What we do isn't as important as how we do it...mindfully

Maybe it wasn't much, but I'll take it.

A few days ago I found that an insight which I've rationally known for a long time had partially passed through the dividing line between intellectual understanding and experiential understanding.

Meaning, the insight now wasn't so much something that I thought about, but something that had become more of my basic attitude to life.

Put into words, my aha! sounds rather trite. Yet it resonated with me.

I realized that I'll always be disappointed if my goal is to resolve the problems in my life. For as soon as I deal with one problem, another pops up. That's simply the nature of life. So I stand a better chance of success if my goal is to remain as calm, cool, and collected as possible no matter what happens. 

This is how Google AI sums up that adage.

"Cool, calm, and collected" is an idiom that describes someone who is not upset or bothered by things, and who remains composed and in control in stressful situations. It suggests a person who is collected, rational, and capable of making sound decisions under pressure. 

Another way of putting this is that it struck me that what I do is less important than how I do it. I tend to think that if I can only accomplish X, Y, and Z, then I'll be happy. However, since often the accomplishing doesn't happen, it would be nice if I could be happy with or without X, Y, and Z.

The Stoic philosophers speak of this sort of thing, arguing that our reaction to what life brings us is within our control to a greater degree than is making life produce the things that we want. 

And it's very much in line with the tenets of mindfulness meditation, as laid out by Jon Kabat-Zinn in his book Wherever You Go, There You Are -- which is my favorite book in this genre. He writes:

We use the word "practice" to describe the cultivation of mindfulness, but it is not meant in the usual sense of a repetitive rehearsing to get better and better so that a performance or a competition will go as well as possible.

Mindfulness practice means that we commit fully in each moment to being present. There is no "performance." There is just this moment. We are not trying to improve or to get anywhere else. We are not even running after special insights or visions. Nor are we forcing ourselves to be non-judgmental, calm, or relaxed.

And we are certainly not promoting self-consciousness or indulging in self-preoccupation. Rather, we are simply inviting ourselves to interface with this moment in full awareness, with the intention to embody as best we can an orientation of calmness, mindfulness, and equanimity right here and right now.

...The spirit of mindfulness is to practice for its own sake, and just to take each moment as it comes -- pleasant or unpleasant, good, bad, or ugly -- and then work with that because it is what is present now. With this attitude, life itself becomes practice. 

Then, rather than doing practice, it might better be said that the practice is doing you, or that life itself becomes your meditation teacher and your guide.

This is possible because meditation is all about not-doing, rather than doing. How difficult is it to do nothing? Not difficult at all. It's really easy. So is mindfulness meditation. No teacher or guide required. Kabat-Zinn says:

Thinking you are unable to meditate is a little like thinking you are unable to breathe, or to concentrate or relax... People often confuse meditation with relaxation or some other special state that you have to get to or feel.

...But meditation is not about feeling a certain way. It's about feeling the way you feel. It's not about making the mind empty or still, although stillness does happen in meditation and can be cultivated systematically.

Above all, meditation is about letting the mind be as it is and knowing something about how it is in this moment. It's not about getting somewhere else, but about allowing yourself to be where you already are.

...Meditation is synonymous with the practice of non-doing. We aren't practicing to make things perfect or to do things perfectly. Rather, we practice to grasp and realize (make real for ourselves) the fact that things already are perfect, perfectly what they are.

This has everything to do with holding the present moment in its fullness without imposing anything extra on it, perceiving its purity and the freshness of its potential to give rise to the next moment.

Then, knowing what is what, seeing as clearly as possible, and conscious of not knowing more than we actually do, we act, make a move, take a stand, take a chance. Some people speak of this as flow, one moment flowing seamlessly, effortlessly into the next, cradled in the streambed of mindfulness.

...Work at allowing more things to unfold in your life without forcing them to happen and without rejecting the ones that don't fit your idea of what "should" be happening.

...Letting go means just what it says. It's an invitation to cease clinging to anything -- whether it be an idea, a thing, an event, a particular time, or view, or desire. It is a conscious decision to release with full acceptance into the stream of present moments as they are unfolding.

To let go means to give up coercing, resisting, or struggling, in exchange for something more powerful and wholesome which comes out of allowing things to be as they are without getting caught up in your attraction to or rejection of them, in the intrinsic stickiness of wanting, of liking and disliking.

It's akin to letting your palm open to unhand something you have been holding on to.

Comments

[Ron E.]

@ Brian: - “Then, rather than doing practice, it might better be said that the practice is doing you, or that life itself becomes your meditation teacher and your guide.”

Just about sums meditation up, not much more to be said. But, (saying more)!!!! As we are constant doing and achieving machines, an on-going meditative mind is generally hard to comprehend, let alone practice – or non-practice. It seems that if we are not doing, not following the dictates of our mental conditioning and particularly, the demands of the self in maintain its illusory structure, we feel we don’t exist.

I like the little poem on the cover of Steven Harrison’s book ‘Doing Nothing’: - “Sitting quietly, doing nothing–Spring comes and the grass grows.”

Yet, not to do with non-action but doing whatever is needed and appropriate – in awareness.

[manjit]

I have to be honest, I don't follow too closely Brian's ongoing journey through books and texts and the philosophical consequences & musings thereof.

I've just scanned the above, and it's another one of those posts containing great value and insights from a certain perspective..... but, as is ultimately the nature of all linguistic and conceptual approaches to the infinite mystery of being, consciousness and reality, it also has it's obvious inherent limitations, flaws, inconsistencies, illogicality and self-contradictions etc.

This is well demonstrated here in this paragraph:

"We aren't practicing to make things perfect or to do things perfectly. Rather, we practice to grasp and realize (make real for ourselves) the fact that things already are perfect, perfectly what they are."

WHY do we need to "practice" to "grasp and realize" things are already "perfect"? Doesn't the inherent perfection of reality preclude the necessity or desire to "grasp and realize " anything?

And this is precisely my point - I absolutely agree with this paragraph! Everything IS absolutely perfect as it is and there is NO need to grasp or realize anything, anything at all.... reality is what reality is and it grinds on regardless of our grasping or non realising it!

Yet here we all are, grasping desperately. So desperately, in such a stupor we've made a net out out of our minds and language, hoping this will catch enough reality to fill the inner hunger, the inner sense sense of incompleteness. This despite even our very best minds and language telling us that mind and language cannot capture reality at all.

We still keep pitching our nets though, don't we?

Aye, reality and consciousness is indeed a mystery. A magnificent, breathtaking, glorious one.

[Ron E.]

Manjit. I guess the point about practice and inherent perfectness is that few realize all is already perfect - hence practice, which to my mind I everyday, every moment awareness or remembering.

[sant64]

" No teacher or guide required"

If we're sure of that, why spend thousands of dollars every year on books and apps by teachers and guides?

Is it categorically true that belief in a religious authority is counterproductive to peace of mind? If so, where's the evidence?

Or is it true that the nihilist no-god no-guru no-teacher of any kind approach is the way to genuine peace, happiness, fruitfulness? If so, where is the evidence? The admission that having given up the guru for 2 decades on books and apps by nihilist teachers hasn't resulted in meaningful progress seems to argue against this church's "anti-authoritarian" theme.

Thought still better IMO than the church of the Retired Professor, who teaches and preaches Nietzsche and rejoices in harvesting new atheists, calls himself agnostic, but still worships his guru and attends satsang.

So much is powered by resentment of authority. Some people tend to find authority deeply embarrassing. And so they pretend to be free thinkers who have no need for authority, while they still follow authorities. Including gurus like Alan Watts, Sam Harris, and Charan Singh.

Does any of this strike you as unfounded and unfair? It shouldn't. Consider that the entire history of Sant Mat is founded on resentment of authority. The root gurus, such as Kabir and Nanak were anti-authoritarian, which is why we loved them. Whoops, and worshiped them as authorities. We read about Swamiji and the RSSB gurus and admired the freedom of their anti-authoritarian message. Yes, they spoke about the guru as an authority, but we accepted "guru" as an innocuous aspect of the divine in relationship with our soul.

The overall result of that belief in the guru/godman is that we felt good. While a physical guru may do immoral things, I strongly doubt that belief in the guru was in any way unpleasant or harmful.

But the problem was that part of us was embarrassed by this belief. Perhaps we were in a profession where overtly standing by such beliefs was career suicide, and so we pretended to be rational nihilists. Such pundits explained their evolved position with many steamer trunks of evasive nuance. Including citing the ravings of one of the most wacky Indian gurus ever, who railed endlessly about the dishonest machinations of his fellow gurus without ever citing a single example of who he was talking about.

Taking Faqir Chand all in all, he was far less the wise maverick than he was a curious crank with an exceptionally confusing, ambivalent, changing, boastful, hypocritical, and utterly nihilistic message. "For all I know, when I die I will only see trains." Great. Maybe greater BS than Kal standing on one foot. Whee, hurray for nihilism. Nihilism is Truth, Faqir said so. Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for my daily 3-hour dhyan of Charan.

The major critics of Sant Mat feel they've won the great war against the authority of Gurudom. But they haven't. Some of them are still searching for new gurus, that is, new authorities. And others are still pretending to have gotten over their guru worship when they most flatly have not.

Hence, I offer that it's time to take a fresh look at authority. If you haven't been able to give up the need for authority, it just might be that your views that all authority is "authoritarian" are not founded in reality. Yeah, like that'll ever happen. Well, one can dream. Hopefully, just not of trains.

[Spence Tepper]

If you are calm you can see what's going on more clearly. And if your mind is absolutely still, you can see so much more.

What we don't see, we don't understand or believe. We don't believe we are prisoners because we don't see beyond our prison cell.

To see beyond our little prison cell is to understand immediately that we are prisoners.

Then we can quietly work towards actual freedom.

But what we do not see, we don't believe in, and we certainly don't work for that.

Liberation, true freedom is how people identify themselves largely because of what people see. They see their prison cell and think that is the entirety of reality. And so they proclaim they see perfectly clearly and they are free. But it's all relative.

If they really were mindful, aware, seeing without judgment or emotion, accepting what is, with an absolutely still mind, then a little clearer picture comes in.A much further horizon is visible.

But to see well beyond our thinking, a good teacher is absolutely necessary. How can we see beyond our thinking? How can we put all thinking aside and completely still the mind? We must have something outside of mind to move towards that state. Something outside of this ocean, something grounded to a realty that doesn't waver with our proclivities.

Another prisoner can't free a prisoner.

For real emancipation, you need the guidance of someone who is really free. They really know what Mindfulness actually is.

A rope can't pull itself up.

[um]

@ Spence

That power that made some go into the world and spread their message, telling people that a higher power had ordered them to do so, that power, if it exists as apart from that prophet, missionary etc , ...failed to tell me and with me the rest of the world to listen to these people, these fellow human beings ... that SAY that an higher power spoke to them.

Hahaha ..Spence, the late MCS was a great story teller, not only by the words he used but also the intonation and the body language.

Everytime I am remembered of that story of the king and the poor farmer that gave him something to eat, I am filled with humor

He made the poor farmers wife say to her husband ...You remember that MAN ...that SAID ...he was a KING

That same story can be used for mystics ...hahaha ..Do you remember that man tha said that god had spoken to him

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You may believe in something greater, ideally based on some experience, perhaps within, perhaps in nature, perhaps while you simply practiced Mindfulness. But even if not, if only just a noble sentiment from a place within you, even you may believe, if you like. I happen to think that is very healthy, for the individual.

And you may believe in nothing. You may look at other people, scrutinize ancient texts, look at how people have behaved, even how individuals choose to behave and decide there is nothing more than this. And while I don't think that you should stop looking, it is most certainly your right to do so or not, and if it makes sense to you it is healthy just to accept what you see and be comfortable in that. And nothing wrong with sharing your perspective, your choice. All that has good. We need a diversity of views.

However, if you argue that it is right for you to share such views but wrong for those who think differently to share theirs, I don't think that's healthy at all. Everyone's voice should be honored as having its place here.

Your view has nothing to distinguish itself if not by honoring the background of different views.

[um]

@ Spence

>>However, if you argue that it is right for you to share such views but wrong for those who think differently to share theirs, I don't think that's healthy at all. Everyone's voice should be honored as having its place here.<<

Hahaha Spence ..were and when did I say it was wrong?

If I would sit before you and you would share your inner experiences, I just would listen as I did with my late dear friend who had an experience that lasted for weeks and changed him completely.

There would be no word of aversion, resistance or whatever ...and I would take whatever you would tell on your word.

But what I am trying to put on the table has nothing to do with it ....

If you would tell me that God, Maharaji or whatever power spoke to you and ordered you to share it with me ...my answer would be simple ...Thank you Spence ...
but than I would say to you after nipping some coffee ... I do hope Spence that you understand that the same voice that spoke to you, did not speak to me, asking, ordering me to heed your words.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You wrote
". I do hope Spence that you understand that the same voice that spoke to you, did not speak to me, asking, ordering me to heed your words."

Yes of course. Each is on their own journey, at their own place exactly as set forth. I hope you didn't get any idea of imposition from me.

But we are all indeed being ordered what to believe, Um. Every single tiny moment is the product of all the moments that came before. Even the" Now" which we hardly experience, is derivative and merely a result. Neither you nor I, who is only conscious, at best, submits 100% in obedience to everything that made this very second. We have zero control over that. IT is your Master.

Someone or something is indeed telling you what to believe and you believe it without question. Indeed you act immediately in reaction to the forces that push you to do so, not from long ago but from one split second ago. And you are powerless to reverse even that split second. Yes you are being told what to believe and how to act and you do do with flawless obedience.

[um]

@ Spence

I know, I know spence ...

What you put forward here i discuss sometimes with some near and dear to me ...SOME ..hahaha ...as they do not all have ears to hear ....by now they know when I use the difference between "my" hand and the same hand as "A" hand.

With my hand I know what to do and not but looking at that hand as "a " hand I realize that what I just wrote about the me knowing what to do etc is far beyond me,..let us call it a mystery. and a nonsense answer. So I can say that I can lift my cup of coffee, that is true, I can, yet that same I is just aware and can hardly say it is a doer.

There is in my experience no journey and nothing and nobody that orders me to believe what I believe or tells me so.

This is of the same order as when I write about life as an "gift" adding most of the time that the use of the word gift doesn't imply a giver. Language is very restrictive in these matters. It is just to say that I am not aware about life's origin etc ..it happens to be there. Of course it is tempting to believe in a narrative that tells aboyt a before and an after life...What I know is that my body will die as I have seen others be born and die but to me ..I was never born and one that is not born cannot die

So yes on close observation there are so many things that do happen, even my writing now, that is beyond my knowledge, awareness, control etc it just happens, the words flow out of me in their own way and I just type them as an onlooker and in a sense i am not even interested ..like an composer that hears a melody and puts it down

That said that by itself doesn't mean there is a power doing it. To that I can say I am completely ignorant. What I know about it is just hearsay.

Before I woke up in the cinema, I would hear upon others as knowers, experts etc I no longer do so ..what they tell, is just what they have in mind. Often interesting to hear but that is it it is something that belongs to them, it speaks about them, their mental perception. There is no longer anything in me that has the desire or tendency to own it too.

The late MCS said several times in reaction to mostly inappropriate questions, mostly from Americans ...hahaha, ...brother, sister, it is that you brought it up otherwise I would have had no knowledge of these things ...well Spence I have come to realize that most of what I have in mind would not have been there if it was not put before me and not I had not had the idea that it was my duty to swallow it and digest it, I would never had any interest in these things ... I am alive that is what it is and I have to deal with my body, my mind and the world around me, in the many different ways it presents itself.

In the beginning it was scary so to say, feeling alone with these ideas, but over time I lost that fear and do no longer need any understanding or approval in order to live with these ideas ..after all I am well educated and know how to behave in the public domain ...so no problem buying coffee, go out and have a coffee after an walk etc. and discuss if needed what others have in mind at the moment

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um

We are indeed on a journey through time. We change even without our knowledge. In the next moment what will you say? Guesswork at best. Depends on what happens.

We are always living in the near past, never quite able to bring our awareness to exactly now. That would require an absolutely still mind.

So it is largely a journey we are taking blindly.

It is a journey because this moment will never happen again. We've already moved beyond it. Tomorrow is a mystery however persistent the illusion of sameness is. We will be at least tens of thousands of miles from where we are now. Even the energy running through our bodies will be different.

It is an unavoidable journey.

[Bubba Rum Rasta]

I see Sant64 likes to occasionally use Grok, so given his recent Faqir Chand rant, I thought it might be judicious to give it the AI analysis that has become all the rage these days.

Here we go from the latest AI analysis filter:

1. "Faqir Chand...was far less the wise maverick than he was a curious crank..."
Inaccuracy:
This is a dismissive ad hominem attack. Faqir Chand was a respected figure in Sant Mat, known for his courageous honesty about the subjective nature of religious visions. He was, in fact, widely regarded as a wise and reformist thinker, not a "crank." His teachings influenced numerous spiritual seekers and even scholars for their boldness and philosophical depth.

Correction:
Chand challenged blind faith in gurus by emphasizing self-responsibility and introspective inquiry, which is far from the behavior of a "crank."

2. "...with an exceptionally confusing, ambivalent, changing, boastful, hypocritical, and utterly nihilistic message."
Inaccuracy & Misleading Framing:

Confusing & Ambivalent: Chand admitted uncertainty, but this was part of his transparency—not a sign of confusion. He questioned doctrinal certainty, a hallmark of philosophical maturity, not contradiction.

Changing: His views evolved over time, as with any serious thinker. Calling this "changing" as a criticism ignores intellectual growth.

Boastful & Hypocritical: There is little evidence to support these accusations. Chand often de-emphasized his own authority, warning followers not to deify him.

Nihilistic: This is the most misleading charge. Chand’s assertion that inner visions are projections of the mind was not a declaration of nihilism, but of phenomenological humility. He emphasized ethical living, self-knowledge, and inner discipline—not nihilism.

3. "‘For all I know, when I die I will only see trains.’"
Inaccuracy through Oversimplification:
This quote (likely paraphrased) mocks Chand’s famous anecdote in which he said that his death experience might reflect whatever his mind was preoccupied with—in his case, trains (as he worked for Indian Railways). The point wasn't to be absurd, but to illustrate the power of mental projections in spiritual experiences.

Misrepresentation:
By removing the philosophical context, the quote is twisted to appear meaningless, when it originally emphasized non-attachment to mystical authority.

4. "Great. Maybe greater BS than Kal standing on one foot."
Inaccuracy:
This sarcastic remark mocks metaphors and symbolic language found in Sant Mat and related traditions. The figure of Kal (the lord of time or illusion) is a complex mythological symbol—not meant to be taken literally like a cartoon.

Strawman Argument:
It falsely equates Chand’s skeptical humility with absurd superstition, which he actually challenged.

5. "Whee, hurray for nihilism. Nihilism is Truth, Faqir said so."
Misleading Claim:
Faqir Chand never claimed nihilism as truth. Rather, he distinguished between illusory projections and ethical clarity, arguing that truth lies in lived conduct, not in visions. His teachings aimed to deconstruct false religiosity, not to deny meaning.

6. "Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for my daily 3-hour dhyan of Charan."
Sarcastic and Misleading:
This line likely mocks followers of Charan Singh (another Sant Mat guru), implying that devotion is pointless in light of Chand’s views. But Chand never said devotion was worthless—he encouraged sincere inner inquiry and ethical action, not blind faith.

Summary:
This passage is riddled with:

Ad hominem attacks (calling Chand a crank)

Strawman arguments (misrepresenting his views as nihilism)

Mockery of nuance and philosophical humility

Misquotation or out-of-context citation

Misunderstanding of symbolic language and metaphysical principles

Instead of engaging critically with Chand’s nuanced insights about religious projection, personal responsibility, and experiential truth, the passage reduces them to cynicism and caricature.

[um]

@ Spence

So, according you, humans are on a unavoidable, journey, some blindly and others not.
Bon voyage and good luck on your journey

[sant64]

The Myth of Faqir Alex Jonesji

Faqir Chand's and his friend's cause célèbre was that many Sant Mat gurus are a bunch of liars. Liars, because they claim to be all-knowing. Faqir also charged that many Sant mat gurus claim to personally possess divine powers to aid their devotees. Powers such as biolocation or apparitions to save their initiates from danger.

Under close examination, these claims of Faqir's don't seem to hold up.
For one thing, Faqir never names the gurus to whom he's referring. And so we're left to guess who these fake all-knowing all-powerful gurus might be.

There doesn't seem to be anything in Sar Bachan about the guru being all knowing. Nothing evident in Jaimal Singh's Spiritual Letters either. Nothing in Julian Johnson's Path of the Masters about Sawan Singh having these kinds of superpowers. Nor do we find Jagat or Charan boasting about possessing omniscience and bilocation abilities.

Could Faqir be referring to Kirpal Singh? I'm not sure where we can find evidence of Kirpal claiming these specific divine powers. To the contrary, we have Kirpal's successor Darshan Singh stating that Kirpal always denied personal responsibility for whatever miraculous events his initiates experienced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QJG53NB9wI

Faqir trumpeted the blockbuster revelation that "it's the disciple's own faith that causes these apparent miraculous events!" But this was no revelation, for it was the same thing all Sant Mat gurus have said.

This is why the RSSB and Kirpal line gurus said Faqir was mistaken. Or at least that's what we were told they said. In any case, Faqir's specific charges don't hold water, much like Alex's claim that government polluted water is turning the frogs and us gay.

The strange thing about this Faqir business is that, as a result of Sant Mat, he witnessed remarkable events, both in his personal meditations and in the reports he received from his disciples. The possibility that God had a hand in this didn't seem to occur to Faqir. Instead, he adopted a nihilist outlook and blasted unnamed Sant Mat gurus as a bunch of prevaricating charlatans, hungry for fame and rupees. (Again, hu?)

One could conclude that Faqir saw no value in Sant Mat. Ah but no, Faqir stayed a guru for the rest of his life, dedicated to telling the world how we don't need gurus, and instead fostered a "religion of humanity," which teaches "be man" and makes all families pledge not to have more than 3 children.

Faqir Chand wrote many books. It's all generally stuff like this:

"You people don't see, we do it in writing, make you big boobies, tell you such things that make you the animal of our carriage. Has any Mahatma ever said that he had not manifested in anyone? Open the pages of history and see there. An old lady had come and she was sitting with me today. The last time when I came here she had said, “Baba Ji, I was in pain. In my dream, you came and said that you should hammer a nail in the frame of your door. I did it and I recovered.” In Indore or Ujjain, I saw that nail in the door frame. I had not manifested in her dream to say such a thing. Then what is the truth? You will not find a person who tells you the truth. If you find one then you do not appreciate the truth.”

Actually, many Sant Mat gurus have told the truth: That they truly believe there is a God who works through faith, which includes devotion to religious figures. While we may not agree with their religious opinion, we're likewise not compelled to believe in the guru Faqir's declaration that nihilism is Truth.

[Bubba doesn't drink Kool Aid]

Ah, sant64 seems not really understand Faqir Chand, especially when he accuses him of nihilism. But this is the same guy who is a fanboy of all things Trump, so apparently confused thinking is his modus operandi. So, in that vein, let us have AI provide us with a point by point rebuttal, More grist for the mill, and perhaps a realization that these Beas gurus and these Ruhani gurus are better served by a Faqir Chand than the many successors that come after them, claiming they can give light and sound at the time of initiation, taking credit for something they do not do. The student does the work; the guru takes credit. Just read Heart to Heart Talks and one can see the M.O. of Kirpal Singh and his ilk. Beas thrives off the idea that the guru is more than a human being, even Gurinder acts coyly that he is not what he appears to be.

AI to the rescue:

Below is a numbered, point-by-point critique of the blog-post “The Myth of Faqir Alex Jonesji,” highlighting where each main claim is inaccurate, misleading, or factually shaky. Citations follow the format you asked for.

1 Misstates Faqir Chand’s actual thesis
Faqir “never called other gurus liars who pretended omniscience.”
• Faqir’s own talks insist he was ignorant of the miracles disciples reported and that projections arise from the disciple’s faith or karma; he frames this as a call for humility, not just as an exposé of “liars.” Faqir even goes on to argue that even his own guru couldn’t reveal the truth and that Sawan Singh admitted the same. He felt this was unnecessary and thus even Darshan Singh will claim that Faqir was wrong and that the guru does have access to knowing, But the larger point is that RS literature argues that the radiant form of the guru is real and that it is not merely a projection of one’s own mind. Faqir argues against this thesis very clearly. Hindu Resource Center

2 Incorrectly claims Faqir named no gurus
In published reminiscences he explicitly references Baba Sawan Singh, his earlier guru Shiv Brat Lal, and other Sant-Mat figures when discussing visionary projections. Indeed, Faqir and Kirpal Singh had a disagreement over this very issue, where Kirpal argued that Faqir should not hve disclosed this secret about inner visions since disciple’s faith would be shaken, The same thing happened with Charan Singh who didn’t want to rock the boat. Fakir's Mission - Be Human

3 Denial of omniscience in Sant-Mat scriptures is wrong
The post says Sar Bachan, Jaimal Singh’s Spiritual Letters, and Johnson’s Path of the Masters contain “nothing” about an all-knowing Guru. In fact:
Text Sample formulation
Sar Bachan “The omniscient Sat Guru knows it. Or, one to whom the Sat Guru reveals these secrets, will know it.” ia601309.us.archive.org

Spiritual Letters Jaimal promises Sawan Singh “Sat Guru Himself will look to all [your affairs]… You will always be with me.” Internet Archive

Sar Bachan (Admonition section) “Sat Guru discloses all the secrets… Seek the true Sat Guru; without Him none can be saved.” ia601309.us.archive.org

These sources explicitly attribute omniscience or supra-normal oversight to the living Master—the very point Faqir questioned.

4 Mischaracterises the Kirpal-Singh line
The blog cites a single Darshan Singh video as proof that Kirpal “always denied” miraculous agency. Yet Kirpal-era literature is full of stories of the Master appearing at the moment of death or rescuing disciples. Even Kirpal’s own satsang His Grace Lives On repeats accounts introduced with “When you want only Him—He comes.” ruhanisatsangusa.org

5 Asserts “all Sant-Mat gurus already taught it is just the disciple’s faith”
That is simply not true; mainstream Beas, Kirpal, and Dayal-Bagh publications repeatedly describe the Master’s conscious intervention as real, not mind-manufactured. The burden of proof lies with the author, who provides none.

6 Conflates Faqir’s insight with nihilism
The post calls Faqir a “nihilist.” Faqir actually coined the ethical program “Be Man” (be a truthful, compassionate human first) and required service projects, hospitals, and a voluntary three-child family pledge in Hoshiarpur. Those are humanistic reforms, not nihilistic denial. WikipediaFakir's Mission - Be Human

7 Garbling and mock-quoting Faqir’s language
The long paragraph beginning “You people don’t see, we do it in writing…” is a badly spliced machine-translation. In the authorised English anthology The Unknowing Sage the passage reads coherently and with quite a different thrust; lifting muddled fragments and ridiculing the syntax is misleading. Fakir's Mission - Be Human

8 Logical non-sequitur about Faqir “staying guru while saying no one needs gurus”
Faqir retired from initiating in 1942 but continued giving satsang, teaching “look within to the Shabd rather than cling to an external personality.” That is consistent with his message of inner reliance; there is no contradiction here.

9 Unsubstantiated claim that RSSB formally refuted Faqir
The post says “RSSB said Faqir was mistaken” but offers no document, letter, or statement. Historians (e.g., Juergensmeyer’s Radhasoami Reality) note Beas largely ignored Faqir in public literature rather than issuing point-by-point rebuttals. Unsupported assertion.

10 False equivalence with Alex Jones
Comparing Faqir’s empirically testable observation (“visions come from the devotee’s mind”) to Alex Jones’s debunked chemical-conspiracy claims is a category error. The former is introspective phenomenology; the latter is a falsified political rumour. No evidential parity exists.

Conclusion
Almost every major contention in the blog-post collapses on inspection of primary Sant-Mat texts and Faqir Chand’s own writings. The author has:
• misrepresented Faqir’s tone and targets;
• denied plainly worded scriptural claims of Guru-omniscience;
• cherry-picked one modern video while ignoring a century of miracle-centric rhetoric;
• confused Faqir’s humanistic reformism with nihilism; and
• supplied no sources for several sweeping statements.
A rigorous reading of the literature shows that Faqir’s critique is precisely that Sant-Mat hagiography does ascribe omnipotence and omniscience to the Master—a point abundantly documented in the references above, but omitted or denied by the blog-post.

[Bubba Rum Raisen]

The real culprit in RS is the continual publication of Julian P. Johnson's The Path of the Masters and With a Great Master in India, which perpetuates that the guru is more than just a human being. Thus, while the Beas guru and their cohorts and the Kirpal Singh connectors can low ball their status, they continually use publications that tell us otherwise. Here is just a glimpse from Johnson....

THE MASTER MORE THAN SUPER-MAN
Of course, the Master is a super-man. But he is
more than a super-man. That is, he transcends all of
the limitations of mere man. His field of activity
reaches out beyond that which the eye can see, or the
ear can hear. This, of course, takes us out of the physical
laboratory. We must go where the microscope
cannot follow, where the scalpel cannot dissect. Just as
the astronomer could not find God with his telescope,
so you will not find our Master with your X-ray. That
there is an inner and finer world, numberless worlds
which physical science cannot bring down into its test
tubes, may be disputed by our materialist. But that is
because he has not seen them, and he does not know how
to get at them. At the same time his egotism is loth
to acknowledge the possibility of anything beyond the
grasp of his forceps. This may be called the mental
habit of the age. Always there is the danger that
science, like theology, may become too dogmatic.
The individual scientist himself may not be blamed for
this tendency. Yet, not only do these inner worlds
exist and are well known to the Masters, but any student
who follows the formula of the Masters may prove the
same thing for himself. The Master is the super-scientist.
The best of our physical scientists, when compared with
210 THE PATH OF THE MASTERS
a real Master, is no more than a child trying vainly to
fit together his blocks to build a toy house. Real knowledge
is gained only when a man surpasses the achievements
of the super-man and enters the regions of Reality.

[manjit]

Dear Sant64... I am curious as to our Bubba's provenance. Aren't you? 🧐😆

Hey....I reckon we've been reading each others posts for 25 odd years now. Whilst we disagree and agree on a fair few things, I imagine, guess, you know by now I'm not full of shit like a few folks. At least not somebody who thinks I'm a Korean woman who is anti semetic, supports terrorism, pretending to be a male Sikh who makes up fake Ayahuasca ceremonies in the jungle, just for all the attention I get..... here....HERE.....with all 5 readers 😁

So when I say I think you have wildly misunderstood Chand's being, value and intention due to your, I imagine, openly self admitted limited experience of "inner experiences", I hope you can appreciate the subtle point.

I came to Chand as a teenager with years of "inner experiences" in the RS mould, of meetings with inner gurus and outer miracles.

Reading Chand caused a monumental and fundamental shift in my life, beliefs and experiences. And , whilst I have moved on pretty much entirely from RS and Chand, I will be eternally grateful for Chand's revelations and insights on being a guru from the first person perspective, for being honest. That is ime unique for an RS guru. For me he is hands down the greatest RS guru who ever lived. He also had deep integrity. Something today's billionaire fraudster gurus will never come close to emulating. He walked his talk all the way. I think everyone and anyone who knows even the slightest thing about Chand, pro or anti, would agree..... there is a ZERO percent chance... ZERO..Chand would ever even be alleged to have been the mastermind of billion dollar fraud, let alone almost certainly have done it. It would be absurd to even make the claim, it just doesn't fit his person. So criticise him on all this other stuff; ego is my personal favourite criticism of Chand from the RS Godman is Perfect Kool-Aid Krew. Sure, but we at least know he wasn't sleeping on billions of I'll gotten dollars, setting up a family lineage of gurus or constantly reminding everyone why he was the one true guru and everyone else is a mayaic insect!

But I really do believe it's not a shift that will occur for the majority of RS followers.

Most RS folks are deprived of "inner experience" and are thirsty for them. Their attention is one place and aiming at another.

Chand's message is imo for serious seekers with some relative depth and consistency of inner experiences of the type RS describes (dualistic in the main, non transpersonal IE. Centred around a self or "soul" and with a personal narrative based upon it such as escaping reincarnation to go to some sort of detached paradisaical heaven of eternal bliss).

Imo the benefit of his message is greatly diluted for those without some consistency of inner experience, and an ability to be self-critical about it. Ah, that last point. Lot easier said than done.

[October]

IMO outer experience is what made
When chand declared no inner experience,
When one moves in

[s*]

Keep up INNER experiences!!

AI will take over everything.
We should not letting do that!!
AI is dangerous,because ´they´want to rule and take over our freedom.