« American's support for Black Lives Matter has risen sharply | Main | Excellent analysis of RSSB guru's absurd response to a question »

June 13, 2020


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

“The constantly-recurring theme that I hear is “My meditation sucks.” Not always said quite so bluntly, but that’s the message. Now, “sucks” is a value judgment made by comparing one’s actual experience with an expected experience. Some mystical paths (such as Zen) don’t speak much about what is going to happen along the way.

But RSSB does. There are various metaphysical regions that the initiate is told about, along with the sights and sounds that will be seen and heard in each higher domain of the cosmos.”

Yeah... I think if someone actually did murder Julian Johnson (pop RSSB conspiracy theory) they probably had good reason to.

Just the fact that Dr. J led us all to believe Sant Mat meditation was going to be like a trip to the Willie Wonka factory.

No, thank you.

For me meditation has a strong effect but I’ve never had any desire to “experience” anything close to Johnson’s descriptions.

I don’t mind hearing sound or music but I don’t want to see anything. Never have.

All that said, I’ve had a lot of outer experiences as well as some inner experiences that were not described anywhere in the books.

All that coupled with a history of psychedelic drug abuse (we had a shroom farm in the warehouse where I lived with a few good friends in my twenties) and I don’t believe I’m any sort of role model or the kind of person anyone should be listening to with regards to “mystical experiences”.


Between Julian Johnson and that dude who wrote Life is Fair, I had completely unrealistic expectations of Sant Mat. 😉

S, I totally agree. Especially about that dude who wrote Life is Fair. I'll give him a good talking-to next time I see him, which probably won't be long (next time I look in a bathroom mirror, most likely).

@ But RSSB does. There are various metaphysical regions that the initiate is
@ told about, along with the sights and sounds that will be seen and heard
@ in each higher domain of the cosmos.”

@ If I hike up to an alpine lake, then descend and tell people how lovely the @ scenery was.... I’m just telling about my experience.

I think the alpine lake metaphor can account for the
disparate descriptions and the lack of experience as well.

The answer is within. Several meditators may experience
seeing the same lake but describe it differently. If, on the
other hand, you are distracted along that same Alpine
trail, you may get only a fleeting, fragmentary glance
--a flash of color, a hint of sound, or a micro-moment of
bliss. Or... nothing at all.

Perhaps you're daydreaming in another channel of winning
the lottery, or crafting the perfect response in an imagined
tete-a-tete, or even anxiously looking around in the darkness
for the "Red Sky". Then your mantra may well be "I see nothing.
I hear nothing. My meditation sucks."

@ If I can simply be conscious, simply live, and simply exist in
@ meditation, I feel that I’m going to be closer to getting some
@ answers.

Beautiful and ditto for me after decades on the trail.

S, I totally agree. Especially about that dude who wrote Life is Fair. I'll give him a good talking-to next time I see him, which probably won't be long (next time I look in a bathroom mirror, most likely).

Posted by: Brian Hines | June 13, 2020 at 06:24 PM


Blame it on the Westerners...

Here is a meditator that is my RSSB/Eckankar replacement. Jurgen Ziewe author of the MultiDimensional Man. Don't be dissuaded by the title this guy is a giant ,in my book. His experiences were a byproduct of meditation, he says, but rarely has that happened whilst meditating. Instead he becomes so lucid in his dreams and visits areas and interviews the inhabitants. One was his mother who was depressed from a difficult marriage at her transition. When he visited her in a inner city she changed over years from a old depressed woman to a 20 something hip chick.He has utube videos too if you like. Cheers Jim

"Some are so weak."


A recent Q & A by Baba Gurinder Singh. Go to 8:45 to hear him address a question about the Guru gives initiation to people who leave the path after 10 or 20 years.

"Some are so weak."


A recent Q & A by Baba Gurinder Singh. Go to 8:45 to hear him address a question about the Guru gives initiation to people who leave the path after 10 or 20 years.

Posted by: j | June 14, 2020 at 06:53 PM

There probably are a lot of people who leave the path because they feel it’s too difficult in the sense that they don’t want to meditate or be vegetarian, abstain from alcohol and/or drugs or maybe they just lose interest in spirituality.

But there are many reasons people leave the path and “weakness” is not the primary reason. Ironically some people leave because they are sincerely seeking truth and see a lot of hypocrisy or they believe the teachings don’t quite make sense.

People leave for a lot of reasons. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re weak. Besides, doesn’t Sant Mat believe in karma? Or fate? Sometimes it’s just something people have to go through.

GSD can’t fully understand what other people experience because he isn’t that person and he isn’t walking in that person’s shoes. He only knows what he sees. Even when he looks into a persons eyes he doesn’t have time to see their entire life in a single glance. He can find a specific answer that he’s looking for but good God he’s not omniscient in the human form.

He sometimes has an abrupt manner so his words can be a little strong. If it bothers you then just take it with a pinch of salt. I don’t think he realizes how strong he comes across to Westerners. And he isn’t likely to put on kid gloves for anyone. I think it’s a personality thing. You resonate with some teachers more than others. Gurinder is more abrupt and has at times come across pretty harsh. I honestly think that the majority of the time he doesn’t realize it. Charan and Great Master were maybe gentler but they were also a great deal stricter. And that’s a pretty big deal. He laughs a lot more too.

So... 🤷‍♀️ (Here come a lot of “I” statements.)

Like I said I’ve been watching all these Bollywood films lately and now all of the sudden his way of communicating seems pretty normal... I mean it’s just very, very common for an Indian. It’s truly a cultural thing.

They don’t have crying rooms on University campuses for students in India. They don’t have emotional support animals. Even the most loving Indian mothers still beat the shit out of their kids. The way parents disciplined their kids in America during my generation and especially my parents and grandparents generations was much more severe. Now, a lot of the discipline we received as children is actually against the law.

I think we need to find balance somewhere. This PC culture was liberating at first but I find that it’s starting to go a bit overboard. Way overboard in certain cases.

I’m 100% in favor of being as diplomatic as possible. That’s just my personality when dealing with people I don’t know. But you also have to take into account another person’s background. Otherwise there will be culture clashes.

It was one sentence. And of all people I could easily take that personally but I honestly don’t even care if he thinks I’m weak because I know I’m not. I know my situation better than he does. And yet, I do meditate and I like GSD’s “version” of Sant Mat. I find certain things odd about the path—almost superstitious but honestly I just ignore those things now. I mean, I’ll talk about them when they come up but I’m still going to meditate.

I meditate because it keeps me off the streets...

"It was one sentence."


With all due respect, it was not one sentence. Gurinder Singh goes on at length to explain that leaving RSSB for any reason is inexcusable, and is due to

1) The mental weakness and moral cowardice of the satsangi.
2) A personal rejection of the satsangi by God, who "only takes those he wants to take"
3) The satsangi acting like a willful and rebellious child, for whom the Guru has created a "conducive atmosphere."
4) The satsangi was done in by the "weight of his karmic burden" (huh?)
5) The satsangis is taking "the easy way out." "Then he will have to bear the burden" (again, huh? Wasn't Guirinder just saying that it's a misconception to believe that a Guru can take anyone's karma or bear anyone's burden?)
6) The Guru cannot "study" for the satsangi. This is an ironic choice of words for Gurinder to use, for it's study of our experience of the path and the guru's bold claims that leads many satsangis to abandon RSSB.
7) It is an error for the apostate satsangi to "choose his own path." Gee, I thought that Gurinder taught that all spiritual paths can lead to salvation. Or so I've been told by fans of Gurinder.
8) "The Lord is going to give what he's going to give." Gurinder is supposed to be the Lord, so that's just doubletalk.
9) To the question of whether errant initiated satsangis "get another chance" to come back to the path: This question has been answered ad infinitum by previous gurus that the guru never leaves the initiate for all eternity and watches over him until he finally returns to God. But here Gurinder hedges and stops to think about the question as if he's never heard it before. He then goes on with a bit of philosophical gymnastics to argue that since the satsangis has issues with the Guru now (like, for questions of financial impropriety, false claims about possible meditation experiences, false claims about the salvific power of the shadb, false claims about RS history, false claims about the guru's power, false claims about the "law" of karma, disaffection with the guru's triumphalist claims for himself, etc), it follows that he may never come back to the path in future lives.

I find it curious that Gurinder equates initiation and RSSB's theological claims of the Guru's power and the power of initiation with "atmosphere." We're told before initiation that it and the guru have the actual power to hasten our spiritual development, but here this is downgraded to "atmosphere," which seems to portray the path as nothing more than theater. Gurinder also likens initiation to a meal (Gurus dearly love analogies, though an analogy is never an explanation for anything).

I've studied Guru controversies for over 30 years now, and I know this pattern all too well. Gurinder is simply using the same trick that every guru uses when questioned: He blames the person leaving the path for being a weak and spoiled child.

If I may be so bold: READ CLOSELY (or should I say listen closely, since Gurinder never writes anything down) when the Guru speaks. Is he really facing the questions put to him, or is he dodging them with rhetorical BS? As as ex member of a sant mat path, I've found that it's easy to still buy into the guru's arguments even after one leaves the path. But a close reading of the guru's words can show the evidence of his linguistic sleight of hand.

Never forget, everyone joins sant mat because they were SOLD on it through words. People join sant mat because of the argument sant mat makes. But that argument is a sales pitch, it's not a description of reality.

It's important to really look closely at gurus words to see if what he says actually makes sense. There are a lot of things that gurus say that seem like strong and reasonable arguments, but they're just piles of analogies that never address the question being asked them. This latest Gurinder video is an example of that


Well, on points 1-9 I disagree with Gurinder. However, I still enjoy my meditation. I don’t believe in GIHF. I think that’s the (for lack of a better word) superstitious-type beliefs in RS that I don’t buy into. I’m not saying he’s not “connected”. I know first hand that he has an immense amount of spiritual/psychic powers. I’ve seen numerous examples (but a miracle won’t sway you when you’re concerned about other issues in RS). However, God in the omniscient, omnipresent sense cannot be contained inside of a human body. That should be irrefutable.

He’s not perfect but he’s perfectly devoted. And I’m defending him on that point despite the fact that nothing I have done is understandable to him. I no longer expect him to see or understand everything. I don’t expect him to be “perfect” either. And quite honestly, if I didn’t get a sense of purpose and feel a connection to the divine when I sit, then I wouldn’t do that either. I’m just being as objectively honest as I can be from my experience. I’m not judging anyone else’s experiences or beliefs.

Anyway... life is a journey.

Actually, it’s not so much I don’t agree with him on points 1-9, I just would have said it differently... and left out a bunch of it.

But I’m not a guru and I don’t belief in GIHF in the sense that Satsangis do. And right or wrong I am certain he’s 100% devoted to his path. That doesn’t make him “perfect” though. It won’t make any of us “perfect”. Perfection is a stupid word. There’s no way to make sense of perfection in this world.

Hi j - challenging comment re the recent GSD Q&A session. I looked at a few of the new youtube clips and it’s interesting to see GSD doing his thing again. I wonder about the timing - suddenly after all these years official video is now put up for all to see. One part of me thinks it’s in response to limitations imposed by Covid 19 etc. A cynical part considers it to be more of a PR campaign to get better press and garner support.

Most of what you write I agree with, though I think you embellish things a bit when using words such as ‘inexcusable’ and ‘moral cowardice’ - I don’t recall seeing/hearing these terms in the play through. Also you add in a substantial list of reasons why a so called ‘marked soul’ would leave the path, which of course GSD does not consider.

I agree with you that people need to read what’s being said very closely and it’s good that we can do just that now, even though ‘direct quoting’ is a no no, though paraphrasing is ok (another seemingly non-sensical rule passed on from the RSSB management).

In regards to the ‘path’ I would say many of us who have/had a long association with Sant Mat/RSSB teachings and way of life can’t really just ditch it, given our many years of association and because we’re still evolving and exploring ways and means to get a better handle on what life/death/truth is. So we are on this ‘path’ and Sant Mat did and possibly still does provide us direction and guidance on the way. Just like the time and energy given to your critique of the GSD dialogue - it’s good for folk who can think for themselves and have open minds to read it. Perhaps there’s truth to what Karim said recently after his discussion with a satsangi who was aware of Brian (June 9) …….’Brian was perhaps more dedicated to the Path than any other satsangi he knew of. So I [Karim]wanted to add that what the guy said about Brian may also be true about all the ex-ers here’.

Returning to the dialogue, it is my view that the seemingly unquestioned blind belief of the questioner in the segment of the Q&A is part of the problem. I’m judging the fellow by thinking he’s automatically assumed there is such a thing called ‘marked souls’ (which by the way I always had a problem with). GSD goes along with the conversation and continues the standard story about 4 lifetimes/karma/next births etc, all things that I now believe are essentially dogma. It’s my opinion that GSD confuses and possibly contradicts such dogma in a previous Q&A. In the 002 session he says at 3.30 - ‘Your real being is not your body but your soul’.
To me ‘Real being’ = truth of what you are, your essence, that which does not change. How can such a thing be affected by karma?

Thanks for your input j
Best wishes

Tim, thanks for your thoughtful reply. For what it's worth, some clarification on why I found Gurinder's comments ‘inexcusable’ and ‘moral cowardice."

The living sant mat guru is one of the foundations of sant mat teachings (along with satsang and shabd). But Gurinder refers to the path as if he were a PR spokesman for the RSSB corporation. He's completely detaching himself from everything RSSB literature says about the promises of the path - - central to which are the promises of the sant mat guru's alleged incomparable power, knowledge, and ontological identity as the human embodiment of the highest god.

in connection with that identity, we're told that the living sant mat guru has the ability to discern who is fit to be initiated. But when questioned as to why the Guru apparently failed to pick faithful satsangis, Gurinder puts all blame on the satsangis for being "weak," rejected by God, taking the easy way out, overcome by the weight of their karmas, not studying enough, and acting like wayward children.

Gurinder should have said, "Look, I have no ability to know who's going to stay on the path, and I don't presume to question anyone's decision to leave the path." Instead, Gurinder puts 100% of the blame on the Satsangi.

I'm not an RSSB satsangi, and these videos are really my first exposure to hearing Gurinder's views. For a long time, I sided against Charan satsangis who said they found Gurinder hard to stomach. I argued that from everything that I've heard, Gurinder seems to be teaching the very same sant mat that Charan taught.
I don't believe that any longer. I approached these Gurinder videos with an open mind and at first, was impressed by his apparently open demeanor. But now I have to agree with the Professor and others who told me they found something "off" about Gurinder. I'm pretty familiar with all the RSSB writings and recorded talks, but I can't think of any instance where Sawan or Charan ever said that people leave sant mat because they're "so weak."

Gurinder is supposed to be sant mat guru 2.0, the really openminded and modern guru who has a wonderfully liberal interpretation on the teachings of his predecessors. But here he calling ex-satsangis weak children who leave RSSB for any reason.

Any religious leader who calls apostates "weak" gets a thumbs down from me.

Hi j

Again I’m pretty much on the same page in regard to your clarification comments. What’s interesting and confusing in all this is that the Sant Mat Guru 2/3 teachings (as often discussed by Osho et al, as well as his [Osho’s] own interpretations of interactions and discourse with GSD) are more in accord with my own experience as it has evolved over the years. So for the majority of time GSD is peddling the standard party line, but now and again offers something ‘refreshing’ and ‘modern’ possibly simpler, and more to the point without the dogma. I believe an example of this in regard to the teachings is the recent book ‘From self to Shabd’. However, further confusion is created by GSD’s apparent shady financial dealings - that many would think is not the behaviour of a true Sant Mat Master. So WTF?
I assume the Professor you’re referring to is David Lane? Also am I to assume you are initiated into another line of Sant Mat or some close relative and that you have spent a lot of time with RSSB followers over the years? I appreciate what you write but If you’re not RSSB initiated why such a beef with GSD?


Brian wrote: “I used to think that the reason for the injunction against revealing inner experiences was that if you had a profound experience and talked about it, other people would start looking upon you as a divine being. This could inflate your ego...
However, that reasoning doesn’t make sense to me anymore...”

.. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. ..

I think there are numerous very good reasons to discourage people belonging to a church or group from divulging 'inner experiences'. I think those reasons apply whether they are following surat shabd yoga or any other meditation technique.

In support of that I offer this personal anecdote. I was first introduced to the RS Beas version of Sant Mat philosophy in 1979. I thought I would do some investigation and tried to look it up in the library, but I could only find reference to Prem Rawat (Guru Maharaji) and the Divine Light Mission. Their teachings seemed extremely similar if not identical to my neophyte understanding of RS Beas. So I was intrigued. I thought: “Wow. There is more than just the one 'Perfect Master' on the planet at this time!”
Somehow — this was years before the internet — I later managed to discover that there was a 'satsang' held in my town where 'premies' would gather every week.
So I thought I would go along, suspecting it would be similar or identical to the RS Beas satsangs I had recently started attending in three different towns (I travelled about then).
Boy, was I wrong.
For the first fifteen minutes after my arrival at the gathering, the person whose house it was just interrogated me. First as to how I had found out about them and their 'satsang' meetings. When I explained, he then questioned me quite dismissively about what this 'other' satsang group and Master was. As more people arrived they sat around and watched the interrogation inquisitively. After fifteen minutes of that I enquired when the 'satsang' would begin. I was told it already had: whenever they gather in remembrance of the Master that is 'satsang'. So then I asked if they don't have anybody who speaks or who explains the teachings, I received the reply: ‘Nah. Whoever feels like speaking can speak'. Then — I presume because of my question — somebody ventured to speak. This premi just talked about how 'blissed' and elevated they felt, with much of that being projected on to ‘GoomRajee’ who they talked about in rapturous terms.
Then somebody else talked about THEIR feelings of bliss and of being 'saved'.
Finally a third person did the same thing.
It felt like each person was trying to out-bliss the description of the previous person.
It also felt like it was being said to impress me, the 'visitor'.
And my main impression was what they were describing seemed to me to be wish-fulfillment rather than their actual reality. In other words it seemed to me to be contrived, egocentric and self-delusional.

I describe that experience of a 'Divine Light' home satsang in 1979 because I presume that when any group has an unspoken criteria of the measure of who in the congregation is ‘spiritual’ or 'close to God' or 'devout’ or 'advanced' is decided by outward signs or claims, that will encourage behaviour similar to that which I witnessed with the 'premies'.

I surmise that a variety of this aspect of human nature is what propelled what became the 'shaker' movement: more and more people felt the need — whether consciously or subconsciously — to display such behaviour in order to feel a part of, and respected, within the group.

I suspect that some similar kind of delusional, collective behaviour will become common with any 'gathering' of people following any religion or teacher which encourages and even reveres self-aggrandising discussions of personal advancement.

I have been around a fair few movements that practice a meditation technique — buddhist, hindu, christian, sufi — and none of them encouraged people to discuss their meditation results with each other.

If you experience happiness in meditation, that's a real miracle. The most important one. Having a source of happiness within you competes with other attachments and addictions, and that's good. You can use the pleasure of a good habit to help wear away a bad one.

People use the physical and emotional pleasure of work, athletics, exercise, solving difficult issues, creative art, to help replace and wear away bad habits. Meditation is a refined and completely portable version of that. You can get better at it. And meditation is loving something wonderful within yourself. You find that while you think you are doing the loving, you are actually being loved. You are experiencing that love, from somewhere, from someone, from something, as you put forth effort at love and devotion.

When that love becomes unexpectedly intense, at unpredicted moments, because your meditation is getting better and more peaceful, you have your treasure. Call it a miracle, call it brain physiology. It is your treasure and you are uncovering and developing it.

Your effort could not have even begun to compete with your distractions and addictions had you not tasted that love first. So, it's there. Waiting to be developed.

That is the miracle. Don't discount it. It's scientific to evaluate experience, and to refine it, not to dismiss it.

It's just as important for people to share their experiences as it is for people to share their opinions.

"I saw God!"

" You are delusional."

Both can be wrong, and right. Don't hold back. Just share with respect. Share what you have.

No one should censor anyone. Just take it however you like.

At some point other people can take an objective view.

If you are encouraged to share wild fantasies, or you are encouraged to share your experiences in enough detail for scientific scrutiny, you will get different disclosures. If you are asked to share to help identify the reality behind your interpretation, that's very good. It's science. That will help everyone view their own thinking and experience much more carefully.

Take a scientific approach. There is nothing to be afraid of. More to be feared living in the dark, with either fantasy, or cynical judgments, neither of which move us closer unless we can lovingly, patiently, objectively, scrutinize and test.

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.