UPDATE: Since some people (I’m one of them) prefer reading to listening, I had Claude AI prepare a transcript of the 50 minute interview. Here’s a PDF file. I’ve looked it over and made some minor edits, but I didn’t change anything meaningful.
RSSB Interview Transcript
A few years ago I spoke with a journalist from India about some interesting topics, including:
How I became a member of RSSB (Radha Soami Satsang Beas); why I grew disillusioned with this Eastern religion headed up by a guru, currently Gurinder Singh Dhillon; what I’ve learned about Dhillon’s connections with Malvinder and Shivinder Singh’s financial scandal; whether I’m concerned about retribution from RSSB for being a critic of the organization.
Recently a recording of that interview came to light because I’ve switched from an iPhone 14 to an iPhone 18. Wondering if my new phone came with an app for making recordings, an app search turned up a Dolby app that I hadn’t used for a long time. Looking at the files, I saw a 50 minute recording that made me think, ah, that must be the interview.
I only could record my side of the interview, because I’d used a headphone to hear the journalist’s questions and comments. So the recording below has some silent spots when the journalist was talking. But since I did almost all of the speaking, just wait a few seconds and my voice will return.
Listening to the interview, I found it entertaining. Of course, I’m biased, being me.
Some minor corrections: several times I mention a 2018 post on this blog, “Devastating criticism of Gurinder Singh Dhillon by a RSSB insider.” I said that the post was 33,000 words long. Actually, it is 27,000 words long. I also screwed up the dates of the comments on this blog from “Tara,” (the insider) that I shared in that post. Her comments were dated from 2010 to 2014, but at one point in the interview I say 2004 to 2010.
Here’s the recording of my interview. Again, just with my voice, because the journalist can’t be heard, hence the aforementioned silent spots. I edited out the initial blank spot, which ended with a question about my background.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Could you put it on YouTube and how we can download amd share
Really insight interview, thanks
“The nature of the mind is fundamentally negative.
…
” At times [they] not only lose faith and find fault with the Master, but will easily go to the extent of even denying Him. This is due to the effect of bad karma. When the period is over, there is an awakening again. Such happenings are not unusual with the devotees. All travelers in this journey experience such shakes, which are helpful in a way, in putting them back on the road, the repentence giving a push and becoming instrumental in making them go ahead.
The Master, whether in or out, makes no mistakes. ”
Huzur Sawan Singh, Spiritual Gems letter 114
I really appreciate your positivity—or, let’s call it what it is, your refusal to accept the truth.
When someone discovers that a spiritual master is fake, fraudulent, or not what he claims to be, his followers often try to discredit the person who exposes the truth rather than question their own beliefs.
It’s similar to the time when people believed the Earth was flat. When someone discovered and presented evidence that it wasn’t, many refused to accept the truth and instead opposed or even wanted to punish the person who challenged their beliefs.
I’m not sure why you find it so difficult to accept that Brian discovered what he believes to be the truth and tried to make others aware of it. Brian is not the only person to have questioned GSD; many others have also raised concerns. Yet, instead of examining their experiences and the evidence they present, some devoted followers dismiss them as misguided, brainwashed, or dishonest. This is precisely how blind faith prevents people from thinking critically.
There is substantial information and evidence available that critics believe exposes GSD’s alleged deception and scams. Yet, some followers continue to believe in him even when serious allegations and legal proceedings raise questions about his conduct. We have seen similar situations with other religious leaders, such as Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, who has been convicted in serious criminal cases, while some of his followers continue to maintain that he is innocent.
The real problem here is blind faith.
I have attended many RSSB satsangs, and the message I repeatedly heard was not to believe what other people say, but simply to have faith in GSD because he is supposedly the only one who can take you to Sach Khand.
But shouldn’t genuine spirituality encourage people to think independently, question what they are told, and recognise the truth, even when it challenges their deeply held beliefs?
A genuine spiritual teacher should never demand blind faith. Instead, the teaching should be: If you see something wrong, don’t ignore it just because you believe in that person. Question it, seek the truth, and if necessary, leave that person and find your own path.
That is why I have always maintained that RSSB Sant Mat is not genuine spirituality. In my view, it selectively adopts spiritual teachings that support its own ideology while discouraging people from questioning the very person they are expected to follow.
True spirituality should lead people towards truth, awareness, and independent thinking—not blind obedience to a person. If a belief system cannot withstand honest questions and critical examination, shouldn’t we question the belief system itself rather than attack those who dare to challenge it?
Rohit:
You provide ample evidence of my point. Everyone, not just me, but you, Brian and others, interpret information according to our own set of filters. For you, you see evidence of fraud. For me, I see evidence of divinity. You have your own blinders just as do I. I do not say we all don’t have them. The human mind is conditioned to see things in a certain way.
What I suggest is, if you are aware of your own limitations, then be careful about accusing anyone.
It’s fine to say “I think, looking at the evidence, that this is fraud.”
You must use your judgement.
But realize that you may not have all the facts. Same here.
And what facts we do see, we filter. You choose what to accept as fact and as fiction. So do I. So does everyone on planet earth.
It speaks to what Sawan Singh wrote, that we tend to go towards the negative. It’s the tendency of the mind.
I’m not saying you are wrong.
I’m saying it’s wrong to make others wrong when you can, at best know what is right for you. And even that is a judgment call.
You think you KNOW the truth. I already know I don’t. And when I see anyone with such conviction in their beliefs, well that is your dogma, just as I have mine.
You haven’t dug into the actual evidence, both of spirituality and of fraud, as I have. And to me all I see is a true Master who in writing left evidence that he offered to take the entire scandal onto his own shoulders, but Malvinder refused to give up control. Perhaps because even more misdoings would come to light. But who knows.
About fifteen years ago in Fayettville a Satsangi asked Baba Ji in front of 5 thousand people, “Is it all right that we thank the Lord for the good that happens?”
And without a beat and with a little frustration, Baba Ji blerted out, “I should bloody well get some credit for the good, given the messes I have to clean up!”
I’ve reflected quite a bit on this.
An objective way to look at this financial scandal is to trust the judgement of the Indian courts. These courts have never assigned legal culpability to Gurinder Singh.
That’s an important point. But I don’t find it wholly satisfying.
The old saying “follow the money” is to be considered. Specifically, the question of why 3 corporate bigwigs would funnel close to half a billion dollars out of their corporations and to the Dhillon family business interests.
Malvinder and the other 2 had to have a big reason to divert such a big sum of money. And to my reckoning, they didn’t stand to make money. Embezzlement makes sense if the embezzler keeps the embezzled money. But if the embezzler gives the embezzled money away to another party, then the motive for the embezzlement has to be something other than money.
Corporate fat cats don’t rob their own corporations just for laughs. There had to be a quid pro quo for Malvinder and gang. But if it wasn’t money, what was it?
Malvinder says the quid pro quo was Gurinder’s promise that his brother would be RSSB successor. Shivinder denies this. But the question of why such a huge financial displacement should be undertaken. If not undertaken for money, then for what?
I can’t rule out the “for what” as anything other than 3 RSSB satsangis trying to please their Guru.
Did they go to Gurinder with the money scheme idea, or did Gurinder go to them? Were there spiritual and succession promises made by Gurinder, or perhaps implied threats of karmic demise if his “loan” requests weren’t fulfilled? We’ll probably never know.
Gurinder was aware of the scale of the money his family was receiving from the Singhs. However, a murky issue to that: Was Gurinder necessarily aware that the money coming to him was from PUBLIC corporate funds, and not from the Singh brothers’ considerable wealth (they were billionaires)?
Between 2008 and 2011, Gurinder likely believed he was simply borrowing from his ultra-wealthy disciples. However, as the brothers’ empire began to unravel into a $2 billion debt spiral due to a $500 million fraud judgment from the Daiichi sale, the brothers’ personal cash vanished.
By the time the siphoning accelerated in the mid-2010s to keep the Guru’s real estate projects afloat, it should have been mathematically obvious that the brothers no longer possessed personal liquidity. One can argue that anyway. But I’m not so sure other people’s net worth is so easily transparent.
But if one believes that Gurinder just must have known that at a certain point in time, the once-billionaires who were loaning him millions were now financially strapped, and were now essentially robbing public funds….I guess it’s fair to make that conclusion, but on the face of the little evidence we have, I don’t agree with it.
Should we conclude that Gurinder was willfully, deliberately blind to the fact that the brothers were systematically stripping assets from public companies to protect their spiritual leader? Or believe that when confirmed billionaires are lending your money out of their own pocket, it’s not on you when they go broke and start robbing the corporations they’re running?
The problem with that is 2 words: Shell companies.
That is, Gurinder and his whole family clearly knew the money wasn’t coming from the Singhs’ bank account of billions, but from public corporate funds. That is what the shell companies were all about. The money did not arrive via personal bank wires from the brothers’ private accounts. It was systematically routed through a web of shell companies explicitly tied to Fortis Healthcare and Religare Enterprises—publicly traded companies where the Dhillon family owned shares and held corporate interests.
These shell companies are damning evidence! They are the smoking gun, the stake in the heart of the innocence of the Gurinder & Dhillon families! All Dhillons, all are guilty as charged! Case closed!
Or is it closed?
Using shell companies isn’t inherently illegal. They are special purpose vehicles that ultra-high-net-worth individuals use to guard their wealth and for tax planning.
Moreover, channeling funds from a corporation to another business isn’t inherently illegal either. In India, it is entirely legal and common for cash-rich corporations to extend Inter-Corporate Deposits (ICDs) or loans to other companies at various commercial terms. The Dhillon family would argue they believed they were entering into standard, institutional lending agreements with Fortis/Religare, fully assuming that the Singh brothers’ corporate boards had thoroughly vetted, approved, and accounted for the transactions.
And the Dhillons were not borrowing, or stealing; they were active, declared stakeholders. Shabnam Dhillon was Religare’s largest minority shareholder (holding an ~17.5% cumulative stake through family entities). She and other family members were heavily invested in the broader corporate ecosystem…so they could reasonably argue that funds moving from the core corporations to their affiliated real estate ventures were part of a legitimate, interconnected group diversification strategy, rather than a theft of public wealth.
Don’t know what to believe now? Join the club.
Every instance where there seems to be a smoking gun that damns the Dhillons, we can find excupable evidence to dispel it. And yet, it remains hard to believe that this scandal would have occurred without the religious factor.
Then again, was it a religious factor or an Indian family factor? You see, the questions never end.
Hi Sant64:
“The fund transfers from corporate entities controlled by Malvinder and Shivinder Singh into real estate ventures—such as Prius Real Estate—highlight a sharp distinction between the brothers’ principal financial interest and Gurinder Singh Dhillon’s actual legal standing. Legally, Gurinder Singh Dhillon held no direct equity ownership, shares, or directorships in these property corporations; his name was entirely absent from the regulatory rosters. Instead, the Singh brothers maintained the predominant financial stake in these entities, bankrolling them through massive corporate subscriptions of debentures and preference shares via their holding companies. While regulatory investigations concluded that these networks were structured for the ultimate economic benefit of the brothers’ own empire, the capital physically moved through accounts held by Dhillon’s close relatives and spiritual associates acting as proxies. This clear separation on paper underpins the defense that the transactions were corporate diversions driven and owned by the Singh brothers.”
The brothers used their families’ shared accounts, from decades earlier between their parents and Dhillon’s family, to move money from corporations they ran into real estate firms they held personal interest in.
They circulated money from one to the other, with Gurinder’s accounts only an intermediary. The money that funneled in, then went immediately out to the brothers again.
They were abusing the long standing trust of their parents and family to cover speculative investments through a path of fraud that had nothing whatsoever to do with Gurinder Singh.
Question ends with guru “borrowing, asking, receiving illicitely gained money as a donation” is wrong!
Stay away from such a person warns gunu Nanak in Adi Granth.
As for others who claim inner experience, wonderful for them they can share with people who are willing to listen. These individuals should be giving satsangs. But futile to preach to others. And definitely a waste of their precious breaths (each breath in human form valued at more 3 worlds-Kabir Sahib ji) on a blog post similar to this. Dadu Sahib says “I am explaining what I have seen with my own eyes, not what I have heard others say.”.
AD
A more accurate look would demonstrate that Gurinder’s family loaned money to the Singh brothers to try to help them out.
All donations go into the RSSB fund. None of those accounts are involved.
It’s quite normal to smear out of ignorance, and to judge out of appearance. But not very spiritual. And no one likes it when it comes around to them, because it’s not the truth.
You would not like others to make such claims that were false about you. So why make them? What is the benefit?
What do you lose by refraining from smear and claims without a full knowledge of actual fact?
How does broad brushing and blaming help you in any way?
What do you gain acting this way?
I humbly submit, you gain nothing and lose what character you had claim to.
Simple question. Masters are supposed to live off their own money. Where does Gurinder’s wealth come from to begin with? It was lore during the pre Religare years that there were considerable investments in Ranbaxy (which was incredibly profitable at the time, though we all know why now). Then there were inter-family share transfer shenanigans with Religare and Fortis. Is he living off family wealth or his own?
Hi Satseeker
You asked
“Simple question. Masters are supposed to live off their own money. Where does Gurinder’s wealth come from to begin with?”
From what limited information I have access to I think his own earnings.
Since there are legitimate questions about the fraud involving Malvinder, Shivinder, Sunhil and other family members there is an ongoing investigation and so it doesn’t seem to be a a simple way to answer.
But this is what I believe.
Now, not for lack of some investigation. Here are some facts that I have verified, related to your question, Satseeker:
1.Gurinder Singh Dhillon did not hold the legal authority to sign checks or directly execute the fraudulent loans in the shell companies or public healthcare conglomerates implicated in the fraud investigations.
2.Gurinder Singh Dhillon did not possess the legal banking authority or signatory power to deposit, authorize, or move funds into those conduit companies.
3.Gurinder Singh Dhillon did not hold any legal banking authority or signatory power to accept funds or disburse money out of those specific family corporate accounts.They were not, actually, his accounts. They were the accounts of others.
And…
4.Gurinder Singh Dhillon held no legal or transactional authority to move, accept, or transfer funds between the family bank accounts, the shell firms, or other investment entities.
Therefore I conclude there is zero evidence of his involvement.
He neither accepted such funds nor was he the one who moved them into or out of other accounts that were also not his.
@AD,…my post shared here numerous times over the years Titled “Meditation for Neophytes with out a Master” is Rock Solid, True with out my fabricating lies, which I have never done, now will never consciously do. I followed the examples and rules laid out be Sawan Singh and Charan Singh, and tested the results, I received them all, but since I lost the real Love of my life, my Wife, 3 months ago now, to physical death by cancer, my World view, or I should day, my Spiritual View has completely changed. Of all the times I shared my Meditation for Neophites post here, only ONE POSITIVE COMMENT was ever shared by an anonymous poster of course, that had to have been by an Initiate who had also done the work, and received the promises as I did, and shared. So you are absolutely correct , that preaching to the deaf, dumb, and blind unbelievers as Spence keeps doing, like a dog with his bone, is really casting pearls to swine! As the Bible states.
But now that my Wife is gone, I reject Charan’s advice to just forget her, after 65 years of wonderful marriage and life sharing, and move on to some fictionally Imagined Sach Khand that no Sant Mat Guru has ever fully described exactly what, if any thing, exists there!
Unlike the late Emanuel Swedenborg, who in the mid 1700s, long before Swamiji ever wrote Sarbarchan Prose. Swedenborg spent 27 solid years clearly describing and sharing all about what existed in the 5 Planes of Physical, Heaven, and God, Who Swedenborg clearly argues that JESUS ONLY is the GOD of not only earth, but the complete Universe including all other planets, and that ALL Angels, no matter how magnificent they appear, are those who started as humans on earth, died, passed to the Spirit world, grew until they progress through the 3 Heavenly Realms, as Jesus Christ , Who is LOVE PERSONIFIED, rewards all who trust and believe in Him by Faith!
Not THAT is a Path well worth investigating and considering, rather than wasting 40 years pursuing that light, sun, moon, star and sound that might be experienced by the minute faithful that do the work to achieve annihilation as Sant Mat describes the Drop merging in to the Ocean.
I now much prefer to reconnect with my Wife in Heaven than with any Turbanned Guru that will drag me to some undescribed Sach Khand to continue doing unpaid slave labor for eternity!
I was a Christian before ever being initiated in to Sant Mat, and I am STILL a Christian, but a Christian with much more Faith than I had before I started seriously studying Swedenborg’s writings, starting with his first book, Heaven and Hell, with clarity that should put die hard RSSB Gurus to shame!
Jim
As one dog to another I have nothing to preach. I do not promote any practice. I only share my view, just like anyone else. I have my bone to chew.
No one needs to sell something that was here from the beginning and whose teachers are already here also.
Everyone has their destiny, and the story isn’t over. When the story of this stage is over at best we might get a glimpse of the next, if we are fortunate.
But that’s about it. The test is faith and practice.
Pick they one you can pour yourself into while heartedly. That’s the right one for you today.
And let others have theirs.
Love whom you love. Love and let live.
I thought Jesus said something like this, but I’m sure you would know better than I.
I do think that those who have quit or are on the verge of quitting their particular spiritual or religious affiliations can find solace in reading the posts here from Brian and Anon and perhaps find the courage to break out on their own. On the other hand, those who are deeply committed to their beliefs, their teachings and teachers will not alter their positions.
There are such huge psychological issues that can keep one attached to spiritual issues. With every good intention, our cultural conditioning (particularly that which has been subjected to strong moral, ethical and religious schooling) invariably retains quite strong remnants of that upbringing. Some may drift away or consciously leave their particular tradition but still find a need to seek answers related to that conditioning.
Maybe this would take the form of another religion, or perhaps a total abandonment from ‘spiritual’ paths. Either way, I’m still happy to know that we are all still subject to the laws of nature, along with the natural cycles of birth, living and death. The issues that fall into the realms of the unknown, such as consciousness, origins of the universe, free will and so forth (as interesting and worthy of study as they are), need not really concern us in going about our daily lives.
It has been pointed out that we are all, to some degree, victims of investment bias in that we do protect that which we have invested in to the extent of justifying our beliefs and thinking, even though evidence may show otherwise. We learn how to rationalise what we want to believe in. It. may be simply because we have absorbed such investments it becomes part of our identity, an extension of our physical survival which we defend – perhaps even to death
Hi Ron E.
You write
“It has been pointed out that we are all, to some degree, victims of investment bias in that we do protect that which we have invested in to the extent of justifying our beliefs and thinking, even though evidence may show otherwise. We learn how to rationalise what we want to believe in. It. may be simply because we have absorbed such investments it becomes part of our identity, an extension of our physical survival which we defend – perhaps even to death. ”
We all view the world through our conditioning. It is our prisonhouse. There are at least two ways to broaden our view and thus see more, and so let our views naturally grow to match our growing vision.
1. Appreciate that there is much of great potential we do not know.
What we know we learned once. We didn’t know it before, we called that unknown, now we live by it. So why did we ever stop learning?
Refuse to accept our own opinions as fact, just as easily as we do for the opinions of others, and always be interested in learning something new. This also helps us to listenr to others with an open mind, and not a reactive mind, an unconscious mind reacting blindly with the same filters and old stale opinions.
Our freedom is relative to our knowledge. With greater knowledge, we have more choices, even in the exact same environment. So the idea isn’t to adopt anyone else’s opinion. It is to grow naturally into a more mature and deeper understanding of that nature that is around and within you. And to take it Hon ourselves to make this is life’s work, for it requires some effort and vigilance.
2. Learn to see more by keeping your thoughts still. Fine tune the instruments of perception and thinking. There is incredible beauty within and around us. Learning to see that in ourselves and others is actually a form of new learning. It emerges from real stillness.
What a strange paradox that we learn when the mind is motionless, still and focused. And we stop learning when the mind is busy churning it’s own old thoughts.
The Long and short of this is that Brian shared his view from his history, and his criteria of saintly behavior.
Once you hold an opinion as your divine truth, all you see are pieces to support our. Exactly backwards from seeing first then understanding. The act of seeung, the practice of seeing and listening is very difficult for some.
The whole notion of shaking loose that opinion-driven behavior is exactly what Masters must do, and no it isn’t a lovely walk in the park.
But what isn’t pretty is what goes on in us.
Because our entire career of meditation and the work it involves has a limited window for progress, this life. And it is really dismissed, too easily. And yet all important.
We need to experience the world as it is rather through opinions and mental conjectures. The world our imperfect senses reveal, the world we all know, live and die in.
Overlaying it with our biased opinions, hopes, beliefs and desires effectively obscures what is. We habitually invest reality with our own mental conditioning.
And, we would be wise to stop trying to justify our own opinions and wake up to that which is always there before we impose our habitual thought laden conjectures upon it.
Apart from this world, as it is, we need to realize that most else we conjecture and desire is completely unknown to us.
Yet everything known was once unknown.
So I understand conjecture.
And seeking.
I understand people connecting the dots each in their own way.
To experience the world as it is, to see without mental filtering, without bias, to appreciate what is hidden that makes all this and seek that also, and to discover and see it as it is is the work of meditation.
GSD IS CURRENTLY HEADED TOWARDS USA FROM EDMONTON
WHAT A CHANGE! WHAT A TRANSFORMATION!
There was a time when a person who attempted to take a photograph of GSD was allegedly beaten up, or his camera was snatched away, reportedly on GSD’s instructions to his followers. If these allegations are true, they raise serious questions about the values and principles being upheld in the name of spirituality.
And look at the situation today!
The same GSD is now running a YouTube channel, appearing on television to deliver lectures, posing for photographs with celebrities and politicians, and participating in public photo sessions.
So, what has changed? The person, the circumstances, or the definition of spirituality itself?
Was taking a photograph once considered an act of disrespect that had to be prevented at all costs? If so, why are media appearances, public exposure, and photo sessions with influential personalities acceptable now?
Has spirituality evolved, or have the rules simply changed according to convenience?
AND HERE COMES ANOTHER INTERESTING QUESTION: THE SUCCESSION OF GURUS!
Why is it that, time and again, the next Guru seems to emerge from the very same family, while thousands, perhaps even millions, of other disciples dedicate their lives to the spiritual path?
Among all those disciples, are there no individuals with greater spiritual wisdom, deeper humility, stronger character, or a more profound understanding of Sant Mat? Are spiritual qualifications, years of devotion, selfless service, and inner spiritual attainment not supposed to matter?
Or does being born into the right family provide an advantage that an ordinary disciple can never hope to achieve?
Is spirituality something inherited through blood, or is it supposed to be attained through devotion, discipline, humility, and spiritual realisation?
Since when did spiritual succession begin to resemble a family legacy?
And if the position of Guru is truly based on spiritual attainment, why does the succession so often appear to remain within the same family? What transparent principles determine who is spiritually qualified to lead, and who is not?
Naturally, such a pattern raises questions about family influence, institutional power, and the mechanisms through which succession takes place. Are these appointments based entirely on spiritual merit, or do family relationships and organisational interests also play a role? These are legitimate questions that deserve clear and credible answers, rather than blind acceptance.
To be clear, being born into a spiritual family does not automatically disqualify anyone from becoming a Guru. But neither should family lineage automatically qualify someone for spiritual leadership.
Spiritual authority should be demonstrated through spiritual merit, not simply inherited through family connections.
Sant Mat is supposed to emphasise humility, simplicity, detachment from worldly recognition, and the inward journey towards spiritual truth. It teaches the individual to rise above ego, status, wealth, and worldly attachments.
Yet, when we see public personalities, celebrity encounters, television appearances, and what appears to be a recurring pattern of family-based succession, it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether the institution’s practices are consistent with the principles it preaches.
If an ordinary disciple is expected to surrender personal ambitions, question nothing, and follow every instruction unquestioningly, should the same standards of humility, detachment, and accountability not apply to those occupying positions of spiritual authority?
Are the rules of spirituality the same for everyone, or is there one set of rules for the followers and another for the family at the top?
These are not merely questions about photographs, YouTube channels, television appearances, or the identity of the next Guru. They go to the heart of spiritual integrity, institutional transparency, and the very meaning of Sant Mat.
Perhaps the most important question is this:
Have we confused devotion to spirituality with unquestioning loyalty to an institution? Have we mistaken a family tradition for spiritual qualification, and public authority for spiritual attainment?
True spirituality should encourage discernment, honesty, humility, and the courage to seek truth. It should not make reasonable questions taboo simply because they concern a revered figure or an established institution.
After all, if spirituality teaches us to look beyond worldly status and family identity, shouldn’t those very principles apply when choosing a spiritual leader?
So, what exactly has changed? The Guru’s approach to publicity? The rules governing disciples? The principles of succession? Or our understanding of Sant Mat itself?
And if the next Guru is repeatedly drawn from the same family, while countless other disciples are never considered, perhaps it is time to ask some uncomfortable but necessary questions:
Is spiritual leadership a matter of spiritual realisation or family lineage? Is the institution preserving a spiritual tradition, or a family legacy? And where is the place for transparency, accountability, and genuine spiritual merit in all of this?
These questions deserve thoughtful answers—not blind obedience, not personal attacks, and certainly not silence.
Because if spirituality is truly about transcending ego, privilege, and worldly attachments, then no individual, no family, and no institution should be above sincere and respectful scrutiny.
Also new Guru has to be a man and have to grow his beard…GSD used to trim his beard same Giill also but now both have long beard…
@ Rohit
There’s no evidence that anyone was “beaten up” for taking a photo of an RSSB guru.
(I’m outraged that the guru appears on Indian media, because a guru being on the media isn’t spiritual, but it is spiritual that I should be allowed to take pics and video (create media) of the guru?)
Charan Singh (He whose name must not be mentioned) is the 1st RSSB to appoint a family member as successor. Guess how many satsangis — even ex-satsangis — complained about that? None. The complaining about family connections in RSSB succession (within RSSB anyway) only began when Gurinder appointed Gill.
It’s why I say, He Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned. Charan, the RSSB guru with the invisibility siddhi. Charan did everything that Gurinder is accused of….but he’s invisible!
As for beard trimming, Charan (HWNMNBM) Singh also trimmed his beard before he became RSSB guru. After he became Guru, he let his beard grow, as did Gurinder before dealing with cancer therapy.
Hi Rohit
You wrote
“True spirituality should encourage discernment, honesty, humility, and the courage to seek truth.”
Vivek goes beyond opinions.
Hi Rohit
You asked
“Are the rules of spirituality the same for everyone, or is there one set of rules for the followers and another for the family at the top?*
Every family invents its own rules as it goes along. Just look at your own.
The moment you and your spouse have a baby most of the rules you were advised go out the window and make no sense, and you start inventing as you go.
A crying baby in the middle of the night, night after night can have you questioning life itself and inventing all sorts of new rules for your family, which your spouse might not agree with.
But at some point you reach an understanding. And that is when you and your spouse figure out what is really important : the health and happiness of your child. Nothing else matters until that is set.
Until then you will take help from anyone willing to offer it who is reasonably qualified.
And what is going on in someone else’s family is of no concern to you then. Who has time for that?
You have your own problems and they don’t want your help.
So don’t be concerned about anyone else’s personal matters or career path.
We are all brothers and sisters. None of the details of skin color, political beliefs, career, age, appearances, how we handle other people, etc, really these are just distractions from spirituality.
You may think the source of some danger is someone else, and therefore scrutinizing them from your point of view justifies abandoning your own commitments. Of course it doesn’t. This is just mind at work.
We are all brothers and sisters. Stay there. Then use Vivek to see how you have wasted time and how to make better use of your time, to your own benefit.
When a foolish neighbor tells you that you are right to feel that your sleepless nights, from your crying child, are entirely unfair and justify abandoning your spouse and child you already know that they are insane. We should avoid becoming such neighbors.
Loving brothers and sisters help each other shoulder their duties, not abandon them.
Loving, loyal disciples have 1 duty- always remain in His simran. Sleeping, awake, sitting, walking, eating, bathing, even while attending to nature calls, one should remain in his simran. Seems, the most loyal devotees are doing simran of the churchless.
AD
They have a duty to be good human beings
RSSB Didn’t fool you
You failed
And chose to quit
Yet you always remained in touch with it
One way or other way
Your lack of experiences
perhaps led you to believe
Everything is fraud
Your Guru was good enough
You couldn’t accept GSD
Then you turned Atheist
Perhaps to find something
You couldn’t find anywhere
Now you are at advanced age of life
Things do matter
Nanak was Right
Kabir was Right
Your Guru was Right
As this thing will dawn on you
You will become restless
Don’t go that way my friend
For it’s not right path
Don’t take it as negative comment
My intention is to make you little more insightful
Kabirji Salok#104:
“Kabir I would shave the head of mother of a guru/pundit with whose devotion, my mind’s illusions are not lost. The guru/pundit drowned in the ocean of Maya and drowned his devotees as well.”
There are people in this world who have lost faith in RSSB and are looking for spirituality else where. Nothing wrong with it. As most current RSSB followers had lost faith in the religions they left before initiation. If the calling for RSSB is not there, it is not there. These people may express themselves as they chose. They find this blog a safe space to express their feelings. I say let them. A descent human being would accept this as their safe space and move on with a suggestion:
“Hey if I may be of service to you in any way, I am here.”
Or be a good support person to them on how to deal with their negative human feelings. No to beat them up. Very much opposit of true santmat.
Faridji “O Farid if someone hits you, don’t hit them back. Return to your home after kissing his/her feet.”
Confused spiritual seeker
Very nice piece Brain Hines
I’m not sure why some people become completely blind to documented records and serious allegations involving GSD, yet continue to compare him with revered saints like Guru Nanak, Baba Farid, and Kabir.
Perhaps they have never genuinely studied the lives and teachings of these saints, or perhaps their understanding comes primarily from RSSB publications and lectures that present a selective version of history.
Guru Nanak spoke strongly against religious hypocrisy and fraudulent spiritual leaders. The image of spiritual guides as blood-drinking thugs reflects the harsh criticism found in the Guru Granth Sahib against those who exploit people in the name of religion.
History also shows that even the brothers and relatives of Sikh Gurus sometimes claimed spiritual authority or established competing religious followings. Why, then, should today’s spiritual leaders be considered beyond scrutiny?
Meanwhile, two prominent Babas appear to be making efforts to protect RSSB’s public image and reshape its approach to preserve its standing. Their actions deserve to be examined critically rather than accepted unquestioningly.
I spent many years with RSSB. I did not leave overnight or without reason. I left after learning things from an insider that fundamentally changed my understanding of the organisation. It felt as though I had finally awakened spiritually and begun to see RSSB differently. For me, it was as if the real Guru or God had opened my eyes to a reality I had failed to recognise for years.
I sincerely hope that other followers will one day find the courage to question what they have been taught, look beyond carefully constructed narratives, and listen to their own conscience. Faith should never require blind obedience, and no spiritual leader should be placed above honest questions or accountability.
A true spiritual path should lead us towards truth, humility, and freedom—not blind devotion to any individual.
All the best to everyone.
Hi Sunhil
This is a very sincere comment. Thank you.
The entire point of the path is spiritual and personal. The organization is made of human beings doing their best to make progress.
You are just looking at other students, each grappling with their own issues while trying to be helpful, to serve.
People look at the actions of others to judge the organization, but what they really get is a snapshot of some aspect of themselves, the things they are actually struggling with. The bully sees bullying in others most readily. The meloncholy sees meloncholy in others and blames them for it.
That’s a very indirect way to learn about ourself, and can become a real trap if at some point we don’t use our reactivity to inspire greater meditation and calm introspection. Then, if we can use our higher executive thinking, and see the necessity for meditation any event can lead to growth. What appears negative is transformed into something positive when we accept it as a flag, a pointer to ourselves. And then do our homework.
Any organization can be a good organization when we see the good so many others are doing. But when we ourselves have issues we often don’t see the good others are doing.
We apply criteria to others that we ourselves fail short of. That is actually our subconscious calling to us to attend to our own behavior. But not everyone heeds that call to withdraw.
So long as we view the world with our conditioned mind,, we view from our ego, our pride. Mind tends towards negativity. And opinions are generally wrong much if not most of the time.
But this very flawed mind reveals itself in how it describes other people.
In this way criticisms, when we internalize their meaning, can help us channelize onto inner light, sound and Master. Those things are entirely, purely positive.
Real growth is putting ego in the back seat. Only spiritual meditation can do this.
Then we never criticize anyone. We see the Gwen that dies to our own inner work. And now we have a much more efficient way to grow, one that is just between us and our Master.
Oops last paragraph should read:
Then we never criticize anyone. We see in every painful moment, in every fault we find in someone else, the flag that points to our own inner work. And we immediately are happy, because that flag comes from God. And now we have a much more efficient way to grow, one that is just between us and our Master.
@ sunil
The problem lays within the narrative.
Read the Anuradha sugar by sant kabir and the works of tulsidas of hatras.
They tell the reader that with every right teaching and teacher a false one appears and the differences are as such that normal people cannot differentiate between the two.
When I was still around there was an ongoing palaver about who was a “perect” teacher an who not.
I have come to the conclusion that this need to convince oneself and others about the status of this or that teacher, is due to lack of faith.
Indian lore related to mystics is full of tales mystic in disguise of this or that despicable role.
So … the narrative does not allow anybody to know who is fake or not based upon actions in the world.
That said … if I have to talk with somebody that wants to leave, my standard approach has always been … look you came to this path for your own reason, if you want to leave do so for your own reason again and do not, under no circumstance, lean upon things outside yourself …. as it will become a psychological problem later.
Maybe one discovers that something was wrong with the motivation to ask for initiation in the first place.
@ Sunil
Allow me to add this much:
Although being born in a faith full family nobody had any particular respect for priests, bishops and even the pope … they were all seen as what they were … human beings.
Our family had faith in the narrative and respect for the moral codes that were transmitted through its organisation but had no high expectations with regard to the clergy, fellow human beings and even ourselves.
Hahaha .. I do remember our father reacting to the prior of the Augustin monastery that had come to visit us and remind us of our duties … he said … Padre, if the one you speak of is not able to forgive the little trespassing of this human being he is not worthy of worship and served him another glass of chianti, probably the real reason he had come
If a religious narrative is not an agreeable guideline to live by … it is best to discard it.
And … do not aspect clergy to be mystics!
.
Mystics are rare, very rare like saints and sages …by reading quite some biography of people in monasteries of the major world religions I have come to the conclusion that nothing human is alien to its inhabitants …inside these organisations do happen the same things as outside .. both good and bad.
There is no reason to believe otherwise.
Religious narratives can be used as guidelines that is all there is to it.
Ps
Sometimes the programm does change what I wrote .. like anurag sugar…etcetera