Cognitive dissonance 2: mind & heart

Back to the last question raised in the previous post:

How can it be a problem and a pitfall, if by a slow process of avoiding cognitive dissonance, I gradually come to hold views and beliefs which earlier would have been paradoxical or morally wrong to me?

&&&&&&&&

In my eyes, the question is relevant (otherwise I wouldn't ask it of course ;-)), but my answer will take some time because I do not perceive this as a black-and-white issue.

Any development, any learning implies (I believe) that I change my views and beliefs. And even in mathematics, I have experienced that what I first thought to be contradictory or impossible, later turned out to be correct or possible, once seen in the correct light or with the correct enabling definitions. (Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your point of view, the other way round also occurs frequently in mathematics.).

So to me the pitfall lies not in the changing of my views and beliefs per se. The pitfall lies in me deluding myself. In the posts on partial truth I raised the example of me riding over your bicycle, and then claiming that at the last moment your bicycle jumped under my car, damaging my front fender. You might laugh at this example, but I'm sure that people have given stranger testimony of events. Witchcraft, voodoo, and also Divine Intervention are but a few names given by people to justify things they say and/or think to have witnessed.

This car-bicycle example is of course rather mild. Things get more worrisome, when we consider a number of psychological experiments in which more profound consequences of belief-changing and rationalization were found to occur easily. Some of these experiments have become famous, also for their ethical dilemma: is it ethical to subject people to such an experiment?

In the famous Milgram experiment the participants were asked to give punitive dosages of electricity to subjects (this was actually not really happening, but the participants thought it was real). Although most participants had some initial trouble accepting that it was okay to do so, in the end they ended up giving really painful electrical shocks to their subjects (so they thought). The authorative figure of the doctor in charge told them it was ok, and rather than upsetting this expert authority and being a troublemaker, they chose to believe that what the doctor said had to be true.

From wikipedia:

Milgram's testing revealed that it could have been that the millions of accomplices were merely following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs.[3] Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience", writing:

`The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.'

$$$$$$$
In another famous experiment The Third Wave, a class was slowly led by their history teacher to accept and join a (fictitious) movement `The Third Wave' which had clear fascistic tendencies. Quoting from Wikipedia:

Jones writes that he started the first day of the experiment (Monday, April 3 1967[2]) with simple things like proper seating, drilling the students until they were able to move from outside the classroom to their seats and take the proper seating position in less than 30 seconds without making a sound.[3] He then proceeded to strict classroom discipline emerging as an authoritative figure and improving efficiency of the class dramatically.

Jones closed the first day's session with a few rules, only meaning to be a one day experiment. Students had to be sitting at attention before the second bell, had to stand up to ask or answer questions and had to do it in three words or less, and were required to preface each remark with "Mr. Jones."[3]

On the second day he managed to meld his history class into a group with a supreme sense of discipline and community.[3] Jones named the movement "The Third Wave", after the common belief that the third in a series of ocean waves is last and largest.[3] Jones made up a salute resembling the one of Nazi regime[1] and ordered class members to salute each other even outside the class. They all complied with this command.[3]

The experiment took on a life of its own, with students from all over the school joining in: on the third day the class expanded from initial 30 students to 43 attendees. All of the students showed drastic improvement in their academic skills and tremendous motivation. All of the students were issued a member card and each of them received a special assignment (like designing a Third Wave Banner, stopping non-members from entering the class, etc). Jones instructed the students on how to initiate new members, and by the end of the day the movement had over 200 participants.[3] Jones was surprised that some of the students started reporting to him when other members of the movement failed to abide by the rules.[3]

On Thursday, the fourth day of the experiment, Jones decided to terminate the movement because it was slipping out of his control. The students became increasingly involved in the project and their discipline and loyalty to the project was astounding. He announced to the participants that this movement is only a part of a nationwide movement and that on the next day a presidential candidate of the movement would publicly announce existence of the movement. Jones ordered students to attend a noon rally on Friday to witness the announcement.[3]

Instead of a televised address of their leader, the students were presented with an empty channel. After few minutes of waiting, Jones announced that they had been a part of an experiment in fascism and that they all willingly created a sense of superiority that German citizens had in the period of Nazi Germany. He then played them a film about Nazi regime. That was the end of the experiment.[3]

$$$$$$$$

[As an aside, these types of experiment are why I am really extremely wary of anyone advocating obedience-without-thinking to some Moral Authority. Any spiritual guide which I deem worthy of that name should have knowledge of these experiments, or at least insight in how the atrocities of the second World War and similar genocidal practices could possibly happen.

With this insight and knowledge in mind, I don't believe a spiritual guide would ever ask for total unthinking obedience (see also the posts on obedience). Because this insistence alone could very well be very painful for all those who have suffered under the consequences of totalitarian regimes.]

&&&&&&&&

So, to come back to the pitfall that I perceive in the avoidance of cognitive dissonance, can I find out the divide between learning and development on the one hand, and self-delusion on the other?

I'm sorry to say that I believe this to be very difficult for most if not all of us.

As an example, I'm quite positive that many practicants of my former spiritual movement Sahaj Marg will consider me self-delusional. I am being led astray by my mind, and -poor soul- have lost contact with my heart. My mind is creating all sorts of ego-fed illusions, and therefore I am blinded from the love of the Master. Something like that.

I cannot find a 100% proof that they are wrong. It is just that their view no longer jibes sufficiently with mine, which leads me to holding more the opposite view. So perhaps this is a good moment to explain why this blog is meant mostly for people who are uneasy with their spiritual movement, and cannot put their finger on their unease. This is partly because I do not think that I cán influence people who are happy in their heart-oriented participation in a spiritual movement. But also partly because I'm not sure that I want to influence these people.

If they are happy and fulfilled, and they do not grievously wrong others, then who am I to want to change that?

The counter-remark to this is of course that if I consider the Inner Circle of a Spiritual Movement to be actively deceptive and power abusive, then I would also hold the well-meaning members responsible to some extent, for they are the ones giving power to this Inner Circle.

$$$$$$$

The question for this post remains:

How can I, personally, just for me, decide whether I am deluding myself (or am being led to delude myself)?

I think part of the answer lies in `unease'. Accepting some form of unease for a prolonged period of time might well lead me to a serious form of self-delusion. (You might call this the heart-approach)

Another part lies in: `face the facts'. Making a factual list of the important issues, I might be able to pierce through the cognitive dissonance avoidance mechanism. (You might call this the mind-approach).

I will come back to this, but for now this post is already terribly long, and should take its ending. To be continued.

Cognitive dissonance: something we all avoid

Let me begin with a quote from the wikipedia article on cognitive dissonance. This article is very informative, but I will not repeat it all, just the beginning:

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

Dissonance normally occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. For example, a belief in animal rights could be interpreted as inconsistent with eating meat or wearing fur. Noticing the contradiction would lead to dissonance, which could be experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states. When people's ideas are consistent with each other, they are in a state of harmony, or consonance. If cognitions are unrelated, they are categorized as irrelevant to each other and do not lead to dissonance.

A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would likely reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.

$$$$$$$

The reduction of cognitive dissonance is a very powerful human drive, I believe. And imnsho it very often seems to explain a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication between people.

Because, although it is often couched in scientific language, the gist of the above description of cognitive dissonance (avoidance) seems to be this:

We mold the facts that we perceive, to fit the conceptions that please us.

&&&&&&&

If like me, you have ever tried to have an open discussion with Jehovah witnesses ringing at your front door, you will understand that it is a difficult feat to accomplish. From both points of view. From the Jehovah witnesses' point of view, I am blind to the word of God, and therefore cannot see the facts clearly, such as that the Bible is the Absolute Truth. From my point of view, they are blind to the fact that the bible is a book, written by humans, and that there is no such thing as Absolute Truth.

And any discussion is not likely to bring about much change, since the giving up of either position would require such a dramatic effort to resolve the resulting cognitive dissonance...

&&&&&&&

On a more subtle level, I believe that avoidance of cognitive dissonance can play a significant part in the way I see my spiritual movement, as a practicant. This could be a (sub)conscious reason why many spiritual movements have a graded introduction to the `finer' aspects of the movement's Theory and Practice.

Because if I start out as a novice, and I am received in a loving atmosphere, by loving caring people, giving me time and attention and goodwill...and where questioning is okay, and where my `not yet fully compliant' behaviour is okay, then on a subconscious level, I might well develop the idea that this is a very ok group. Giving me lots of freedom etc.

Then, later, if my mind starts to perceive certain anomalies, it could well be that cognitive dissonance kicks in:

On the one hand, my spiritual movement is very fine, and I feel really uplifted by being connected to it.
On the other hand, something seems to be not quite right. Perhaps the Leader is focusing on money quite a lot, whereas in the beginning everybody said, no no, this is a free movement, no money required. So I ask a question, and the possible answer could be: `He is only doing it for us, you see. It is not about money, it is about teaching us to let go of our material bonds which are holding us back. Love is giving, giving to those that need us. If you give without thought, you will receive benefit thousandfold.'

So what to do? Will my mind say: `Well, it was nice this past year, but inconsistency is inconsistency, goodbye you all.' Or will it say: `OK, perhaps I am too focused on my intellect, and on my rationality. Of course, in true spirituality we share our resources. Let me step in too.'

In the second case, it would not surprise me if it continues like in the wikipedia car example. I have given money, so now I will change my belief system and perceptions to justify even more that I gave money.

$$$$$$$

Slowly, over the years perhaps, can I imagine that this would lead me to beliefs and thoughts which would have been paradoxical to me in the beginning?

Yes I can.

But why would this be a problem or a pitfall? Is this not a simple fact of life, that we learn, and thereby come to accept things which we firstly rejected?

(to be continued)

Cults - faith, healing and coercion (a book by Marc Galanter)

Since I seem to be in the mood to refer to other sources of information on `pitfalls of spirituality', let me mention a rather scientific book by Marc Galanter called:

CULTS
Faith, healing and coercion

Marc Galanter is a well-known psychiatrist. From Wikipedia:

Marc Galanter, M.D. is Professor of Psychiatry at NYU, Founding Director of the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse at NYU, and Director of the NYU Fellowship Training Program in Addiction Psychiatry. He is also a Division Director at NYU’s World Health Organization Collaborating Center, and Director of its national Center for Medical Fellowships in Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. He is Editor of the journal "Substance Abuse," the annual book series “Recent Developments in Alcoholism,” and author of the books, "Network Therapy for Alcohol and Drug Abuse" and “Spirituality and the Healthy Mind: Science, Therapy and the Need for Personal Meaning.” His NIH and foundation-funded studies have addressed family therapy for substance abuse, pharmacologic treatment for addiction, self-help treatment for substance abusers, and spiritually-oriented recovery.

$$$$$$$

So, do I recommend his book above? Well, I do, if you are not deterred by a scientific approach, and if you are willing to read what is perhaps not so easy English.

Because the book contains a very interesting mix, based on 15 years of research and personal experience:

* A very good and detailed description of various relevant issues around `cults', `religious groups' and the surrounding society

* A more or less scientific analysis of many of these issues (not always really possible though)

* An account of Marc Galanter's personal experience as a counselor with members of various spiritual movements

&&&&&&&&

In the book, I came across two remarks which merit some additional posts on this blog. One remark is about cognitive dissonance (to be explained later). The other about `boundary' issues between a spiritual movement and general society.

To be continued, therefore.

Techniques used by Gurus to control

In the same vein as the previous post, I repeat a post from Michaels blog. It gives a different perspective on many of the pitfalls discussed here, and may be easier to recognize for some.

######
Seven Techniques Used By Gurus to Control The Masses (by Michael, from his blog Inner Circle of SRCM)

Establish High Ideals

• Establish noble, high sounding principles, such as selfless service, closeness to God, and brotherly/sisterly love.

• Insist that your teachings are free and the birthright of all.

• Demonstrate charity in a highly visible manner.

Define and Enforce Exclusivity in the Organization

• Every Guru must have an exclusive hook to differentiate themselves from others.

• The exclusive nature of the system or Guru must be re-emphasized at every opportunity.

• Disciples are trained to also extol the virtues of the system’s exclusivity in every conversation.

Exploit a Higher Authority

• Designate a “Higher Authority” that can be attributed to for literally everything.

• Higher Authority must be easily identifiable by disciples. Abstract higher authorities such as “God” are generally not as effective as a dead person.

• It is critical that the Guru can claim to be in direct communication with this Higher Authority.

• The Guru’s example of love and servitude to this Higher Authority serves as an example to disciples as to how to treat their Guru.

• Miracles, which happen naturally in an emotionally charged environment, can be attributed to this Higher Authority

• Disciples will naturally transfer all things credited to the Higher Authority to their living Guru.

Establish and Maintain an Inner Circle

• Guru creates contentious environment around themselves for people to earn their trust.

• Those who fight the hardest and most effectively for inner circle status are rewarded with positions of authority and grandeur.

• The Guru must treat inner circle members with strictness and humiliation when necessary to maintain their loyalty and subservience.

• The Hierarchy established through the Inner Circle is a critical tool for a Guru to maintain exclusive control as the organization grows.

Foster the Image of Humility

• The Guru will exploit any ailments or physical injuries to get sympathy by silently suffering.

• If no physical ailments exist, the Guru can use exhaustion from serving his disciples as an ailment.

• The Guru does not directly complain about ailments, but uses the Inner Circle to propagate stories of his humble suffering for the cause.

Establish and Maintain Total Control

• Demand total devotion and trust

• Guru uses their own total devotion and trust to their “Higher Authority” as an example

• Blame all disciples failings on not having sufficient faith in the Higher Authority or lack of dedication to the practice.

Reap the Benefits

• Establish an organization to hold and manage wealth collected.

• Exploit that wealth through the organization, not directly

• Enjoy the services of devoted disciples as their expression of devotion to the Higher Authority.

What is not a cult

Below is a post by `corboy' from the rick ross forum topic `what is not a cult'.

I reproduce it for general benefit. It is a different way of looking at certain pitfalls, and it might in its brevity help to determine quickly if a spiritual movement is cultish or not.

"
What is not a cult (by corboy)

* The group generates courteous behavior and does not produce a high percentage of trolls. Discussion venues that are independent of the group are left unmolested.

*If people complain about incurring harm, the group uses this as a sign to clean up its own act, not vilify and shame the people reporting this information.

*You do not sign any document in which you waive your legal right as a citizen to sue or mediate for damages in case you are injured during an event run by the group.

You are not pressured to go past your boundaries or disclose intimate or traumatic information. Your confidentiality is respected. You do not live in fear that any intimate disclosures you have made will be used to shame or control you.

** The leader and group tell the full truth about their origins, their finances, methods and you are able to give full and informed consent before deciding to participate. Methods are not kept secret.

*Your car keys, your phone, your laptop are not taken away from you.

*You are ensured 7 to 8 hours of sleep and breaks during events and you can bring your own food or have a choice of food options available. You are allowed to go sit by yourself at lunchtime or breaks if you need a privacy break.

*The leader and group are capable of reciprocating the loyalty they demand from you. In cults and bad relationships, the loyalty flow is always in one direction--to the leader and group. The few times the leader seems to reciprocate loyalty, a huge deal is always made and the many other times the leader is a selfish person are ignored.

*Actions match words.

*Principles before personality. You don't get all caught up in the leader's specialness or the group's specialness.

*The group does not claim endorsement by the scientific or medical establishment unless studies have been done by outside entities with no personal investment in the group and that material has been published in peer reviewed journals.

*The group and leader trust in attraction not promotion. They do not use the workplace, the client caregiver relationship and do not push people to use their friendships as sources of new recruits.

*A group that does not constantly change its doctrines or methods, forcing you to buy endless series of books, CDs, tapes.

*Doctrine remains stable--it doesn't get so complex that only its leader can understand it and the rest are left confused.

* Older editions of a groups books or literature are not destroyed or suppressed in an attempt to re-script the group or leader's history.

* The amount of money, time and attention you are expected to offer a group is clear in advance.

*You are never pressured to cut off friendships or associations with persons outside the group or who disagree with its teachings.

* A non cultic group does not encourage you to patronize a small network of 'recommended' businesses. You can consult therapists, doctors, contractors, yoga teachers, who are not in any way involved with the group.
"

Quakers in the UK embrace same-sex marriage

Writing on the issue of homosexuality in earlier posts (click on pitfall 12: Woman & man), I am happy to repeat some news from the UK earlier this month:

(from the Guardian, 31 July 2009):

The Quakers today agreed to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples and said they would ask the government to change the law to allow Quaker registering officers to register same-sex partnerships in the same way as marriages.

At their annual meeting, held at the University of York, 1200 members gave their unanimous approval to revise relevant parts of Quaker Faith and Practice to treat gay marriages in the same way as heterosexual unions.

Michael Hutchinson, of Quakers in Britain, said: "Many of our meetings have told us that there are homosexual couples who consider themselves to be married and believe this is as much a testimony of divine grace as a heterosexual marriage. They miss the public recognition of this in a religious ceremony."

Following the Civil Partnership Act of December 2005, same sex couples in England, Wales and Scotland who share Quaker beliefs may opt for a blessing or commitment ceremony after entering a civil partnership.

While legislation allows same-sex partnerships to be registered as civil partnerships in law, the registrations cannot take place in the context of religious worship. Civil partnership is not recognised as marriage, although registered civil partners share almost the same legal rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples.

During this week's meeting, Quakers spoke about their personal experiences and said "whereas there was a clear, visible path to celebration and recognition for opposite sex couples" the same was not always true for those in same-sex relationships.

Quaker spokesman Anne Van Staveren said she did not foresee a surge in membership numbers following the decision.

"Anyone is welcome to attend a Quaker meeting but to become a Quaker, to understand the ways we live and worship, takes a little longer," she said. "Marriage ceremonies are for Quakers, but we are open to people to come and belong."

Resolving the hotly disputed issue of homosexuality in the church has not been as easy for other religious groups. This week the archbishop of Canterbury conceded the matter had caused an irreparable division in the Anglican communion.

I'm really happy that one spiritual movement has come out like this. And in fact they are ahead of the UK legislation, which still discriminates same sex couples. They are also far ahead of my former Sahaj Marg guru P. Rajagopalachari who said in a recent speech that homosexuality is unnatural and against the wish of God. Hopefully one day, spiritual leaders like him will be seen for what they are doing: adding to the division of humanity, instead of uniting humanity.

Some closing remarks 2

Last september, it seemed to me that what I set out to do on this blog was done. So I wrote some closing remarks 1, with the idea `enough is enough'.

In January, I realized there were still some things left to discuss, so after some hesitation I started posting again. And now I find myself yet again at the point of closure: the relevant issues have been discussed enough.

So first: thank you, all commentators who provided me with feedback and suggestions, and thereby with inspiration to continue.

Then let me simply repeat my earlier closing remarks, putting them at the top of this blog where they belong.

####### (Repeated from September:)

The best way to read this blog (I think) is to start out at the oldest post and click on `newer post' (at the bottom of the post) each time. This might take some time though, I have no idea how much pages of a regular book these posts would fill.

Notwithstanding the pitfalls discussed here, I've had many positive experiences with regard to spirituality, and also with regard to practising a spiritual method. In my life I've been privileged to have met many kind, loving, wonderful people from whom I have learned a great deal about what spirituality means to me. Many of these people have given me what cannot be expressed in words, without second thought or reserve, out of what to me seems true and inspiring altruism. Thank you all.

It might seem negatively balanced also to only talk about pitfalls of spirituality, but I really do not feel that I can add significantly to the many beautiful texts on positive aspects of spirituality existing already. (My personal attitude is to read beyond certain often-occurring pitfalls to find what is to me the real meaning in a spiritual text.)

Non-absolute, non-divisive, individualized spirituality to me seems necessary to bring about what I would call a better world. A world free of exploitation. A world where children are safe, and can grow up playfully. Where `war' and `poverty' are strange concepts from long-forgotten times. Where humans are the custodians of nature. Where human and animal rights are respected. Where difference of opinion goes together with a friendly helping attitude. Etc. You might say: `dream on'...and I would reply (I think) with John Lennon's song Imagine:

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one


This better world is far more important to me and probably you (why else would you be reading this blog?) than most other things. Including of course this blog, which is as personal as it is imperfect. Let's put aside our differences and combine our efforts to make this world a better place.

Honesty, truthfulness & openness (partial truth, secrets & things unsaid 2)

(continued from the previous post)

So let's look at things from the other `positive' side. Personally, one of the most important qualities that I associate with spirituality has to do with truthfulness, honesty, transparency or openness, whatever you prefer.

Of course I'm not talking about situations where one lies to the Gestapo to save fugitives' lives. I'm not even saying that it is humanly possible to be truthful all the time, simply because I think we cannot discern even our own personal truth 100% accurately. Perhaps I could even come up with situations where it would be more kind, more humane to lie to another person, even if there are no fugitives to be saved.

I'm not talking about all that. I'm talking about the large majority of cases where telling partial truth -leaving important things unsaid, hidden- or even lying is simply an instrument to avoid confrontation, or for personal gains. In a large majority of cases, I think we know what the truth is, or we know so enough, but we choose to tell only a part of it.

All a part of la condition humaine, I suppose. Still, for me it is a spiritual tenet to strive for truth, honesty, transparency / openness. The fact that we're not on that level yet doesn't mean for me that it would not be better if people were more honest with each other.

I believe this tenet to be advocated by most spiritual movements. Be truthful. Don't deceive. Yet many spiritual movements practice a graded truth in their Pyramid. And many spiritual movements keep things hidden, unsaid, unknown but to the Inner Circle. Examples of things kept hidden:

• Financial holdings & dealings for instance, to be sure! But also controversies, power struggles, power abuse, sexual indulgence, other not so holy-looking behaviour, well the list of cover-ups is probably endless.
• Marketing strategies for new books (what and when to release, what price to ask). Proselytization strategies (where to hold gatherings, which countries to visit, what message to give to newcomers, how to ensure retention of (new) practicants).
  
• Also, and not as infrequently as one would think!, secrets and secret rites, initiations, secret organizational groups, secret meetings.
  
• Parts of the spiritual theory (to be revealed when a practicant is singled out as a trainer or priest-like functionary)
  
• Less-than-shiny details of its History
  
• Criticism of the Movement by serious well-meaning people
  

#####

Suppose our generic Spiritual Movement consistently shows any or many signs of the above. In all honesty I do not see how one can rhyme this with `be truthful'. Apart from other unwanted effects, it also comes down to separating humanity once again: `Us in the know' and `Them not in the know'.

As I wrote earlier, uniting humanity to me seems a worthy spiritual endeavour although we are surely a far cry from such unification. To me, many of the pitfalls that are discussed on this blog actually hamper us in becoming united.

For me, to respect you and to feel connected, I cannot willingly deceive you. The same, but more difficult perhaps, holds for me deceiving myself as well. If I am honest to myself, only then can I be honest to you. Making mistakes, holding less-than-desirable thoughts, reacting `badly', it's all part of the game. To play the game sportingly, with respect and with others as my equals, this to me means that conscious deception of any form is out of bounds - ball to the other side...;-) so no moral pressure but you get my drift.

#####

In short:

To me, a spiritual movement which is not truthful and open about its finances, about its holdings, about its power structures, initiation levels, spiritual theory, history, criticism from well-informed and well-meaning members, proselytization strategies, ...

does not deserve the name `spiritual movement'.

Partial truth, secrets & things unsaid

OK. From my last comment on the previous post, one more pitfall strikes me as occurring commonly enough to mention separately.

In many spiritual movements (religions included), there are things unsaid and unrevealed, especially to `newcomers'. For instance, one may start out innocently in our Spiritual Movement, and slowly notice that all the top executive functions in the Pyramid and even almost all the midlevel executive functions are filled by men. So then one asks: `how come?'. And only then it turns out that in the philosophy of the Movement, the spiritual essence of `woman' is seen as different from the spiritual essence of `man', leading to the conclusion that men and women need to be separate at meditation and that the Guru can never be a woman, and all sorts of other consequences.

Truly Interested Seeker (TIS): `But you said spirituality unites? You said we are all humans, and we should not distinguish between race, age, poor, rich, man, woman,...yet here you are, drawing this thou-shalt-not-cross-line down the middle?'

Orthodox reply (OR): ` As one progresses on the Spiritual Path, insight grows. In the beginning, our Leader kindly takes the hand of the seeker, and slowly reveals the Truth according to the capacity and condition in the practicant. Do not doubt, doubt poisons the heart and weakens the will. Although man and woman are equally important, they are not spiritually equal, it is a given of Nature. As your heart sheds its old beliefs and false western preconceptions of emancipation, you will progress to the next stage.'

#####

Of course such examples of enlightenment-in-degrees set the stage for a glorious role of Partial Truth.

Partial Truth is where one can claim: I never lied to you, I just didn't tell you everything. A nice example of this (I think):

I push your car in the canal at night. You come back the following day, and think it stolen. I say: `One never knows, perhaps someone pushed it into the canal'. Did I lie?

#####

Partial truth is the perfect strategy to avoid confrontation, and yet still maintain a facade of truthfulness. It is an essential ingredient of manipulation. To be continued.

Obedience & groupthink: the Sahaj Marg example

Recent speeches by my former Sahaj Marg guru Chari have convinced me that `obedience' is worthy of being mentioned as a separate pitfall.

Although this blog aims at a general analysis of the pitfalls which commonly occur in many spiritual movements and religions, the example given in these speeches is stronger than anything I could possibly come up with myself.

Dear reader, perhaps you are participating in some spiritual movement, and some of the below sounds familiar. Please then ask yourself if you really wish to give up your own, independent thought to someone else? Especially since a true spiritual guide would never ask you to give up your own independent thought. A guide is a guide, guiding humans. A guide is not a shepherd herding sheep. Or do you prefer to be a sheep? Part of the unthinking flock? Fine. But then you will never be a master of yourself, now will you?

######

I quote from Chari's recent speech `Read with your Heart' (given 2 February 2009 in Satkhol, I emphasized the last paragraph in bold type):

`Again and again Babuji Maharaj emphasizes the fact that Sahaj Marg does not ask you for all your life earnings, to give up your family and go into the jungle. It is a very simple method: meditation in the morning, cleaning in the evening, prayer at night. No major sacrifices involved. Only to live a good life, in the right way, but with the only stipulation being obedience to the Master's wishes, and that again is only for our benefit.

We obey to benefit. Unlike in public life, in human life, in our day-to-day life, we obey for somebody else's benefit. In spirituality we obey for our own benefit. You obey; you benefit. You don't obey; you don't benefit. In obedience there can be no questions: "Why have I to obey?" If you ask such a question, it would probably mean several lives more to be taken before you understand why I have to obey. In obedience there is no `why'. There is no search for logic. There is no demand for your question to ask: "Why this question should be obeyed?" or "Why this order should be obeyed? Why does the Master have to tell me and not somebody else? Why does he ask me to obey and not somebody else?" No questions. Totally unquestioning obedience is the only requirement of this spiritual way that I know, Sahaj Marg. The moment you start asking questions, it is implicit that you are questioning the wisdom of your Master, the intentions of your Master and his existence itself - never done, except at the peril of your own evolution.'

Notice the not so subtle use of `fear and temptation' above. If you ask questions: it will probably cost you several lives! (fear). If you obey blindly: you benefit (temptation, the implication is `liberation in this life', whatever liberation may mean of course).

######

And I quote from his speech `Preceptors, the arteries of Sahaj Marg' (given 4 January 2009, Manapakkam, the bold type emphasis is mine):

`When Babuji says eat, you eat. When he says don't eat, you don't eat. You don't think.

One thing that our people must understand is, in obedience there is no place for thought. You are not to think whether this is to be obeyed or not. The Guru orders, you do it. The famous example in our mythology is Parashuram. When he said he was devoted and loved his father, his father said, "Will you do what I tell you?" He said yes. He said, "Cut off your mother's head." Chichick. And the head came off. Mother's head! - obedience. Of course, then the father said, "I am pleased with you. Ask for a boon." He said, "I want my mother alive again." And the mother came alive again.

So, you see, obedience never gives you personal loss, though apparently it may look so.'

#######

Sahaj Marg, like many movements before it (and after, no doubt alas), has turned into a religion, in my not so humble opinion. I see no difference at all between the organization of the Pyramid in Sahaj Marg and the Pyramid of the Roman Catholic Church. The preceptors are the priests, the centers-in-charge are the bishops, the zonals-in-charge are the cardinals, and the guru is the pope, each with their Inner Circle of powerful confidants.

Blind obedience imnsho is necessary to keep the whole Pyramid from toppling over, to maintain closed ranks to all the critical questions that are posed. Questions which are increasingly difficult to answer, because -like the child saying: new clothes? but the emperor is naked! - not even God can make the square root of 2 equal to π (pi). Not even the emperor can make imaginary clothes cover his nudity.

The point is -if one believes in God- that God saw to it that the square root of 2 is necessarily not equal to π (pi) . Logic, science, rationality are perhaps just a part of reality...but reality nonetheless. To deny critical self-reliant thought a worthy place is to renounce spirituality, in my not so humble opinion.

Many great scientists were deeply spiritual persons. They saw God in the wonder of reality all around us. They marveled at the insights that the human mind could glean into Nature, by not accepting religious dogmas and by following the logic of the cosmos. By allowing all questions, especially the critical ones, since the critical questions challenge what we think we know, and lead us further on our slow path of both scientific and spiritual evolution.

######

Spiritual evolution, that is what we need, if you would ask me. If we would have obeyed religious leaders in the past as blindly as Chari is suggesting, we would still be cannibals. Does one need religion to be kind, loving, sharing, concerned for other beings? Does one need blind obedience for this? Let's get real: we do not need anything, anyone, but our own commitment and dedication to becoming `spiritual'...whatever that may mean.

Positive thinking 2: groupthink and denial

One obvious question regarding `positive thinking': Who gets to decide what is `positive'? Let's paraphrase the obscure poet from the previous post, to arrive at:

There is nothing either positive or negative, but thinking makes it so.

#####

Now, to stay with Shakespeare, suppose there is something rotten in the state of Denmark (meaning our Spiritual Movement of course). What do you think will happen? A likely scenario: someone(s) with real commitment to making things better notices that there is something important not right. This person (these persons) will try to correct the issue, but if they are not in a position of power and the issue has been caused by people higher up in the Pyramid...then their efforts will be perceived as threatening to the position of these higher-up people.

Now the person trying to ameliorate things is caught between two grindstones. The denial of the Inner Circle (=the people high up in the Pyramid) is the top grindstone, and the bottom grindstone is ... the denial of the majority of followers. Because the followers are in the Movement for `positivity'. They want to believe in the purer-than-pure heart of the Leader, they want to believe in that God has granted Special Power to the Special Personality, and that they themselves are Special because they follow Him.

The followers cling to these beliefs because it offers them escape from the pangs of life. But then when someone criticizes either the Movement, the Pyramid, or the Leader...their rosy world is threatened.

And so, an emphasis on `positive thinking' & `no criticism' most often occurs in groups where there is a strong hierarchy and a tendency of `groupthink'. By `groupthink' I mean of course the phenomenon that everyone is encouraged to say the same (`positive') things, and critical, self-reliant thought is frowned upon.

#####

From this point, how far are we away from fundamentalism, from becoming a sect? Well, this is difficult to say. Most large government organizations tend to show the same mechanisms. Last weekend, a 2003 memo from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs resurfaced in a major newspaper. In the memo, the Legal Affairs Department advises the Minister that entry in the Iraq war is most likely illegal under international law.

It turns out the memo was blocked from reaching the Minister of Foreign Affairs by the Secretary-General of the Ministry. It was deemed untimely since the Legal Affairs Department had not been asked to give a `negative' advice. But it was archived, and resurfaced now that 5 years later the Senate is asking insistent questions about the legality of the Dutch participation in the war.

So, with or without any label of sect, inside or outside of spiritual movements and religions, I dare still say that `positive thinking' can be a pitfall. `Positive thinking' can be a power tool, used by the top of a Pyramid to smother criticism.

Is this an effective strategy?

#####

Well, yes, from the Pyramid's perspective. One might think not, because almost inevitably, in the end the truth will come out. At some time, the falsities will be exposed. You can fool some people some time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

But the word `time' is of the essence in understanding why the strategy is still effective. Because by the time things are exposed, often the ones who stand to suffer from the exposure have moved on. Or they will say: `Ok ok, so we made some mistakes, LONG AGO, but let's stop arguing about who killed who...and please don't be so negative, we must look to the future and forget the past.'

In this way I have seen so incredibly many cover-ups, even clumsy ones, succeed.

#####

The one perspective from which the `positive thinking' strategy does not succeed, in my not so humble opinion, is the spiritual perspective.

Be truthful.

I cannot imagine any spirituality without such tenet. Truthful can mean praise as well as criticism. Truth is the opposite of denial. Truth means: open to criticism.

#####

The pitiful attempts by many so-called `spiritual' movements to stall criticism, to block criticism, to deny criticism are in my eyes a sure sign that such criticism is justified.

What to think of a memo sent by a member of the Working Committee of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Sahaj Marg) to the organizer of an orkut webcommunity on Sahaj Marg in Iran? (See here, where you can also see how this movement's Pyramid prefers people with positions of power in the secular world.)

Paraphrasing this memo:

`Dear brother, although your community serves 1500 people, we strongly urge you to remove your community because we fear it will be the target of individuals spreading misinformation about Sahaj Marg'.

Of course, webcommunities and blogs are new instruments to create open source exchange of information and ideas. And open, non-hierarchical exchange of ideas always threatens the Pyramid.

No surprise that spiritual movements (religions included) seek ways to maintain their Absolute Truth by denouncing open exchange.

Positive thinking: a pitfall not only in spirituality

A comment on the previous post has set me thinking that it could be worthwhile to discuss the pitfall of `positive thinking'.

Regardless of the setting (spiritual or secular) I can be amused in more than one way to see the proponents of `positive thinking' advocating `positive thinking'. [These proponents would probably see my amusement as the positive way of looking at the phenomenon..;-)]. But it can also be a source of indignation, to see how these proponents can smother very essential criticism in a blanket of `oh don't be so negative'. [And this would be the negative way, I suppose.]

But first let me sketch a commonly occurring setting of positive thinking in our familiar Spiritual Movement:

`You have been given a wonderful opportunity for Liberation in this life. Our Spiritual Leader is awesome, He is Divinity Incarnate. God is wonderful. Praise Him and Him too (yes yes, God is male, just as the Leader).

Of course, since our Leader is so Wonderful, everything He does is Pure Miracle and Love. He didn't answer your letter when your child died? Well, be sure He read your letter, and worked on the Liberation of your child's soul, and worked on your soul too. With 300,000 followers, how can He physically read so much letters? Well, you see, you shouldn't apply logic to things of the heart. He reads them in His Heart. He works tirelessly on the cosmic scale, all that is necessary is done by His Grace.

Please avoid criticizing. This is all negative energy, blocking your spiritual progress. Instead, work on your inner Self, and cultivate Faith. You ask why our Leader criticizes us all the time? Dear brother, why do you persist in these negative attitudes? Do you think you can compare yourself to Him? You are but a slave of your negative tendencies, I will pray to Master for your spiritual uplifting.'

Sound familiar?

#####

Especially in spirituality however, the tireless advocating of positive thinking should ring some bells. Because is not balance a major tenet of spirituality?

Isn't it true in Nature, that where there is `positive' there is also `negative'? Isn't this the well-known dualistic plane, which we are supposed to transcend? I even seem to recall some obscure poet who said:

`...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.'

(to be continued)

Money & Power: the Spiritual Movement's Pyramid

Money & Power, the Spiritual Movement's Pyramid (own work, 2008)

Some important posts on this blog are on the pitfalls associated with Money, Power, the Spiritual Leader, the Pyramid (by which I mean the pyramidical organization of the Spiritual Movement).

After writing these posts, I changed an older sculpture of a bishop figure (I'm a visual artist) into a more disturbing comment on the way that spiritual movements (including religions) tend to function. Because a picture sometimes speaks a thousand words, I'm putting up a photograph of this sculpture.

In the sculpture one sees the Spiritual Leader (or perhaps his Manager?) on top of a dark, mostly opaque Pyramid, which in turn is based on a pedestal/dais-like elevation. The Spiritual Leader is dressed in full regalia, with a silver staff and other attributes of his position. As in the previous post, there is no real humility, here we have the CEO of the Money & Power machine.

If one looks closely, one sees that the Pyramid is filled with Money.



detail of Money & Power, the Spiritual Movement's Pyramid

There were several recent newspaper articles reporting on financial malversations and lack of transparency in a variety of spiritual movements. (To mention one: a long article in a leading Dutch newspaper on the complete lack of transparency regarding the wealth of the Vatican and the catholic church. Wealth which is conservatively estimated in the billions of euros. Yet churchgoers are asked time and again for their financial support, and catholic missionary posts keep asking money for all sorts of projects in the developing world.)

That these issues crop up again and again could cause occasional posts on this blog, even though the main analysis was completed already last September.

The false guru

The false guru (own work, 2005)

The above drawing I made in 2005, after seeing a video of my former Sahaj Marg guru Chari. In this video he `gracefully' allowed people to fall at his feet, perhaps to kiss them even. To understand my indignation at this, one should know that Chari repeatedly stated that hís master never allowed people to fall at his feet, because this would be a false and impeding interpretation of the relationship.

This is not a blog about Sahaj Marg, but I do think it very illustrative of the way in which guru worship can take over the real spiritual issues. This I tried to analyze already in the posts on `spiritual guidance' (pitfall 1). But a picture speaks a thousand words. In the drawing, the false guru enjoys the fawning devotion and the illusion of a special light that radiates from `his presence'.

He doesn't display anger, or irritation like:

`Get up, you fool. What are you doing? Don't worship me, tend to your own inner master. By losing yourself in this outer form worship, you are running away from your spiritual self. Do you want to believe in fairy tales, or do you want to work on the real issues which are perhaps not so pretty but have the decided advantage of being real?'

He also doesn't display a single drop of true humility, modesty even. He only acts the part by folding his hands together, and putting on a serene expression.

#####

The drawing to me seems to capture what goes wrong when we start elevating somebody to the position of Guru, Spiritual Master with capital letters, Absolute (Moral) Authority, you name it.

What really happens is that we create fairy tales that `He' will somehow do our work for us. We experience bliss from this fairy tale, because -duh- now we don't have to do any real, likely confrontational, work on ourselves. Plus we are no longer responsible for the outcome!

Another downside to this transfer of responsibility is that the practicant opens her/himself up to a wide variety of manipulation. Not only from the Spiritual Leader, and the Movement's Pyramid, but also from her/his own subconsciousness.

####

Which is why I believe that a true spiritual guide would abhor any sign of worship. (S)he would relentlessly refuse to be put on any kind of pedestal (dais), be it physical or figuratively speaking.

In fact such a person would in my not so humble opinion most likely not call her/himself a spiritual guide at all (out of true modesty, and insight in the incomprehensibility of our existence). But people would turn to such a person nonetheless, without the elevation -which creates distance- and the worship and the false humility.

But it would not be in large numbers. Because then where to find the time and true attention which is the basis of any true relationship?

######

Please also check out the false guru test at energygrid.com, which was discussed to some extent in a previous post on fulfillment and spiritual progress.

New year's wish to all:

(click on the image for an enlargement)

Some closing remarks

It seems to me that what I set out to do has been done. This therefore should be my last post on this blog , for the time being. If you go back one post, you will find a list of 16 `pitfalls of spirituality'. I will provide each with links to relevant posts contained in this blog.

Still, the best way to read this blog (I think) is to start out at the oldest post and click on `newer post' (at the bottom of the post) each time. This might take some time though, I have no idea how much pages of a regular book these posts would fill.

What has been lacking a bit, thereby causing some imbalance, is an account of all the positive experiences I've had with regard to spirituality, and also with regard to practising a spiritual method. In my life I've been privileged to have met many kind, loving, wonderful people from whom I have learned a great deal about what spirituality means to me. Many of these people have given me what cannot be expressed in words, without second thought or reserve, out of what to me seems true and inspiring altruism. Thank you all.

It might seem negatively balanced also to only talk about pitfalls of spirituality, but I really do not feel that I can add significantly to the many beautiful texts on positive aspects of spirituality existing already. (My personal attitude is to read beyond certain often-occurring pitfalls to find what is to me the real meaning in a spiritual text.)

Non-absolute, non-divisive, individualized spirituality to me seems necessary to bring about what I would call a better world. A world free of exploitation. A world where children are safe, and can grow up playfully. Where `war' like `poverty' is a strange concept from long-forgotten times. Where humans are the custodians of nature. Where human and animal rights are respected. Where difference of opinion goes together with a friendly helping attitude. Etc. You might say: `dream on'...and I would reply (I think) with John Lennon's song Imagine:

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one


This better world is far more important to me and probably you (why else would you be reading this blog?) than most other things. Including of course this blog, which is as personal as it is imperfect. Let's put aside our differences and combine our efforts to make this world a better place.

Ego and selflessness, selfishness and malice

Last week I've been considering the list of pitfalls that this blog started out with, and the one addition of `spiritual energy':

1. Guidance
2. Universal truth & absolute truth
3. Bliss & happiness, pain & sorrow
4. Morality & moral pressure
5. Before & after life
6. Wonders & miracles
7. Money
8. Power
9. Belonging & fulfillment
10. Group dynamics
11. Us & them
12. Woman & man
13. Ego & selflessness
14. Mind & heart, logic & feeling
15. Fear & temptation/reward
16. Spiritual energy, holy energy, transformational power,...

Almost all of these pitfalls have been addressed in the previous posts, I feel. Some probably better, sharper than others, due to natural limitations of the author. The two pitfalls that have not been explicitly addressed, I think, are:

6. Wonders & miracles
13. Ego & selflessness

#####

About wonders & miracles, I think I can be short. From the personal perspective, they play on my wish to believe that there is a Special Purpose to my life, and that God is giving me Special Signs. From the Spiritual Movement's perspective, wonders and miracles are very handy to boost the Absolute Truth. If something extraordinary happens (and this occurs all the time of course) which we perceive as `good', then it is a Miracle, by His Grace etc. If something extraordinary but `bad' happens, well, suddenly no-one is so hot to claim it as `by His Grace'. Suddenly, the negative Event is due to our own negative tendencies, our failure to live up to His Standard.

I mean really. Let's not waste more words on it than this: any all-powerful Entity (God, Master, Leader, Spirit,...) is by the very meaning of the word `all-powerful' completely responsible for anything that happens in all the galaxies, in Existence (if you think that galaxies aren't enough). So in calling one thing a Miracle, and to blame the other on something else than the All-Powerful,...one certainly has one's work cut out trying to explain this to an unburdened mind.

Calling some things good and other things bad reflects our own morality. To me, this shows that the human concept of Absolute Morality doesn't go well together with the concept of an all-powerful Entity. But if it helps people to accept life's harshness, if it helps them develop mildness towards others, etc. then I don't feel like criticizing too much. If on the other hand it drives them towards fundamentalism, separatedness, all the other pitfalls, well then I think some counterweight is necessary.

#####

A final pitfall that seems to me abundantly present in spiritual movements concerns `ego', `selflessness', `selfishness'.

Many spiritual movements claim that the `ego' is responsible for our lack of spiritual progress. And they advocate a giving up of the ego, and living a selfless life full of sacrifice for others (and often of course also for the Leader/Movement).

In my not so humble opinion it would be too easy to dismiss all of this. The reader will recall my opinion that people generally do not act out of malice. But still, it hardly bears contemplation what people do to each other in this world. I cannot even really bear to write about it in any detail. And if I could name some common denominator in people's motives for being so `wolflike' to others, then I think I might call this `blind selfishness'. And how far is `blind selfishness' from `ego'?

So to me, this examining of the `ego' as a hindrance to a more spiritual way of living is not illogical. In my personal experience, it has even helped me get a better understanding of what it is I'm looking for `spiritually'.

So once again the question becomes: where is the pitfall in denouncing the `ego'? What is possibly harmful in advocating an ego-less, self-sacrificing way of life?

#####

The thing is, to me, that our `ego' is a very natural part of our being. It seems completely comparable to other natural parts of our being, such as bodily parts and functions, our capability to love, to analyze, to create, to destroy, to imagine, etc.

So the classic pitfall here appears to me to be this: since the `ego' can arguably be blamed for much of the world's misery, the solution must be to do away with it altogether!

It isn't necessary I think to elaborate on the obvious fallacy of that argument. But there are other pitfalls strongly associated with this `giving up of the ego'. Like stated earlier on this blog, it is the intricate combination of many pitfalls which -imnsho- can make it difficult to understand what one is being subjected to in a given spiritual movement.

#####

Giving up the `ego'...for many movements goes directly against self-reliance.

`The ego has the tendency to cling to its old habits. It will influence your mind, distract you from the Path. Many sages rose to a certain spiritual level, and no further, because they were foiled by their ego. To obtain a completely pure heart, you must surrender to One who has no ego at all. Put yourself completely in His hands, give up doubt (which is an instrument of the ego), cherish Faith. How to achieve the Goal? Do not do what you want to do, but give yourself over to His Wish. Work for the Movement, the Pyramid, the Mission. By doing so, your ego will diminish. Obedience is the key, when we start obeying Him completely, our ego will no longer have control over us. Now we reach a state of blissfull Divine Remembrance.'

Likewise, the ego can be blamed conveniently for any criticism of Movement, Method and/or Leader. In this way, serious and real criticism from sincere followers is often trivialized by the inner circle of the Movement's Pyramid. `Oh, it's just her ego you know. Shame really, after all our Leader has done for her. I pray to Him that this veil may be lifted from her mind.'.

#####

Even more dangerous in my eyes, is the tendency to work endlessly, to the detriment of normal daily life, for the Movement's Pyramid. After all, where are the checks-and-balances? If `ego' is bad, and if friends and family are just distractions from the Goal, and if working for the Mission is a `sure way of progress'...then is it so strange that some people are blinded by this combination into becoming zealous proselytizers, organizers, `spiritual counselors', fund raisers, ... etc.?

#####

So, at the near-ending of this blog, it seems to me that once again moderation and self-reliance are called for to avoid these pitfalls.

To me it seems a fact of life that I will be selfish to some extent in my life. By my living, other beings will suffer and even die. Every step I take will in fact kill many many organisms. I cannot avoid this, it is Nature. Imnsho, Nature dictates that I should take care of myself to a certain extent. Perhaps I can modify this extent to the point where others are hindered only a little, that would be nice. But to me, this doesn't change my fundamental responsibility of taking sufficient care of this person who is uniquely entrusted to me, namely ... myself. Who will prevent myself from overworking, from draining my physical and mental batteries, from under- or overnourishment, from falling into pitfalls of Spiritual Movements...if I don't do it myself?

Bliss & pain, spiritual energy & meditation, unique selling points

Continuing from the previous train of thought, there are some other attractions offered by spiritual movements which to me appear to contain a number of pitfalls. In other words, these attractions add to the temptation side of the sequence `fear<-->temptation-->manipulation'.

If one looks at various spiritual movements, the common denominator of these attractions could be called `bliss'. Or `reprieve from worldly pain', `reprieve from the fundamental loneliness of being an individual' or something similar. Or: `union with the Divine', `going back to my Home' etc.

Since it is easy to be misunderstood in these matters, I repeat that I personally do not consider myself capable to say anything absolute about these characterizations. A feeling which cán be described as being cut off from some `Spiritual Origin' is actually well known to me personally.

And I find that a certain (personal) form of meditation helps me to keep a certain `spiritual' feeling, connection, whatever you wish to call it.

#####

There, I've admitted it, I'm as nuts as everybody else! Or perhaps even nutser. Sorry if your hopes for a completely rational author of this blog have been dashed. But I never promised you a rose garden, did I?

On the contrary, that's what many spiritual movements do, by and large. Apart from promising Salvation, Redemption, Heaven, Liberation, ... in the afterlife (for which noone has to my knowledge ever produced any tangible, incontrovertible evidence), they also offer Bliss...during certain elements of the Spiritual Practice.

During ecstatic chanting maybe, during intense praying sessions, during meditation sessions, during some purification session, by being in the presence of the Leader who just Radiates Love, by sitting on the Leader's Holy Maternal Lap where she Cradles you for 10 seconds, leaving you Completely Transformed...

That kind of thing.

Or Holy Food, charged with Special Energy. Or Holy Water, please donate freely to the Fund to make it available for everyone on the planet, because only This Holy Water is the Real Holy Water.

#####

From personal experience, I think I `know' what I would call a spiritual atmosphere. Being with other people who are not looking for entertainment but for such a spiritual atmosphere, already gives a rare reprieve from what one usually encounters when people gather. Exchanging with other people on `spiritual' matters - I would rather say `daily life matters from a spiritual point of view' or something like that - helps to feel less cut off, for me at least.

But none of this is the Special Merit of the Spiritual Movement or the Method or the Leader. Still, many movements would claim this effect as uniquely theirs, as a proof that Their Method is effective, producing Very Spiritual People.

This is a broader tendency: many movements would claim as their `unique selling point' (you know, from marketing) what is actually a quite general phenomenon, and can be found in many different places, in or out of many spiritual movements.

#####

For example, meditation (unlike afterlife and beforelife etc.) has a basis in science. In the past three decades say, research in the electromagnetic fields which are produced by the electric impulses in our brain has shown that meditation has a clearly detectable influence on the type of electromagnetic waves that the brain produces.

More specific, a certain increase in what is called alpha-waves, is found to accompany feelings of `bliss', deep `spiritual connection', `religious ecstasy' even [[All references are welcome. See comments]]. Other studies show that various forms of meditation can help reduce stress, anxiety, and a host of other stress-related physical ailments.

Well, good, wouldn't you say?

Yet many spiritual movements try to claim these beneficial effects as Uniquely Due to their Method. `Oh no, beware of charlatans trying to influence you with gross hypnosis. Spiritual energy must be of the Purest Form. Our Leader, who was Specially Designated, can transfer His Light onto you. In order to bring this Light to Mankind, He has enabled special Helpers around the world. They have been trained to bring you the same Pure Light during special asnahamsi meditation sessions. The technique of asnahamsi is what sets our Method apart from all other movements.'

Now we're in the temptation business. Suppose one believes this unique selling point. `I feel so wonderful during and after meditation! Therefore what the Leader says must be true. Oh, yes, this surely is the only practical Way to reach the Ultimate.' Then the guilt/fear/... part creeps in automatically: what happens if I do not follow the Leader's instructions? I might be cut off from this wonderful feeling. I'm shaming Him in his Endeavour to save Humanity, which can only be saved by Our Method of course. Etc. etc.

#####

Many people have written about these types of pitfalls, like I said earlier I'm not sure if what I say brings anything really new or more insightful. But perhaps it will be of some benefit to someone. At the very least it helps me to analyze my experiences and my uneasiness with these experiences.

So let me continue. There is, I believe, another pitfall associated with meditation which is less frequently pointed out. And that is the following.

If meditation affects our brain, as science shows, then how do I know that all types of meditation are beneficial to all people practicing that type of meditation? Brain science is still only an emerging field, because our brains are very very intensely complex, and the cause-and-effect chains are mostly still largely uncharted territory.

For this reason, all sorts of neurological afflictions are still largely ununderstood in their working, their genesis, their treatment etc. To mention some: anxiety disorders, depression, schizophrenia, psychosis, migraine, epilepsy, chronic fatigue, obsessive compulsive behaviour, well the list goes on.

So, if I start some form of meditation, what guarantee do I have that the influence of this meditation on my brain patterns is beneficial to me?

But even apart from `too much in general', brain science shows that each brain is unique and reacts in its own unique way to for instance medications, but also to other stimuli. So who is to say if a particular type of meditation is beneficial to me, especially in the long run? Because I may feel really Fine during meditation, but if after a few years I'm stuck with a splitting migraine...

#####

In my not so humble opinion, most spiritual movements who advocate some form of meditation do not have a good checks-and-balances system to evaluate possible adverse health effects on the practicants. They may have some form of spiritual counselors, who keep an eye on things, but have these people been trained in spotting possible adverse effects? Are they even open to the idea that their particular form of meditation is not `Always Beneficial since it is under His Guidance'?

But what to do then, to avoid possible adverse effects? I still think the remedy is partly the same as in the previous post. Self-reliance. Observe your mental and physical health. If you get headaches, contemplate stopping the meditation for some time and observe the effect of this. If you get lethargic, similar. Don't blindly trust what you cannot observe for yourself. (This goes for doctors too, and taking medication. But remember that doctors have been thoroughly vetted by society in a long scientific tradition. And look how many mistakes they still make.)

#####

Finally, it seems to me that moderation is an understated virtue. So if a Spiritual Movement consciously or subconsciously advocates a lot of meditation, and more, until a Blissful Condition has been achieved...then I start wondering. Is my brain designed for such amount of meditation, for such a quantity of alpha waves? Is my purpose in life Bliss? Is this natural, or should I simply accept that life is not Bliss?

`So many questions from the Mind...' is what a true Believer would respond. `You must feel with the Heart'...

Self reliance to avoid manipulation (conscious or not)

The interested reader of this blog, who has read most posts, will see that I'm generally not of the opinion that people act out of malice. Also, I would like to repeat: the word `pitfalls' indicates that they can be avoided.

About manipulation in the sense of the previous post, I often think that it happens subconsciously. Both by the manipulator (which may be I myself too) and by the manipulated. It was already discussed to some extent in the posts on Absolute Truth and `Us and Them'.

But still, the effects can be unwanted. Of course, if you are happy and fulfilled in your Spiritual Movement, then this blog probably will only make you frown. I'm not saying you should change, that's not for me to know. This blog is written more to provide some hopefully helpful insights for those who are feeling...uneasy say, with a certain Spiritual Movement.

#####

So about manipulation...like most of the other pitfalls, manipulation happens everywhere, also outside spiritual movements. Manipulation starts perhaps with our childhood, when we are indoctrinated with the value systems of our surrounding people / community / society.

I'm sure that -like power & money- one could write many treatises on the subject and still not cover half of it.

One could view this blog also as some attempt at manipulation, trying to influence readers. So be it, I would not know how to avoid it as its author.

But there is a way -imnsho- that we can avoid unwanted manipulation in the spiritual field. I believe it could be called self-reliance, or keeping your own counsel, or maintaining your own spiritual responsibility.

#####

Still, as discussed earlier, exactly this is what many people find very difficult. We tend to look to others for our opinions and our behaviour. We are social animals, group animals, herd animals.

Nonetheless, if one is uneasy with the Absolute Truth, or with the Leader, or with money schemes, power corruption, moral pressure, group dynamics... then it seems a shame to stay on out of fear and/or temptation. Or worse manipulation.

It seems to me, that one can avoid the pitfall of fear<-->temptation-->manipulation by NOT surrendering one's own independent view, one's own experience,one's own reasoning to the Absolute Truth or to the Spiritual Leader, or to `the group'.

#####

If thinking for myself, relying on myself, speaking out against what I perceive to be illogical or untruthful or incorrect,...gives me uneasy feeling, then that seems to me a sure sign that there is some form of manipulation going on, conscious or not.

And then I can analyze what is behind my letting me be manipulated. Am I afraid to lose a safe haven? Am I afraid to lose my ticket to a blissful afterlife? To lose my ticket to inner peace, tranquility, purpose, my connection with God? Am I afraid to be cast out of some important group, to become lonely and ostracized?

It may all be the case, but for me, after one reaches a certain point I think one cannot deny some inner voice of truth (not absolute truth!). At least that is how it felt and feels for me personally.

#####

After leaving my former Spiritual Movement, I have found very little change in my spirituality (to use a phrase). For me, it is as if a veil has been lifted, showing me that what I feel and how I am is spiritual enough for me. Not that there isn't room for change or `improvement' -whatever that may be-, but this is not some Holy Duty. In fact, to be humane seems far more attractive and natural then to be a saint.

What was this Absolute Truth, other than distracting me from simply `being'?

Who was this Leader (subtly or not so subtly demanding all sorts of things from me, which I was happy to give or carry out), other than some person who Believes zealously in this Absolute Truth, and holds that I should believe it too?

Which is to some extent even understandable, but when this Leader is seen to clearly manipulate, to go against important aspects of this Absolute Truth...well, then to me it felt as simply `not right'. So now I'm back to `self-reliance'. And it feels as if a weight has been lifted, notwithstanding the fact that I also learned a lot from my previous participation in this spiritual movement.

#####

I feel as if many of the pitfalls that I started out with have been covered. Probably a few more posts, and then I might consider calling it a day. The purpose of this blog is a limited one, it's not my objective to analyze endlessly or to write a complete treatise.

If you feel something is still lacking, let me know in the comments section.

Fear & temptation, leading to spirituality or manipulation?

On rereading the last post, it seems not the most clear, coherent one so far. I apologize. Perhaps I can tie some strands together in this continued post.

It seems strange to me that many people in as recent times as the middle ages really believed in Hell, eternal Damnation etc. Did anybody ever produce incontrovertible evidence for such horrifying institutions? I don't think so. But then, what in heaven's name made people believe in this nonsense? What made them fear such an invention as `the Devil' to the extent where they were willing to burn so-called witches?

One can wonder at this, and to me (definitely no expert) it seems not unlikely that these fears and terrifying entities were part of a package deal so to say. Because the flip side of the medallion was the belief in Heaven, eternal Salvation, the frequent apparition of angels/saints, other miracles and the presence of a loving God in their lives.

And so, if you were poor and probably being exploited, with little chance of attaining any position of influence, with high mortality of your beloved ones...then religion still offered something to make life bearable. Because if you lived your hard life `piously and just', then you would gain an afterlife with the angels in Heaven. And those who exploited you would get their just comeuppance, for surely God would send them to Hell.

#####

So, once again being brief to the point of major omission, thinking along these lines explains to me how people are led to believe in the strangest things. The belief in benevolent fairies, goblins, space aliens, gods comes together with the belief in malicious spirits, kobolds, space aliens, devils.

These beliefs help us to make our life `special'. They help us to convince ourselves that we matter, somewhere, to Someone - even when in daily life no-one seems to care. When we are Good, Someone notices and we will be Rewarded. This is the temptation part. The flip side, the fear part, is that when we are Bad, we will be Punished.

#####

We have come some way from medieval times. Like stated before, science and the efforts of many many people have helped at least western societies to free themselves largely from the stranglehold of christianity. But a lot of this is not really so long ago. There are still many people that I've spoken to who in their youth were brought up in a very strict `fear & temptation' template, in catholic or protestant schools. The idea of `sin' has not lost its hold on society.

What is more worrisome to me (and many others) is that many modern spiritual movements (including religions) have evolved and adapted the fear & temptation mechanism, instead of getting rid of it.

Why worrisome? Well, in a way it's none of my business of course, but if I write about pitfalls of spirituality...then I feel I should mention that this age-old fear & temptation mechanism can cause a lot of mental anguish. And can cause people to be manipulated by others, and to live in shame, guilt, anxiety, performing time-consuming and tedious rituals, separating themselves from other people...in short the opposite of what spirituality to me is about.

#####

If I'm afraid of death (fear), I might be tempted to buy into the Grand Story of this wonderful Spiritual Leader (temptation) which tells me that my life has a Purpose, and that there is such a thing as Redemption / Liberation / Heaven / ...you name It.

If I'm insecure what my life is about, and how I should behave (fear) then I might be tempted to buy into the Grand Story of etc.

If I'm afraid to be alone, if I'm frightened and hurt by the cruel things in my life (fear), I might be tempted etc.

The Grand Story invariably promises me the Sky (temptation). It provides solace for my grief, it gives direction to my behaviour, it brings me the company of other Believers, and it stills my fear of Death. It also provides the possibility of becoming Special, a True Saint! I, who was always insignificant both to myself and others, I can be Transformed into His tool! (One doesn't have to buy into all the options of course, I'm just mentioning some).

#####

By buying into the Grand Story (the Absolute Truth of previous posts), in most cases I open myself up to manipulation. This I see as a real and dangerous pitfall, because usually the manipulation is subtle. The more coarse manipulations of medieval times have been exposed for what they were, we don't fall for them any more. (Well, most of us don't.).

I'm thinking along lines like:

`It takes a Master of Great Caliber to liberate a person in the course of only one lifetime. We are all caught in an endless wheel of reincarnation, having to come back on earth again and again until our soul is cleaned of all samsaric and karmatic grossness. We suffer, life after life after life, because of our desires. Our desires lead us to accumulate grossness, where our soul just longs for Reunion with the One. Only if we are fortunate enough to attract the attention of such a Master, we can shorten the cycle, and even attain the Goal within this lifetime.

These are the teachings of the Great Saint Pujashri Parakrishna Mahamsi, our beloved Adiguru. He developed a special meditation technique to aid the sincere spiritual seeker, called `asnahamsi'. The sincere spiritual seeker is instructed to try out this technique under guidance of a capable Master such as our current Guruji Shri Radhu Amfimakassar, and observe the results.

After a few months of sincere practice, a feeling of lightness, of oneness with the Divine starts to pervade. The seeker's Journey has begun. Still, the Master is necessary more and more as the Path continues. There are knots and obstacles on the path which can only be overcome with the help of One who has crossed these obstacles Himself. Complete surrender to the Guide is necessary, otherwise we become trapped by the foils of our ego. For western people, the concept of surrender can be difficult, but we assure you that the Master is only one who has mastered Himself. To develop faith, at some point we must bid the intellect farewell. It can only bring us so far, and no further. Once we develop Faith, obedience to and complete dependence on the Master becomes our second nature. Now our work is done, He will take us to the Goal.'

Fear and temptation: what are our motives?

In writing this blog, a certain question persists:

Why do we do what we do? What drives us, what are our motives?

In my not so humble opinion, we all build up a sort of `belief system' in the course of our life. A part of this belief system may come to us through our family, another part through other groups that we are part of for some time, and maybe we have some individual say in what we believe in too. Our experiences are bound to play some role in the whole thing too.

I don't think that what we do derives 100% from this belief system. I would even go so far as to think that quite a bit of our belief system comes from what we are used to doing. In other words, we are creatures of instinct and habit, and it seems likely to me that we choose what to believe in at least partly also to accommodate these instincts and habits.

In spirituality, it seems to me that what we believe in also accommodates our longing for a better world (whatever `better' may be). And assuages our fear of dying, our fear of senselessness, our fear of the unknown, our fear of being insignificant pawns in a cruel grand scheme of things.

One can only blame our (limited) human intelligence for these fears and questions. As far as I know, there are no other animals who pray, meditate, or practice some other form of spirituality / religion. I feel that we need certain beliefs, in order to maintain a positive outlook on our existence. Without certain safeguards, our positive outlook on our existence might be vanquished by fears, doubts, traumatic experiences, and rational questions.

#####

Religions and religious practices have -I believe- evolved with humanity's growing understanding of the world in which we find ourselves. But still in essence they can be characterized as driven by a combination of `fear' and `temptation'.

Where our early ancestors were terrified of thunder and lightning, they invented appropriate gods. By making these gods rather human, one could pray to them, barter with them, appease them with a suitable sacrifice. In this way, `primitive' religion reduced anxiety, gave direction, and offered the temptation of an afterlife in the form of `everlasting hunting grounds' or similar stuff. [I'm skipping over the more subtle aspects, I know. It's not my objective here to be complete, sorry.]

Somewhere in our history however, I speculate, the idea of several very humanlike gods running around somewhere close -yet never really tangibly, provably- became obsolete. It simply made no sense, actually, if one applied some science and scepsis and a lot of free thinking. So what were the romans supposed to do, for instance, when confronted with monotheistic religions like judaism and christianity?

The idea of one, mysterious, unknowable, all-powerful god or divine force or ...(whatever these concept may mean) is harder for the intellect to dismiss. Not in the least because our intellect has never given a satisfactory rational answer to our existential questions either.

#####

Many people claim to feel the presence of something/someone divine. This `divine' experience strengthens them in their spiritual belief system - quite logically I would say, although to me the qualification `divine' cannot be rational (more on this later). But the belief in rationality as the `best' or `most objective' way of understanding the world, is also just a belief, I believe ;-).

#####

In this whole fabric of belief systems, this post is about fear & temptation as a pitfall. For fear & temptation to become a pitfall, they must be hampering me in how I want to be, how I want to live, to love, to give,...something like that.

Since [imnsho of course] I do have personal experience with fear and temptation hampering me, in a spiritual way, I feel it might be of benefit to write some analysis on this blog.

[to be continued]

Money, selfperpetuation, accountability

Let's continue from the previous post, and please keep in mind that I'm not a financial expert. Therefore my account is no doubt oversimplified. But I believe it to be essentially to the point. Any expert refinement and also criticism would be most welcome, please leave your comment.

Given the 5 attainable Goals mentioned in the previous post, acquiring money comes into a different perspective for the efficient Manager of the Spiritual Movement. Serious Money brings 3 of the 5 Goals much closer. (growth of recognizance, growth of influence, a solid Fund for the Movement).

Therefore, Money is transformed from being a simple means to being a complex end in itself.

Money started out as a simple means: some things have to be paid for. In the field of spirituality there are actually very little material necessities, so there is in fact very little real spiritual need for money. A small budget goes a long long way if one sticks to the spiritual essence.

But this cannot remain so if one wishes to `secure the Future of the Movement and its Pyramid'. This wish for self-perpetuation brings with it the 5 Goals. And for this Serious Money is necessary. This Serious Money will buy influence, land, places of practice/worship, books and other missionary activities, juridic securities such as trademarking the Movement's name, good lawyers, professional services in every necessary field. It will provide recognizance from governments, banks, local authorities, and any other entity which comes along.

To be really sure of Money, not only now but also in the future, many if not most organizations (such as NGO charities for instance) look to establish a Trust Fund, which invests the available money to yield an optimal interest. Ideally, this interest should at any time suffice to pay for the then-current needs of the Movement.

#####

Assuming that one cannot safely expect such yield to be higher than say 5% per year, this means that the Trust Fund has to be 20 times larger than what the Movement needs in a given year. And if the Movement grows, then to maintain the 5 Goals its financial needs also grow, and so its Trust Fund must grow accordingly.

This is -I think- a very real explanation for the many money schemes that one sees around Spiritual Movements (and to be honest, many other `charitable organizations' as well).

Because people are asked to donate for building churches / meditation halls / hospitals / natural disaster relief / publishing books /... where in fact, most of the money goes into the Trust Fund. They are sold books, audiovisual materials, you name it, all under the cry: we need money to help the needy and stricken...where in fact it is the Trust Fund which needs to grow.

#####

But the very aim of `securing the future of the Movement' to me seems very unspiritual. It shows a rather profound lack of faith in God, if I may be so bold to point this out. God surely doesn't care under what name or form humanity grows spiritually, I would say. A spiritual movement which cannot obtain directly what little it really needs, doesn't seem worthy of a Trust Fund at all. Self-perpetuation of the Movement is contrary to the natural change of things. Change is the only aspect of Nature we can really be sure of. Change to me is a spiritual value.

Not to mention that hoarding money in a Trust Fund has several very unspiritual drawbacks. Firstly: this money is not available to give the direct help which is really necessary NOW in many parts of the world.

Secondly, the investment of the money in the Trust Fund is often left to financial professionals whose expertise is in the increase of money. NOT in whether this increase of money was brought about in an ethical let alone spiritual way.

Just last year, a documentary in the Netherlands revealed that many charitable NGO's had invested large sums of money in the weapon industry, and other enterprises which were often diametrically opposed to what the charities collected money for.

Thirdly, the managing of large amounts of money unfailingly brings with it the pitfalls of greed, mismanagement, cover ups etc. Please read this article in the National Catholic Reporter as an illustration of what I mean.

#####

How to avoid all these complex pitfalls? Strangely, the answer is simple [imnsho]: transparency & accountability.

Transparency of goals and means and organization. This means that we tell everyone, in a simple and clear way, what we really aim for. And how we intend to achieve this materially and organizationally.

Public accountability of assets and liabilities, and all material transactions. This means that we tell everyone, in a simple and clear way, how much money and property we really have. And also what we have done with it, and why.

Could I suggest the following to you?

Please do not donate any longer to any charitable organization which does not offer transparency and complete public accountability. By donating to such an organization, you are hampering more than you are helping, is my strong conviction. Any organization which has nothing to hide will freely and unasked provide you with transparency and accountability, because it's not rocket science. So, in the extremely large majority of cases, if an organization doesn't freely give t&a, then it really has something to hide. And your money, which can give real help, should go elsewhere.

Thank you.