How the RSSB teachings preserve the illusion of a "perfect master"

Religions evolve in accord with a sort of cultural natural selection.

If a religion is obviously false, not being able to back up its claims with demonstrable evidence even though that evidence supposedly is there for all to see, then it won't take long for people to reject the religion and it dies out.

So many religions rely on a claim that only after a believer dies are they able to know the truth of the faith that they followed while alive. That's an easy way out of the "where's the evidence?" problem.

But what's a religion to do when the divine being at the core of the faith is a human who looks just like everybody else, yet is believed to be God in Human Form possessing all of the powers of the Almighty? How does the religion reconcile the human's outward averageness with their supposed inward godliness?

Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) is an India-based religion led by a guru who is considered to be just that: God in Human Form. I was an active member of RSSB for 35 years, so I'm familiar with the techniques this religion uses to deflect pointed questions about the guru's divinity.

Here's some examples that I've taken from a book published by Radha Soami Satsang Beas, "Philosophy of the Masters (Abridged)" by Sawan Singh -- the RSSB guru from 1903-1948 who often is called the Great Master. So what he says has a lot of RSSB credibility.

My comments on the excerpts from the book (pp. 221-233) are in italics. 

To know a Master or to understand His real significance or reality is, in fact very difficult. To do this, discerning eyes like His own are necessary. Only a Godman can know a Godman. How can a person, who is confined in the case of the body, realize the Lord's glory? Unless we are as great as he is, we cannot understand Him.

OK. But the guru has, or is, a body just like everyone else. So how is someone able to know that the RSSB guru is God inside while being human outside? There's no way to know, it appears, unless someone becomes God in Human Form just as the guru is supposed to be. Nice way of making sure that no ordinary mortal challenges the divinity of the guru.

Unless the Lord or the True Being is Himself kind to a person, that person will not recognize the Guru as Guru. Unless the perfect Master, who is Truth incarnate, reveals himself, one cannot recognize him. Even if the Master should live next door, an undeveloped person would not know him. Very often, the members of a perfect Master's own family fail to recognize his stature.

Here too, we see that the RSSB teachings claim that no one can tell that the guru is perfect, Truth incarnate, unless the guru chooses to reveal himself. If that doesn't happen, the guru appears like an ordinary person, even to members of his own family. Again, this serves to deflect doubts about the guru's godliness, since if you have doubts, it's because the guru hasn't been kind to you.

A perfect Master can, with a single glance, find out one's inner condition. He then instructs us according to our condition. When anyone visits him he can see the visitor's inner condition as if that person were encased in transparent glass, but he keeps it a secret.

Ah, so the RSSB guru supposedly is all-knowing as regards a visitor's inner condition, yet doesn't reveal what he knows. Kind of like a magician who says, "I could show you this amazing trick, but I'm not going to, so you'll have to believe that I'm doing it even though there's no sign I'm doing it."

The perfect Master in an incarnation of the Lord. Just as the Lord communicates His teachings to the Saints without the agency of speech, similarly, the Saints impart their message to their disciples by means of internal experiences, and without the use of speech.

So the RSSB guru appears like an ordinary person to everyone who he chooses not to reveal his godly nature to, and the guru also teaches his disciples internally without the use of speech. Pretty crafty. Easy to understand why so many look upon the guru as a normal human being.

With perfect Masters it often happens that seekers after Truth have no need to put questions during discourses. They get answers to their questions without asking them.

Wow, it gets even better. Not only are the answers given by the guru communicated without speech, so are the questions. This means that when the guru is just sitting with disciples, wordlessly doing nothing. that's when everything is going on. If you're gullible enough to believe that.

Despite the fact that he is all-powerful, he does not boast that he can do anything out of the ordinary. He always says that it is the Lord who does something, or that it is being done by his Sat Guru. Truly, a fruit-laden branch bends humbly.

Thus it doesn't go any good to ask the guru if he is God in Human Form, because he won't admit that he is anything but ordinary. Yet as we've seen, if the guru appears ordinary, RSSB teaches that this is because the guru hasn't deigned to be kind to the person who sees him that way. 

He does not perform miracles like a juggler to please his audience. Although he is all-powerful, he keeps his powers hidden. But he does sometimes use them if he is so disposed. His disciples are always benefitted by his grace.

Hmmmm. The RSSB guru doesn't perform miracles to please an audience, so that's why no one sees him doing miraculous things. However, sometimes the guru does do miracles to please himself. So the RSSB teachings have it both ways: if you don't observe any miracles, that's what the guru wants; if you do observe a purported miracle, that's also what the guru wants.

Whenever Saints and holy men appear, they sometimes create an atmosphere which is not liked by the worldly-minded people. They do so, so that the slaves of the world and worshippers of mammon, who often gather round them like flies, may leave them, and the real seekers may not suffer. They intentionally provide some cause for criticism so that only the deserving will come to them.

This is probably my favorite RSSB ploy to prop up faith in the guru's Godman stature, no matter what the guru does. If the guru appears to act badly, as the current RSSB guru (Gurinder Singh Dhillon) has done, this is because he wants to make sure only the deserving will come to him and stick by him. And of course, if the guru acts in a good way, this shows his divinity. So whether the guru is bad or good, this shows he is a perfect Master. 

Reminds me a lot of how Donald Trump's devotees view their political master. He can do no wrong, because even when he seems to do wrong, there's a good reason for his actions.

Comments

[Dungeness]

@B Ji [ But the guru has, or is, a body just like everyone else. So how is someone able to know that the RSSB guru is God inside while being human outside? There's no way to know, it appears, unless someone becomes God in Human Form just as the guru is supposed to be. ]

Bingo! The mystic mission is to invite others to engage in an intense inner
path of mindfulness/devotion. The goal is to elevate awareness to our own
latent GIHF-hood as well as the Guru's who has attained that status. Don't
believe it? Well, smoke it out by experiencing truth within until you reach
"God" (sometimes referred to as 'totality of awareness'). Then you'll know it
all. Be warned: 'It's a slow, incremental journey within consciousness itself.

Proving it yourself is the only way you'd be convinced it could be true. No
guessing, secret societies, seances in dark rooms. No cult either. Quit
and try another way if it doesn't work. Only as Great Master (mentioned
above) says 'Please if you find something better, come back and tell me
and I'll follow it too.'

[Ron E.]

We humans seem to be biologically geared toward needing a leader for one reason or another. Which isn't surprising as even most of our primate cousins have a leader – usually an alpha male that protect the group, has first pick of females and food etc.

It seems to be human nature to need something or someone to believe in. In many of the worlds poorest counties the importance of religion for people averages around 90%. The USA bucks that trend being one of the richest countries, with something around 65% who say religion is important to them.

In an article from Psychology Today - (Why Americans are so religious. Religion Thrives on Misery. January 19, 2011). “The bottom line, then, is that Americans feel far less secure economically, and in relation to their health and well-being than would be expected given the overall wealth of the country in terms of GDP per capita. This existential insecurity provides a fertile ground for religion.”

All of which may well account for why many need a spiritual guide or guru (and also why the Donald Trump's of this world gain popularity.) It's not then that only financial poverty drives religious belief, its more broadly to do with insecurity. Which is perhaps why the guru business took off so well a few decades ago in the West.

I'm often amazed at how many 'super heroes' emanate from America. Whether they are Marvel inventions or Rambo type figures they can arise to cult status. Is this something to do with wishful thinking, a substitute for God-like figures? The same could be said of the guru phenomenon, the need to have someone who offers a more secure prospect in the sense of offering something more to life (and death) than the realities (and insecurities) of everyday life that we all experience.

[Eric Robinson]

Spot on that Brian.

RSSB (Beas) originated from Soami Ji of Agra (Seth Dayal Singh), and when I decided to follow these ‘teachings’ I was struck powerfully by something that Soami Ji said:
“Unless I see with my own eyes I do not believe the words of the Master”

Sawan Singh said that as in trying to understand Euclid in mathematics, we have to accept first some basic premise, in order to prove its veracity later. All well and good, so long as that ‘accept’ does not become faith (blind)…
And that the body was a laboratory wherein these truths can be validated…

Did he ever quote those words of Soami Ji ?

These gurus have said that one has to realise within oneself. But is this compatible with the comments you quote re the guru and his double speak and catch 22…
I completely agree with you that these gurus are misleading seekers.

I obtained a little book some years ago “The Secret of the Golden Flower” and have recently started meditating along its precepts….

It is based on diaphragmatic deep breathing, and concentration. Look up JJ Semple anyone who is interested. Following this method leads (sorry MAY LEAD, there are no guarantees as everyone is different) to an energy breakthrough, and it is a biological process, whereby energy (actually sexual energy, which is the basis of everything) instead of being released outwardly (creation) can be made to flow backwards, up the spine, and thence to the brain.

Sawan Singh (who I used to read very regularly) said that anyone under the influence of lust cannot make progress on the path. But everyone, meaning everyone, “suffers” from lust. They don’t suffer from it, it’s the prime energy, and has to be understood and channelled.

But well done again Brian for pointing out these things. There are a lot of very sincere people being hoodwinked, and years wasted….

I just wonder if your 35 years and my 25 years were wasted or we got something out of it, albeit a strong realisation of the mumbo jumbo…

[Choden]

Brian Hines says "if a religion is obviously false, it won't take long for people to reject it."

And yet, Mr. Hines also says he was a devoted member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas for 35 years -- almost his entire adult life. One wonders: if RSSB was "obviously false," then why did Mr. Hines stay in, and believe in, this religion and what it teaches about its gurus for all those many years?

Did Mr. Hines say he was mistreated by the gurus of RSSB? Or did he say he was apprised of revelations on how the gurus of RSSB abused their followers? That could be a reason for leaving, but neither is the case. There's no doubt that gurus of other sects have been found guilty of exploiting their followers with physical, financial, or sexual abuse. But Mr. Hines has no stories to offer of these kinds of things happening within RSSB. Huh.

So yes, the RSSB religion has a guru concept. This is no secret. The basis of RSSB teachings is centered on the "perfect master" concept. Mr. Hines, like all those who follow RSSB, knows this very well. He knew it from the beginning. And Mr. Hines took initiation from an RSSB guru knowing this about the RSSB religion and stayed active in RSSB for 35 years knowing this. But now Mr. Hines is saying that devotion to a guru is "obviously false"?

Why wasn't it obvious to you, Mr. Hines?

What precisely does Mr. Hines mean by "obviously" false? The same thing you mean when you tell someone that anything is obviously false -- you mean that those who can't see the falsity are foolish, or just plain stupid.

And yet Mr. Hines admits he did believe in what RSSB teaches about its gurus, and for 35 years. Is he saying he himself was foolish or stupid? Such an admission of humility isn't found in his essay.

Perhaps Mr. Hines's stark conclusions about what's obvious could be understandable had joined RSSB as an impressionable teenager and left a few years later. But 35 years is kind of a long time to notice what's "obvious." And it's a very long time to devote oneself to something and call out others who still believe what Mr. Hine's fully knows (and no doubt heartily agrees with) as people who are fascists.

So what's really going on here? Why is someone who freely joined RSSB as an adult, and stayed a devoted member for 35 years, now devoted to broadcasting that RSSB is a bad thing and that everyone who still belongs to RSSB is either a simpleton or has dark moral issues?

I don't know the answer to that question, as it's certainly never been stated in any of Mr. Hine's many animus-laden essays on RSSB. I doubt if Mr. Hines even knows why he's gone from devotion to the RSSB guru and path to devotion to quasi-buddhist-taoist-atheist or whatever he is this week.

But it does seem clear that Mr. Hines decided that the religious concepts that provided him with 35 years of allegiance to RSSB, and gave him positive direction to his life, and no doubt much have afforded him the bliss of devotion, are now a very bad thing that the rest of us should "obviously" see as false and, for some reason, harmful.

Again, let's grant that some people who are long-term members of religions do leave for good reasons. Some people doing TM for years report that the meditation hurt their mental health. Long-term devotees of Sai Baba left when they learned that the guru was doing magic tricks and having sex with young men. These are good reasons for leaving a guru's sect. But does that template fit here?

I don't see how, as Mr. Hines has no such stuff to offer. The best he can do is cite paragraphs from books that the RSSB guru sees all and knows all, as if this itself constitutes harm But again, this devotional concept is no secret to anyone in RSSB. Moreover, the books that Mr. Hines cites is still in print by RSSB. And most importantly, despite this devotional concept being a part of RSSB for many decades, there are no scandals or manifest harms to RSSB devotees that can be cited.

So, again, what really is the issue Mr. Hines has with RSSB?

(I'm not sure, but it seems that authority figures drive some people to distraction. The main postmodern view of most progressives is that any kind of authority is a very bad, very unfair, and ineluctably harmful thing. They believe no one should have authority. Hence, Mr. Hines' new allegiance is progressivism, and thus he is egregiously outraged that the RSSB guru is a semi-divine authority figure. Again, never mind that Mr. Hines spent 35 years in that authority relationship and has no stories to tell of how it hurt him or others. Authority bad, pull down the statues.)

Here is how Mr. Hines frames his argument. While you read it, bear in mind that Mr. Hines, I need to say again, was in RSSB for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS:

"Religions evolve in accord with a sort of cultural natural selection. If a religion is obviously false, not being able to back up its claims with demonstrable evidence even though that evidence supposedly is there for all to see, then it won't take long for people to reject the religion and it dies out. So many religions rely on a claim that only after a believer dies are they able to know the truth of the faith that they followed while alive. That's an easy way out of the "where's the evidence?" problem."

Do 35 years qualify as "not taking long"? How silly to frame his argument in terms of "natural selection," which strikes me as exceptionally arrogant and pompous. In case you didn't get it at first, Mr. Hines is saying that the millions of religious believers in RSSB are there because they don't have the basic common sense that Mr. Hines has in abundance. But, Mr. Hines spent 35 years in RSSB, writing books for the guru, meditating on the guru, and going to India to see the guru in the flesh. Somehow Mr. Hines completely lets himself off the hook for his 35 years of being an RSSB follower, even "willing to take a bullet for the guru" (his statement). I'd give anything for Mr. Hines explanation of why something so clear and simple, about something so harmful,, took him 35 years to see.

Of course it's totally OK to not like a religion, and I believe everyone has the right to critique any religion, whether they are its members or not. But I find it hard to accept or understand when someone who was a member of a religion has the nerve to castigate the millions of people who believed as he did for 35 years.

Mr. Hines does just that in this essay. He has no crimes or immoral behavior to cite for the present RSSB guru, or any of his predecessors. And yet Mr. Hines is alleging that these gurus are not only guilty of numerous crimes, but their followers are also all abetting the guru by excusing these blantant crimes.

What crimes are you alluding to, Mr. Hines? RSSB has been around for well over 100 years. What crimes by the gurus have resulted as the cause of the perfect master-concept? What crimes or moral outrages can you point to?

You've been writing for 10 years that Turban Man Bad -- who are the people Turban Man hurt, pray tell? That's kind of a key issue that either makes or breaks your argument. Since you've never been able to cite any such harms by these gurus, your animus to RSSB seems to be more of a personal issue than a cause for justice.

By the way, "appears to act badly" is a rather weaselly term. Either there is evidence of wrongdoing or there's not. That's the basis of civil justice, all else is just Alex Jones-like rumormongering of which you are no stranger.

We all get it that you see the world through the lens of today's politics. Bully for you if you don't like Donald Trump. Many don't, fair play to them. But the fact that you'd weirdly conflate members of the GOP with the followers of the religion you followed for 35 years suggests to me that you've become something of a one hammer one nail ideologue in your later years.

Mr. Hines, you were a member of RSSB for 35 years. If your true motivation is to help people, it may be necessary to come to terms with why you chose allegiance to these RSSB beliefs you now find "obviously false," Discern why these beliefs weren't at all "obviously false" to you for 35 years. You need to come up with a better argument that everyone in RSSB is a victim because of what they read in RSSB books. You need to gather real evidence of actual harms done by accepting RSSB belief, and not just implying without any evidence that religious belief is necessarily harmful, or concluding criminal guilt (or is it "appears to act badly" now that several years have gone by with no bad news about Gurinder Singh).

Mr. Hines, you spent 35 years in RSSB. You owe your readers at least 35 minutes of actual self-reflection before you write any more essays on RSSB like this one.

[Brian Hines]

Choden, you didn't read or understand this blog post very well, obviously. I guess you were just interested in criticizing me, not responding to the points I made in the post. Here's the context in which I spoke about "obviously false."
------------------------
Religions evolve in accord with a sort of cultural natural selection.

If a religion is obviously false, not being able to back up its claims with demonstrable evidence even though that evidence supposedly is there for all to see, then it won't take long for people to reject the religion and it dies out.

So many religions rely on a claim that only after a believer dies are they able to know the truth of the faith that they followed while alive. That's an easy way out of the "where's the evidence?" problem.

But what's a religion to do when the divine being at the core of the faith is a human who looks just like everybody else, yet is believed to be God in Human Form possessing all of the powers of the Almighty? How does the religion reconcile the human's outward averageness with their supposed inward godliness?
------------------------
The point I was making is that if a religion were to say something like, "You will know God after meditating in this fashion for 2 hours a day over a span of ten years," then if someone did that and didn't know God, the religion would be obviously false. Kind of like buying a car that won't start when the promise is that it will.

But RSSB, as I noted in this post, used various techniques to keep people in the organization. Like, it can take up to four lifetimes to know God, and the boring through a mountain thing, where you don't see light at the other side until the very last obstacle is cleared away.

So I, along with many others, gave RSSB a good chance. Not four lifetimes, because I no longer believe in reincarnation. But 35 years.

And even regarding that time, I was a RSSB scientifically minded skeptic for most of those 35 years. Read my first book, "God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder." Read my second book, "Life is Fair." Read my third book, "Return to the One."

Each was written in cooperation with RSSB publishing staff and the RSSB guru. In each book I talked about the desirability of not having blind faith in a religious or meditation practice. I was never a RSSB true believer who accepted the guru as God without evidence. Yes, I liked Charan Singh and got along well with Gurinder Singh. I'd hoped they were who the RSSB teachings claimed they were, God in Human Form. But I was never certain about this. It was just a hypothesis to be investigated.

So your implication that one day after 35 years I suddenly was disenchanted with the RSSB teachings isn't true. I'd started to break away from RSSB much earlier. It just came to fruition after 35 years.

[tucson]

I went to see the RSSB guru of the time, Charan Singh, in 1974 and 1984 at the organization headquarters (Dera) in India. In those days I believed Charan was God.

I would be gazing at Charan and perceive a halo, a radiance or light around him that extended infinitely. I would be enveloped or absorbed by this radiance. At the time I attributed this to Charan individually as the source of it.

Since then I have come to see that this radiance extends from everything, that everything is in this radiance, that everything is this radiance. This radiance does not have a particular source or location or boundary such as Charan although he is in/of it too.

So, I now see Charan not as a special embodiment (God) of this radiance but as a resident of it just as we all are, just as everything is... all in all and that's all there is.

[Appreciative Reader]

Choden, you completely miss the point of Brian's post, I'm afraid. As he himself clearly explains to you in his comment.

I'd like to have a go at pointing out to you why your criticism is unfounded, if I may, even though Brian's presented his rejoinder already. Because maybe coming from someone else, and in their words, might help you see this better.

RSSB presents some claims. It is not immediately clear that those claims aren't true. That isn't the part that is "obvious".

Sure, although we haven't proof/evidence that those claims aren't true; but nor do we have evidence of their actually being true; and those are grounds enough to dismiss them, sure. If one does that, then that's the end to it, right there.

But it is not irrational to be interested in these things, and to want to "experiment" oneself, to test these claims for oneself. That is the true scientific spirit, in fact, this direct investigation and experimentation, that is made at great personal expense (or time, and attention, and money as well, and commitment, and in fact of a large part of one's life).

And that is the price Brian has willingly paid, to carry on the experiment. And to arrive at his perfectly legitimate conclusions basis that experiment.

-----

What he discusses here are the 'out's that are gamed into the belief system, the loopholes that are built in, the belief system that on the one hand claims extravagant things, and on the other hand claims experiential and experimental and indeed "scientific" tests to all of those claims, but then on the gripping hand still leaves a way out when the prescribed tests don't bear the expected results. That is the part that is "obvious", those built-in loopholes. That is the part that he's describing, and criticizing, here in this post.

[Appreciative Reader]

"This is probably my favorite RSSB ploy to prop up faith in the guru's Godman stature, no matter what the guru does. If the guru appears to act badly, as the current RSSB guru (Gurinder Singh Dhillon) has done, this is because he wants to make sure only the deserving will come to him and stick by him. "

..........Indeed. How utterly unselfish, how entirely heroic, has been GSD's conduct! He's willingly besmirched his fair name, his reputation. He's willingly taken on the role of a greedy unscrupulous con-man. Despite not having one bit of actual desire, he's nevertheless forced himself to fill his pockets, and his sons' pockets, with other people's money. Despite how very painful it was for him personally, he still reluctantly, and heroically, ended up apparently shortchanging his faithful devotee-nephews that had looked on him as a father figure and indeed a god-figure. All of that only in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, to make sure the false devotees stay away, and only the true devoteees remain. This is the supreme unselfishness, the supreme sacrifice. Glory be to GSD, for embracing that superhuman sacrifice.

[Dungeness]

@ AR [ If the guru appears to act badly, as the current RSSB guru (Gurinder Singh Dhillon) has done, this is because he wants to make sure only the deserving will come to him and stick by him. " ]

"appears to act badly"... appears for its part IMO to be a shallow screed for a
guilty verdict. Tut,tut. Sans sworn depositions, without charging documents,
No need for testimony, tapes, forensic audits, expert witnesses, cross exams,
even a nominal presumption of innocence. We have a rich Baba, a mysterious
family death, threats on life, malfeasance, a shadowy cast of characters all of
them almost certainly duped by a cruel mastermind, wild accusations from men
of impeccable honor, and, of course, the rigorous, in-depth drumbeat of tabloid
reportage. What could be more clear? What more damning evidence could
possibly be needed?

[Joe]

Brian loves to milk the RSSB moo cow as often as he can because he gets many times more "hits" to his blog than all his other recent postings on Zen, physics and consciousness combined.

[Brian Hines]

Joe, actually what you said usually isn't true. The daily page view statistics for this blog generally are quite steady. Yes, occasionally a news item related to the RSSB guru does generate a lot of extra page views, but the post I wrote recently about the RSSB teachings related to the guru didn't. I write about what interests me, not what interests other people. That's the only way I've happily been able to write posts for this blog during the past 18 years.

[Brian Hines]

Dungeness, you're ignoring the detailed reporting on the Dhillon family financial scandal by highly reputable news sources. Here's a link to a Bloomberg story. If you disagree with the reporting, leave a comment explaining what, exactly, you believe the story got wrong.

https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2018/08/bloomberg-story-shows-gurinder-singh-dhillons-shady-business-dealings.html

[Jim Sutherland]

I think that those RSSB Initiates who gave their hearts, souls, money, free labor, time, promotion to others, such as writing books, with out achieving the Carrot on the stick to entice Satsagis to continue keep on doing the same until they SEE the Radiant Form of their Guru inside, but have yet to SEE him, ate the most disgruntled about RSSB. So, who has Tihed their weath, …or donated continuous Offerings of money,…or carried the most dirt in baskets on their heads when visiting the Dera when Charan was there? Gurinder has not asked any one to carry dirt in baskets on their heads when visiting the Dera, at least, and he has improved the Hostel 6 Facilities for visiting Westerners. So, again, I think those who gave the most and received the least, are the biggest Gripers. As for me,…I gave NOTHING, except Mediation, and don’t gripe, and ask for any thing more.

[Brian Hines]

Dungeness, here's a blog post about a story from the Economic Times that I didn't have time to share earlier. Neither Bloomberg nor the Economic Times are "tabloids." So your claim that coverage of the guru's involvement in what looks like financial fraud came solely from tabloids is factually incorrect.

https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2020/01/delhi-police-financial-fraud-charges-point-to-rssb-gurus-involvement.html

[Dungeness]

@ Brian Ji [ Dungeness, you're ignoring the detailed reporting on the Dhillon family financial scandal by highly reputable news sources. Here's a link to a Bloomberg story. If you disagree with the reporting, leave a comment explaining what, exactly, you believe the story got wrong. ]

Hi Brian,

I think the Bloomberg story is fair to GSD unlike the tenor of more tabloid-ish publications.
However, even they -unintentionally perhaps- contribute to the conflation of GSD with the
leadership of various financial instruments controlled by the "Dhillon family"... as when the
article says "it is not clear how much Dhillon still owes his nephews..." without nailing down
who the actual Dhillon family member was. But the meme among guru-haters easily morphs
that scenario into an image of a greedy unscrupulous fraudster... cooking the books at night
after his daytime RSSB tasks are done.. In fact though, I think it's plausible others in the
Dhillon family or orbit or advisors such as Godhwani could have played the pivotal role.

As the article admits, GSD was already in his mid-sixties, in ill-health, and recovering
from cancer after 2011 when he shifted focus from his nephews advisory role to RSSB
duties. He had been advising them only. Obviously he couldn't make decisions for them.
Presumably that extended to responsibilities he delegated to family members or Dhillon
advisors such as Godhwani as well. Adrift, financial matters deteriorated rapidly from
that point.

[Appreciative Reader]

@ AR [ If the guru appears to act badly, as the current RSSB guru (Gurinder Singh Dhillon) has done, this is because he wants to make sure only the deserving will come to him and stick by him. " ]

"appears to act badly"... appears for its part IMO to be a shallow screed for a
guilty verdict. Tut,tut. Sans sworn depositions, without charging documents,
No need for testimony, tapes, forensic audits, expert witnesses, cross exams,
even a nominal presumption of innocence. We have a rich Baba, a mysterious
family death, threats on life, malfeasance, a shadowy cast of characters all of
them almost certainly duped by a cruel mastermind, wild accusations from men
of impeccable honor, and, of course, the rigorous, in-depth drumbeat of tabloid
reportage. What could be more clear? What more damning evidence could
possibly be needed?

Posted by: Dungeness | September 04, 2022 at 09:53 AM

----------

Dungeness, we're retreading old ground here. We've done this dance at least twice in recent memory. I say my piece, you say yours in response, following which I ask exactly what I'm going to ask you now in this comment, whereupon you simply fade out.

All right, let's dance this tired old dance one more time:

You've already agreed that one is within one's rights --- not just legally, but as a generally reasonable human being --- to have and present one's opinion about the culpability of, say, Trump, even pending or even entirely lacking actual judicial judgment. One does that sort of thing all the time. I don't see why that should be especially remiss with GSD's sainted person. Still, for the sake of argument, let's grant you that.

Nevertheless, two things:

(1) The utter greed, the utter venality of the man, how on earth do you reconcile that with his alleged mystic-hood, which after all is the basis for his position as head of RSSB. (I mean, I hope you won't try to argue that he's merely an administrative head, merely head bureaucrat.)

Now while I don't necessarily criticize that "greed" and "venality" per se. I personally find that sort of thing distasteful, but should you have been prey to it, I wouldn't have dreamt of criticizing you. Nor, had I been guilty of such, would you have any right to criticize me. Greed and venality in the sense of a preoccupation with enriching oneself is everyone's right, should they have a mind to, provided no laws are broken.

But for an alleged super-mystic, that hears celestial music within, that is in touch with inner realities beyond us ordinary mortals' ken: why would this paragon end up applying himself to filling his own pockets, as well as that of his sons, beyond --- way way way beyond --- mere everyday financial security? How on earth does that gel with the otherwordly focus of mysticism?

Mind, I'm not criticizing his wealth per se. Had he been to the manor born, I wouldn't have criticized him. Even had he not been born to it per se, but had he been a high-flying investment banker or superstar portfolio manager or whiz enterpreneur, and had himself earned his fortune during his pre-Guru days, then too there'd have been no question of criticism. But I do criticize an alleged mystic and Guru spending a goodly portion of his time and energy and attention to accumulating obscene riches for himself and his sons. (And please don't make baseless excuses about his sons' business acumen here, and try to pretend that it is they who'd earned it for themselves and their father off of their own bat.)

Once again, this criticism, this aspect of what I'm saying, wouldn't have applied if you'd done what he's done, or if I'd done it. We can be as greedy and as desiring of wealth as we like, as long as we're honest, and no one has any right to criticize us. But not if we set ourselves us to the lofty mystic standards that would merit Guru-dom (which entails both mystical attainment, and mystical absorption, as well as adepthood that his capable of actually guiding others, lacking which his very position is a lie).

(2) How and why the eff his "advisory" / consultancy postion, not gratis but off of which he gets paid millions? To my knowledge he was just a two-by-four salesman in Spain or some such backwaters, not some hotshot London or New York investment banker or business consultant, nor some superstar Silocon Valley enterpreneur. How and why the hell, other than clearly by leveraging his effing Guru-dom, did he arrive at that position, and that princely remuneration?

And then, when he screwed up so royally with that "advisor"-ship, what was the fallout of that? A bona fide consultant that screws up like that would have had their ass sued for crippling damages. Their professional body --- had they been a professional --- might have barred them from practicing. At the very least they'd have suffered huge damages to their professional reputation. But what happens here? GSD "advices" the organization to the ground, and "advices" his clients straight to near-bankruptcy and actually prison, while he sits back and counts his millions, this "advisor" that had never been paid a cent for his advice before this assignment on here.

Again, this might not be illegal per se. But surely you see how this sort of thing is both morally remiss, as well as professionally remiss (had he been a professional, and subject to professional standards, which of course he isn't)?

-----

Even if I grant you the court-of-law argument, how do you square up to these two criticisms of the man, in his capacity not as private individual but as RSSB head and alleged mystic?

[Dungeness]

@ AR [ ... how do you square up to these two criticisms of the man, in his capacity not as private individual but as RSSB head and alleged mystic? ]

I don't know the details of GSD's inheritance or what he's amassed
from advisory roles or how he's maxed the wealth of the whole
family particularly his immediate family including sons & wife as alleged.
The RSSB secretary ? stated only that he had given advice to his two
nieces Shiv/Mal and of course couldn't make their decisions for them.

As mentioned there may well have been other influential voices in on
the decisions including GSD's principal advisor Sunil Godhwani. For
all we know Sunil may have architechted the shell companies that en-
riched the Dhillons and himself? as well. The "goodly" amount of
time setting this up may well be in Sunil's corner. GSD could simply,
reasonably have just acquiesced to advisor Sunil's suggestions and
assurances. That's one scenario and not fair to believe without further
evidence. Ditto for the theory, GSD ignored spiritual duties and spent
sleepless nights masterminding the scheme threatening hellfire and
damnation for anyone opposed. Only the "fly on the wall truly knows"
what greed & evil lurk in the hearts of men.

p.s. leaving this particular dance for now...

[PJ]

RSSB is publicly affiliated with the UN, which is a satanic organisation working towards enslaving the world, along with sister orgs like the WEF.

GSD also got as many followers vaxxed as possible.

Case closed as far I'm concerned.

[Rupinder]

I have only two questions

1. When court ask Baba and other family members to appear in court, whole family made lots of excuses and even Baba made excuse that he has got Diabetic and not well, next day he was giving his lecture (I don't call his lecture satsang as it is whole fake)in front of 100s of people
Will a real Saint do that???

2. When court asked to show his Personal Tax details, he asked court that not to public his financial details

Will a real Saint do this? When people complained about Guru Nanak that he is distributing free grain, Guru Nanak invited authority to search and audit everything.. Guru Nanak was real Saint while Baba is scared that his wrongdoing will come in front of Public one day

Sorry 3rd Question ...

Anyone know what happening case against Baba and his family (and Nephews) ? When is next hearing???

[s*]

PJ,
Itś indeed very strange that RSSB is affiliated with UN.
Also is telling people to take the vaccins.
WEF is terrible so it is all very strange and unbelieveble what is going on in this world right now.
In earlier times one would never think that the Sat Guru would do things like this.

[s*]

Sat Guru
Sat is Truth!!
Guru is Teacher..
Pppfff

[Change is the only constant]

S*
We don’t live in earlier times. In case you haven’t noticed it’s a whole different time now.

[s*]

Yes!!!!
I have definitely noticed that.
Thanks you
Change is the only constant.

[Sonya]

“GIHF’s” are man-made idols. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Everyone contains the divine essence equally. Teachers are helpful. Man-made GIHFs are not helpful because they are illusions. Man-made GIHFs are clouds hiding the sun.

[Sonya]

What idol can be called upon to give the son of God what he already has? What idol can he need to be himself? What is not whole cannot make whole. Nothing that God knows not exists.

Thoughts are not born and cannot die. There are no separate parts in what exists in God’s mind. The thought God holds of you is like a star unchangeable in an eternal sky. There was no time it was not there. Those who seek for idols cannot know the star is there. The thought God holds of you remains exactly as it always was. In perfect sureness of its changeless and of its rest in its eternal home, the thought God holds of you has never left the mind of its creator.

Idols must keep hidden what you are, not from the mind of God but from your own. The star shines still, the sky has never changed, but you the holy son of God himself are unaware of your reality.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

Been a while, what a wonderful thread this is! I see a book here familiar this one. In truth, I didn't read this one but thank you for sharing some quotes, especially:

"A perfect Master can, with a single glance, find out one's inner condition. He then instructs us according to our condition. When anyone visits him he can see the visitor's inner condition as if that person were encased in transparent glass, but he keeps it a secret." -Sawan Singh Ji (Philosophy of the Masters)

Made me think, before I followed the RSSB path.. Dabbled with an article on astral travel. Didn't think it would work like the methods from -The Art of Dreaming by Carlos Castaneda, like when you look at your hands in your dreams to loosen yourself from the grip of a nightmare. Then wake yourself up.

Anyhow, asked Baba Gurinder Singh Ji about experiences before I made any commitments to any Sant Mat. Have shared only those experiences, since no Guru can claim they taught me those. A funny thing that he told me. He said, "These inner experiences you had before accepting the lacto-vegetarian diet may have been big achievements since you had no real plans for Shabd." But now, if you want to increase your spiritual wealth you must work hard for that."