« How to reply to 14 crazy things religious believers say | Main | Two big ideas about the cosmos and the self »

July 06, 2022


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

Agreed, throwing stones at the afflicted is unkind. But pointing out the nature of the affliction itself is, far from being unkind, actually the kind thing to do.

To be afflicted with a fallacious belief system, which is true of all religions --- and even more so, to be afflicted with a belief system off of which one or more rapacious freelaoder gets their grubby paws inside your pockets (and in some cases, and depending on your sex and how young and/or attractive you are, in to other parts of your anatomy as well), which admittedly is a feature only of some religions not all of them --- is like being afflicted with an addiction. It is unkind to laugh at the opium addict, sure; but it is actually kindness to clearly point out the utterly dysfunctional nature of the addiction itself.

To make of the addiction itself something respectable, that people must respect, is to end up actually harming the addict, or at least facilitating his continuing to harm himself. Likewise, to treat these cross-eyed belief systems as somehow respectable ---- which unfortunately is something ingrained on to us, so that it comes across as rude (if not worse) to clearly point out the imbecility of religious beliefs ---- is to actually do a disservice to those afflicted by such.


"but it is actually kindness to clearly point out the utterly dysfunctional nature of the addiction itself."

Hear hear. And given that it's demonstrably true that addiction to meth, fentanyl and, yes, marijuana is resulting in a legion of mental health problems and untimely deaths, we can conclude that recreational substance use is indeed dysfunctional.

However, the ad nauseamly repeated charge that belief in God is somehow "utterly dysfunctional," i.e., demonstrably harmful to believers, is a charge that no one on this blog has been able to substantiate.

Being familiar with that sant mat sect since the 80s, i can vouch for the criticisms of the SOS that the poster makes. In fact, I could add quite a few criticisms of my own. Nevertheless, despite being a sharp critic of Kirpal and his family), the charge of utter dysfunction doesn't work. I know of no one who became broke, homeless, or insane from SOS or any other sect of sant mat. Or who died from sant mat. Or who is in prison from sant mat. But boy I can show you a bunch of people who were thus laid low by those substances you never mention.

Moreover, I know of no overt corruption in SOS or RSSB. No sex scandals, no bilking devotees out of their savings, no broken families, no dangerous practices.

The problem of addiction in our society is a serious thing, in fact, more serious now than ever in our history. People are addicted to carbs and are grossly obese. People are addicted to media and can't walk down the street without staring into little screens. People are addicted to strange ideologies of the righteousness of cutting their bodies up, and that goes for their (your) children as well. Addiction to drugs is even worse -- thousands of deaths every year and our streets are filled with those whose brains have been destroyed.

But you're going to say addiction to religion is somehow any kind of problem?

Put your cards on the table. Blog author and everyone else on here who buys into this idea that religion is a big, big problem. I take it you were all religious once. Some of you for decades. And yet for some reason, you have no story to tell about how you were "hurt."

You have no story to tell about how you were hurt. And yet here you are every day for the last 10 years charging that religion is this terrible evil that the world must be rid of ASAP.

Can't you make a better case for YOUR beliefs?

Hello, UpYourGame.

Your argument, condensed, seems to be that since there's a bunch of other things that are harmful as well, therefore any harm that accrues on religion's account ought to be ...what, ignored, given a free pass, what?

That sounds like textbook whataboutism to me.

All of those other things that you're suggesting might be harmful --- including, for instance, addiction to pot ---- you'll need, first of all, to substantiate. With pot that's not as easily done as with alcohol, say, or the different kinds of opium floating around. But thing is, the main shortcoming of your argument is --- as it appears to me ---- that you're implying that because other things are harmful as well, therefore, somehow, relgion isn't harmful. Does that really make sense, when you break it down like that, and bring your hidden implications clearly to the fore?

Addiction to opioids is a problem? Sure it is, And absolutely, it needs to be addressed. Ditto addiction to alchol. Pot I'm not so sure, the research I've seen doesn't seem to back up your claim ---- but even granting, for the sake of argument, that you're right, but so what? Why should that somehow let religion off the hook?


I do agree with you that RSSB appears to be not quite as bad as many other religions, particularly the monotheisms. I've clearly said that, not long ago, in a different thread, in the course of a discussion with Spence Tepper.

So that you can take what I said at two levels. At one level you can take it simply as an indictment of religion in general, and not of RSSB specifically. And at onother level, if you wish to make it about RSSB specifically, or maybe about those Thakar and Kirpal groups, well then again we have the whataboutism thing: because there are other fictive faiths that are more virulent and more baleful than RSSB/Kirpal/Thakar (whatever those latter two groups are called), that's no reason why we should give a free pass to these, isn't it?


In general terms, though, I agree with one part of what you're saying. Kind of food for thought there. What I'm referring to is where you point out that the anti-theistic argument is different than the atheistic argument. That is, the argument about the baleful effects of religion is different than the argument over the truth value of religion.

One way to address the former --- the anti-theistic argument, that is to say --- would be to directly point out the harm that it clearly causes, both directly, as well as indirectly (the opportunity cost thing). But if I'm to be entirely honest, and entirely fair, then I have to admit that a holisitc analysis will also need to take into account any beneficient effects accruing from some religion; and to then weigh up pros and cons to see whether the net effect is good or bad. And that last is a complex exercise, and frankly I'm not very sure how to even go about doing something like quantifying these things in order to compare them and set them off against one another.


So that, TLDR:
(a) Your whataboutery over addiction to other kinds of things is a fallacious attempt to defend religion; and
(b) The anti-theistic argument is different than, and probably way more complex than, the atheistic argument. Agreed to that much.

upyourgame, here's some of the reasons I've come to find religious belief so objectionable.

First, truth is to be valued for its own sake. Religions market blind belief to people, many of whom are desperate to find help for their worldly problems. When blind belief and prayer is substituted for actions that could actually help the person, this is dangerous.

While exercising yesterday at our athletic club I briefly watched the 700 Club, a Christian TV show. The two hosts were reading messages from people asking for prayers for their medical conditions. The hosts would say something like, "The Lord has heard your prayer for your cancer to be cured." Then they'd quote a Bible passage that says God can cure all illness.

People sometimes die from this fundamentalism because they don't seek medical treatment.

Which points to another large problem: authoritarianism. This is bad in politics. It's equally bad in religion. Maybe more so, because the lure of an afterlife if someone wholeheartedly believes in the "Dear Leader" can be a lot stronger than, say, getting a reduction on their taxes.

It isn't healthy to believe that a single person, such as a guru, or a holy book, such as the Bible, has all the answers. Look at how Trump is viewed by his devotees. He can do no wrong in their eyes, even though he has done a lot wrong. Likewise, look at how gurus are viewed by their devotees. Unethical and immoral acts often are excused away, because the guru is believed to have divine powers, so their outward actions aren't to be questioned.

I'll also note that when someone changes political parties, changes their favorite sports team, gets divorced and changes their spouse, or whatever, this isn't met with much alarm, even by people who are still in that political party, are fans of that team, or are still married.

But over the years I've had many commenters on this blog tell me that they're shocked I could change my mind and leave the religion I followed for 35 years. This shows how strong religious belief is compared to political, sports, or marital belief. I often tell those commenters that they must have changed course on many things in their lives: the car they drive, the work they do, where they live, and so on.

Why, then, is it so astounding to these fundamentalists that I, or anyone, has changed their mind about religion? Including, of course, having no religious belief, which is where I've ended up. The reason, again, is that religion plays a outsized role in the lives of many believers, far more so than other aspects of life such as politics or sports.

This doesn't take away from the benefits religions provide, of course, as Appreciative Reader noted in another comment. Evolutionary psychology points out that religions provide a source of cultural solidarity, a feeling of being connected with a "tribe" of like-minded people that can be a powerful source of both good and bad.

I simply prefer to point out the bad on this blog, because I think it's important to do this so people can better understand the pros and cons of being a religious believer.

Huzzah, I managed to work out how to sign in with typepad!

Lol, yes, AR, what you said.
I am not sure if I was making religious freeloaders, as you put it, respectable.
Sadly I can’t do word sparring with you; I am but a simple soul. But I take what you wrote with a light heart. For yes, you were saying, be kind and point out danger. And I do believe that is what I originally wrote too. So you put my words and packed them into some sort of erudite ball and lobbed it back at me over the net for me to return. (^__^)
(you can tell its Wimbledon season)
Maybe the word addiction was not the best choice then.
I think I was possibly defending the follower. I was trying to say, everything is a thing. Let it be, do your thing, let others do their thing, enjoy, help others if you can, if not, not- and be happy; and be happy for the person that is doing religion for they are getting something from the thing that is helping them develop into the person they are going to be. And if they have been harmed, be there with kindness. We all hurt sometimes and sometimes we can transform this pain into something good too.

Even anger is a thing, how can I say to an angry person that it is harmful to the self to be angry, just because I know this to be so? I am just fuelling his or her (addiction to) anger.
And what do I know about why the person is harbouring such fire anyway? What is pain is hidden there?

Love and Light. The Fool.


Alex Berenson wrote a good book about it the link between marijuana use and the development of psychosis. Similarly, the link between the growing mental health epidemic and drugs, in general, is also growing, look it up. More people are dying from drug overdoses now than ever before in history. Homelessness (from drug addiction) is worse now than ever before.

Whether you agree with that or dispute it as whataboutism, my point is that I'm not seeing proof proffered that religion is the colossal problem that you and others here keep saying it is.

You again charge that RSSB is "bad." What does "bad" mean, precisely? How is RSSB "bad"?

It's time to start clarifying and quantifying these essays that charge that religion somehow produces "utter dysfunction" in the human psyche, or perhaps in civil society, or perhaps in home life.

You bring up Thakar Singh. Fair enough. I know all about him, even met him. I know all about Jeffery Epstein too, though I never met him. Money and authority can obviously breed corruption, but this is as true in secular as it is in religious venues. Because Thakar Singh did what he did, it hardly indicates that religion is de facto "bad." We may as well say that male hormones are bad and every male should be chemically castrated when they turn 12 (I'm sure there's a Bay Area think tank working on this idea right now).

I've been following the Sant Mat exer internet debate for over 20 years, and have heard from hundreds of initiates who've left sant mat. Here are the only actual complaints of evil deeds of the sant mat gurus (apart from Thakar):

1) Darshan Singh yelled at someone because they initiated someone without his permission.
2) Charan Singh was brusque with the Indian sevadar who handed him his mail.
3) Charan Singh forcefully reprimanded an initiate who persisted in wanting Charan to validate his same-sex orientation.

So that's me quantifying the negative side of following sant mat. Admittedly it's anecdotal evidence, but I feel all adds up to small potatoes.

And so I agree with you, that to cogently approach this issue requires adding up the pros and cons.

A very large and (probably too) complex issue when speaking of religious belief per se, but with respect to Sant Mat per se, I'm not seeing anyone make even close to a persuasive argument that Sant Mat actually produced dysfunction, which I might broadly define as making people less sane, less happy, less materially well off, less good citizens, less good family members.

Hello, the Fool.

Sorry, didn't mean to go all "sparring" with you. You've made some very good points in your letter; and I'd wanted to comment on one incidental part of what you'd said there, because I thought it important to make this point. Didn't mean to suggest that what I was addressing was representative of your entire comment.

But really, and apart from what you've said here: in general terms, I do think it is very unfortunate, this whole thing about how, somehow, religion is uniquely revered and respected and treated with kid gloves everywhere. If you've been gulled by the promises of some online Nigerian prince; or maybe fallen prey to some Ponzi scheme; or maybe been taken in by someone like Trump (I mean Trump the shady businessman, who's apparently found very creative ways to cheat creditors at different points in his not-so-illustrious career); or lost you money by investing in some dicey (or at least, insanely volatile) crypto like BTC: then, in all of these cases, no balanced person will point at you personally and laugh at your troubles, absolutely not; but they will, indeed crtiticize your choices, if they are your freind, as well as soundly condemn said cheats and charlatans and dicey investments. Somehow the same standard does not seem to apply when people get taken in by religion! Somehow when it comes to religion, to clearly point out the obvious, namely that the beliefs they peddle are spurious, and that often enough they cause harm, is somehow seen as insensitive, and rude, and mean, and all of that. Which, I believe, is a great pity, because this sort of thing tends to help and facilitate religions dupe the gullible even more.

Anyhoo. Not to beat this to death. And this specific point apart, I appreciate the generally compassionate and light (as opposed to all heavy and solemn!) approach you seem take to matters religious. Cheers.

UYG, I am not sure that this blog here is some sort of Sant Mat bashing site. I perceive it to be a place where people, to me learned, thinking, people, are relaying their thoughts in order to help those that are looking for a different point of view. And possibly to exercise their thinking mind. (^__^)
Lots of big words, complex sentences and constructs and good points. Sometimes not so good.
What I got from this here blog is that some things in Sant Mat, or other sects, cults and religions, are questionable, misleading and maybe not as altruistic as they may seem. This blog encourages people to think for themselves and this site provides some peoples point of views and some experiences to think about. The readers still have to extrapolate that which is meaningful to them. But I am not sure one can criticise someone for making a criticism.
I feel like I am missing the point here with all this debating. I suppose this forum is also a place of group validation of some kind. Because funny thing is, I was actually waiting for comments on my thoughts. Well, isn’t that something.
Love and Light to all. (call me [simple] Simon) (-__-)


We can point to the religious concepts of karma or Sach Khand as being the stuff of airy imagination and projection. Certainly a fair assessment. But by the same token, the same conclusion could be made about whatever the heck is "authoritarianism."

When I looked up examples of authoritarianism, Wikipedia cited the Russian Federation and the post-Mao People's Republic of China. That is, regimes where the individual's freedom was completely curtailed by the state. As much as I dislike some of the things Pat Roberston has said over the years, and I really dislike how he's used his prosperity gospel message to enrich himself, he's simply a guy on TV.

And as much as I dislike Pat Roberston, he's helped a lot of people live (what they say are) better lives. So even given an extreme example of possible religious hucksterism, I think the 700 club is simply a matter of taste. It's not evidence that religious belief is harmful.

Then there's the political sphere. As much as one doesn't like Trump, there's no doubt he was fairly elected president. Being fairly elected in a democratic system doesn't make one an authoritarian. Some would say that a phone call to Ukraine doesn't really tip the scales either.
Moreover, many would say there's no doubt the country was in far better shape than the current guy, who recently acted like a banana republic nationalist by demanding small business gas station owners who can barely get by to sell their gas at cost (sorry, I couldn't resist). I guess we are on the same page about Trump's behavior after the last election, as I don't think it's a bit kosher. I believe in the just workings of the American republic over any political personality. But as much as I find fault with Trump about some things, he didn't just sail up on a ship and take over the country like some latter-day Napoleon. "We" chose him as leader of the free world.

And the same is true for the Gurus. We chose them. That is how they became authority figures. We have authority figures in absolutely every sphere of our world and our life. To posit that authority is essentially "authoritarian" is perhaps a noble sentiment, but it strikes me as more than a little utopian and unrealistic.

Brian, I commend you on keeping this blog running, largely because I do agree with your point of view that religion should always be open to criticism. Where we differ is that I do believe that religion is a positive good for individuals and society. I believe that's true of Sant mat and even true of religions such as Mormonism, Evangelicalism, and the Catholic church. Religious belief, and authority, are neither good nor bad things in themselves but should be judged by the precise value they provide. By the same token, a wholesale lack of belief in authority can result in hellish consequences.

"You again charge that RSSB is "bad." What does "bad" mean, precisely? How is RSSB "bad"? (...) I'm not seeing anyone make even close to a persuasive argument that Sant Mat actually produced dysfunction"


Well, UpYourGame, Brian's already answered your question, I think. He's already listed some things wrong with religion in general.

While agreeing with you that RSSB is probably less harmful than some other religions, let me also list out some things that appear "bad", or generally dysfunctional, about subscribing to this particular belief system:

(1) Most importantly, this is a belief system that is unsupported by evidence. As such, it is likely utterly false, fictive, not real, not true. That, in and of itsef, is a huge negative, in my eyes. Clearly in Brian's evaluation as well. (I realize that not all may think this way, but many people, incuding I, do think truth in and of itself is good, and falsity in and of itself is bad.)

(2) The time you put in on your meetings, and indeed your meditation, is largely time wasted (if, that is, the reason you do it is the fairy tales you've been taught). Arguably some may do these things for personal reasons, that are not necessarily tied to the stories they teach, so for them this opportunity cost isn't a loss: but I suspect such people will be a rarity, only a very small number of exceptions.

(3) The money you might spend on your meets and your donations and whatever other monetary contributions followers make.

(4) Very importanly: The potential for a great deal of very real damage. The Singh brothers are a case in point. This may not apply to everybody; but no doubt it applies to some.

(5) The general mental and moral corruption, that makes many followers support the transparent dishonesty of GSD (as evidenced by comments from the faithful right here in this blog, for instance). That corruption is not a pretty thing to be visited on to people who are otherwise straightforward and honest and upright.

(6) Let's not forget the alienation that some at least suffer from their family (whether spouse, or parents, or children), that some commenters on Brian's blog have spoken of.

(**) No doubt there are other negatives, but none that immediately come to mind. Also, no doubt others who're more closley associated with RSSB can think of more such negatives than I could note here.


To be fair, I must point out some positives that I see, as well:

(1) The tribal thing that Brian speaks of.

(2) The abstinance from alcohol and intoxicants. No matter the reason for doing this, I guess for many people staying out of temptation's way is a good thing; and no doubt helps prevent instances of alcholism and addiction to other drugs in some people (only a small subset of people, obviously, but still).

(3) I'd say that, all considered, the vegetarian diet is a good thing too. This is an arguable point, I realize, but still, considering both environmental and general health, I'd say this would be a plus.

(4) If done regularly and sincerly, the mediation can actually have some beneficent effects on body and mind.


So, in sum, do we have a plus or do we have a negative? I'd say a big negative; especially considering the very steep, and potentially infinte, potential for negative should things go very wrong, given that the followers generally tend to so fanatically trust their "Master", so that disengagement, if and when the shit actually hits the fan, sometimes/often becomes impossible for the brainwashed followers; and also considering the big negative that simply following falsity amounts to, at least in my book. But I realize that this 'evaluation' is ultimately subjective (as, arguably, and in a sense, is every exercise in evaluating anything at all).

Thank you Appreciative Reader,

I was indeed wondering if you were asking me to say something back, because I could not, but now reading your comment again it is clear you agreed with me and then added some points.
Hasty, I am always so hasty. (:
It is kind of you to assure me of your good intentions.

Yes, reverence of religion everywhere more or less, a chain we humans have been pulling after us for a long long time. Sad, sad, sad indeed. There are so many sad things with this world, us, humans; it is a good thing that we can and do talk about things. Some of us humans are actively changing things, it’s not all dark, for as Ghandi said, …in the midst of darkness light persists.

I just want to be part of the light people. Whoever they are, I haven’t found them to be particularly prevalent in religious groups, but I have found them everywhere and unexpectedly. And so my approach is not only with religious matters but with life and everyone. That’s why I say Love and Light to people, because I do wish it. I wish it for all of us and I mean it. I don’t think we need religion particularly, at the same time I do think that a deeper longing exists in many of us humans for something we can’t describe and know, and so these religions do indeed harm sometimes, as you said, and that is sad. Maybe its all part of our evolution. We are better now at looking more closely at reason. One can hope, can’t one, that one day we are all nice to each other. But truly, I don’t belief that either. For it seems another of these cult/religion promises of a better tomorrow. So before my head goes west with all this thinking I simply try to be as positive, helpful, discerning and kind as I can be towards others and myself. Yes. I am not a person that changes things, but I can take someone’s pain away for a moment just with a touch of my hand on their arm and by listening. That’s all.

There's one aspect to this that our comments earlier that may not have fully made clear. I did say that one's evaluation of anything, and including religion, is necessarily subjective; and I said that in order to be both scrupulously correct as well as fair, and in any case that's true enough; but simply saying that might give the (very wrong) impression that either kind of evalution, whether postive or negative, is equally "correct". That the overwhelming wieghtage that I put to the truth value of what's being evaluated, and that Brian does also, is kind of optional. Well, certainly it is optional, no one's going to compel you to invest as much importance and attention to this truth thing as we do, that much is trivially true; but that is not to say that it is just as valid not to care about truth. Perhaps a couple of examples will make my meaning clear.

Take some product, like, I don't know, anything at all, take iphones and macbooks. They're kind of pricier than the competition, at least the mid-price range. So then, what value should you place on them, and what opinion is valid? This is truly a case where your particular opinion, provided it is well informed, is truly valid, as far as you yourself are concerned, no matter which side of the issue you weigh in on.

But take something like sending money to Nigerian princes, or those call center scams. You get an email from a purported Nigerian prince (or heiress, or business manager, or whatever), asking you to send them some small amount of money as processing fees or whatever, following which they'll send you a whopping big fortune. Of you get a call from a call center type, claiming to represent the tax authorities, or maybe your phone company, or maybe your computer manufacturer, and you are asked to send some money so that they'll either make your tax troubles (that they've just informed you of) go away, or maybe they'll fix your phone issues (that they've only just now sprung on you), or provide some, so they claim, very necessary maintenance or service for your computer.

Now how do you "evaluate" something like this? Sure, your evaluation would depend on how much money you're being asked to pay. If it's in two digits, then that's one thing; if in three digits, then somewhat more serious; and if more than that, then very serious indeed. Plus your evaluation of this amount, this money, will also be a function of how you're situated: so that, if you earn middle to high six digits, then seventy or eighty dollars, or maybe even a few hundred dollars, may not really be a big deal for you, as it might be to someone who's earning a tenth what you do. Also, the stress, as well as the time you've spent on the whole thing, all of that also factors in.

BUT MY POINT IS, IN AS MUCH AS THIS IS A SCAM, IN AS MUCH AS NOTHING ACTUALLY IS BEING SOLD OR PROVIDED, IN AS MUCH AS THE TRUTH VALUE OF THE CLAIM IS NEGATIVE, TO THAT EXTENT, NO MATTER WHICH WAY YOU SLICE YOUR "EVALUATION" OF THIS THING, THE ONLY REASONABLE WAY TO "EVALUATE" THIS THING IS AS A NEGATIVE. It is insane to announce that you've been swindled by a Nigerian prince, but personally you're happy with the "deal", you don't mind, even though you realize you've been scammed.

In other words: To attach the kind of value to whether something is true or not, that Brian does, or that I also do, may technically indeed be subjective and optional, but in fact it is the only reasonable way to look at things.

So that: if you take even some milquetoast religion like RSSB ---- "milquetoast" when compared with some virulent forms of Islam, for instance, or the more fundamental kinds of Christianity ---- even then, in as much as what is actually being peddled is ficititious, to that extent the only reasonable "evaluation" of this whole thing is a negative one.

So that, sure, the anti-theistic argument is indeed distinct from and more complex than the atheistic argument, like I'd said earlier: nevertheless, the only reasonable conclusion, barring some truly exceptional and bizarre externalities thrown in, would be to have your conclusion derived from the anti-theistic argument in consonance with your conclusion derived from the atheistic argument.

On the topic of "authoritarianism" in Sant Mat

Thinking on this, it's hard for me to come up with what I would call a genuine instance of untoward or abusive exercise of authority in either RSSB or the Kirpal line of gurus.

Certainly not in relation to other religions I know a bit about. For example, Mormons must donate 10% of their income to the church or they're forbidden access to Mormon temples. These temples are the sole places where special ceremonies are held that facilitate access to the highest heaven. Moreover, Mormons are quick to excommunicate any member who voices heterodox opinions.

Catholics have a slew of rules to follow, too many to list here. Miss church on Sunday, that's a mortal sin. And Islam? Apostacy is cause for beheading.

Are Eastern religions any better? Technically, you can't really be a Hindu unless you're born into the faith. There's no conversion allowed in orthodox Hinduism. Then there's its caste system, which is blatant racism. The Buddhist world isn't much better. Theravada monks must show abject obedience to any monk with more tenure, and the rules they must follow are staggering in number. Zen Buddhists monastics are hardly less victims of authority -- read EAT SLEEP SIT and see the brutal treatment Zen monks must endure.

Then there's the liberal yoga world. I've personally heard Swami Chidvilasananda of Siddha Yoga berate, and at great length berate, one of her followers for just having an idea about serving drinks at an ashram restaurant. I've been there when Bikram violently lambasted a young female yoga student for I forget what in front of hundreds of people.

Having noted all that, what can I do but agree that abuse of power does exist in some parts of the world of religion? Yet I can't go so far as to say that religion per se equates to abuse of power, or that a guru of even sant mat theological stature is himself an abuse of authority.

Compare the examples of possible or certain abuse I listed with the Sant mat experience. No one is kicked out for anything, no one is asked for money, and no one is hit, or publicly abused by the guru. Except for the veg diet, the Sant mat guru is pretty much noncommital on whatever initiates do with their lives.

Authority itself doesn't necessarily equate to authoritarianism.

"it's hard for me to come up with what I would call a genuine instance of untoward or abusive exercise of authority in either RSSB or the Kirpal line of gurus"

..........I can think of three, basis nothing more than merely what I recall from the comments on these pages (so that those more intimately associated with the organization will doubtless have more examples to share):

(1) This wasn't the guru himself, but his minions, but what about those "sevadars" physically assaulting Osho Robbins at that Hynes Park place in the UK, and in fact successfully evicting him from there using brute force?

(2) The details are sketchy in my memory, but they're preserved as clearly as the day they were written in the pages of this blog, should someone want to take the trouble to dig them up: A long-time senior official of the RSSB organization in India had either willed his house to the organization, or maybe promised to gift it to them while he was still living. When older, when old, he for some reason changed his mind. But GSD would have none of it, and he and his henchmen bullied the poor old man and compelled him to part with his property, and in the process ended up making of him (that is, of the said elderly disciple) a psychologically damaged wreck. Something like that. Like I said, my recall of the details is kind of sketchy.

(3) There was a lady, a disciple, someone in the intimate circle of GSD --- I think it was "Sheena", or at least the lady who wrote a book under that pseudonym, but again, I'd read this a while back and I could be mixing up commenters here --- had said something pretty much innocuous to someone in GSD's presence. Whereupon GSD insults her there in public, in the presence of whoever was present there, scarring the poor woman. (I remember in the discussion that ensured in these pages, there were quite a few of the faithful that came out with gems like, in effect, "GSD moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform", as well as, "He says things to people that are customized for their benefit, so that what may appear harsh to one person is actually perfectly suited to help the person to whom it was said", et cetera.)

I wouldn't expect you start to describe her RSSB as a mafia organisation

I remember 1 and 3. and what you say it not correct
For 1). we can ask Osho - at that time I have already given my stand

As for 3)
It was not so nasty
The lady/writer admitted to have had a very liberal lifestyle, myself I m not against
as far as nobody is hurt ,
but not the content one should advise to a virgo
So GSD acted as many here would do, . . not me


On 2). I remember here a satsangi from the UK , telling his father or grandfather gave a lot more
than the value of Haynes Park
but he was not concerned at all later as you describe
So, where from is this coming ?
Should we scan the blog?


Hi, 777.

I'm sorry, on #1 and #3 I'm fairly sure of what I said. Certainly the Osho Robbins punch-gate I'm fully certain about, because that wasn't very long back, and plus because our Osho Robbins was directly involved so I read that guest post, and all of the comments, with interest and attention. No question of forgetting there. #3, about possibly Sheena, I'm less certain about, but still fairly sure.

#2 I could be mistaken about as far as the details, agreed. Still, what you speak of seems to be a different issue altogether. What I was referring to was a guy, an Indian, living in India, who all his life had been very senior in the organization but within the limits of his own particular geography. Everything was fine as long as Charan Singh was at the helm. Then when GSD came into the picture, I think the guy was sidelined or something. In any case it was he himself who was dissatisfied, and changed his earlier decision, not his son. And it was he himself who was accosted by GSD himself. And I'm quite sure that the old man both went back to giving away the property, as well as ened up a psychological wreck.

Sure, by all means go back and check the blog to see if you can find the actual post/thread, if you like. Might take a bit of effort, though, but sure, if you'd like to put in that effort, that's perfectly fine by me. I doubt I'm mistaken, as far as the actual issue not just the small incidental details, but if I am, then I'm happy to be corrected, absolutely.

And no, I'm not describing RSSB as a mafia organization generally, not in the least! I mentioned those three incidents because they came to mind readily when I heard UYG say that he isn't aware of a single incident of bullying or abuse of authority in RSSB. i'm not suggesting that this sort of thing happens there every day.

But you know what, even as I type this, a fourth incident comes to mind. This is about some rich Indian disciple in India lending GSD money for his treatment a decade or so back. GSD gets better, and after a while rich disciple asks GSD to return his money, but instead of coughing it up GSD --- or at any rate his minions --- went bullying the guy, including sending him death threats. I'm 100% sure this was written about here in Brian's blog, although whether in a separate blog post or merely in the comments that I don't recall. Nor do I recall if GSD finally did end up returning the money.

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.