experience, not some airy-fairy other-worldly metaphysics. The passage Harris found in his Buddhist book talks about manifest awareness and the absence of an observer.

It is psychologically profound. Also, entirely consistent with modern neuroscience.

Similarly, the ancient Taoists grasped the importance of "being in the flow" way before sports announcers started saying excitedly, "Man, Kobe Bryant is out of his mind and in the zone! Forty points at halftime!"

My well-worn copy of Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English's translation of the Tao Te Ching says on the back cover:

The philosophy of Lao Tsu is simple: Accept what is in front of you without wanting the situation to be other than it is. Study the natural order of things and work with it rather than against it, for to try to change what is only sets up resistance.

...If we watch carefully, we will see that work proceeds more quickly and easily if we stop "trying," if we stop putting in so much extra effort, if we stop looking for results. In the clarity of a still and open mind, truth will be reflected.

Likewise, Harris writes:

This is an empirical claim, not a matter of philosophical speculation. Break the spell of thought and the duality of subject and object will vanish -- as will the fundamental difference between conventional states of happiness and suffering. This is a fact about the mind that few Western scholars have ever made it their business to understand.

It is on this front that the practice of meditation reveals itself to be both intellectually serious and indispensable. There is something to realize about the nature of consciousness, and its realization does not entail thinking new thoughts.

A few hours ago I started on my almost-daily dog walk, an event that Serena doesn't let me forget. We have two usual routes: a walk through the woods and around a lake that is a bit over a mile, and a more aerobically challenging two mile walk on a paved road loop.

I felt like going on the lake walk. It was evident that Serena was more in the mood for the road (more interesting smells, I suspect). I flowed with Serena. At first. Because when we came to a path that intersected the road, I headed down it.

Serena happily bounded ahead, off her leash. Heading toward the lake, albeit in a more indirect fashion that I at first intended, I realized that this route would have us avoid a hornet nest that my wife had noticed at dog nose height, near the trail on our property, and had warned me about.

It was the familiar "good news, bad news, who knows?" Taoist story.

I head off in an undesired direction, which ends up leading me to where I wanted to go -- perhaps avoiding a stinging problem that the dog and I could have encountered if I'd stuck with my initial conscious intention.

My unspectacular tale is the sort of everyday experience that Harris finds so interesting. And mysterious.

How does our consciousness guide us through life? How does unchanging awareness relate to the everchanging sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, and such that continually course through our mind?

If these kinds of questions are termed "mystical," its because the answers are a mystery, not that investigating the nature of human consciousness leads us into some metaphysical realm.

But as Harris noted above, thinking about thoughts won't help in studying how awareness functions thoughtlessly. He adds:

We all know what it is like to read whole paragraphs, and even pages of a book without assimilating a word. Few of us realize that we spend most of our lives in such a state: perceiving the present -- present sights, sounds, tastes, and sensations -- only dimly, through a veil of thought.

We spend our lives telling ourselves the story of past and future, while the reality of the present goes largely unexplored. Now we live in ignorance of the freedom and simplicity of consciousness, prior to the arising of thought.

Religiosity can't exist without thoughts, concepts, dogmas, beliefs, imaginings.

Mysticism (or "spirituality," if you prefer that term) can. Non-religious Buddhists and Taoists are totally happy just being. No need to give a name to this, though "suchness" is used in Buddhism and the "way" in Taoism.

Science and religion have something in common: they both are focused on what exists within existence, on what consciousness is conscious of, on what knowing is knowledgeable about.

Mysticism is centered on bridging, or even dissolving, these dualities. Harris says:

Indeed, many suggest that it is our search for happiness -- our craving for knowledge and new experience, our desire for recognition, our efforts to find the right romantic partner, even our yearning for spiritual experience itself -- that causes us to overlook a form of well-being that is intrinsic to consciousness at every present moment.

...The experience of countless contemplatives suggests that consciousness -- being merely the condition in which thought, emotion, and even the sense of self arises -- is never actually changed by what it knows. That which is aware of joy does not become joyful; that which is aware of sadness does not become sad.

...The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is mysticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time.

Where the skeptical meets the mystical

The title of this post is the tag line on David Lane's web site, Neural Surfer. I like it. That's a great place to be -- the shore line of reality where skepticism shovels away the loose sand of mysticism, getting closer to a solid bedrock of truth.

Here's a sample of David's take on the subject: "Tangled Phone Lines: why Richard Dawkins hung up on Ken Wilber."

Like me, David is an initiate of Radha Soami Satsang Beas who has decided to take seriously the precept that it's possible to have a "science of the soul."

I clearly believe that mysticism can be studied scientifically. Indeed, it already has been for decades.

I don’t necessarily think that mystics and skeptics should depart company and go on their respective ways, but I do think that if they seriously communicate with each other something is bound to give. And what each side may have to give up is more than they might be willing to concede.

...if a mystic is serious about studying the subject scientifically it means that he or she may have to radically revise their understandings and prior theological dogmas about what is actually happening when they undergo a transformation of consciousness.

He uses Faqir Chand as an example. Chand was an Indian guru who was appealingly honest about his mystical powers. Or rather, non-powers.

For example, when disciples would claim that Chand had appeared to them in his "radiant form," Chand would reply that he knew nothing about this. Yet David speaks about how other gurus were reluctant to concede that mystical experiences are only within a disciple's mind, not in some sort of objective reality.

To be truly scientific, an organized religious or mystical faith has to honestly admit "These teachings could be wrong."

However, how many do so? Not many. Maybe none, in fact.

So it is necessary for anyone who wants to pursue a scientific approach to mysticism to strike out on the Reality Road on their own. Because organizations have a vested interest in preserving their belief system, even it is wrong.

Are there universal mystical principles?

A few days ago George posted a comment where he asked what people thought of these statements:

The principles common to mystical beliefs appear to be:
1) the existence of a Divine formless force underlying everything.
2) each person has a true inner self, kernel or spark surrounded by egos or wills clouding their perceptions and ability to know thy inner self and the Divine.
3) using meditation to allow connection or alignment of the inner self with the Divine and thus experiencing direct knowledge of the Divine, rather than thru the intellect with its egos which is inherently limited.
4) our purpose is self knowledge of the inner self, to know who we are, to know thyself.

Taoism appears slightly different, but appears to still require man to know himself to align his/her will or ego with nature, and that this is best achieved by putting the mind into a still passive or meditative state unburdened by the intellect or thought.

I didn't want this question -- are there universal mystical principles? -- to be lost in a string of comments, so dug it out for inspection.

It's a big question, obviously. I used to believe that there was such a thing as the Perennial Philosophy, but now I'm much less sure.

For those willing to wade through some fairly complex ideas about the perennial philosophy, these notes on a book by Jorge Ferrer are worth reading. I resonate with Nigel Wellings' conclusion:

At base I do not believe there has ever been a perennial philosophy until Huxley invented it. That in contrast there are a great variety of transpersonal and spiritual experiences available to us that are not essentially the same but which have all been valuable within their own cultural context. That it is only when we have the ability to compare them that we also then have a problem of making value judgments.

The main reason I agree with these sentiments, especially if the perennial philosophy is taken to be as George describes it in the four principles above, is that some mystic teachings don't emphasize (or even acknowledge) a distinction between "true inner self" and "the Divine."

These are dualistic concepts that don't seem to fit in with nondual philosophies such as Advaita, Buddhism, and Taoism. Here the self is viewed as a fiction or illusion to be seen through, not as a distinct entity that can merge with another entity, the Divine.

So when George says that Taoism is "slightly different," I'd say "very different." I've read a bunch of books about Taoist philosophy, and have practiced Tai Chi for about five years (which embodies Taoism).

In this post I discussed how Taoism is both similar to in some respects, yet also quite different from, the Sant Mat philosophy. I said:

The way I see it – and I understand that everyone has a unique vision of how things are – the Taoist notion of a divine melody pervading the universe is a more genuine reflection of Sant Mat's shabd, dhun, or "sound current."

That is, by and large Taoism lacks the religious dogma and metaphysical baggage that organized spiritual faiths carry along.

Taoism and Sant Mat both teach that mental conceptions obscure a wordless primal reality. However, Taoism (like Buddhism) espouses no-mind, not-knowing. Sant Mat, however, is based on an involved belief system. Once someone has bought into the beliefs, further questioning and conceptualizing is supposed to stop.

So while Taoism has no-mind, Sant Mat has locked-in-place mind. The aspiring Taoist mystic seeks to embrace mystery directly; the aspiring Sant Mat mystic considers that cosmic mysteries will be revealed after traveling a well-defined path.

Thus I think George is correct in identifying the four principles as being parts of many mystical teachings. But not all of those paths adopt all of the principles. And style is as important as substance, in my opinion.

Taoism and Buddhism, for example, take themselves much less seriously than faiths like Sant Mat do. In no small part this is due to the absence of a savior or guru in these more wide open and iconoclastic mystic pursuits.

From the introduction to The Book of Chuang Tzu:

Trying to read the book through logically will only produce faint, ghostly laughter. And the one who will be laughing at you from afar will be the spirit of Chuang Tzu. For if there is one constant theme in the book, it is that logic is nonsense and that eclecticism is all, if you wish to open yourself to the Tao and the Te -- the Way and the Virtue of all.

U.G. Krishnamurti -- intriguing, irritating, inspirational

I don't know what to make of U.G. Krishnamurti. That would have pleased him, I'm sure. (He died in 2007.)

U.G. liked to say, "I have no teaching...I have no claims." Yet he was one of those un-teachers who somehow managed to do a lot of what sure looked like spiritual guiding.

Personally, I find such behavior exasperating.

I want to scream, "Dude, if you've got nothing to say, if you don't want to be looked upon as a guru, don't talk to people, don't let them make recordings and videos of you, don't allow books to be made out of your conversations!"

So I found a lot to agree with in David Quinn's critique of U.G. Krishnamurti. Such as:

Accordingly, I find UG's attempts to repel people very insincere. The fact that he is frequently abusive, often rudely telling people to go away, is held up as a kind of proof that he is somehow different to the other gurus, that he really doesn't sell himself in order to be popular. But it doesn't wash with me. Look deeply into the man and you will see all the con tricks of a typical salesman.

UG doesn't really want to repel people. He only wants to be seen to be doing so. This is his image, his trademark style. It is the covert means by which he can attract a following. I mean, if he truly wanted to repel people, he could do so very easily.

On the plus side, I've been enjoying "Mind is a Myth," which mostly consists of transcribed conversations people had with U.G. (It's available for free online, in accord with U.G.'s marvelous copyright notice, which I like a lot.)

This morning I read the Not-Knowing is Your Natural State chapter.

Though U.G. claims that his teaching (oops, non-teaching) isn't related to anything that has come before, it sounds very similar to Zen, Advaita, Dzogchen, Taoism, and other messages that basically say "what you're looking for is what you are."

You have no recourse but to use thought to get what you want in this world. But when you seek to get what does not exist -- God, bliss, love, etc. -- through thought, you only succeed in pitting one thought against another, creating misery for yourself and the world.

...If there is anything that can happen, it must happen now. Since you don't want anything to happen now, you push it away into something you have named "the future."

...Instead of being what you are -- unkind -- you pursue the fictitious opposite put before you -- kindness. To emphasize what we should be, only causes strain, giving momentum to what we already in fact are.

In nature we find the animals at one time violent and brutal, at others kind and generous. For them there is no contradiction. But man is told he must be always good, kind, loving, never greedy or violent. We emphasize only one side of reality, thus distorting the whole picture.

...You have to be saved from the very idea that you have to be saved. You must be saved from the saviours, redeemed from the redeemers. If it is to happen, it must happen now.

There's quite a bit that I find questionable in the U.G. unteachings. However, I resonate with the core of his non-message.

U.G. usually is quite abrupt, even insulting, to his questioners. But here's a Q & A where the lucky person making the query got a pat on the back, apparently because he perceived the essence of what U.G. is about.

Q: So it is the fantasizing about a non-existent ideal person, society, or state that dooms and fixes me where I am. My belief in what I am does not determine what I in fact am. Is that it?

U.G.: That's it. And the greatest ideal, the most imposing, perfect and powerful is, of course, God. It is an invention of frightened minds. The history of human thinking has produced saints, teachers, gurus, and bhagvans. Man has already messed up his life, and religion has made it worse.

Kabir was too wild for religion

Kabir was a fifteenth century North Indian mystic poet. I've called him a "patron saint of spiritual independence." Like Steve Martin, he was a wild and crazy guy.

Yet you wouldn't know that from how some faiths, such as Sikhism and Sant Mat, try to tame Kabir and confine him within a religious tradition. In a recent post I said:

But Sant Mat, in its modern form, lacks the sort of pin that punctures the dualistic, self-righteous, dogmatic bubble. ("Modern," because the 15th century Kabir, who is held up as a Sant Mat saint, did a great job of pinpricking in his more iconoclastic poetry.)

After writing that I dug out my favorite Kabir book, "The Bijak of Kabir." (If you want a copy, get a used one; I don't know why the current printing by another publisher is so expensive.)

Here's what Kabir says the experience of truth is not:

There's no creation or creator there,
no gross or fine, no wind or fire,
no sun, moon, earth or water,
no radiant form, no time there,
no word, no flesh, no faith,
no cause and effect, nor any thought
of the Veda. No Hari or Brahma,
no Shiva or Shakti, no pilgrimage
and no rituals. No mother, father
or guru there...

Kabir didn't want sycophants.

I've burned my own house down,
the torch is in my hand.
Now I'll burn down the house of anyone
who wants to follow me.

If you think you understand Kabir, you don't.

It's a heavy confusion.
Veda, Koran, holiness, hell --
who's man? who's woman?
A clay pot shot with air and sperm.
When the pot falls apart, what do you call it?
Numskull! You've missed the point.

Kabir and religion; oil and water. No mixing.

The fearful things that everyone fears,
I don't fear.
I'm not confused about sin and purity,
heaven and hell.
Kabir says, seekers, listen:
Wherever you are
is the entry point.

Pretty damn simple.

Remembering the empty, the easy,
a light broke out.
I offer myself to a being
based on nothing.

On that day neither air nor water.
On that day creation -- who gave birth?
On that day neither womb nor root.
On that day neither knowledge nor Veda,
on that day neither sound nor sorrow,
on that day neither body nor house,
no earthly place, no sky or space.
On that day no teacher, no one to teach,
no difficult path, in or out of reach.

Of the sourceless state, what to say?
No town, nowhere to stay;
seen without a trace;
what do you call that place?

“Perfect” gurus: myth or reality?

Those steeped in a Western monotheistic religion, such as Christianity or Judaism, might be surprised to learn that millions of people in the world today believe that God walks on Earth in a human form – divinely perfect.

Some Christians believe that Jesus was perfect, but his flawed humanity seems to be as important as his divinity. In like fashion, most Muslims consider that Muhammad was a flawless conduit for God's message as revealed in the Koran, but the Prophet himself isn't revered as God.

It's only in the Eastern religions, so far as I know, that a person is viewed as essentially identical with the Supreme Being. These are the "perfect gurus."

Comments on a recent Church of the Churchless post got me pondering this subject. As a long-time member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, a branch of Sant Mat, I'm intimately familiar with the whole perfect master thing. I've even sat down and talked with a couple of them, Charan Singh and Gurinder Singh.

One obvious fact about perfect gurus is that there isn't any outward sign of their perfection, as this essay describes. Their bodies are imperfect, as they get sick and age. Their minds are imperfect, as they forget things and make mistakes.

So where does the supposed perfection lie? On a different plane of reality – that of soul or spirit. Just as God can't be seen directly, neither can the guru's perfection. It has to be taken on faith.

And believe me, many disciples do.

This is easier to accomplish for native Indians, for example, because gurus are a staple of Eastern cultures. Western minds (like mine) have a more difficult time accepting that outward imperfection masks an inward perfection.

A few weeks ago my wife and I took a Rumba class with another couple. As often happens in dance classes, they got to bickering in a friendly fashion.

"Hey, you should be doing the move like this." "Well, I would be if you were doing your part right." And so on. After a while I saw they were in a big hug, cooing at each other like lovebirds.

"We're perfect partners for each other!" "Yes, we are!" In this case, "perfect" wasn't any sort of objective standard, but a quality of love. You can't argue with that.

However, when perfection is measured against a yardstick, that's different. Who can forget the iconic image of Bo Derek in "10"? (Though I've learned from comments on my most beautiful woman in world post that beauty truly is largely in the eye of the beholder.)

Gymnastics has more definite criteria for assigning a "perfect 10." Yet even here there are subjective disagreements among judges.

So how is it possible to say that a guru is spiritually perfect, when it's so tough to assess physical perfection? Where is the standard for judging how well someone is in harmony with ultimate reality?

This presumes that someone else – the judge – knows the nature of ultimate reality, a.k.a. God. Similarly, it takes a expert who knows the nature of an ideal diamond to assess the relative perfection of a gem.

For many years I've heard disciples speak of their guru as being a "perfect master," or "God in human form." I rarely, if ever, did this. It always struck me as the height of ego to make such a statement, following the adage It takes one to know one.

I'm so imperfect, in so many ways. We all are.

He among us who lacks flaws, let him judge who else is perfect. That person sure isn't me. And I'm also pretty sure it isn't all the devoted disciples who look upon their guru with eyes that see no imperfections in him.

(Regarding the masculine language, I liked the final question on this ExPremie.org page. The suggestion is to ask a guru, Prem Rawat, "Can you think of any Perfect Mistresses?")

As with the couple in our dance class, it seems that often starry-eyed disciples are so much in love with the guru they can't bring themselves to notice any flaws. This is akin to the infatuation phase of a relationship where everything the other person does is just wonderful.

After a few years of living together, those charming eccentricities turn into irritations. The love may be stronger, but the vision is clearer. Ditto with a guru-relationship, ideally.

I don't see any benefit to considering that another human being is spiritually, mystically, or divinely perfect. A student can benefit from a teacher's instruction without viewing him or her as infallible. In fact, it's questionable whether genuine learning can take place without developing an ability to critique what you've been told.

In my martial arts slanted Tai Chi class this afternoon, the teacher said, "I'm going to show you four moves; then you're going to have to figure out what comes next yourself." Now that's good instruction.

Believing someone is perfect and can do no wrong is a stepping stone to cultish behavior. Some gurus are notorious for abusing disciples, sexually or otherwise. Others exercise more subtle forms of control. Regardless, giving up one's capacity to question isn't healthy – mentally, psychologically, or spiritually.

Googling "perfect guru" today, I came across some interesting links in addition to those already shared.

--"The Perfect Guru" strikes me as a parody of perfection characteristics. Others take this piece quasi-seriously. You can decide for yourself.

--A chapter from "Stripping the Gurus" by Geoffrey Falk is about Andrew Cohen. It's titled "Sometimes I feel like a God."

--Here's a "History of Perfect Masters" by a Sant Mat student. See who's in and who's out. Sorry, Buddhists – the Buddha didn't make the list.

--Another "Lineage of Perfect Masters." Some overlap, but there's plenty of disagreement about who qualifies for the Perfect Master Club.

Keeping consciousness simple

It’s astounding, really. We all confidently say, “I think…,” “I believe…,” “I feel…,” “I see….” Yet we don’t know who or what the “I” is. So how confident should we be about all those statements we make, to others and to our own self, when the nature of the statement-making entity is a mystery?

Last night I managed to watch about fifteen minutes of an interview with Deepak Chopra before this I-entity overdosed on New Age gobbledygook. Nonetheless, I did appreciate how Chopra focuses on unraveling the essence of consciousness.

He believes that consciousness is foundational in the cosmos—a reversal of the usual scientific way of thinking, in which mind emerges from matter. Maybe. I sure hope so. For this implies that consciousness survives bodily death, not being dependent on matter for its existence.

If this is to be anything other than an article of faith, little different from “Jesus saves,” there has to be direct experience of consciousness separate from physical thoughts, emotions, perceptions, imaginings, and such.

In his book, Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness, Robert K.C. Forman talks about what this experience is like. Forman is a mystic as well as a scholar. He discusses his own altered perceptions of reality that stem from many years of meditative practice (Forman describes himself as a neo-Advaitist; he says his primary teachers are Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Ram Dass, and Meister Eckhart).

I just finished re-reading this book. Some chapters are densely intellectual, but overall Forman achieves his aim:

It is my hope that this book will serve to finally close the door on the possibility that one can assume without further justification that mysticism is constructed, and will open the door to much broader and more far-reaching debates on both the deeper character of mysticism, and on what mysticism has to show us about the nature of human consciousness and life.

By “constructed,” Forman means that the mystic’s or meditator’s conceptual/linguistic scheme shapes his or her mystical experiences. Most of the time this is the case. When have you heard of a Christian contemplative encountering the Buddha or Allah? Somehow Jesus makes an appearance instead.

But “most of the time” doesn’t mean “all of the time.” Forman argues persuasively that it’s possible to experience a pure consciousness event (PCE).

One is not perceiving or thinking about some thing, even a one, but rather is coming to be that one thing which one inherently is, if you will, without any additional mental content…the distinguishing mark of the pure consciousness event is that it is not described as an experience of something.

So supposedly there’s nothing that a PCE could be constructed out of (unless, a skeptic might suggest, the prior expectation that a PCE is possible; however, Forman provides instances of PCE’s coming from out of the blue, unexpectedly).

In the article “What Does Mysticism Have to Teach Us About Consciousness?,” you can get the essence of his message. (tip: for easier reading, minimize your web browser to make the page width narrower).

I liked how Forman begins with a common-sense tenet: to understand something complex, turn to its simple forms. He likens the pure consciousness event to E. coli, whose simple gene structure allows researchers to understand the gene functioning of complex species.

Well, E. coli isn’t the most appealing image to plant in my mind before I meditate. But I’m sure these little bacteria look cute to their mothers. And if I’m ever going to have a PCE of my own, there won’t be any thoughts of anything in my consciousness, E. coliish or otherwise.

Religion asks us to become someone new. Mysticism invites us to be who we’ve always been, but have mislaid under all the crap that we’ve piled into our consciousness. Strip it away and you’re left with something simple and pure: awareness. Commenting on Meister Eckhart’s teachings, Forman says:

Eckhart instructs his listener to drag the inwardness outward, as it were, bringing it into activity. One is to act in such a way that reality—activity, thought, perception, etc.—is perceived and undergone while not losing the interior silence encountered in contemplation [of a PCE].

Conversely, one is to lead “reality into the inwardness,” i.e., make the silent inwardness dynamic. In other words, one is to learn to think, speak, walk, and work without losing awareness of the inward silence.

…We may characterize this as a new pattern of mystical experiences: the Dualistic Mystical State, or DMS. It may be defined as an unchanging interior silence that is maintained concurrently with intentional experience in a long-term or permanent way.

Hope this doesn’t sound too complicated. Really, it isn’t. The basic notion is that we can know things separate from our own consciousness, but we can’t know the knower, because we are that. Or as a Buddhist would say, we are That.

We can be who we truly are. That’s all. We can’t know, describe, analyze, or perceive our own self, for it is impossible to stand outside of awareness (if you could, you’d be aware of that). So spirituality starts, and likely ends, by coming to grips with who is trying to be spiritual.

Religion would have us look up toward a distant God, or outward toward a divine person worthy of emulation. However, this just adds additional objects to the already crowded contents of our consciousness.

Uh-oh. I have a premonition that I’m about to quote myself. Why resist? Can’t fight the urge. Must turn to my “Simplicity is Superior” chapter in Return to the One.

Most of us remain absorbed in what is showing on the screen of consciousness and never make much of an effort to discern how those images are projected. This keeps us imprisoned in Plato’s cave of illusion, absorbed in counting the shadows on the cavern wall and debating among ourselves which comes first and which after, which is most desirable and which least desirable, all the while failing to turn around and learn the source of the light that produces the shadows.

We aren’t going to be able to approach the single source of consciousness, the One, so long as we are occupied with its many products…Adhering to the adage “know yourself” means being present to one’s self as one’s true self, not looking upon one’s self as if it was an object, something to be perceived or pondered.

…It isn’t necessary to go through life as a sort of double image: a me that does things and a largely unnecessary hanger-on inside my head who watches and comments on the doer. The internal mental dialogue most people take for granted is akin to a play-by-play announcer who never stops gabbing about what is happening on the field of our awareness.

The problem is that I already know what is going on because I’m directly experiencing it. I should be able to wash the dishes without an inner voice telling me the obvious: “I’m washing the dishes.”

Wow. The guy who wrote those words sure makes a lot of sense. Interesting that he happens to be me. I’ve got to listen to him more often. Except, he just told me not to, so I guess I won’t.