Is there anything wrong with life?

More and more, I'm wondering if the biggest problem with life is believing that life is a problem. Personally, I just don't see how there could be anything wrong with Life as a whole, capital "L" version.Yet religions tell us that there is. Christianity speaks of original sin, and of a fall from God's good graces. Similar teachings are found in Islam and Judaism. Buddhism informs us that life is suffering. In Hinduism, the everyday world is maya, illusion, not the place a psyche wants to be. The root of "religion" is relegare, which denotes a binding back to God.…

Duhism — even more useless than Taoism (but funnier)

The Tao works in mysterious ways. Mostly, for me, through the Internet. If ultimate truth ever speaks to me, I figure it will be via my MacBook.So I smiled sagely -- my natural expression -- when I clicked on an email that informed me Bob Tzu now was following me on Twitter. Twitter etiquette demanded that I take a look at Bob's page to see if his Tweets were interesting enough to make me want to follow him.Which, they were. Bob Tzu had me at...Ignorance may not really be bliss... but it'll do in a pinch.Tomorrow, I will live in…

Buddhism and Taoism deconstruct religion

Even when I was young, a pre-teen, I was attracted to Taoist and Buddhist imagery. During my first visit to San Francisco's Chinatown at about the age of twelve, I bought a bunch of scrolls and artwork showing sages wandering on misty mountain paths.Where the heck did that immediate attraction for a philosophy I knew nothing about come from? I have no idea. But it was a premonition of things to come.Because now my churchlessness has evolved to the point where Taoist and Buddhist writings are just about the only kind of spiritual literature that my psyche can stomach. And…

Logocentrism isn’t cool for the churchless

Wow, this blog is rocketing upward in philosophical sophistication. After putting up a post where I used the word "deconstruction" as many times as I could, now I've got "logocentrism" in a title.My inspiration, as before, is a wonderful philosophy comic book by Jim Powell, "Deconstruction for Beginners" (which I surely am).The basic notion of logocentrism, which is a bad, bad, bad thing to Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, is sort of hard to pin down -- which is to be expected from a philosophical approach that dismantles the foundation of meaning.Here's a pretty good brief description.1. Belief that…

How to judge a “science of the soul”

Quite a few mystical, meditational, and spiritual entities (organizations or individuals) claim to teach a science of the soul. See, for example, here, here, here, and here.My previous post about the scientific method stimulated some pondering: how would a science of the soul go about trying to discover what, if anything, lies beyond the physical human brain and material universe?I'm assuming that "soul" refers to something metaphysical. If not, then it doesn't make sense to speak of a science of the soul, because plain "science" would be sufficient -- plenty of researchers already are delving into how our minds work,…

Science is the only way of knowing objective truth

It's amusing when anti-scientific true believers get on their fundamentalist soapboxes. I've had a good time reading the nonsensical comments on my spiritual pseudo-science post.I'll try to avoid sounding too condescending here, though I agree with biologist PZ Myers when he responded to a creationist with "I'll be condescending when condescension is deserved."First -- and probably most importantly -- everybody uses the scientific method in their everyday lives. Otherwise it would be impossible to live any sort of normal life. So those who criticize how science works are hypocrites, unless they also are criticizing themselves. Here's a simple depiction of…

“Quantum Gods” debunks spiritual pseudo-science

Traditional religions embrace a lot of crazy unsubstantiated beliefs. But so do modern New Agey sorts of spirituality, which often take a speck of scientific truth and try to inflate it into a grand explanation of the cosmos.So in addition to fundamentalist dogma, we churchless types need to train our skeptical guns on targets such as the film "What the Bleep Do We Know?" Personally, I liked this movie a lot more than, say, a speech by the Pope. However, since I'm fairly familiar with quantum theory (in a non-mathematical sense, at least), having researched it in the course of…

Evidence of Rumsfeld’s Christian war

Here's a great example of how unsupported religious beliefs get mixed up with politics and foreign policy, helping lead to war:Slides of former Bush defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld's briefings to the White House where he juxtaposed war images with inspirational Bible quotes.Take a look.

Don’t get drunk on someone else’s religious intoxication

I've always wanted to talk about deconstruction in a blog post. (The philosophical variety, not the demolition kind.) My only minor problem -- which shouldn't ever stop a blogger -- is that I knew next to nothing about the subject.But now I've read all 168 pages of "Deconstruction for Beginners," a terrific book. One of it's appealing points is that it takes a comic book style to deciphering Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction. And has quite a bit of talk about sex. Including drawings of naked women. This stuff isn't gratutious, as it contributes to understanding how deconstruction works…

People talk to God like a friend

Thumbing through a recent issue of New Scientist, I came upon an intriguingly titled short article: "Praying to God is like talking to a friend."

(I'll include the article in a continuation to this post, in case the link above becomes inactive.)

A brain scanner was used to see what happens when people improvised personal prayers before making requests to Santa Claus.

Improvised prayers triggered patterns that match those seen when people communicate with each other, and activated circuitry that is linked with the theory of mind — an awareness that other individuals have their own independent motivations and intentions.

…The prefrontal cortex is key to theory of mind. Crucially, this area was inactive during the Santa Claus task, suggesting volunteers viewed Santa Claus as fictitious but God as a real individual.

Of course, this study doesn't prove anything about the existence of God. It just shows that when people pray, they believe they're communicating with an animate being.

Which helps explain why religions are so appealing to people — particularly those that promise a personal relationship with some divine entity.

Who wouldn't want to have a best friend always available? Especially one who's omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent?

I used to believe that the guru who initiated me into a mystical meditation practice was part and parcel of my consciousness. Disciples were encouraged to think often about the guru during the day, and visualize his presence in their lives.

Doing that, I'd feel a warm glow of conviviality with my imaginary friend. "Imaginary," because I never actually sensed the presence of a separate non-physical being, nor were my mental conversations anything but one-sided.

I'd talk away inside my head to my guru, feeling good that I had someone who'd listen to whatever I had to say, and was totally accepting of whatever thoughts or emotions passed through my mind.

Hook me up to an MRI machine back then, and my scan results probably would have been the same of the praying people in this study.

Now, I suspect my guru talk would register more along the Santa Claus lines, because I've stopped believing in an unseen friend who hears me but doesn't speak to me.

When the phone rings in our house, I pick it up and say "Hello." Usually I hear a voice respond almost immediately. If all I hear is silence, I'll repeat my hello a few more times.

Then I hang up. It'd be crazy to keep on talking when there isn't anyone on the line. But this is just what I did for many years. And what religious believers do whenever they pray.

To keep up a one-sided conversation with someone unseen or unheard, you have to believe (1) that the other person is there, but (2) chooses to be a 100% listener rather than a talker.

For a long time I could embrace this belief. Not totally, but to a sufficient extent that I didn't feel foolish when I chatted away to my guru in thought-words. Eventually, though, I began to feel that I was merely talking to myself.

Now, each morning I begin my meditation with silently spoken words along this line:

If there's anyone out there, or in here, or wherever, who is aware of me, hi! Stop on by my consciousness. Let's get to know each other. Assuming you're nice. If you're a demon or some other nasty being, I'd just as soon that you keep to yourself.

And that's about it. I've stopped jabbering to hypothesized metaphysical beings who never respond to me. If an entity wants to strike up a conversation within my consciousness, I'm all ears.

But I'm not interested any more in being all tongue. Like the people in the study, I've done my share of talking to a divinity who I believed was really listening.

Now it's my turn to listen for a response. Which is a fine traditional way to meditate: doing one's best to empty the mind of thought talk and observing what remains, or happens next.

What I've found when I do this is that I lose a conversation with an imaginary friend. But I gain a sense of being in greater touch with reality. And that's a good trade-off.

Here's the full article:

Where the skeptical meets the mystical

The title of this post is the tag line on David Lane's web site, Neural Surfer. I like it. That's a great place to be -- the shore line of reality where skepticism shovels away the loose sand of mysticism, getting closer to a solid bedrock of truth.Here's a sample of David's take on the subject: "Tangled Phone Lines: why Richard Dawkins hung up on Ken Wilber." Like me, David is an initiate of Radha Soami Satsang Beas who has decided to take seriously the precept that it's possible to have a "science of the soul." I clearly believe that…

God’s goodness is absolutely nothing

For the past few days I've been enamored with my "What's good about God?" question. It keeps running through my mind, particularly the answer:Nothing. In the comments to that post I clarified a point that might have confused some people. I didn't mean that people aren't affected -- both positively and negatively -- by a belief in God.But this is much different from being influenced by God directly. For that to happen, (1) God would have to be real, and (2) God would have to act upon human beings in some demonstrable fashion. I responded to a comment with...My question…

What’s good about God?

This morning, while I was meditating, a thought popped into my mind: What's good about God? After a bit of reflection, an answer came: Nothing.If you're an atheist or agnostic, that answer won't surprise you. But I hope to convince religious believers that they too should consider that God is good for nothing. In fact, I don't see how someone could come to any other conclusion.Follow my reasoning...God isn't evident. People are. Religions are founded by people who supposedly know something about God. For example, Jesus, Mohammad, Moses. In addition to these historical figures, there are modern day gurus, masters,…

A Sant Mat guru answers a question with: “Don’t question”

Shin, whose email to me a few months back was shared in "Good questions from a Sant Mat truth seeker," is still questioning. Good for him.Below I've shared, with minor editing, a report from Shin of a Q & A session between him and Gurinder Singh -- the current guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), a branch of Sant Mat.What's especially interesting about this interaction is that one of the parties, Gurinder Singh, is considered to be God in Human Form (GIHF) by RSSB devotees. So to a believer, what the guru says is the gospel truth. Or the…

Cogent critical analysis of Sant Mat

Often comments added to a blog post by other people are the best part of something I've written. Such was the thought that went through my mind on April 28, when I read a comment by tAo that he'd submitted to my "Another RSSB initiate bites the dust" post. With minor editing, I've copied it in below to give it wider attention.Though the subject is the Sant Mat philosophy that forms the basis of the teachings of an Indian organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, seemingly much of what tAo says applies to any religious group.I agree that many of those…

Zen minus Buddhism equals Taoism

Becoming “churchless” doesn’t mean that someone has given up the search for meaning in life. Quite the opposite. Speaking personally -- as if I had a choice -- I don’t feel that the intensity of my quest for ultimate answers concerning the nature of the cosmos has lessened a bit since I turned away from organized religion and spirituality.  All that has changed is the style of my search. I’m more open now to wandering in the open fields of mysticism and philosophy, being less concerned about staying on a well-defined path.Still, I enjoy learning about how other pathless (or…

Follow your passion wherever it leads

Wow -- that's probably the most New Age'y blog post title I've ever inflicted upon cyberspace. But it fits with what I feel right now.Which can be expressed in some other cliches that have run through my mind the past few days, when I've been pondering whether to consummate my passion for a Suzuki Burgman 650 Exec maxi-scooter that almost came to fruition last fall.Live for the momentDo it now before you're too old and can't do itWhat's important is the traveling, not the destinationHaving fun along the way is the wayRisk adds zest to life -- don't fear itHaving…