« Faqir Chand was a guru who exposed how gurus deceive devotees | Main | Faqir Chand believed in removing people from church »

May 05, 2019

Comments

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

From above quote of Fakir Chand
"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."

No I don't think this isn't correct. When, through the Word you rise above mind you have no interest in doing anything. You don't even think your own thoughts." you" aren't there, or more accurately you've left behind that personality. You are in a sea of love and everything exists in its own perfection as part of a huge WILL...You are living in that Will and have not even a thought for the tiny issues of your personal life, even of the whole world.

This is the hook of Sant Mat. To go there daily.

There is absolutely no desire to fix anything at that stage because nothing is broken. You leave 'you' behind there. That is the beauty of Shabd.

It appears he's trying to get to this point, he believes in it in concept, but he hasn't gotten here. He was unable to connect to the Shabd that pulled him up in his youth. But to presume therefore that Shabd is of the mind is wrong, I think. Shabd, if we stick with it, pulls us beyond mind. It runs the entire creation. But there are conditions that are required for it. Chand writes that sex can negatively effect progress in meditation. He acknowledges that conditions must be right for progress. And that his own behavior destroyed his earlier progress.

His Master spoke the truth. His true Masters are the devoted Satsangis. They are the realized souls, not the one sitting on the stage. The true Masters assume no authority. Just like what happens when Shabd pulls you up. You become nothing. God / Will is everything, and you become that. Having zero authority, you are One with all, and the power that drives creation.

As for his view of mind, the mind is a part of this creation. The notion that an image of the master is of the mind is correct but incomplete. The mind constructs symbols. But if a disciple sees their Master within years before they ever met him, then those symbols are a mental reconstruction, just like normal vision, informed by a real source.

All I can say is that what Chand writes, while truthful, only goes so far, as far as I can tell.

Beyonf mind we discover we are someone else altogether. And beyond that "we" the little 'I' evaporates.

When we return here to this prison house then all that baggage has to be put on again, and quite often we forget that larger experience altogether. The brain is largely insensitive to it. But the practice of meditation is to help sensitize the mind because it is bliss. And then the mind adapts and sits still. And it becomes able to remember at least part of that larger experience. It's a skill, nothing more.

Do you remember all your dreams? Yet you were dreaming during those hours. What happened to the dream? The mind is completely insensitive to most of those also.

What happens and what you recall are two different things.

All the levels from Such Khand (the immovable plane) downward are illusions. That has always been stated by Sant Mat Teachers. The Sound heard ascending (until Sat Look) is also not the Primal expression of it either. This has also been stated. Faqir Chand certainly honours and praises his Teachers, the Path (Practice) and the Shabd throughout.

Spence writes “You become nothing. God / Will is everything, and you become that. Having zero authority, you are One with all”
I presume, Spence, you are writing from your own experience. Unless it’s just a theory you are stating.
If it’s your experience, then how come you so vehemently want GSD behind bars because “he is a criminal”
That is not “living in his will”

The inner visions..??
He is so right about this.(Faqir Chand)

Nobody'' sees '' what is written or said at the time of initiation..
I am sure about that actually.
When I was the last time there by initiations,I was feeling thinking...
that this was all a lie an untruth.
The radiant form of the master who guides you trough the regions ..
And the untruth of the inner regions...

And..at the time of dead people undergo all very different things..
What I heard and have read.

In meditation..even then everyone has different experiences..
It is not dying while living..in the way santmat tells..
Meditation is very fine and good and healthy to do..
Bhakti is a very fine feeling..not to a particular person but just bliss and love..
If that is there it is nice..
But every mediation is different,just like evry moment in life is.

"They are the realized souls, not the one sitting on the stage. The true Masters assume no authority. Just like what happens when Shabd pulls you up. "

And you get on me for being irrational.

What is a master and what is your qualification or ability to discern a master from anyone else? Are you in heaven as you write these comments?

This entire subject is absurd.

“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.”
Strong words that could no doubt be applied to RSSB presently.Did he ever disparage his close contemporaries say Charan with the psuedo moniker?Or was that just for those outside the Dera?

Dear Dogribb,

Faqir even criticized his own guru as not being as forthcoming as he should. While Faqir acknowledges that there are various levels of instructions, the most radical part of Faqir is when he wishes to question why these gurus were not as forthcoming as they should be. Here is a quote from a 1980 satsang in London,

"Today’s gurus – they don’t tell us
anything. They keep repeating – Shabad, Shabad,
Shabad, Guru, Guru, Guru. Look at the lives of Gurus.
Nirankari guru died and gave his throne to his son. The
Beas ones put their grandson on the throne. Hansa
established his son as a successor.
In this world, may Paramatma or supreme lord save us
from these gurus. These gurus have fooled us and looted
us. They did not tell the truth."

Hi Osho
You wrote
"If it’s your experience, then how come you so vehemently want GSD behind bars because “he is a criminal”
That is not “living in his will”'

So this is the issue of subjective experience and objective fact. They don't match. Subjective experience obviously reflects an inner reality, and objective fact an outer reality.

My inner Gurinder smiles and says "proceed" but He also says "Spence, we can do without the exaggerations..."

So it's a process of being open minded within and without, and learning from our own daily errors.

Here's video of Faqir Chand giving satsang in England in 1980. Apparently, it's the source referenced by David Lane starting with Faqir Chand's statement, "What conclusion did I reach? When I found out..."

Respectfully, David left out Faqir Chand's preface to those words, which are as follows, appearing in subtitles starting at 9:39. I left in most of the typos and bolded certain parts. Where does he dispute RS teachings? In my reading he confirms RS teachings and puts Swami ji (Shiv Dayal Singh) and Baba Sawan Singh (Great Master) on a par with Kabir and Nanak.

See for yourself.
https://youtu.be/2J9e1Q_656E

"This is the same thing that Swami ji in his writing of "jeth" month of the year says, in the ultimate state everything disappears, what remains is a state of wonderment. In that state there is no satlok, no satnaam, or anami. Now I think, that when 'I' get dissolved, what happens to me? Silence...there is a wonderment in which there is no me or him. There is no concept of God or thought of GOD or Guru. There is no mind or ego. That is why Baba Sawan Singh use to say: Go beyond the 10th door, I am standing there. The world thought that a man with beautiful white beard is standing there. This is wrong. Beyond your true nature Harjit Singh. I don't want to deceive you. What I have understood, I want to clearly tell you. This is also explained by Kabir: O friend, I that home is indescribable, where my complete or true master stays. No-one tells us the truth and we don't go with the intention of of listening to the truth. That is why I don't blame anyone. We go to saints with desire of our worldly needs. e.g. your wife wants a baby. Likewise most people come to me with worldly needs. Did you find Kabir's song? Okay read it... (singing...) O friend, that home is indescribable and different from anything we know. that home is where our true master/self lives. In that place there is no sadness or happiness, no untruth, no sin or virtue, no night or day, moon or sun, there is radiance without a light burning. O friend, that place is indescribable, beyond words. That place which I have sought so earnestly in this life, this is what Kabir says about it. I understood this though all of you truth seekers. When I could not understand this, I used to plead and ask Data Dayal. You all come to me and ask worldly things.. I used to go to my Guru/master to give everything I had, in return for truth. I gave silver crown, hookahs, beautiful clothes from baghdad. we all go to masters to get all these things, I use to go to give everything. Despite this, when I could not get the truth, Data said to me, "Faqir, you might have 99 weaknesses, but you have one true yearning for truth. Obey me, your true master will come in the form of satsangis (seekers of truth). Therefore, I at this ripe age of mine, in all sincerity consider all of you my true master. This is because you tell me all your experiences, I came to know that I don't manifest anywhere. Then I came to know that Data Dayal also did not. This enable me to reach the ultimate truth. If I had been unsuccessful, I would have been the first one to declare mutiny against radhasoami and saints. Who can tolerate their Gods and ancestors being criticized. I used to feel agitated when Saints use to say Ram and Krishnan etc also have not reached the ultimate. Now, I understand why. Kabir says that place is beyond everything and indescribable. Read further... ....that place, does not have even the divine word or sound. That place cannot be named, it is beyound time and space. Nanak says Akal. Sikhs have not understood the writings of Nanak. I often tell Sikh religious leaders that they have insulted Nanak's teachings. They said how? I quoted Nanak where he says that ever since he understood the truth, he loves everyone like his own self and gets along with everyone. and you leaders fight others thereby insulting Guru Nanaks teachings. Saints belong to whole humanity not a particular religion. It would be wrong to say Guru Nanak belongs only to Sikhs. Read further... This is a description of our primal source. So what conclusions have I drawn about myself?"

Dear Anami,

Thanks for your post. The satsangs that Faqir gave on behalf of Harjit Singh in London in 1980 have been published in a book. Harjit very kindly asked me to help work on that project and it was published in paperback and also in audio format.

It is a remarkable series of satsangs indeed.

Here is the free PDF link for those interested:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxydW5uZWJvaG1kaWdpdGFsbGlicmFyeTN8Z3g6MzExMDVjNWQ4ZjU2NDY1YQ

David, thanks also for sharing a link to the online book with Chand's satsangs. I've just started looking through it but came across the criticism of gurus you shared above by searching the word "guru."

Wow, Chand is wonderfully blunt in his criticisms of gurus. He would be shocked and dismayed at the greed and lust for money of Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the current guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas.

And I like how he says "guru" means knowledge. The knowledge comes from within, not without. So however one gains knowledge of reality, that is one's "guru." If a person called a guru doesn't possess such knowledge, obviously they are not a guru.

Oh, but I see now in a comment from David at 7:15 AM that Faqir Chand was critical of the Beas line for putting "their grandson on the throne."

Hi David,
In the quote you mentioned above you left out the last part of Faqir’s comment wherein he says
“ I cannot blame them (Gurus) because we are not ready to hear the truth” and then he goes on to quote Kabir.
Here’s the audio from Baba Faqir himself please listen to his whole comment not just a part.
https://youtu.be/2J9e1Q_656E

Sounds to me like he is saying that a 1st grade student cannot learn trigonometry because he is not ready for that lesson. So the guru is only imparting the lesson you are able to comprehend.
But isn’t that what all the SM masters tell us? That there is much more to the path of the masters but you are not at that level right now to know? Start walking before you can run?


In this world, may Paramatma or supreme lord save us
from these gurus. These gurus have fooled us and looted
us. They did not tell the truth.

This is a startling quote from Faqir. Of course, there may
be a compelling rationale for a lie. What can mystics say
to an audience like those of us steeped in illusion...

What can you say to children who need more than
anything to be reassured? How do you frame a lie for
their level of understanding, to move them slowly from
untruth to truth?

I distinctly remember Maharaji saying sumptin' kinda like
"When I'm with children, I have to prattle along with them."
Ishwar Puri memorably talks of a friend guiding a dreamer
out of a nightmare: the dreamer cries desperately that a
raging fire is threatening his stabled horses. The friend takes
the reins and reassures him 'I'll care of the horses. Go save
yourself.' ".

Hi Jesse
You wrote
"And you get on me for being irrational."

No I don't recall getting on you for ever being irrational. I find you a very rational and actually incredibly funny commentor. Even when we do not agree, I truly love reading your comments as you dismantle opposing or different views. I often laugh at your biting wit.

Hi Jen,

Yes, definitely different levels to approach.

Faqir laments that the gurus in general are not more forthcoming about the secret of visions and that hiding this from disciples is not good.

He wants more transparency...

Well WTF, If Brian didn't hit the spot once again...
"So however one gains knowledge of reality, that is one's "guru." If a person called a guru doesn't possess such knowledge, obviously they are not a guru."...

From Chand's teacher
" Faqir, you might have 99 weaknesses, but you have one true yearning for truth. Obey me, your true master will come in the form of satsangis (seekers of truth). "

Let our perfection arise in appreciating the Lord, the Truth, in everyone. Everyone is my Guru.

Jesse: I want to laugh at Manjit's family on his funeral.

Spence Tepper:
I find you a very rational and actually incredibly funny commentor. I truly love reading your comments .

Straight talk about Faqir Chand? More notes on why I think much of the popular view of Faqir just doesn't add up.

1) "[Chand} 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."

Somewhere in popular sant mat, the idea arose that a real guru must say he's clueless, otherwise he must be a fake. It's a notion that seems to have arisen in the time of Charan Singh, but to my knowledge it has no basis elsewhere in sant mat teachings. Anyway, the idea here is that Faqir was an exceedingly humble guru. Yet in his writings, Chand says he had completely realized the ultimate goal of Sant mat sadhana. I'm not sure that even Kirpal Singh made such a boast.

2) "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."

There's no evidence whatsoever that any of these gurus confessed to Chand that they were unaware. On the contrary, all them said that Chand's view of sant mat was incorrect. All of them maintained that the guru does have awareness of the inner lives of his followers. None of them publicly credited Chand as a legit guru, at least on their level.

3) "to Faqir's great credit, he asked other gurus to correct him if he was wrong. But they never did on this point."

What the heck? Charan and Darshan corrected him on that very point.

I'd assign Faqir great credit if we knew he took correction from anyone. But there doesn't seem to be any known instance of Faqir amending his views on sant mat because of something he'd heard from another guru.

4) "In the 1940s Faqir even gave satsangs at the Dera when Sawan was alive." Faqir and Jagat were friends, and he was friends with Charan too.

From that, seems like Charan wholly approved of Faqir's views. But wait...Faqir only gave RSSB satsangs in the 1940s? What happened in the 30 years hence, when Charan was the Beas guru? No Faqir satsangs at RSSB is what happened. No Faqir books were published by RSSB. Faqir wasn't mentioned in Charan's talks, or Charan's books. So much for the idea that Charan approved of Faqir's sant mat.

5) "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."

From that, it would seem that Faqir must have been self-supporting. Did he have a job and pay rent for the home apart from the ashram? More likely he didn't have a job and was living with a family member, rent free. In other words, Faqir's financial ethics were no better than most RS gurus, who live off their family and call it being "self-supporting."

6) According to Faqir, his guru Shiv Brat Lal tells him "'Faqir, you are yourself the Supreme Master of your time."

Gosh, this Faqir had more stories than Paul Twitchell. Faqir says he was told he was the greatest guru in the world. Faqir says the other gurus confessed to him that he was right and they were liars. Faqir says that Sawan Singh told him in private that he fully approved of Faqir's views. (Just why Faqir sought validation from Sawan Singh for the directive of his own guru is a real puzzler...could it simply be an instance of name dropping and positive association with the major guru of the time? In other words, the Sawan story is just Faqir's claim that the big guru of Beas gave his ministry a thumbs up).

7) Faqir held that visions and apparent miracles are just illusions, projections of the mind?

Not really, as he says: "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."

If miracles no doubt do happen, it follows that Faqir believes they're not merely projections of the mind, but rather that a divine force is responsible for their manifestation. This obvious theism doesn't square with the picture of Faqir as an atheist enraptured by wonder.

8) Faqir stopped giving "formal initiation" in 1942.

Did Faqir ditch meditation and refuse to promote it? Hardly. because formal or not, to the end of his life Faqir kept teaching and advocating sant mat meditation, a tradition that's carried on today in his name by his ashram.

Hi David
Thank you for your response. I understand your point and your right there are different levels to approach. I also see how fascinating Baba Fakir Chand may have been when you met him. I have been listening to his Satsangs (as I do understand the language) and he has a charm that’s hard to miss.
I do recommend though, to any reader that understands the language, to listen to his discourse in his own words, as if only bits and pieces of what he says are quoted the meaning can be misunderstood and misinterpreted.
Here are a few
https://youtu.be/iRzT0qpbIqY
https://youtu.be/2J9e1Q_656E
https://youtu.be/klLm8wPhe9c

Good day

Illusion is underrated.

When you see and hear, you are seeing and hearing an image reconstructed by one part of your brain for consumption by another.

Does it correspond to objective reality?
To a degree.

Most things are empty space. Most sound oscillates, and even the creation projects itself over and over in the blink of an eye. Energy moves in waves.

We perceive things as solid that aren't, constant that are actually oscillating, and stationary that are actually in motion.

But at one level, functionally, it does depict reality just well enough for you to function in it. But not much better.

So that isn't illusion, but it isn't reality either. It's a reflection.

If the mind is calm, the reflection is more detailed and accurate. Like the reflection in a perfectly placid pond. The surface is a mirror.

But if your mind is agitated you generally don't see most of the things there. You see the things your mind is tuned to... Great and frustration turns your brain into a monster artist, and love and adoration into a painter of beauty.

It even highlights and exaggerates the images and sounds according to your thoughts and attention, and suppresses many things.

Because the brain is geared to what we are attending to. And it must simplify the world for our tiny brain to function in it.

The way to improve your accuracy is not to reject what you see, but to accept that it is a mix of reality and subjectivity. And calming down, focusing on things that don't elicit much emotion, we can see and hear more clearly.

So don't reject the illusion. Spend more time with it. You can learn to reconstruct it better. Buried there are elements of reality.

The illusion is a warped copy. The brain can't invent without source material.

That's true of an outer sight or an inner one.

Oops typo
"Great and frustration turns your brain into a monster artist, and love and adoration into a painter of beauty."

Should read

"Dear, threat and frustration turns your brain into a monster artist, and love and adoration into a painter of beauty."

"Frear, threat and frustration turns your brain into a monster artist, and love and adoration into a painter of beauty."

When it comes to commenting on the plane, third time's the charm.

What I have heard and seen is,that there also is a lot of superstitions in santmat.
Anxiety for ''bad ''behavier etc..
There is really fear for karma etc..
I think there is a missing of trust in the self and the cosmos or conciousness or god,whatever you call it.
Out of love do or leave things is quite different then out of fear.
So listening to one's own heart seems the best to me..
Trusting in ones own self is most important.
It is nice to listen to someone wise..,but never loosing one's own wisdom also..

AI, did I say I wanted to laugh at Manjit's funeral or that I would laugh at his funeral?
There's a huge difference in those two comments. Get it right.

I'm not sure why you think rationality even comes into that equation in the first place. It's an insult. Insults are not normally judged for their rationality or lack of but rather their meanness or how funny they are.

I went to grade school with some "urban youths" who were extremely talented at roasting each other. One time my friend Charles was being made fun of by a guy named Duane. All Duane said was "n***a you wear wranglers!" and it was one of the funniest insults I'd heard. Wasn't rational though.

Some of my comments here are massive sloppy word salads that I would have to really put in effort to decipher. If you want to judge my rationality you should pick those apart instead of my comments where im talking crap to Manjit for fun.

@ Spence - hello

The devils hands have been busy. Just read your post above and it set alarm bells ringing. Have a think about what you are writing brother. Not sure about you anymore tbf.

“So don't reject the illusion. Spend more time with it. You can learn to reconstruct it better. Buried there are elements of reality.”

Read that out aloud to yourself and think who would really that? Clue - he is fallen.

Bye

@ Jesse - how are you.

Your responses kill it (meant as a compliment)

All the best

Hi Arjuna
Looks like I'm destined to be judged as fallen and in need of help by you.

But all that aside I appreciate the good will.

This place is not illusion in the common notion of false.

It's just impermanent, and our picture of it largely symbolic.

True things are, well true. When you true up two pieces of wood you align them. And when your beloved is true they have no other but you in their heart, and there love lasts unwaveringly. Alignment, constancy, purity of purpose.

These are great qualities. These are 'True'.

@spence
You wrote
"My inner Gurinder smiles and says "proceed" but He also says "Spence, we can do without the exaggerations..."

So it's a process of being open minded within and without, and learning from our own daily errors."

Well - I have to say that is impressive - you are acknowledging the exaggerations.

In your opinion, if you met Gurinder (outer) and said to him what you say on here - what would be his response? Would he tell you to "Proceed"?

Do you consider that the "outer" and "inner" can be in conflict?

So one tells you one thing and the other says the opposite?

If this is possibe, then is one authentic (true, real) and the other fake?

@ spence - you have a wonderful sense of humour. How can I help you? I myself am stuck here in his layer without hope.

Hi Osho
You asked
"Do you consider that the "outer" and "inner" can be in conflict?

"So one tells you one thing and the other says the opposite?"

They aren't the same and they are.
But to save you the trouble, just presume the inner Gurinder is purely subjective and the outer is objective.

And personally I can only handle one at a time.

But while we are at the question of 'the Two Gurinders', , let's ask about 'the two Oshos' : the one who writes here is similar to the Osho who also has another life outside blog commenting. Or is he?

And there is the third Osho. The inner Osho!

Even Chand had an inner life. He may have forgotten. But that's impolite. We honor Chand Ji.

Are they really the same person? Do they even look the same?

I'm pretty sure you have access to the inner Osho, if you practice quieting the mind.

Is the inner Osho ever in conflict with the outer one?

Welcome to the human race.


From David’s book on Faqir I copied this part which Talks is ‘special cases’ of Gurus they DO know when their form manifests in their Deciples. 3 Sant May Gurus are clearly mentioned as the exception. Why did he claim Hazur Charan Singh told him otherwise?

Concerning these "special cases," Sawan Singh, a deeply admired master in the Surat Shabd Yoga tradition (1858-1948), for whom both Faqir Chand and his teacher Shiv Brat Lal had tremendous regard, wrote that the outward guru can and does know about the inner condition of his disciples. This knowledge, Sawan Singh pointed out, is conveyed to the physical master via the inner Shabd (Divine Sound), though only in extreme cases where the outer master's attention is needed (see Sawan Singh's letters to American and eu
During his second world tour in 1970, Maharaj Charan Singh was asked the following question: "Is the physical Master aware of all the initiates' inner experiences?" Charan Singh's answer demonstrates that the outer master does know about his visionary manifestations. Responded Charan Singh: "Our real Master, as I just told you, is the Shabd and Nam. And when we are connected with that Shabd and Nam, that Shabd and Nam takes care of us. The physical Master, of course, is aware of all that. [My emphasis.] But, you see, it is shabd and nam which is our real master.

Another example of extraordinary manifestations which go beyond Faqir Chand's hypothesis of unknowingness comes from Baba Jaimal Singh, the first guru of the Beas satsang and a personal disciple of the founder of Radhasoami, Shiv Dayal Singh. In the following excerpts, Jaimal Singh details a most remarkable physical bilocation of his guru.

Although Jaimal Singh's experience was extraordinary, there have been other reports by mystics of similar physical bilocation excursions. The important point to remember, though, is that such experiences are the exception , not the rule in mysticism. The value of Faqir Chand's revelations of ignorance is that most gurus (I am tempted to say all ) in India and elsewhere are in the same lot, but falsely parade their attainments to sincere, if gullible, disciples. Faqir's startling insights show that most religious visions are, in fact, products of one's own mind.



"Do you consider that the "outer" and "inner" can be in conflict?
So one tells you one thing and the other says the opposite?"

In your opinion, if you met Gurinder (outer) and said to him what you say
on here - what would be his response? Would he tell you to "Proceed"?

According to the manual, the correct answer is always the
inner Gurinder if they're in conflict.

Of course, you may be listening to an "inner Gurinder" conjured
up within your mind. The manual applies here too: you were
supposed to apply the "holy names" test, fool. RTFM :)

God does not test people. That’s absurd. And neither should a true teacher. We are only here to be helpful. We are only here to learn and to guide. Our mind plays games and make us feel that spiritually is a competition. But it isn’t. We learn at our own pace and our conscious gently guides us as it matures and aligns with loving principles. If we are all in fact drops of the ocean, as Sant Mat would suggest, then why would the ocean try to separate itself? This idea of tests and worthiness stem from the age old age weakness of man—caste and class. The mind simply doesn’t want to believe that we are all equal so it turns spirituality into a sort of competition and contest. No wonder so many people have a abandoned spirituality. Who needs that.

Dear Jen,

I wrote that section you quote in the early 1980s and in the prefatory comment
to it you will notice that I mentioned that my views on this have evolved. Beas deleted
the section on Jaimal Singh in the newer editions of Spiritual Letters as being from
unreliable (hagiographic?) sources. The story now seems highly suspect.

As for Charan, he point blank said he did NOT know about appearing to a woman who saw his vision even though she claims to have never seen him before.... I think Charan was not being straightforward in that answer cited in Thus Saith the Master... given what I learned later.

It is an episode I know well so if you are interested I can share more details

@Spence

Two Gurinders - two/three Osho Robbins etc

Seems we are referring to different things.

I don't have or even imagine a "Radiant form" of Osho Robbins.

Sure we all have multiple aspects of our personality.

That's why we talk to ourselves - to resolve conflicts.

We even call them "parts" - The "Head" and the "Heart" is a common one.

In NLP we have a process called "parts integration" where we resolve what each part seeks and integrate the parts, because too many part is not healthy.

But that is not what sant mat refers to as a "Radiant Form"

Maybe that is what you mean by "Inner Gurinder"

sant mat INNER or RADIANT FORM means this:

you leave your body and your body goes numb. You enter through the third eye and sahansdal kanwal and ENTER the FIRST REGION (Astral). It is here you meet the RADIANT FORM of your guru in his splendour.

This Radiant Form becomes you constant guide from now on. You can do no wrong as the Radiant Form guides you constantly.
Half your bhakti is complete.

This is considered a high state that very few attain.

From there the INNER FORM takes you to higher regions. Your meditation is a joy as you simply meet the inner guru and enjoy the journey to sach khand.

These are the sant mat teachings.

Astrophysics, quantum mechanics, quantum theories and quantum physics - the science of phenomena - are all, constantly being observed, dissected and explained by highly educated, trained and very intelligent humans. The best on the planet in fact! It is so very interesting to watch many different YouTube channels on these topics. The great philosophers of the past, and the present, too, expound on the metaphysics of being. Just what is true being, in all aspects? Man made religions try to explain, some through a belief in literal allegory or parables, and others have different meanings for different people at their various levels of understanding. What is explained to a person at a kindergarten level will take on a different meaning for a person at a post graduate level. Throughout all time as we all know, and very much in the present day, religions are as destructive as they are benign. Nothing has changed. Will it ever ? Mostly, in my opinion, religions are all mind controlling methods put into practice. Clearly, humans are not making any progress in moving beyond the confines of often such prohibitive and constrictive , no longer applicable ideals. I mean moving beyond the prison of religion. Sant Mat was a philosophy, I thought. A science of sound. I think perhaps now it has become a religion. Everything has its time. Personally Tibetan Buddhism comes the closest to science and quantum physics. As I said earlier, one truth spoken to a child at kindergarten may take on a completely different meaning for an adult in living life. How can "mind" ever possibly "know?" IMPOSSIBLE! As we all appear to be consciously living in the here and now on Planet Earth, who else can possibly be your MASTER or true GURU except YOU! It will never actually be how you think it is to be at any level, for how can it ever possibly be? We are in the TRUTH and at the same time so far removed from it.

It is a sin to question Saints b cos they do no wrong being omniscients. On the contrary t now trying to question what they preach about our parallel inner lives.

So far this may hold true that RSSB masters have been wealthy except for Baba Jaimal Singh as rightly noted by Babay Fakir Chand and yes, their sources of incomes for retaining lavish lifestyles have been the talk of town nowadays in media with claims of Dera properties as hospitals may have been used to consolidate their fin kitties raising them to skies but at the same time He having the reins of astral of causal skies and beyond to perfection.

While Fakir Chand has been a Saint of few needs and means , an ideal looking and behaving saint most alike to mostly poor gathering in India who are more influenced by saintliness of a person.

Despite these earthly contradictions of Saints of late not aligned to the humble principles of living and behaving as by true Saints as Kabir, Christ , Nanak et al their followers some of who are on this forum have got visions and miracles and their look alike regular inside darshans and also chats with them etc.

But will those visions and companionship survive beyond death for each of us!

It requires emphasis.

In conclusion Visions of Masters to their disciple is mind's creation as per Baba Fakir and some of us. But have some of us seen cats and dogs or some people who you regularly visit come upon inside suddenly and also reply to your intimate queries or something else in its place like in a dream during meditation with the devouts of RSSB or others.

We need introspect and may be speculate further to know more about up above and validate if we can in a group. Perhaps it may require more of individual efforts and experience by ourselves to judge for ourselves.

Its the Hope of surviving an earthly death and a better and eternal post life that motivates us to be with Masters and their guided inner paths.

Has Beas really “sanitized” some publications removing previous content in some of its books. I never read more than one copy of each book... so wouldn’t know.

Interesting, Native American Shamans claim to be able to see and support their students on a vision quest. Shamanism and SS yoga seem to share a few similarities.


Faqir's startling insights show that most religious visions are, in fact, products of one's own mind.

Ishwar Puri comments similarly:

"So, people say that Baba Faqir Chand was the only honest mystic, the only honest master, who at least declared the master knows nothing. Everything is in the head, of the mind, of the disciple.

Now I know that Baba Faqir Chand knew everything. We had so many conversations with him. He was a regular Perfect Living Master. Therefore, what happened? What is this story then all about?

The story is that too many people were not meditating. They thought they could blindly follow a human being as a master and get everything. Master was insisting that truth lies inside, and they were trying to follow outside. So, he took this ploy, a very simple ploy, to tell them: 'Outside master knows nothing. Go inside and find the inside master is helping you.'

Now, did he tell a lie? No! He told the truth, because the real master is inside. The real master, when you get initiated, is actually inside you. What about the human being outside you who initiates you? It's a reflection of the inner master outside. A real master who really takes us to Sach Khand is inside us, not outside. The outside is coming because we are not inside.

Supposing there was a way that we could always go in and see who's our master, we won't see outside master. We would only see the inside master. So, therefore, the truth is that our master is really inside and its reflection is outside because we can't see inside.

And he functions outside exactly like he functions inside. Therefore, Baba Faqir Chand's main idea of emphasizing this was that don't just follow a person outside. Do what he says which is to go inside and find the real master inside, find the radiant form of the master inside. So, that is why...there is a book, a biography of Baba Faqir Chand. The title is: The Unknowing Saint. The saint who never knew, who said, 'I didn't know anything.'

Incidentally, his son also took over the gaddi, and he claimed he knew everything. So they said: 'Your father used to say he knows nothing.' He said: 'My father was too humble. I am not. I know everything.' "

Dear David,
It would be good if you share more details..

Thanks,
s*

"did NOT know about appearing to a woman who saw his vision even though she claims to have never seen him before."

This should say "a supposed woman who supposedly claimed to have seen his vision and claims to have never seen him before." Assuming the woman is even real. As far as I know all the second hand stories are completely unconfirmed and we don't even have a system of confirmation as good as primitive arabs used when compiling hadith.

People lie a LOT especially about this kind of stuff. Sant mat and related industries seem to ignore this fact, instead always accepting people's extraordinary claims at face value for the sake of convenience and better selling stories.

Even the thing about soldiers seeing Faqir Chand during the battle sounds like b.s. but why would David Lane question it if it makes the story sound more cool? I mean did anyone other than Chand ever even recount this story about soldiers seeing his mystical apparition? If they did say it, do we have any way to confirm that they really had these visions and weren't just telling fibs?

The whole subject is stupid as hell.

"Incidentally, his son also took over the gaddi"

Why am I not surprised.

Dear PJ

First, Faqir Chand's son did NOT assume gururship or the gaddi.

This is a completely wrong statement by Ishwar Puri and I am surprised that he would even say such a thing.

Faqir's son worked in metallurgy in Russia and Faqir was quite explicit about not having his blood relations
connected to the center.

Ishwar has said a number of things about Faqir Chand that are not only inaccurate, but completely made up in order to whitewash Faqir's repeated statements about being "unknowing" about the visions attributed to him.

Why Ishwar did this is self-serving to the max.

Here's the deal about Faqir Chand. On the plus side, he was apparently the only guru who said that he wasn't personally aware of the visions and experiences of his initiates. That revelation blows up the cardinal principle of sant mat that the physical guru sees all and knows all.

Wait a sec...where is it written in sant mat lit that a guru sees all and knows all? Seriously, does anyone know, because I sure don't. I don't recall it in Sar Bachan. I'm guessing it might have arisen in the teachings of Jaimal Singh. But to what degree did Sawan Singh promote the "know all" idea, if at all?

If I'm not mistaken, Charan never directly hyped himself as omniscient. But the flyleafs of some of Charan's books promoted the idea that Charan was a genuine "know all" guru. Since these books were published with Charan's imprimatur, you could argue that Charan did promote the idea through his devotees.

The problem with Faqir's rants about "know all" gurus is that it makes him look a bit of a hypocrite with his friendship with Beas gurus Sawan, Jagat and Charan. He must have been aware that the Beas camp was a hotbed of worship of know-all Godmen gurus, and therefore Faqir must have been referring to them when he went off on gurus who amass wealth and popularity by claiming omniscience.

Anyway, another Faqir positive is his questioning of the final results of sant mat meditation. But here things get a bit tricky, because Faqir claims to have fully realized the final stages of sant mat sadhana. And then, Faqir says he doesn't know if he's reached the final stages. And he also says that the final stages were somehow unsatisfying. Then he says that when he finally lived as long as 95, he finally found "peace," though we're not exactly sure just what that peaceful realization entailed.

To me, Faqir's commentary is a kind of interesting grist for the mill, interesting to reflect on. But I don't take his writings as a reliable testament of spiritual truth. I think Faqir tried to be honest. Yet he protests his honesty so much that he often comes across like one of these neo-advaitist gurus who declares he has the latest "ultimate" revision of Ramana Maharshi's teachings.

In other words, Faqir really wasn't all that radical a sant mat guru. When you look at his prescriptions for genuine sant mat practice, you find that they really don't differ from what Beas or the Kirpal groups teach. Meditate to go beyond the mind, use light and sound to do it, the necessity of a guru, guru bhakti, don't take visions too seriously, do selfless service to humanity, lead a moral life.

Where Faqir's message meshes with that of more mainstream gurus is something that rarely gets mentioned. The main line on Faqir is largely a nihilist version of his views: meditation leads nowhere, there is no guru, there is no meaning, there is no afterlife, there is no God.

Dear S,

Concerning Charan Singh and not knowing about him "appearing" to a woman in her prayers.

It is an interesting story.

Here is what happened. Back in 1984 I published a two part article entitled "The Enchanted Land" for FATE Magazine. It described my visit with several shabd yoga gurus, including Charan Singh, Partap Singh (Tarn Taran), Yogini Mataji (Tripta Devi), Faqir Chand, etc.

Well, the chief editor of FATE magazine wrote me an urgent letter and said that a Catholic woman from Oklahoma was trying to in contact with me. They asked for my permission for her to call me. I said yes, not knowing exactly what all the fuss was about.

It turns out this woman, who was deeply Catholic, was praying one morning when she had an unexpected vision of a spiritual being with a turban and a long beard who told her that she would learn more about him the next day. She then reads the current issue of FATE magazine (I think she looked through it at the magazine store) and in it she saw a picture of Charan Singh that was embedded in my article. She was wonderstruck since she claimed that it was the same person she had a vision of in her prayers.

She wanted to talk to me about it so we had a long chat on the phone. She knew absolutely nothing about Radhasoami or Sant Mat or even eastern philosophy. I wasn't sure what to make of it (being skeptical by nature), so I suggested she write Charan Singh directly about it and see what he said concerning it.

She did and Charan wrote a 4 page letter back to her (a bit unusual, given that his letters were not more than a page or two). She then contacted me and we went over the letter line by line.

In that letter and in no uncertain terms Charan explained that he was UNAWARE of appearing to her or to others who claimed such things.

He suggested that it was a product of her own mind and he had nothing to do with it.

Hope this helps.

Jesse wrote: "Even the thing about soldiers seeing Faqir Chand during the battle sounds like b.s. but why would David Lane question it if it makes the story sound more cool? I mean did anyone other than Chand ever even recount this story about soldiers seeing his mystical apparition? If they did say it, do we have any way to confirm that they really had these visions and weren't just telling fibs?"

I think this is a good point. Why are all of Chand's miracle stories accepted at face value?

The spiritual marketplace is full of stories of miracles. Sai Baba made tons of claims of miracles, including raising people from the dead. All these miracle stories were later debunked when an investigation was made of their sources.

Speaking of wartime miracles, many were attributed to the Catholic saint Padre Pio during WWII. According to the stories, pilots of bombers saw Pio in the sky and turned back from their bombing missions. The problem was that none of these alleged pilots ever came forward to testify about these miracles; these were just stories that got started somehow.

Since Ishwar Puri is fond of making stuff up about Faqir Chand that is completely not true, I think it is important to set the record straight.

1. Faqir Chand did not appoint anyone of his family as successors. Instead he appointed several of his disciples to carry on his teaching, including Dr. I.C. Sharma (whom I have met on several occasions), Yogini Mataji (Tripta Devi), and Bhagat Munshi Ram.....

2. As for Faqir's son, Faqir told Mark Juergensmeyer this: "My own son is well placed. He draws about Rupees 2500 per month. He is a big metallurgist, Russia returned." He never worked as a guru. Ishwar simply
made that story up.

3. As for Yogini Mataji, she refused to continue being a guru and wouldn't initiate anyone and went into relative seclusion. Here is the only movie I know that has film of her....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NYQXjIRBfs

Hi David,
Thank you for sharing that story. Interesting indeed. Can you share what else the letter said if you remember?

Sawan Singh, after being made the next guru after Jaimal Singh, went to Pratap Singh (Soami Ji's) brother and successor. Sawan Singh told Pratap Singh that he wasn't ready and had nothing to build his ministry on and for Pratap Singh to send someone to continue the duties of the guru.

Pratap Singh then said Sawan Singh was appointed by Jaimal Singh to do the work and to go back and do his duty. Pratap Singh would be there to help him when needed.

So if Faqir Chand can go to Sawan Singh and seek guidance, why is no one mentioning that Sawan Singh went back to Pratap Singh to get his guidance? Same thing right?

How can both Faqir and Sawan then magically become "True Saints" after admitting they have nothing to offer the disciples? Did both do this to get affirmation from a "known and respected saint"? To my knowledge, RSSB has no literature or mention of Sawan Singh going to Pratap Singh and saying this. I can see why they wouldn't.

I don't think visions of Faqir or related incidents are miracles at all.

Rather, they are merely projections by various individuals who then ATTRIBUTE such things to Faqir or to other gurus.

The mind is a great conjurer and it is us (usually after the fact) that then attribute this or that apparition to one guru or another.

A good example of how this works is provided by Faqir Chand himself, where to his great credit he tries to see if he could come up with a rational explanation for why he had a vision of his guru Shiv Brat Lal before ever meeting him and even then getting the "correct" address of his ashram.

Here is Faqir's narrative:

"In the meantime I got a permanent job in the Indian railways
and was posted as Assistant Station Master at Baganwala. But
my craving to see the Lord did not diminish; rather, during this
time it reached its peak. Once I wept for twenty-four hours
continuously for a glimpse of the Lord. Doctors were called in.
They administered medicine to me. At about five o'clock in the
morning I saw in a vision the form of Maharishi Shiv Brat Lal.
He drew water from a nearby well and helped me take a bath,
and then told me his address in Lahore."

Now on the surface that seems somewhat remarkable given that Faqir consciously wasn't aware of Shiv Brat Lal (he was then a relatively obscure guru) and got his address correct.....

But later Faqir reasoned that because Shiv Brat Lal was a prolific writer, then he may have come across one of his writings or magazines and in so doing got a picture of what he looked like and also the address which was listed in one of those writings.

These two things (picture of Shiv Brat Lal and the address)--though not consciously remembered--manifested in his dream-vision and Faqir took that as a wondrous sign.....

Faqir deflated the miracle.

I suggest that what seems paranormal looks less paranormal the more information we get about what really happened.

I know from my own life that this is true, since I have written extensively about how my own Teaching Assistant, Michelle Lopez, had a vision of Charan Singh dying almost exactly at the time he died.... It is a remarkable story, no doubt, but one that I believe can be explained rationally without having to invoke
miracles and the like.

I also got a chance to go through much of Faqir's correspondence which he shared with me back in 1978 where there were many letters about him appearing to so and so and how it was amazing.... Faqir would at each turn tell me that he knew nothing about it.

Thus, these stories about Faqir are not miracles, though the disciples may believe such.

They are what the mind can produce under stressful circumstances.


This is a completely wrong statement by Ishwar Puri and I am surprised that he would even say such a thing.

Hi David,

Actually, I think Ishwar may have been misinformed. In tellling
the story of Faqir's miraculous appearance to save fellow soldiers,
for example, he relates it occurred in WW2 when, I suspect based
on Faqir's bio and a website item I recall somewhere, that it was
more likely WW1.

Of course, I tend to believe, that he didn't deliberately fabricate
the "gaddi" ascension of Faqir's son to support an omniscience
"theory". But, in this matter, I am definitely "unknowing" :)

Yes, Dungeness, it was in world war one.

Here is little movie based precisely on Faqir's recollection:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb1VLfQDdOs

As for Ishwar, I have no idea why he would invent such a story about Faqir's son, except that it
allows him to claim that Faqir really did know...... but this goes against everything Faqir himself stated.

Last night I dreamed of puppies, contradicting my theory of self as a cat person.

@David Thanks for correcting this.

I'm very curious now, did Faqir use/give out the same 5 names that RSSB relies upon?

I've been trying to figure out where they came from initially, they don't all seem to be in the Adi Granth unless I'm mistaken. Nor can I find them all in Anurag Sagar.

Hi David you wrote
These two things (picture of Shiv Brat Lal and the address)--though not consciously remembered--manifested in his dream-vision and Faqir took that as a wondrous sign.....

Faqir deflated the miracle

My question is he deflated the miracle of the dream-vision but did not deflate that this incident brought him to his Guru who he later spent his whole life serving and who’s teachings he himself spoke extensively about? So the incident which is claimed to be a projection of the mind Actually gave him the answer he was seeking all along? And if that was indeed the case then how can he deflate the incident?
So whether he saw the book written by Shiv Brat Lal and his mind told him to go to Lahore or he followed the vision and went to Lahore either way he went and was “called” to his Guru (who he has the utmost reverence for) right? Can that be deflated?

Thank you David,for your reply.
It is good to hear the right side of things.
People make up a lot also because of their desire for exitments maybe.

Again, on miracles, Faqir said: "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."

Faqir is unambiguously saying here that he believes that sant mat does produce miracles in people's lives.

What Faqir strongly disputes is that he is aware of being the agent of such miracles. But Faqir did not go so far as to conclude that every remarkable occurrence is simply due to imagination.

http://manavtamandir.com/books/english/A-Word-To-Americans.pdf

"I have
myself experienced this power of the self. Many people create my image
with their cosmic rays due to their own faith. Some do so in their dreams,
some in their meditation and some even in the waking consciousness. In
all these cases this image helps them. I do not know why. I do not claim to
have been my own image. I have come across cases where my image has
been experienced by others. The school boys create my image in their
examination halls and get help. They claim that my image has dictated
them the answers to the questions. Some people say that I have saved
them from being drowned in water. Since I know that I was not physically
there, I have come to the conclusion that all this is the result of the thought
force or the cosmic rays created by their own minds. Faith can work
wonders and turn impossible things to a possibility"

That sounds to me like Faqir explaining that thought and faith applied to a sant mat guru don't merely produce illusions, but actual miracles.


What may look like a miracle (and I am sure it seems like such to the person who has such experiences) is, according to Faqir, isn't due to any guru as such, but rather the intense faith and devotion which (using Faqir's own words) becomes "creative" and produces the desired effect.

Faqir gives a number of quotes relating to this.

Here is just one:

"The individual worships, adores and makes offerings to
some living guru, image, god, or goddess according to his
own faith, belief and devotion; in return he gets the fruit
of his own devotion and faith. The guru, of the
worshipped, gets credit and involves himself in the false
prestige and fame. While the worshipper achieves his end,
or motive due to his own faith and belief. In fact, the guru
or the worshipped does nothing to fulfill the desires of
the devotee; it is all the faith of the latter."


Yes Faqir is no Atheist, and to imply so is a misunderstanding.

"Now, let me define the attachment for gross-matter. It covers your attachment with your property, father, mother, wife, children, Rama who was born in Ayodhya, Krishna who was born at Mathura and your Guru whom you believe to be a human being. If a form of any of these appears or manifests to a dying man, then think not that the dying man has crossed the sphere of gravitational pull of earth or attained release from “KAL” and “MAYA”. The entire Hindu Philosophy is based upon this principle of attachment. A follower of Sanatan Dharma is advised to renounce the world and become a Sanyasi in the last phase of his life. The sure, unmistakable and scientific was to attain “MOKSHA” is that a seeker must attain perfect detachment from the body, mind and soul. A bird spans wings to have flight in the sky. The soul must shed away its attachment for everything on this earth to reach its sublime-abode. This is the core of Sant-Matt, Radhaswami Matt and Sanatan-Dharma and this teaching I impart to those who come to me for this purpose otherwise I tell the art of happy living in this world. "

https://sites.google.com/site/babafaqirchandsliterature/autobiography-of-baba-faqit-chand

Here Chand Ji directly states he teaches soul, God and emancipation from the body.

But notice this last line. The teaching is only for those seeking emancipation.

Those who are not seeking it, such as some Atheists, hr will only give philosophy in living a happy life.

By Chand Ji's own admission, he will not teach spirituality to someone who does not believe. But they will also gain some wisdom from him.

So we get the Chand Ji we want. If you want an Atheist Chand Ji , that's what you get.

But if you want liberation of the soul, he will teach that, too. He does not say there is no soul or no God. He says he teaches liberation of the soul.

But maybe he did say somewhere there is no soul to an Atheist.

You get the Chand Ji you want.

So we can look at the depictions of Chand Ji as a projection of the ones attempting to explain his teachings.


Hi Osho
You wrote
"This Radiant Form becomes you constant guide from now on. You can do no wrong as the Radiant Form guides you constantly.
Half your bhakti is complete.

This is considered a high state that very few attain.

From there the INNER FORM takes you to higher regions. Your meditation is a joy as you simply meet the inner guru and enjoy the journey to sach khand.

These are the sant mat teachings."

OK. So what is your point?
Don't you know you have a radiant form also? Yes we may have more coverings, but underneath it all we are exactly the same wattage.

Hi Osho
You wrote
"This is considered a high state that very few attain."

All of us will attain it at some point Osho.

The entire creation.

And many, many millions have already done so, in this long arc of time. Just do the math.


Regarding miracles Baba Fakir Chand speaks in detail in the Satsang below about miracles and visions
https://youtu.be/wwfywbwXxFg

He says that many people had come to him telling them that miracles (like the birth of a child when the couple could not have one or passing the test or saving the man from drowning) have happened in their lives and they accredited that to him because his image appeared to them. He says he was not aware and this is where he clarifies that this is their own faith that helped them in this Time if need. He (fakir Chand) was not physically aware of this at all. And then goes on to say that developing full faith and love in the GURU whichever guru you choose (he said you don’t have to have faith in me or call me your guru) whichever one you are initiated with (went on to mention Baba Sawan and Charan Singh or Salig ram) don’t consider him(your guru) an ordinary man develop full faith and love for him.
These are the words of Baba Faqir Chand himself not mine. Listen and watch for yourself.
He doesn’t discredit the Sant Mat gurus at all in fact he actually promotes them.
So when Commenters On this blog say that he seems to flip flop of on his views it’s because we are not getting the full meaning of what he is saying and instead reading his words in bits and pieces.
And to say that he did not end up as a Sant Mat guru is wrong too as this Satsang of his in 1981 (the year he died) he clearly talks about all Sant Mat gurus and teachings. Again don’t take my word for it, hear for yourself.
https://youtu.be/iRzT0qpbIqY

Hi Jen from Austin.
Thanks for the link. I also selected the PDF translation and read this:
"One day the woman was cooking rotis and she remembered me. She told her husband that Baba appeared before her and said that his wife had died. Her husband wrote to his father Mangal Sen in Mulnapur. He wrote to me. I replied “Yes, my wife has died.”

" Now who went and told this woman that my wife had died?

" I did not go there. Neither do I know anything about it.

"Because she thought of me, and what was inside me? That my wife is dead. The law of radiation conveyed to her this.

" This is why a person who works as a guru and gives satsang and is not practical himself, whoever will meditate on you, whatever is inside you will go into him.

" To work as a guru is a very great responsibility. And I have told you that I did not go. Neither did I write her a letter. But in my heart I had this thought that my wife is dead, that woman meditated on me – her thought reached me from Iraq and my thought reached her, manifested as my form and told her that my wife had died. These are the experiences of my life."

Faqir is stating at least five things here:
1.The woman's vision came from a different source than Faqir's conscious mind.
2. Faqir concluded this must have been from her own devoted mind since he was unaware of it, but..
3. The content was actually provided from Faqir's actual thoughts, psychically. Her attention brought her right inside Faqir's actual thoughts.

4. Her mind may have created an image of Faqir, but it was psychically connected to Faqir 's mind, even without Faqir' s conscious awareness.

5. He uses this to state the great responsibility of the Guru because the devotees' worship gives them psychic access to the very content of their Guru.

Osho... Please read the above........I believe it may help answer your own questions.

We actually exist beyond mind, but our tiny brain is not conscious of it.

"We actually exist beyond mind, but our tiny brain is not conscious of it. "

Maybe it's worth considering assuming the story is true at all. But there are possibly other explanations for these things that don't include any "existence beyond mind" at all.

Nobody seems concerned in finding out if any of what these people say has any validity at all. The first instinct is to try to find out what the purported events mean, which should be one of the last things to be done considering we have no evidence of anything happening other than individual claims from 3rd parties no less.

It's like some random dude says "I saw a UFO in Nevada." And you start immediately talking about the message Gray Aliens wish to pass on to our society. Not sure why everyone is so eager to skip 10 steps ahead.

By the way, I just wrote 3 sentences in a row that all finished with the words "at all."

If this isn't a felony it should be. Please accept my sincere apologies for such a terrible lack of editing or even thinking about what I'm writing. There is no excuse for what I've done.

David you wrote:
“What may look like a miracle (and I am sure it seems like such to the person who has such experiences) is, according to Faqir, isn't due to any guru as such, but rather the intense faith and devotion”

Clearly this wasn’t the case with Hazur Charan Singh as in the story you related he told the lady from Oklahoma that he was not aware of his image projecting to her. So he didn’t take false credit for it.
I have also a few times on q and a heard questioners tell the present master of such instances in their lives and he tells them it’s their faith and to enjoy that experience. Sounds just like what Fakir is saying to me.


By the way, I just wrote 3 sentences in a row that all finished with the words "at all."

If this isn't a felony it should be. Please accept my sincere apologies for such a terrible lack of editing or even thinking about what I'm writing. There is no excuse for what I've done

Don't think it's a felony... maybe a misdemeanor, if at all. But a random
dude somewhere in Nevada, blathering about UFO's, gets your thoughts
all helter skelter and faces no charges at all. Dammit, the injustice of it all!

From May 7 blog.
He then predicted the following (direct quote from the book published by Manavta Mandir called The Master Speaks to the Foreigners):
You cannot understand my views as yet, because you have to do a lot of work in your worldly life as yet.

Jesse, you are off the hook, as yet....


Since Ishwar Puri is fond of making stuff up about Faqir Chand that is completely not true, I think it is important to set the record straight.

1. Faqir Chand did not appoint anyone of his family as successors.

2. As for Faqir's son, Faqir told Mark Juergensmeyer this: "My own son is well placed. He draws about Rupees 2500 per month. He is a big metallurgist, Russia returned." He never worked as a guru. Ishwar simply made that story up.

As for Ishwar, I have no idea why he would invent such a story about Faqir's son, except that it
allows him to claim that Faqir really did know...... but this goes against everything Faqir himself stated.

Dear David,

Since Ishwar Puri has been in the US for decades and is, in fact forty years younger
than Faqir, he was very likely misinformed by others . Fake stories about a Guru and
his family tend to go viral...

As for conspiracy theories that Ishwar is "making things up" to demolish Faqir's
statements of "unknowingness", that's a bit snarky. In my opinion, Ishwar is
simply --as did Faqir over and over-- encouraging disciples to go "inside" to
find the truth themselves rather than ascribing miraculous powers/events to
an "unknowing Guru".

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. 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.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

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

Welcome


  • 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.