« Gurinder Singh Dhillon should respond to allegations of his criminality | Main | More straight talk from Faqir Chand about inner visions »

May 04, 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Unknowing Sage -

Ishwar Puri Ji's explanation of Faqir Chand's unknowingness -

One Master whose name was Baba Faqir Chand from Hoshiarpur he made a statement in a Satsang that Master know nothing. They are ordinary human beings like us but they have this gift that they can create their image inside us and the True Master is inside us. That is why don’t think that the Master outside and inside is the same. The Master inside which is part of your own self is created by your own consciousness is the True Master. The outside is a replica an outside image of that Master. So, the outside Master acts according to what is happening to the inside Master. Faqir Chand gave that example that Masters as physical beings are not all knowing. I was very interested in that statement of Baba Faqir Chand because he was our neighbor when my father was teaching as a Professor in Hoshiarpur. We used to meet him frequently. He was a very enlightened person. So, at one time I had to ask him the same question which I had asked Great Master once about whether the Master in the physical body knows everything and Baba Faqir Chand said of course they are not different but the outside has to behave like an ordinary person – unknowing. Because if he says he knows outside what will happen – nobody will go inside. Everybody will run after the outside person. Therefore it is appropriate for a Master to tell that he knows nothing go inside and find out from your True Master inside. So, it is very appropriate behavior of a Perfect Living Master to do that. Now, this is what he explained and I understood it that the Masters want us to meditate and find the truth inside. Otherwise, we are running after illusions – Master’s outer form is part of the illusion. When you die, everything dissolves including the form of the Master but what does not dissolve is the inner form of the Master. Therefore, it is a very appropriate thing for a Master to say I don’t know what is happening, even if he knows. Now the question is if he really knows then how does he operate. One physical person, if he knows, has got so many initiates, so many disciples. He has initiated each one of them and told them I am with you. I have manifested myself in you. Any problem you have you can talk to me. And there are 1000 people sitting there and the Master is in all 1000. How can 1 physical person know what is happening to 1000 people? I had to find some appropriate language to explain how Masters work. In America, in one of my talks, I explained that and the explanation that I gave was – taken from the Manual for the Masters – so I just picked up from there and said, the Master use what is called the clone. A clone is a replica of the Master. And they make a clone and put that clone of themself in each person they initiate but they are in constant touch with the clone. They never disconnect with the clone. Clone continuously, all the time, sends messages what is happening inside the disciple and therefore the physical form of the Master at all time knows but they don’t have to use it for interactions with the disciple. The interaction should be ordinary human beings as friends. Supposing, we came to know that another human being a friend of ours knows all our thoughts and sometimes our thoughts are very ugly you know. Inspite of the trier, even if you try to think very nice things once in a while some naught thoughts creep in. And if we know he is reading my thoughts , you hardly have any friendship with that person. So if you have a creepy thought and say Master did you receive what I thought. He will say what was that? We feel very comfortable. Thank God. So he has to balance all these things. The Truth is that Master in his awareness knows everything. He Knows. And he in his physical form acts just as an ordinary person like us who knows nothing more than what we know. Therefore we can be very free with such a Master as external physical friendship. When we go to his form inside, he can be very different. He can show his full knowledge. HE can show everything. He can give all the answers. Inside, he won’t say, I don’t know what it is. Outside, he will. This is part of the single plan. Once you know this cloning system, a Master can produce 1000, million clones and take care of them and be in touch with all of them. If we don’t understand, how a Master through clones can be in touch with all of them take the digital world. One little chip, you can have a connection continuously working with not millions but billions of points. So, it is not very difficult for the consciousness of a Master to be in touch with all of them. Though in a physical body, in a physical relationship, he will pretend he knows as little or as more as you do or your friend does. And that sustains the friendship at the physical level. This system works beautifully. And sometimes we think that may be the Master is using a clone but does not know what is happening. Somebody complains Master I had this problem. Oh, let me check with the clone. It is not like that. Then it is not a clone. Then we are separating the clone from the Master. Clone means identical copy. It is an identical copy of the Master. And the awareness of the clone because the clone is inside physical part of the Master is very far away. Physical form of the Master is so far away and has no time for anybody and we hardly get to see him for a little while but the clone is always there. Therefore the clone acts more aggressively in being our friend. And the Master in his physical form with his remoteness acts like an ordinary human being. It is a great combination. And sometimes we really suspect that Baba Faqir Chand was more right is explaining. He really did not know anything. And Master really don’t know anything. And our doubting mind can doubt anything begins to doubt. Master really doesn’t know just a theory they made of Clones and all that. And suddenly one day he will spring a surprise by telling you something which you only know. How did Master know that? IT is just one little example he will give and put you back on track. No no, he knows. But he won’t say so because he is a friend of mine. So, from time to time these experiences will also take place. I think it is a good game. Don’t put your Master on a pedestal. Don’t put him high away from yourself. The Master is your friend. Friend here in the physical form and friend inside and he will share your life. He will share your joys your sorrows your sufferings. He will suffer with you. He will feel sorry when he needs to be sorry. And he will fly with you. He will dance with you. He will eat with you. It is a very different relationship once you establish the form of the Master inside. And that is the beauty of this Naam Daan by a Perfect Living Master. That is the relationship that is created.

Ishwar Puri – The Real Form of the Master is Shabd – Sound Current [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzXaZfkXlE8]

Ishwar Puri on Faqir Chand -
"Baba Faqir Chand was a Saint, a mystic, a master. He was a great man. But Baba Faqir Chand created a huge controversy by saying that Masters don’t know what is going on. It is the disciple with his own mind that projects everything. That even the Master he sees inside is seen by the disciple. Not because the Master is going to project himself inside

He gave an example of his own life. That he was in the Army during the 2nd world war and 3 of his disciples were also in the Army and they were in the forward combat region and he was in the non-forward region and he says that he was very afraid of getting killed in the war. These disciples were ambushed by the enemy from all sides And they knew they were going to be killed. And they prayed to their Master - Baba Faqir Chand. Baba Ji come and help us - we are going to Die. If we have to die take us soon from here.

And his form appeared almost like a physical appearance in front of all three of them. And they were able to see him. And he said don't worry and you will not die. You go behind these bushes and there is a tunnel there unknown to these people and you remove a bush and go inside the tunnel and you will come out from behind the ambush and you will be saved. They were saved when they followed the directions. After they were saved they ran to Baba Faqir chand to thank him. He said what life, I didn't save any life. They said you came we saw you, you gave us the escape route. He said I know nothing about it. You must have made it up yourself. I know nothing about it. I myself was afraid sitting in my cabin.

He told this story in his Satsangs. I (IP) heard this story in his Satsang (that IP attended in Hoshiarpur, India). we asked him in one of the conversations we had with him. Why do you say that Masters don't project themselves? and it is your own mind that is doing it. He said I don't say that it is your own mind that does it. What I say is that the Master who really saves you is inside you. Why I say that is the people have the tendency to follow a human being outside without doing meditation to go inside. So I was laying emphasis on the fact that people should go inside and find the Radiant Form of the Master. instead of running after the man who will die and Radiant Form never dies. His emphasis was on that.

2nd explanation that he gave was that I am looking at it from the point of an ordinary seeker Ordinary seeker does not think that the Master is inside. And therefore he runs outside. It is to emphasize the importance of going inside that I say these things

After this clarification we were sure that this was meant for those people who don't do meditations and go within to find. OF course, people quoted him wildly, oh here was a Master who knew nothing. Yet he was a Good Master. He helped so many people. How could he help them? Because they had all the things inside, the Master was inside. Which is actually true, the Master is inside. There is nothing wrongs with that. The real Master is inside us. The Master who is going to take us is not the physical being outside. The physical being outside puts us in touch with the real being inside. Why do we need to see a physical being outside if the real master is inside? Because when we close our eyes, we don't see anything but darkness He helps us to go inside to see the real form. And the form resembles the Master outside."

Internal experiences are subjective, therefore they cannot be evaluated objectively.

There area all sorts of accounts that cannot be explained in objective terms. An open mind must acknowledge them.

I like Chand 's frankness about his own experience. But his projection on what other people have experienced is also just his projection.

What is important for any scientist is to duplicate those experiences for themselves with enough control and reliability to test them.

For example, when I saw Gurinder become Maharaji I knew this had to be something from my own mind. But I took advantage of that moment to scrutinize the vision. It was a perfect image, as though maharaji were up on the dias viewing the audience with great b care and acknowledgment. I marvelled at the lighting and the clothes, the skin tone. The brain constructed a remarkable high definition living image. Where did those details come from? The Maharaji I saw was much, much older, as if he had never died. How was this constructed? From what source material?
Why was he aged? His calm and loving expression.. Where did my mind get that? And living, not static.

Where did the brain get its source material for such accuracy?

So many things we don't know. But this seemed very natural. I took it as a divine gift.

But if the claim is we really don't know, then we can't pretend to know, either way.

If we can't read minds then we can't make claims about what someone else is experiencing.

If we 're really unknowing, then we will need to own that and not project on objective grounds that don't exits the actual basis for our subjective experience.

If Frauds is fraud, then unknowing is unknowing.

Today I received a letter with a link to a YouTube video where Ishwar Puri discusses Faqir Chand.

I was a bit surprised to see Ishwar literally making things up that are not true, particularly about Faqir Chand's own son who never worked as a guru and worked in Russia.

Here is the video and my response to it:


Dear [name redacted]

Thank you for sending the video presentation of Ishwar Puri answering a question about Baba Faqir Chand.

I would usually just let this go, but Ishwar is not accurate in retelling the story of Faqir. Moreover, he is completely
wrong about Faqir Chand's son.

Faqir Chand expressly stated that he would NEVER appoint anyone in his family to succeed him.

And his son never did serve as a guru, but rather worked in Russia and held a good position in metallurgy.

Moreover, Faqir was not merely being humble when he stated that he "didn't" know about his appearances and so on.

To the contrary, it was that very realization that led to his enlightenment.

Why Ishwar would whitewash this is unconscionable since there is no dearth of books in which Faqir very clearly states what he realized and why.

I recommend reading Faqir Chand for yourself and making your own determination about what he really taught and not rely on me or anyone else.

Here is an exact transcription of a satsang Faqir Chand gave just months before dying.

It is super clear about what he believes and thinks:



Faqir was super clear that he didn't know about his appearances and it is not right to bastardize his views to support
a more conventional view of Sant Mat.

If you have any questions, feel free to write anytime.


A guru is pointed to as evidence not to believe in gurus - v odd.

faker chand sounds like a total nutjob - ‘a bubble of superconscious’ - what bullshit is this?

“In the highest stages of development man does not develop a keep sense of omniscience, but a radical and irrevocable understanding of unknowingness.”
- more gobbledegook BS. Just stringing together big meaningless new-agey words. None of this is profound.

I have read some of his writings and as I recall his admission included that he was unable to attain the goal he sought and began to question it. Further, he was pressed to assume the role of true Master when he knew he hadn't attained that. But as his teacher assigned it, he had no other choice but to accept it. From that he presumed the other gurus hadn't attained anything either. So, when people clamed he had come to them and led them to safety, he began to form his theory that people see the Master out of illusion, like self - hypnosis, projection.

The mind can do all sorts of things. It can create illusions, but it can also deliver truth.

As to what anyone else is, who can say? We don't yet fully understand what it is to be a human being.

We know that we can put our thoughts on higher things than ourselves. And if we get good at that, our focused attention will take us there.

We can live with greater purpose and center our lives.

We can understand that we are just a part of this creation, not separate, independent beings.

But we may just experience that first, and then understanding doesn't require much of any reasoning.

We may experience truth, rather than have to reason it out.

Spencer you think you are smart on everything now ay? You don't have the slighest clue what Faqir was all about.

"I like Chand 's frankness about his own experience. But his projection on what other people have experienced is also just his projection."

So is the entirety of the sant mat philosophy that purports to know the secrets of every religion on earth and offers a "what they really meant" book for every spiritual teacher who has ever lived. RSSB goes as far as denying that people actually worshiped the god they claimed to have worshiped ie Mirabai didn't worship Krishna because RS teaches that real saints only worship living men and thus RS must project that belief onto the dead. Then from there thousands of followers repeat the ideas as if they have personal knowledge of these things.

You yourself say over and over what "the saints" are and what they do, but you're just projecting your RS book ideas onto others, or projecting what you've read onto the vague notion of saints in general. Nobody knows if there's such a thing as a saint at all, but we all offer a description of a saints qualities. But we're not really even doing that. We're reading and then projecting. It's fun to do I guess because I was caught up in that way of not thinking for about a decade.

But who cares either way. It's hilarious that these guys like Ishwar Puri can still get away with giving such bad cliche answers. "The outer master may have slept with your wife, but the INNER master is there in your 3rd eye"

The crowd oohs and aahs "this man is really spiritual. he's from an ancient place called Rajouri Garden, Delhi, and grew up surrounded by saints way more advanced than those from those other competing sects."

"Just stringing together big meaningless new-agey words. None of this is profound."

One thing I agree with Georgy Porgy about, except I wouldn't apply it just to Faqir Chand. It should be applied to everything spoken about religion or spirituality starting from the beginning of time until the present. None of this stuff is profound. Especially not the standard sant mat theories which have become self parodies at this point.

Dear Spencer,

You write the following, "Further, he was pressed to assume the role of true Master when he knew he hadn't attained that. But as his teacher assigned it, he had no other choice but to accept it. From that he presumed the other gurus hadn't attained anything either"

Actually, this is not what transpired. Rather, Faqir talked directly with Charan, Kirpal, and many other shabd yoga gurus and asked them in private whether they too were "unaware" of their appearances to their respective disciples. Each of them also acknowledged that they did NOT know. It was from such experiences that Faqir formed a larger hypothesis.

But even here, to Faqir's great credit, he asked other gurus to correct him if he was wrong. But they never did on this point. Here is a direct quote from the Essence of Truth by Faqir on this point:

"Sh. Jagan Nath is present here. He offered me Rs 403/- for the Manavta Mandir. He told that I awakened him at 1-30 A.M a day before. But I did not go to awake him nor do I know any things about it. Possibly, other mahatmas and Gurus might have the knowledge of such instances of manifestations of their forms. At least I remain unaware. Many of the present Gurus have admitted before me that they remain unaware about such instance."

You also write, "his projection on what other people have experienced is also just his projection."

This is not entirely accurate since Faqir sought out what other gurus had experienced and it was from their own confessions to him in private and elsewhere that Faqir formed a more general view. In addition, even to the very end of his life Faqir pointed out that he could be wrong and welcomed others to correct him.

It was a very refreshing quality of his.

"A few little tidbits that are not widely known:

1. After Faqir was appointed by Shiv Brat Lal to be his successor and a guru, he went to Sawan Singh since he didn't feel right about doing it, since he would speak the truth about what he knew. Sawan Singh then garlanded him and backed him in his ministry. However, after 1942 Faqir stopped initiating anyone and instead gave satsangs about his realizations.

2. In the 1940s Faqir even gave satsangs at the Dera when Sawan was alive.

3. Jagat Singh and Faqir Chand were friends. Faqir also knew Charan and Charan would visit Faqir whenever he came to Hoshiarpur.

4. Faqir refused to live at his own ashram since he didn't feel it was right for him to get free room and board. Instead he lived a number of blocks away and would take a bicycle rickshaw to the ashram in the morning.

5. One time when Faqir was sick and had to stay over at his own ashram, he paid for his stay.

Faqir Chand was so forthcoming and so disarmingly honest that it would make even his closest followers

Hope this helps a bit.

Hi Jesse
Yes, every effort to describe Truth is an effort to state something about reality.

You could say it is a projection from one's own experience. And then people try to explain it logically.

So if you don't have those experiences you think they can't be real. And if you do, then you think they are.

Then comes the logical explanations for what other people have stated.

Puri tries to explain away what Chand wrote. Very logical.
You try to explain away what others wrote, that you don't agree with, iwhich is outside your experience.

Is natural, but not scientific nor rational. It's just trying to shrink the world down into our limited thinking.

Once you decide to live like a scientist, philosophy changes. But even scientists don't always apply those principles rationally.

In the scientific philosophy you don't explain things away you haven't experienced. You keep an open mind about that.
And what you have experienced you keep an open mind about also.

And where there is science, you incorporate that into your understanding. But science is rarely conclusive, and so learning how the brain functions doesn't mean it functions in isolation.

False Guru's have a market place. People have a need. If they can meet that need more honestly, that's always best.

And there are examples in science for events science cannot fully explain. Gravity is one classic example. We still can't find a particle or energy source connection between two objects hundreds of thousands of miles apart in space that somehow are affecting each other. Same with spooky physics.

Some of the past life and near death experiences do meet the rigorous requirements of scientific independence and are astounding... The patient's heart stopped and when they regained consciousness moments later they reported they just saw their sister who had died in a car crash that exact moment.... And they report their sister asked them ' to tell mom and dad she is sorry about crashing the new car and having to leave...'

For every real account there are dozens of false ones. But to dismiss even the real ones that actually pass all requirements for scientific independence and therefore defy current explanation is also not logical and is its own bias.

We just have to keep an open mind, understanding the limits of Philosophy, and enjoying our experiences.

David Lane, thanks for your informative comment. I plan to share it in another blog post about Faqir Chand.

It both bothers me, and amuses, me, to read comments on this post from people who know little about Chand, yet try to discount his message because Chand was so truthful about the unknowiningness of himself and Sant Mat/Surat Shabd Yoga gurus.

You've spoken with Chand. You had an active correspondence with him. He entrusted you with his life story and description of his philosophy. You probably know more about Chand than almost anyone else in the world. So like Chand's words, your words are to be trusted.

@ David Lane - hello

I have ordered that book - what was Faqir’s message to those chasing truth or reality? To know thyself? Is that all there is to know?

Looking forward to hearing from you.


Unknowing Sage book is available as a pdf here:

Brian message for Spence

It both bothers me, and amuses, me, to read comments on this post from people who know little about Chand, yet try to discount his message because Chand was so truthful about the unknowiningness of himself and Sant Mat/Surat Shabd Yoga gurus.

Do we have only lane's and Chand's word or did one ore more of the named guru's communicate their confession to others than Chand?

Hi David,

Thanks for the correction. I'm going to try to find what I'd read to further correct my memory.

Can you confirm whether my memory on these items below matches with your documentation?....

"I have read some of his writings and as I recall his admission included that he was unable to attain the goal he sought and began to question it. Further, he was pressed to assume the role of true Master when he knew he hadn't attained that. But as his teacher assigned it, he had no other choice but to accept it. "

Let me know if you concur with these recollections as well.


Hi David
I've had a change to start reading Faqir Chand 's autobiography..
He writes

" I had traversed many stages of Santmat within and thus I was all happy and gay enjoying peace within and without."

I'm curious to read if at some point later he denied those experiences, or framed them differently.

If he himself claims having reached some of those stages why would he claim they don't exist or other gurus hadn't reached them. Or maybe he was talking about the stages above Sat Nam?

I'm enjoying the reread...

Your thoughts?

Spence, I wondered about that also. Hopefully David can share light on this, if he reads your comment. After reading the book about Chand, these are my thoughts:

(1) It may be that Chand came to realize, along with Buddhism, that all phenomena are dependent on "causes and conditions." Emptiness is another way to put this. Chand was looking for something higher, and considered that he found it, or at least headed in the right direction, near the end of his life: namely, the essence of the consciousness that experiences phenomena, which is much more important to realize.

(2) Thus Chand says that in his old age he lost interest in inner light and sound, choosing instead to focus on the Self that is a bubble of consciousness in the infinity of the cosmos. As you noted, it's unclear if he considered the "inner regions" he encountered to be objectively real.

(3) What is clear is that Chand considered that all manifestations of a guru that appear within a devotee's consciousness arise from the devotee's personal and cultural conditioning.

(4) Again, what isn't clear, at least to me, is whether Chand came to view inner light and sound as also conditioned. Insofar as Sant Mat teaches that the inner guru manifests as sound and light, he may well have. But it does seem that Chand often appears to refer to inner regions as objectively real.

People keep repeating the Faqir Chand thesis but it doesn't quite hold together.

Faqir Chand had a lot to say about sant mat, and even more to say about himself and how he was more honest than his fellow gurus. Reading Faqir, he comes across as a somewhat neurotic character who was forever ambivalent about whether orthodox sant mat was legitimate, or whether all the gurus beside himself were cheats and liars. Faqir never managed to arrive at a conclusion on whether sant mat was good or bad, except that he had no conclusion. That's not exactly wisdom, it's just an admission of uncertainty.

Faquir told many stories about what other gurus supposedly told him in private that they told no one else. I find these stories hard to believe. I especially find it hard to believe Faqir's claim that Kirpal Singh and the gurus of RSSB all confessed to him that they didn't have inner knowingness. I also question why this claim is still being circulated without mentioning that Charan Singh and Darshan Singh both flatly said that Faqir was wrong.

No RSSB guru has ever admitted to be unknowing. All of them lived in luxury and took in massive amounts of money seva because of their position as Godmen. That was a machination that Faqir says he abhorred. Yet Faqir revered Sawan and Charan and even gave satsang for RSSB? Faqir's respect for RSSB makes no sense, given his rantings about corrupt sant mat gurus who pretend to occult knowledge of their disciples' experiences. Even if Faqir's stories were true about these gurus telling him in secret that they didn't know anything, wouldn't "the honest guru" refuse to have anything to do with them, given that they were still perpetuating a lie? What about Faqir's satsangs at RSSB -- did he spend that satsang telling the people that their guru was lying to them? Doubtful. Then there's Faqir's lifelong reverence to his own guru, and his repeated statements of respect and gratitude for the spiritual help his guru gave him. Yet we don't have Shiv Brat confessing that he was unknowing. Why would Faqir reverence his own guru if he was a liar? Somehow, none of these gurus are ever called out by Faqir as fakes, and yet Faqir's "honest" declaration is that they are indeed all fakes, all liars.

Taken all together, Faqir's line on sant mat is a muddled mess. No doubt, it counts for something that Faqir confesses that he himself had no personal knowledge of the miracles his disciples reported to him. But what Faqir has to say on other gurus and spiritual topics in general isn't all that impressive. To this reader, much of Faqir's stuff comes across as....well, have you ever read a Faqir book, and not just a few selected quotes that bolster the thesis that Faqir was of all gurus the most honest, wise and intelligent? Try reading a few chapters from Faqir's Truth Always Wins and see what you think:

Faqir's writing is a stream of consciousness ping pong of one wild story after another, followed by neurotic ponderings, gossip about what other gurus told him in secret, triumphal declarations he's uncovered the Real Truth about sant mat, and then abject words of devotion to his own guru for making it all possible. In short, it's the work of a confused man, perhaps the most rhetorically discombolulated guru of the last century. The Faqir was great thesis reworks all this into a picture of Faqir as the most honest guru. But that thesis just doesn't work, because it depends on ignoring so much about Faqir's guru ministry.

If Faqir truly believed his supposed conclusions about what's false in sant mat, he would have "done a Krishamurti." completely dropping sant mat and denouncing all gurus. But he didn't do that, as to the end of his long life he still preached a version of sant mat that, despite all its ruminations about what other gurus did wrong. And despite all his insights about the pitfalls of following a guru, Faqir still held fast to the necessity of a guru.

Faqir sought out what other gurus had experienced and it was from their own confessions to him in private and elsewhere that Faqir formed a more general view. In addition, even to the very end of his life Faqir pointed out that he could be wrong and welcomed others to correct him.

Hello David,

That's very reminiscent of Ishwar Puri's words echoing Great Master's
advice to him at initiation:

"All that I am sharing with you is something for personal experience.
My teacher, the Great Master, Hazur Maharaj Baba Sawan Singh
who taught me this stuff told me, 'Do not believe even my word
unless you can experience it.'

And also told me something else. He said, 'If somebody in the world
can give you something better, take it! Don't say, `I am tied up with
one person.' Don't make it a cult. Don't make it a closed society. It's
an open knowledge for the universe, for humanity.' Everything is in
every human being. There is no special group of people who say they
have God inside them, others don't."

Dear Brian,

Thanks for blogging about Faqir Chand. He is a very interesting subject.

Before I go on, I think it is important to realize that all these gurus (of whatever stripe) are human beings, with all the different quirks and distinctive personality traits that go with it.

Having met lots of shabd yoga gurus during the past forty years, I found Faqir Chand unique. You could ask him any question and he would never shy away from it. Moreover, Faqir (to his great credit) consistently said that he could be wrong and that his point of view was not final. That was entirely refreshing to me.

I say this because one can see a progressive quality in Faqir's writings from the earlier days to near his death.

So here are some answers to the questions that both Spencer and Brian posed:

1. First, Faqir came to believe that all the inner regions were ultimately illusory and that even the inner sounds were illusory. As Faqir said in London in 1980:

"Like I said yesterday, I have realized that all these stages
of Sahasraradala Kamal, Trikuti, Sunn, Maha-sunn are the
play of this mind. Visions are based on the thoughts one
keeps. This play of whatever one sees within (i.e. visions)
is based on samskaras (impressions and suggestions). They
are not the same for everyone. Visions or images vary
from person to person. "

2. Faqir was appointed a guru by Shiv Brat Lal some 21 years before his guru's death. As he himself confessed, " Hazur Data Dayal Ji called me in his
room. I was already waiting for the moment. I
went inside. Lo! His Holiness with a strange
blend of affection placed in my hands one
coconut, five [coins], made a frontal mark on my
forehead and bowed himself to my feet saying,
"Faqir, you are yourself the Supreme Master of
your time. Start delivering spiritual discourses to
the seekers and initiate them into the path of
Sant Mat. In due course of time, your own
satsangis will prove to be your True Guru,' and it
is through your experiences with them that the
desired secret of Sant Mat will be revealed to
you." Touched by these words, I experienced
both joy and sorrow within me. Hazur noted both
expressions on my face and asked for
clarification. I humbly said, "Your Holiness, I am
myself ignorant of the Truth, how can I lead
others on this sublime path? And when the
thought that I have become a degree holder and
would deliver discourses and initiate people
flashed within my mind, I felt that I had become
something and thus a spark of joy." Hazur then
said, "Faqir, you may be suffering from ninety-nine shortcomings, but one sure virtue of Truth
which is within you will lead you to your goal in
life. You will not only redeem yourself but will
help many others to attain release."

In 1981, Faqir said,

"Further R. S. Dayal writes that he heard the
conch-shell sound and the omkar vibration
inside. I have explained in a book why a
meditator hears inside him sounds of bell,
conch, omkar, flute and sitar. All these are
manifestations of the mental plane. Since this
knowledge came to me, I ceased to be caught
up in the whirlpool of the mind and
transcended it. Now, I took upon all these manifestations
as mere maya. Therefore, now, even if I try to
catch these sounds, I do not get them, because
their value, as something real, has vanished
for me who has transcended the mind.

3. Faqir stopped initiating anyone formally after 1942, but he continued to give satsang and tried to argue
that we should go beyond the mind, even beyond light and sound, and find the source from which all this appears.

Faqir explained his own way of speaking:

I believe that the intensified faith of these
devout persons becomes creative and
produces these results. Many so-called gurus
misappropriate the credit for similar
happenings, which take place in their
disciples, whose own true faith should be
held responsible for those results. By the lack
of moral, courage and honesty on the part of
pseudo- gurus, credulous disciples are kept in
the dark and fleeced under fake pretenses. I
alert the faithful but simple minded satsangis,
to beware of such sneaks and their false
claims. I had been commanded by my
Gurudev [Shiv Brat Lal] to introduce plains peaking into religion, so I am duty bound to
proclaim the truth behind these miracles, and
to save the simpletons from exploitation. If I
do not reveal the truth, I can, by keeping
satsangis in the dark, extract from them large
sums of money by claiming fake credit, for
the miracles that no doubt do happen."

Brian is correct to ascertain that Faqir argued for something beyond light and sound.... and in this way
dovetailed with the Tibetan Book of the Dead.....

He called it hanging on the gallows.

Here is a quote:

What conclusion did I reach? When I
found out that I do not manifest or appear within
anybody, then I also leave the mind (and all its
appearances). Then remains light and sound. Every two or
three months or sometimes every three days, when I
go and search for that entity that listens to the sound,
then my being disappears. What remains? Nothing.
Now I think to myself – if I have become something by
reaching that place, if I can do something, then I should
be able to remove all the problems that the world is facing
right now. If they could, the ancestors from the past
would have removed their problems or difficulties. Baba
Sawan Singh would have removed his troubles. Swamiji
would have alleviated his disease. Kabir had kidney
problems for ten years in the old age.
So what did I understand? What is my realization of this
supreme element (Tatva)?
I am a bubble of the supermost consciousness. In the process of
evolution, I appeared or manifested. Similarly, you also appeared. I
did not exist before, and I won’t exist again. Only one element will
remain from which this bubble came into existence. That element is
Sound. It’s name is Naam. That Naam is not the sound of bells or
conch. It’s not the sound of Veena. It is the principle sound (Saar
Shabad). This is what the bani of saints mentions – Saar Shabad.
So after reaching this, what happened to me? What did I gain? I found peace. What did I gain at this age of ninety-
four? Peace.

Will write more tonight..... particularly in response to Jay (hi Jay, always good to read your ideas!).

"You try to explain away what others wrote, that you don't agree with, iwhich is outside your experience.

Is natural, but not scientific nor rational. It's just trying to shrink the world down into our limited thinking."

People lie a lot about their experiences. But that's not what I'm even talking about. Most of these "masters" are too cowardly to say "I saw this and felt that." And those who quote these supposed masters such as yourself never say "he said he is this and does that and feels these things and has such values."
You say "masters are ___ and masters experience ___."

So either you're claiming to be a master or you have a way to verify what a master experiences.

Tell us in plain English, what happens when you mediate that gives you authority to ascribe supernatural powers to men you've never met. Otherwise just admit you're a liar.

Great discussion! In reading Faqir's comments, I am stuck on one aspect which is the fact that it appears that it doesn't matter who the master is.

If we inherently have the ability to realize that bubble that we are, do we simply need someone to show us the method and then go our merry way and do the practice?

Is that the main purpose of the guru? Once we've been shown the method, do we need to use the guru as a crutch to proceed forward?

Your thoughts?

Hi Jesse
You wrote
"You say "masters are ___ and masters experience ___."

Can you be more specific? The fact that I believe real Masters assume no authority is because I've met people I came to believe were pure of character, wise and compassionate to levels that put me to shame. The held no authority at all and managed to live without having to do so. I'm still struggling to reach their level of intuition, wisdom and generosity.

You wrote
"Tell us in plain English, what happens when you mediate that gives you authority to ascribe supernatural powers to men you've never met. Otherwise just admit you're a liar."

First, what sort of supernatural powers? Can you quote something I've written?

Yes I've had inner experiences, from an early age. It's no secret. I've written some of the details here. But those are subjective experiences... From my perspective how can I say otherwise?

It was disturbing to my parents, and to me. But Sant Mat offered a solution. Sant Mat explained most of what I'd experienced. The sounds, the stages, the exploding star, the sun and moon, that terrifying awful dark curving tunnel that spans creation... The friendly bpeople who seemed to be swans of light... Etc... The incredible pink sky and lake...

To read it was a blessing. Someone else could explain it.

I did see Gurinder in a dream when I was in high school years before I came to the path. He called me brother, and it came at a time I needed some encouragement. So when I saw him fifteen years later in Canada, it was instant recognition.

Does that change the facts of the fraud and theft? No. I won't discount either piece of information.

That's why, with Brian's help, I now have two buckets: subjective and objective. And they are separate. And I honor both.

Say Mat explained perfectly what I had experienced on a regular basis throughout my childhood years, so that was the hook for me.

The theory of projection attributed to Faqir doesn't work for me since the experiences came first.

It could all be brain wiring that drives symbols and images but it can't be conditioning or suggestion, not in my case.

However there is nothing to suggest these things are supernatural. They are purely natural.

The path exists. It's not an invention. And there is nothing to be proud of. Air exists. Earth exists. It would be absurd to be proud of these things as if we had invented them. Same with every other part of this creation, including those we see and hear in meditation.

But all that any of us can do is honor our own experiences and approach them intelligently, with an open mind.

"do we need to use the guru as a crutch to proceed forward?"

Nobody knows anything, but that's something that has been said before.

I think anyone claiming to know anything at all about spirituality needs to speak only of personal experience and use careful language when doing so. Claiming to know what is, whether that is the nature of a "master" or whether these "masters" even exist, or the nature of inner sounds and lights, always sounds like recitation.

What are people experiencing. Not what they think their experiences mean. What are the experiences. That and nothing else.

Because for all you or I or anyone else knows, it's Satan who creates men called masters who give us euphoric feelings and inner experiences only because it will carry us to hell in the afterlife. There's no reason to believe that any more than there is to believe that these guys are pure "saints" who will carry us to heaven.

Dear Arjuna,

Here is a pregnant quote from Faqir:

"Because I was searching for my
final abode or source, I leave the
mind. When I go within and
meditate, I leave the shapes, forms
and colors. There is no form of the
guru, no shape, nothing else."

Direct quote From Faqir Chand’s Book

To make the mind, it’s stages and it’s creations favorable, the greatest essential truth is the sat sang of a realized man, love for him, faith in him and above all obedience to his words. His guidance for attaining the state of thoughtlessness must be followed with determination, devotion and with regular Sadhana(practice).
“Accept with love whatever Guru says,
Consciously contemplate on whatever Guru says”.

Sounds to me Faqir Chand is saying having a Guru is Very important.

Anonymous, it is clear from Chand's book that he isn't speaking about Sant Mat gurus, or any guru who fails to tell devotees that he/she is incapable of producing inner visions, and that the "inner regions" are just a product of the human mind. Chand was such a guru, but they are rare.

Brian please point out to me where he says this? His own guru who he spent his whole life following was a Sant Mat Guru and did not tell him this about himself right?

Brian you are wrong he is speaking of sm guru. Why he than said to D.Lane that he should go and love Charan and do whatever he says.

What did Faqir Chand teach about sant mat? It's hard to say. That's because Faqir tended to contradict himself quite a bit.

Faqir Chand is said to offer a radical take on sant mat. But isn't it a staple of sant mat teachings since Sar Bachan that the purpose of the path is to go "beyond the mind"? Given that orthodox Sant mat says that the lower planes within us are of the (our) mind, and the "mindless" transcendent state of Sach Khand is the goal, then Faqir's message isn't quite so radical as it might appear.

Did Faqir hold that he reached ultimate enlightenment through sant mat, or did he feel that he knew nothing and had no idea if his realizations were just an illusion? Depends on what you read. Faqir says in one of his books: "I have lived a practical life at physical, mental and spiritual stages and I have attained the highest state of Sant-Matt and that of Sanatan-Dharam." Pretty bold stuff.

But elsewhere Faqir says "who knows what may happen to me at the time of death? I may enter the state of unconsciousness, enter the state of dreams and see railway trains. . . How can I make a claim about my attainment of the Ultimate? The truth is that I know nothing." Is that an honest admission of being wrong about sant mat and his realizations, or it is humility, or is a profound statement that indicates Faqir was truly enlightened? Who can tell? I sure can't.

Faqir wrote about the projection of the mind and that gurus were a sham. But Faqir also wrote this, which seems to strongly suggest that he very much believed in the absolute necessity of the guru: "People in general worship their own minds....anyone willing to worship the PRIMAL LORD must as a pre-requisite live in the company of a RELEASED GURU to gain perfect understanding for the worship of the Supreme Lord." (Emphasis not mine, but Faqir's) Hard to imagine a stronger endorsement for the necessity of the sant mat guru.

From there, Faqir also says the Lord is best worshiped through service to humanity. I think that's a concept known in sant mat circles as "seva." Hardly all that radical.

The overall argument that Faqir came up with a startlingly profound revision of sant mat is also belied by what he says about his guru. That is, Faqir gives all credit to Shiv Brat Lal for his conclusions (or lack thereof) about the sant mat path. Faqir says that his guru basically told him that he'd realize Radhasoami in his initiates. This can be interpreted in several ways. One is that Faqir is owning that his own guru had foreknowledge of the trajectory of Faqir's realizations, which sort of blows up the "unknowing" theory a tad. Another is that Faqir is perhaps unwittingly saying that he was made a guru because his own guru wanted to show him that the guru biz was all a sham. Or is that that Faqir is saying that it took a real guru to make him a guru to show him that the fulfilling end of the path was being a guru? Again, who knows?

The point I'm trying to make here is this: If you read Faqir's works and not just selected quotes and commentary, it's not so easy to really say you understand what Faqir really felt about sant mat, about other gurus, about his own realizations. Faqir is all over the place on these topics, from strong endorsements and devotional prose to heated denunciations of other gurus, to claims of enlightenment and knowledge of the path to glum admissions that he knows nothing. Read Faqir yourself and come to your own conclusions: http://manavtamandir.com/english-books.php

One thing seems clear to me, and that's that contrary to what's often implied, Faqir didn't disown Sant mat. The popular take on Faqir is that he was a good sant mat guru who one day realized that his identity as guru made him an unwitting player in a scheme to deceive people. And then, with a stellar spirit of honesty and courage, Faqir told the world that the gurus of sant mat were all frauds and liars, and that sant mat was actually a path to nowhere. I feel that the case for that thesis is largely built on selective quotes that don't take "the other Faqir" into account.

If you read Faqir's works, you find the good orthodox Faqir and the rebel revisionist Faqir speaking about the "truth" of the sant mat path. The problem is that when you put those two Faqirs together as-they-are, you don't really end up with the coherent radical message that we're told Faqir taught. Rather (in my view anyway), you end up with a guru who tried to be interesting and honest, but his realizations weren't really all that radical, and his overall message was more than a little confused, and if I may say so, a times quite a bit bombastic.

Now, after having a long experience of my life, I feel that most of the past mahatmas and the present gurus by keeping the secret Truth unrevealed/undisclosed have been unfair to the public and have often exploited them. They have taken undue advantage of the ignorance of the people.

They have built their own big buildings. They have made air-conditioned rooms for themselves. These gurus enjoy themselves and the poor people being ignorant give their hard earned money to these gurus at the cost of their comforts and those of their children., if you read tonight's follow-up blog post, you'll see that Faqir Chand denied the reality of both inner visions and inner regions -- both of which are part of the traditional Sant Mat teachings.

It is clear from the book that Chand was extremely critical of gurus who keep those truths from their devotees. Chand may have started out as a Sant Mat guru, but he certainly didn't end up as one.

Here's a quote from the book that I included in this post. I can't help observing that this is a description of the current RSSB guru, Gurinder Singh Dhillon.
"Now, after having a long experience of my life, I feel that most of the past mahatmas and the present gurus by keeping the secret Truth unrevealed/undisclosed have been unfair to the public and have often exploited them. They have taken undue advantage of the ignorance of the people.

They have built their own big buildings. They have made air-conditioned rooms for themselves. These gurus enjoy themselves and the poor people being ignorant give their hard earned money to these gurus at the cost of their comforts and those of their children."

But are you guys atheists or not?

I mean what is your actual position. Do you even know or do you just flip-flop as the wind blows?

How can you argue that the teachings of a dead guru (faker chand) should be used to discount the teachings of a live guru (GSB)?

Even the mere sniff of mention of a guru or this website itself would completely put a proper atheist off. Sam Harris is not a proper atheist, but an American one who seems to bang on about some subtle form of Buddhism etc.

This is not atheism. Atheists by definition believe in nothing spiritual at all. Nada. Zip. Zero. No cause and causation, no internal experiences, no unknowingness, no confused ramblings, zero.

None of you are atheists. You are at v best agnostics, but it sounds to me like you are mostly just confused with deep spiritual and religious backgrounds and hankerings.

Because for all you or I or anyone else knows, it's Satan who creates men called masters who give us euphoric feelings and inner experiences only because it will carry us to hell in the afterlife. There's no reason to believe that any more than there is to believe that these guys are pure "saints" who will carry us to heaven.

Jesse, you're right and, most of us don't need fake masters
to get us to hell in the "afterlife". We've already arrived! Our
minds greased the slide a long time ago.

Can you stop thinking? You know, the bizarre, outrageous
avalanche of unwanted useless, confused, and debilitating
thoughts that arise 24x7. Even if you're sure of a fact or feel
happy or safe momentarily, fear and doubt will undercut it
given a few seconds of thought.

So "feel good" experience is all we can hold on to even if it
turns out to be satan's gateway. The familiar escape hatches
-sensual dissipation, wealth, companionship, status - are
fleeting and don't begin to blunt the mind's power to grind us
down and, inevitably, conjure up wave after wave of fear and

But, an inner discipline that facilitates repeatable experiences
of bliss, a refuge from the chaos within, an incremental, if slow,
recovery from a mind running amok is worth any risk. The
emphasis is not on "saints" or blind faith at all. That's why G.
Master said: 'Do not believe even my word unless you can
experience it.'

Of course, the mind will still object. Ishwar Puri talked of his
experiences at Harvard in the 60's. Doubters, including T. Leary
and R. Alpert, suggested it was all auto-suggestion. Ishwar said
[paraphrasing] "You're right, that may be the case but I'm happy
and you guys are all taking anti-depressants".


Unless you have attained enlightenment you are confused. Regardless of one’s “spiritual” association, we are all essentially seekers of truth. It’s a long and bumpy road. Fasten your seatbelt. Enjoy the ride and let others do so as well.


Let us suppose for a moment that Faqir Chand was correct in his claim that all inner experiences are mental and that at end of life the only thing that remains is the element of Sat Naam, the primordial sound and the awareness of peace, as can be read in the messages above.

The question then arises, what will happen with the initiation an the practice?
Can there be a practice and how will it look like?

Will there be a teaching and how would it look like?

It is like asking how to play football discarding the rules that govern and create the play. Rules that describe all and every aspect of the game in detail.

Who can shed some details of the consequences for this spiritual path accepting accepting and adopting the view points of Faqir chand.

Some thoughts related to the previous message:
When a person from an tribe that has never had contact with our so called civilized world, goes home to report what he has experienced, he can do so only with the language and the concepts contained therein from his tribe; a language that has it roots in the surroundings in which that tribe happens to live.
The Dalai Lama has stated that Tibetan Buddhism has it roots in Tibet and for that reason cannot be replaced to another location without losing its very meaning.
Each and every person that has inner experiences, in order to communicate it with others has to use language and the concepts that are contained in that language. If you go to france you have to speak French, understand the roots of that language if you want to convey your thoughts.
So if facts, experiences of facts have to be transmitted many factors come into play. There is the point where the persons stands, the stand-point, and what he sees from there, the view-point. Then there is the metal make-up of the one that wants to share his experiences from a certain stand-point and the mental make-up of the one that receives the spoken or written report … often without having a clue, like describing a mango and the taste of it to a person who has never even seen fruits, like an inuit in older days.
Then who sees and experiences what?
Whenever in a city I love to go inside churches, to see what is there or to read a book in a calm atmosphere and occasionally to pray. One day I happened to be in a place with a renowned cathedral with a very good friend of mine and I suggested to go in and have a look. He refused claiming that churches are haunted and it was impossible to get him in. As I consider him a very spiritual person that incident stayed with me, wanting to understand what it was that made him react that way for I had never heard or read something similar. In contrary I have come across many an description of people seeing all sorts of lights etc that made a deep and lasting impression upon them.
Until recently someone from my family reacted in the same way. This time stressing that churches are haunted with very negative energies, never willing to express it as the surroundings were not conductive in doing so.
So, what is truth? What sane?
Is there something “wrong” with the two of them? Is there something “wrong” with the rest who neither experience these positive nor these negative energies.
The same holds for all descriptions of internal experiences, some have them and others just don’t and those who see are not in agreement with one another about their experiences.
To whom should a person lent his ears?
A strange thought has come up … writing these words made me think of a phenomena that has been studied at large by psychologists namely that the capacity for a child to create an imaginative world, seeing a match-stick box as a car and a shoe box as garage, is divided along the Gauss curve where at one end children are not able at all to create and enter a fantasy world and on the other hand those who lose themselves in their own create world, so much so that they can get stuck in it.
We cannot enjoy a book, an movie, an piece of music, reflect on it, communicate, have emotions etc etc without that capacity that children have … entering in, opening up.
Is a spiritual path not to be compared with a book, movie or what else … a game that has to be played by the rules?
Is this not the same for polics, democracy or whatever … all “games”?
Games that become reality by playing according the rules??

Several years ago we had long discussions on Faqir Chand on RS studies and what he taught.

I have long tended to favor the later Faqir writings and his most iconoclastic views, especially when he pointed out how little we actually know.

However, MBW and others pointed out that a close reading of Faqir shows he had a multi-leveled approach. Where for those in the beginning stages would indeed do dhyan, simran, and bhajan, and even have deep devotional feelings towards that their chosen Istha-deva/guru.

But after this was achieved, Faqir would then stress realizing that the whole game was a projection of one's own mind and that we should let it go.

I know this from personal experience as Faqir knew when he first met me that I was attached to Charan Singh and was in a very devotional frame of mind. He then predicted the following (direct quote from the book published by Manavta Mandir called The Master Speaks to the Foreigners):

"There are two schools of thought. The aim of one school is to bring people into its circle. They bring people into there church. But I remove the people from the church also. To be in a Church is a blessing but to die in a Church is a curse. You cannot understand my views as yet, because you have to do a lot of work in your worldly life as yet. The present devotional ideas which you have now, will change after some years and then in the old age you will come to this line. This is my prophecy about you."

I think, of course, Faqir was right. One begins to see through the "dogma" of RS and realize that much of what we believe is our own projection, our own desires.

We think at first the guru is perfect or all knowing. Later, we mature a bit and see the humanness of it all.

Which I think is a healthy and altogether wise thing to realize.

Now, at one end of Faqir's writings there is the advocacy of more typical Sant related ideas and then at the other, more radical end, there is a realization to go beyond it.

This one can see in Faqir's classic HANGING ON THE GALLOWS metaphor:

"So, when did I realize the element? Since I have come to
understand that I do not go anywhere. So, who goes in
their inner visions? It’s their own mind, their own faith.
So what do I do now?
Because I was searching for my final abode or source, I
leave the mind. When I go within and meditate, I leave
the shapes, forms and colors. There is no form of the
guru, no shape, nothing else. Only light and sound
remain. The entity that is inside me listens to the sound
within and sees the light, that entity is something else
entirely. The sound is something else. The light is
something else. You listen to the sound within – you are
separate from the sound. You see sun or moon inside, see
light within. Light is separate from the one witnessing
the light. When I search for that entity or witness, I CEASE TO EXIST."

Now, it should be acknowledged that Faqir was also quite traditional in some ways, especially on his
views relating to sex. I have a couple of great stories relating to this that I should share one day.

I will say this, however. Only someone like Faqir would say in open satsang at the age of 89 or so that
the night before he had a "wet" dream and said that even at his age such things happened.

I can well imagine how the sangat "heard" that one!

It was Faqir's transparency on his humanness that makes him so valuable, not whether he was enlightened or not (since that it is a theological question and open to endless debate).

In my conversations with Darshan Singh, for instance, I noticed he told me things in private that he would most likely NEVER say in public. So I am not in the least surprised that these gurus (from Charan to Kirpal to Darshan to whatever) would confess honestly about not knowing of their respective appearances.

We even have Charan on record saying he was unaware of appearing to a woman in her prayers. Sawan in Spiritual Gems saying something similar as well.

Faqir's point is an obvious one and we have overwhelming proof that these gurus know much less than is advertised...... No need to mention a current guru losing 700 million dollars (jk)!

I think of Faqir as an existential guru....

As Faqir said near the end,

"In the process of evolution, I
appeared or manifested. Similarly,
you also appeared. I did not exist
before, and I won’t exist again."

Or, more poetically,

"In that place there is no
happiness or unhappiness,
no truth or untruth, neither sin
nor virtue. There is no day or
night, no moon or sun, There is
Radiance without Light."

P.S. if you wish to understand the "humanity" of Faqir, his last letter from the hospital before he died is
remarkable for its utmost honesty..... will post that later.

David, thanks much for another informative comment. It's great to have your authoritative perspective, given how other commenters have been expressing uninformed or misleading ideas about Faqir Chand's perspective on gurus near the end of his life.

And ….
if there is no "spiritual game" to be played if there is no path to go, than there are also no rules to be lived by … no karma, ni reincarnation, no abstaining from killing animals etc etc.

it makes me think of the opening words of the poet Dante on his way to hell:

IN the midway of this our mortal life,
I found me in a gloomy wood, astray
Gone from the path direct: and e'en to tell
It were no easy task, how savage wild
That forest, how robust and rough its growth,
Which to remember only, my dismay
Renews, in bitterness not far from death.

You see it is like walking on an animal trail thinking it to be a "path" and finding out all of a sudden that it stops there and then in the midst of an dark wood. There and then to realize that the trail not having a goal it cannot have an beginning. Standing there one realizes the pure agony of the situation … being lost, lost to one's self, not knowing where one is, not knowing where to go not knowing from where one came. That is what Dante discribes when there are no games to be played by the rules and you are lured away from a path onto a game-trail

Discussing is one thing, the consequence are different and not spoken of here.

David and Brian, really appreciate the topic. From what I can discern from the sayings of Faqir and the discussions based on this, is that the guru relates the method and a point of concentration to focus or way of generating that love. Once that is established, the disciple can then move on and do the spiritual exercises to find the self.

I can see where the dera's and their relevant guru's would deviate from this. They would lose "control" over the disciple and so the perpetuation of their deras and the money the disciples doante would be far less. If, as Faqir states, the guru is in essence a means to an end, then the need for the guru throughout the entire life of the disciple is redundant, so to speak. The idea is to get to the point of concentration and then the finding of the self becomes the goal, our own guru is the self.

“ The idea is to get to the point of concentration and then the finding of the self becomes the goal, our own guru is the self.”

Exactly “May your love for the form culminate in the love for the formless”
If we are only stuck on the physical guru it becomes a hindrance on the growth of the deciple.
This is what the present SM guru Master G says don’t follow the me the physical. Do the practice to find the radiant form within you. Which is actually your own real form too. It’s one and the same. Why every answer is meditation meditation meditation.

Thanks Anonymous. If a Professor teaches you how to solve a problem, then you apply it to your work. If it works, then you're set. Why keep going back to the professor? Do you have to profess undying love to him? He taught you what was needed, and you progressed.

I'm leaning towards the same thing on the self realization side. The idea is to get the method of meditation to go inside. Once I have that method, I need to find my real self.

I think the concept of soul, atma, different bodies of consciousness etc, are misinterpreted or, though lack of proper words/translation, the soul has been misconstrued as the Self. When we go and centre ourselves and are in the present moment, you are actually the one seeing it. You won't see the soul. We are the soul, so to speak. Poor words, but in essence, when we gather our consciousness and realize that silence, it is the Self experiencing it.

As our focus and depth of awareness increases, the light shining from the Self intensifies and we "see" more, feel more, hear more.

Just my hypothesis.

As the late Sardar Bahadur Jagat Singh, a contemporary of Faqir's once stated, "Clear thinking is 90% of spirituality." 

Out of all the quotes from the RSSB line of Gurus I found/find this to be both the most memorable and useful. It helped me to make more sense of my own journey. It presented a timely and very practical down-to-earth take on what I found increasingly difficult to get my head around and actually believe in (Sant Mat dogma).
My view is that ‘spirituality’ is about getting to the core of what’s real and the truth of things, so according to Jagat Singh one can get pretty close to sussing ‘spirituality’ by the practice of clear thinking. However as he was the successor to Sawan Singh, it’s quite likely his take on clear thinking could well be different to mine. For example, Jagat Singh could mean - look folks just get your mind together and realise that you are nothing and the Master is everything - surrender - simple no-problemo.
The approach I’m taking, is that a big chunk of clear-thinking is about fuller understanding of how the mind works, and one is pretty much always aware of what one is thinking - therefor always with the choice to take responsibility for thoughts and resulting action. Such awareness can be generated using several meditational methods, self-inquiry and techniques such as conscious connected breathing. I also believe this clear thinking mode results in behaviour that is more compassionate, connecting and caring for others and the rest of life/the planet - something that I noticed seemed to be lacking in some followers of RSSB. Got me considering how much clear thinking actually occurs in many religious and faith based organisations.
Clear thinking helps to enhance and inform our critical assessment skills as well as hone our BSDF (BullShit Detection Facility). If applied logically with support of info from modern neuroscience and consciousness research, these faculties of clear thinking will surely point us to conclude/posit that the self is a mental construction and ultimately illusory. If the self is illusory then aligning this to some concept of soul (which I still consider relevant - ‘soul’ that is), could be problematic and lead you to honestly ask questions such as - then what is it that survives death? What is it that reincarnates? Is there anything that continues? Potential broad-sides for long-held belief systems. But useful for truth seeking.The debate goes on!
Maybe the 10% of spirituality that Jagat Singh didn’t mention is the really interesting bit. A great quote from Waking Up -
“The fact that the universe is illuminated where you stand-that your thoughts and moods and sensations have a qualitative character in this moment-is a mystery, exceeded only by the mystery that there should be something rather than nothing in the first place” (Harris 2014, p.79).
Best wishes

In search ideally once you get the method there shouldn’t be a need to go back to the professor. However in self realization this does not seem to hold true and all paths of self realization that stress the need for a teacher keep that need throughout ones life. Right? Why? Perhaps because constant guidance is needed as one transverses the path within? Perhaps because that love for the form keeps the student’s focus clear?
Try your hypothesis and let’s see. In a few years we can touch base again. 😊

Hi Um
You wrote
"There and then to realize that the trail not having a goal it cannot have an beginning. Standing there one realizes the pure agony of the situation … being lost, lost to one's self, not knowing where one is, not knowing where to go not knowing from where one came. That is what Dante discribes when there are no games to be played by the rules and you are lured away from a path onto a game-trail. "

This is a fantastic place to be. No answers." I don't actually have a clue ".

Revel in that. That's part of learning a better way, and seeing in that darkness, as night descends, a light in the distance.

Revel in the threat of being inundated, revel in the wounds that are peeling away your own Cocoon.


Hi Spencer.
The link doesn't open

Maybe later, when it is over, I might say it was a fantastic place to be.
Thank you for your words.

Here is the correct link

Thank you.

Khwaja writes: "when I became a lover"

He, with all other saints, became lovers after they had an inner calling which Prof B. would speak about as "The pull must come from within"

That pull is like a talent; you can only develop it when you have it and … having it is in nobodies hand.

Niels too had that inner urge.

And the practice should be done with love and devotion.

Most books on psychotherapy start somewhere saying that the succes of that particular therapy depends on the presence of a so called "therapeutic relation between therapist and the client". That is correct, that is how it works, it is a sine qua non, but they never say in these books how to establish such an relationship.

Yes, for a practice to be successful, that very pull must come from within, that devotion and love must be there … has there ever been a person who could lay his hands on these prerequisites??

For you to eat, two conditions have to be met. One, there must be food on the plate and second, you must have hunger ….. both are GIVEN!

Prof. B. about that pull .. If it is not there, it just isn't there ...what can you do??

Well ...the answer is simple … nothing.

I was initiated when I was a kid and hadn't had much to do with Sant Mat for a long time (decades). I spent the last month doing an experiment, doing Surat Shabd Yoga meditation for long periods of time, reading the old literature, and so on. I also went to one of Ishwar Puri's talks. I really liked the talk and I liked him. What led to that experiment is another story.

For the most part, however, my conclusions about the Path haven't really changed. I could sum them up in three points:

1. Creating levels of mystic experience is a block. About 20 years ago, I had set aside all the stuff I had learned about inner planes from Sant Mat and Theosophy and started practicing Zen. I kept it real simple, just counting my breaths. What I found surprising was that I had what I would consider my first legit spiritual experience. And I think it was because I wasn't expecting anything. I wasn't waiting to see the Master or to fly around the astral plane. I also wasn't beating myself up for not having those experiences. The expectation and guilt go hand-in-hand.

2. Believing in Perfect Living Masters is a form of spiritual authoritarianism. There is an emotional and intellectual dependency that is quite damaging to a person. It is something that I still struggle with. There are extreme examples of people being abused by gurus, but there are subtler problems. Like the belief itself that there are perfect people and you're not perfect, and no matter how hard you try you can't become perfect; the belief creates a neurosis that can show up in all sorts of weird and unhealthy ways. The demand in Sant Mat, as with many religions, is that you need more faith. Master or God or Jesus will make you perfect if you just submit and obey. It is your selfishness and disobedience, that's the problem. You don't become more perfect, just more dependent. This might be the oldest game in the book.

3. Subjective experience is not proof of anything. The atheist position is that they will not believe something unless there is empirical proof, which automatically eliminates most if not all subjective experience as a premise for belief. This seems pretty simple and obvious, but for a person like myself who has been stooped in this kind of spiritual woo for most of my life, the idea is revolutionary. Not only does subjective experience not justify belief, it doesn't justify authority either.

Humility in spiritual and religious circles is about thinking less of yourself and more of God or Guru or whatever, but I think this is a false humility. The scientist or secularist who reviews the facts and comes to the conclusion of what is probably true, with the understanding that their information and ability to analyze data is limited, comes to what I think is a sincere form of humility. Which is that there is a lot more that we don't know than we do, and of what we do know is continuously up for revision.

I don't know how much this has to do with Faqir Chand, but I've been wanting to say this for awhile.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.