Here's a thoughtful critique of Radha Soami Satsang Beas -- well worth reading

I've received a critique of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), a religious organization headquartered in India and led by a guru, from someone who wants to be anonymous, preferring to be called "LGG." Here's the PDF file.
Download Critique of RSSB

The critique is thoughtful and well-researched. Below I've shared the first six pages of the 53-page document. There's plenty of white space in the document, which I've minimized in my copy and paste below, so it doesn't take long to read the document. 

Even if you aren't familiar with RSSB, but especially if you are, I'm confident that you'll enjoy this critique. It's a great example of using reason and evidence to evaluate spiritual/religious teachings, and the organization behind those teachings. 

Here's the initial pages to whet your appetite to read the whole critique. This sample includes a summary of the critique. 

Why am I writing this?

I am writing this to organize and explain my ideas. I want to get this down on paper and out of my head because it’s probably the best way to organize my thoughts, address inconsistencies, and find a consensus on the real teachings and criticism.

This writing will mostly consist of facts with a few personal experiences, but I’ll make that well known when addressing it.

This will be an evolving document so I will continue to add and change it with any new information I find. There will also be writing where I miss ideas and thoughts because of a lack of information or understanding of the tenets or principles, so please don’t go too hard on me :).

I will try my best to remain unbiased while addressing concerns and teachings behind RSSB, but I will tackle ideas that seem counter to the teachings of RSSB.

Another abstract idea that I might want to add later is whether we believe something because we’re born into it, sharing the values and ideas from our family and relatives, or if we believe something because we truly understand it, resonate with it, and can back it up with enough evidence to be reasonable.

TLDR (Summarizing the 50+ pages); [stands for Too Long, Didn't Read, so a synopsis]

1. The Foundation of RSSB Relies on Karma – But Is Karma Real?

RSSB’s core doctrine is that karma binds souls to a cycle of birth and rebirth, and the only escape is through the guidance of a Perfect Living Master. But does karma actually exist in the way RSSB claims?

• Other religions reject reincarnation – Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) teach that we live once, and judgment happens after death. RSSB cherry-picks from different traditions without clear justification.

• If karma isn’t real, RSSB collapses – Without karma, there’s no need for meditation, no need for a guru, and no necessity for this specific path.

2. The Guru’s Role: A Contradictory Doctrine

RSSB teaches that a Perfect Living Master is required for spiritual liberation. However, its own history contradicts this idea.

• Shiv Dayal Singh (founder of RSSB) had no guru – If a guru is required for spiritual progress, how did he become a master without one?

• Circular logic in guru validation – The current guru picks his successor, and followers are told they can’t question his legitimacy unless they are enlightened themselves. How is this different from blind faith?

• The last three gurus are from the same family – This looks more like nepotism than divine selection.

3. The Fraud Scandal: Can a ‘God in Human Form’ Be Involved in Financial Corruption?

The current RSSB guru, Gurinder Singh Dhillon, has been implicated in a multi-billion-dollar fraud case linked to the Singh brothers (Religare). Court documents suggest financial mismanagement and hidden transactions involving RSSB leadership.

• Would a true spiritual master engage in this?

• Why didn’t he foresee this if he’s enlightened?

Sources:

• Bloomberg: The Billionaires and the Guru

• Business Today: Delhi HC Orders RSSB Chief to Repay Debt

4. Misinterpretation of Religious Texts

RSSB frequently reinterprets religious scriptures —particularly from Christianity and Islam— to fit its theology.

• Example: Jesus and karma – RSSB claims Jesus took on karma like their masters do, but this is not found in Christian doctrine.

• No historical or theological backing – Many of these claims lack scholarly support and seem more like selective reinterpretation.

Final Thoughts: Why I No Longer Follow RSSB

After years of reflection, I’ve realized that RSSB requires faith in authority rather than evidence-based belief. My biggest takeaways:

1. You can’t confirm the guru is divine unless you’re divine yourself – an impossible requirement.

2. Religious contradictions abound – Why do major religions differ so much if they are all supposed to point to the same truth? Moreover, does RSSB continually try to make sure every religion fits its ideas?

3. Spiritual leaders must be held accountable – If a guru is truly enlightened, their actions should reflect divine wisdom, not nepotism and financial scandals.

I remain grateful for some of RSSB’s teachings—such as discipline and a vegetarian lifestyle — but I can no longer accept it as truth.

What Do You Think?

I invite RSSB followers, ex-followers, and spiritual seekers to share their perspectives. If you believe my reasoning is flawed, I welcome a discussion. Let’s seek the truth together.

Download Critique of RSSB

Note: after reading the entire critique of RSSB, consider sharing your thoughts in a comment on this post. That will enable the author of this critique, "LGG," to consider your ideas and possibly respond via their own comment.

Comments

[All Saints]

very well , best interpretation about RSSB

[Ron E.]

Although very sincere and self-searching this ‘Critique of RSSB’ reads a little like a beginners guide to understanding cults. LGG makes an obvious list of all the failures and shortcomings that describes cult organisations and thinking. But maybe it isn’t always obvious for folks that are searching for some sort of meaning in their lives.

It’s a strong pull when living in a world full of internal and external conflicts and suffering (scattered with a sprinkling of joy and pleasure) to look to some person, group or teaching that appears to offer a ‘too good to be true’ answer. Also of course, with all cults and other spiritual/religious groupings, the strong feeling of belonging to a like-minded community is attractive and only natural for us generally social creatures.

LGG also wonders if we believe something simply because we are born into it – or if we believe something because we truly understand and resonate with it. I think there is a danger here in thinking that we understand and resonate with a teaching. To resonate is to find meaning in something and often such understanding, or to resonate, is to find something that agrees with one’s particular thoughts, emotions and conditioning – which may not be true.

Perhaps it comes down to being totally honest with oneself, with one’s motives, desires and proclivities. But such is all hard work and seemingly unrewarding. I guess it all comes down to honest self-inquiry and with living the life one is presented with at any particular moment.

[sant64]

Just last night I was using Grok to get its take on RS theology, specifically in what ways RS keeps in common or differs with its antecedents. Specifically, Kabir, the root guru of Sant Mat, and Guru Nanak, the root guru of Sikhism. I've found Grok very useful for deep diving into such questions. For example, "How does radhasoami satsang beas conflict with sikh teachings of guru nanak"?

https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1898027339851989250

[Spence Tepper]

The problem with this critique is that it is a static judgement of a series of observations of Sant Mat. Every statement the author makes can be questioned as well, and a different answer provided.

What we are really dealing with here has nothing to do with the perception of the Master from what public documents are available.

Maybe Shiv Dayal Singh did indeed have a Master? Why conclude he didn't? There isn't enough evidence actually to say either way. But the author concludes that Swami Ji did not, and that is an overreach. Especially because he teaches in Sar Bachan that a realized Master is absolutely necessary for any real progress at all.

So, what is really behind the author's claims? Even those are not beyond question. But they really don't get to the point. The point is that Sant Mat, as a system of belief and meditation practice, is not working for the author in their eyes.

We have to honor that. That's their voice, their view.

Their judgement about other people, the Master, etc is always going to be filled, as it is for each of us, with our own limitations of understanding, rational thinking, ego and observation. All very limited.

But anyone can see for themselves of a method of meditation and the teacher of that method works for them.

So, for example, when I saw Baba Ji in Petaluma, I can't explain what happened, but it was both an incredible and shattering experience. He was the whole creation sitting on the stage.

That is impossible to transfer such an experience. But if someone is indeed looking to see things from a different perspective, perhaps with a little more insight, then the answer isn't judging. It's becoming a better observer, a less judgemental observer, less distracted, more pure watching and seeing.

And for that there are many schools of meditation that will help.

Along the way you may discover the value of putting all thinking aside in order to really see and really hear.

The greatest prayer in Judaism, the Shema, is just that: "Listen O Israel! The Lord God is ONE."

So, listening is a big deal.

It begins and ends with listening and observing better.

[Brian Hines]

Ron, I think you're discounting this apparent fact: while an emotional attraction to a religion, it just feels right, indeed is an important factor in religiosity, so is a belief that the fundamental tenets of the religion are true. For example, it is very difficult to be a Christian if you doubt that Jesus existed or that embracing Jesus brings salvation.

So I see this critique as being akin to a fact checker, or an investigative reporter, or a Consumer Reports assessment of product claims by the manufacturer. It takes a look at the core tenets of RSSB, questioning the basis for them using evidence and reason. To me, that's a valuable thing to do, as it is for lots of other people. The author of the critique took the time and trouble to delve into the belief structure of a religion that attracted them at first, yet upon closer inspection wasn't what it seemed to be.

Spence, the word "maybe" is a cop-out. Sure, maybe the world is flat, but there's no evidence of that. Sure, maybe the moon is made of green cheese, but there's no evidence of that. Likewise, maybe Shiv Dayal Singh had a master, but there's no evidence of that. There's evidence of every other RSSB guru having a master aside from him. That leads the author of this critique to reasonably conclude that the founder of RSSB didn't have a master, which shows that a central tenet of RSSB -- you must be initiated by a Perfect Living Master to realize God -- isn't true.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian:

You wrote:
", maybe Shiv Dayal Singh had a master, but there's no evidence of that. There's evidence of every other RSSB guru having a master aside from him."

First, he himself said that one must have a master. There is clear evidence of the necessity of it. It's in Sar Bachan several times, and as well in nearly all of his poems. It is logically inconsistent for him to set that up as a requirement without actually meeting that same condition, of always being a student first and foremost of a Master.

Still, anything can happen when you don't really know, right?

Second, we don't really know that much about his biography.

Once again you are making the same false argument, that lack of evidence is proof something doesn't exist. It's just proof you can't draw a conclusion about it.

For someone interested in Truth you have a very hard time acknowledging what you don't really know. A good scientist is scrupulous about what they actually don't know, because that is the basis of exploration.

And exploration, well, it's a science thing Brian.

[Spence Tepper]

And BTW Brian, youranalogous argument is false:

You wrote:
"Sure, maybe the world is flat, but there's no evidence of that. Sure, maybe the moon is made of green cheese, but there's no evidence of that. "

There is evidence that the world is round, Brian.
And there is evidence that the moon is made of rock, metal and other elements.

There is evidence to support the alternatives. But no evidence to support Swami Ji had no master.

There is no evidence of Swami Ji's teachers or his history as a student of spirituality. So, we don't know.

Again, your argument falls apart simply because your examples aren't actually analagous.

But B- for effort.

[LGG]

Hi Spence,
I appreciate your reply. I recognize that personal experiences may be powerful, and I value the impact that gatherings with spiritual teachers can have on people. However, my assessment is more than just personal discontent; it is an examination of discrepancies in RSSB doctrine, history, and core claims.

Even if I'm willing to concede that there isn't 100% conclusive evidence of Shiv Dayal Singh's guru, this does not address the larger concern. For example, one of my claims was that there is an absence of scholarly backing for many claims regarding these historical figures, as per the examples given from the publications against the guru's words. At that point, the proof of burden would fall on the person making contradicting claims. These are more than just differences of opinion; they are basic inconsistencies that must be addressed.

Looking back, I can see areas where I could have developed certain ideas further. That said, this document was primarily for my own exploration, and I wanted to share my findings. I still believe I provided a strong analysis from historical, theological, and logical perspectives. At the end of the day, my goal was not to judge personal experiences but to critically examine the foundation and claims of RSSB itself. Yes, personal experience is quite important in terms of religion but so is the continuity of the fundamental teachings. If these contradictions can be reasonably addressed, I’m open to discussion.

[Ancient person]

Many years ago, RSSB dera recalled all copies of the original Sar Bachan (Hazoori Pothi). In the first page of that book was written that Shiv Dayal didn't have any guru.

[LGG]

This one? It does say that tho @Ancient Person

https://ia601309.us.archive.org/7/items/SarBachan/Sar_Bachan_Poetry_Part-1.pdf

[RS]

B.Hines writes: “…maybe Shiv Dayal Singh had a master, but THERE’S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT. There's evidence of every other RSSB guru having a master aside from him.”

RS replies: “actually THERE DEFINITELY IS EVIDENCE of that. There is evidence he treated TWO people as his gurus. And what is more the EVIDENCE of that is corroborated by three independent sources from different Sant Mat lineages.

SUMMARY:
Just as this statement from Mr. B.Hines and its critique of Shiv Dayal Singh is based on i.) ignorance AND ii.) illogical conclusions derived from that, similarly LGG’s ‘critique’ of RS Sant Mat Beas is based in the same two errors of reason and judgement. It an be explained by what has been identified as the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
—————————————
“The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias
in which people with limited competence in a particular domain
overestimate their abilities.”

[Appreciative Reader]

Dear LGG,

I completely loved reading your critique. (That is, so far I’ve only read Brian’s main post here, and just quickly browsed through your entire document to get an idea of it: but basis that.)

I completely love how you’ve gone around organizing your own thoughts here, and, as you say, trying, via this document, to make them more coherent, and more objective. It was a pleasure to simply engage with your thought process --- quite irrespective of where that thought process leads you.

Certainly I support and endorse your effort --- heh, for what that is worth!

And, as for what I think of the content of it: Well, the short nuance-free answer would again be: I like! And, broad-brush and absent small nuance, I agree, of course I agree!

--------------------

With the above said, and my general appreciation for your effort clearly expressed, as well as my broad support for your actual thesis clearly spelled out: there’s some nuances I’d like to bring out here, if I may. I’ll start by asking you two questions, and also clearly explaining why I’m asking them:

(1) You do suggest, in your Conclusion, that this document is intended not just as an exploration of your own thought processes and your ideas, but also as an exhortation to others --- specifically, other RSSB followers --- to question their beliefs.

At this point, I’d like to ask you, which is primary? Your own subjective opinion, or your addressing others’ beliefs? If your concern is primarily with yourself, and only incidentally with others, then please clearly state that now.

That’s important to know, because there’s some things that you might believe or do, that, if it is limited to just you, then one might pass over small glitches in them. But those same glitches, if you’re using your thesis to address others’ beliefs, take on a whole different hue, and do need to be clearly addressed.

(Again, at one level there’s no difference between the two. If a belief does not stand up to scrutiny for everybody, then, strictly speaking, it shouldn’t stand up to scrutiny even for yourself. But in practice, and particularly given we don’t know each other at all, one might be inclined --- largely as a matter of courtesy, consideration, call it what you will --- to be more charitable (that is to say, less rigorous) in one’s assessment of your ideas, if they’re directed primarily at your own self, and only incidentally at others.)

Here’s a for-instance, of the kinds of “glitches” I mean: You reject Karma, and list out your reasons for doing that. Now let me emphasize that I agree fully with your rejection of the Karma theory. But I do find two of the reasons you proffer for your rejection spurious (while agreeing with the other reasons, as well as the overall conclusion). One of those two would be where you point out that major world religions, other than the Indic, do not teach such: and that reasoning is no more than a fallacious appeal to authority (because if it were the case that the Abrahamic faiths did teach reincarnation and Karma, then that would not constitute a valid reason for accepting it to be true; so that their rejection of such is no more than a non sequitur). Another would be where you point out that subscribing to Karma might lead to nihilism: and that would be no more than a fallacious argumentum ad consequentiam (which is to say, the consequences that might follow from a conclusion have no bearing on its truth value, on whether or not that conclusion itself, as a point of factuality, is valid).

So, in that context, it might be good if you clearly spelled out --- both as an exercise in self-reflection (which is something you’re great at, cheers!), as well as in context of how (with how much rigor, or with how much leeway) we are to take your arguments.

(2) My second question would be whether, in rejecting RSSB, you’re now accepting of some other faith or religious/spiritual persuasion.

That is, you don’t say such in your thesis. And in any case, strictly speaking your rejection of RSSB stands on its own, and your acceptance (and/or advocacy) of some other competing faith or religio-spiritual ideology is, strictly speaking, a non sequitur, and the questioning of such a case of fallacious whataboutism. But still, it would be good if you would clearly spell this out now. Here’s why:

The apparent rationalist and realist that clearly exposes the fallaciousness of the Polynesians’ curious hybrid religion, and spells out the many laughable things about their worship of John Frum, is all well and good. But when it turns out that said debunker is himself a Jesus worshiper, then surely you see why that puts his critique of the Cargo Cults on a whole different footing, and also why an examination of that critique is, in fact, incomplete without also examining the inconsistencies and fallacies embedded in the Christian faith.

The above was a real-world example, that you might perhaps recognize; and there’s heaps of others out there. I can also cite you some examples of such from right here. (And I don’t in the least mean this last as a call-out, even though who I’m referring to will be obvious to regular visitors here. I mean this only to make my point clear now.) One: in early days here, there used to be a regular visitor and prolific commenter, who’d present regular and often brilliant take-downs of others’ religious nonsense; but then, after years and years, himself ended up pushing for some oafish Hare Krishna kind of faith, and left in a huff when Brian clearly called that out. Two: there is this guy --- a great guy generally, a gentle soul, whom as a person I like, and think of as a friend --- who has presented many cool arguments taking down others’ blind faith and inconsistencies, but who, in the end, turned out to be a blind advocate for his own pet woo centered around Oneness, and completely incapable of recognizing the woo as such even in the face of unassailable rebuttal. Three: another guy, again very knowledgeable, and very astute in taking down other’s arguments with perfectly valid arguments, but completely unable to see his own woo for what it is, and recently actually exposed as someone whose intentions and methods are not even sincere and honest.

So yes, given that backdrop, it might be good if you could spell out clearly, right at the outset, whether in rejecting RSSB you now embrace (and/or advocate) some other religious or spiritual faith.

--------------------

Maybe you could respond back clearly on these points, LGG. If you’re content with broad appreciation of your effort, and broad agreement on your thesis --- which broad appreciation and agreement are yours already! --- then we can just leave it at that, no issues. If, on the other hand, you’re appreciative of and actually welcome a more detailed, finer, more nuanced critique of your thesis and your specific arguments, then you might clearly indicate that, as well as answer those two specific questions I asked you: and I’ll try to critique your ideas along those lines.

But I’ll be travelling early next week, and will be gone for a couple weeks, maybe more, and probably not be able to engage much, other than sporadically and over my phone, while I’m away. So, if you’re able to respond within the weekend, then I’ll try to prepare a more substantial critique for you before I leave.

Either way --- the nuanced thing, or the happy-with-the-broad-agreement thing --- is cool with me, your call entirely. And either way, LGG, it was a pleasure to read your thesis, and to engage with your thoughts as you go around systematically making sense of your RSSB belief system. Do stick around if you can, apart from just this discussion over your specific thesis I mean: someone like you should be a solid addition to our little group of truth-seekers here!

…Oh, and by all means go ahead and critique anything you find remiss in my critique of your critique! I like how you repeatedly spell out that you realize you’re not infallible. Well, nor am I infallible, and I’d welcome being made aware of anything I myself might have got wrong, in how I’ve thought things through. So, in short, feel free to respond with critique of anything I say here!

[Spence Tepper]

Hi LGG:

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I think it is quite clear that you believe what you have read, and are drawing your conclusion, logically, from that.

No one can fault you for it. But you have drawn very tight conclusions where a little more investigation might reveal something else.

What determines whether you go on and deeper to look for spirituality? If you had not drawn a conclusive "NO" then of course you would still be in your exploration, as are those of us who are on any spiritual path. We have a hard time drawing tight conclusions because we are witness to things that go well beyond rational explanation. And we have learned that one more piece of information missing from an argument can completely turn the conclusion around to its opposite.

When you wrote that Karma is not referred to in the Holy Bible, for example, and therefore criticise Sant Mat for claiming it is, that is actually a controversial statement, because there is evidence in several Bible passages that claim that we must pay for the results of our actions, and not all in this life, nor in a single judgement.

Let me present two examples. This isn't to prove Karma is in the Bible, only to show that there is some evidence that makes any conclusion too premature.

St. Paul speaks directly to this point that what you sow, you reap in another life, only after you die. And then, after death, God clothes us with a new body appropriate to what we have sown.

In response to someone's argument that there is no life after death, Paul says of course there is, otherwise even Jesus didn't rise. And then he goes on to explain how our next life usually takes shape:

" But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor."
1 Corinthians 15:35-41

And in another passage Paul teaches that if you want to return here after you die, if that is what your heart wants, then you can return:

" All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. "
Hebrews 11: 13-15

These passages are just evidence, not proof. But they support the theory of Karma. You might say they are teachings about how karma works. And that is because, regardless of what words you use, the creation functions the same way in any culture and time.

So your conclusion is a personal one, because there is some clear evidence for an alternative view.

Once you can dig deeper into how you filter and conclude, then, the journey of self-discovery moves forward. There is no universal perspective when it comes to drawing conclusions from historical documents or news articles. It is filtered through your own crap detector, and each one's crap detector has different filters, from our own conditioning. And indeed the writers of history have different persepectives. Just watch how Fox News and MSNBC report on the identical event! Not only how we view, but even who was doing the writing and reporting...all conditioned by the mind.

The point of spirituality is to transcend that. Not to judge anyone else, but to understand how limited we are in doing so, and most importantly, to provide us with an individual avenue to a deeper understanding.

If your philosophy and practice brings you to the place where you truly understand that we are all particles of the same creation, no better or worse than one another, then I'd say that was a successful philosophy, a philosophy that allows you to transcend good and evil, and see the good in all. Whatever accomplishes that is a success.

But to see evil in everyone else, in all "other", all differernt thought, all different beliefs from your own, that I think is a prison cell.

Yours

Spence

[Spence Tepper]

Hi LGG
When you wrote
"Other religions reject reincarnation – Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) teach that we live once, and judgment happens after death."

You may be, in part, referring to something Paul wrote:
" And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"
Hebrews 9:27

This has been used often to support the notion that we only live once, despite the inconsistencies in what Paul wrote even in Hebrews as cited above,

This is another example of how writers reconstruct translations to fit their beliefs. The word for " One time only " in biblical Greek is "Mono", as in for example "monotheism" for only one God or Monogenes the only son of God...

But the actual Greek term used in Hebrews 9:27 isn't mono. It's the Greek word "Hapax"...It happened.." When we look at the use of Hapax in the new testament there are two uses: "It happened" generally referring to a historical event in the past tense "Once upon a time this happened. " But in present tense it is only used for any event and it's result. "Once X happens then Y".

"It is appointed to human beings that once they die there is a judgement "
Nothing actually there about only one time. When we die we are judged.

[Spence Tepper]

The common interpretation of Hapax as one time only is a newer one added by translators for
the new testament. But the same term Hapax, used in the septuagent, the old testament translations into Greek by scholars who wrote at the time of Christ was used as indicated above, once it happens, or it happened once, not it happens only once. Today scholars begrudgingly admit that they interpret the same word differently for meaning in the NT as they do for the OT. And that is purely based on a pre-existing belief. When God says in the OT "I did it once and I can do it again! " Or when Paul writes that if we sin then Christ who died once for us is being crucified again, that newer interpretation simply does not hold up.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

[How hard spiritual work really is]
In..

Path of the Masters, by Jullian P. Johnson

Ch 2: A Review of World Religions... Analysis

Here, the author draws a parallel between many different Religions. AND it is IMPLIED that students should READ and explore all religious TEXTS available! It is also a REQUIREMENT that All seekers take 1 year to make the decision of following RSSB Teacher.

So whoever thought that STUDIES ended in just a few books is highly unfortunate..

Like in the Monopoly game:

GO TO JAIL
Go Directly to Jail
DO NOT PASS GO
DO NOT COLLECT..

[Common Seeker]

Thoughts expressed by 'LGG' are quite natural and common for every seeker of Truth. We must have introspection instead of becoming blind followers.
Several times thought crops my mind that RSSB has named itself as Science of the Soul Centres outside India. Means they are teaching Science of the Soul to the Western World as they couldn't find this subject in their schools and Universities.
Every body knows that Science is a systematic way of studying the natural world through observation and experimentation. Science uses evidence to explain what we see in the natural World. Science shares observation and data.
My simple question is : Does Science of the Soul Centres have done any such systematic study about the progress and experimentation of their followers studying Science of the Soul subject under the guidance of Master. Does anyone has any information about it or it's just hidden secret.
Learned seekers may throw some light and achievers who have seen the promised ' Inner Light' will be highly respected and appreciated for sharing their truthful experience.

[2 cents]

@common seeker
RSSB is a belief/faith based philosophy. The term "science" has been used, possibly, as a propaganda tool. Dera has removed "Science of the Soul"book by Jagat Singh from circulation.
Disciples may have spontaneous spiritual/zen moments. In RSSB, they are labeled as the result of meditation or gurus grace.
In science, failing to reproduce results after numerous attempts, the scientists makes an assessment of all the steps and environment for correctness. If variations are not discovered, they are forced to question the validity of their hypotheses.
In RSSB, the hypothesis can't be questioned. Hence, it is not a science.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

"The term "science" has been used, possibly, as a propaganda tool. Dera has removed "Science of the Soul"book by Jagat Singh from circulation."

Posted by: 2 cents | March 09, 2025 at 12:38 PM

Not even the Atheist 'truth teller' will call this BLATANT Lie out?

No?

https://rssb.org/book-EN-002-0.html

Book found FREE at main site.

[umami]

Haha! I just found Science of the Soul at rssb.org too! And what about all those Science of the Soul Study Centers?

Science has a secondary definition as systematized knowledge, so in that sense the word could still apply. For example, when they call boxing the Sweet Science.

[Scientist]

A cult will remain a cult, it can never become a science. If this baba is exposed like ram rahim singh in future , will people still follow him? Answer is yes because it's brainwashed culture.

[thereasonableone]

Loved this critique! Thanks for sharing!

[Neon]

RSSB is definitely NOT a science. It's pathetic when GSD or the sangat try to justify it as such. It's blind faith.

[Fool on the hill.]

If you can have a science of theology than a spiritual science is basically the samething.

[Scientist]

If karma can be ended by spirituality and Bhajan Simran, then why did Baba Ji go to the doctors (science) to get his cancer treated? He could have ended his bad karma by closing his room and doing Bhajan Simran. Baba Ji knows very well that cancer is a physical disease, it has nothing to do with karma and it will not be cured by bhajan simran, for its treatment one will have to take refuge in medical science. Spiritual science and science of soul cannot do anything except fooling people.

[Naam]

Baba ji often says in his satsang that the shabad 'Naam' has so much current in it that like a road roller, the Shabad Naam will one day pull the satsangi with it and take him to Sachkhand. If Naam has so much power then why can't Naam stop the satsangi from drinking alcohol, committing adultery, cheating etc.?

[Sapiens]

You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless banana's after death in monkey heaven.

[Sweet but Psycho]

What is the point of RS?
To go to Sach Khand when you die.

What is the method?
Awaken the energy that will transport you there even now in this life.

Why is this illogical?
It is illogical to have permanent, eternal ecstasy through passing temporary experiences.
Ok, you went to Sach Khand, now you’re back having dinner. How did that help you? How did that improve you? How does that guarantee ecstasy after death?

It doesn’t any more than having an ecstatic sexual experience guarantees eternal ecstasy after death. You had it, it’s over now you are eating dinner with a memory.

The whole idea and method is illogical. The RS masters say this themselves, because in the books they say you can “reach” Sach Khand, yet if you are attached to this world you will come back here.

So, if the idea is illogical what is the point? The point is “relax, you’re taken care of.” Whether Jesus is going to meet you, or RSSB gurus, or Shiva; you can relax because what is temporary and passing will end, and what is permanent and unchanging is true.

The value of RSSB is the same value of all religions which is to give you security, pacify you, and give you something positive to do. In the end all actions to bring about what was always already there, will fail (and yet succeed in a manner). It is a huge improvement over nihilism so prevalent in modern society.

Trust Jesus, trust the Master, trust Shiva, trust the Unborn. There is never any need for fear, worry, or consternation. It’s a sand painting. You can’t attain what was never lost. You can discard your beliefs in the need to attain what can’t be lost, that’s all.

[RS]

Q. from S but S:
“…the shabad 'Naam' [is claimed to have] so much current in it that like a road roller, the Shabad Naam will one day pull the satsangi with it and take him to Sachkhand.’ If Naam has so much power then why can't Naam stop the satsangi from drinking alcohol, committing adultery, cheating etc.?”
A: Illogical question.
It’s like asking ‘If a space rocket has so much power that it can take its occupants to neabye planets like Mars why can’t it stop people visiting, clubs, pubs and brothels”.
Your question is like asking if a railway engine is so powerful that it can drag a few hundred people, their luggage and tons of freight, hundreds of miles across country from Amritsar to Varanasi, why can’t it stop people cheating, drinking alcohol and being unfaithful to each other.
Anyone who wants to travel from Amritsar to Varanasi by that train needs to just get on board, PLUS to travel they will need to buy a ticket.
Same with the El Camino Real of Shabd /Naam: there is a price to be paid. Do you know what it is ‘SbutS’?
There is no force here. Those who made a booking but didn’t pay the invoice and don’t even go the station won’t be able to get on board. Sorry, alcohol drinkers, adultery committers, cheaters. 🤷‍♂️ That’s just how it is.

[RS]

Sweet-but-psycho wrote:
Q. ‘What is the point of RS?’
A. “To go to Sach Khand when you die.”

WRONG!
See previous post on Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

[Naam]

@ RS

That's mean Baba gurinder singh ji won't be able to get on board of Sachkhand Train

[LGG]

Hi Appreciative Reader,

Sorry for the late response. Thank you for such a thoughtful and detailed response—it’s clear you’ve engaged with my critique on many levels, and I appreciate your kind words about the effort to organize my thoughts.

To address your questions:
1. On the Primary Focus of My Critique
My document is both a personal exploration and an invitation for others—especially RSSB followers—to question and refine their own beliefs. I wrote it to work through my own ideas as much as to spark dialogue. That said, I understand that when addressing others’ beliefs, even small “glitches” in one’s arguments take on a different weight.

For instance, regarding Karma, my rejection isn’t meant to rest solely on the fact that the Abrahamic faiths don’t endorse reincarnation or that it might lead to nihilism. I see those points as starting steps—a way to illustrate broader doctrinal inconsistencies in RSSB’s framework. Yet, I recognize that these reasons, taken in isolation, could be viewed as appeals to authority or as arguments from consequence. I aim to encourage a deeper inquiry: if a central tenet doesn’t hold up to rigorous scrutiny for everyone, shouldn’t we examine it more closely for ourselves? I’ll gladly clarify and refine these points in future revisions so that my intended rigor and willingness to be self-critical are fully transparent.

2. On Whether Rejecting RSSB Means Embracing Another Faith
Rejecting RSSB does not automatically imply that I’ve adopted another specific religious or spiritual stance. My critique is focused on exposing internal contradictions and logical issues within RSSB’s teachings rather than on promoting an alternative dogma. I’m very much in a process of inquiry, open to multiple perspectives, and I believe that any faith—even one I might lean toward in the future—should be subject to the same critical scrutiny. My goal is not to trade one set of unquestioned beliefs for another, but to encourage a thoughtful, ongoing dialogue about what we choose to believe and why.

I hope this clarifies my position. I’m grateful for the opportunity to discuss this further, and I welcome any further thoughts or questions you might have as we both continue to seek clarity and truth in our respective journeys.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, LGG.

Regarding your answer to my first question, as well as my broader question about how much nuance you're looking for in my/our examination of your work: clearly, then, a detailed response from me will not be out of place. But, like I said, engaging at that level will now be difficult for me, now that I've left already on an extended travel schedule. Maybe when I return, if you're around then --- although it'll be a few weeks now, I'm afraid.

----------

Re. the specific "glitches" I used as example. Sure, like I said, I agree with your other reasons, that you mention; and in any case, absent clear evidence for Karma, I agree with your conclusion, which is to say rejection of Karma.

But, that said: those two specific arguments are complete non-starters, entirely spurious: they don't, in fact, point to any inconsistencies in the RSSB schema at all, not those two specific arguments; and nor do they, therefore, serve even as starting points for broader examination. Afraid those two specific arguments are simply wrong --- hence, "glitches". (Again, I agree with your conclusion itself, as well as remain fully appreciative of your work, that you've shared with us.) (And in any case, you acknowledge and appreciate those corrections, so maybe this qualification is moot now.)

Should you be around when I get back, and should you be interested in fully exploring all these finer details: then sure, it'll be a pleasure to engage with your entire document, in detail, and share my thoughts with you.

----------

As far as your not embracing, nor flogging, any alternate faith in place of RSSB: fair enough, and thanks for clarifying that point!

I'd say that if you were to be fully entirely discerning --- as it is good and right you should --- then most/all "faiths" will come up short. Including deism even. But of course, your journey is yours, to take to whichever conclusion you yourself find apposite, and at your own pace. I, for one, will enjoy your further comments here, and not only on this thread, should you decide to stay on and participate in discussions here.

[Osho Robbins]

Just for the record, there is a REASON why swami ji's guru is not stated. it was the family guru. his parents, brother etc all followed him.
this is the issue:
he did not appoint swami ji as successor.
This is a major issue.
he appointed Girdhari Das.
so swami ji followed Girdhari Das, in that period of "17 years of intense meditation" that is quoted in the book " Radha Swami Teachings"

After his death, he appointed someone else.
At that point, swami ji started teaching.
but who could he say was his guru?
Girdhari never appointed him. neither did Tulsi Sahib.

So swami ji was self appointed- which goes against the rules.
incidentally so was jaimal singh, swami ji does not even list his name when specifically asked who will succeed him. he doesn't say "i have sent jaimal to punjab to be my successor"

this throws a spanner on the works because the first and second guru were both self appointed.

[Osho Robbins]

https://radhasoami.livejournal.com/229412.html?

just google girdhari das guru
for further information

The entire belief falls down.

if swami ji (and his brother was also a guru of the bindraban sect) are self appointed
and so is jaimal ( hence why the committee had a problem with him)
then RSSB has no legitimate claim to be the true "line of gurus"
RSSB uses this to discredit kirpal, but it applies to RSSB even more.

now if you change the rules and say "you don't have to be appointed - if you've got it - that is enough - you can be a self appointed guru - no problem"
then it solves it.
but now anyone can claim to be the successor to GSD- so the organisation loses control.

to avoid chaos and maintain control the rules are created to keep the followers in line.

right now, GSD has broken tradition and appointed a successor while alive. how can he? because according to the rules, the guru is supreme and can do anything

[Parisa]

Ha, ha, ha, after reading the very first paragraph, I realised it was written by someone (an infant perhaps) still in kindergarten. Hierachy - high - ra ( god) - key ( musical sound).
BEAS - be as.
Throughout life we have many gurus, in many forms. Wake up to your awareness of ultimate reality. Leave the trappings of conventional reality behind (hindsight) - yes an attempt at a pun) as you progress on life's journey
Those who practise meditation with habitual perseverance, will eventually realise - (real eyes) the inner radiance and meet with the ultimate guru . SHABD. Why not just give it ago.

[Trez]

Another Truth of a bible, Gurinder Singh Dhilion and The Radha Soami Cult, a Shower of Shit of a path full of exposed lies and snake weaving moves by a fraudulent baba

This is what it is, and nothing else.

Move on...

[arun marwah]

Karma is Real @brian hines. Anyone who doubts karma theory should study Astrology. Your horoscope, each human being on the planet has one, as per his date of birth, place of birth and time of birth. As per position of Planets in your horoscope, you behave and reap rewards/punishment. For westerners Read Linda Goodman to understand Astrology.

[Astrologer]

Astrology is a way of fooling people. The position of planets mentioned in it is not true because the exact position of a planet cannot be ascertained at any particular time. Even today in 2025, we cannot assess the position of planets correctly, so predicting someone's future by looking at the position of those planets is nothing but fooling people.

[s]

Still am I very happy to became a veggie trough RSSB and the Love of Maharaji!!
Eventually it is what we do with it.
What we do with everything that comes across in our lives.
I am thankfull that me and family met Maharaji..
The karma theory is difficult ..So I just let go of that.
In fact it is what WE do with information.
What one cannnot see one cannot really know.
It stands that veg and meditation is and stays beautifull.
So whatever happens ...Stay REAL to Ourselves.Yourself.
Life is not easy at all, espcially in this period of time.
So in fact God Soul is inside in each one of us <3
Believe in the Goodness and Love ( how difficult life can be pppfff)
Amen