Playing fair with words

In all fairness, it must be said that it is tough for satsangis to change. Because satsangis are said to have surrendered their objectivity at the time of initiation.
For most of the satsangis, those who have left RSSB are in the domain of Kal and are to be considered sympathetically. (I am referring to Charan Singh’s line). Most satsangis consider ex-satsangis as Yoga Brasthas (the fallen Yogis).
So if you talk to satsangis and tell them that you are no longer following sant mat, they will either avoid you or they will try to persuade or try to re-sell the stale old RS dogma in a sugar coated manner.
Most of all, satsangis have a superiority complex (us vs them mentality) and they dramatise with the outer world. Most satsangis are experts in double talk. They have one line reserved for RSSB and the other reserved for the world in Kal’s domain.
I know satsangis who don’t mind cheating the world as they say they are kal’s property and are akin to animals. In fact, the RSSB dogma is worse than racism. Those who are not satsangis are to be treated like animals (not human beings).

Who is the author of Radha Soami Beas secret history on the Internet?
http://radhasoamis.freeyellow.com/index.html
Is it ghost written by Dr. David Lane? The author’s name is not mentioned. It is better if it were mentioned so that we can know about the author too. A signed book is better than an unsigned one, anyday.

what a schmuck… to but it bluntly… i have read your post for little over 5 months and there has been much that you have said that i dont agree with. i mean coming from a Christian among other spiritual dogmatic backgrounds or junk just words background.. do as i say not as i do…type people the same people who say your gonna burn in hell for sin or what not. i think all those people are fouls and have no place telling me were my soul is gonna end up. i mean come on if there is a god and i think there is some form of higher being other than self. then i think he would be the last to condemn a mere human to a eternity of hell… and i agree the bible has been edited for benefit. i mean benefit of religions.. its like they want to keep the higher truth from us so that we follow there way instead of discovering our own. i mean anyone who says this is the way and there is no other way are nothing but fools. like any human is capitable of knowing whats really going on in this universe. thats part of the reason i consider myself a Taoist due to the fact that we will never truly know. and when we do discover the answer it only last long enough for one to say there it is… then is slips away. for we are not meant to know. so for the people like the ones that posted that comment and for the ones that say this is the way and there is no other… then good go about your way i hope yall find the higher truth. there negativity will prevail in there lives and they will never grow past what they think they know. its like my mom told me long ago if cant say anything nice then dont say it at all.. i love this website and it is a great source for my daily inspiration so keep on keeping on my brother for time is all we really have and it will reveal all.
-peace

Deepak wrote:
“Those who are not satsangis are to be treated like animals (not human beings”.
Deepak, as much as I disagree with much of the RS trip, I certainly don’t agree with your statement above. Although I have been disassociated from RS life for 8 years, I still have many satsangis friends that treat me with love and respect.
Perhaps it could be argued that satsangis are treated worse than ex-satsangis when considering seva projects, dependency on the guru, an excessive and often fruitless meditation pratice, freaking out over a glass of wine or an egg in a birthday cake, and other trips that are part of the RS teachings.
Bob

Bob, perhaps, there are several categories of satsangis as much as there are several categories of human beings. Even I have come across compassionate satsangis. However, by and large, satsangis who stick to RS dogma are intolerant about non-satsangis. They feel that they are the unmarked (unlucky) souls who are not in favour of the Great RS God.
Taking your own statements, I can also make out a case for Osama bin Laden. I have Muslim friends who are quite compassionate. Osama Bin Laden is also a Muslim. That makes Laden a compassionate creature. Is this what you want to say.
Drop that shoddy logic. Look at the ideology in the face. Even the RS ideology smacks of jehad, although the RS jehad is mental and quite harmless to the outside world, it can be devestating emotionally.
I know it because I have borne the brunt of this emotional apartheid before becoming a satsangi.

Deepak:
From my own personal experience, I have yet to meet a satsangi who is intolerant of non-satsangis.
Sure, they may feel fortunate to be initiated but “intolerant of non-satsangis”….that has not been my experience with the many satsangis I know in the US. Maybe it is different where you live.
To my knowledge, there is nothing in the RS theology or literature that encourages intolerance of people who are not satsangis.
Your logic about Bin Laden doesn’t make sense.
Bob

Jake Harris wrote: “…like any human is capitable of knowing whats really going on in this universe. thats part of the reason i consider myself a Taoist due to the fact that we will never truly know. and when we do discover the answer it only last long enough for one to say there it is…then is slips away…”
–For me that’s just how it is. I don’t know anything, but there are those times when the “slate is wiped clean”, maybe just for a moment, and it becomes perfectly clear… “Aha!” and then I go about my business. It’s not that we can’t truly know, it’s just that to clearly see, the one that would know is completely absent. There is a memory of this seeing, but as the one who remembers, I can never be that clear seeing. It cannot be captured by anyone because it is not any ‘thing’ that can be objectivised. So, as me, I am clueless.
Then Jake said: “..for we are not meant to know.”
I don’t think there is anything to “intend” for us to be any way in particular. It’s just that in order to “know” no one can be present. It is the “One without a second” which to me means It is perceived in a timeless moment of no this and no that, or as I often say, no subject and no object.
To remain in the undifferentiated state, as I call it, would be difficult because there is the appearance of the need to manage our lives. We have to feed ourselves, bathe, earn a living, etc. This requires the apparent presence of a someone to carry out these acts. Otherwise, we would require a caretaker like we were babies, who at least initially, are probably in the undifferentiated state until we learn the process of ‘me subject, that object’.
“It” is in the space between the thoughts when we are present as just This.
At times, it appears that some people are able to “capture” this moment and it becomes a part of their daily functioning, although they rarely function in any way we would call “usual”. Ramana Maharshi comes to mind who spent much of his life lying on a couch not saying much, or Ramakrishna who sat for days in a garbage dump. Then there was the guru of Swami Muktananda, whose name escapes me, who also spent much of his life lying on a couch. Occasionally he would pipe up and say something unintelligible or curse and hurl fruit at a devotee. Maybe there was wisdom in his actions or maybe he was nuts. I don’t know. I find it interesting that most of these “realized beings” wear very little clothing, usually just a loincloth. This is partly because it is hot in India, but also I don’t think they are in a frame of mind to give a damn about their appearance or modesty. I think one of their followers hands them a loincloth and they somehow summon up enough self consciousnes to put it on.

After reading all the above comments, I must agree with Deepak whom I feel is basically correct about the matter of the negative attitude of satsangis towards non-satsangis and especially towards EX-satsangis.
This has been proven and born out in my personal experience with satsangis during the past 25 years, both during the time when I was associating with the RS sangat, and also after I had departed from all participation and association with RS and became what is now referred to as an “Ex-satsangi”. And this was true not only in India, but especially more in the USA. I can’t how they are in Europe or the UK. But in the US, RS satsangis by and large have an extremely poor and negative attitude and behavior towards Ex-satsangis. That is my experience regarding not just a few, but a great many of them.
So contrary to Bob’s obviously limited experience, I have found that a great majority of the RS satsangis in the USA have had (in my experience) the worst attitude and behavior by far. They are intolerant of other satsangis, and they are extremely intolerant, negative, and disdainful towards EX-satsangis ike myself.
In my experience, these satsangis actually treat non-satsangis (regular people who are not particularly or necessarily spiritual) much better than they treat the Ex-satsangis who are their fellow initiates. So Bob is definitely wrong and Deepak is right when Deepak says that these either go out of their way avoid EX-ers, or else they treat EX-ers with disdain, judgement, and sometimes even meanness and rudeness.
I feel that they despise Ex-satsangis because someone who was once “in the fold” and has since left is considered to be a threat to the integrity of their RS belief system, and they also consider them as being under the domain of Kal and thus agents of Kal. I think that this is basically why these (self-righteous bastards) avoid any and all significant degree of any kind of close personal contact with Ex-satsangis.
They also have been seen and known to actually commit bad actions towards Ex-satsangis such as spread false derogatory rumors, and make false accusations and lies about them, and threaten them physically. So these RS satsangis are serious BAD news for a number of reasons.
I even have a satsangi couple living less than two blocks away from my house in my town, and they have been some of the worst ever. And we are probaly the only other vegetarians in the entire town. And whats worse, the woman satsangi is the secretary of the local sangat! She despises us and goes out of her way to be rude to us because we are initiates but do not go to satsang and have not for more than a decade, and our spirituality is quite broad and she knows it. To put bluntly, she is a nasty old bitch. And she is only one out of several dozens that I have experienced since I first became affiliated with RS.
Here is some more: I have been to many different satsangs at many different local sangats around the US during the past 25 years. Almost every one of them have had many satsangis in them that have been extremely judgemental, un-friendly, un-brotherly and un-sisterly, and have shown a very poor and negative attitude towards non-satsangis and even towards other initiated satsangis who exactly don’t fit their mold.
I also have experienced this same foul judgemental attitude and disdain from western satsangis towards other western satsangis while at the Dera and especially within the Dera’s old main western Guest House compound!
This negative attitude and disdain has been true not just with a mere few satsangis, but with several dozens of them that I have encountered over the period of the past 18 years since I basically left any formal association with the RS path and group.
Also as Deepak has rightfully said: “satsangis have a superiority complex (us vs them mentality) and they dramatise with the outer world” There is definitely a very self-righteous attitude and an expressed feeling that they (satsangis) are special, marked, and that they are spiritually better (elite) than everyone else in the world. But in reality they are total hypocrites because they do not even treat their own with respect. So actually they do treat Ex-satsangis even worse than animals. And their vegetarianism is also hypocrisy because they nit-pick over eating a tiny bit of eggs and such, yet they treat other fellow initiates like garbage!
Bob wrote:
“Although I have been disassociated from RS life for 8 years, I still have many satsangis friends that treat me with love and respect.”
— Bob, that may be your experience, but it is far from my own experience. My own conclusions come from numerous encounters with dozens if not hundreds of satsangis over a 25 year period. Just becuse you have a few old friends that still trat you well because you were friends with them befor you left RS, does not mean that the majority are the same way.
“Perhaps it could be argued that satsangis are treated worse than ex-satsangis when considering seva projects…an excessive and often fruitless meditation pratice….”
— Bob, that’s absurd nonsense. If people are treated bad, then they should deal with it. If they remain in an abusive situation like RS, then it is their own fault. Moreover, the point here is how satsangis treat non-satsangis and especially Ex-satsangis. And by and large, many satsangis threat Ex-ers like shit. Thats a fact that has been reported by far too many to ignore. You can ignore it or evade it if you like, but its still a fact. Thats not to say that there are some satsangis who are not that way, but far too many are, and the tendency to be that way is definitely fostered by the cult and its dogma, and by the mind-pset of other intolerant and judgemental satsangis.
“From my own personal experience, I have yet to meet a satsangi who is intolerant of non-satsangis.”
— Bob, well then I don’t know where you have been hiding, but that has not been the case for me and many other Ex-ers around the country and the world that I have spoken to.
“Sure, they may feel fortunate to be initiated but “intolerant of non-satsangis”….that has not been my experience with the many satsangis I know in the US.”
— Bob, the US satsangis have been the very worst as far as that goes. Almost every sangat and bandhara that I have been to has had and shown this problem: northern california, santa rosa, marin county, santa cruz, southern california, arizona, florida, miami, tampa/st. petersburg, washington dc, maryland, virginia, pennsylvania, new york. And then there are the times that I was at the Dera, and most of the American satsangis were bad there too.
“Maybe it is different where you live.”
— Yes it is different in my area, but it also has been a problem in many different places, not just where I am now.
“To my knowledge, there is nothing in the RS theology or literature that encourages intolerance of people who are not satsangis.”
— Then Bob, you have simply NOT read Sar Bachan. Sar Bachan derides all other spiriual persuasions. Shiv Dayal Singh in Sar Bachan clearly criticises and frowns upon yogis, jnanis, munis, vaishanava bhaktas, shaivites, buddhists, and so on. And RS theology and dogma and literature in general is full of intimations that non-satsangis are on a lower plane, under the dominion of Kal, and will not escape samsara and chaurasi. This kind of cultic fear-mongering and elitism is bullshit. And you don’t know what you are talking about. Go back and study RS literature if you somehow don’t see this. RS dogma does indeed foster this kind of attitude. Thats why so many satsangis reflect it.

Tao:
After reading your post, I decided to look up the word intolerant in the dictionary.
It read, “not tolerating beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc. different from one’s own, as in religious or political matters.”
Based on that definition, I would have to agree with you and Deepak, that Sant Mat does encourage an intolerant attitude among members by creating a egotistical sense of spiritual “superiority”.
In retrospect, this caused me a great deal of pain as a satsangi because I felt alienated from many friends who were not satsangis and my own flesh and blood family.
Yet, and I need to say this; I am not willing to define and label all satsangis as intolerant. I know many that aren’t and like you said, many are.
And, yes, I am aware that RS literature, especially from Sar Barchan, Path of the Masters, Puri’s Vol.2, etc. does compare Shabd Yoga to other traditions, and as you say, is very elitist and superior…no argument there.
Bob

I would have to agree with Tao in general, but I seem to have come across more exceptions to the “intolerance of ex-satsangis” rule.
I am in contact now with only a handful of satsangis. Interestingly, a couple of them are among my closer friends. They know how I feel about RSSB, and that is accepted or at least tolerated. We just don’t discuss the subject much and relate in other ways we have in common. I think they feel I have been led astray by heavy karma and one day will return because the master promises all initiates will one day, in this life or the next, be returned to their eternal home in the ineffable regions of sound and light where “dweeps” (islands) are inhabited by “hansas” (pure souls) enjoying the incomprehensible bliss of communion with the ambrosial nectar of celestial harmonies.
What idiot would turn that down?
On the other hand, there are other satsangis who are superficially polite, but I sense a wariness and unease about them that wasn’t there when I was active in the “club”. What is most distasteful are the spiritual snobs who by virtue of their self-perceived piety on the one and only path to liberation, view others who appear not to posess such qualities as inferior and worthy of disdain.
Ex-ers fall into a special category having been among the chosen (marked) elite. To a devoted satsangi leaving the path is unthinkable, so there must be something especially wrong with someone who “knowing the true path”, decides to leave it.
As far as non-satsangis are concerned, they are simply viewed by satsangis as ignorant or unfortunate members of Kal’s domain to be pitied for their karma to wander eternally on the wheel of birth and death, pleasure and pain. They are accepted as a part of this illusory, filthy life (Sawan Singh referred to this world as a latrine in “Spiritual Gems”) sometimes as friends or family, but often as relationships of karmic necessity only.
Association with “manmukhs” or worldly people is discouraged in much of the RSSB literature as Tao correctly pointed out. This is an unfortunate and isolating situation for some satsangis who take it to heart. I know that I avoided many opportunties because of having this in mind. The Sar Bachan is probably the foundational book of RSSB and the master-author is in no uncertain terms against any unnecessary association with non-satsangis as a bad and downward pulling influence.
So, to sum it up, I would say this varies from one person’s experience to another’s, but no doubt a prejudice exists against ex-ers and non-satsangis to varying degrees in the RSSB community.

This interaction has been very good for me. I have had to sit back and do some heartful reflection.
Like you Tuscon, I pretty much avoid discussing RS with the satsangis we know. There have been exceptions, all of which were VERY unrewarding.
Interestingly, I have a friend I’ve known for over 30 years. He was the person that introduced me to Eastern spirituality back when I was in college. Eventually, I came to Sant Mat through him.
We’ve kept in touch over the years and he knows that I no longer believe in the RS duality theology. However, he has yet (and it’s been nearly 9 years since I departed ways with RS) to ask me why I left the path. I think Tao may be right…that to do so may threaten the so-called integrity of his RS belief system.
At times during our phone conversations, he’ll say the Master did this or the Master did that. I just my eyebrows and leave it at that.
So, as I think more about this topic, I realize that there is subtle yet distinct wall the exists between me and the satsangis I know. There is a friendship and openness….but up to a certain point.
Bob

Bob,
The wall may be subtle or gross. Nevertheless it is there. The only difference between Jehadi and Satsangi is that : jehadis get physical, satsangis don’t (because of the four vows). Satsangis feel that their RS God will let Kal to do the dirty work of punishing the offenders. Jehadis do the dirty work themselves.
The Osama bin Laden example holds good.

Like Bob, I also have noticed that my satsangi friends do not seem to want to discuss Sant Mat in much detail with me. I don’t think anyone likes to confront the validity of their foundational beliefs, especially when deep down they know they are based on blind faith alone. This is a big risk…”What if I decide he’s right, then what do I do?”
Also, who wants to argue? They would say they believe in this path and that’s that, leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone. So, we respectfully (warily) keep our distance.
On the other hand, while I am willing to be quite frank here, I really don’t enjoy upsetting people. Sometimes shaking people to their senses is the right thing to do, but I don’t know if I want to be the catalyst that seemingly casts their boat adrift. I have alternatives to consider, but in the short run, nothing as soothing as believing they are in the protection of a perfect guru and their salvation is assured.
(Who, what is to be saved?..an idea, an amalgamation of conceptualities?)
It may sound hypocritical for me to say this after all the criticism I have put on this blog about RS, but who am I to judge or comment on anyone’s beliefs unless asked? I am really no authority on anything. I just have this little mind with its little opinions that babbles on. That goes for the other stuff I write about as well.
I think it is the anonymity of blog-writing that gives me a pass to say what I think in the blogosphere. Anyone who goes to blogs should expect to hear opinion that may not please them. That’s the way it is. Ultimately, I hope what I say is more often helpful than hurtful to the few who care to read it.

Hey Tuscon:
I appreciate your honesty.
You know, a few years ago I came to the gut level realization that I don’t know shit about spirituality.
Interestingly, that understanding came as a huge relief after all the years of embracing the security blanket of RS theology. I mean I could feel the physical relief from this insight, like a major load had been lifted.
Bob

Deepak:
Who are the offenders according to Sant Mat? It is those who are not initiated?
Even Sant Mat dogma declares that not everyone is meant to be initiated. So then, how are everyday folks being offensive and to whom?
And, are you saying in comparing satsangis to jehadists that they are intent on coverting the whole planet to their way of thinking?

Bob,
I only wanted to strike a parallel between jehadis and satsangis. I won’t say they are the same.
Now, even Jehadis have divided the world into kafirs (non-believers) and momins (believers). Even satsangis have divided the world into satsangis (initiated) and non-satsangis (non-initiated).
Now Allah has ordained that the non-believers will continue to be non-believers. The RS God has already decided whom to initiate and whom not to initiate. There is no free will in both Islam and Radha Soami. If you are not marked, there is nothing you can do.
In both the ideologies, the marked souls will convert. (Islam in the case of jehadis, RS initiation in the case of satsangis). All the rest are damned.
The only difference is that in Islam, the jehadis are entitled to kill with the sword. In RS, the satsangis are not ordered to kill lest it increases their karma. But there is another character called Kal who will do the dirty work that the jehadis do.
The only difference is Jehadis believe in converting the entire world. Satsangis believe in leaving behind the world (remember Sawan compared it to a latrine).
There are so many other similarities. It again requires a deep thought. I think both Islam and RS have the same ideological affinity. However, in all fairness, I must say that satsangis are relatively harmless. That is because of the karma factor.

I have been observing the behavior of satsangies for more than 35 years. There are some as wretched as one cannot even think of on this earth. On the other hand there are some, who are as gentle as one can rarely find them on this earth.
Regarding superiority complex of a satsangi, if a satsangi considers himself superior, he does not deserve to be called as a satsangi.
Dear tAo,
I am really moved to learn that you have had such experiences with satsangies. One does not become a satsangi by mere initiation. If you do not feel the cool in your heart by seeing a satsangi, one must immediately dismiss him/or her as a satsangi.
Frankly speaking, the terms like satsangi, non- satsangi and ex-satsangi, have hardly any meaning for an initiate who is following any method of yoga/ meditation (imo).
I find the whole lot of bloggers here are very sincere, honest and clear hearted people who vomit out everything that they have within them.
With love to all of you

Lately I have found that what I had desired to say was somewhat different than what I ended up writing. That goes for this comment as well. So to all I say please don’t be offended by my inadequacies or shortcomings (or my many typos).
My sincere thanks to you Bob, and please overlook that cantanquerous streak in me that I can’t seem to completely shake off. I am really much more humble than I appear in writing. And I did not mean to be rude to you in any way. It’s a knee-jerk reaction that I am trying to curb. I apologise. And I very much appreciate your sincerity and honesty and kindness. Keep up the good feeling Bro.
My thanks and applause to my good friend Tucson who, as it turns out, does a far grander job of articulating what I try and mean and fail to say, than I do myself. I really mean that. Especially his comments above. I should probably just step aside and let him do most of the talking for me from now on. *smile* Thanks for your clarity, honesty, and friendship Bro.
My thanks to Rakesh for having the courage to endure the travails of this Blog and myself, and for his unwavering respect, humility, patience, and love. Hang in there and keep that good feeling Bro.
My thanks, applause, and a bow to my friend Brian for hosting this Blog and for his amazing flow of candid and interesting thoughts, musings, insights, and sometimes contoversial subject matter. And a big thanks for putting up with me for so long.
And my sincere pranams, appreciation, and recognition to Deepak and to EVERYONE else whom I have (and have not) interacted with here, past and present, for all their comments, challenges, opinions, praises, criticisms, and their fellowship. Thank you from my heart. Peace.

Tao, Why are you so apologetic? Why would somebody get offend by your inadequacies or shortcomings OR even your typos.
This kind of concerns me. Suddenly you sound like a scrupulous person to me who is having guilt hang over and asking for forgiveness.
You wrote what you felt like and whatever you have experienced. You don’t have to be over-polite like Rakesh to show that you are a good person. I have to say that I have always been benefited by your honest comments. Wish you peace and happiness without guilt.

There is a phrase in Sanskrit. Ati Vinaye Dhoortha Lakshanam. Too much humility is the hallmark of a cunning man.
I guess being terse is a natural quality. There is certainly a rhythm in Tao’s outbursts. I don’t think he should be apolegetic about it. It is his way of expression — a la UG Krishnamurthy. Each one has his own style. I don’t know why. I find Tao’s articulations on the dot. Of course, Tucson is peneterating in his analysis, while Brian is sophisticated. We cannot be the other. We have our own natural style. We should just flow along with it.

Rakesh,
You seem to be witholding something.
You say: I find the whole lot of bloggers here are very sincere, honest and clear hearted people who vomit out everything that they have within them.
Yes, it is a good sign. Atleast, the Churchless bloggers are open and honest. But you seem to be witholding something due to your satsangi upbringing. That is not a good sign. It leads to constipation.
That is why I say that satsangis employ double standard with their sugar coated words. It is in Sant Mat ideology itself that you should not disclose your personal experiences. You should digest it.
FYI, there is nothing wrong about revealing your experiences to the right persons. That’s an old RS dogma that you have internalised. It is better you drop it and be more open.

Hey Tao:
No problema bro! Your comments to me yesterday really got me thinking. So keep them coming.
Bob

Brian ET All,
I will break my “silence” once more;
Obviously you took my advice very literally.
When I said be silent and let the “show” go on I didn’t mean to say never express yourself under any circumstances. What I was alluring to is to these constant messages targeting the RSSB and their “cult” members. It seems to me that this site is slowly moving away from its original intentions (if I understood its original intentions correctly) which you have as “preaching the gospel of spiritual independence” to become a place where basically all want to have it their way…or else “I’ll unleash my wrath on you”.
Is spiritual independence really being practiced here? Where’s the tolerance for other’s beliefs/points of view etc? When I said that those who “Know” keep quiet I was speaking metaphorically, meaning that those who are SURE of themselves in their beliefs don’t go about unleashing their wraths on others, forcefully trying to change their minds so that they can have some satisfaction and feel accomplished. As for myself I don’t have any wisdom or spirituality to boast of, but like Socrates said the only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing.

To anyone who has mistakenly judged or assumed that I was being too “apologetic”, too “scrupulous”, feeling “guilt”, showing too much “humility”, or being “cunning”… I stand firm by what I said. You don’t have to agree with me, but I sincerely meant what I said. There was no “guilt” involved.
I have come around once again to an old conclusion of mine, that for me, and above all else, the most important thing in my life is simpy to always maintain a GOOD FEELING, and thus to act with loving kindness towards others. No exceptions.
And so I will try to do that and I encourage everyone who reads this to do likewise. Thanks and best regards.

Zion wrote: “Is spiritual independence really being practiced here? Where’s the tolerance for other’s beliefs/points of view etc?”
–Yes, spiritual independence IS being practiced here because anyone can say what they want about what they believe or what others believe bearing in mind, as a courtesy to the host, that it relate in some way to his posts. There is, however, no obligation here to be tolerant of views that are perceived to be misleading or unfounded. Simple.
RSSB is frequently discussed because the host often mentions it and this attracts many commenters who are familiar with that particular “religicult”. Discussions could just as easily be about the merits and demerits of other belief systems, which happens from time to time such as insightful and probing analysis about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
What is your philosophical/religious inclination, if any, and why? Perhaps this would explain your taking offense when there are many unfavorable remarks regarding RSSB?

To Zion,
Regarding your admonition be “silent”…
You said/addressed the following to Brian “ET All”:
“What I was alluring to is to these constant messages targeting the RSSB and their “cult” members.”
— This is Brian’s blog and so he has the freedom and choice to address any subject matter that he pleases, and that includes “targeting the RSSB and their cult members”. And as often as he likes. And the guest commenters like yourself and I and others have the freedom to give our opinions as well. You obviously do not find that agreeable, otherwise you would not be complaining. And that is your opinion… BUT this is not your blog.
“It seems to me that this site is slowly moving away from its original intentions (if I understood its original intentions correctly) which you have as “preaching the gospel of spiritual independence”…”
— But you fail to understand that having “spiritual independence” means that Brian (as well as commenters) can address, debate, or criticise any issue that they choose, including RSSB.
“…to become a place where basically all want to have it their way…or else “I’ll unleash my wrath on you”.”
— I myself don’t think that has been the case at all, and I don’t think others see it that way either. But they can speak for themselves. No one is trying to “have it their way”. It is simply a matter of diverse opinions and debate. But as it turns out, your comment clearly sounds like you think that this forum should conform to “your way” – ie: not “targeting” the RSSB.
“Is spiritual independence really being practiced here?”
— Yes, most definitely. But apparently not if you had your way.
“Where’s the tolerance for other’s beliefs/points of view etc?”
— There is no restriction on others presenting their beliefs and points of view. Nor is there any restriction on those who disagree with those beliefs. No one is being intolerant of others “beliefs/points of view”. You just are not tolerant of those who “target” or who are critical of RSSB. You need to realize that tolerance goes both ways.
“When I said that those who “Know” keep quiet I was speaking metaphorically, meaning that those who are SURE of themselves in their beliefs don’t go about unleashing their wraths on others, forcefully trying to change their minds so that they can have some satisfaction and feel accomplished.”
— Now I have to say that (imo) that statement is a load of rubbish. First of all, you are assuming that people are “SURE of themselves” and that they have “beliefs. That is entirely your assumption, and not necessarily the way it is. Most of the criticism that goes on here is towards beliefs, not coming from beliefs. And your subsequent premise and assumption of someone “forcefully trying to change their minds so that they can have some satisfaction and feel accomplished” is even more faulty. It is simply a matter of opinions and critical debate. But you intrepret it as an ego-game. I don’t think that is what these discussions and criticisms are about. Its more about questioning the validity and the supposed reality, or the illusion of various beliefs and views.
“As for myself I don’t have any wisdom or spirituality to boast of, but like Socrates said the only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing.”
— As far as I can remember (3 years), I have not seen anyone actually “boast” of any wisdom or spirituality here. But if what you say is really true – that you “don’t have any wisdom or spirituality” – then why is it that you are complaining about what others choose to criticise or debate about… such as RSSB?
— If you have no wisdom as you say, then how do you presume to find fault with others criticisms of RSSB? You have contradicted yourself. I suspect that your claim of an unknowing and humble lack of wisdom and spirituality is somewhat pretentious. And I think you are actually just trying to suppress and “silence” critical thinking and intelligent criticism towards RSSB, under the false guise of “silence”. I think you don’t realize that that kind of hollow arguement won’t fly with most other folks here.
— If you find satisfaction and results in the RS path, then why aren’t you satisfied with that? And so therfore why do you care what others may think, or say, or criticise, or “target”?

To Brian and all my Churchless friends, visit me at my blog
http://www.saffronthinktank.blogspot.com
Get to know me and my political views.

I have NO philosophical/religious inclination that I give preference to. I am not concerned with narrow minded labels that tend to group people in such a way. I like to think of myself as a spiritual archaeologist; I dig for bits of truths wherever they may be found, on my endless search for clues to understand the mystery that is life/death. I never rely on perception alone to say that this or that view is misleading or unfounded. Just because it didn’t work for me does not mean it’s not working or will not work for someone else. I respect all religions/philosophies/spiritual sciences/schools of thought etc and open mindedly study them (to the best of my abilities) as I see the potential for those bits of truths in ALL of them. I want to make it clear to you that I was not complaining. I was simply giving my opinion/advice on the subject matter and did not address (at least not my first posting) to anyone in particular. “spiritual independence” coupled with your right of free speech does give you or anyone else in here the right to say, criticize or disagree with whatever…but does not give you(and I don’t mean any of YOU in particular) the right to disregard people’s feelings and sometimes be bluntly disrespectful. Where is the compassion, thoughtfulness and the understanding for others? Maybe I was hoping for too much of this site. One interesting thing which I have noticed here is that, if anyone says or agrees with anything that has to do with RSSB on his or her message, he/she is automatically labeled a RSSB cult parrot with no proofs. I must say that you have a very good ability to play with words to twist others comments to suit your criticism of them, but I still think that it’s just “philosophical hair splitting” that will lead nowhere. Now I hope you’ll excuse me as I MUST go back to my “silence”. Peace!

Dear Deepak,
Since my efforts to submit my “comment” on your blogsite were not successful, I submit them here:
Dear Deepak,
While I wish you well in your desire to remove whatever problematic/invasive “vestiges” you find in your own “Hindu mind,” I surely do hope you are not advocating some sort of desire to force me (or any others) into some sort of “a Hindu world.” I don’t need/like that any more than I do the ostensible efforts of others (like Moslems, “Communists,” Christians – or even vegetarians) to try to ram their ways of life/thinking down my throat.
Through my studies I have come a long way in freeing myself from much of the baggage of my own Christian (and Western) past. A change over time has also taken place in my sense of basic values regarding politics, human interrelationships, and the question of a basic sense of “meaning” which I find in the “world” – and in my experience of it. Such changes on my part have led various ones to reject me, therefore, because I do not (or no longer) agree with their prejudices/contentions about how the “world” is actually structured, how one ought regard it, and what is the “right” way to live in it and in relationship with others. Their various discriminations against me vary widely from one to the other. Some (specifically as from among the spectrum of Christian variants) choose to “pray for” me – some just regard me as damned to eternally suffer in the “lake of fire” threatened in the Apocalypse. So long as they just hold their opinions privately (even if they might let me know what they are), I find that quite acceptable. When, however, like “evangelical” (or “fundamentalist”) Christians – or Muslims, or “Communists,” or any other group who seeks to control my mind/thinking and my sufferings in life (personally, socially, “legally,” economically, etc., etc.) – it somewhat complicates my purposive desire to be free from their forced restraints, calumnies, and efforts at trying to dominate me (as well as others).
So I hope you will not be seeking to impose “a Hindu world” upon me. Such would be equivalently as “bad” as what the Asian subcontinent has suffered over time from the depredations from the colonialism(s) of several political and religious movements that have thought the various peoples there ought be forced to accept – supposedly for their own “betterment.”
I’d prefer not to have to put up with even more of that rather typical sort of pushy human behavior in my continuing life.
Robert Paul Howard
I could not determine how to get my above note posted on your site.
Robert Paul Howard

Robert Paul Howard,
I know that my political views are just in the making. It is not meant for you. It is meant for Hindus. I told you these are political – not at all connected with the churchless blog. Of course, I am improving on the blog. This is just the beginning of my political blog.

Besides, in my definition, if you clear your mind off all the baggages and be in a meditative state, you are a Hindu. This is the broader message of Hinduism as well as India. So in my opinion, Robert Paul Howard is as much a Hindu and he does not need to be reformed. He is already a reformed Hindu.

Robert Paul Howard,
You may press on the comments below the article. Tao and Sapient have already sent their comments in the same manner.

To Zion,
Zion wrote: ““spiritual independence” coupled with your right of free speech… …does not give you the right to disregard people’s feelings and sometimes be bluntly disrespectful.”
— So you think that you can say what the limits are on someone elses “right”? That somehow there is some rule that prohibits one from having “disregard” of other “people’s feelings” and of being “bluntly disrespectful”? That’s rather funny… and immature. I can see why you feel that criticism of RS is off-limits.
“Where is the compassion, thoughtfulness and the understanding for others?”
— Who says that such must prevail? Can’t you see how you are defining how others should be and act? Why do you presume that there must be “compassion, thoughtfulness and understanding”? Those are nice qualities, but what makes you think that others have no “right” to
First you SAY that those who know don’t say (which is basically bullshit btw), and then later on you finally say “I was simply giving my opinion/advice on the subject matter”. I think your pretense and hypocrisy is quite laughable. You obviously haven’t learned very much from all those “religions/philosophies/spiritual sciences/schools of thought etc” that you say you have studied, or from your “dig for bits of truths wherever they may be found”, or your “endless search for clues to understand the mystery that is life/death”.
You say that maybe you were “hoping for too much of this site”. That says you have expectations and judgements.
You also say that “if anyone says or agrees with anything that has to do with RSSB on his or her message, he/she is automatically labeled a RSSB cult parrot with no proofs”. Well that’s usually because whoever happens to have been touting RS dogma, does not and apparently can not present or provide any proofs to their claims or the claims of RS.
You said: “I must say that you have a very good ability to play with words to twist others comments to suit your criticism of them…”.
— No one here is twisting any comments. And for myself, that’s precisely why I always give exact quotes of what someone else says before I respond to their statements. However, it does appear that you are attempting to do otherwise and you are doing a little twisting of your own.
You then said: “…but I still think that it’s just “philosophical hair splitting” that will lead nowhere.”
— Is that right? I definitely disagree. The only “philosophical” “hair-splitting” and mumbo-jumbo that is ever posted here is always either from RS dogmatists or other folks with some religious doctine or agenda to tout.
You wrote: “I hope you’ll excuse me as I MUST go back to my “silence”.”
— The only real “silence ” that is recognized by genuine Sages is not simply the mere absence of any engagement of speech or of writing, but rather an inner silence. This inner silence has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one speaks or does not speak, or writes or does not write. It does not matter how many words one speaks or writes. So I would say that your pretence of so-called “silence” is merely a foolish game that you are playing in this forum. And I don’t think anyone else here regards it as anything more than that.
However, your opinions are most welcome here and no one cares how much or how little you say. Therefore, to come here pretending that you desire to remain silent, and supposedly that “silence” is to not make statements and comments, and yet you are in fact using written words to communicate and engage in discussion or debate (which is precisely what a blog comment-forum is all about), is basically absurd.
If you don’t wish to speak or to write or to comment, then what are you doing here? It’s nonsense. You seem to have an intelligent mind, so why don’t you just drop this “silence” nonsense and just participate. Or else refrain from making comments. It’s entirely your choice. But talking about “silence” is rather ridiculous.
As I said, the real silence is an inner thing and has nothing to do with whether or not you use spoken and written words and ideas to communicate.

Dear Deepak,
Thank you for your three replies.
As for your third: as I indicated at the beginning and end of my note posted above, I did try (about four times) to get its central portion accepted by your “comments” section. Each time it was refused because my URL (so I was informed) had an unacceptable character in it. I cannot account for this, since the identifying information I used in writing to you was the same as what I use to write to Brian’s blog. My attempts, however, thereby failed – thus leading to my posting it here.
As for your first: you tell me that “[i]t is not meant for you. It is meant for Hindus.” But in your second: you offer your opinion that I am “…already a reformed Hindu.”
I take it that you are being generous in your offered opinion, but I believe that you are using the term “Hindu” in your second reply to me in a rather “transcendent” sort of way. Within the extent of my knowledge, I have no known ancestors from beyond the River Sindhu, nor do I participate in the society, culture, nor religion(s) of that region’s people(s). Nor do I wish to.
While I do appreciate some basic human values which I see to be “positive,” I don’t much care for various other – seemingly quite basic – human values/behaviors which I regard as quite “negative.” Evangelical culturalism and ethnocentristic aggrandizement fall into the latter category for me. I frankly wish all people could/would regard their own native cultures (and “religions”) with far less provincial attachment than they generally tend to. I would prefer such a “transcendent” detachment over the more usual state of affairs. I would hope, therefore, that a “reformed Hindu” would be leaving behind the “nationalism” that most ordinary Hindus might find attractive……namely, as being “against” Muslims, communists, Christians, and even others with “colonial” imperatives. I hope they might transcend that (as I wish also for the others).
Robert Paul Howard

Robert Paul Howard,
Yes, transcending is the right word. But Hindus are transcendental by nature. If you look at the history of India, it has only been attacked by foreigners. Indians never attacked. Yes, when I mean Hindu internationalists. I mean it in a transcendental sense.
Also when I meant that the blog is not meant for you. I meant that the target audience of the book is largely Hindus. In fact I am writing a book and the blog was only meant to be a place where I could dump the articles of my book. Anyway your reply made me think about the factors of a foreigner reading my book. However, if you read my entire book, the confusion will be cleared. As and when I finish writing the book, I will add it in the blog.
It’s a new blog. So problems are inevitable. Anyway I think you could have posted it as anonymous. And then you could have typed your name in the message. You may even send me a private email at deepakmangalore(yahoo account).
Finally, Hindus are not against Muslims. They are against Jehad. Hindus are not against Christians (they are against the evangelical Church). Not against Communism (but against the authoritarianism that follows it). Nor against imperialists (but against domination. I hope my stand is clarified. For further info, you can post the message in my blog or email me (deepakmangalore) yahoo account.

Dear Deepak,
I appreciate your being “against…authoritarianism” and “against domination.” Such attitudes do seem “positive” to me. But I cannot agree that Hindus per se are any more “transcendental by nature” than any other human subset is much of anything “by nature.”
I believe history shows that such attributions of attributed characteristics to any selected group of people “by nature” is a source of mischief against those others (and, thereby, against one’s own self and society). I.e., are (all) Jews ..(something).. “by nature”? Are all Chinese ..(something).. “by nature”? I think not.
It appears to me (as in accord with your differentiations among “Hindu” groups) that all naturally occuring human groups (societies, peoples, nations, etc.) fall into bell-curves with regard to their general characteristics. Ergo I doubt that Hindus are any more “transcendental by nature” than any other people.
Robert Paul Howard

The Masters of RSSB-are an example for all of us in the world
if you have beeen lucky enough to see them hear them talk read their discourses-with an open unbiased mind-they do not want followers to rush blindly after them-this path is one of total commitment -just like any path.
Before judging this path -have you ever read one word written by the RSSB masters,- concepts of spirituality remain in the domain of the intellect-whereas experiencing first hand within
the inner bliss say of meditation-this is the path,the real path
of sound and light,the holy name,word shabd,nam,Tao,bang-i-ismani. give it any namit is the same EXPERIENCE.
For those so called ex -satsangis remember this is a path of forgiveness-the teacher who has your best interests at heart has not turned his head away from you-go back to class and see-there he is 24/7-He is ready to accept ALL those who wish to learn -don’t forget WE are not teachers are we?
however one can not relinquish ones duty as a student in a university to study and pass the core curricculum nor blame the
institution if we fail at passing our exam-it is not the libraries fault if we refuse to digest the knowledge therein.
So it is with the perfect masters The Professors Emiritus of The University of Spritualty-the Shabd Illumni-so to say
These perfect ones and I mean perfect-they never hurt anyone , never accept a single dime from anyone personally-they work normal jobs they havefamilies or not .they go through the samr problems as us-they meditate daily they pay taxes have friends are generous build charitable hospitals-now does a selfish person wrapped up in their own little world do that ?
In short do any or all of YOU American haters of the path of Sant Mat TAKE ON THE KARMAS OF OVER 2 million human beings?
No! I didn’t think so.Well before you cast aspersions on Gurinder Singh or any other master past or present-have a look at your own spirituality-take a good long look at your past lives,your present self righteous one -and I know about that -I am in the club too-but I have EXPERIENCED the mountain top, I have been
to the summit of Christ,-I KNOW who Gt Master is Charan Singh
and all the VERY FEW perfect masters in this world -maybe just One….so American fanatics of hatred of the so called ex satsangi
get real -WHY DID YOU APPLY to be INITIATED in the first place?
Exactly!
You want love-?
You want bliss-?
You want spirituality?
Well then -GO INSIDE-shut the criticising mouth and meditate.
Do your simran do your bhajan-read discourses -stay married.
You heard.Be a diciple if YOU got the guts.You and I are either on the bus or off the bus,-as Baba Ji says
Here is an example of a prayer witten -n 1947 by the Great Master
My Lord I am ignorant I do not know what to ask from you.
Give me that which you think best for me.And give me the strength and wisdom to be happy about what you deem fit to give me and about how and where you keep me
.I have no virtue , no devotion.My actions are all dark and sinful.
I possess no merits and the mind has thoroughly crushed me,For a sinner like myself,O Lord there is no refuge but Thy Blessed Feet,I want nothing more.
Make me Thy slave, that I become Thine and Thou mayst become mine
Sawan Singh-1858-1948
And another thing Mohammed was a perfect living master of his time-you never been inside -don’t judge true muslims then until you have seen within so to say and you have never read the Koran -suggest you do then-then go to a mosque-ex satsangi -American racist oofas.
Also can Jesus and Mohammed Guru Nanak, Sawan Singh Charan Singh Rongomai O Te Whiti etc be seen within?
The answer is yes- easier than sending am email to the Church of the Churchless
Alofa
Richard Fu’e Fu’e

Oh forgot the original concept of jihad is very confusing a-we do not speak arabic so therefore if wwe are not muslim or arabic speakers how can we know-if we have neve been to a mosque read the Koran how do we know ?
Look at this world -everybody hating etc-we are all mentally ill if we are attached to tis creation-
Be better off seeing the unity of God within all of the creation and meditating on Love than despising sant mat and its struggling followers-have a bit of compassion for your self and others .
Alofa
Fu’e Fu’e

Richard Fu’e Fu’e,
You’re back up to the same old shit as usual I see.
You’ve come back again to dump yet another load of your same old RS proseltyzing bullshit upon the rest of us who really don’t want it or need it.
So why don’t you go preach to an RS satsang, where you belong. Why do you preach and proseltyze Santmat/RS on the internet, when it is in direct opposition to and totally against the specific instructions and admonitions of YOUR current RSSB master/guru? That makes you a bad disciple and a hypocrite.
Anyway, let me see what kind of garbage you have posted that I can use to shoot at for target practice today…
“The Masters of RSSB-are an example for all of us in the world”
— An example of hypocrisy, fraud, and cult mind control.
“they do not want followers to rush blindly after them”
— Then why do they encourage them to do so?
“Before judging this path -have you ever read one word written by the RSSB masters”
— As a matter of fact I have. I have read all of thir books. That’s exactly why I have a damn good right to judge them.
“concepts of spirituality remain in the domain of the intellect-whereas experiencing first hand within”
— Then why the need for so many RS books?
“this is the path,the real path
of sound and light,the holy name,word shabd,nam,Tao,bang-i-ismani. give it any namit is the same”
— Did you say blah blah blah?
“ex-satsangis remember this is a path of forgiveness-the teacher who has your best interests at heart”
— Bullshit. The “teacher” has his own interests at heart. And I don’t need any “forgiveness”, and especially not from some stupid-ass cult guru who doesn’t give a damn about anyone.
“go back to class and see-there he is 24/7-He is ready to accept ALL those who wish to learn -don’t forget WE are not teachers are we?”
— I have no interest in any “class” and I have nothing to learn from from phony spiritual gurus. As for what “WE” are… (unlike you) I can only speak for myself – I was a teacher – a university professor with many students – not some idiot like yourself who actually thinks that a phony cult guru is a teacher.
“So it is with the perfect masters”
— “Perfect masters” is nothing but an ignorant myth that is touted by fools who cannot think and reason for themselves.
“These perfect ones and I mean perfect-they never hurt anyone , never accept a single dime from anyone personally-they work normal jobs”
— Absolute bullshit. They have hurt many many thousands of people, and they do take money and material from others (donations), and they do NOT “work normal jobs” at all. They play the role of a cult guru and they deceive others into thinking that they are spiritual masters. But they are masters of nothing and no one.
“they go through the samr problems as us-they meditate daily they pay taxes have friends are generous build charitable hospitals”
More bullshit. But yes they do have problems… big problems. But they don’t pay any taxes, and they don’t build hospitals – its the donations and the constructions laborers that build the hospitals. These fraudulent gurus do nothing for anyone. It’s all a myth, an illusion. They live off of donations and they don’t give anything to anyone – not materially nor spiritually.
“now does a selfish person wrapped up in their own little world do that ?
— Yes. All the little people who donate their hard-earned money (and the workers and the doctors) are the ones who really build the hospitals. The guru does notng nut sit on his phony ass and take credit.
“do any or all of YOU American haters of the path of Sant Mat TAKE ON THE KARMAS OF OVER 2 million human beings?”
— No, and I would not want to, nor could I. No one can. No one (including these phony masters) can take anyone elses karma, not to mention “2 million human beings”. That is an absolute myth – absolutely false… It is an enormous friggin LIE. And you and anyone else who claims that, is also a god-damned stinking LIAR and mentally retarded.
“before you cast aspersions on Gurinder Singh or any other master past or present-have a look at your own spirituality-take a good long look at your past lives”
— These so-called “master” that you tout here are nobodies, nothing more than mere appointed political leaders of some obscure mystic religious cult. And my “own spirituality” is as solid as the Himalayas. Whereas yours is nothing more than a tiny little castle of sand built upon a beach just before the tide comes in.
“but I have EXPERIENCED the mountain top, I have been to the summit of Christ,-I KNOW who Gt Master is Charan Singh and all the VERY FEW perfect masters in this world”
— Actually, you don’t know shit. Your Christ is a pipe-dream, and your “masters” are dead and gone. You are nothing more than a fool with a rather inflated ego.
“so American fanatics of hatred of the so called ex satsangi get real”
— I already am real… unlike yourself who is a Radha Soami cult fanatic living in a bubble of illusion.
“You want love-? You want bliss-? You want spirituality?”
— No. None of the above. Don’t need any of that bullshit.
“shut the criticising mouth and meditate.
Do your simran do your bhajan-read discourses -stay married.
— You are the one with the big mouth… and the big fat head to go along with it. Screw your simran and fuck your bhajan, and burn your stupid discourses. And go get laid… that is if your dick and your balls haven’t already atrophied down to the size of a tiny pea due to lack of sexercise. And guys like you have no balls anyway. You couldn’t get it up long enough to satisfy any woman, much less a “married” one. Plus.. your idea of a good time is to meditate upon some bearded dude in a turban. Sounds pretty darn faggoty to me.
“Be a diciple if YOU got the guts.You and I are either on the bus or off the bus,-as Baba Ji says”
— Babaji is a big fat fraud… and you. you are a friggin idiot. And btw, your bus is headed over a cliff.
“And another thing Mohammed was a perfect living master of his time-you never been inside -don’t judge true muslims then until you have seen within so to say and you have never read the Koran -suggest you do then-then go to a mosque-ex satsangi -American racist oofas.”
“we do not speak arabic so therefore if wwe are not muslim or arabic speakers how can we know-if we have neve been to a mosque read the Koran how do we know ?”
— Mohammed was a stupid illiterate who could not write. And I don’t give a shit about moslems. And I have in fact read the Quran, And I do speak some Arabic, and I have been to many many mosques – all over the middle east in fact… so you ought to try and take your lame-brain satsangi head out of your fanatically religious asshole.
“Look at this world -everybody hating etc-we are all mentally ill if we are attached to tis creation”
— You are the one who hates ex-satsangis. And you are the one who is mentally ill. And all of the “creation” is beauty, and beauty is all in the eye of the beholder.
“Be better off … meditating on Love than despising sant mat and its struggling followers-have a bit of compassion for your self and others .”
— Satsangis are the worst examples of “Love” that I have ever come across, and “struggling followers” are simply ignorant fools who are hung up in an illusory religious cult and its fraudulent guru.

Mike Williams wrote Radhasoami Beas Secret
History. It had been read by over 500,000
satsangis in its various websites over
the last few years. It is historical extremely accurate as the author knew Maheswari, David Lane and Dr. Prof. Agam Mathur, amoung others.
Never has Radhasoami Faith had such a setback. The gurus are questioned by
people constantly and cannot answer the questions.
Radhasoami History 4
Below refs., R.S. Correspondence with Americans, S. D. Maheswari,Vol.1,1960,p.253-256, and Vol. 2, p. 278, 1962
…………..
Quote
1.He ( Jaimal ) offered Bhet for building a house in Soami Bagh,
2.CAME TO THE SATSANG OF HAZUR MAHARAJ ( Salig Ram), and
3. EVEN ON BEING TURNED OUT, HE AGAIN APPEARED IN THE SATSANG of MAHARAJ SAHEB ( MISRA). ….When reprimanded for doing unbecoming acts, he would even beg pardon and PROMISE NOT TO POSE AS A GURU…”
end quote
…………………………………..
Extracts from the Council Dec. 25, 1902, 3:00 P.M.
( regarding Jaimal ) Resolution #16
” In accordance with bye-law No. 16, the undermentioned Satsangis were accorded general permission to initiate :
(3 people including Jaimal Singh listed.) Signed Chachaji and Baleshwar Prasad.
…………………………
Extracts from the Council June 12, 1903 6:00 P.M. :
(Resolution shows complaints against Jaimal for posing as a guru)
” After inquiry, it transpired that Baba Jaimal Singh DID NOT CONSIDER HIMSELF TO BE A SANT AND THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE ENTRY OF HIS NAME IN THE REGISTER OF SATSANGIS “.
(direct entry of Council )
signed BRAHAM SHANKAR MISRA . ( 3rd sat guru )
signed by secretary also.
……………………………..
Now the remarkable entry by Council just three days before Jaimal died !!! Introduced by Sudarshan Singh ( Chachaji’s youngest son ).
Extract Dec. 26, 1903, 3:00 P.M. Resolution #4 : (regarding certain complaints against Baba Jaimal Singh for posing as a guru and not sending in names of initiates ) direct entry Council log
“…a strong warning should be administered to him ( Jaimal ) through Chachaji Saheb by means of registered , acknowledgment due, letter and that in case of failure to comply with it, necessary action may be taken.”
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED, signed , PRATAP SINGH SETH ( Chachaji ) PRESIDENT . signed secretary.
…………………………
Actual photostats of original signatures from original documents shown in Corr. Vol 1 by Agra.
…………………………
These original Council documents exist to this day, no one disputes them . Dr. Agam Mathur also confirms liscence cancellation of Jaimal in his book Radhasoami Faith. Court depositions during Dayal Bagh case show Adjohia (Salig Ram’s son) and Sudarshan confirmed excommunication proceedings.
………..
———-
Correspomdence With American’s, Vol 2, page 276, #5, 1962, Maheswari
Extracts from the Deposition of Lala Adjodhia Prashad (Salig Ram’s son and leader of Pipal Mandi group, after Salig Ram’s death, now age 60), recorded on the 13th June 1926, and onwards, in the suit against Dayal Bagh, which ultimately went to Privy Councl, in England, where the case was decided in favor of Soami Bagh. Recorded under oath
Adjodhia states, ” I am the President of Central Administrative Council, which has its head-office in Allahabad. I have been the president since the death of Rai Pratap Singh Seth (Chachaji), that is probably since 1910. Before that I was Vice President. The Councl was formed in 1902 (page 249 Privy Council Paper Book).
The 28 names selected for being mentioned in the notice issued for formation of the Council included the name of Jaimal Singh. The name Jaimal Singh was included because HE HAD AGREED THAT HE WOULD GIVE UP ACTING AS GURU and abode by the order of the Council that would be formed and also because Chachaji Sahib (Pratap) had recommended him. He gave that undertaking before the notice had been issued. For this reason he was given general power of initiation in the very first meeting of the Council. BUT, HE DID NOT STICK TO HIS UNDERTAKING AND THE SAID GENERAL POWER OF INITIATION WAS CANCELLED.
(Pages 267-268, PRIVY COUNCIL PAPER BOOK. end Ajodhia quote under oath
Correspomdence With American’s, Vol 2, page 276, 1962, Maheswari Maheswari states, “Baba Jaimal Singh agreeing to the stipulation that he would give up acting as a guru and abide by the order of the Council, meant that Jaimal would initiate persons into radhasoami Nam, and not Sat Nam.” end Maheswari Quote
———-
No one knows if Jaimal was initiated by Swami Ji oddly enough. Correspomdence With American’s, Vol 2, page 260, 1962, Maheswari #62 Maheswari asks, “When, ie., in what year did Baba Jaimal Singh receive initiation from Swami Ji Maharaj ? Give proof in support of your answer.” end quote
———-
———-
Chahaji Pratap states in Biography of Soami Ji Maharaj, page 27, 1978, Agra, (1902 original), “One must have a perfect Guru, I.E., the Sat Guru. Hereditary or family gurus would not do. The Nam must be true, perfect, real and highest of all. One must be initiated in the secrets of that Nam and Anami. Conventional names would not be of any help. One must have a true satsang. …external satsang is having the Darshan of a true and perfect Sant or Sadh, who is the representative of Sat Parush.” The Nam of Chachaji was RADHASOAMI. He did not believe Jaimal a true Sat Guru.
———-
Sawan’s 1932 visit to Sudarshan recorded as “Two Real Saints Meet”;
With a Great Master in India, Beas, 1982,p.65 ;
“This disciple was quite accustomed to seeing thousands bow at the feet of our Master (Sawan), but never before had he witnessed the Master (Sawan) bowing at the feet of another (Sudarshan)….in that beautiful moment when he bowed at the feet of another Saint.”
…………
Sawan was bowing at the feet of Sudarshan, who did not consider Sawan’s initiations ligitimate , nor Sawan a sat guru and had introduced the resolution of excommuniction against Jaimal in Council.
————————————-

Rather compelling, Mike. That might make a few RSSB satsangis a bit uneasy.
Come to think of it, how is it possible to ascertain the legitamacy of ANY guru regardless of official appointments, legal documentation, numbers of loyal followers, apparent lack of vices, or the guru’s articulate expression of scriptures and relative truth? Or, even if said guru floats in the sky and walks on water?

http://radhasoamis.freeyellow.com/
JAIMAL AND SAWAN SINGH- THE GREAT SECRETS
……………..
Jaimal Singh