RSSB guru vents his anger, but says no one else should

Ah, the hypocrisy of so-called "spiritual" leaders. The rules don't apply to them, only to everybody else. I love pointing out how absurd this is.

Here's an example.

The guru of an India-based religious organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), is featured in You Tube videos where his devotees ask questions and get answers.

Not good answers. Not reasonable answers. But answers, which sometimes are wildly hypocritical. I don't watch the videos, since I don't enjoy being exposed to religious mumbo-jumbo.

However, a commenter on one of my blog posts recently shared a link to a video where the RSSB guru, Gurinder Singh Dhillon, answered a question a woman had about anger.

You can see this exchange in the video below, which I've made start a few seconds before the woman's anger question. I'm also sharing a written transcript.

Note that Dhillon interrupts the woman when she starts to explain what leads her to get angry. So we don't know whether someone is abusing her, whether she is upset about an injustice, or if there is some other reasonable justification for her anger.

Astoundingly, Dhillon then tells the woman there is never a circumstance that justifies anger. Oh, that isn't correct -- because right after that the guru says that he often gets angry, at everyone. 

How does Dhillon justify this? By saying there is a purpose behind his anger, while supposedly there is no purpose behind the woman getting angry.

Of course, he interrupted her before she could explain what causes her to lose her temper. But whatever it is, the guru tells her not to be angry, but to be more loving. 

Meanwhile, the guru can continue being angry with everyone, because his anger supposedly has a purpose.

That's astoundingly egotistical and self-centered, since the woman may have a better reason to be angry than the guru does. Fortunately, the woman doesn't promise to only be loving, since anger sometimes is justified.

Lesson is, don't take the advice of a guru. They often have less understanding of psychology and mental health than the average person.

Here's the interchange.

Woman: Okay, Baba Ji, my next question is that I get very angry, and then when my anger crosses a certain limit, I cannot control it. So when I lose my temper, what should I do to calm down?

Dhillon: Should I get angry with you?

Woman: No.

Dhillon: So then why do you get angry with anyone?

Woman: Sometimes circumstances...

Dhillon: No, there is no such circumstance. What you can achieve with love never can be achieved with anger. It is true. I often vent my anger on everyone, but there's a purpose behind it. Now there's no purpose behind you losing your temper. And you see, most of the time, we take our anger out on our parents. If we take it out on anyone else, they will shout right back at us. We know that our parents will not say anything to us. So that is why we should be even more loving. Now promise me, "In future, I will only be loving."

Woman: You have a beautiful smile.

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian Ji
I agree with Baba Ji on this point -: Love can accomplish far more progress than anger.

It might have been nice had he acknowledged that anger is something he is working on also. Rather than trying to justify himself. That's not a good role model for people who have anger issues.

But I think you also make a great point that if she were being violated, anger may be her only self - defense.

Brian Ji, in all sincerity, how would you respond to the young girl? What advice would you give her?

And to those who have a problem with anger and struggle with it, what would your advice be?

[Dungeness]

@ Meanwhile, the guru can continue being angry with everyone, because
@ his anger supposedly has a purpose.

But how utterly ludicrous is the notion that GSD loses control,
turns apoplectic, and goes off on some hapless zombie of a
believer. After decades of stage acting in the public bubble,
wouldn't someone or even scores of sheep with a semblance
of backbone have busted him by now. Or written personal
memoirs detailing his inhumanity, leaked audio recordings of
of high decibel rants, exposed sexual improprieties, published
accounts of familial abuse, litigated criminality, etc

No. But observers rightfully cite the case of GSD's humiliating,
public rebuke of an insider ( Sita?). No apologist's spin will
soften it either. If it occurred per reports, I agree with her
actions. GSD's remarks hurtful and inappropriate and her
reaction was justified.

But is there a definitive pattern of real anger, of incoherent
rants, of breakdowns, of random cruelty and havoc by GSD?
No. That deluge comes from the projections of those critics
with agendas. Those ready to inflate their perceptions of GSD's
errors into indictments of RSSB. To scapegoat their own failings.
To demand that a stage actor behave, never like themselves,
but more like some fabled notion of God himself: in white robes
gathering innocent, lily-white souls in a circle, never fault finding,
oozing sweetness, dispensing tea and cookies.

[s*]

Dear Dungeness,
What means the word apoplectic?In dutch itś apoplectisch but I do not recognise what it means.
You asks me about ´what´ actually..?
I mean I have a lot to tell about a lot of things..about being on the Santmat path.
But it is not so easy..

The path for me is not ´The Master´ anymore for long time now..before it was very much so..I loved Maharaji deeply..
So I can´t tell.., its too complicated but a whole lot of what I have gone trough..
I can tell you that..!!!
I am happy to live freely in my own ´owned´ way..
I like even to go to satsang and listen to shabs singing (what I love) I dońt understand what the words mean..
I love devotional atmosphere..Not to someone,but to Love..
Actually I would like to tell my story,but I think it is too complicated..soo..
I go and see/listen the newest video now..
Thanks Dungeness.

[s*]

Babaji was also loved by me..
I can sometimes still listen to him with....interest..
I don´t know now what to think of him so..I do not think anymore.
It has been too complicated.We´ll see what happens..

How must Nimmi feel about her nephew..now..??
When Gotwani was his best friend??
And the two boys his nephews who looked up to him???

I like to talk with people when there is something in between us,to look how to go further..
But that is not possible with a Guru with too much diciples and too far away.
What is a teacher for?? when one can´t go near and just communicate also in privat in a relaxed way??
So.. there is a good healthy distance about the whole situation..
Detachment is a good solution.
I am not really detached from ´my´ sangat here..sort of family..
I was 19 when I started and now 74 in oct..soo yeahh..

[Dungeness]

@ What means the word apoplectic?In dutch itś apoplectisch but I do
@ not recognise what it means.

Hi s*, Apoplexy is a condition of extreme rage. Imagine an
old newsreel of Hitler screaming.

@ The path for me is not ´The Master´ anymore for long time now..
@ before it was very much so..I loved Maharaji deeply..

Agreed. The path is what you love even if some master's
words may not resonate. Some here say GSD acts a bit
like a fascist in discussing his own anger but I think there's
an underlying love in his intent.

[Um]

@ Dungeness

Underlying .....

It can be it need not and for those to whom it is not accessible if it is there what remains are just the cultural standards for public behaviour.

I don't say he is a mystic but he is seen as such by his followers.

For the devout and obedient citizens of Jerusalem in the days of Jesus, he was an heretic and guilty of lese majesty ... so he was hanged with the sentence over his head INRI.

If religion is not or no longer your cup of tea what remains are the cultural standards.
But what he does will not solve the questions related to his spiritual status.
And ... that is how it should be.

[I]

Oh, of course. And when I say Gurinder is a selfish, egomaniacal thieving, murdering womanizer, I mean that with loving intent as well.

It’s all a matter of perspective.

One man’s pleasure is another man’s poison.

[Spence Tepper]

Look everyone, we all have a role to play here. Gurinder must play the role of a traditional Hindu male who is also a spiritual teacher, born into a wealthy family connected to business and spirituality. He must carry the prejudices of that culture and his role, and the type A personality associated with it, just as each of us carry our own personas.

When he says love accomplishes more than hate, I believe that. That is very noble. The fact that he doesn't live up to it is normal. Who does? None of us live up to an ideal, that is why we are all striving for ideals, because we are trying to get there, but aren't there yet. Gurinder is no different than you and I, and that includes occasionally being short tempered, and, like any normal male, or female, making excuses for it. And yes, telling others not to be angry. Very common will intended but humanly flawed behavior.

Regardless of the magical reasons people attribute, he must behave not merely like a normal person, but fully as a normal person. And in that regard he's meeting the standard. A normal person with high spiritual ideals and teachings, and a few ambitious business goals as well, and his share of blind spots.

Don't hold him to a higher standard than you hold yourself. That's being hypocritical too. And unrealistic. So what if other people think he's God, now you have to blame him because he isn't? When you don't actually believe it anyway? Puleeze.

He can only be a human being here, just like the rest of us.

But there is the hope that we can be more, at least within ourselves.

Therefore his overt level of compassion, as a male in his sixties, is going to be limited to that.

Why would you expect anything else?

I think what's more important than throwing shade at someone who is simply living as a normal, flawed, human being, is what the better answer would be.

What would have been a better answers to the girl?

Let the one who isn't a hypocrite offer their own example.

[Dungeness]

@ Oh, of course. And when I say Gurinder is a selfish, egomaniacal thieving,
@ murdering womanizer, I mean that with loving intent as well.

Hang the S.O.B. you say? Well, why the hell not!? Yes, I'm sure
your assessment is based on the strictest judicial criteria. The
rabble has spoken. Get a rope!

[Brian Hines]

Spence, I would have told the woman that sometimes anger is completely justified. It's a natural human emotion. If I saw someone hitting a child, or a dog, or a woman who couldn't defend herself, I'd get angry. Then I'd do my best to stop that person.

Anger is a motivation to act. Of course, I'd also tell the woman that sometimes anger isn't justified. So whenever possible it is good to take some deep breaths and pause before expressing our anger -- an exception being, as in the example above, when there is no time to pause before taking action.

One thing I'm sure about is that repressing anger or any other emotion isn't the way to go. Repression doesn't stop an emotion. It just drives it underground. That's why I found Gurinder's advice to the woman to be wrong, aside from the hypocrisy he exhibited by admitting he often gets angry himself.

I believe in the mindfulness approach to emotions. Be more aware of them. Don't repress them. Recognize them as passing ships in the ocean of our consciousness. Anger arises. Then it passes away. Fixating on anger, or any other supposedly negative emotion, by trying to keep it under wraps only makes it more likely that it will burst out later in an uncontrolled fashion.

How many times have we seen religious leaders rail against the evil of homosexuality, then it turns out they were a closeted homosexual? Lots. The analogy isn't perfect, but this is somewhat similar to those who try to stop themselves from becoming angry. Instead, they may become irritable, sarcastic, hard to live with. It'd be better if they just were honestly angry, then moved on from that passing emotion.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian Ji
Thank you. That was wise and kind beyond words.

You gave an answer we should all follow.

Thank you.

[Dungeness]

@ I believe in the mindfulness approach to emotions. Be more aware of
@ them Don't repress them. Recognize them as passing ships in the
@ ocean of our consciousness. Anger arises. Then it passes away.

Brian, I don't think GSD was advising her to repress emotions.
The "don't get angry" or "throw it out" response is suggestive
the questioner is a follower or actively following the practice
rather than a newcomer. Other mystics' advice mirrors GSD's.

It's been repeated countless times. The books are full of the
identical Q&A. They rarely delve into full detail or expansive
discussions of mindfulness/simran. The practice is what's key.

GSD's words were oft-repeated aspirational reminders of the
power of mystic practice. All mystics say "Let anger rise. If the
simran is focused, you'll deal effortlessly with angry thoughts
as they bubble up. What you become aware of loses its
headlock on your peace of mind.

Angry thoughts become "passing ships". Mere blips that don't
escalate to outward embarrassments or obsessional "back-
and-forth" head dialogues. Instead you laugh it off.

[Um]

There is no need to become angry in order to act and correct.

Psychiatrists, priests, mystics, and people with other than professional agenda´s, will look upon anger as they deem fit.

If we cannot life up to our own ideals, if people do have them, why should others and why should they lif up to the ideals we have set for them.?

Ideals, expectations, desires .... changes for the better ... what misery does it bring, has it brought and will bring?!.

In order to suppress anger one first has to create it .....
What is anger all about ???
What foes it tell a person about his relation with the world?

Kings and supposed kings get angry

[Samael]

GSD has told people on numerous occasions that if they’re being attacked they should certainly defend and protect themselves and those around them. He just says not to be the one starting fights or attacking others. That’s Spirituality 101. He’s not Gandhi.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Dungeness
Unfortunately, Gurinder told her that her anger was unjustified and his was justified.

To a Hindu woman that will mean something else than to a western mind.

But maybe it means the same thing.

Unfortunately people in power tend to justify the same behavior they judge harshly in their subordinates. That's true universally, here and in India.

Brian ji gave the higher teaching. Universal. No justification in even the smallest letter.

A rule that applies universally and equally to all, including himself.

A teaching that encourages contemplation and meditation without laying on guilt. Without value judgment. Because guilt is a control tactic. Guilt set by others is a form of brainwashing.

Brian ji gets to whatever truth Baba Ji was eluding to, but he gets there without the flawed baggage of ego and self - justification.

Comparing the two responses paints a whole different picture. Something more pristine which Brian Ji has given us that gains clarity and strength comparing the two side by side.

[Meditator]

What do we expect from a Mystic of perfect order on mundane worldly issues when He has shrouded himself in controversies related to very worldly subjects He is often asked to clarify in Q & A.

Ideally He answers what is perfectly ideal than what is always practical. Any deviation from same would lead to unsavory consequences and thats what He suggests.

Hair splitting on His take on certain worldly issues can only lead to distrust in Him for in fact that is not entrusted to Him by His esteemed Predecessors. In fact its not His cup of tea but is compelled to comment.

[manoj]

Oh, of course. And when I say Gurinder is a selfish, egomaniacal thieving, murdering womanizer, I mean that with loving intent as well.
well said I

So True GSD is such a hypocrite, lies out of his teeth blindly. A little angry man with a low iQ. Loves to tell others what to do and how to live life. Whilst his own is a bloody disaster. What a pathetic example. shameful behavior from a fake baba

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

What a pathetic example. shameful behavior from a fake baba

Posted by: manoj | August 22, 2020 at 01:30 PM

And what is a REAL baba, baba manoj?

Come & teach me better way to Supreme Sublime Existence.

Sant Mat ('1.0') even states as follows, "If someone can lead unto a Higher Path, then I must follow.."

[Dungeness]

GSD: "I often vent my anger on everyone, but there's a purpose behind it. Now there's no purpose behind you losing your temper."

@ Unfortunately, Gurinder told her that her anger was unjustified and his was @ justified. To a Hindu woman that will mean something else than to a
@ western mind.

Hi Spence,

Actually, I only amplified that GSD was not suggesting we
repress the natural anger that wells up. Nowhere does he
say for instance "Don't process your anger internally and,
above all, bite your tongue and take it without a whimper
like a good little Hindu/Sikh girl or boy should."

GSD ends the conversational exchange re: getting angry
with "What you can achieve with love never can be achieved
with anger." It's clear to me that he was talking about an
outward event, "venting", a "drama queen" display of anger.

That's why he followed up with an example: "We take our anger
out on our parents. If we take it out on anyone else, they will shout
right back at us. We know that our parents will not say anything
to us."

So, however angry we are, the venting won't have any agency.
You get a shout back or maybe even a hurt silence from someone
we love. In this case, likely her parents.

When he admits "venting on everybody", he effectively is saying
"Yes. I get angry too but I process it internally and make a show
of anger for a specific purpose appropriate to the time and
circumstance".

Of course, his reward is to be lambasted for his hypocrisy. It's
said that Great Master once hit Maharaji with his cane after he
found him sleeping during seva. Can you imagine the kerfuffle
that'd arise if GSD did anything similar now? Malvinder's lawyer
would re-lodge his "death threat" complaint to cite GSD's clear
pattern of violence.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Dungeness
The problem about discussing anyone is that our feelings about them can get in the way.

Brian Ji uses the context of Baba Ji to actually help us deal with a greater truth, which is accepting who we are, and in his comments above the legitimate place anger can have in that.

Baba Ji gives himself permission to be angry for appropriate reasons, but not the woman. Nowhere did he give her that latitude. The hypocrisy Brian ji points to is not that Baba Ji gets mad. It is that he will not allow others to accept it as a natural part of life within themselves, always appropriate to learn from, and even on occasion appropriate to express to others.

And Brian Ji doesn't presume the woman's condition nor judge it. He discusses anger, where it is appropriate and inappropriate, and how to deal with it with acceptance, love, and gentle opening up; how to see it, even how to help it move naturally and harmlessly through us, by understanding and accepting, and to even understand that there is some truth there at some level for us to understand.

Baba Ji did none of those things. His discussion was the girl and what she should or shouldn't do.

That's a much more limited view.

It is clear to me Brian Ji has taken the philosophy of Sant Mat in particular the morality, and raised it to an entirely higher, more natural, peaceful and balanced place.

That's of real benefit. That's the gold here.

Baba Ji's comments are hardly worth ruminating on or defending, or even attacking, when we have some real food from Brian ji worthy of our attention, contemplation and digestion.

[Samael]

GSD also said no one scared him more than his wife. She was the one person who could make him quiver from fear. That shows that he doesn’t realistically expect someone to never get angry. He also sang a song to her in front of everyone, ‘Wind Beneath my Wings’. Definitely shouldn’t take everything he says literally.

[Dungeness]

@ Baba Ji's comments are hardly worth ruminating on or defending, or
@ even attacking, when we have some real food from Brian ji worthy of
@ our attention, contemplation and digestion.

I take your point. Brian Ji's comments are helpful particularly if
GSD's responses are seen as peremptory, hypocritical, or self-
centered. There's a bit of doubt about whether he cut off her
explanation however. If her voice trailed off as the transcript
shows, she was likely loath to discuss details of a private and
potentially embarrassing incident. I think that's more likely.
I've already commented on the hypocrisy.

But, I disagree Babi Ji's comments were not food for thought.
Her explicit question to Babi Ji was what to do to "calm down".
Baba Ji's remarks were appropriately about dealing with anger.

"Should I get angry with you" he asks. It's clearly unacceptable.
"What can be achieved with love can never be achieved with
anger." he adds. The tenor of his remarks was aspirational and
uplifting. Unfortunately, the mind leaps into the fray, ignores
the gist of his words, and launches a critique after visualizing a
gazillion hypocritical seeming put-downs by authority figures.

The real problem is that we're besieged by the mind, its knee-
jerk judgments, its distractability, its ultimate control over our
thoughts and actions including angry tantrums. The remedies
are there. The problem of the mind isn't solved with style
critiques or post-interview analyses including this one.
However elegant and helpful, they are side-shows.

[anami]

Flag on the play. Self-referencing. 15 yard penalty. Repeat of down.

[manoj]

And what is a REAL baba, baba manoj?
Karim.w.rahman

You call Cow dung, "Cow dung" not anything else.
Sorry if I burst your bubble, a wake up call perhaps

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Dungeness
The solution to the issue of anger isn't whether we should or should not get angry. Baba ji addressed the words the woman asked but not her question. Nor did he address what she said about her own experience.

And then he baits her by saying "should I get angry with you??" This is actually expressing anger inappropriately towards her. She touched a nerve in his own anger issues.

Perhaps that is his approach. But it doesn't offer a real answer. Should I hit you?

It's the wrong thing for a man to say to a woman, or another man.

This isn't about Baba Ji. Until he makes it about himself. He doesn't do it consciously. Understand the context. Everyone knows Baba Ji has anger issues. It's the gorilla in the room. Has been for decades. This woman is basically responding in kind with her question : 'I lose control and get angry too, is that ok?'.

On one level she is asking for help. On another, she is reflecting the fact that Baba ji also behaves this way, and she is mirroring this truth. She is Baba Ji's own anger, returning to him through the sangat he gets angry with. This is why he says it's ok for him to get angry but not her. This is his own defense mechanism. That's why he actually gets angry, "should I get angry with you??" It's a rhetorical question expressing anger.

Truth is not a matter of what one should or should not feel. And telling ourselves I should or should not feel that emotion can make things worse. In fact this is the problem the woman raises. Too much of that, and so she loses control. But Baba ji can only offer more of the same. He doesn't deal with the issue of control and I suspect it is because his persona has little when it comes to anger.

The real question this woman raised, has to do with her admission when she says sometimes she can't control it. That is the real need.

And Brian Ji addresses it lovingly.

And so those such as yourself who feel compelled to defend Baba Ji's every word, understandably to defend their own peace of mind, are left having to maneuver through gaps and around barriers and apparent errors and statements that might normally make the situation worse, by promoting more of what actually created the problem. That's going to happen because Baba ji shares this problem.

But consider my initial comment please. Baba ji must, for all intent and purpose, either because this is his condition or his choice, live as an Indian male in his sixties with an interest in spirituality and business, limited in his opinions to those of a human being and all the cultural bound biases of such a life. Neither he nor you or I are free to live outside that boundary here. He must and will make mistakes and misunderstandings. He will have a view informed by his upbringing and experience, and that will include occasionally getting angry and giving bad advice.

It appears he tried to be compassionate and helpful, but Brian Ji simply hit upon a deeper truth without the need to engage in " should or shouldn't" with this woman, or even to judge her in any way.

Part of the magical thinking in Sant Mat is that the master knows all and when you ask him a question he is addressing you, not the question. People who ask such questions of him look for confirmation he magically knows them personally. But the downside of this is that he is compelled by the role to judge them in order to continue the myth, even subtly, that the Master is omniscient. People think they seek the ultimate judgment and hope it is a positive one. That only happens when the question is actually a scripted statement of obescience and obedience.

It's not difficult to fall into the trap of judging someone when they ask for advice. But under these circumstances it is ritualized. And that gets in the way of being helpful.

But as I said, Brian Ji doesn't go anywhere near there with his answer.

Brian ji addressed the actual issue. We can't make anger disappear saying we shouldn't "be" angry. We are what we are, and there is nothing should or shouldn't about it.

To be observant of one's own thoughts, to try to let the anger have its voice within us, not to repress it, but to calmly see and hear and learn what it is trying to tell us, which is what her question really aludes to, is a way to see the truth. And that truth may be important information. In any case the very process allows different parts of ourselves to integrate through growing awareness understanding and acceptance.

This is the answer and it's far more important than trying to invent some justification or attempt to say that Baba ji was trying to also go here.

That's unimportant, Dungeness. What matters is that we can listen to the nagging discomforting voices and learn from them, rather than fighting with them, pushing them into a closet where they still live and can hurt us and others.

Repression, as Brian Ji points out, doesn't remove the problem. "I should not get angry" is repression. It is simply pushing parts of ourselves in a closet where that part can grow in the darkness into something harmful, until we have no control over it, and then it takes over and causes damage. Or where its influence is subtle and we become snarky and unloving to others but completely unaware of it.

Brian Ji offered the best answer. He offered a real answer. And there was only truth in it. And he offered the answer not as a Master, but just as another human being who must deal with the same things. That's what a true Master does.

[Suspensable Temper]

Spence for fook sake..
you so annoying
with this BrianJi.
Hes Brian not Brian Ji
B. R. i. A. N.

[um]

@ Manoj

That is correct ... cow dung is just what it is, but the meaning it has, depends on the user.
The farmer, will think about it different than well to do city dwellers.

What meaning people attribute to things and people, the buble they live in, cannot be changes from outside.

The manoj's around jamun did whatever they could to convince their friend that he had made the wrong choice ... he smiled .... friends, you should see her through my eyes.

Obvious you miss those eyes looking at things related to religion in general and rssb in particular.
Not a great problem ... you always can enjoy your cup of tea.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Suspensable.

If you are not Brian, what's it to you?

I think it fits perfectly.

[manoj]

@ um
I see you have a love for cow dung, each to they're own. Stop weaving a load of worded crap and carry on clowing with the clowns, whoops GSD. Enjoy you're time at the Circus.
I.T

[um]

@ Manoj

When you go to bed and brush your teeth, if you still have some, look in the mirror and speak out loudly .... Stop weaving a load of worded crap and carry on clowing with the clowns, whoops GSD. Enjoy you're time at the Circus.

You will be surprised at what you will see.

[Dragon slayer]

It's totally shameful how this crook is able to get away with being a total hypocrite and manipulating and controlling the emotions and behaviour of the sangat. This bent guru will be angry only because he is being exposed for what he is, which is a total fraud and a Charlatan . He doesn't want his sangat to be angry only because when they do finally wake up from their deep sleep they will be shocked and may want a balancing of the scales. Karma is a bitch and it will catch up with this fraudster.

[Dungeness]

@ And so those such as yourself who feel compelled to defend Baba Ji's
@ every word, understandably to defend their own peace of mind, are left
@ having to maneuver through gaps and around barriers and apparent
@ errors and statements that might normally make the situation worse, by
@ promoting more of what actually created the problem. That's going to
@ happen because Baba ji shares this problem.

I disagree with much of what you say. But far more insidious
is the patronizing rant-like tone and now your attempt to
personalize a smear at someone with a different opinion, eg,
"such as yourself who feel compelled to defend Baba Ji's
every word...understandably to defend their own peace of
mind". Wow, there's even some psycho-babble thrown in
to help me feel better about my compulsion.

For the record, I respect much of Brian Ji's commentary,
especially, as I noted, for those who took his remarks as
peremptory, hypocritical, or self-centered. But, I think the
tendency to project our own wounds and then overreach
with armchair psychoanalysis is there too. Just as perilous is
our tendency to ignore the desperate vital struggle with the
mind's power over us. That's the Guru's primary concern.
It should be ours too in my opinion.

Also for the record, I feel no such compulsion to defend
Baba Ji's every word. A softer approach would have been
better in my opinion too. He even admitted his own anger
but for effect (tough love) and implicitly didn't lose control.
To assume it was total hypocrisy on his part says more about
the accuser than the accused.

His tenor was aspirational, certainly not demeaning, or
condemning, or dismissive. The emphasis was on love, not
anger. Hearing what we want to hear, seeing it too, works
both ways.

By the way, as for blind acceptance of every word and
action, I simply ask for a court's actionable, evidentiary trail
before hurling the charge of greed, murder threats, financial
misconduct. In other words, a clear-eyed factual approach,
rather than a "verdict by blog". Or before pronouncing
summary judgment that "He's a thief" as you've stated on at
least one occasion.

[Samael]

Suspensable Temper, I think you may have misspelled your own name.

It’s S. U. S. P. E. N. S. i. B. L. E.

Honestly, you can spell your name however you want (Dungeness does). I just thought it was funny.

[Looney Tunes]

In the video before or after this particular one, it starts off with a questioner asking him about Miracles. And GSD defines miracles as something that violates nature. Not sure I understand what he’s trying to say there. However, I think walking through walls, projecting yourself in near and far away places, making yourself invisible to a crowd, possessing someone temporarily (seriously, what is that about?), reading people’s minds... those kinds of things are sorta violating the laws of nature.

[s*]

I believe in the mindfulness approach to emotions. Be more aware of them. Don't repress them. Recognize them as passing ships in the ocean of our consciousness. Anger arises. Then it passes away. Fixating on anger, or any other supposedly negative emotion, by trying to keep it under wraps only makes it more likely that it will burst out later in an uncontrolled fashion.
Brian..

Yes So I see it too..
Itś good to see, look, and undergo what is there inside ourselves.
Then one can see for what it is..
Also how one can go along with what happens inside ..
Itś interesting..
:0)

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Dungeness
The point of love is keeping the inner child alive and well.

Baba Ji serves that role quite nicely. No criticism there.

We all should do that. So if you feel I've been harsh let me be the first to apologize.

As for Baba Ji himself, so long as the kids get along in their play and don't break anything I think he's fine. Even cops and robbers, superheroes and villains is fine so long as the inner child is well.

[Samael]

It's totally shameful how this crook is able to get away with being a total hypocrite and manipulating and controlling the emotions and behaviour of the sangat. This bent guru will be angry only because he is being exposed for what he is, which is a total fraud and a Charlatan . He doesn't want his sangat to be angry only because when they do finally wake up from their deep sleep they will be shocked and may want a balancing of the scales. Karma is a bitch and it will catch up with this fraudster.

Posted by: Dragon slayer | August 23, 2020 at 04:20 PM

Karma isn’t a bitch. Karma is a bad husband. Some people get pleasure from pain. Sadomasochism. Both parties are at fault or maybe both parties are enjoying the game.

Are you being fooled or do you enjoy being fooled? Hard to say.

[Samael]

It’s not always a masochist thing. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151001-why-pain-feels-good

Self pity can be addictive. Anger is addictive. Denial is addictive. Who should we blame.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, well, maybe I like it.

[manoj]

@um

Looks like going to the Circus (GSD satsangs) has left you acting like the top dog clown. That place is rightfully for GSD only so you might have to take the role of the jester. As for visiting the dentist you could be going alot sooner than you think kiddo. Clowns

[Sonia]

I honestly don’t think the questioner was unhappy at all with Baba Ji’s answers and comments. I don’t think she perceived it as harsh. The only thing that struck me was his comment that he gets angry all the time at people but that there’s a reason for it. I’m not sure how he expresses his anger or how those subjects take his anger. Some probably don’t take it as such a negative whereas others might be offended.

I’m sure there have been times where in retrospect he looks back upon a situation and thinks he would handle things differently based on what he’s learned/experienced.

We all keep learning from each other.

[Truth warrior]

I notice many of RSSB agents here accept their master is not perfect. Yet the sangat are told that in order to reach sachkand their accumulated karma must be as light as the shirt on our backs. This is bull crap , hypocritical and double standards. Why do the RSSB agents trolling on this sight not see the contradiction?? Why do they keep giving this joker baba the benefit of the doubt. I conclude they must be totally deluded and under a spell, and really believe the false promise of a paradise after death - blind belief .

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Dungeness
You wrote
"I disagree with much of what you say. But far more insidious
is the patronizing rant-like tone"

What can I say, it's an art.

[um]

@ manoj, manoj ...

look in the mirror and say ..... CLOWNS ....
start slowly and with a soft voice ... and than .... louder and louder with more power.
Shout it and stamp your feet.

then ...... Look into your eyes ... it will do you good.

Have some tea and calm down.

[Dungeness]

@ "I disagree with much of what you say. But far more insidious
@ is the patronizing rant-like tone" What can I say, it's an art.

The inner child will laugh it off.

[Sonia]

Gurudom is kind of an ancient concept. In the 21st century it seems odd. Like, how many countries are still ruled by a king or queen? You can’t compare being a guru to being a president. A guru is without checks and balances. That’s what makes it so weird especially in this day and age. GSD aside, anyone playing the role of a GIHF guru—it’s just not practical anymore. Not sure that GIHF has ever been a practical or sane concept but definitely not in today’s world.

And it’s hard to get around the “he’s just a teacher” argument when the foundation of a belief system rests upon GIHF.

[um]

>>Gurudom is kind of an ancient concept<<

Not at all, it is still used all over the world to train talented people, to transfer knowledge and skills.
It is only suited for small groups and not suited for large congregations.

Masters in any cultural activity, have only a limited amount of students in their close environment ... others are educated in class rooms or just listen to them.

Read the biography of all well known Buddhist teachers or mystics of the past.
Many are called upon and few are chosen

[Sonia]

>>Gurudom is kind of an ancient concept<<

Not at all, it is still used all over the world to train talented people, to transfer knowledge and skills.
It is only suited for small groups and not suited for large congregations.

Masters in any cultural activity, have only a limited amount of students in their close environment ... others are educated in class rooms or just listen to them.

Read the biography of all well known Buddhist teachers or mystics of the past.
Many are called upon and few are chosen

Posted by: um | August 25, 2020 at 05:46 AM

I agree— “It is only suited for small groups and not suited for large congregations.”