E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
Author: David Christopher Lane Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER Publication date: May 1997
E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I
want to go back to the home base now.
Radhasoami INCORPORATED is NOT Sant Mat Or If the Path of the Saints is a Structural Potential, and not merely a Cultural Nuance, then Trademarking Organizations have nothing to do with exploring transrational domains, even though such arresting bodies can still house genuinely enlightened CEO's Subtitle: Sant Mat is Universal because it is Inherent Or The Way of the Saints is part and parcel of our Bodies (neurological or mystical) and thus rightly belongs to anyone, anytime, anywhere Capitalizing on this transcultural numinosity is akin to privatizing oxygen. It may be done, but at what price? ----------------------------------------- Numinous Neurology vs. Cultural Infrastructure; or DNA (Divinely Natural Attributes) vs. INC (Interfering Narcotizing Corporations)..... In any case, Radhasoami is not Sant Mat and even Sant Mat is no longer Sant Mat. Which is another way of saying that if Kabir were alive today he would be criticizing the very groups that claim him as their own. Or, if Shams of Tabriz were to mysteriously show up at a Satsang, he would dump the "official" shabd yoga literature (particularly Julian Johnson's) into the YMCA pool. Why? Because what these organizations tend to do, after time, after building, after fossilizing, is to "capitalize" on that which, by its very nature, is universal, transcultural, and already inherent. No doubt, the group may be helpful to focus one's attention (at first), but what happens (almost naturally, almost imperceptibly) is that we begin to Con-fuse genuine function or utility with its form. We begin to think that the group is the path and that they are intertwined. Whereas, the path is already with everybody anywhere, anytime, anyplace. You don't need to search for a brain, if you already got one. You don't need to "connect" to shabd if shabd is already the Truth of our condition. Such dualism works, no doubt, to the advantage of an institution, but it has nothing to do with the deep structural insights of the mystics they are trying to champion. As Faqir once said, it may be a blessing to be born in a Church (read: ashram or satsang or any formalization), but it is a curse to die in one. Why? Because if Truth is the Condition of all conditions, the context for all texts and pretexts...... Then it is already the case and no secondary condition will be able to contain it. Since it is non-containable as something less. An ocean may manifest as a wave, but the wave cannot throw out the ocean in its wake. Rather, the wave will exhaust itself in that which is already living it. -------------------- Punchline: If Radhasoami is true or if any path is true it must have the seeds of its own destruction immediately available to its participants. That is, the only true path would be one that would immediately show its followers why and how it is NOT true, since Truth--as such, or God as such--could not be conveyed by the limitations of its revelations. Or, if we may invoke a Buddhistic Koan to get our point across. If you see a "True" Path Don't Walk on it. Why? Because to the degree a path is "true" is directly proportional to the ways and means that it illustrates why and how it is false. ----------------------------- We are being lied to, diplomatically perhaps, but lied to all the same. The guru is NOT all-knowing, yet allows by his theatre an atmosphere in which the audience persistently imputes "omniscience" upon the chief role model. Does he categorically disdain it? Does the guru, in effect, say "Nope, I don't know." If he does, then why use titles which suggest otherwise? If the guru really doesn't know (and, sorry, the jury is already in: they don't..... wouldn't mind being proven wrong, but then again Elvis could be living on Venus), then why does he/she allow such terms as "Perfect" Master to be sprinkled throughout their sanctioned texts? Put more crudely, If one is going to infer or imply that they are God (and the very basis of Radhasoami is predicated on just that belief and the promulagation of it amongst devotees), then shouldn't they be forced to at least "demonstrate" it? And I do mean demonstrate, as in exhibition, as in tests, as in verfication. If they don't want to indulge in that simple public excercise (by the way, even advertising on T.V. has higher standards than we do for "certifying" gurus and their claims), then perhaps they should cool it with the God entitlement business. Otherwise, it is merely puffery and the disciples are the ones lost in the exhale. -------------------------------- Bottomline? A guru may be considered trustworthy in proportion to his or her abdication of such a position or title for him or her self. --------------------------------------- Which is another way of saying: the only guru to trust is the one who doesn't want to be one and MEANS it. ----------------------------------------