Church of the Churchless

I find the notion that reality is non-dual appealing. I used to be much more of a dualist, or transcendentalist, believing that something above and beyond the physical universe is where ultimate truth, beauty, and wisdom lie.

But increasingly I resonate with Wikipedia’s description of non-duality (though I don’t agree that Plotinus is a non-dualist):

Nondualism may be viewed as the belief that dualism or dichotomy are illusory phenomena. Examples of dualisms include self/other, mind/body, male/female, good/evil, active/passive, dualism/nondualism and many others.

To the Nondualist, reality is ultimately neither physical nor mental. Instead, it is an ineffable state or realization. This ultimate reality can be called “Spirit” (Aurobindo), “Brahman” (Shankara), “God”, “Shunyata” (Emptiness), “The All” (Plotinus), “The Self” (Ramana Maharshi), “The Dao” (Lao Zi), “The Absolute” (Schelling) or simply “The Nondual” (F. H. Bradley).

Recently I got an email from Mike, who shared some interesting thoughts about Sant Mat in general and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) branch of this religious philosophy in particular. I’ve included his message as a continuation to this post.

I was struck by Mike’s assumption that Sant Mat is a non-dual spiritual practice. Having been initiated into RSSB about the same time Mike was (1971), and being familiar with the teachings of decidedly non-dual mystics such as Ramana and Nisargadatta, I’ve never thought of Sant Mat in this fashion.

Ken Wilber is a modern non-dualist. In his magnum opus, “Sex, Ecology, Spirituality,” Wilber sums up his philosophy as: (1) the Many are illusory, (2) the One alone is real, and (3) the One is the Many. Thus reality is illusion, and illusion is reality.

Could be. Unity is what most of us are looking for in one way or another, and non-duality is even more of a piece than monism—which ends with a One that transcends the maya of Manyness. I like the non-dual wrinkle that ultimate reality is right here and now, not only far off in some other realm.

I just don’t see Sant Mat as being authentically non-dual. To the extent that it is, non-dualism is very much de-emphasized in comparison to the thoroughly dualistic aspects of the meditational and devotional practices I was taught.

For example: body, mind, and soul are considered to be separate and distinct. The goal is to leave body and mind behind, and become pure soul. “Heaven” (a.k.a. Sach Khand) is an actual place, another dimension of being, not a modification of present consciousness.

The guru is to be worshipped and obeyed. He isn’t merely an exemplar of what the disciple can become, but rather is thought to be a son of God who has been sent by the Creator to retrieve lost souls. While the highest manifestation of “God” in Sant Mat is formless, the disciple is supposed to rely on the guru’s various forms (physical, astral, causal) during a long spiritual journey from many to the One.

So there’s a lot of duality to be discarded in Sant Mat before attaining the nondual. Other practices such as Zen, Advaita, and Taoism take a much more direct route to non-duality.

Still, Mike correctly points out that if the overtly ritualistic and religious aspects of Sant Mat are discarded, you’re left with a spiritual practice that could indeed be viewed as falling into the non-dual camp. Of course, this could be said of anything: if you take away the fluff, you’re left with the essence.

What I wonder is, “Why not dive right into the essence, rather than spending time and energy wading through the fluff?” But that’s a matter of personal preference, as Mike says. For some people, during some periods of their lives, dualistic supports—authority figures, congregations, holy books, worship services—are needed.

Here’s Mike’s message:

Here’s some thoughts from Catherine, all the way from South Africa. Like me, she’s a Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) initiate. Also like me, she’s come to look upon this faith with fresh eyes.

I’ve shared several of her email messages below. They’ve been mildly edited, mostly to correct a few typos and inject some explanatory links. I’ve also generally Americanized her English, to keep my spell checker happy.

Many people who read this blog are familiar with the RSSB philosophy and practices. Many others aren’t. I realize that some of what Catherine writes about will elicit a huh? from the latter group.

But the broad issues she addresses should be of interest to everybody concerned with being churched vs. churchless; with accepting religious authority vs. choosing for oneself; with remaining firm on a chosen path vs. meandering off to greener pastures.

Click on the continuation link to read Catherine.