Here’s another interesting guest post about Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) from the anonymous person who has shared other messages with me via the Contact form on this blog. Since they don’t use an actual email address on the form, I want to say in this fashion that I apologize if any previous messages have been sent to me that I’ve seemingly ignored.
Actually, I never received them, since I didn’t realize until recently that the Contact form — which worked initially when I moved this blog to the WordPress platform after my previous blogging service went out of business — was saying “Thanks for contacting us! We will be in touch with you shortly” even though I wasn’t getting any messages. I’ve gotten the problem fixed, so if anyone used the Contact form and didn’t get a reply, try again.
What the person wrote about RSSB and honor culture (honour in British English) was eye-opening for me. I’d heard of honor culture in other contexts. I was clueless about how it applies in RSSB, a religious organization headquartered in India that I belonged to for 35 years. This helps explain some aspects of Indian culture that, as an American, I wondered about without understanding the impact of honor culture.
RSSB and izzat – “honour culture”
If you really want to understand RSSB culture, you need to delve into the origins.
In RSSB culture, which comes from a rural feudal north Indian farming village folk – the group is everything. The group comes first. Always.
Here are a few key terms which you need to understand from the region:
-“Izzat” (honour) reputation status.
-“Baisti” (dishonour)
-“Sharam” (shame)
-“Log” (people)
-“Log kya kehenge” (“what will people think?”)
-“Khandan” (community)Cultures as such are collectivist (so the needs of the group come before your own) and are patriarchal and hierarchal (with men’s voices and elders voices setting the framework for behaviour).
Different rules are for different people. You may be policed for eating meat….or eating Haribo sweets with gelatin, or eating cakes with traces of eggs, or taking a flu vaccine which used egg, or accepting a blood transfusion or transplant because the donor maybe was a meat eater. Where does it end. Where is the line? One person’s “dishonour” is another person’s “doesn’t matter”. In any aspect of life.
But within collectivist patriarchal honour cultures like RSSB, the most extreme standard takes hold a lot of the time the deeper you go and the longer you spend. You’ll be expected to upgrade to RSSB Platinum Satsangi eventually, ending in an arranged marriage to a good vegetarian radhasoami (if that’s what you want great- but if not…. “log kya kehenge?!”). (Of course, unless youre the gurus sons – they married non satsangi girls who happened to be sindhi heiresses to billionaire businessmen – and he was cool with that).
But ask this.
Nobody polices the white haired male elder guru for his multi million fraud/money laundering schemes -in a country where you can bribe your way around the justice system – even India found him guilty. What does that say?
Where is the izzat here? Where is the sharam here? What do log think? What does the khandan think? What about the baisti he commited? This is who you worship?
If you believe what the faith tells you – do you really believe THIS is the “god in human form” the satguru (the true guide) the messiah who has the power and will come and save you at the time of your death? The one who won’t even make his own court dates on earth? You believe this? LOG KYA KEHENGE!
Google AI came up with this description of Izzat, honor culture.
Izzat(Hindi: इज़्ज़त; Urdu: عزت; Punjabi: ਇੱਜ਼ਤ) is a complex concept of honor, reputation, and self-respect prevalent in South Asian cultures, particularly in North India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. It serves as a foundational social code that governs behavior, family dynamics, and community standing across religions, including Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism.
Core Principles of Izzat
- Collective Reputation: Izzat is rarely individual; it is a “zero-sum game” of collective honor shared by an entire group or family. A single member’s actions can enhance or destroy the standing of the whole family.
- Reciprocity and Debt: It emphasizes social debts. Failing to assist someone who previously helped you results in a loss of izzat.
- Gendered Expectations: While it applies to all genders, the burden often falls disproportionately on women.
- Men: Expected to actively achieve or protect honor through power, provision, and protection.
- Women: Tasked with preserving honor through modesty, behavior, and adherence to tradition. Violations of these norms by women are often seen as direct attacks on the men’s izzat.
- Vengeance and Conflict: Perceived violations often require “reclamation” through revenge (badla), which can lead to generational feuds.
Social and Modern Impact
- Honour-Based Abuse: In its most extreme forms, the pressure to maintain izzat can lead to honour-based violence, including forced marriages and honor killings, where violence is used to “restore” lost reputation.
- Mental Health: The fear of “what people will say” (Log Kya Kahenge) often prevents individuals from seeking mental health support, as doing so might be viewed as a sign of weakness or family instability.
- Generational Shifts: In diaspora communities (such as in the UK, US, or Canada), younger generations often redefine izzat as mutual respect rather than a rigid, fear-based honor system.
- Political Use: In India, the “politics of izzat” has been used to empower marginalized communities by creating strong political blocs that command social respect.
EtymologyThe word is derived from the Arabic izzah (meaning glory or power) and entered South Asian languages through Persian influence during the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal periods.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
American farmers were like that in early America and before that they circled the wagons. It’s style over substance. But sustenance is everything. It’s a wonder they can even feed their faces.
Everybody subscribes to a particular culture, and all cultures have an ethos. That includes genXers who see “collectivist patriarchy” wherever they look.
A funny thing about culture related to Sant Mat discussions: Everyone has their minds made up and never gives an inch. This is true not only for satsangis but also apologists. Sant Mat apologists tend to believe they’re open-minded, fair, and expressly rational. Yet their versions of Sant Mat history are invariably encomiums to the particular guru from whom they took Holy Initiation.
For example, I have a friend who is a Kirpal Singh initiate. First, a bit of background for those who don’t know anything about the Kirpal Singh sect of Sant mat in respect to succession: It was objectively a disaster. Kirpal was never appointed by Sawan to be a guru, but claimed to be one nonetheless. When Kirpal died, he left no successor, plunging the sangat into years of bitter confusion and rival claimants. Despite this, my apologist friend wrote a thesis that defended Kirpal succession issues, every bit of it, as divinely perfect. As for RSSB, he argued that everything in the Dera after 1948 was a total shitshow of corruption.
Then there’s another friend of mine, he a Charan initiate and a prolific writer on Sant mat history. In his telling, everything the Beas gurus did, said, their successions and all else, was impeccably perfect. By the same token, everything about Kirpal and his line was a tale of bold lies and fuckups.
Though their opinions on Sant Mat were sharply divided, in one sense both of these apologists were the same: Everything about their apologetics was principally an apologia for the guru from whom they’d taken initiation. All of it a defense of their guru’s Sant Mat lineage and every known thing about their guru’s life. Never a single word of the tiniest criticism of their guru or of his predecessors. And nothing but criticism of any of their guru’s rivals.
This kind of partisanship isn’t so strange. It’s actually the rule in sects of all kinds. People stake out a position in their respective culture and defend it absolutely. Try to find a Baptist apologist who will say anything good about Catholicism. Reverse that, and see if there’s ever been a Catholic apologist who said one charitable thing about Baptists, or that Catholicism ever got anything wrong. You’ll have no luck.
Every apologist is convinced that he’s the open-minded one. Whether it’s Sant Mat, Christianity, Islam, or even atheism or veganism — no apologist ever gives an inch.
No doubt there’s a value in reading RS history or apologetics. As the Buddhists have long said, Buddhist concepts can’t really be appreciated by those who have never practiced Buddhism. They have a point. On the other hand, scholars who are wholly outsiders to Buddhist beliefs (such as Donald Lopez) are just as valuable to read, as they often give a more comprehensive and thus accurate portrayal of that religion’s history.
While providing insight that might escape the non-believing scholar, there’s a problem with apologists: For the sake of their guru, they tend to fudge tiny details — but though tiny, these details can be quite important. I saw this recently after reading what one RSSB apologist wrote about Sawan Singh’s succession. “The cleanest succession in Sant Mat history,” I think he wrote. But when I read Spiritual Letters (an RSSB book cataloging Jaimal’s letters to Sawan and other initiates), and cross-check my conclusions with AI, glaring problems with this apologist’s claims emerge.
Contrary to what he writes, we have no record of Jaimal ever appointing Sawan as his successor. Even years after Jaimal’s death, we see Sawan carrying on a correspondence with an elder Agra guru, from whom Sawan is looking for spiritual direction. The story keeps changing. We are told that this Agra guru convinced the humble Sawan to begin giving initiations, but also that Jaimal had appointed Sawan to be an initiating guru “several months” before he died. Which was it? If Sawan knew Jaimal appointed him to be guru, why did an Agra guru (whom in 1903 Jaimal had instructed Sawan to stay away from) have the authority to direct Sawan’s guru career? We’ll never know, but reading Spiritual Letters for ourselves (rather than reading what an apologist told us it says) shows us some inconvenient truths that go against the core of RSSB historical dogma.
In short, all the evidence we have about that era of Sant Mat indicates that neither Jaimal nor Sawan was appointed to be a guru. Strange to say, but Jaimal and Sawan were both every bit as much upstarts as was Kirpal Singh.
Why would a Beas apologist fudge on that bit of RS history? Because of just one thing: How it reflects on the guru who initiated him. If Jaimal and Sawan’s succession isn’t really squeaky clean, that reflects poorly on Charan Singh’s status as a guru. I understate here; it philosophically demolishes it. The whole “humble obedience of the RSSB guru” standard goes out the window when it turns out that your guru’s gurus bounded to Sat Guru status by their own will.
Well Sant 64
If the kind hearted, well educated, civilized and trained pilot of the IDA flies over the densely populate Gaza strip, where by now nothing is worth to be bombarded and pushes the button to drop yet another bomb, he must believe himself to be a good citizen, an moral correct human being …otherwise he could not push that button ..knowing through his act innocent fellow human beings will be killed, injured and remaining friends and family submerged in the pain of losing yet another member of their family or friends.
History books are filled to the brim with these things ..think of nagasaki and hiroshima … there was no need to drop TWO bombs, nor was it necessary to drop these bombs in the very centre of two very densly populated cities ..the irony will that the decission was not to bomb historic valueable monuments but that asside ..they could have use one bomb at distance of a city to make their point
That is why people also adhere to many identifications as the sole valuable.
People HAVE to believe that the path they take is the only solution otherwise they will not be able to walk a path to the end.
Reply to Sant64. You got some history wrong.
Or — perhaps more accurately — you misinterpreted the known historical facts to buttress a self-serving, distorted viewpoint.
————————————
You wrote: “The story keeps changing.”
Answer:
No it doesn’t.
That is an error or deceit on your part: 1.
————————————
You wrote: “We are told that this Agra guru convinced Sawan to begin giving initiations, but also that Jaimal had appointed Sawan to be an initiating guru “several months” before he died. Which was it?”
Answer:
First, Pratap Singh wasn’t an ‘Agra guru’. Pratap was NEVER regarded as a ‘guru’ by the Agra sangat, nor by the Agra CAC, nor by Sawan and Jaimal.
Error/deceit: 2.
Second, there is no contradiction: you have created a false dichotomy.
A. Jaimal DID appoint Sawan AND Sawan (who was still working at a day-job) was initially feeling incapable of fulfilling the responsibility.
B. Pratap Singh encouraged him to begin.
So error/deceit: 3.
————————————
You wrote: “If Sawan knew Jaimal appointed him to be guru, why did an Agra guru (whom in 1903 Jaimal had instructed Sawan to stay away from) have the authority to direct Sawan’s guru career? We’ll never know.”
Answer:
A. We do know why.
B. Jaimal NEVER instructed Sawan to “stay away from” Pratap Singh, his guru’s brother.
C. Pratap had “the authority to direct Sawan’s guru career“ SIMPLY because Sawan respected him and his judgement.
Error/deceit: 4, 5 & 6.
————————————
Just think if Carl Reiner’s son had belonged to a cult where he belonged those killings might not have happened. That’s new karma. Gurinder wants worldwide dominance to compete with Christianity. But I’m waiting for Jesus now. I’m glad I met Gurinder or that might not have happened.
Ronald,
Interesting comment. So your association with RSSB has helped draw you towards Christianity and the blessings it can offer. It all seems to be a learning process with this life/spirituality business. I suspect those who are fixated to one direction will hold on tightly to that, and this may even prevent learning and growth. It takes a knock to shake us out of our complacency.
While individual people may fall into such traps, RSSB does not advocate them.
The guru himself is quite liberal. I remember a secretary complaining that some speakers don’t take off their shoes or cover their head when going on stage to deliver satsang.
He said it was not required.
People make up their own rules. Just because Charan Singh used to sit cross legged on stage in the old days, that is projected as a standard. no shoes, head covered.
RSSB is an organisation. people follow it in their own way
True RSSB
My goodness …. where for heavens sake did these things happen?
During the days of the late MCS and also later, I have never witnesses such ritualist behavior or heard of it.
Not even in “home” satsangs, organized and visited by holier than holy satsangis.
What RSSB presents today as seamless, divinely ordained succession is far from the truth. Even historically, leadership in Sant Mat was messy and human. Sawan Singh did not immediately claim authority after Jaimal Singh’s death—he hesitated, sought guidance from other gurus, and required recognition before initiating others. Later RSSB narratives turned this complex reality into a neat story, erasing the human negotiations, ambition, and uncertainty that were always part of succession. Yet RSSB now expects unquestioning faith in the current lineage.
Under GSD, the pattern continues but is amplified. GSD openly claims to be a Sant Mat guru and even presents himself as “God in human form.” Reports indicate he could not find a single sevadar or member of the sangat spiritually ready to succeed him, so he brought in a relative, Gill, and began “training” him to fit the public image of a guru—growing a beard, adopting a turban style, wearing kurta-pyjamas, and performing staged photo sessions. The RSSB media and PR team works tirelessly to craft his image across social media and YouTube. This is image-making, not spiritual authority.
Women continue to be entirely excluded from leadership, even though Sant Mat teaches that the soul has no gender. Some of the most dedicated female sevadars are ignored while male relatives determine succession, reflecting patriarchy, not spiritual merit.
RSSB also demonstrates selective reasoning on guru appointments. It tells followers that Guru Gobind Singh never formally appointed the Sri Guru Granth Sahib as the next guru, citing that no written instruction exists—yet in Sikh practice, Guru Gobind Singh publicly declared the Granth as guru and performed rituals to establish gurugadhi. By contrast, RSSB accepts claims that Jaimal Singh appointed Sawan Singh as guru, even though there is no written documentation, and neither Jaimal nor Sawan ever formally declared a successor. This inconsistency shows that RSSB applies standards of proof selectively to protect its lineage narrative.
The current practices also diverge sharply from historical Sant Mat ideals. Guru Nanak met ordinary people in their homes and welcomed scrutiny. GSD reportedly avoids ordinary devotees, restricts photography, meets politicians and celebrities in staged sessions, and has even visited a convicted criminal in jail. Financial transparency is limited, with legal requests preventing disclosure during ongoing corruption cases, while little progress is reported over years. Public displays of devotion, including kissing or idolizing GSD as “God in human form,” further emphasize image and perception over humility, service, and inner realization.
From Sawan Singh’s historical hesitation to GSD’s modern practices, authority in RSSB has always been human, negotiated, and subject to worldly influence. Questioning these practices is not anti–Sant Mat—it is the only way to remain faithful to its original principles: spiritual merit, humility, service, and ethical living, not bloodlines, media manipulation, or political influence.
Rssb is nothing but a deceiving instution, why else is this crooked cult remain in the same mafia family. It purpose is to be anti god and mislead innocent souls away from truth. Gurinder in a YouTube satsang says he’s no god. He also says you need to search for the truth. This should frighten Sangat into immediate action of running away from this cult, as far as possible as it’s not of god but of kaal. It’s not a path to salvation but a path to more slavery, mindless surrender to a narcissist baba , and ultimately to kaal. The 5 holy names, the first being jot nirunjan which means light of the devil. Gurinder worships a lord and master , who is Lucifer, kaal. Wake up. Gurinder also has said in a few satsangs that for all you know he could be the biggest crook on the planet. Please believe him as he is in this instance telling the truth. Gurinder and his apprentice will both face their karma and deceiving innocent souls to kaal.
This Radha soami cult of ex Gurinder Singh Dhilion has been the laughter of every household over the last few years.
There’s nothing to gain in it , but everything too loose.
A lot of sweet nothings on stage and nobody has ever gained anything at this hideous cult.
Except Gurinder Singh Dhilion and his greedy family has fiddled millions in land , money, and
tax fraud .
Now Gurinder lives a very wealth living life earnings of pure crime with his buddies in Punjab of a criminal nature of drugs.
I’m sure Gurinder Singh Dhilion is expected a jail sentence soon let’s see karma is coming for his Fake ass now lol