Radhasoami: chapter one

dlane5.tripod.com /rs1.html

Author: David Christopher Lane

Publisher: Garland
Publication date: 1992

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at [email protected]

I want to go back to the home base now.

THE RADHASOAMI TRADITION:

A CRITICAL HISTORY OF GURU SUCCESSORSHIP

Published by Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, New York, 1992.

Author: David Christopher Lane

Chapter One

THE RADHASOAMI TRADITION

Surat shabd yoga and the Sant tradition

Surat shabd yoga is designed to enable the soul or consciousness to ascend beyond the
physical body to higher spiritual regions by means of an internal sound or life current, known
variously in the literature as shabd, nad, logos, audible life stream, or ringing radiance . [*NOTE:
For a more detailed study of the sound current and the history behind its technique see Kirpal
Singh's Naam or Word (Delhi: Ruhani Satsang, 1960). *] It is through this union of the soul with
the primordial music of the universe that the practice derives its name: surat, soul/attention;
shabd, sound current; yoga, union. [*NOTE: Surat shabd yoga has also been referred to as nad
yoga. See The Yoga of Light (Hatha Yoga Pradipika) , edited by Hans-Ulrich Rieker (Lower Lake,
California: The Dawn Horse Press, 1974), as well as "Nadabindu-Upanishad," in Thirty Minor
Upanishads , chapter five, number 29, translated by K. Narayanaswami Aiyar (Madras: --1974).
*]

The masters of this path (honorifically given titles such as Satguru, Param Sant, and Perfect
Master ) [*NOTE: Satguru has been translated by Radhasoamis as "True Light Giver"; and
"Param Sant" means a "Saint From the [Transcendental] Beyond." *] describe a number of
subtle planes through which a neophyte must pass to reach the highest realm, Anami Lok,
1/19
"Nameless Abode," where all sound, light, and creation have their transcendental source.
[*NOTE: See my article, "The Voyage of Light And Sound" in Understanding Cults and Spiritual
Movements (volume two, number one), for a detailed description of what allegedly happens to
meditators during surat shabd yoga practice. *]

It appears that surat shabd yoga in one form or another was prevalent in the Upanishadic period
of India. [*NOTE: Mircea Eliade, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom , translated by Willard R. Trask
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), page 390. *] However, the yogic practice has
become clearly articulated and well known only in the last five hundred years. This is primarily
due to a distinctive medieval school of nirguna bhakti poets (mystical lyricists) who sang of One
Supreme and Unfathomable God. Known today as Sants [*NOTE: In capitalizing the first letter of
Sants I am following the precedent started by the contributors to the 1978 Berkeley conference
on the Sant tradition. For further information see The Sants , edited by Karine Schomer and W.
H. McLeod (Berkeley: Berkeley Religious Studies Series, 1987). *] (saints), the chief exponents
of nirguna bhakti, such as Kabir, Nanak, Dadu, and Paltu Sahib, have written in detail about the
path of surat shabd yoga. [*NOTE: Refer to P.D. Barthwal's The Nirguna School of Hindi Poetry:
An Exposition of Santa Mysticism (Banaras: Indian Book Shop, 1936), and The Sants , op. cit. *]

These Sants, whose eclectic tradition is now popularly called Sant mat (lit., "the doctrine or way
of the saints"), can be distinguished from other followers of Indian spirituality by the importance
and emphasis they give to three cardinal precepts: 1. Satguru, the Absolute Lord and his
manifestation, the living human master. [The Satguru represents the human link between God
and man, and is, therefore, considered to be the cornerstone of spirituality.] 2. Shabd, the inner
sound current or life stream. [The shabd is made manifest by the Satguru to the devotee by a
process known as nam-dan {initiation}, whereby the initiate is taught the secret of how to listen
to the internal sound reverberating at the eye center.] 3. Satsang, externally the congregation of
earnest devotees of the truth, and internally the communion of the soul with God. [Satsang
serves as the formal meeting place of the Satguru and his followers; as such, it is usually viewed
in the Sant tradition as a special holy service where the living human master imparts the
teachings of surat shabd yoga.] [*NOTE: Ibid. *]

The Radhasoami Tradition

One of the most significant manifestations of the Sant tradition today is the Radhasoami
movement, founded by Shiv Dayal Singh (1818-1878) in the mid-19th century in Agra, India.
[*NOTE: Although there are several histories of the Radhasoami tradition, none of them are
satisfactory. See Agam Prasad Mathur's The Radhasoami Faith (Delhi: Vikas Publishing House,
1974) and S.D. Maheshwari's Radhasoami Faith , op. cit. *] Radhasoami (defined as "Lord of the
Soul") has many branches, each of [*NOTE: I have spelled the word "Radhasoami" (with the "o"
instead of the usual transliterate "w") in deference to the Soami Bagh satsang in Agra who
consider it an affront not to spell the words Radha and "Soami" together (thereby dropping the
capital in the last word). The Beas satsang and other branches do not mind how "Radhasoami"
is spelled. In almost all cases, I have followed Soami Bagh's procedure for spelling, primarily
2/19
because of their vocalness in the matter. For more on this small, but interesting, controversy see
S.D. Maheshwari's Correspondence With Certain Americans , volume one through six (Agra:
Soami Bagh/private, 1960--1985), and Lekh Raj Puri's Radha Swami Teachings (New Delhi: Pvt.
published, n.d., 1967?). *] which has a presiding guru or master who is believed to have
transversed all the higher stages of consciousness and become one with the Lord. [*NOTE:
Genealogically speaking, there are now some thirty branches. Refer to the genealogical trees in
the appendices for an overview. *] Kirpal Singh was part of this Radhasoami movement, as he
was personally initiated by Sawan Singh (1858-1948), former gaddi nasheen of Radha Soami
Satsang Beas at Dera Baba Jaimal Singh in the Punjab. [*NOTE: It should be pointed out that
Kirpal Singh discarded the use of the term "Radhasoami" as a description of his teachings
because it was too sectarian. Kirpal Singh, The Way of the Saints (Tilton, N. H.: Sant Bani Press,
1976). *]

Central to the teachings of Radhasoami and surat shabd yoga is the necessity of a living human
master who is competent in initiating disciples into the practice and technique of listening to the
inner sound ( bhajan ), contemplating the inner light ( dhyan ), and leaving the human body at
will ( dying while living ). [*NOTE: Charan Singh, Die To Live (Beas: Radha Soami Satsang
Beas, 1979). *] Although there are theological differences and some minor technical variances
in the different Radhasoami groups, the basic tenets of the tradition are as follows: 1. The
practice of surat shabd yoga (between two and three hours of meditation daily). 2. Obedience to
the living master who initiates the disciple into the path. 3. A pure moral life which includes
abstinence from meat, fish, eggs, alcohol, drugs, and sex outside of marriage. 4. The firm
conviction that jivan mukti (liberation or enlightenment while living) is possible under the
guidance of a realized saint or mystic. [*NOTE: Stanley White, Liberation of The Soul (Beas:
Radha Soami Satsang Beas 1972). *]

The Origins of Radhasoami Successorship History

The tremendous importance given to a living master in the Radhasoami tradition has led to
several bitter successorship controversies. In fact, the first gaddi nasheen controversy occurred
right after the death of Shiv Dayal Singh, the acknowledged founder of Radhasoami. Several
followers (and not just one) acted as gurus which resulted in a proliferation of satsangs. The six
main successors to Shiv Dayal Singh were Rai Salig Ram, who started his ministry in Peepal
Mandi, Agra; Seth Partap Singh, who held his satsangs in Soami Bagh, about three miles from
Agra city proper; Garib Das (sometimes spelled Gharib), who settled in Delhi near Sarai Rohilla;
Jaimal Singh, who established his satsang at Beas in the Punjab; Narayan Dei (Radhaji), Shiv
Dayal Singh's wife, who reportedly initiated women into the path in Agra; and Sanmukh Das,
who initiated sadhus into the path at Soami Bagh. [*NOTE: It is not entirely certain from the
available historical texts, both in Hindi and English, the exact function each of these gurus
performed. For instance, we know that Rai Salig Ram did not openly work as a guru until at least
eight years after the death of his master, Shiv Dayal Singh. See Holy Epistles volumes one and
two (Agra: Soami Bagh). *]

3/19
Although Shiv Dayal Singh preached at length about the need for a living guru, there was
disagreement among his immediate followers over whom he designated to be his spiritual
successor. Even the last words of Shiv Dayal Singh before his death, reputedly taken down by
his brother, Seth Partap Singh, stirred debate among his devotees over the nature of his
teachings and his appointed heir: Addressing Lala Partap Singh, Soamiji Maharaj [Shiv Dayal
Singh] observed, "The Faith that I had given out, [sic] was that of Sat Nam and Anami.
Radhasoami Faith has been introduced by Salig Ram (Huzur Maharaj). You should let it also
continue. Satsang must go on. Satsang shall spread far and wide in future. [*NOTE: Quoted
from the English translation of Seth Pratap Singh's Biography of Soamiji Maharaj (Agra: Soami
Bagh Satsang, 1978), pages 135-136. *]

What Shiv Dayal Singh's comment to his brother, Partap Singh, actually means is the subject of
the argument amongst various Radhasoami factions. Today, those satsangs affiliated with
Jaimal Singh (and Gharib Das of Sarai Rohilla) have generally taken the stand that [*NOTE: The
Sarai Rohilla group was founded by Gharib Das after the departure of his guru, Shiv Dayal
Singh, in Delhi. Gharib Das was succeeded by Ram Behari Lal, who was later succeeded by his
son Gyan Das. There is now no living guru in the lineage, although the remains of Gharib Das'
samadh is still maintained by a local mahant. Aaron Talsky and I visited Gharib Das' Sarai
Rohilla samadh in Delhi in March of 1987. Although the center is still active, it appears to have a
very small following, since there is no acknowledged living guru. Apparently a number of Gharib
Das' initiates shifted over to Radhasoami Satsang Beas after their guru's death. See Issac A
Ezekiel's Kabir: The Great Mystic (Beas: Radha Soami Satsang Beas, 1973), page 417; and
Ram Behari Lal's The Way Out Is In (Orange: Privately Published/Tom Curtis, 1957) for more
information. *] "Radhasoami Mat," as introduced by Rai Salig Ram, is a different path than what
Shiv Dayal Singh himself preached (e.g., "The Faith I had given out, [sic] was that of Sat Nam
and Anami"). Whereas those satsangs linked with Rai Salig Ram (except Manavta Mandir,
Hoshiarpur) believe that "Radhasoami Mat" represents [*NOTE: Manavta Mandir, founded by
the late Baba Faqir Chand, does not believe in the Radhasoami faith as an exclusive religion;
rather, it holds that all religions, including Hinduism, are viable means back to God. For more on
this satsang, see the following articles: "The Enchanted Land," Fate Magazine (October 1984);
"The Reluctant Guru: The Life and Teachings of Baba Faqir Chand," The Laughing Man
Magazine (Spring 1982); and "The Hierarchical Structure of Religious Visions," The Journal of
Transpersonal Psychology (Summer 1983). *] the highest expression of Shiv Dayal Singh's
teachings. Rai Salig Ram, according to this perspective, did [*NOTE: I have termed Rai Salig
Ram's perspective as incarnationalist in my M.A. thesis, Radhasoami Mat (Berkeley: Graduate
Theological Union, 1981), since he believed that his guru, Shiv Dayal Singh, was the first
absolute manifestation of the Supreme Lord on earth. *] not start the Radhasoami Faith, as such,
but was rather the first disciple and the only true gurumukh [*NOTE: The term gurumukh literally
means "follower of the guru." It is used by Radhasoami groups in Agra, however, to designate
the chief or most devoted disciple of a particular master. *] to have the Mehr (Grace) to recognize
the unique stature of his guru. Subsequently, Shiv Dayal Singh was pleased to reveal the nij mat
(original doctrine/path) of Radhasoami Purush (the Absolute Supreme Lord) to his beloved
4/19
disciple which he had not done previously to anyone. [*NOTE: See S.D. Maheshwari's
Radhasoami Faith , op. cit. *]

Sant Das Maheshwari, personal assistant to Madhav Prasad Sinha and Soami Bagh's most
vocal spokesman, explains Shiv Dayal [*NOTE: S.D. Maheshwari has written over one hundred
books on various aspects of Radhasoami history and theology. However, he is most well known
for his polemics against the Dayal Bagh and Beas Satsangs, whom he holds in contempt for
being offshoots from the "parental" stock at Soami Bagh. His recent death has left a literary
vacuum in current Soami Bagh history, since Maheshwari was perhaps the most influential
Radhasoami historian to date. Unfortunately, though, he was also biased in his historical
overviews. For a complete listing of S.D. Maheshwari's books see the 1986 catalog published by
his wife and sons at Soami Bagh, Agra, who are continuing the distribution of all of his works. *]
Singh's paradoxical last statement by alleging that the founder of Radhasoami had manifested
two teachings: one lower and one higher. The lower path, argues Maheshwari, was given out by
Shiv Dayal Singh for the first part of his ministry up until the arrival of his chief disciple, Rai Salig
Ram. This lower teaching was the Sant mat of Kabir, Nanak, and Tulsi Sahib, and inculcated the
worship of Sat Nam (lit., "True Name"). On the arrival of Rai Salig Ram, however, Shiv Dayal
Singh could reveal the higher path of Radhasoami. Before that time no one was spiritually
capable of understanding or accepting the divine message. Thus, this revelation (Radhasoami
as the Highest Lord) is regarded by Maheshwari and others in the Soami Bagh satsang to be the
greatest teaching ever expounded. All other paths (even the lower mat/doctrine which Shiv
Dayal Singh first preached--worship of Sat Nam) were outdated and outmodeled when Shiv
Dayal Singh manifested his real mission. Hence, the advent of Shiv Dayal Singh and Rai Salig
Ram was the start of a unique and supreme incarnational religion, one which held exclusive
rights to the Supreme Lord and the highest region. [*NOTE: See my M.A. thesis, Radhasoami
Mat , for more on this subject of incarnationalism, as well as Lawrence Babb's Redemptive
Encounters (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986). *]

The satsangs which have held that Radhasoami is the supreme incarnational religion uphold
two fundamental dogmas: 1) the name "Radhasoami" is the only true means for salvation; and
2) Shiv Dayal Singh was the first absolute embodiment of the highest Lord, Radhasoami. Before
his descent, the path to the Absolute Abode was never fully or openly revealed.

Those satsangs and gurus connected with Jaimal Singh (also included under this heading would
be the Sarai Rohilla and Dhara Sindhu Pratap satsangs), however, have usually held that Shiv
Dayal Singh taught only one spiritual path during his lifetime--namely, Sant mat. When these
satsangs use the name "Radhasoami" as a description of their practices, it is in contradistinction
to what Rai Salig Ram and his followers believe. The term "Radhasoami" is used by Jaimal
Singh and those linked with him to mean Sant mat; that is, the difference between Radhasoami
and Sant mat is in name only.

Essentially, this view holds that Shiv Dayal Singh had a guru (Tulsi Sahib of Hathras) and was
not unique, save the fact [*NOTE: See Lekh Raj Puri's Tulsi Sahib: Saint of Hathras (Beas: R.S.
5/19
Foundation, 1979). *] that he simplified the method of surat shabd yoga and the way it was
taught. These satsangs (with the exception of Dhara Sindhu Pratap) [*NOTE: Shyam Lal,
founder of Dhara Sindhu Pratap, was a personal disciple of Seth Partap Singh. He discarded the
use of "Radhasoami" as a mantra and coined the term "Dhara Sindhu Pratap," which he gave
out as simran in honor of his guru, "Pratap." See Daniel Gold's Lord as Guru (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1987). *] teach the repetition of panch nam (five names) instead of the one
name "Radhasoami," and do not believe in the preclusive aspect of Shiv Dayal Singh's ministry.

The debate over the real nature of Shiv Dayal Singh's ministry illustrates how easily different
factions can form just months after a gaddi nasheen's death. Indeed, such factionalization may
even occur during the life of a guru. Thus, it is not surprising that there was confusion in the early
days of Radhasoami over to whom, if anyone, Shiv Dayal Singh bequeathed his spiritual
mission.

Hence, it is clear that in the early days of Radhasoami there was no single, universally accepted
account of spiritual succession. Rather, there were several competing episodes concerning the
transmission of initiatory power, each of which made recourse to a specific interpretation of Shiv
Dayal Singh's writings and teachings. All subsequent gaddi nasheen successions (no matter of
what lineage), therefore, could not fall back upon the primacy of a unified, prototypical
successorship account and expect sangat-wide acceptance, since none existed. What did exist
inherently in the beginning of Radhasoami was a tendency towards diffusion, both in terms of
guru claimants and doctrinal opinions. This tendency, though acknowledged by various
Radhasoami sub-factions, has never been overcome, despite the gallant efforts of Brahm
Shankar Misra and others to unify Radhasoamis under the Central Administrative Council and
other organizing pacts. [*NOTE: Agam Prasad Mathur, current guru at Peepal Mandi Satsang
and the great grandson of Rai Salig Ram, is highly critical of the Council. Writes Mathur: "The
Central Administrative Council was not a representative body in the real sense. The system of
election was technically defective. All followers of the faith were not allowed to cast their votes.
Only male members were to take part in the election through postal ballots. The Central
Administrative Council and its offshoots, thus, emerged as autocratic bodies consisting of the
"chosen few" and it did not reflect the aspirations of the mass of followers." For more information
on the Central Administrative Council see Agam Prasad Mathur's Radhasoami Faith , op. cit.,
page 111. *]

In light of Radhasoami's predisposition for proliferation, gaddi nasheen succession must be

studied in the context of its own particular parampara lineage. Precisely, reference has to be
made to the specific satsang branch, which contextualizes and frames the respective
succession. This historical framing, as it were, enables us to properly understand the
significance of early Radhasoami history on gaddi nasheen succession as it is reified by the
particular sect. In our case, this means looking at the succession accounts within Kirpal Singh's
immediate lineage: 1) Jaimal Singh's succession of Shiv Dayal Singh; Sawan Singh's
succession of Jaimal Singh; and Kirpal Singh's succession of Sawan Singh. These historical

6/19
precedents will help ground our examination of gaddi nasheen succession after the death of
Kirpal Singh. Our purpose here is not so much to explain why certain guru claimants arise, but to
better understand the discourse which is collectively available to would-be successors and their
constituencies. However, before we turn our attention to Kirpal Singh's immediate predecessors,
we will want to further explore the relationship between the founder of Radhasoami, Shiv Dayal
Singh, and the earlier gurus in the Sant tradition. As we will see, it is an issue charged with
political and theological consequences.

The Sant Mat and Radhasoami Connection

Guru succession, like all forms of authority transference, has always been a controversial
problem. Rarely does a spiritual master bequeath his mantleship without there being some kind
of in-fighting and squabbling among his disciples. This is even more evident in cases where a
religious group elevates the guru's status to that of a living God. Thus succession disputes in the
Sant and Radhasoami traditions are often viewed as cosmic battles between right and wrong,
light and dark, Sat Purush (True Lord) and Kal (Negative Power). The political consequences are
profound. For instance, even during the lifetime of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, there
was a disagreement between him and one of his sons, Sri Chand, over how to attain salvation.
Although the majority of Nanak's disciples sided with Bhai Lahina (later known as Guru Angad),
a number of them left and rallied around Sri Chand, thereby establishing the Udasi-panth. As
W.H. McLeod points out: It appears that even within the lifetime of Guru Nanak, divergent
emphases had appeared within the emergent Panths. According to Sikh tradition, one of his
sons, Sri Chand, rejected Nanak's insistence upon the futility of asceticism as a necessary
means of salvation. The ascetic path of celibacy and austerities was, it seems, the mode of
salvation affirmed by Sri Chand, and those of the Nanak-panth who accepted this view
eventually took the form of the Udasi-panth without wholly renouncing their connection with the
Nanak-panth. [*NOTE: The Sants , op. cit., pages 232-233. *]

The real crux of the problem in all guru succession disputes is that more than one disciple
usually claims to be the rightful heir. Thus the remaining sangat is faced with an epistemological
crisis: Whom did the guru appoint? And, more importantly, how does one know that the
successor is genuine? . Turning to the connection between Shiv Dayal Singh and Tulsi Sahib,
this issue of guru recognition and multiple succession becomes highlighted. Tulsi Sahib and
Shiv Dayal Singh

Although the early Sants (particularly Kabir, Nanak, Jagjiwan Sahib, and the Sufi mystics,
Shams of Tabriz, Rumi, and Hafiz) have had a substantial impact through their writings on the
founder of Radhasoami, Shiv Dayal Singh, and on the movement in general, Tulsi Sahib of
Hathras appears to have had the most direct influence.

Most of the information, however, concerning Tulsi Sahib is sketchy, scattered, and in some
parts unreliable. [*NOTE: See Tulsi Sahib--Saint of Hathras (Beas: Radha Soami Satsang Beas,
1978). *] Indian scholars such as Kshitmohan Sen, Ram Kumar Varma, P.D. Barthwal,
7/19
Parasuram Chaturvedi, and J.R. Puri have based their narratives of the sage on either the
biographical outline given in the introduction to Tulsi Sahib's Ratan Ragar (1909) or the prefatory
note in his Ghat Ramayana (1911). From these texts we find the following salient points about
his life: 1. Tulsi Sahib had noble ancestry, and he belonged to the royal lineage of the Peshwas.
2. He was born in the latter half of the 18th century (1763 A.D., according to the introduction in
Ghat Ramayana ). [*NOTE: Ibid., page 1 *] 3. He had an inclination to renounce the world for
attaining spiritual realization. 4. He fled from his native place and may have kept himself in
disguise to escape recognition. It is possible that he might have adopted the name "Shyam Rao"
to remain incognito. [Shri Vitthal R. Thakar believes that Tulsi Sahib may have been Amrit Rao,
the grandson (on the daughter's side) of Peshwa Baji Rao I]. [*NOTE: Ibid., page 2. *] 5. He
traveled extensively, ultimately settling at Hathras in the Aligarh district of Uttar Pradesh. 6. He
came from south India and was popularly known as Dakhani Baba , "the Sage from the South."
[*NOTE: Ibid., page 3. *]

There is heated discussion on who may have been Tulsi Sahib's guru. As Puri observes, "No
information is available as to when Tulsi Sahib met a Master. Nor is it known whether he was
initiated into the path of the Sound Current (Surat Shabd Yoga) while he was still a prince, or
later, when leaving everything, he adopted an itinerant life. He does not give the name of his
Master in his writings." [*NOTE: Ibid., page 4. *]

Although there is no direct indication on whom Tulsi Sahib's master may have been, there has
been some pointed discussion on the question. Pandit Pandurang Sharma, a Marathi scholar, in
the June 1931 issue of Vividh Gyan Vistar writes, "[Tulsi Sahib] was initiated by a guru in the
town of Hathras, and under the instructions of his guru in the town of Hathras did intensive
meditation." [*NOTE: Ibid., page 4. *] Kirpal Singh, in his book A Great Saint: Baba Jaimal Singh-
-His Life & Teachings (1960), believes that Tulsi Sahib was in direct lineage with Guru Gobind
Singh, the tenth and last Sikh guru. Writes Kirpal Singh: Guru Gobind Singh traveled widely,
penetrating the Himalayas to the North and going to Deccan in the South. During his extensive
travels, he met and lived with the ruling family of the Peshwas and initiated some of its members
into the inner science. It is said that one Ratnagar Rao of the Peshwa family was initiated and
authorized to carry on the work by Guru Gobind Singh. Sham Rao Peshwa, the elder brother of
Baji Rao Peshwa, the then ruling chief, who must have contacted Ratnagar Rao, showed a
remarkable aptitude for the spiritual path and made rapid headway. In course of time, this young
scion of the royal family settled in Hathras, a town thirty-three miles away from Agra in Uttar
Pradesh, and came to be known as Tulsi Sahib. [*NOTE: Kirpal Singh, A Great Saint--Baba
Jaimal Singh: His Life & Teachings (Franklin: Sat Sandesh Books, 1973), pages 9-10. *]

Kirpal's theory rests on the debated assertion that "Guru Gobind Singh did not die at Nanded in
the Decca (now in Maharashtra) in 1708, as previously thought." [*NOTE: Brian Walsh, The
Concept of the Satguru in the Sant Tradition (Master's Thesis, Orinda: J.F.K. University, 1980). *]
This opinion is also held by the Namdhari Sikhs, who have founded their lineage on Guru
Gobind's Singh's reputed human successor. Agam Prasad Mathur and S. D. Maheshwari,

8/19
however, do not accept this heterodox proposition--primarily on the grounds that it is "not
historically true," [*NOTE: Agam Prasad Mathur, op. cit., page 24. *] because the 1708 date for
Gobind Singh's death is accurate.

Whether or not Tulsi Sahib had a guru (if it was Ratnagar Rao, a local guru in Hathras, or
somebody unnamed) or not, depends largely on one's own theological framework.

One thing that all factions agree upon, though, is that Tulsi Sahib consolidated the teachings of
nirguna bhakti , expounded the path of surat shabd yoga, and was largely responsible for the
popular usage of the term Sant mat . [*NOTE: Tulsi Sahib--Saint of Hathras , op. cit., page 17. *]
His teachings are embodied in Ghat Ramayana , Ratan Sagar , and Shabdavali . Tulsi's writings,
in the tradition of earlier Sant poets, denounce idol worship, tantric excesses, sectarianism, and
ritualism prevalent in several of the popular religious movements of his time. He centered his
discourses on the interior aspect of spiritual sadhana, calling for a purification of the soul ( surat
) by means of surat shabd yoga so that moksha (or liberation) could be secured. [*NOTE: Ibid.,
"The Life and Teachings of Tulsi Sahib." *] Describing the ultimate realization, Tulsi Sahib writes:
The soul hears a wave of sound and rhythm that becomes visible from the west. It opens the
door--unspeakable, indescribable. Going beyond rhythm and sight, one enters the gate of the
tower of emptiness, where by means of the two doors of sight and sound one finds the level of
highest reality (parbrahma). Then one sees the sound current ( sabda ) issuing forth hundreds of
universes (lit., heaven eggs), and sound ( surat ) penetrates to the middle of them all, their
crown jewel, which is tiny as an insect. [*NOTE: The Sants , op. cit., page 350. *]

Slowly the saint of Hathras gathered a devoted following around him. The most prominent
disciples included Ramkrishna (a shepherd), Girdhari Das (or Lal), and Surswami, who became
the chief successor/mahant at Tulsi Sahib's samadh after the saint's death in 1842 or 1843.
[*NOTE: See Tulsi Sahib--Saint of Hathras , op. cit., and Kshitmohan Sen's Medieval Mysticism
of India (New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corp., 1974), page 161. *] But the most important
associate of Tulsi Sahib's, at least in terms of historical impact, was Shiv Dayal Singh, who was
a mere boy when he first met the saint of Hathras. It would be Shiv Dayal Singh's life and
teachings which were destined to spread rapidly throughout India and across the world.

Shiv Dayal Singh, the Founder of Radhasoami

Lala Dilwali Singh and his family, which included his mother, mother-in-law, sister, and his wife
Mahamaya, were ardent disciples of Tulsi Sahib. [*NOTE: Tulsi Sahib--Saint of Hathras , op. cit.,
page 5. *] Frequently they went to Hathras to attend the satsangs of the esteemed Sant. It is
recorded by Partap Singh, the youngest son of Dilwali, that Tulsi Sahib would also occasionally
visit their home at Panni Gali, Agra. On one such visit, [*NOTE: Ibid. According to Puri's narrative
Tulsi's visit was in October of 1817. *] Tulsi Sahib announced that a saint would be born to
Mahamaya. Puri recounts the incident: Seeing her devotion [Seth Dilwali's mother], Tulsi Sahib
said, "I am very pleased with you. Ask for anything and I shall be happy to give it." . . . At this,
Seth Dilwali Singh's mother replied, "I have everything through your grace and need nothing.
9/19
But," pointing to her daughter-in-law, she submitted, "Mahamaya wants something." Mahamaya,
the wife of Seth Dilwali Singh, had no son. Tulsi Sahib, in the same vein of compassion and
kindness said, "Yes, she will have son. But do not look upon the child as a mere human being."
[*NOTE: Ibid., pages 5-6. *]

Shiv Dayal Singh, born in August of 1818, was an unusual child. At the young of six he began to
expound on the nature of true religion, as well as engage himself in deep meditation. As Shiv
Dayal observed shortly before his death, "You know that ever since I was only six years old, I
have been devoting Myself [sic] to Parmarth and then alone, this Abhyas (practice) has become
perfect." [*NOTE: Biography of Soamiji Maharaj , op. cit., page 134. *]

There is controversy over whether or not Shiv Dayal Singh was initiated by Tulsi Sahib at a
young age. As with the question over Tulsi Sahib's master, or his need for one, the arguments--
pro and con--are largely based on theological (and not necessarily historical) grounds.

The Agra schools--Soami Bagh, Dayal Bagh, and Peepal Mandi--argue that Shiv Dayal Singh
was not initiated by any guru. The reasoning behind this is essentially simple: Shiv Dayal Singh,
otherwise known as Soamiji Maharaj, [*NOTE: The other spelling variations are Soami Ji
Maharaj and Swami Ji Maharaj. Again in deference to Soami Bagh I have chosen their way of
spelling Shiv Dayal Singh's honorific title. *] was the incarnation of Radhasoami--the Supreme
Lord--and, as such, did not need to take any human being as his spiritual guide. In the preface
to Sar Bachan Radhasoami Chand-Band , Rai Salig Ram [*NOTE: My spelling of Salig Ram as
two separate words and not as one word-- Saligram--stems from two key historical sources.
First, the official subscription list of the Theosophist magazine (dated December 1880) where
Salig Ram's name appears as two separate words. [Sidebar: the magazine's spelling and listing
of names invariably follows what the subscribers themselves submit; thus, it is apparent that
Salig Ram himself spelled his name separately--at least in written English.] Second, S. D.
Maheshwari, the late historian at Soami Bagh, also spells Salig Ram as two separate words.
Interestingly, Agam Prasad Mathur, Rai Salig Ram's great grandson and eventual successor at
Peepal Mandi, does not follow Maheshwari's lead. See Radhasoami Faith , op. cit. *] comments
on this very point: "Soamiji Maharaj had no guru, nor did He receive instructions in parmarth
from anyone. On the other hand, He explained parmarth to His parents and a number of of
sadhus who came to Him." [*NOTE: Sar Bachan Radhasoami , Poetry, translation by S. D.
Maheshwari (Soami Bagh, Agra: Soami Bagh, 1970), page 18. *]

Salig Ram's categorical statement that Shiv Dayal Singh did not have a guru is highly unusual
for both theological and historical reasons. First, the cardinal tenet of both Sant mat and
Radhasoami philosophy is the absolute necessity of having a living guru. Every bona fide saint
in Sant mat history, without exception, has stressed the primacy of guru bhakti. Even Kabir, the
most popular and revered of the Sants, is reported to have adopted a guru. Second, Shiv Dayal
Singh's immediate family (including his mother) were personal followers of Tulsi Sahib. The
former mahant of Tulsi Sahib's samadh, Sant Prakash Das, claims that Shiv Dayal Singh was
indeed initiated by Tulsi Sahib but later broke off and started his own path. There are even
10/19
historical accounts which suggest that Shiv Dayal Singh treated Girdhari Das, a prominent
successor of Tulsi Sahib, as a guru.

By claiming that Shiv Dayal Singh was a swatah (born) Sant, Rai Salig Ram elevates his guru to
an almost unparalleled degree in the history of Sant mat and thus insures him a status not
equaled by any previous master--not even Kabir. The implications of this one statement on
future developments in Radhasoami are not to be underestimated, for Salig Ram's claim in itself
contributes to an incarnationalist (and by implication unique ) interpretation of Shiv Dayal Singh's
life and work. This becomes even more evident in passage number 7, wherein Salig Ram writes:
No one had , in the past, introduced such an easy mode of spiritual practices. For this reason,
the internal practices of all extant religions of the world have lost their importance, and their
followers are now simply engaged in outward worships, rituals and observances. They are
wholly ignorant of the true Supreme Being, the Abhyas by which He could be attained and the
secrets of the path and intermediary stages. [*NOTE: Sar Bachan Radhasoami , Poetry, op. cit.,
page 20. *]

The preceding passage is crucial in understanding Salig Ram's perspective on Radhasoami.

Not only does he unilaterally assert that no one before Shiv Dayal Singh had given out such an
easy mode of spiritual practice--namely surat shabd yoga--but that the internal (read spiritual )
practices of all existing religions of the world--including, presumably, other Sant mat paths--have
lost their importance. The point is fairly obvious: Shiv Dayal Singh is one of a kind and unless a
spiritual seeker follows his method of abhyas he/she is lost. Salig Ram is preaching an
unqualified, exclusive, incarnationalist interpretation of Shiv Dayal Singh's teachings. As Salig
Ram further explains in passages 12 and 17: 12. The importance of Shabd has been stressed in
every religion. But a detailed description of Shabd is nowhere found. For this reason people are
ignorant of Shabd. Now Radhasoami Saheb (Soamiji Maharaj) has given out in clear terms the
details and secrets of Shabds (sounds) of different heavenly spheres in this scripture. . . 17.
RADHASOAMI Nam was revealed by the Supreme Being Himself. When the humble devotees
of Soamiji Maharaj, as a result of their successful Abhyas (devotional practices) and Satsang,
came to realize His exalted position and immense spiritual powers, and when He too, in His
grace and mercy, gave them His recognition, they started addressing Him by the appellation of
RADHASOAMI, the Name of the Original Abode from where He came down to this earth, for
showering His grace on Jivas in this Kali Yuga. [*NOTE: Sar Bachan Radhasoami , Poetry, ibid.,
pages 23, 26-27. *]

According to Salig Ram's view, Shiv Dayal Singh revealed the original name of the Supreme
Being, Radhasoami, for the first time in the annals of religious history. Further, his select
disciples were allowed to realize the secrets of this Nam and given direct access to the highest
transcendental region of consciousness.

Turning to Sar Bachan Radhasoami Bartik , we find a letter written by Rai Salig Ram on behalf of
his guru to Sudarshan Singh, the nephew of Shiv Dayal Singh. This letter, which has been the
basis for much controversy and confusion between the Soami Bagh and Beas satsangs, reveals
11/19
another crucial element in Salig Ram's interpretation of Radhasoami. 250. If a person has met
with the perfect Sat Guru, performs His service, attends His Satsang and has love and faith in
Him, but before he fully achieves his object, i.e., gets any inner realization, the Sat Guru
departs, then he should, if he is keen to attain the goal, cultivate the same love and faith in the
succeeding Sat Guru, that is, the one appointed by the departed Sat Guru and should perform
His service, attend His Satsang and consider the departed Guru to be present in Him. He should
know that Shabd forms of the Sant Sat Guru and the Sant are one, though outwardly in bodily
forms they appear to be two. When the Sat Guru of the time departs, He appoints some one as
His successor in whom He re-incarnates and thus continues the work of regeneration of Jivas as
before. When, however, such is not the Mauj, He returns to His original abode. Therefore an
earnest devotee should make no distinction between the previous Sat Guru and His successor.
But those who are bigoted devotees will not come under the allegiance of the succeeding Sat
Guru. For this reason their progress will also stop at the stage they had reached during the time
of the former Sat Guru and there will be no further progress and improvement. [*NOTE: Sar
Bachan Prose, Soami Bagh version, op. cit., pages 215-217. *]

The impetus here is to recognize the Sat Guru's successor and imbibe the same love and
devotion for him. If this is not done, and no love is engendered for the succeeding master, the
disciple's inner progress for all intents and purposes is stopped. Thus, the process of guru
succession not only becomes historically important to satsangis, but spiritually vital as well. To
serve a false master or the wrong successor is equivalent to falling off the path. S. D.
Maheshwari, writing some seventy years later, elaborates more on this view: The true test of the
identity of the Radhasoami Religion is and must be whether or not the followers follow and
worship the true Sant Sat Guru, and not a pseudo-guru. The pseudo-gurus are pretenders and
fallen Satsangis and as such they and their followers are treated as heretics and out-castes. As
there can be one and only one Sant Sat Guru at a time, the recognition of some one else as
Sant Sat Guru implies adoption of a pseudo-guru. The service and devotion to such a person
are not only not conducive to spiritual advancement but are calculated to retard the attainment
of salvation, because during the period a person worships a pseudo-guru, he worships Kal who
is always on the look out for such persons and due to whose influence and under whose impulse
the pseudo-guru acts as such. [*NOTE: The Radhasoami Faith: History & Tenets , op. cit., pages
371-372. *]

Salig Ram's theological perspective, as we have seen textually, was quite well developed by
1886. Let us recapitulate in brief the salient features of his theology, particularly as it relates to
the life of Shiv Dayal Singh: 1. Shiv Dayal Singh had no guru. 2. Shiv Dayal Singh was the first
incarnation of the Supreme Being, Radhasoami. 3. With the advent of Shiv Dayal Singh and his
simple method of surat shabd yoga, all other internal spiritual practices (of whatever creed
anywhere in the world) lost their importance and efficacy. 4. Shiv Dayal Singh revealed the
name of the Supreme Being to a select following of satsangis--that name was Radhasoami. 5.
Unless full spiritual realization has been attained, disciples of a Sat Guru must seek the
guidance of his (one) gurumukh successor.
12/19
Shiv Dayal Singh's teachings, clear and succinct as they were, lend themselves to several
different interpretations, one of which is an absolutist (or what Barthwal terms "ultraist")
viewpoint about the nature of spiritual realization. As such, Shiv Dayal Singh's philosophy must
be seen as the primary, independent variable influencing Salig Ram's outlook. This is not to
suggest that Shiv Dayal Singh's teachings were not themselves socially influenced (they
undoubtedly were to some degree), but only that his theology was well enough developed by the
time he met Salig Ram to be fundamentally instrumental in Salig Ram's later views. Even though
Shiv Dayal Singh connects himself with previous nirguna bhakti mystics, nowhere does he state
that he was a follower of a previous Sant mat master, including Tulsi Sahib. The fact that Shiv
Dayal Singh does not mention his guru by name in any of his writings naturally leads the reader
to assume that his life history is not that important. For instance, if Shiv Dayal Singh was duly
initiated by Tulsi Sahib--and there are suggestive accounts by other non-Agra parties that he
was--then why does he not refer to his discipleship under him? This absence in Shiv Dayal
Singh's writings suggests at least that Salig Ram may not be creating the story that his master
had no guru. Rather, it may well be that Shiv Dayal Singh (for whatever reasons) distanced
himself from any parampara connection.

Speculatively speaking, there are several reasons why Shiv Dayal Singh may have distanced
himself (at least genealogically) from Tulsi Sahib if he was indeed initiated by him. First, Shiv
Dayal Singh may not have been accepted as the majority successor to Tulsi Sahib (Surswami, a
blind master, assumed the gaddi at Hathras after Tulsi Sahib's death) and therefore had to start
his own ministry in Agra. Second, given Shiv Dayal Singh's relatively young age (twenty-five)
when Tulsi Sahib died in 1843, and the fact that he did not come out publically with his teachings
until 1861 (some seventeen years later--a long gap for any would-be guru successor), indicates
that Shiv Dayal Singh's following was composed of mostly new followers--most of whom would
not have had any connection whatsoever with Tulsi Sahib. Hence, Shiv Dayal Singh apparently
founded his ministry on his own and did not attempt to connect it in any formal way with his
(alleged) guru.

A more controversial speculation along these same lines, if we accept the preceding inferences
(and one argued by some Tulsi Sahibis--a small religious sect which follows the precepts of Tulsi
Sahib of Hathras), suggests that Shiv Dayal Singh was break-off successor from Girdhari Das
(one of the chief disciples of Tulsi Sahib), who Shiv Dayal Singh at one time revered as a guru.
Even Madhav Prasad Sinha, the last guru at Soami Bagh and a staunch advocate of the belief
that Shiv Dayal Singh was a swatah Sant, concedes that the founder of Radhasoami did revere
Girdhari Das more or less as a guru. Madhav Prasad Sinha elucidates: "Soamiji Maharaj had no
guru. In conformity with the established convention, He used to treat Baba Girdhari Das Ji who
was one of the chief disciples of Sahebji or Tulsi Saheb of Hathras, and who used to reside in
Agra, as a guru, more or less in the same way as Kabir Saheb had treated Ramananand Ji."
[*NOTE: Biography of Babuji Maharaj (Soami Bagh: S.D. Maheshwari, 1971), page 376. *]

Historically, it would be interesting to find out when Girdhari Das passed away. If his death

13/19
coincides with the commencement of Shiv Dayal Singh's satsang and initiation, it would lend
support to the Tulsi Sahibis' claim that Shiv Dayal Singh was a break-away successor. [*NOTE:
The Girdhari Das--Shiv Dayal Singh connection, though rarely if ever mentioned by Sant mat
historians, has not escaped the watchful eye of Radhasoami's two youngest scholars Daniel
Gold and Aaron Talsky. As Talsky speculates "A provocative possibility is that Shiv Dayal did not
begin his public ministry during this interval [1843-1861] either because he was sensitive to the
status of Girdhari Das as a reputed successor to Tulsi Sahib or indeed followed the latter in
some way. We can discover that the two had a close relationship: see Chachaji's brief
description of this relationship [ Biography of Soamiji Maharaj ], pages 37-39. More enlightening,
perhaps, is the fact that Chachaji's narration of the inauguration of public satsang in 1861
immediately follows his description of the death of Girdhari. Finally, the Tulsi (or "Sahib") panth
which developed after the death of the Hathras sant asserts not only that Soamiji venerated
Girdhari, but sometimes that he actually received his updesh [initiation] from this source. See
Harasvarupa Mathura, Bharatiya Sadhana Aura Santa Tulsi , op. cit., pages 416-417." Aaron
Talsky, The Radhasoami Tradition, op. cit., pages 138-139. Daniel Gold in Lord as Guru , op. cit.
(page 229), also mentions the Girdhari Das-Shiv Dayal Singh connection. *]

Genealogical Dissociation and the Development of New Panths

Although historians are not absolutely sure if Shiv Dayal Singh was duly initiated by Tulsi Sahib
of Hathras, [*NOTE: Shortly after the founder of Radhasoami died (1878), his younger brother
Seth Partap Singh decided to discard much of Shiv Dayal Singh's writings, letters, and notes in
the well at Soami Bagh. Despite the fact that Partap Singh felt remorse for his actions later on,
he did insure that future historians of Radhasoami would be left with a major lack of original
source material. As Aaron Talsky notes in his senior thesis, The Radhasoami Tradition
(University of Michigan, 1986), "Indeed, it was the actions of Pratap [Partap] Singh which
virtually ensured that these exegetical disputes would never be conclusively resolved through
historical material." For more on Partap Singh's actions see Bhaktmal of the Radhasoami Faith
by S.D. Maheshwari (Agra: Soami Bagh, 1979), pages 25-26. *] there is something a bit curious
about Partap Singh's silence on his brother's relationship with Tulsi Sahib or other Sant related
gurus. Historically speaking, something looks amiss.

I have encountered a similar kind of reticence among the successors of Paul Twitchell, founder
of a New Age styled religious movement called Eckankar. Despite the fact that Paul Twitchell
was initiated by Kirpal Singh in 1955 in the United States, the founder of Eckankar later denied
that he was ever associated with the Indian guru--even to the point of devising an elaborate
cover-up. Indeed, Twitchell went so far as to actually delete printed references to Kirpal Singh in
his numerous writings and replace them with fictional gurus, such as Rebazar Tarzs, Sudar
Singh, and Fubbi Quantz. What prompted this shift of allegiance? The answer is perhaps
simpler than we might expect: the growing popularity of Eckankar. When Twitchell came to
grasp the significance of his new religious movement--the fact that it could draw in thousands of
followers--he decided to subvert anything which would hinder Eckankar's progression and

14/19
potential popularity among the masses. He wanted his group to be self-determining, marking its
own future course as a viable spiritual tradition. And the most serious threat to this much desired
autonomy, at least to Twitchell's purview, was his past. For instance, if spiritual seekers discover
that most of Eckankar's teachings were borrowed from Radhasoami and Ruhani Satsang, they
may, in turn, join those movements instead of Twitchell's, especially when they consider that
Eckankar charges a yearly membership fee and the Indian groups do not . Hence, Twitchell
invented a new mythology, one which intertwined fact, fiction, legend and imagination into a
confused complex that exhibited only one truly consistent theme: the living Eck Master as hero.
[*NOTE: See the fourth edition of my book, The Making of a Spiritual Movement (Del Mar: Del
Mar Press, 1988), pages 93 to 104, for more on Paul Twitchell's and Eckankar's nefarious past.
*]

I have described Twitchell's actions as genealogical dissociation , a useful term in that it clearly
illustrates what happened in the evolution of Eckankar in the late 1960's and early 1970's.
Twitchell attempted to sever his past by not only denying his genuine religious heritage but also
by implanting a new spiritual genealogy--one which allegedly traces back millions of years to the
Master Gakko who brought the true teachings of Eckankar from the planet Venus. [*NOTE: See
my article, "Gakko Came From Venus," in Understanding Cults and Spiritual Movements
(volume two, number one). *]

Turning to Shiv Dayal Singh and his relationship with Tulsi Sahib, we can see a concerted effort
on the part of several Radhasoami followers in Agra to squelch any talk of who may have been
Soami Ji's guru--in a phrase, genealogical dissociation. Given Shiv Dayal Singh's repeated
emphasis on following a living human master, it is particularly odd that no mention is made of
who may have instructed him in meditation and other spiritual matters. And when references are
made from those outside of the predominant Agra branches, they are dismissed under the
pretext that Shiv Dayal Singh only "acted" deferential to the guru in question because he was
following Hindu customs. This much has already been stated by Madhav Prasad Sinha, one of
Shiv Dayal Singh's nephews. Yet, why do at least two branches of the Tulsi Sahibis claim that
Shiv Dayal Singh was once initiated by their guru or by one of his successors? Moreover, what
was it that prompted Partap Singh to dump precious documents relating to his brother's life and
work into a well? The answers, as we have noted, lay buried in the recesses of oral history since
we lack the primary written documents to resolve the matter. But, despite such a lack of
documentary materials, one thing is certain: connecting Shiv Dayal Singh formally to a Sant
somehow maligns the origins and sacred history of Radhasoami, at least to orthodox Agra
members.

What is most telling about this reaction--a reaction, I should point out, that may have been
evident in other disciples besides Rai Salig Ram during the latter part of Soami Ji's ministry--is
that it coincides in many ways to the early controversies in Christianity surrounding Jesus
Christ's relationship with John the Baptist. Orthodox Christianity admits that Jesus was baptized
by John the Baptist, but holds that Jesus was much greater than his predecessor--indeed, was

15/19
the Son of God. What is not admitted, though, at least by orthodox Christian Churches, is that
Jesus was perceived by a number of John the Baptist's disciples as a break-off successor, not
worthy to carry on the tradition of the great Baptist. Jesus, in this interpretation, was not even the
foremost disciple of John the Baptist, much less the long awaited Messiah of the Jewish people.
Even among those followers of the Baptist who did finally follow Christ, a number of them only
accepted Jesus in a limited fashion, i.e., as John's appointed heir to continue the Baptizing
ministry.

What is most telling about the orthodox version of Jesus' relationship with the Baptist is the
clearly stated position that Christ, not the Baptist, was the Son of God. In other words, Jesus
was unique in every way: physically, historically, and spiritually. In fact, the very basis of
Christian orthodoxy rests on the assertion of Jesus' ultimate uniqueness.

Soami Ji's parallel to Jesus is not that far-fetched, at least not in terms of the theological
implications. For whatever reasons, Salig Ram and others held to the unremitting belief that Shiv
Dayal Singh was the greatest spiritual master in the history of mankind--in truth, the supreme
incarnation of the very highest Lord, Radhasoami Anami Purush . And one of the features that
made him unique was that he had no guru; he was self-made, so to say, without any exterior
guidance.

It may have been precisely for this reason (Shiv Dayal Singh's unique mission) that Salig Ram
and others denied that their master had a guru. How could he, since He was Himself the
Supreme Incarnation. To be sure, he may have had teachers (he may have, in fact, been
initiated by Tulsi Sahib), but none of these can be considered gurus in the true sense, since Shiv
Dayal Singh revealed secrets hitherto unknown to the rest of humankind. Yes, Shiv Dayal Singh
had no guru, just like Jesus Christ had no ordinary birth.

What we have here is the beginning of hagiography, and it began during Shiv Dayal Singh's
lifetime. Now in Jesus' case we know that a number of the gospels were not historically
accurate--indeed, a number of biographical episodes appear to be fictional--since their intention
was to convey faith in the risen Lord, not biographical truth. For instance, the story concerning
the virgin birth of Jesus Christ appears to be an interpolation by interested followers some years
after Jesus' death to make sense of his humble origins (i.e., how it is that the Son of God was
conceived outside of wedlock?) and the lack of response among his fellow neighbors. Thus the
virgin birth story is designed to convey the heroic aspects surrounding Jesus Christ; a common
practice, it should be noted, among religious writers attempting to divinize their particular
teacher.

Yet what remains the most powerful force behind such hagiography, both in Christian and
Gnostic sects, is the drive to become distinct and autonomous, to establish a new revelation.
Although the early Christian Church wanted to retain much of its Jewish heritage, it also wanted
to distinguish itself as a unique revelation in history. By making miraculous claims concerning
Jesus' birth, early years, teaching ministry, and death, the gospel writers accomplished exactly
16/19
that.

Early Radhasoami writers (especially those aligned with Salig Ram's theological outlook),
though writing some eighteen centuries later than their Christian counterparts, also tried to
establish the superiority of their guru by making claims about his historical uniqueness. And, in
so doing, these writers were clearly distinguishing Shiv Dayal Singh's ministry from the early
Sant tradition. Although Salig Ram acknowledges the Sant tradition as the camino royale of
spiritual practice prior to Soami Ji, he also wants to make it clear that his guru should not be
equated with other Sants. Shiv Dayal Singh is far greater.

Since Shiv Dayal Singh did not inherit the ashram of his (alleged) guru, nor controlling rights
over his samadh, Tulsi Sahibis generally contend that the founder of Radhasoami was an off-
shoot not by design but by circumstance. If, for instance, Shiv Dayal Singh had established his
ministerial base in Hathras right after his guru's death, then there would have been a clear link
between him and Tulsi Sahib. Indeed, in such a context, it may have been difficult, if nay
impossible, for an incarnationalist interpretation--like Salig Ram's--to have developed since
linkage, not newness, would have been a guiding imperative. Property, for better or worse, has a
tendency to constrain versus unstrain theological revelations. As such, mobility or a new
satsang home allows for easier disconnections, like the one apparently evident in Shiv Dayal
Singh's founding of Radhasoami.

The Brother Connection: A Family of Gurus

Another interesting twist to the hagiographical origins of Radhasoami is that all three sons of
Dilwali Singh and Mahamaya (Shiv Dayal, Rai Bindraban, and Partap Singh) acted as gurus.
Moreover, each served as sources for new religious movements: Rai Bindraban founded the
"Bindrabani Sect" in Oudh; Shiv Dayal Singh founded Radhasoami in Agra; and Seth Partap
Singh's disciple, Shyam Lal, established the Dhara Sindhu Pratap branch in his guru's honor.
Although all three share a common heritage in the Sant tradition, it appears that Shiv Dayal and
Rai Bindraban may have had slightly different interpretations of it. What little information in
English we have about Bindraban comes from S. D. Maheshwari's books, particularly Bhaktmal
of the Radhasoami Faith . The following provides us with a gist of Bindraban's life and work: It
was in Faizabad that he promulgated his new faith called "Bindrabani Panth" (religion styled
after his own name) and started initiating people into "Sat Guru Ram" and propagating it
amongst Sadhus (ascetics, mendicants) and house-holders. People, in their thousands, became
his disciples. He used to be regarded as the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the reason perhaps
being that he was well-versed in English and dressed like a European and with a hat on he used
to preach his religion. He used to be addressed as "Sarkar Saheb" by his disciples. . . . Rai
Bindraban Saheb passed away in 1876. . . His disciples had his Samadh built in Ayodhya, which
is still there. . . . [*NOTE: Bhaktmal of the Radhasoami Faith by S. D. Maheshwari (Agra, Soami
Bagh: S. D. Maheshwari, privately published, 1979), pages 4-7. *]

There are a number of intriguing parallels between Rai Bindraban and his brother, Shiv Dayal
17/19
Singh, concerning the origins of their respective movements. First, Bindraban and Shiv Dayal
started their public ministries within the same decade (the 1860's)--the former in Faizabad and
the latter in Agra. Second, each were responsible for a religious teaching bearing either their real
name or honorific title: Bindrabani sect and the Radhasoami faith (Shiv Dayal was referred to
both as Soami and as Radhasoami, the ultimate Lord). Third, both emphasized the practice of
surat shabd yoga. And fourth, both left wives who were regarded as enlightened beings (Bibo
and Narayan Dei).

Why Bindraban would have desired to start his own religion is not clear. That it was based
primarily on Sant mat is certain, though, as Bindraban's book, Bihar Bindraban , emphasizes
devotion to Sat Guru and Shabd: I salute and pay obeisance to my Beloved Nanak Saheb. He
pervades everywhere, all land, water and grass. Bindraban says that Sat Guru Nanak Saheb
has Himself incarnated in him. Because of his being merged in Shabd, he has been able to
accomplish his task easily. . . . He who performs Sat Guru Ram's Dhyan is sure to achieve four
precious things. He, who has met Sat Guru Ram and cherishes no worldly desire, has attained
salvation, and will find abode in the True Home. This world is transitory and one has to leave it in
a few days. . . . [*NOTE: As translated and cited by S. D. Maheshwari in Bhaktmal of the
Radhasoami Faith , op. cit., pages 7 and 11. *]

Rai Bindraban died in 1876. A samadh (burial tomb) in Ayodhya was built by his chief disciples
and successors, Guru Saran Das and Sat Guru Saran Das. According to Maheshwari's account,
Bindraban also allocated money before his death to be used for advancing the cause of his
religion, the Bindrabani Panth. Bindrabani's wife Bibo, affectionately termed Chhoti Mataji,
survived her husband's death and was given a high place of honor in the Radhasoami faith.
Elaborates Maheshwari: She [Bibo] was held in high esteem in [Radhasoami] Satsang. Along
with Radhaji Maharaj, her Arti, also, used to be performed. In the course of His utterances made
on the last day of His life just prior to His departure from this world, Soamiji Maharaj was
pleased to observe, "You should treat Radhaji and Chhoti Mataji alike." A small shrine has been
built in her memory in Radha Bagh near Radhaji's Samadh. [*NOTE: Bhaktmal of the
Radhasoami Faith, op. cit., page 11. *]

Thus in the early days of Radhasoami (1861 to 1871), both Rai Bindraban and Shiv Dayal Singh
were openly advocating surat shabd yoga and guru bhakti, albeit in different towns and with
different focuses. Apparently, Bindraban received more publicity than his older brother and was
more outgoing in spreading his message. In the Awadh Akhbar Lucknow newspaper of March
1870, Bindraban and his new religion received a glowing writeup after he made a spectacular
entrance at the famous Kumbla Mela riding "on an elephant with a decorated umbrella over his
head and with someone fanning him with a whisk. [And] In front of him were ten to twelve
elephants carrying beautiful flags." [*NOTE: Bhaktamal , op. cit., page 8 *] Wherever one went,
one heard people saying, "Bindraban Ji is a holy man, perfect in knowledge, absorbed in
meditation and the very personification of internal illumination. All should respect such a great
and gifted soul. . . . By Bindraban Ji's grace and mercy, many Sadhus are engaged in the

18/19
contemplation of Shabd (practice of Shabd Yoga). All the time one can find in his presence men
of position, kings, respected members of the public and government officers who are interested
in Parmarth (spiritual welfare). [*NOTE: Ibid., page 9. *]

The number of gurus arising from Dilwali Singh's family is considerable. Each of his sons and
their surviving wives acted as spiritual leaders. And, after their deaths, some satsangis followed
Partap Singh's son Sudarshan Singh while a large number paid homage to one of Shiv Dayal
Singh's nephews, Madhav Prasad Sinha. [*NOTE: The only exception was Partap Singh's wife
Gopal Dei who died at a very young age. *]

With such a plurality of gurus arising from one household, the family connection in the early
history of Radhasoami cannot be overlooked. Although one may be generalizing too much to
ascribe the finding of new religions in the mid and late 19th century to the "the spirit of the age"
(like the proliferation of spirit channelers in Los Angeles in the 1980's) it cannot be overlooked
that when three new religious revelations originate out of the same family something more than
coincidence seems to be operating. Arguably, Shiv Dayal Singh and his brothers were part of a
larger movement spreading throughout India at that time: religious renaissance. As Agam
Prasad Mathur argues: "It cannot be denied that during the six hundred years of Islamic
suppression, Hinduism as the religion of a vanquished people suffered significant setbacks. It
was during British rule that Hinduism could stand on a plane of equality with Islam. With the
state policy of non-interference in socio-religious matters, an air of freedom was experienced by
religious leaders. . ." [*NOTE: Radhasoami Faith , op. cit., page 12. *] It may have been precisely
this new era of openness which allowed for spiritual visionaries, like Bindraban and Shiv Dayal
Singh, to establish new movements which revitalized ancient truths by placing them in a more
modern and accessible context.

In any case, the family connection played a decisive role in the early history of Radhasoami.
And for those would-be successors of Shiv Dayal Singh who lacked blood connection, the
authorization and legitimacy of their ministries depended in large part on the support of the "Holy
Family." This was especially true, as we will see shortly, in the case of Jaimal Singh, who kept in
close contact with his guru's family.

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at [email protected]

I want to go back to the home base now.

19/19
Radhasoami: chapter two
dlane5.tripod.com /rs2.html

Author: David Christopher Lane

Publisher: Garland
Publication date: 1992

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at [email protected]

I want to go back to the home base now.

Chapter Two

THE IDEOLOGY OF ENLIGHTENMENT Radhasoami Theology and its Social Context

Theological perspectives and debates, which are delineated by such terms as orthodox and
heterodox, not only focus philosophical differences but actually reflect more fundamental social
circumstances and conflicts. Indeed, conflicts in theology often represent in an idealized fashion
social relations between particular religious groups. For example, the 2nd century A.D. dispute
between Gnostic sects and emerging Pauline Christianity was not simply an argument over
mysticism versus revelation, but a genuine political fight over centralized control and unification.
[*NOTE: See Elaine H. Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979) and
Gerard Valle, A Study in Anti-Gnostic Polemics (Waterloo: Wilfrid University Press, 1981). *]
Thus, the use of such terms as "orthodox" and "heterodox" by religious leaders and movements
can be utilized by sociologists as indicative signposts underlying societal tensions that are often
the main causes or catalysts behind theological debates.

The importance of this kind of approach is two-fold: 1) religious ideas are seen as important
indicators or crystallizations of underlying social differences; and 2) theological or philosophical
knowledge is viewed in a connective (and not an abstracted) way with culture. As such, this kind
of methodology sheds light on the formation, process, and culmination of theological thinking.
[*NOTE: I must confess, however, that the utility of such an approach did not occur to me until
after I had studied religious disputes in a purely historical and philosophical way. I am much
indebted to Professor Bennett Berger who patiently guided me towards understanding the
significance of sociological method in studying guru succession and other religious matters. *]

Furthermore, it should be understood that philosophical positions are in many cases indices of
social relationships. The very idea of an "orthodoxy" implies that there is another school of
thought which is contrary to it (hence the pejoratively used term "heterodox" and its sister
"heretical"). Although it is strikingly obvious, it is important to remind ourselves that "heresies"
1/29
do not exist in a literary vacuum, but are directly related to established and oftentimes
mainstream cultural institutions. [*NOTE: For more on the historical development of orthodoxies
and heterodoxies in Indian religions see Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and Dissent in India , edited by
S.N. Eisenstadt, et al (Berlin, New York: Mouton, 1984). *] In this way, therefore, the study of
theological disputes offers a fruitful context whereby the sociologist can better understand the
social relationship between connected, if battling, religious movements. Robin Gill, in a ground-
breaking work Theology And Social Structure , elaborates on the importance and utility of this
kind of endeavor: Despite [the] obvious dangers of theological relativism, the task of carefully
uncovering the social determinants of theology remains an important one. Far from being an
attempt to reduce theology to a series of affirmations about society--the charge that is often
levelled at Feuerbach--or to relativise it by exposing its obvious dependence upon transitory
social contexts, this task of uncovering social determinants becomes an essential step in
theological self-awareness. Just as it is widely acknowledged that theological statements carry
numerous philosophical and historical connotations and presuppositions, so theologians might
eventually assume that an awareness of social context and determinants is a prerequisite of an
adequate theology. [*NOTE: Robin Gill, Theology And Social Structure (London: Mowbrays,
1977.), page xi. *]

In light of this, the following section, which focuses on the continuing controversy among the
various branches of Radhasoami over what constitutes ultimate truth or enlightenment, will
examine how theological disputes codify underlying social relationships and tensions. [*NOTE:
In Theology and Social Structure , op. cit., Robin Gill suggests three levels of analysis for
studying the social determinants of theology: 1) socio-cultural ; 2) socio-political ; and 3) socio-
ecclesiastical . I have followed Gill's strategy throughout this study, developing the last category
to fit more specifically to North India's particular religious scene. *]

Specifically, I will want to address this one major question: How do social circumstances, such
as geographic location, property rights, status/caste, and succession transference, influence
theological perspectives on enlightenment? To properly examine and answer this query,
however, it is necessary to study Radhasoami theology in a developmental fashion since
theology, like other intellectual disciplines progresses through a series of stages. Thus, to
identify the social determinants of Radhasoami thought, attention must be paid to its historical
development as well. For instance, what may begin as a dependent variable (such as
Radhasoami's lack of strict rules or guidelines governing gaddi nasheen succession in its
beginning stages) may in time develop into an independent variable (such as Sawan Singh's
use of a registered will to document the appointment of his successor, Jagat Singh, at Dera
Baba Jaimal Singh) which can significantly influence by itself the future strategies of guru
legitimation. Hence, a fully comprehensive sociology of Radhasoami doctrines needs to take
into account how theology is both a product and a producer in the social construction of
philosophical thought. To carry out this task, though, the sociologist is forced by methodological
considerations to study dependent and independent variables separately --despite the obvious
fact that they are not mutually exclusive and are in constant interaction. [*NOTE: In an
2/29
illuminating footnote in his book, The Survival of a Counterculture (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1981), page 175, Bennett Berger explains the difficulty in using such terms as
"independent" and "dependent" variables. Berger writes: "The very language of "dependent"
and "independent" variables, like the language of "infrastructure" and "superstructure,"
imprisons one in a vocabulary that is misleading, one from which theorists have struggled to
extricate themselves. . . ." *] As Robin Gill explains, "The main justification for focusing
separately on the social determinants and the social significance of theology is that such focus
presents the sociologist with an empirically manageable area of study."

I. SOAMI BAGH: Orthodox/Objective/Closed System Orthodoxy and its Social Roots

Although religious leaders and followers tend to dismiss social circumstances and relationships
as having a major impact on the development of their beliefs, teachings, and practices, it
appears obvious societal context plays a tremendous role in shaping theological viewpoints.
The problematic issue, though, is how to measure the social influence. Given the wide array of
contributing influences, I think it is impossible at this stage to accurately gauge the impact, but it
is possible to identify certain general social factors which have helped mold philosophical
outlooks.

What were the social circumstances which contributed to Soami Bagh's establishment of an
orthodox and exclusive interpretation of Radhasoami teachings? To accurately answer that
question, however, we must first realize that Soami Bagh's orthodoxy did not develop overnight.
Rather, it developed in progressive stages, demarcated most graphically by each new guru
succession crisis. Thus, we will want to identify the social determinants of Soami Bagh's
theology by taking a close look at various phases in its history. By starting with Rai Salig Ram,
the first guru in Radhasoami history to define a specific orthodox interpretation of Shiv Dayal
Singh's teachings, it will enable us to identify the various social factors which contributed to the
solidification of an orthodoxy. Although, as I have previously stated, it is not possible at this time
to know the exact reasons behind Rai Salig Ram's theology, we will at least have a general idea
of which social factors may have played a significant role. After this, we can then turn to Rai
Salig Ram's theology and see which ideas may have a social impact on the continuing
development of Soami Bagh.

The Social Context of Rai Salig Ram's Theological Perspective

Even during the lifetime of Shiv Dayal Singh, the founder of Radhasoami, there were divergent
interpretations over the nature of his teachings. Apparently Shiv Dayal Singh was well aware of
the problem and advised his brother, Seth Partap Singh, [*NOTE: My spelling here of Partap
with an "a" before the "r" instead of the more common spelling-- Pratap --is based upon Partap
Singh's signature in English. Since he spelled his name as "Partap" and not "Pratap", I have
followed his usage. See S.D. Maheshwari's Bhaktmal of the Radhasoami Faith (Soami Bagh:
S.D. Maheswhari, 1979), page 25, for a reproduction of "Partap" Singh's signature. *] just prior
to his death not to interfere with their respective development. (14) Addressing Lala Pratap
3/29
[Partap] Singh, Soamiji observed, "The Faith I had given out, was that of Sat Nam and Anami.
Radhasoami Faith has been introduced by Salig Ram (Huzur Maharaj). You should let it also
continue. Satsang must go on. Satsang shall spread far and wide in future. [*NOTE: Sar Bachan
Radhasoami (Prose), translation by S.D. Maheshwari, Second Edition (Agra: Soami Bagh,
1958). *]

By Shiv Dayal Singh's own admission, Rai Salig Ram introduced Radhasoami Mat in
contradistinction with his own mat, Sat Nam and Anami Nam. What is not at all clear, though, is
why? Why, for instance, did Rai Salig Ram introduce Radhasoami Mat during the lifetime of his
teacher? Moreover, what were the social determinants at the time which prompted Salig Ram to
do so?

Although our inquiry lacks several key historical documents (such as Rai Salig Ram's notebooks
which have yet to be released by his great grandson, Agam Prasad Mathur), there are enough
original writings [*NOTE: During a brief visit to Peepal Mandi, Agra, in March of 1987, I was
informed by Agam Prasad Mathur personally that he will eventually make photo-copies of Rai
Salig Ram's notebooks. This would be a major breakthrough for Radhasoami studies, especially
given the lack of primary source materials during the time of Shiv Dayal Singh. *] of both Shiv
Dayal Singh and Rai Salig Ram to give us a clear idea about their respective theologies.

Rai Salig Ram's Unique Relationship with Shiv Dayal Singh

By all accounts (including those of rival successors) Rai Salig Ram was the chief and most well
known disciple of Shiv Dayal Singh. Seth Partap Singh in his biography of Soamiji Maharaji
referred to Salig Ram as "the chief and most beloved disciple of Radhasoami Saheb." [*NOTE:
Biography of Soamiji Maharaj (Soami Bagh, Agra: Radhasoami Satsang, Soami Bagh, 1978),
page 68. *] This unique, personal relationship between Salig Ram and his guru should not be
underestimated. If anything, it presents us with a social context in which to understand why
Salig Ram would eventually claim that Shiv Dayal Singh was the Supreme Incarnation. Salig
Ram would often serve his guru up to fifteen hours a day, performing personal tasks ranging
from drawing water from a well one mile away to cutting twigs from trees to be used as a
toothbrush. Salig Ram's devotion was unique, as evidenced by Seth Partap Singh's high praise
of his services: Huzur Maharaj [Rai Salig Ram] would never miss attendance on Soamiji
Maharaj. Even while attending on Soamiji Maharaj for about fifteen hours every day, he was
extremely eager for Darshan. As soon as he would come in His presence, he would feel at ease
and imbibe the nectar of His discourses. . . He was, in fact, singular in his devotion to Soamiji
Maharaj. [*NOTE: Ibid., page 76. *]

There can be no question that Salig Ram's intensely close physical proximity to his guru day in
and day out contributed to his devotional ideas about guru-bhakti in general. We know from
historical records that Rai Salig Ram and other close devotees partook of Shiv Dayal Singh's
charanamrit (water which has been personally sanctified by the immersion of the guru's physical
feet) and prashad (blessed food which was apparently sanctified by Shiv Dayal Singh's own
4/29
saliva). These kinds of practices, however, are not unique to Radhasoami. [*NOTE: For more on
these practices, see Lawrence A. Babb's Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the
Hindu Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986). *] What is not typical, though, is
Salig Ram's extreme devotion to the bodily form of his guru. An excerpt from one of Rai Salig
Ram's letters to his guru, reveals the nature of his devotion: It is also prayed that brother Pratap
[Partap] Singh or brother Gauri Shankar be directed to collect and send a small packet of dust,
which may have been besmeared on Huzur's Feet. Huzur's foot-print on the paper which has
been sent to me had very little dust. So this slave of Yours, prays for the favour of being
supplied with the special dust from off Your sacred Feet. Charanamrit and Prashad may also
graciously be sent to this slave soon. [*NOTE: Last Discourse of Soamiji Maharaj And Letters of
Soamiji Maharaj & Huzur Maharaj , Translated by S.D. Maheshwari (Soami Bagh, Agra:
Radhasoami Satsang, Soami Bagh, 1960), pages 13-14. *]

Although it is not possible to draw a cause and effect connection between Salig Ram's unique
personal relationship with Shiv Dayal Singh and his subsequent theological views, they are
nevertheless consistent with one another. At the very least, this supports why Salig Ram--and
not other successors who were not as physically close to the guru--would have adopted a
univocal interpretation of his master's teachings. In other words, Salig Ram's singular devotion
is reflected in his singular (and exclusive) interpretation of Shiv Dayal Singh's teachings.

Another factor at play here is a psychological one: transference inflation. By elevating his guru
to the greatest incarnation of all time, Salig Ram, in turn, elevates his own status, since he was
by all accounts one of the closest, if not the closest, disciple of Shiv Dayal Singh. Although such
a projection may indeed be unconscious, it does nevertheless have a very visible social effect:
the successor of the greatest incarnation of all time naturally engenders an almost unparalleled
amount of respect and adulation, thus solidifying an emerging guru's ministry. Salig Ram's
univocal interpretation of Shiv Dayal Singh is also a categorical pronouncement about his own
ministry. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that Salig Ram's actions after the death of his
guru caused some envy and dissension among his fellow satsangis. Partap Singh (Shiv Dayal
Singh's brother), in particular, was incensed by Salig Ram's airs of grandeur. He was especially
outraged by the extreme devotion displayed toward Salig Ram during and after his satsangs in
Peepal Mandi.

Thus Salig Ram's exclusive interpretation of his guru's message must also be seen as personal
testimony about his own functional status as a viable successor. In other words, Salig Ram is
not only revealing something about his guru when he speaks of an unqualified incarnationalism,
he is also speaking categorically about his own perceived role in the history of spirituality.

The Socio-Religious Influences of the British Raj, Vaishnavism, and Biblical Christianity

Since Salig Ram had a long and fruitful career in the office of Postmaster General in the North
Western Provinces (he was the first Indian to be appointed to the position), he had close contact
with the British and their ways of administering government. Even though the British did not
5/29
always respect the various manifestations of Indian religion, such as Hinduism, Buddhism,
Jainism, and Sikhism, their rule was generally much more tolerant of differing religious practices
than were India's previous rulers, the Muslim Mughals. In such a climate, modern Hindu
revivalist movements such as Swami Dayananda's Arya Samaj and Blavatsky's pro-Indian
thought, Theosophy, flourished. The importance of this kind of religious freedom should not be
overlooked. As Mathur explains: It cannot be denied that during the six hundred years of Islamic
suppression, Hinduism as the religion of a vanquished people suffered significant setbacks. It
was during British rule that Hinduism could stand on a plane of equality with Islam. With the
state policy of non-interference in socio-religious matters, an air of freedom was experienced by
religious leaders. . . [*NOTE: Ibid., page 12. *]

Even though Shiv Dayal Singh's teachings were not oriented towards bettering the world,
overthrowing British rule, or re-establishing the supremacy of Hinduism, there was undoubtedly
an element of absolutism which evoked a sense of pride in its members. For even though the
British may have been the temporal rulers of India and its people, they had no jurisdiction
whatsoever in the higher spheres of spiritual existence. Hence, a devout Hindu or Sikh could
still retain a sense of self-pride by realizing his religious views were beyond the scope of British
Raj politics. Despite their transmundane aspirations, modern Indian religious movements served
a vital social function in allowing their practitioners to retain a sense of community and historical
continuity even in the midst of foreign rule.

Thus, Salig Ram is one of a series of Indian revivalists who sought to re-establish the
supremacy of religion in everyday life. The unique twist in Salig Ram's venture, though, was that
he advocated Radhasoami as the supreme religion of all time. In doing so, he criticized all other
forms of worship. As such, Salig Ram was simply extending Shiv Dayal Singh's own exclusive
views on the nature of spiritual evolution into a historically unique occasion. Bachan 3 of Sar
Bachan Chhand-Band reveals in a nutshell Salig Ram's spiritual appraisal of other religions and
their leaders: Neither Ram nor Krishna knew Thee, O my beloved Radhasoami! Neither Sita nor
Rukmin and Pat-rani heard about my beloved Radhasoami. Christ, Moses, Mary and Mani
failed to find out my beloved Radhasoami. . . What could Hindus and Muslims know about my
beloved Radhasoami? [*NOTE: Sar Bachan Radhasoami (Poetry), op. cit., page 58. *]

Salig Ram's orthodoxy, especially his elevation of Shiv Dayal Singh as the Supreme Incarnation
of God, has some interesting parallels with Christianity, where the central emphasis--especially
in fundamentalist sects--is on the historical uniqueness of Jesus Christ. We know that Salig
Ram was familiar with Christian doctrine, owning a number of books on the subject, including a
complete collection of Emanuel Swedenborg's mystical texts. Couple this with Salig Ram's
Vaishnava background (his family were staunch devotees of Krishna--one of the ten
incarnations of Vishnu) and it appears certainly obvious, but not yet scientifically ascertainable,
that Salig Ram's incarnational views owe much to both orthodox Hinduism and Christianity. The
former because they were the context of his early youth; the latter because they represented
the "status" religion of the ruling class. [*NOTE: For more on Rai Salig Ram's life and teachings,
6/29
see S.D. Maheshwari's Biography of Huzur Maharaj (Soami Bagh: S.D. Maheshwari, 1971). *]

Salig Ram was also highly affected by the 1857 Indian mutiny. As Agam Prasad Mathur
remarks, "The horrors and aftermath of the freedom movement in 1857 left a sad mark on his
impressionable mind, and increased his desire for meeting a true guide." [*NOTE: Agam Prasad
Mathur, Radhasoami Faith: A Historical Study (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1974), page
59, quoting Max Muller. *] To what extent such a tragedy influenced his religious views remains
uncertain, except that it increased Salig Ram's longing for spiritual fulfillment. The Religious and
Social Impact of Salig Ram's Ministry

Although it is nearly impossible to precisely gauge the socio-historical influences on Salig Ram's
extreme philosophical positions, we do know that his legacy left a huge imprint on the growth of
Radhasoami in Agra and elsewhere, especially through his two main followers, Brahm Shankar
Misra and Madhav Prasad Sinha. Salig Ram was responsible for several key developments in
Radhasoami theology and organization, including: 1) publishing Shiv Dayal Singh's writings in
1886 for the first time; 2) drawing a significant increase of followers to Radhasoami; 3)
articulating in a clear and systematic fashion various abstruse points in Radhasoami theology;
4) spreading the teachings of Radhasoami outside of Agra; and 5) establishing a new ministerial
base at Peepal Mandi, outside of Soami Bagh.

But Salig Ram's greatest legacy occurred when he died. Instead of clearly appointing one
successor to carry on the work, Salig Ram died without nominating anyone as his heir apparent.
The result was an "interregnum" where no one for a couple of years emerged as a guru. This
singular event, perhaps more than any other thing in Salig Ram's career, altered the course of
future Radhasoami history. Luckily for scholars, unlike the death of Shiv Dayal Singh, there are
a number of important written documents which reveal the uncertainty and tension that
accompanied Rai Salig Ram's death. A particularly insightful commentary comes from Brahm
Shankar Misra, Salig Ram's eventual majority successor, who wrote a number of letters to
satsangis during this time period. Below are some pertinent excerpts: The sudden departure of
Huzur Maharaj [Rai Salig Ram] has no doubt been a great shock to all of us and taken away the
apparent prop we were resting on. But He has not totally severed His connection with us. On the
other hand, He is now watching our spiritual welfare more keenly than before and giving us also
greater help inwardly. The question of allegiance to another Sadh or Sant does not, therefore,
arise for the present. . . [*NOTE: A Solace To Satsangis (Soamibagh, Agra: Radhasoami
Satsang, 1952), page 1. This letter was dated 18th December, 1898, twelve days after Salig
Ram died. *] Nothing definite can be said yet about Huzur Maharaj's successor. Eventually, no
doubt the necessity of a Sant Satguru is indispensable for the continuance of Radhasoami
Faith, but some spiritual benefit is intended even until His appearance, the object being that all
followers of Radhasoami faith should exert themselves internally for spiritual advancement. As
long as another Satguru does not appear, there is no question of altering the contemplation of
the last Satguru's image Who was the latest Incarnation of the Supreme Being. [*NOTE: Ibid.,
page 4 and 5. Letter was written on 12th May, 1889. *]
7/29
What is clear from Misra's letters is that no successor to Salig Ram emerged for at least two
years. Even Misra himself, who would later assume the role, appears not to be aware of his own
spiritual status during this period. Hence, the importance of the interregnum should not be
overlooked. In many ways, it serves as a period in which Salig Ram's theology gets solidified
and gaddi nasheen succession takes on a new political twist.

The Central Administrative Council When Orthodoxy Gets Entrenched

With a proliferation of gurus and satsangs (after Shiv Dayal Singh's death there were at least six
different disciples working as gurus) there arises an overriding impetus--both for individuals and
organizations--to establish some kind of outward criterion for legitimation. In the case of Shiv
Dayal Singh, there was no unanimity on who was his male successor. Even though Radha Ji
was accepted as his chief female heir (and general guardian of the entire sangat), it appears
that Sanmukh Das, Rai Salig Ram, [*NOTE: There has been some controversy concerning
Radhaji's role as a guru. It is clear, however, that she did initiate women into the path, as
evidenced by Sudarshan Singh's court testimony with a Dayal Bagh lawyer, wherein he stated,
"Radhaji had granted Huzur Maharaj [Rai Salig Ram] permission to initiate others. . . . Radhaji
Maharaj used to initiate ladies through me after making them sit before Her. See Bhaktmal of
the Radhasoami Faith , op. cit., page 32. *] Seth Partap Singh, Jaimal Singh, Gharib Das, and
others perhaps, commenced their own satsangs and gathered their own particular followings.
The consequences of this split in the sangat were tremendous and until this day have been a
major source for the continued proliferation of new breakaway groups.

In Agra, after the death of Shiv Dayal Singh, there were four satsangs that were held: 1) the
sadhu satsang, headed by Sanmukh Das; 2) the women's satsang, headed by Radhaji; 3) Seth
Partap Singh's satsang at Soami Bagh; and 4) Rai Salig Ram's satsang in Peepal Mandi.
Apparently, there was some disharmony among three of these satsangs almost from the outset.
For example, Seth Partap Singh, Shiv Dayal Singh's younger brother, did not always approve of
Rai Salig Ram's satsang in Peepal Mandi, because he had introduced some changes which
were not to his liking. Despite whatever theological differences Salig Ram and Partap Singh
had, it appears that one of the major points of their dispute was over who gave satsang and
where . The Partap/Salig Ram dispute illustrates graphically that the atmosphere in Agra after
Shiv Dayal Singh's death was anything but serene. Apparently when Salig Ram moved back to
Agra in the mid-1880's (he had been posted outside of the city for some time after the death of
his guru), his satsang caused a rift of jealousy amongst devotees who had previously been
associated with Radha Ji, Shiv Dayal Singh's wife and chief heir. As Salig Ram himself noted on
July 16, 1887, to Brahm Shankar Misra, his eventual successor, "Troubles constantly arise from
my holding Satsang and I have a mind to modify present procedure so as to avoid giving cause
to jealousy on the part of others as well as the great want of respect hitherto shown towards our
Supreme Mother Radhaji Sahib by the members of the congregation. . ." [*NOTE: Holy Epistles
And Other Sacred Writings , Part 2, translated by S.D. Maheswhari (Soami Bagh: S.D.
Maheshwari, 1964), page 103. *] It appears that the animosity reached a peak in 1889, when
8/29
Salig Ram began solidifying his constituencies and drawing seekers and satsangis away from
Partap Singh's satsangs. The following correspondence between Salig Ram and Madhav
Prasad Sinha at that time reveals the intensity of the dispute. For the last week or ten days, Lala
Pratap [Partap] Singh Saheb is very much displeased with this Satsang. Although it so happens
once in a month or two, this time he is over-excited. Yesterday, in the Satsang and the general
congregation at his house, he vehemently used very intemperate language and harsh words
about this Satsang, Satsangis, Satsangins, and Sadhus. As far as possible, I do not like to give
the least cause of annoyance and displeasure to the members of the holy family. For the last
few days Lala Pratap Singh has been holding his separate Satsang. In order that his Satsang
may flourish, I wish to stop, for some time, the Satsang held at my place. This would remove the
cause of his displeasure and annoyance. Besides, there are quarrels and differences among
Satsangis and Satsangins, due to which I feel very much vexed and annoyed. It, therefore,
seems advisable to stop the Satsang for the time being. Sadhus would attend Satsang in Soami
Bagh. Householders would join the Satsang held at Radhaji Maharaj's. And Sadhus, if they so
wish, may come to the town and join the Satsang arranged by Chachaji Saheb and held under
the benign presidency of Radha Ji Maharaj. [*NOTE: Ibid., page 209. *]

In a later letter, this time to Prem Anand, Salig Ram elaborates on the controversy: I have never
trusted his [Partap Singh] external respectful conduct for I always noticed a strong spirit of
jealousy and venomous rancour harboured in his breast. But my endeavour has been to give
way and take no notice of his words and on the other hand for the sake of my beloved Supreme
Father to give this queer gentleman no cause for offence or in any way lower his dignity
amongst the members of the Satsang. . . . [*NOTE: Ibid., page 213. *]

Thus by the time of Salig Ram's death there were a number of factions in Radhasoami, and the
disputes, mostly concerning succession and property rights, were increasing. To remedy this
factionalization, Brahm Shankar Misra and other prominent Peepal Mandi/Soami Bagh
satsangis created a Central Administrative Council to unify the divergent Radhasoami groups
under one collective umbrella. Even though the result was disastrous, the Central Administrative
Council was a coup of sorts for Brahm Shankar Misra and orthodox Radhasoami. For, by its
very inception, Misra was able to legally establish a system whereby an elite inner circle could
determine the future of Radhasoami doctrines, initiations, membership, and in turn control the
satsang properties associated with Shiv Dayal Singh and Rai Salig Ram. S.D. Maheshwari
explains the guiding principle of the C.A.C.: It had been observed that after the departure of
Sant Sat Guru, certain persons had seceded from the main Satsang and formed into separate
groups. They asserted their right of interest in the above properties. So it was necessary to take
measures to protect these properties. And the Council was established (a) to consolidate the
properties presented or acquired during the time of Soamiji Maharaj and Huzur Maharaj, which
were in possession of the members of the families of Sant Sat Gurus, (b) to settle, once for all,
the question that the property belongs to the Sant Sat Guru as such and to no one else, (c) to
safe-guard against the properties passing into the family of a Sant Sat Guru or another person,
(d) to help the Sant Sat Guru in the management of the properties, (e) to administer the
9/29
properties during interregnum and (f) to prevent the formation of cliques as far as possible.
[*NOTE: S.D. Maheshwari, Radhasoami Faith: History & Tenets (Soami Bagh: S.D.
Maheshwari, 1954), pages 95-96. *]

Geographical Location: Where The Sacred and the Profane Intersect

The importance of geographic location and property in establishing and maintaining a religious
orthodoxy should not be underestimated. Religious orthodoxies, in general, are much more
likely to develop in the geographical location where the charismatic founder established his
mission. Not only does the land lend historical significance to the fledgling movement, but it
provides visible proof of where the sacred touches the profane. As such, the founder's spiritual
gaddi (lit., "seat of the guru") represents a primordial hierophany, a divine axis mundi where the
numinous coincides with the mundane. Such a sacred spot becomes an historical repository of
the initial divine manifestation in the world. A comparative look at the world's great religions
attests to this as a trans-cultural phenomenon: witness the Jewish-Christian Jerusalem; the
Sikh's Amritsar; the Hindu's Benares; and the Muslim's Mecca. Moreover, these holy places by
their very nature are oriented towards a nostalgic remembrance of the religion's beginnings.
Although they may inspire pilgrims to transform their lives in the future, they do so by presenting
an ideal from the past. Hence, it is natural and consistent with the spirit of religious devotion that
the place where the spiritual leader made significant advances, commandments, or miracles,
should become the focal point of pilgrimage and worship.

The Central Administrative Council working out of Soami Bagh, therefore, by its entitled position
was more predisposed toward orthodoxy than any other satsang group connected with Shiv
Dayal Singh, since it retained what other branches did not: historical legitimacy and sacred
memory via geographic location, personal artifacts and relics, etc. Thus, one of C.A.C.'s/Soami
Bagh's chief sources for legitimacy, in the face of rival claims, was its geographic location.
Whatever else may be said against the presiding gurus at Soami Bagh, nobody could dispute its
singular claim for being the place where Radhasoami started. [*NOTE: I vividly remember when
Professor Mark Juergensmeyer and I visited with Sant Das Maheshwari in his home at Soami
Bagh, where we discussed the origins of Radhasoami. At one point, Maheshwari emphatically
pointed to the sacred relics in his room as proof that Soami Bagh was the only true lineage
connected to Shiv Dayal Singh. As Maheshwari himself so emphatically put it, "Who else [but
Soami Bagh] has Soamiji's fingernail clippings and eyebrow hair?" Maheshwari's tone was both
serious and proud. *]

Hence, despite whatever controversies it engendered, the Central Administrative Council was
key in cementing an orthodox viewpoint in Radhasoami. By retaining the vital satsang
properties of the first two gurus and restricting voting to a selected elite, the C.A.C. was able to
establish its sacred base as well as wield political control over its membership. Even though the
C.A.C. came under heavy attack just five years after its inception and suffered a drastic loss of
membership due to the rebellion of Kamta Prasad Sinha and other disaffected satsangis,
[*NOTE: For a popular account of this split, see Marvin Henry Harper's Gurus, Swamis, and
10/29
Avataras (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), pages 96 to 119. *] it clearly established
itself as the orthodox branch of Radhasoami.

But much of this "orthodoxy" has to do with a reaction to growing schisms within the movement
and the need for centralizing the control of satsang properties. The very idea of an orthodoxy
arises only when there is a contest over centralized control. And usually such contests hover
around material interests like property rights, membership privileges and doctrinal
interpretations. With the increase of properties and members and monies, it is little wonder that
internal disputes would prompt a push for some kind of centralized order. Who determines that
order, however, has more to do with politics than mysticism. And it is precisely the politics of
property and economic self interest that determines to a large measure how theology gets
transformed to fit the needs of a given time and circumstance. For this reason, the Central
Administrative Council must be seen for what it is: a political body interested in preserving
economic interests. Why else would such a "spiritual" institution pursue a decades long legal
battle with Dayal Bagh over worship rights at Soami Bagh and elsewhere? To be sure, the
pretext is one of doctrinal purity, but underlying such a pretext is an economic reality, wherein
the C.A.C. stands to lose exclusive rights to its property holdings, as well as to its incoming
donations from outlying sister satsangs. Hence, the C.A.C.'s development of a doctrinal
orthodoxy is intimately related to its own economic self interest in retaining control over sacred
properties and the worship rights to those holy places.

In later years, after the death of Madhav Prasad Sinha, the last guru at Soami Bagh, it became
imperative for the Central Administrative Council to assume a more active role in controlling
satsang related activities, such as: building the holy samadh; processing new applicants for
initiation; collecting bhent (donations); conducting regular satsangs; printing Radhasoami
literature; and maintaining satsang properties. Indeed, with the demise of Madhav Prasad and
his personal charisma, Soami Bagh's orthodoxy became entrenched. With the apparently
interminable interregnum started by Madhav Prasad Sinha's death, the routinization of
Radhasoami doctrines finally reached its pinnacle. No longer subject to the unpredicatable
ideas of a new guru and/or the controversies that would inevitably follow his/her death, the
Central Administrative Council, without a recognized living Master at its helm, emerged as the
sole governing force at Soami Bagh--a development which will undoubtedly insure that a
doctrinal orthodoxy reign supreme for many more years to come. II. MANAVTA MANDIR:
Heterodox/Subjective/Counter System Social Position and the Evolution of Heterodoxy

The antithesis of Soami Bagh's interpretation of ultimate truth and enlightenment is the
viewpoint held by Manavta Mandir, founded by the late Baba Faqir Chand (1886-1981).
Although arising from the same genealogical roots (Faqir Chand's guru, Shiv Brat Lal, was an
initiate of Rai Salig Ram), Manavta Mandir does not hold to any exclusive dogmas or doctrines.
Rather, due to its founder's penetrating insights and frank autobiographical admissions, this
satsang sees every religious expression, from Radhasoami to Advaita Vedanta, as being
subjective and partial manifestations of the total reality. In fact, truth is not objective as a
11/29
cognitive capability, but is wholly transcendent, beyond the capacity of any individual to attain to
it or understand it. What man knows is only a small part of the larger universe, like a germ in the
human body, circumvented by its very existence to a remote region of inquiry. [*NOTE: In a
personal interview, later published in a booklet edited by B. R. Kamal entitled The Master
Speaks To The Foreigners (Hoshiarpur: Faqir Charitable Library Trust, 1978), Faqir Chand
spoke the following words to me: "No one has ever been able to know it completely. No one has
known it. A small germ in a body cannot know the whole body. Similarly (a) human being is like
a small germ in a vast Creation. How can he claim to have known the entire creation?" *] As
Faqir Chand once wrote: Who can say authentically that God is Unnamed (Anami) or Unseen
(Alakh)? Man is in search of Truth. When his attention (surat) reaches or merges in its own self,
he feels himself to be unnamed (anami). He loses his "self" into a state of limitlessness and
there ends his struggle of research. Who can know what man is? So, Man, none has known
anything about God. All these propounders of different religious philosophies have no right to
say that they have become something. If anyone makes this claim, he is still ignorant of the
Truth. See the end of those saints who made claims of their so called greatness and immortality.
Where did the immortality of Paltu Sahib go when he was thrown in the boiling oil pan? My Guru
Data Dayal could not do anything against His (God's) will and save his ashram, Radhaswami
Dham. Swami Param Hans Dev whose prashad had a power for curing incurable diseases,
himself died of cancer. . . [*NOTE: The Unknowing Sage: The Life and Work of Baba Faqir
Chand, edited by David C. Lane (1987), page 48. *]

Interestingly, Faqir Chand's radicalization of absolute Truth came about only after he had
embraced the accepted doctrines of Radhasoami, as outlined by Shiv Dayal Singh in his book,
Sar Bachan (both the prose and poetry volumes). Faqir Chand, like many satsangis in the faith,
believed he had been led to the highest path available to mankind. However, since there were
many different schools of Radhasoami--each with their own presiding master--Faqir quickly
learned that he was not alone in his pride of spiritual superiority.

Yet, unlike many of his counterparts, Faqir underwent a remarkable transformation in his
religious views near the end of World War One. In a battle in Iraq in 1919, Faqir Chand had two
extraordinary experiences which convinced him that no path or guru was necessarily closer to
God. First, he beheld a vision of his master, Shiv Brat Lal, while he was in grave danger, which
on further inspection occurred without any knowledge on behalf of his guru. And, second, close
associates of Faqir Chand claimed that he was appearing to them during their meditation
sittings, but all the while Faqir himself when questioned about such appearances stated that he
had absolutely no knowledge of the manifestations. These unusual events confirmed to Faqir
that all inner visions, miracles, etc., were products of the devotee's own faith and concentration
and had nothing to do, per se, with any particular religious master or system. [*NOTE: See my
article "The Hierarchical Structure of Religious Visions," in the Journal of Transpersonal
Psychology (Volume 15, Number 1), for more on Faqir Chand's views on this controversial
subject. *] Faqir Chand comments on this critical insight: Dayal's mother, whom you see within
and whom you love within is your own creation, your own child. You, yourself, create the image
12/29
of Shiv Brat Lal in your center of Trikuti, while other devotees create ideals such as Krishna,
Rama, or other Gods at the same center and enjoy their vision. Man is basically ignorant about
the reality. . . When you create my image for the fulfillment of your worldly desires and get many
works done from my form, I remain unaware about such happenings. I daily receive a heavy
mail about such miraculous incidents from satsangis. Such cases have convinced me that the
manifestation of the Guru's form within me was not from without. It was the creation of my own
mind. I do not go anywhere, but my form does manifest at many places at the same time. It
proves that it is one's own creation, one's own faith, belief and devotion. An individual enjoys
visions within according to his intentions and convictions. [*NOTE: The Unknowing Sage: The
Life and Work of Baba Faqir Chand , op. cit., page 29. *]

True spiritual enlightenment, according to Faqir Chand, is not the apprehension of inner visions,
the listening to celestial sounds, or out-of-body experiences, but is rather the realization that
every conception of the Divine is ultimately unreal. Truth or Reality is, in essence, absolutely
unknowable. Liberation is the tacit awareness of that mysterious fact on every level of life. Thus,
Faqir Chand and his Be-Man philosophy represent a devastating subjectivity , which no matter
how profound can never be completely objectivized--Divine Ignorance from beginning to end.
[*NOTE: Coincidentally, Faqir Chand's understanding of ignorance is quite similar to Da Love
Ananda's (alias Franklin Jones; Bubba Free John; Da Free John) concept of "Divine Ignorance"
or "Eternal Mystery," as outlined in his book, The Paradox of Instruction (Clear Lake: Dawn
Horse Press, 1977). *]

Obviously, this radical purview did not sit well with other Radhasoami groups (especially the
Agra sects), since it relativizes even the most exceptional of religious revelations. Faqir Chand's
heterodox views have not won him a wide following, though they have clearly distinguished his
teachings as the chief "counter system" to mainstream, orthodox Radhasoami theology.
[*NOTE: Specifically, Soami Bagh's closed and incarnational system in Agra, which holds that
Shiv Dayal Singh and his designated successors were full embodiments of the Supreme Being,
Radhasoami Anami Purush. *] As Faqir Chand once observed: This is a hard fact: the plain truth
does not help in establishing centers; it does not increase the number of followers. But how is
anyone to understand it (Truth)? Only after this realization: that he is a bubble of consciousness.
A bubble of consciousness would not claim himself to be a yogi, sadhu, or gyani. Had I not
realized this Truth, I might have made claims of my greatness and got myself worshipped from
you and exploited you. [*NOTE: "The Reluctant Guru: The Life and Teachings of Baba Faqir
Chand," by David Christopher Lane, Laughing Man Magazine (Volume 3, Number 1), page 76.
*]

Today, Manavta Mandir, under the direction of Faqir Chand's chief spiritual successor, Dr. I.C.
Sharma, preaches an unqualified "Be-Manism," an ecumenical humanism which stresses the
need for human interaction and upliftment. Dialogue with a variety of different religious traditions
is invited and welcomed. Unlike Soami Bagh, which shuns any type of publicity or formal
communication with "splinter" satsang groups, Manavta Mandir seeks out platforms with other
13/29
spiritual gurus and masters. In fact, the Be-Man temple in Hoshiarpur contains not only pictures
of the late Baba Faqir Chand, Shiv Brat Lal, and Rai Salig Ram (which is expected in such an
institution), but also houses photographs of almost every other Radhasoami leader from various
branches. Where Soami Bagh's orthodox/objective/closed system leans towards exclusivity,
Faqir Chand's heterodox/subjective/counter system tends toward inclusivity. [*NOTE: For an
account of my personal impressions of Manavta Mandir's tolerance of other religions, see my
article "The Great Sage of Hoshiarpur" in the Movement Newspaper (November 1982).
Manavta Mandir was quite inclusive and tolerant of opposing perspectives during the reign of its
founder Faqir Chand. As Faqir Chand himself has stated on several occasions, "I do not know
whether my realizations are right or wrong. I do not make any claim that my realization is final."
Faqir Chand's successor, Dr. I.C. Sharma, though retaining much of his guru's ecumenical spirit,
has not been as tolerant as Faqir Chand of disciples who have started their own satsangs in
Faqir's name. In fact, Sharma has met with some sharp resistance from old-time Faqir devotees
who feel that he has put too much of his personality into Manavta Mandir politics. *]

Shiv Brat Lal and the Roots of Heresy

Faqir Chand's heterodoxical viewpoint was not simply the product of deep mystical insight
(though its value should not be underestimated), but rather was the outcome of a complex
series of personal and social events. Faqir Chand's guru, Shiv Brat Lal, for example, was never
accepted by the majority of satsangis in or outside of Agra as the true successor of Rai Salig
Ram. Indeed, by his own admission, Shiv Brat Lal had only visited his guru three times, and
then never for more than a week. Shiv Brat Lal's personal contact with Rai Salig Ram was
minimal when compared with other fledgling successors. Thus, Shiv Brat Lal did not have any
established formal ties with Rai Salig Ram's sangat, much less with his ashram or property. It is
not surprising, therefore, that Shiv Brat Lal was never considered a serious gaddi nasheen
candidate. In fact, Shiv Brat Lal did not start his own satsang in earnest until around 1904/1905-
-some six years after the death of his guru.

When Faqir Chand first met his master in 1905, Shiv Brat Lal's sangat was extremely small and
was not regarded as a major Radhasoami branch. Only later, with Shiv Brat Lal's numerous
publications on Sant mat, did Shiv Brat Lal's Radhasoami group emerge in Gopiganj as a major
force in Sant mat circles.

Shiv Brat Lal's philosophy was marked at each turn with a liberality of expression which
contrasted drastically with Salig Ram's orthodoxy. This is most evident perhaps in Shiv Brat
Lal's popular, Light On Ananda Yoga , which postulates a clearly delineated--but not an
exclusive--path to God. Although Shiv Brat Lal did establish a Radhasoami center, named
Radhasoami Dham , and preached the cardinal principles of surat shabd yoga, he did not
invoke the unbending orthodoxy of his predecessor, Rai Salig Ram, who claimed that there was
only one true religion in the world now existing--namely Radhasoami Satsang in Agra. On the
contrary, Shiv Brat Lal expressed a keen desire to connect the teachings of the saints with the
mystical essence of other world religions. Shiv Brat Lal was widely educated and published in a
14/29
number of literary magazines. It is roughly estimated that he published over 3,000 separate
articles, pamphlets, and books in his lifetime. Shiv Brat Lal was also an editor for a number of
magazines, including the Arya Gazette (an Arya Samaj publication) and Sadhu . In each of
these publications, Shiv Brat Lal stressed the need for toleration and respect of differing
religious leaders and ideas. Shiv Brat Lal was also on quite friendly terms with other spiritual
leaders from other paths, particularly Sawan Singh of Beas, for whom he had very high regard.
[*NOTE: For more on the life of Shiv Brat Lal, see Dayal Yoga by Dayal Thakur Nandu Singh
(Secunderabad: P. Anand Rao, n.d.). *]

Be-Manism:

A Humanistic Interpretation of Radhasoami teachings

The development of an extreme heterodox position in Radhasoami theology did not commence,
however, with Shiv Brat Lal. Rather, it was Shiv Brat Lal's chief successor, Faqir Chand, who
developed what is now considered the most radical interpretation of Shiv Dayal Singh's
teachings: Manavism or "Be-Manism." Fortunately, the socio-historical events leading up to this
development are clearly outlined by Faqir Chand in his frank autobiography, The Unknowing
Sage . Faqir Chand, due to his strict Brahmin upbringing, did not appreciate the dogmatic and
unsparing criticism of his religion that was made by the founder of Radhasoami, Shiv Dayal
Singh, in his book Sar Bachan . Faqir Chand recollects: I reached the ashram of Hazur Data
Dayal Ji [Maharishi Shiv Brat Lal] and prostrated my humble self at His Holy Feet. He gave me
an exceptionally affectionate welcome and initiated me into Radhaswami Mat. His Holiness
gave me a book and asked me to go through it. The work was Sar Bachan written by Swamiji
Maharaj [Shiv Dayal Singh], the founder of Radhaswami. I went through some pages of the
book in the very presence of Hazur Data Dayal Ji. But I could not pursue it any further, though,
because Swamiji Maharaj had most vehemently criticized almost every religion, including
Vedanta, Sufism, Islam, Jainism, and Buddhism. He declared them all to be Kal and Maya. It
was too much for me. I felt hurt and tears rolled down my eyes. His Holiness noticed my
reaction and inquired for the reason. I broke out, "Hazur, God is One. I have failed to understand
the justification for condemning all other religions as incomplete. This is a direct attack on the
religion of my ancestors." Hazur very lovingly advised me, "Keep aside this book and never read
it until I ask you to read [it]."

Thus, Faqir's first contact with Radhasoami doctrines was not a pleasant experience. He did not
appreciate Shiv Dayal Singh's criticism of other religions and their leaders, nor his exclusive
claims on the efficacy of surat shabd yoga. Faqir's distaste for dogmatic Radhasoami doctrines
was further exacerbated when he learned that other Radhasoami devotees (particularly those
who paid allegiance to Kamta Prasad Sinha) did not accept Faqir's guru, Shiv Brat Lal, as
genuine. An incident from Faqir's early life exemplifies the social tensions that existed between
various Radhasoami factions at that time (and, I should add, still persist): On my way back from
Lahore, I used to stay at Malkway Railway Station. There a book stall agent used to give

15/29
discourses on Radhaswami Mat. Once the agent refused to share his huqqa (an Indian smoking
pipe used for tobacco) with me. "We are both Brahmin by caste, why have you refused to share
your huqqa with me?" He surprised me by responding, "Babu Kamta Prasad Sinha (alias Sarkar
Sahib) is the only true incarnation of Radhaswami Dayal." [Babu Kamta Prasad Sinha was at
that time head of the Radhaswami Satsang at Ghazipur in Uttar Pradesh.] He meant thereby
that I had not been initiated by a true guru and thus was not a true satsangi. I very politely said
to him, "Dear brother, God is one. He belongs to all and all belong to Him. He may manifest to
his devotees in different forms at different places and different times. But if you do not agree
with me, then let me write a letter. You mail this letter to your guru. His reply in any form shall be
accepted as final and I shall abide by it." There and then I wrote the letter, shedding tears of
love and devotion for the Supreme Lord and handed it over to the gentleman to post it to his
guru. After fifteen days I was told that Babu Kamta Prasad Sinha had breathed his last, and
should wait for a reply until his successor was chosen. From this incident I concluded that
followers of Radhaswami Mat [Ghazipur] were not impartial and true seekers of the ultimate
reality. Their approach towards the all-embracing Truth was narrow and very sectarian. Hence, I
gave up their company and avoided all blind followers thereafter. Even if anybody wished me
"Radhaswami," I responded with "Ram Ram."

It is almost impossible not to take the preceding incident as a turning point in the development
of Faqir's philosophical outlook. First, Faqir receives a significant social insult when his friend
refuses to share the huqqa with him, even though they are both of the Brahmin caste. Second,
Faqir realizes that his guru is not accepted by a major Radhasoami group as legitimate. And
third, Faqir senses that satsangis are not necessarily biased free seekers after the truth, but
may be just as sectarian and prejudiced as other religious zealots. However, the real turning
point in Faqir's outlook occurred shortly after World War One when he underwent a remarkable
mystical experience--the consequences of which forever changed Faqir's notion of spiritual
enlightenment. Faqir recalls: After about three months, the fighting came to an end and the
Jawans retired to their barracks. I returned to Bagdad, where there were many satsangis. When
they learned of my arrival, they all came together to see me. They made me sit on a raised
platform, offered flowers, and worshipped me. It was all very unexpected and a surprising scene
for me. I asked them, "Our Guru Maharaj is at Lahore. I am not your Guru. Why do you worship
me?" They replied in unison, "On the battle field we were in danger. Death lurked over our
heads. You appeared before us in those moments of danger and gave us directions for our
safety. We followed your instructions and thus were saved." I was wonder struck by this
surprising explanation of theirs. I had no knowledge of their trouble. I, myself, being in danger
during those days of combat, had not even remembered them. This incident caused me to
question within myself, "Who appeared to them? Was it Faqir Chand?" My faith was
strengthened and I concluded, "Whosoever remembers God in whatever form, in that very form
He helps His devotee." This gave a new turn to my conception of the Spiritual Master.
Henceforth I came to believe that the Master is no separate entity. Rather, He is the disciple's
Real Self and resides within. Happy with this conclusion I came to India on annual leave in
1921.
16/29
Faqir Chand's experience, though mystically interpreted, was also sociologically profound: man
projects his own image of God due to the religious and cultural environment he/she is brought
up in. In religious visions, Sikhs see Guru Nanak, not the Virgin Mary; Catholics see Jesus, not
the multiple arms of Vishnu; and Hindus see Krishna or other gods/goddesses, but not the angel
Gabriel. Because satsangis saw Faqir Chand's radiant form without any conscious manipulation
or knowledge on his part, Faqir concluded that religion was radically subjective and, by
extension, particularly relativistic. Theoretically, God could assume the form of anybody,
provided the devotee engendered enough faith and love for him/her/it. Yet, according to Faqir,
almost all religious people are ignorant of this fact, since they tend to believe that their
cherished gurus, gods, and holy figures bilocate specially to them. The Social Bedding of
Radicalness

At first glance it may appear that Faqir's insight on the nature of religious visions has nothing to
do, per se, with his social standing with other Radhasoami groups. However, on closer
inspection it becomes clear that Faqir's mystical interpretations of Radhasoami doctrines are
consistent with his social standing with other more mainstream Radhasoami centers. Faqir and
his guru, almost from the outset, were regarded as outsiders by orthodox Radhasoami
satsangis, especially those who paid allegiance to the Central Administrative Council. Thus,
Faqir was driven--both by his strict Hindu-Brahmin upbringing and his steadfast devotion to Shiv
Brat Lal, a minority guru claimant--to seek an alternative understanding of Radhasoami
doctrines. If he did not, Faqir had to then face a crisis of legitimacy, since neither he or his guru
had any rightful claim to the legacy of Shiv Dayal Singh, the founder of Radhasoami. Hence, it
is not surprising, given Faqir's peculiar social position, that Faqir Chand and his group would
develop a heterodoxical (read: opposite) interpretation of Radhasoami from that of the Central
Administrative council.

What is not so clearly evident, though, is exactly what kind of interpretation that would turn out
to be. In other words, it may be sociologically possible to predict the direction or context of a
vying guru's theological viewpoint, but not necessarily the content or substance of his/her
philosophy. So, given the formation of the Central Administrative Council and its strict by-laws
governing the development of non-Agra satsangs, it is reasonable to assume that fledgling
minority candidates must engage in "ideological work" which explains their existence. That is,
they must "legitimize" themselves in ways which are contrary to the status quo. Whether or not
this is consciously done it is difficult to determine. One thing seems certain, though: if Faqir was
the successor of a mainstream, widely accepted, Radhasoami guru in Agra, there would be no
overriding reasons--socially or otherwise--for him to break with precedent. Faqir's radical
philosophy, in sum, is not so radical when one considers the social context out of which he was
operating. [*NOTE: I owe my discussion here to Bennett Berger's development of the term
"ideological work" in his book, The Survival of a Counterculture , op. cit. *] Due to his association
with Shiv Brat Lal, Faqir was already on the outskirts of conventional Radhasoami and thus was
never involved in the institutional policies, property disputes, or doctrinal purification debates,
which occurred in Agra. Faqir was for all intents and purposes an outsider, a marginal character
17/29
in Radhasoami politics--a fact that Faqir realized early on with his run-in with the shopkeeper.

This is not to suggest that Faqir's own mystical revelations did not contribute or drastically
inform his heterodoxical views, but that his viewpoint was consistent (not contrary) to his social
position in the Radhasoami hierarchy.

Unlike other rival Radhasoami branches (like Dayal Bagh) which attempted to gain legitimacy
by contesting successorship or property rights, Shiv Brat Lal and Faqir Chand avoided such
disputes and attempted to establish their missions on a different footing--one which took issue
with orthodox ideologies. Whereas other fledgling successors and their satsangs avoided
doctrinal disputes in general, Faqir Chand attacked the problem head-on. And, in so doing, both
ostracized and lionized himself in a way that is to this day unique in Radhasoami. Faqir was
ostracized quite simply because he upturned what is perhaps the most cherished idea in
Radhasoami orthodox literature: the historical and spiritual uniqueness of Shiv Dayal Singh and
his teachings. And Faqir was lionized because he dared to reveal the secrets surrounding
miracles and inner visions.

However, Faqir's views have not been accepted by any of the major Radhasoami groups.
Indeed, when I interviewed some of the principal leaders of the various Agra, Beas, and Delhi
factions of Radhasoami, each of them without exception claimed that Faqir was simply wrong in
his interpretations or misguided. [*NOTE: I have discussed Faqir Chand's philosophy with a
number of Radhasoami gurus, particularly Darshan Singh, Ajaib Singh, Thakar Singh, and Pir
Munga. Field interviews were conducted both in India (1978, 1981, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988)
and in the United States (1979, 1983, 1986). *] Thakar Singh, one of the more popular
successors to Kirpal Singh, even claimed that Faqir Chand was "crazy" and not to be taken
seriously due to his old age.

The Routinization of Heterodoxy:

When Radical Views Become Orthodox

When Dr. I.C. Sharma was appointed Faqir Chand's spiritual successor in Hoshiarpur in 1981, a
curious thing happened: Faqir's views became solidified and dogmatized. What was once seen
as a novel and alternative interpretation of Radhasoami doctrines soon became accepted as the
only correct purview on the nature of enlightenment. Faqir Chand's flexible, relativistic views on
spirituality became frozen, so to say, with his death and the clear gaddi nasheen transference
which occurred in Hoshiarpur. Since there was no major dispute over whom Faqir Chand had
appointed as his heir, and since Faqir's ashram was relatively well established by his death
(contrary to Shiv Brat Lal's--Faqir's guru--whose ashram disintegrated), Sharma enjoyed what
his two previous predecessors did not: social and legal legitimacy. Hence, Sharma's charismatic
control depended, to a large degree, on the continued success of Manavta Mandir as an
influential Radhasoami branch.

18/29
The differences between Sharma and his predecessors are striking. Neither Shiv Brat Lal or
Faqir Chand had access to a residentially empowered gaddi under their jurisdiction which was
bequeathed to them by their guru. Hence, they were both socially and philosophically mobile,
whereas Sharma, on the other hand, was (and is) constricted by the very nature of his
appointment to insure maintenance of a large ashram and a cherished tradition and lineage.
Thus, by the very nature of Sharma's appointment charisma finally became routinized in an
institutionalized fashion. It is no wonder, therefore, that Sharma's policies contrast starkly with
his predecessors', since he was prompted to be more concerned with maintaining and
preserving his lineage than with legitimizing it through new doctrinal interpretations.

Sharma's departure with his predecessors is perhaps most graphically illustrated by the way he
treats rival successors. Unlike Faqir and Shiv Brat Lal, who never contested succession or
engaged in legal battles to determine successorship, Sharma has been quite pronounced in
declaring his guru status--even to the point of threatening lawsuits against writers who claim
that Faqir Chand appointed other successors besides Sharma. For example, when it was
printed in Fate magazine in October of 1984, that Faqir Chand had appointed a number of
gurus to carry on his ministry, including a middle-aged woman affectionately known as "Mataji,"
Sharma and his group claimed that the information was defamatory and inaccurate. Indeed, the
secretary of Manavta Mandir, under direct orders of Dr. I.C. Sharma, wrote a letter to the writer
alleging that Faqir Chand had only appointed one successor, and that unless the writer
retracted his "error" he and the magazine would face a defamation suit. What is most intriguing
about Sharma's vigilance in this regard, besides the fact that he was ultimately incorrect in his
defense (Faqir Chand had appointed several gurus before his death), is that it so unlike the
actions of his predecessors. [*NOTE: Faqir Chand had, in fact, appointed several people during
his lifetime to act as gurus, not the least of whom was Yogini Mataji, a middle-aged woman who
used to reside at Manavta Mandir. The article which caused the controversy was entitled "The
Enchanted Land: With the Saints of North India," Fate Magazine (October 1984). *]

The dramatic change had much to do, as we have seen, with how Sharma assumed control of
Manavta Mandir. Moreover, Sharma had to deal with internal politics within the ashram which
were causing cliques and in-fighting. Hence, to firmly establish his ministerial base, Sharma had
to make it clear who was the chief successor of Faqir Chand, not only to satsangis within India,
but to the public at large in North America and England. And Sharma did this even though it ran
completely contrary to the spirit of Be-Manism. Such an incongruity, however, did not go by
unnoticed and there has been a significant exodus of satsangis from Sharma's camp,
particularly long-time satsangis who held positions of power within Faqir's Charitable Library
Trust and other related institutions. Prominent administrators and workers in the ashram left
when Sharma finally moved from the United States back to India in the early part of 1982 and
assumed managerial control of Manavta Mandir--some six months after Faqir Chand's death.
[*NOTE: For more information on this controversy see the back issues of the monthly magazine
Manav Mandir published by the Faqir Charitable Library Trust (1982-1987). *]

19/29
III. BEAS SATSANG:

Paradox/Elective/Partially Open System

The Paradox of Transmission

Perhaps the real reason there are so many different Radhasoami branches today, each with a
presiding guru, is that the process of succession was not formally outlined by the founder of
Radhasoami. Rather, Shiv Dayal Singh only gave general hints about it, elaborating more about
the nature and the necessity of a living guru. A good example of Shiv Dayal Singh's views on the
subject of succession comes in a letter written on his behalf by Rai Salig Ram to Sudarshan
Singh: "When the Sat Guru of the time departs, He appoints someone as his successor in
whom He re-incarnates and thus continues the work of regeneration of Jivas as before."
[*NOTE: Sar Bachan Prose (Agra: Soami Bagh, 1958), Bachan 250. *] The problem here,
though, is that Shiv Dayal Singh does not elaborate on exactly how the Satguru appoints his
successor. It is that very process, which is not given any binding shape in the writings of Shiv
Dayal Singh, that led to a major crisis in succession following the death of Radhasoami's
founder. That crisis, it should be added, has never been fully resolved in Radhasoami history,
and is the major factor behind the tremendous proliferation of satsangs and gurus in the
movement. Even Shiv Dayal Singh's last commandments, which appear to indicate that the
founder of Radhasoami intended for his wife, Narayan Dei (Radhaji), to succeed him, have not
been interpreted the same by his followers. Concerning this succession confusion, Aaron Talsky
argues that it stems from a paradoxical tension within Shiv Dayal Singh's very teachings, which
allowed for a successorship crisis after his death. Writes Talsky: In the early history of the
Radhasoami movement we have before us, then, a complex maze of ambiguous historical
evidence which was interpreted in support of a number of reputed gurus, each with his own
understanding of the true interpretation of Soamiji's teachings. The unprecedented growth of
this sampradaya, side-by-side with an incredible systemic predilection towards bifurcation and
schism, is in part due to this [growth] of putative successors, each of whom attracted a sizeable
following. . . . [*NOTE: Aaron Talsky, The Radhasoami Tradition: Charismatic Routinization and
Its Doctrinal Consequences (Senior Thesis: University of Michigan, 1986), page 60. *]

There can be no question that the teachings of Sant mat and Shiv Dayal Singh, in particular,
lend themselves to a wide range of possible personal interpretations. Since the basis of surat
shabd yoga necessitates inward practice and attainment, it is consistent with the philosophy
that there would be several initiates claiming access to higher regions of awareness. The crucial
debate arises when those same gifted meditators allege to be genuine spiritual masters or
designated successors. Outside of external verification, it is literally impossible for the
Radhasoami initiate to know who, if any, among the emerging claimants are authentic, unless
he/she too is enlightened (which, if such were the case, would collapse the utility of this type of
discussion).

Jaimal Singh and the Founding of the Beas Satsang

20/29
Jaimal Singh (1838-1903) was a devoted follower of Shiv Dayal Singh, having received
initiation from the Agra master in 1856 at the age of seventeen. [*NOTE: Kirpal Singh, A Great
Saint (Delhi: Ruhani Satsang, 1973); and Daryai Lal Kapur's Heaven On Earth (Beas: R.S.
Foundation, 1985). *] Accordingly, Jaimal Singh worked as one of Shiv Dayal Singh's spiritual
successors, giving satsang and initiation in the Punjab. In the "History of the Beas Satsang,"
Spiritual Letters, Jaimal Singh's commission is explained: Baba Jaimal Singh Ji Maharaj was
one of the foremost disciples of Swami Ji Maharaj [Shiv Dayal Singh]. Whenever Baba Ji would
get any time, He would spend it in the Satsang of Swami Ji Maharaj and His Darshan. In
October 1877, when Baba Ji came on leave, Swami Ji Maharaj said to Him: "This is our last
meeting. Now I shall go away to Param Dham (Eternal Home), after completing my life's
pilgrimage. I have made you my beloved and my own rup (self or form)." Bhai Chanda Singh
then requested that Satsang be started in the Punjab. Swami Ji Maharaj replied: "This request
has been accepted by Akal Purush, and this task has been allotted to Baba Jaimal Singh." Then
Swami Ji Maharaj gave His own turban to Baba Ji as Prashad and ordered Him to go and
preach Nam in the Punjab. [*NOTE: Spiritual Letters (Beas: R.S. Foundation, 1976), pages xii-
xiii. *]

Further substantiation of Jaimal Singh's succession is given in the same text with references to
Shiv Dayal Singh's wife, Radhaji [Narayan Dei], and younger brother, Chachaji [Seth Partap
Singh], both of whom reportedly supported Jaimal Singh's ministry. Bibi Rukko used to reside in
Agra in the service of Mata Radha Ji. One day, sometime after Swami Ji Maharaji's death, Mata
Ji asked Bibi Rukko to return to the Punjab. Bibi Rukko replied that she had no work there and
she did not want to give up her Satsang and go to the Punjab. She further suggested that some
Sadhu may be sent there, who should preach Swami Ji's Bachans (words or teachings). Mata Ji
replied that for Satsang and the spreading of Nam in the Punjab, Swami Ji's orders had already
been given. Next morning Mata Ji asked Bibi Rukko to go to the railway station and receive the
Satguru who had been appointed by Swami Ji Maharaj for the Punjab. "He is our beloved son,
and Swami Ji Maharaj has to take both Swarath and Parmath (worldly and spiritual) work from
Him," Mata Ji further said. . . Then Mata Ji reminded Baba Ji that Swami Ji Maharaj had left
orders for Him to spread Nam in the Punjab; so now, according to His orders, He should hold
Satsang and give Nam. Thereafter, Baba Jaimal Singh Ji came and settled down on the banks
of the River Beas, between the villages of Balsarai and Waraich, and started Satsang there.
[*NOTE: Ibid., pages xiii-xiv. *]

Seth Partap Singh's support of Jaimal Singh is evident in a series of letters he wrote to both the
Beas guru and his eventual successor, Sawan Singh. One excerpt, for instance, reads: "It is my
great desire that after Baba Ji [Jaimal Singh] and myself, there should be two or three Saints
(Nadipurush) who should spread Radha Swami Mat and Nam Bhakti. . . . " [*NOTE: Ibid., page
137. *]

Although these testimonies from Shiv Dayal Singh's family attesting to Jaimal Singh's
succession are undoubtedly provided by the Beas Satsang as external verification for their
21/29
particular branch, it would be misleading to just cite outward evidence for Jaimal Singh when so
much emphasis is placed in Radhasoami on internal, spiritual achievement. What makes a saint
is not simply the exterior rituals associated with dastarbandi (formal succession), but rather his
inner attainment. Specifically, what region has he reached? Is he selfless? What was his
relationship with his guru?

In the case of Jaimal Singh, the Beas Satsang points to his life-long dedication to meditation,
pure moral life (he was celibate his entire life), and strict obedience to his master. As Kirpal
Singh illustrates in his biography of Jaimal Singh, A Great Saint: The light army duties left
Jaimal Singh ample time for meditation. If he had no night duty, he would get up at 2 a.m.,
bathe, and sit down for meditation. During the day, as soon as the parade and other normal
duties were over, he would engage himself in like manner or hasten to the home of Swami Ji. He
was known for not wasting a single moment on pastimes popular among his fellow soldiers. He
visited Punni Gali with great regularity, and often acted there as Swami Ji's pathi or reciter. . .
[*NOTE: Kirpal Singh, A Great Saint , op. cit., page 43. *]

Thus, we can see that there are both internal and external stories about Jaimal Singh's
authenticity as a spiritual successor to Shiv Dayal Singh. This is not to say, of course, that such
testimony is accepted as legitimate evidence by other Radhasoami factions, but only that Jaimal
Singh's followers (direct or secondary) do invoke a variety of accounts to buttress their guru's
succession. Below are the four major forms of verification provided: 1. Verbal confirmation by
the departing master, Shiv Dayal Singh, to Jaimal Singh. 2. Verbal confirmation by the departing
master, Shiv Dayal Singh, to other satsangis, including his wife, Narayan Dei, and his brother,
Seth Partap Singh. 3. Personal artifacts of Shiv Dayal Singh bequeathed to Jaimal Singh, such
as a turban and a aasan (prayer mat). 4. Assorted narratives by satsangis and other interested
parties about the merits of Jaimal Singh, including accounts of inner experiences and special
social interactions.

The above is not an exhaustive list, but it does provide a general outline to the kinds of evidence
provided on behalf of Jaimal Singh. As we will see, how this information is used and interpreted
by various factions depends upon the specific time period and circumstance.

For example, in the two decades following Soamiji's death, Jaimal Singh did not attract the
majority of his guru's disciples to his side. Rather, he limited his activities to the Punjab, and
even there mostly attracted a new following, just as Shiv Dayal Singh himself had done in Agra.
Hence, Jaimal Singh was not involved in competing with other guru claimants in Agra (Rai Salig
Ram, Sanmukh Das, Partap Singh, et al.), as his entire ministry was focused in a region where
almost nobody had even heard of Shiv Dayal Singh or Radhasoami. There is almost no mention
of Jaimal Singh in any of the written records or books in those days.

Jaimal Singh's ministry appears to have met with little, if no, opposition for over twenty years
after Shiv Dayal Singh's death. This was due to a number of factors, not the least of which were
the smallness of his sangat, the remoteness of his ashram, and the limited scope of his satsang
22/29
activities. It was not until the founding of the Central Administrative Council in 1902 in Agra,
under the prompting hand of Brahm Shankar Misra, that Jaimal Singh's guruship came under
harsh criticism. The Council, an indissoluble body whose purpose was to unite all the different
factions into a unified whole, objected to Jaimal Singh's lack of cooperation with their policies.
Although Jaimal Singh had close connections with the Agra satsangs (Partap Singh was
particularly fond of him, as was Radhaji), he did not agree with the formation of the Central
Administrative Council. In a letter to his closest disciple and successor, Sawan Singh, Jaimal
Singh explains his reasons against the organization: Chacha Ji (Shiv Dayal Singh's brother)
desires that we should all cooperate with the Agra Committee. Although I have given my formal
consent, it is not possible for me to agree with the committee because the "updesh" (initiation)
of. . . (name deleted; it is Brahm Shankar Misra) is not in accordance with Swami Ji's "updesh". .
. On account of this, I cannot agree with the committee. . . If they are prepared to satisfy my
three conditions, I shall fully co-operate with them. The three conditions are: 1) The "updesh",
namely the system and method of Initiation and Bhajan, should be the same as practiced and
taught by Swami Ji Maharaj and not as (name deleted; it is Brahm Shankar Misra). 2) We
should have the option of nominating three members from the Beas Satsang, but you and I
should not become members. We shall select our own members. 3) Offerings will not be
solicited from our Satsangis, because they are all poor and we do not wish to take anything from
them. Here we give "updesh" (Initiation) only for Bhajan and Simran. [*NOTE: Ibid., page 104. *]

Jaimal Singh's eventual break with the C.A.C. over principles demonstrates his adamancy in not
accepting Agra's interpretation of succession via Rai Salig Ram and Brahm Shankar Misra.
Because he would not give the names of his satsangis to the Council, his "official" permission to
initiate new seekers--which was granted by the Council to police the activities of all Radhasoami
related gurus--was revoked. The break between the Council and the Beas satsang has never
been mended.

Jaimal Singh's position in relation to the Agra satsangs raises an important issue in the politics
of guru successorship: how does one know if a guru/successor is authentic? Should the
evidence be outward signs, inner experiences, or a combination of both? We know that in
Jaimal Singh's case, he did not have the outward evidences that Rai Salig Ram, Radhaji, and
Partap Singh possessed, all of whom resided in Agra. Jaimal Singh even lacked written
confirmation of his role, as he was was not mentioned once in the last utterances of Shiv Dayal
Singh. Yet, none of these factors significantly interfered with Jaimal Singh's work since he did
not contest the gaddi at Agra; nor, did he allege that he was Shiv Dayal Singh's sole successor.
Unlike other minority guru claimants, Jaimal Singh had several things working in his favor: good
relations with the "Holy Family" (Jaimal Singh almost always deferred to Radhaji and Partap
Singh); general acknowledgement from the Agra sangat that he was appointed to conduct
satsang and grant initiation in the Punjab by his guru; and, finally, a growing reputation as a
steadfast meditator.

Although he lacked the overwhelming outward evidence to make him Shiv Dayal Singh's chief
23/29
successor (Rai Salig Ram eventually assumed that role), Jaimal Singh did not have to resort to
legitimizing his role in Agra because his function did not conflict with the rival claims of other
Shiv Dayal Singh disciples. [*NOTE: A good illustration of this is that Jaimal Singh had a small
room built at Soami Bagh, where he periodically stayed years after the death of his guru. Sawan
Singh, who helped pay for the construction, also stayed in the same room years later when he
visited Agra. It should be noted that this is a fairly uncommon practice when there has been a
major dispute over succession. For instance, Kirpal Singh never visited Dera Baba Jaimal
Singh, the ashram of Sawan Singh, after his guru's death in 1948. The Beas gurus willingness
to stay in Soami Bagh supports my contention that Jaimal Singh did not contest the gaddi at
Agra. *] In the politics of guru successorship, it is important to note that "ideological battle" does
not commence or develop unless there is an a priori contest over something, be it property,
status, followers, or doctrinal interpretation. Jaimal Singh apparently didn't contest anything,
except perhaps theology and spiritual techniques, until he was prompted to by the Central
Administrative Council in 1902, some twenty-five years after his guru's death.

The Social Context of Jaimal Singh's Theology

Jaimal Singh was only a teenager when he met his master, Shiv Dayal Singh, in Agra in 1856.
He had travelled throughout the Punjab and Uttar Pradesh for almost five years in quest of a
guru conversant in the path of surat shabd yoga. Thus, it was with great joy when Jaimal finally
heard about Shiv Dayal Singh and his teachings from an old sage in Rishikesh. However, two
things immediately bothered Jaimal about his would-be master: he was not a Sikh and he
smoked a huqqa (a tobacco water pipe). [*NOTE: Jaimal Singh may also have been bothered
by his guru partaking of pan (betel leaf), which is a mild stimulant. *] Although Shiv Dayal Singh
qualified as a spiritual master, Jaimal's social upbringing was such that it was quite difficult for
him to accept a guru who went against his religious background. Indeed, it was only after Shiv
Dayal Singh demonstrated his mystical knowledge that Jaimal Singh resolved the discrepancy
and fully accepted him as his teacher. [*NOTE: There are several accounts about Jaimal Singh's
initial doubts concerning Shiv Dayal Singh, especially on the issue of him not being a Sikh. See
Spiritual Letters and A Great Saint: Baba Jaimal Singh--His Life & Teachings in particular. As
Daryai Lal Kapur in Heaven on Earth (Beas: Radha Soami Satsang, 1986) writes: "He knew he
wanted initiation from this great Mystic but found himself hesitating because Soami Ji was not a
Sikh. He could not resolve whether it was proper for him to accept a non-Sikh as his Master,
despite his conviction that Soami Ji was the one who could give him the key to true spiritual
knowledge. For four days he remained in this dilemma. One day, while Baba Ji was lost in these
thoughts, Soami Ji came to him and gently inquired whether he had yet decided the question of
Sikh and non-Sikh. As Baba Ji had spoken to no one about his conflict, Soami Ji's loving words
moved him profoundly and tears filled his eyes. . . The next day Baba Jaimal Singh received
initiation, and for two days and nights remained absorbed in meditation in a small room in
Soami Ji's house." (Pages 13-14.) *]

This initial hesitancy on Jaimal's part should not be overlooked, for it provides us with a clue to
24/29
how and why Jaimal Singh's theological outlook was fundamentally different from Rai Salig
Ram's, even though both were initiates of the same master. For Jaimal Singh, almost from the
outset, connected Shiv Dayal Singh's teachings with the underlying spiritual message of the
Guru Granth Sahib , the holy book of the Sikhs and the guiding text of Jaimal's early spiritual
quest. By his own testimony, Jaimal was not looking for a new path, but an old and apparently
forgotten one. Thus, Shiv Dayal Singh's teachings were more of a confirmation than a revelation
for the young Jaimal.

Although Jaimal Singh's Sikh heritage undoubtedly played a major part in shaping his
interpretations of Shiv Dayal Singh's teachings, it should not be overestimated since a number
of dependent factors came into play. Of these contingent social factors, the following three
appear to be central: 1) Shiv Dayal Singh's theology as an independent variable; 2) Sikh-Sant
mat connection; 3) geographical location.

Radhasoami as Sant Mat

Jaimal Singh's theology, like Rai Salig Ram's, appears to have much of its basis in the
teachings and writings of Shiv Dayal Singh. Unlike Rai Salig Ram, though, Jaimal Singh did not
find his guru's teachings advocating a new and exclusive religion. Rather, Jaimal Singh saw a
continuous and consistent link between the saints of old, like Kabir, Nanak, and Dadu, and his
present guru at Agra. Shiv Dayal Singh also saw the same link, as evidenced in Sar Bachan
Radhasoami Bartik where he writes: Observing this sorry state of affairs of the present times,
Sants were moved to pity. Although there were very few real seekers and spiritually minded, yet
out of sheer grace and mercy, they gave out the secrets of the highest regions, through
discourses and writings. . . . The names of some of the perfect and true Sants, Sadhs, and
Faqirs who manifested themselves during the last seven hundred years are Kabir Saheb, Tulsi
Saheb, Jagijiwan Saheb, Garib Das, Paltu Saheb, Guru Nanak. . . A persual of their writings
would give an idea of their spiritual attainments. [*NOTE: Sar Bachan Radhasoami Prose,
translated by S.D. Maheshwari (Soami Bagh: Radhasoami Satsang, 1958), pages 42-43. *]

Hence for Jaimal his guru represented a living manifestation of his ancestors' religion. In terms
of Sikhism, Shiv Dayal Singh was like Guru Nanak come alive again, albeit within a different
cultural mileu. In contrast, Rai Salig Ram did not perceive Shiv Dayal Singh as the recurring
manifestation of something traditional but of something radically new--historically and spiritually.
Although Jaimal Singh undoubtedly held his guru in the highest regard (as one with the
Supreme Being), he did not differentiate his teacher's mission from the Sants of old. And it is
precisely here that the key difference between Salig Ram and Jaimal Singh emerges.

Jaimal's Relationship with the Holy Family

Jaimal Singh's views were also influenced to some degree by his close relations with Shiv Dayal
Singh's family, who supported Jaimal Singh and his ministry. Without their encouragement,
particularly Seth Partap Singh's, it would have been exceedingly difficult for Jaimal Singh to
25/29
break with the Central Administrative Council over a doctrinal dispute. However, since Partap
Singh apparently sided with Jaimal Singh on theological matters, if not organizational ones, it
allowed Jaimal and his sangat the opportunity to run their satsang outside of the C.A.C.'s
legislative jurisdiction. A bold move, no doubt, for the young satsang, but one that would
eventually turn out to be to their benefit politically.

Jaimal's association with Shiv Dayal Singh's family also proved to be a key legitimizing factor
later on, since the Beas satsang could point to Seth Partap Singh's obvious patronship of them
as validation of their development. Sawan Singh, for instance, went to Seth Partap Singh after
Jaimal's death to receive consolation, only to be told that he had to work as a guru. Sawan
Singh recollects: When I appeared before Chacha Ji Maharaj (Seth Pratap [Partap] Singh Ji
Maharaj), he enquired who was working at Beas in place of Bhai Sahib (Baba Ji Maharaj) and
who had been instructed to initiate after Him. My companions replied, "Baba Ji Maharaj has
appointed Him, but He does not give Initiation." "Why?" Chacha Ji Maharaj enquired. At this, I
submitted that I did not possess sufficient power, and said to Chacha Ji Maharaj, "You better
send some Sadhu from here who should initiate people." Chacha Ji Maharaj replied, "You will
have to give Nam (initiate). I hold myself responsible. Swami Ji Maharaj will be responsible."
[*NOTE: Rai Sahib Munshi Ram, With The Three Masters , Volume 2 (Beas: Radhasoami
Satsang Beas, 1974), page 226. *]

Jaimal Singh's theology was also influenced to some degree by his geographical surroundings.
Since Jaimal centered most of his mission in the Punjab, far away from the political and
doctrinal in-fighting going on in Agra, he was able to develop his views without interference from
rival successors. He also did not receive any major monetary support from Agra (although Seth
Partap Singh and his sons used to send small amounts of money from time to time) because
most of his initiates were from outlying villages like Ghuman and Gurdaspur. This relative
solitude undoubtedly contributed greatly to Jaimal Singh's ministry because he was mostly
concerned with attracting new initiates, not converting old satsangis to his fold. As Aaron Talsky
notes: Jaimal Singh, on the other hand, was sent to preach in the Punjab. In an era before mass
communication and transportation, we can presume that this institutional or tradition-derived
authority--that is, recognition by the Agra satsangis--was of negligible importance to his
potential followers in the Punjab. Precisely because of the absence of this potential foundation,
however, Baba Ji and his followers did not have to concern themselves with the sanction (or
absence of such) of those same satsangis. By the same token, it was necessary for Jaimal to
attract followers through his own charisma--in this sense, we can assert that Jaimal Singh, for
the Beas upa-paramparas , was a sort of second exemplar. The affirmation of his disciples was
premised primarily upon their perception of their guru as a satguru , rather than a successor.
[*NOTE: Aaron Talsky, The Radhasoami Tradition (University of Michigan: Senior Thesis, 1986),
page 112. *]

The Strained Relationship Between Agra and Beas

Almost from the outset of his ministry, but most dramatically after the formation of the Central
26/29
Administrative Council in 1902, Jaimal Singh had a strained relationship with Agra. This
tentative fellowship with Agra has been the basis, I would suggest, for much of Beas' seemingly
paradoxical theology. For it is historically quite evident that Jaimal Singh was not regarded as
the chief successor of Shiv Dayal Singh. His following was nowhere near that of Rai Salig Ram,
nor did he inherit any of his guru's property. Although Jaimal Singh was not simply a break-away
candidate--he did enjoy the backing of Shiv Dayal Singh's family--it must be recognized that his
ministry is significantly different from other fledgling successors in Agra. From its
commencement, the Beas satsang has had only minor links with Agra--links which would be
later severely damaged by the formation of the C.A.C.

It is little wonder, therefore, that Beas does not subscribe to the unbending orthodoxy of the
C.A.C., since if it did it would undermine its own legitimacy. But let us not go too far. Because
despite Beas' disconnection with the C.A.C., it still did not try to disavow its Agra origins. The
reason for this is fairly obvious: Jaimal Singh and Sawan Singh, notwithstanding their
severance from Agra's orthodox elite, remained on good terms with Shiv Dayal Singh's
immediate family--so much so that they even built an apartment inside of Soami Bagh for their
personal use. In his thesis, The Radhasoami Tradition , Aaron Talsky elaborates on why Beas
retained cordial relations with the Agra satsangs: The relationships Jaimal Singh had with the
other gurus who emerged after Shiv Dayal's death, it has already been noted, are contentious
issues. More than this, however, the Beas group itself seems to adhere to very vague beliefs as
is evidenced by the conflicting information provided in their own literature. In contrast with
Soami Bagh, then, there is a much more preliminary epistemological difficulty encountered
when one attempts to simply cognize precisely how this group assumes that Baba Ji perceived
those contemporaries who were also reputed to be successors to the gaddi; the only apparent
consensus which we can easily delineate is the contention that Jaimal Singh retained very
cordial relations with all of them. . . . Thus, other reputed gurus may also be considered true and
perfect successors: there is no reason to deny the validity of another lineage, as the existence
of other paramparas neither substantiates nor precludes the authenticity of one's own, unless, of
course, these other lineages by deed or doctrine deny your validity, in which case one must
demonstrate the inaccuracy of the competing claims. [*NOTE: The Radhasoami Tradition , op.
cit., pages 100-101. *]

Selecting Truth: The Origins of Beas' Theology

The "elective" or "selective" nature of Beas' theology is directly connected to its founder's
discriminating interpretation of Shiv Dayal Singh's teachings. For instance, when Jaimal Singh
republished Sar Bachan at Beas, he edited portions of the volume which were not in keeping
with his understanding of Shiv Dayal Singh's instructions. Although Beas has since received
heavy criticism for altering bachan 250 and deleting references to smoking huqqa, such editing
clearly demonstrates Jaimal Singh's distinctive interpretation of Radhasoami. It also partially
explains why later gurus at Beas were not historically bound to a literalistic interpretation of Shiv
Dayal Singh's teachings. As Radha Krishna Khanna explains: Baba Jaimal Singhji was
27/29
convinced of the error and therefore, [sic] replaced Bachan 250 by one that is wholly in accord
with the rest of Soamiji's many statements on the subject. The error might have escaped the
eye of others, but it did not escape the eye of one well-versed in Soamiji's spiritual message
and knowing that it did violence to it not only as taught by Soamiji, but also as taught by all the
other past sants. He therefore had it altered when publishing the volume at Beas, and informed
Chacha Pratap Singh who raised no objection. . . Is it a mere accident that he should have
chosen to alter only that one Bachan which in all the collection jars with the harmony of the
other Bachans? If ever any proof of his full mastery of the science taught by Soamiji was
needed, the example of this change would be enough, for it rescues it by a single stroke from
the irreconcilable [sic] contradictions and confusion that must have been introduced by a
satsangi's misconstruction of Soamiji's words and meaning. [*NOTE: Radha Krishna Khanna,
Truth Eternal (New Delhi: Privately published, 1961), pages 74-75. *]

Moreover, since Jaimal Singh did not inherit his guru's gaddi, he was not bound by the traditions
started at Agra. Because his followers were mostly Sikh and had no formal connection with the
Radhasoami groups at Peepal Mandi or Soami Bagh, it enabled Jaimal Singh to emphasize
those aspects of Shiv Dayal Singh's teachings which tallied with Sant mat and Sikhism, and
downplay the sectarian or incarnational aspects which were sure to cause controversy and
misunderstanding. Jaimal Singh's traditional and geographic freedom was undoubtedly
instrumental in allowing him to delete references in Sar Bachan Radhasoami Chhand-Band
which would anger his mostly Sikh sangat, especially references which clearly showed that Shiv
Dayal Singh smoked tobacco--a serious moral offense to orthodox Sikhs. If Jaimal Singh had
centered his mission in Agra, where the majority of the population is comprised of Hindus (many
of whom enjoy smoking and partaking of pan), there would have been no need for him to edit
Shiv Dayal Singh's use of the term huqqa.

Therefore, almost from the beginning of Jaimal Singh's ministry, we can see a diplomatic
tendency which is concerned with not offending religious sensibilities--including both the
orthodox Radhasoamis and the orthodox Sikhs. This diplomatic sensibility has continued to
persist at Beas. All three gurus after Jaimal Singh--Sawan Singh, Jagat Singh, Charan Singh--
have remained on fairly good terms with Soami Bagh and Dayal Bagh, and have also
maintained cordial relations with their Sikh neighbors. [*NOTE: Nevertheless, it should be
mentioned that the Beas satsang has had its share of difficulties with orthodox Sikhs who have
from time to time criticized Radhasoami as an affront to the religious heritage of Guru Nanak.
Mark Juergensmeyer, Dean of International Studies at the University of Hawaii, has written an
excellent article on the Radhasoami-Sikh relationship, which goes into detail about the history of
Beas' connection with Sikhism. See Joseph O'Connell's Sikh History and Religion in the
Twentieth Century (University of Toronto: Centre for South Asian Studies, 1988). *] For instance,
Sawan Singh even signed a pact with Anand Sarup, leader of the Dayal Bagh satsang, in the
early 1930's which expressed the desire for unity and friendship between the two groups, even
though they have divergent opinions over the nature of Shiv Dayal Singh's teachings. The late
leader at Beas, Charan Singh, had also kept friendly contacts with Dayal Bagh, having visited
28/29
the current head, Dr. Lal Sahab, in Agra in 1978.

However, to fully understand Beas' theology, and how it in turn influenced Kirpal Singh, it is
necessary to explore in detail the succession history after Jaimal Singh's death. For by framing
our analysis within the narrow purview of the Beas parampara, we will be better able to identify
those social circumstances which helped shape the origins of Dera's biggest offshoot and
competitor, Ruhani Satsang.

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at [email protected]

I want to go back to the home base now.

29/29
Radhasoami: chapter three
dlane5.tripod.com /rs3.html

Author: David Christopher Lane

Publisher: Garland
Publication date: 1992

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at [email protected]

I want to go back to the home base now.

Chapter Three

THE TRANSMISSION OF SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY

Gaddi Nasheen Succession in the Beas Lineage

I. JAIMAL SINGH TO SAWAN SINGH [1903]

The succession of Jaimal Singh, unlike that of Shiv Dayal Singh, was relatively clear. Several
months before his death, Jaimal Singh informed his followers that Sawan Singh would take his
place, holding satsangs and conducting initiations. Additionally, it was generally well known in
the sangat that Jaimal Singh and Sawan Singh were very close. There exists a fairly large
number of letters written in Punjabi and Urdu by Jaimal Singh to Sawan Singh, which document
the guru's predisposition towards his disciple as his spiritual heir. Also, there are letters from
Seth Partap Singh which confirm that Jaimal Singh had intended Sawan Singh to succeed him
at Beas. [*NOTE: See Spiritual Letters , op. cit. *]

Since there was tremendous agreement among Jaimal Singh's followers that Sawan Singh was
the legitimate successor, the accounts about the transference are succinct and to the point. This
is primarily because successorship stories are more developed when there is some significant
controversy involved. Below are the major forms of verification provided for Sawan Singh's
succession of Jaimal Singh at Beas: 1. Extensive verbal confirmation by the departing master,
Jaimal Singh, to Sawan Singh. 2. Extensive verbal confirmation by the departing master, Jaimal
Singh, to his followers. 3. Indicative written records, including letters by Jaimal Singh to Sawan
Singh and Seth Partap Singh. 4. Transference of satsang properties and assorted material
possessions (including personal clothing and Shiv Dayal Singh's turban) to Sawan Singh. 5.
Assorted narratives by satsangis and other interested parties about the spiritual capabilities of
Sawan Singh, including accounts of inner experiences and special social interactions.

Sawan Singh and the Founding of Dera Baba Jaimal Singh

1/24
As can be gleaned from a review of the suggestive historical evidence, the transference of the
guruship from Jaimal Singh to Sawan Singh was perhaps the clearest and smoothest in the
history of Radhasoami. [*NOTE: There are several other succession episodes which were also
relatively trouble free, including: 1) Shiv Bart Lal to Faqir Chand; 2) Faqir Chand to I. C. Sharma;
3) Bagga Singh to Deva Singh; 4) Jagat Singh to Charan Singh; 5) Sadhu Singh to Teja Singh;
and 6) Darshan Singh to Rajinder Singh. *] For Sawan Singh not only inherited Jaimal Singh's
established gaddi at Beas, and the numerous artifacts that went along with it, but he also had
the nearly unanimous support of the sangat. Moreover, Sawan Singh was appointed by Jaimal
Singh several months before the guru's departure. Sawan Singh also enjoyed the backing of
Seth Partap Singh of Agra, who insisted that Sawan Singh assume the role of gaddi nasheen at
Beas and initiate new seekers into the path of Sant mat, and Garib (Gharib) Das of Sarai
Rohilla. The Tarn Taran and Firozpur Satsangs

Due to the smoothness of transition after Jaimal Singh's death, Sawan Singh was free from the
political ramifications which result from a hotly contested succession. Sawan Singh's only main
rival to Jaimal Singh's spiritual ministry was Bagga Singh of Tarn Taran, and they were both on
very good terms, often conducting satsangs together. The relationship between Sawan Singh
and Bagga Singh was rather unique, since most rival successors do not, as a rule, develop
intimate friendships.

There is some debate over the nature of Bagga Singh's commission. Tarn Taran satsangis claim
that he was appointed several years before Jaimal Singh's death to work as a guru, whereas
Darshan Singh and other Beas satsangis allege that Bagga Singh was not authorized to do so.
Comments Darshan Singh, the late head of Sawan-Kirpal Mission, about the controversy: There
was a disciple of Baba Jaimal Singh from Taran Tarn [sic] named Baba Bagga Singh. He began
initiating without authorization. After some time he realized his mistake and invited Baba Sawan
Singh to his place. When he met Sawan, he bowed down to Sawan's feet and repented. In his
grace, the Master told him to carry on with his work and Sawan took on his burden. . . . [*NOTE:
Two Fools Meet a Gurbhai by Arran Stephens and Richard Handel (privately published and
circulated), page 15. *]

Close initiates of Bagga Singh, however, tell another story concerning succession and infer that
it was Sawan Singh who held a junior position to their guru. [*NOTE: Personal Interview with the
Chawla family, New Delhi, India (March 1987) and Orange County, California (February 1987).
The oldest member of the Chawla family--the maternal grandfather--lives in New Delhi and
Firozpur. He was personally initiated, as was his daughter, by the founder of the Tarn Taran
lineage, Bagga Singh. *] In either scenario, however, one thing is agreed: Bagga Singh and
Sawan Singh worked together . The uniqueness of their relationship in the history of
Radhasoami should not be overlooked. Aaron Talsky argues that their cordiality stems from a
lack of confusion after Sawan Singh's appointment at Beas. Writes Talsky: After Baba Ji's death,
we see for the first time in our investigation an instance in which the transmission of guruship

2/24
conformed to the ideal method of routinization outlined by Soamiji. Because Jaimal's
appointment of Sawan Singh to the gaddi was precise, unambiguous and public, there was no
need for any interpretation; the period of indeterminacy--the succession crisis--was precluded
by this immediacy. The extent to which this method succeeded can be witnessed in the
interactions of Sawan Singh with another initiate of Baba Ji, named Bagga Singh. [*NOTE:
Aaron Talsky, The Radhasoami Tradition , op. cit., pages 112-113. *]

After the death of Deva Singh, who was formally installed as Bagga Singh's successor by
Sawan Singh in 1944 at Tarn Taran, the lineage split into several factions. The two largest
groups are Tarn Taran, now headed by the son of Pratap Singh; and the Firozpur Satsang,
established by Sadhu Singh after Deva Singh's death and now headed by Teja Singh. According
to the eldest Chawla, who conducted the dastarbandi ceremony for Pratap Singh, Sadhu Singh,
and Teja Singh, Charan Singh of Radha Soami Satsang Beas originally ordered Sadhu Singh to
carry on the ministry at Tarn Taran. However, due to political in-fighting (particularly amongst the
committee members at Tarn Taran), Sadhu Singh was forced to relinquish the gaddi, eventually
founding his satsang in Firozpur. Subsequently, Charan Singh installed Pratap Singh to be head
of the Tarn Taran Satsang. (It is not clear whether or not Pratap Singh was authorized to initiate
new seekers.)

Before Sadhu Singh died in the early 1970's, he appointed Teja Singh to succeed him. To insure
that there would be no major dispute over succession, Sadhu Singh made out a will in favor of
Teja Singh, outlining his responsibilities. A unique aspect about the Firozpur line is that from
Jaimal Singh onwards each of the masters has been celibate. Apparently, Sadhu Singh left
orders for Teja Singh to meditate for five years after his death before initiating new seekers. Teja
Singh instead waited ten years. Aaron Talsky, who visited Firozpur in March of 1989, reports
that Teja Singh has a substantial following, numbering in the tens of thousands. In the summer
of 1986, Teja Singh visited the United States for the first time, staying for several weeks at the
Chawla residence in Orange County. The overwhelming majority of Teja Singh's initiates,
however, are from North India. [*NOTE: There has yet to be done any comprehensive history
written in English about the Tarn Taran and Firozpur satsangs. The eldest Chawla told me in a
personal interview in Orange County, California, op. cit., that he was working on a biographically
oriented history of the Tarn Taran and Firzopur gurus. For already published information, see my
article "The Enchanted Land: With the Saints of North India", Fate Magazine (October-
November, 1984) and my M.A. Thesis, Radhasoami Mat , op. cit. *]

After Pratap Singh's death, the relationship between the Tarn Taran and Beas satsangs has
undergone some tension. Allegedly, Charan Singh did not formally install anyone to succeed
Pratap Singh at Tarn Taran. However, the Radha Swami Association Committee at Tarn Taran
reportedly appointed Pratap Singh's son to assume the gaddi. [*NOTE: My information on the
latest developments at Tarn Taran are sketchy, being based primarily on reports received by
Aaron Talsky during his March 1989 visit of the Punjab. *]

Concerning Teja Singh and the Firozpur satsang, it is not clear what kind of relationship they
3/24
have with Charan Singh and Beas, except one of cordiality and mutual respect. There is still
some debate over whether or not Charan Singh did indeed commission the founder of the
Firozpur line, Sadhu Singh, to initiate new seekers. [*NOTE: K. S. Narang, Director of
Publications at Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, denies that Charan Singh appointed Sadhu Singh as a
Satguru. *]

It can be argued that the Beas satsang flourished during the years of Sawan Singh precisely
because it did not have to spend time trying to solidify its foundation with other rival claimants
(as did, for example, Dayal Bagh and Soami Bagh). The lack of animosity between Beas and
Tarn Taran/Firozpur, though rare in guru politics, illustrates an important point: how a guru
receives his appointment can have a direct effect on the success of his ministry. Sawan Singh
attracted over one-hundred and twenty-five thousand initiates to Sant mat; the highest number
in history up to that time. [Charan Singh, Sawan Singh's grandson and eventual successor at
Beas, dramatically eclipsed the previous record by initiating well over one million and two
hundred thousand disciples.] [*NOTE: Given the tremendous amount of interest in Radhasoami
in India, Charan Singh may well initiate more seekers in 1989 alone than Sawan Singh initiated
in forty-five years. A remarkable number when one considers that the Beas satsang does not
advocate proselytizing or advertising. *]

Spiritual Diplomacy

Similar in many ways to his Gopiganj counterpart Shiv Brat Lal, Sawan Singh fostered a friendly
and cooperative spirit with other Radhasoami gurus. Indeed, Sawan Singh was on close terms
with each of the leaders of the major satsangs, developing a sense of good will and amiability
with the likes of Partap Singh and his son Sudarshan Singh, Madhav Prasad Sinha and the
Soami Bagh Satsang, and Anand Sarup and the Dayal Bagh Satsang. Although the Central
Administrative Council did not officially sanction Sawan Singh's ministry, its first President
Partap Singh nevertheless supported the Dera and Sawan Singh's assumption of the gaddi, as
evidenced in a series of letters published under the title Spiritual Letters . Below are a few
pertinent excerpts: [Letter Number 4] Your [Sawan Singh's] letter has been received and we are
all very sad over Baba Jaimal Singh Maharaj Sahib's giving up the chola (garment, which in this
case means the human body). He was responsible for the uplift of many a soul, but His Will was
such and no one can interfere. . . . All those who came under the sharan (protection) of Baba Ji
Maharaj will continue to be protected by Him, and one day He will certainly manifest Himself to
them. . . . Tell all of them that, in accordance with His instructions, Simran, Dhyan, Bhajan. . .
and daily practice should be carried out by everyone with love, devotion, and faith. He is with
everyone of them at all times, and whoever has love and faith in Him will continue to be
protected by Him. . . . [*NOTE: Spiritual Letters , op. cit., page 132. *] [Letter 9] I have received a
letter written by Milkhi Ram and Bibi Rukko, in which they have mentioned that you are
practising Bhajan and Simran continuously and do not come out of your room even after four
days, until Bibi Rukko compels you to come out. I append a copy of my letter written to them: ". .
. It is my great desire that after Baba Ji and myself, there should be two or three saints

4/24
(Nadipurush) who should spread Radha Swami Mat and Nam Bhakti. You should not, therefore,
expect any worldly activity from Babu Sawan Singh, but let Him do His Bhajan and Parmarth.
You should all treat Him as a Guru and respect Him as your elder, and let Him do the work of
Parmarth. [My italics.] [*NOTE: Spiritual Letters , op. cit., pages 136-137. *]

Sawan Singh strenuously avoided causing a political rift with any of the Radhasoami satsangs.
This was especially evident in his dealings with Anand Sarup and Dayal Bagh in the early
1930's. To avoid feelings of animosity among the two large sangats, Sawan Singh and Anand
Sarup signed a pact enjoining their membership to eschew controversy and meet on a mutual
ground of respect and fellowship. The pact was announced publically at a special meeting held
on December 25, 1932. The English translation of the pact reads as follows: The Satsangi
brethren are aware that Baba Jaimal Singh Maharaj started his Satsang at Beas in the province
(State) of the Punjab sometime after the departure of Param Purush Puran Dhani Soamiji
Maharaj. The management of this Satsang has been separate from the very beginning. The
Satsangis belonging to the Radhasoami Satsang Sabha, Dayalbagh, Agra, and those belonging
to the Beas Satsang, have kept aloof from one another on account of differences over certain
principles. Satsangi brethren will be pleased to learn that these differences have been removed
by means of personal discussion during the last few days and it has been made clear that the
Dayalbagh and Beas Satsangis both accept Param Purush Puran Dhani Soamiji Maharaj as the
Incarnation of Radhasoami Dayal, and the Radhasoami Nam as the Nij Nam (True Name) of the
Supreme Father, and the secret of this Nij Nam is explained at the time of initiation in both
Satsangs. On account of agreement [on] these matters the Satsangis of Radhasoami Satsang
Sabha, Dayalbagh, Agra, and of the Beas Satsang, will be able to behave towards one another
in a spirit of brotherly affection. The two Satsangs will have their own separate managements as
heretofore. Every Satsangi will be at liberty to join and accept the leaders of the Adhishtata
(leader) of whichever Satsang he likes and no Satsangi should use unbecoming language either
in speech or in writing against either Satsang. Satsangi brethren knew [sic] very well that the
mission of the Satsang is to spread true Parmarth, peace and contentment in the world and
draw people towards the Holy Feet of Radhasoami and this object can be best achieved by
mutual love and regard amongst different centres of the Satsangs. It is, therefore, proper that all
the Satsangi brethren should try to strengthen the ties of brotherly affection and abstain from
forcing their ideas and feelings on others. It is hoped that this advice will be liked by the
Satsangis of both Satsangs. [*NOTE: As translated in S.D. Maheshwari's Truth Unvarnished,
Part 2 (Soami Bagh, Agra: S.D. Maheshwari, 1970), pages 251-252. *]

There were a number of factors which precipitated this unusual agreement between Dayal Bagh
and Beas, not the least of which was that Radhasoami in general was coming under heavy
attack from both fundamentalist Sikh groups in the Punjab and Arya Samajists in Uttar Pradesh.
Thus it was in each satsang's mutual self interest to display a show of unity--something that was
not occurring with Dayal Bagh and the Central Administrative Council because of their court
dispute over property and worship rights at Soami Bagh. Anand Sarup's diary entry of June 10,
1931, records a revealing glimpse of the tension between the Sikhs and the Radhasoamis: A
5/24
letter has been received from Lahore. It describes the quarrel that the Sikhs picked up in the
beginning of this month with Sardar Bagga Singh and Sardar Sawan Singh at Baghvanpura and
Lahore. Two posters which had been published by the Sikhs against Sardar Sawan Singh have
also been received with this letter. From one poster, it appears that the Sikhs have organized a
battalion known as "Radhasoami-Mat-Daman-Jatha", i.e. "Battalion to crush the Radhasoami
Religion". The Sikhs are in the wrong. Just as the Mohammedans by maltreating the Sikhs in
this manner made the Sikh Community grow and prosper, similarly, Sikh brothers are helping
Sardar Sawan Singh's community to grow and prosper. . . . [*NOTE: Diary of Sahabji Maharaj,
Part One (Dayalbagh: Radhasoami Satsang Sabha, 1973), page 311. *]

Another factor behind the pact was Beas' growing popularity in the Punjab. Before the late
1920's and early 1930's, Sawan Singh's sangat was relatively small in comparison with Dayal
Bagh and the C.A.C. group. Yet by 1931 Beas began attracting thousands of seekers and
satsangis to its monthly satsangs. Apparently this caused a bit of jealousy amongst the Agra
satsangis, particularly Dayal Bagh's, as Anand Sarup devotes more than one page of his
personal diary to Beas' growing popularity. Excerpts from the June 30, 1931 entry read:
Yesterday evening, a Satsangi, who had come to Dayalbagh from Gujranwala, said with great
uneasiness that the Satsang of Beas was making great progress and that many people of
Gujranwal, Wazirabad etc. had begun to go to Beas and he suggested that I should immediately
proceed on a tour of the Punjab. Yesterday, I did not pay much attention to his statement and
avoided giving a reply. However, as the feeling of jealousy is an extremely undesirable attitude
of mind, I therefore discussed the matter in detail today in order to remove that feeling. . . .
[*NOTE: Diary of Sahabji Maharaj, Part One , op. cit., pages 332-333. *]

It is evident from a close reading of Anand Sarup's diaries that Sawan Singh and the Beas
Satsang opened channels with Dayal Bagh by offering their leader assistance whenever he
needed it. This appears to have greatly impressed Anand Sarup, as he speaks cordially of his
relations with Sawan Singh and the Beas Satsang.

Sawan Singh also kept in contact with minor Radhasoami groups and their leaders. For
instance, Sawan Singh developed a friendly relationship with Shiv Brat Lal, one of the minor
successors to Rai Salig Ram. In fact, their relationship was so close that Shiv Brat Lal instructed
his successor, Faqir Chand, to seek Sawan Singh's guidance after his death. [*NOTE: See The
Unknowing Sage: The Life and Work of Baba Faqir Chand (Del Mar: Del Mar Press, 1989) for
more details on this issue. *] Concerning Sawan Singh's relationship with Shiv Brat Lal, Kirpal
Singh writes: The first condition I would say, of a Master, when he meets another Master, is that
he will embrace him; He will rejoice. There's no question of high and low. There was one
instance in my life in which my Master Baba Sawan Singh met one follower of Rai Saligram,
named Shiv Brat Lal. He was a very advanced soul. At the first meeting, when they met, I was
there along with them. He was bowing down to my Master, and my Master was bowing down to
him. They were embracing. Why should not those who are on the way embrace? Why should
they not feel joy? [*NOTE: As quoted on the back cover of Light on Ananda Yoga (Sanbornton:

6/24
Sant Bani Ashram, 1982). *]

Sawan Singh's spiritual diplomacy would later be advocated by his future successors, both at
the Dera and elsewhere, particularly Kirpal Singh and his son, Darshan Singh. [*NOTE: For
example, several years before his untimely death in May of 1989, Darshan Singh instigated
"Master Day" in honor of the world's spiritual leaders. Darshan was impressed by the American
convention of honoring mothers and fathers on special days in the year and felt that it would be
useful to mark a day for one's spiritual master. The idea is not new, as India already has a "Guru
Purnima" day in July to honor religious teachers. *]

II. SAWAN SINGH TO JAGAT SINGH [1948]

When Sawan Singh died on April 2, 1948, he was succeeded at his ashram, Dera Baba Jaimal
Singh, by Jagat Singh, a retired Chemistry Professor. The transference of power, which included
control of all the satsang properties held in trust by Sawan Singh, as well as the authority to
serve as Satguru and initiate future disciples was codified by Sawan Singh to Jagat Singh in the
form of several notarized wills. The first of these wills, dated September 20, 1947, and entitled
"Scheme of Management and Administration," appointed Jagat Singh the ruling officer in charge
of all the Radhasoami Beas assets after Sawan Singh's demise. The last line of this will reads, ".
. . Jagat Singh shall be the President of all the three committees; and all the immovable property
everywhere shall stand in his name as religious and spiritual property; and shall not be regarded
as his private and personal property." [*NOTE: Radha Soami Satsang Beas: Origin and Growth
(Beas: Radha Soami Satsang, n.d.). *] The second will, "Codicil of the Great Master," dated
September 24, 1947, further clarified Jagat Singh's position and role with regards to the
extensive satsang properties. [*NOTE: Ibid. *] The third and last will, dated March 20th, 1948,
and signed by members of Sawan Singh's family and his personal doctor, officially
commissioned Jagat Singh to serve as the "Gaddi Nasheen" (Spiritual Head) of Dera Baba
Jaimal Singh and carry on Sawan Singh's spiritual work. An excerpt from this will (translated into
English) reads as follows: So, now, in my full senses and with my free will, I [Sawan Singh] do
hereby appoint Sardar Bahadur Jagat Singh, M.A., Retired Professor, Agricultural College,
Lyallpur, as my successor at Dera Baba Jaimal Singh and all the Satsangs connected with it.
After me he will perform all the acts and duties I have been performing so far. . . . [*NOTE: Ibid.
*]

Office Entitlement and Spiritual Authority:

The Routinization of Charisma

As is clearly discernible, the transmission of initiatory power from Sawan Singh to Jagat Singh
at the Dera was given legal shape and force by written and witnessed documents. Such lineage
succession is characteristic of Max Weber's notion of the routinization of charisma by office. The
"office" in question here is the role of the Satguru as he functions in the Radhasoami Beas
movement. Given jurisdiction over worldly and spiritual matters, as well as an established
7/24
residence, the Satguru at Beas (indeed, any Satguru who assumes a residentially empowered
gaddi) is an official designation, replete with all the power which goes with any office entitlement.

Hence, regardless of Jagat Singh's personal spiritual attainment, Sawan Singh's successor
received automatic spiritual authority and justification by the very nature of his appointment; i.e.,
given the significance of the office, any office holder wields tremendous influence. A limited, but
perhaps apt, comparison can be made between the office of the Satguru at Beas (or any
established gaddi) and the office of the President in the United States. The latter derives his
authority not only from the election wherein the population at large has chosen him, but from the
prestige previously given to the office of presidency. The President shares in the charismatic
power of the former national leaders simply by assuming the appointed position. Likewise, the
Satguru at Beas gains much of his temporal authority from the respect given by the sangat to his
predecessor(s). When the departing master transfers his "mantle" or "office" (the gaddi , as it is
termed in India) to his successor, the latter partakes of his guru's charismatic power just by
accepting his "social" role.

Obviously, office magnetism decreases or increases with the personal influence of the seat
holder. An especially charismatic and well regarded leader, for instance, will elevate the stature
of the particular office, whereas an ineffective leader will generate a more critical attitude toward
the established position. [*NOTE: Former President Richard Nixon, due to the infamous
Watergate scandal, is perhaps a classic example of how one person can partially taint the
image of a sacred office. *]

The important point, however, in office magnetism is that because of its already esteemed
function, the newly chosen office holder has immediately available to him an influential
organizational structure in which to solidify his position and wield his power. In light of this, it is
therefore not unexpected that the process of legitimation follows a different route than one
would see in a successor claimant who lacks such office entitlement.

Jagat Singh, therefore, by virtue of his "official" spiritual authority did not need to substantiate his
role at Satguru to the congregation by referring to his own personal attainments. There was no
need to. Rather, given the social fact of his office, he simply pointed to the written wills by Sawan
Singh and to the whole organizational structure bequeathed to him as sufficient verification of
his current position. Interestingly, this depersonalization of charisma, as Weber has termed
lineage succession and office entitlement, allowed Jagat Singh the option to remain modest and
private about his own spiritual attainment. [*NOTE: This is not to suggest, however, that office
entitlement necessarily prompts a leader towards humility. My emphasis here is on the options
which are available to gaddi nasheens, not on how every individual will utilize those avenues.
For instance, Dr. I. C. Sharma, who was appointed by Baba Faqir Chand as his spiritual
successor several months before his death and given a well established ashram, has not
displayed much modesty, freely telling his followers that he is a great saint. See Dr. I. C.
Sharma's monthly letters in Manavta Mandir (a monthly magazine printed in Hoshiarpur) for
numerous examples of his claims for spiritual greatness. Although Sharma indeed had the
8/24
option to remain quiet and humble about his attainments, he chose for reasons best known to
him not to. *]

Since the transition of mastership from Sawan Singh to Jagat Singh was relatively smooth,
given the abundance of documented materials, etc., the overwhelming majority of Beas
satsangis accepted Jagat Singh as their master's rightful heir (and, subsequently, after his
demise, Charan Singh).

III. JAGAT SINGH TO CHARAN SINGH [1951]

Shortly before his death, just three years after his assumption of mastership, Jagat Singh (1884-
1951) appointed Charan Singh (1916-1990) via a registered will to be the Spiritual Master (
Gaddi Nasheen ) at Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, transferring all property rights, etc., to him,
besides the right to conduct satsangs and grant initiations. The will was executed on October 22,
1951, and witnessed by several satsangis. An excerpt pertaining to succession reads as follows:
After me [Jagat Singh], Sardar Charan Singh Grewal, s/o Sardar Harbans Singh Grewal, caste
Jat Sikh. . . will be the Spiritual Head of Dera Baba Jaimal Singh. . . I also declare that Sardar
Charan Singh will also hold Satsangs and bestow initiation as I had been doing. . . . [*NOTE: A
full text of the will has been published in the book, Radha Soami Satsang Beas: Origin and
Growth , op. cit. *]

By most accounts, it appears that Charan Singh did not expect to be appointed as the Spiritual
Head of the Dera. Due to a number of reasons, including his young age and relatively clear
transference of office entitlement, Charan Singh, like his predecessor Jagat Singh, chose to
downplay his personal spiritual attainment and exhibit an exceptionally modest attitude toward
his position. This is most apparent in Charan Singh's acceptance speech at dastarbandi ,
[*NOTE: A formal ceremony where the new guru ties the previous master's (or his master's, etc.)
turban on his head signifying the transmission of spiritual power. It is usually done by a highly
esteemed saint or satsangi. In Charan Singh's case it was performed by his uncle, Bachint
Singh, and the Saint of Tarn Taran, Sant Deva Singh. The turban that Shiv Dayal Singh gave to
Jaimal Singh was used during the ceremony. *] where he said: When I look upon myself and my
shortcomings I feel very perplexed and find myself unable to decide whether I am really fit for
these onerous duties. This struggle has prevented me so far from meeting the Sangat for which I
ask your forgiveness. I wish to tell the Sangat quite frankly, however, that I do not make any
claims whatsoever to any spiritual attainments; perhaps I lack even those excellences which a
good satsangi should possess. . . . [*NOTE: Quoted in Radha Soami Satsang Bulletin No. XVI ,
page four (1951). *]

It is apparent from Charan Singh's previous statements and others that he has made from time
to time [*NOTE: In March of 1987, during a research trip to North India, I personally heard
Maharaj Charan Singh refer to his appointment as Master as the "saddest moment of my life." *]
that he sees his own role as Satguru as primarily being one of designation. It is not Charan
Singh, per se, but the orders of the previous guru and the continued devotion of the
9/24
congregation which propelled him to work as the Satguru. Hence, Charan Singh's disavowal of
personal inward attainment is consistent with established office authority: the more established
the office, the less need there is to stress inward, spiritual development. The very fact that the
person is appointed to the position by the previous master is sufficient to validate the new guru's
role. This hesitancy to proclaim one's spiritual heights, however, should not be construed as
indicating a lack of competence. As Maharaj Charan Singh told me in a question and answer
session at Dera Baba Jaimal Singh in December of 1983, "humility should not be mistaken for a
lack of power." [*NOTE: My quotation is a paraphrase of Charan Singh's much longer response.
*]

Comparatively speaking, the more established the office, the more likely it is that the office
holder moves from personal charismatic claims to impersonal , position pronouncements. This is
especially the case in guru successorship, where crises in legitimacy usually stem from lack of
majority consensus or residentially "empowered" seats. The Pope in the Roman Catholic
Church, for example, spends relatively little, if any, time trying to legitimize his particular role
after he is chosen. [Of course there may be a lot of political positioning before the election
among the college of cardinals.] In the case of the Radhasoami Satsang at Beas, Jagat Singh
and Charan Singh--due to their office entitlement--did not need to continually "legitimize" their
positions, as their respective roles were apparently more assigned than chosen. [*NOTE: I think
it is important to note that Jagat Singh and Charan Singh could have chosen to respond
differently to their appointments than they did. Naturally the limited scope of my study cannot
appraise their underlying spiritual authenticity, but only indicate that their office entitlement
offered them options which their non-entitled counterparts often lack. *]

At this juncture a key question arises with regard to how office empowered leaders, such as
Charan Singh and Jagat Singh, deal with counter-succession claimants. What direction does
their critical response take? Personal/inward? Or official/outward? The answer, not surprisingly,
is the latter. Office empowered gurus, as we have seen, already have at their disposal what the
merely personal charismatic does not: an established network of followers and properties which
buttress the very idea and position of the Satguru. Thus, Jagat Singh and Charan Singh
repeatedly supported their roles by referring to the written documents surrounding their
assumption of power. Politically speaking, they had (and have) no need to resort to subjective
criteria, which by its very nature is unstable and liable to misinterpretation. Jagat Singh, for
instance, in letters 35 and 97 of Science of the Soul does not refer at all to his spiritual
capabilities, but only to the written and expressed commands of his guru, Sawan Singh: [Letter
35] . . . Our Great Master, Baba Sawan Singh Ji who Initiated you--shook off His mortal coil on
April 2, 1948, as you have already been informed--and since, then according to His express
command as embodied in His Last Will , I am carrying on His Work. [My italics.] [Letter 97] . . .
Huzur [Sawan Singh], however, teaches us that, in Sant Mat, greatness lies in surrender to the
Will of the Master. I am powerless by myself to carry out His commands, and it is His benign
grace alone that enables me to do His bidding. . . . I did not grant Initiation for nine months,
though Huzur Maharaj Ji Himself, while in this mortal frame, bade me to do so, and even left the
10/24
command in writing. The reason for this had better be left unexplained. [*NOTE: Science of the
Soul (Beas: Radha Soami Satsang, 1972), pages 142 and 187-188. *]

The significance of Jagat Singh's omission concerning details of his inner development can only
be properly appreciated when they are contrasted with the statements of other gurus who lack
office entitlement. For example, the rhetorical differences--both stylistically and otherwise--
between Jagat Singh's claim for mastership and Kirpal Singh's claim for mastership are drastic.

Charan Singh and the Rhetoric of Official Succession

According to Charan Singh, there was only one genuine successor of Sawan Singh and that
was Jagat Singh. Having been in very close proximity to his guru/grandfather for all of his life
(but particularly so during Sawan Singh's last six months on earth), Charan Singh personally
witnessed the transference of the gaddi and all it entailed to Jagat Singh. Charan Singh even
put his signature on the last will of his guru designating Jagat Singh to be his spiritual successor.
However, Kirpal Singh, a prominent disciple of Sawan Singh, disputed the succession, claiming
instead that he was the true heir of his guru's spiritual authority. In dealing with Kirpal Singh's
claims, Charan Singh in a number of letters and documents simply pointed to the written
evidence on behalf of Jagat Singh.

Charan Singh's official substantiation of his predecessor's legitimacy is consistent with office
entitlement rhetoric in general. That is, the emphasis on external criteria is the hallmark of
majority guru successors, particularly ones like Jagat Singh and Charan Singh who have
established gaddis. The ideological work of office empowered gurus with regard to leadership
succession tends primarily to be concordant with how they themselves were appointed: namely,
through official, legal, and socially accepted channels. Perhaps the epitome of this kind of
"official" rhetoric can be best seen in a series of letters Charan Singh wrote to European and
American seekers and satsangis in the late 1950's and early 1960's concerning the claims of
Kirpal Singh: [Letter 200] I do not like to say anything about the activities of Sardar Kirpal
Singh's group, called Ruhani Satsang. . . . Since you have inquired, you are entitled to an
answer, so I will simply add that the Great Master [Sawan Singh] never did appoint him as His
Successor. He appointed Sardar Bahadur Maharaj Jagat Singh Ji, in a witnessed and recorded
Will, to carry on all His Spiritual Work. If anybody else is bold enough to assert himself as the
Great Master's Successor, then I can simply leave it to the sagacity of the seekers to judge his
claim. The Great Master's Representatives in the foreign countries also have photostatic copies
of the documents proving Successorship, and the one nearest you will be glad to show them to
you on request. [*NOTE: Divine Light (Beas: Radha Soami Satsang, 1974), page 240. *] [Letter
152] As regards S. Kirpal Singh, let him say or do anything he likes. Sooner or later he will have
to render account for his actions. You have been given the key at the time of Initiation and can
satisfy yourself as to whether or not he is a true Master. It would not be in good taste for me to
go into detail, but I will say this much, that the Great Master, Maharaj Sawan Singh Ji, never
gave him permission to initiate anyone, and duly appointed Sardar Bahadur Maharaj Jagat
Singh Ji as His Successor by a legally executed Will, in writing and duly witnessed, so as to
11/24
leave no doubt about this matter. If you care to have more information, you may contact your
Representative, who has a photostatic copy of the documents concerned and can explain the
whole situation to you. If you like, you may also contact Dr. Pierre Schmidt in Geneva,
Switzerland, as he was one of the witnesses to the Will along with me and others, and was daily
with the Great Master during the last four months of His life on this earth. [*NOTE: Ibid., page
218 *]

What is most revealing about the previous excerpts is what is absent. Nowhere does Charan
Singh state that Jagat Singh was the true heir to Sawan Singh because of his inward, spiritual
attainment (though it is clearly implied). Rather, he only mentions evidence which is official and
outwardly verifiable. And even when Charan Singh refers to an inner test ("the key"), as he
[*NOTE: According to Radhasoami meditation instructions, given at the time of initiation, the
disciple should test any inner vision which appears. The chief test is to repeat the mantra given
by the guru over and over again in front of the vision. If the vision persists, despite concentrated
repetition, it may assumed that the experience is genuine (or, if not necessarily genuine, at least
karmic/destined); if the vision vanishes or disappears, then the experience should be regarded
as illusory or illegitimate. Moreover, any master or personage who appears in meditation,
according to Radhasoami beliefs, should be accompanied by one's guru. In Sar Bachan (Prose),
Shiv Dayal Singh describes how a sincere devotee should test whatever appears within: "All
people on board were drowned with the exception of the disciple, who continued to float on a
plank. He too was about to sink in a short while when a hand came out of the sea and a voice
was heard saying: `Give me thy hand so that I may save thee.' `Who are you?' asked the
disciple and the voice replied: `I am the Prophet.' The disciple said, `I do not know the Prophet. I
do not know anybody else except my Sat Guru .' And the hand disappeared. A little later, when
the disciple was drifting on the plank and dousing too, another hand appeared and (a voice)
said: `Grasp the hand so that I may save you.' The disciple asked, `Who are you?' and the voice
replied: `I am Kuda or Ishwar (God).' The disciple said: `My Khuda (God) is my Guru . I know no
other Kudha .' That hand too disappeared, but shortly a third hand came out. This was the hand
of his spiritual grandfather. `I am thy Guru's Guru ' said he, `Give me thy hand that I may take
thee out.' The disciple thereupon replied: `Whether I am saved or drowned, I cannot give my
hand to anybody else except to my Guru . . .' That hand also disappeared. Then the Guru Sahib
Himself appeared, embraced the disciple and immediately took him home." See Sar Bachan
(Beas: Radha Soami Satsang, 1978), pages 157-158. *] does in letter 152, he is writing about
Kirpal Singh's claim to be a genuine master, not his claim for rightful succession.

The dispute between Kirpal Singh and the Dera successors of Sawan Singh reached a critical
turning point in the early 1950's when Kirpal Singh alleged that Dera was corrupted by internal
politics. In fact, Kirpal Singh went so far as to state in a private letter to an initiate of Sawan
Singh that Bachint Singh, Sawan Singh's eldest son, tried to "sell" the gaddi to a family member.
However, since the initiate did not believe the accusations, he forwarded the letter to Radha
Soami Satsang Beas. Prompted by Radha Krishna Khanna, Charan Singh requested Kirpal
Singh to apologize for the accusation or face a defamation suit. The issue was finally resolved
12/24
when Kirpal Singh met with Charan Singh at R. K. Khanna's house and signed a legally certified
apology, stating that he [Kirpal Singh] was in error and had based his allegations on incorrect
information. He further stated that he hoped Charan Singh would forgive him on this matter.
[*NOTE: For more on this controversy see Daryai Lal Kapur's Firdaus Barin Urf-Roo-i-Zamin
(Beas: Radha Soami Satsang, 1968), which is in Urdu; and Truth Triumphant by Bhagwan
Singh, Guranditta Mal Ahuja and Avtar Singh Oberoi (Delhi" Privately published, 1967), which is
in English. *] Concerning this episode, Charan Singh writes: Pertaining to the libellous and
slanderous remarks made about my Illustrious Predecessor and me by S. Kirpal Singh and
some of his associates, I am glad that you are now aware of the true state of affairs. Please do
not bother about taking any action against S. Kirpal Singh and his associates, as he has himself
signed a legally witnessed apology for these false statements, a photostatic copy of which is
also with your Representatives. He will be glad to show it to you if you will ask to see it.

As we have seen, Charan Singh has dealt with each case pertaining to Kirpal Singh's claims
and allegations in a legal and official manner, pointing either to notarized wills or documents.
Since Charan Singh worked as a lawyer for a number of years, it may not be surprising that he
has gravitated toward a legal posture in defending Jagat Singh's succession. However, such a
legalistic stance can only work in favor of those who already have what the opposing claimants
(like Kirpal Singh) do not: external evidence.

IIIA. CHARAN SINGH TO GURINDER SINGH [1990]

Charan Singh died on June 1, 1990, of a heart condition. Two days prior to his death, Charan
Singh dictated his last will designating his nephew, Gurinder Singh Dhillon, to succeed him as
both the Spiritual Master of the Dera and the Patron of its many activities. The Will, dated May
30th 1990, which was witnessed by several close associates of Charan Singh, including his
personal physician, Dr. Joshi, reads as follows: I, S Charan Singh Grewal s/o S Harbans Singh
Grewal, aged 74 years am making this will in regard to the spiritual affairs of the Society,
Radhasoami Satsang Beas while in full possession of my wits. I am making this will in
accordance with the wishes of Hazur Maharaj Baba Sawan Singh Ji Maharaj & my predecessor.
I have served the Sangat whole-heartedly to the best of my ability for nearly forty years. I have
received in great measure the love, faith and esteem of the entire sangat, of sewadars and my
staff members of which it would be difficult to find a parallel in this world. I am deeply grateful for
their co-operation and support. I appoint Sh. Gurinder Singh Dhillon S/o Sh. Gurumukh Singh
Dhillon of Moga as my spiritual Successor as ordered by Hazur Maharaj Baba Sawan Singh Ji
Maharaj. He will be the Sant Satguru as well as the Patron of Radhasoami Satsang Beas and
will have the authority of giving initiation (NAM). He will also be the Patron of Maharaj Jagat
Singh Medical Relief Society. I have made this will in accordance with the wishes of Hazur
Maharaj Baba Sawan Singh Ji Maharaj and I have every hope that my wishes as expressed in
this will be duly honoured by the entire sangat, all my family members and members of the
society. Signed: Charan Singh Witnessed by: Seva Singh, S. L. Sondhi, Dr. Joshi, and V.K. Sethi
Dated: 30-5-90 (May 30, 1990)

13/24
Although Charan Singh's death was not too surprising, given his previous heart condition, his
appointment of Gurinder Singh as his successor was generally unexpected. For most satsangis
in India and abroad, Gurinder Singh's name was unfamiliar; moreover, he had been living in
Spain for the latter part of the 1980's as a businessman, essentially removed from the Dera
administrative affairs. Further, Gurinder Singh was only thirty-five years old and his wife had
given birth to their second child just a few days before Charan Singh's passing. Even Gurinder
Singh himself was caught off guard by his appointment, having no idea that he was to succeed
his master at the Dera. However, within days, the acceptance of Gurinder Singh by satsangis
around the world was overwhelming. There are a number of factors for the ease of Gurinder's
Singh assumption of the mantleship, including 1) the clarity of Charan Singh's last will; 2)
Gurinder's blood relations with the Beas masters (besides being the nephew of Charan Singh,
Gurinder is also the great grandson of Sawan Singh); and 3) the general acceptance world-wide
that Charan Singh would appoint his successor by a Will.

In the first year after Charan Singh's death, Gurinder Singh has solidified his support both within
and outside the Dera with an unexpected swiftness. He plans to visit countries like the United
States and England on a regular basis and wants to ensure harmony among the various
sangats around the world. Since Charan Singh had initiated over one million and two hundred
thousand initiates during his tenure (an extremely large figure when compared to other
Radhasoami groups) Gurinder Singh's task is a formidable one: As the Beas Satsang enters
into the 21st century, it must cope with increasing internationalization and its attendant
consequences, which include schisms between various factions over how to rightly present the
teachings of Radhasoami and the almost invariable movement among some for increased
power and status both regionally and nationally. How Gurinder Singh and his increased
following deal with these and other issues will determine, to a large degree, whether or not
Radhasoami will emerge as a bona fide world religion, along the ranks of Jainism or Sikhism.

IV. SAWAN SINGH TO KIRPAL SINGH [1948]

The Founding of Ruhani Satsang

Although Jagat Singh was appointed via a will to succeed Sawan Singh at Dera Baba Jaimal
Singh, Beas, in 1948, Kirpal Singh felt that he alone was duly commissioned to carry on his
guru's spiritual work. In a small booklet entitled A Brief Life Sketch of Baba Sawan Singh Ji
Maharaj published in 1949, Kirpal Singh explained how he received the mantleship from his
master: On the morning of 12th October, 1947, at seven o'clock he [Sawan Singh] called me.
When I was in his august presence, he said: "Kirpal Singh! I have allotted all other work but have
not entrusted my task of Naam-initiation and spiritual work to anyone. That I confer on you today
so that this holy and sacred science may flourish. . . ." After this whenever I had the honour to be
in seclusion with Hazur, He talked about the interior affairs of Dera and instructed me how to act
when He departed forever. During the last days of His confinement on the bed of sickness--in
last days of February 1948--one day Hazur enquired: "How many souls have been initiated by
me?" Registers were consulted and after counting was finished Hazur replied: "Up-till now about
14/24
one hundred and fifty thousand souls have been awakened by Hazur." Hazur said: "All right."
Same day in the evening when I was with Him, Hazur said: "Kirpal Singh! I have done half of
your work and have given Naam to over one and a half lakh persons and the rest you have to
accomplish." [*NOTE: Kirpal Singh, A Brief Life Sketch of Baba Sawan Singh Ji Maharaj (Delhi:
Ruhani Satsang, 1968), page 11 and 12. *]

Kirpal Singh alleged that there were internal politics at the Dera which resulted in him leaving
and founding his own satsang. In his biography of Sawan Singh, Kirpal Singh claims that Sawan
Singh had instructed him on what to do after his death. Recounts Kirpal Singh: On another
occasion Hazur [Sawan Singh] said: Kirpal Singh! The people will flock to the place where they
would find the riches of Naam. What have you to gain from Dera? You better leave Dera. When
Baba Ji came from Agra, he brought with him neither money nor followers. He fetched within him
only his Guru and through his blessing the present Dera came into existence. . . Thereafter,
whenever during Hazur's lifetime I had an opportunity to go to him, he talked on the subject of
propagating spirituality and gave necessary instructions regarding its real shape, significance
and basic fundamental problems. . . . [*NOTE: Ibid. *]

Since over ninety percent of Sawan Singh's initiates accepted Jagat Singh as the legitimate heir,
[*NOTE: This figure is also accepted by supporters of Kirpal Singh, who do not deny that the
vast majority of Sawan Singh's followers rallied around Jagat Singh and later Charan Singh. As
Russell Perkins writes in The Impact of a Saint (op. cit., page 145): "He [Kirpal Singh] had been
forcibly ejected from his Master's ashram in Beas because of the existence of a document
naming someone else as successor; while he never in any way reacted or objected to this [sic],
and pursued his spiritual mission from scratch (since the overwhelming majority of his Master's
disciples preferred to believe the document), it was unthinkable that he should have chosen
such a means to have named his successor." *] Kirpal Singh's claim as successor met with
severe opposition. It is not surprising, therefore, that Kirpal Singh utilized substantiating
accounts for his claim which criticized several outward conventions supporting Jagat Singh.
Specifically, Kirpal Singh and his associates questioned the legitimacy of Sawan Singh's last will
designating Jagat Singh as his spiritual successor. [*NOTE: See Truth Triumphant , op. cit. *]
Furthermore, Kirpal Singh argued that inner experience (and not wills, documents, or
committees) was the trademark of a guru's authenticity. Although this requirement has always
been stressed in Sant mat/Radhasoami, Kirpal Singh elevated it to an unparalleled degree. He
insisted that experiences of light and sound should be perceived during the time of initiation, and
that this criterion is one of the chief ways of determining whether or not a guru is competent.
[*NOTE: For more on this issue see Kirpal Singh's Godman (Delhi: Ruhani Satsang, 1967). *]

This is not to suggest that Kirpal Singh did not employ historical accounts to back up his claims,
but only that he de-emphasized them in contrast to inner experiences. Hence, in this purview,
contradictory evidence--like wills which are outwardly presented--is junior to personal, revelatory
encounters in the higher realms, which may or may not be in agreement with "consensus data."
Generally, Kirpal Singh and his initiates have identified the following as significant factors in
15/24
favor of his succession of Sawan Singh: 1. Direct personal testimony by Sawan Singh to Kirpal
Singh about his role as a guru, giving initiation and satsang. 2. The transmission of initiatory
power by Sawan Singh to Kirpal Singh "through the eyes." 3. Testimonies by highly regarded
Sawan Singh initiates verifying Kirpal Singh's spiritual status. 4. Suggestive historical events,
such as Kirpal Singh giving satsang and initiation under Sawan Singh's jurisdiction. 5.
Experiential confirmation by interested persons who received inner confirmation in meditation of
Sawan Singh's transference of power to Kirpal Singh.

Kirpal Singh's Relationship with Sawan Singh

Kirpal Singh was born on February 6, 1894 in Sayyad Kasran, district of Rawalpindi. He was the
youngest brother of three. Brought up in a Sikh household, he was educated at the Edwards
Church Mission High School in Peshawar, graduating in 1910; that same year he was married to
Krishna Wanti. They had two sons: Darshan Singh, who was born in 1921; and Jaswant Singh,
who was born in 1927. Kirpal Singh worked in the Military Engineering Service and Military
Accounts Department in Lahore.

At the age of twenty-three he began having visions in his meditations of a figure whom he
believed was Guru Nanak. Seven years later in 1924, Kirpal Singh realized that it was Sawan
Singh of Beas, not Guru Nanak, whom he saw repeatedly within. Convinced of the divinity of his
master, Kirpal Singh received initiation from Sawan Singh into the Radhasoami path that same
year.

Both of Kirpal Singh's brothers, Jodh Singh and Prem Singh, were also disciples of the Great
Master. Jodh Singh (the middle brother of the family), in particular, was held in high regard by
Sawan Singh. He died on September 5; Prem Singh, who came late in life to the path
(apparently he was a meat eater for a number of years), died on July 22, 1946.

During the 1930's and 1940's Kirpal Singh became a prominent sevadar at his guru's ashram,
known simply as the "Dera" (lit., "tent" or "camp"), often giving satsang in the presence of Sawan
Singh. He was also apparently involved in the publication of Sawan Singh's magnus opus,
Gurmat Sidhant . Originally published in a much smaller version in 1919, Gurmat Sidhant was
enormously expanded in the mid-1930's. It presently consists of two volumes totaling
approximately 2000 pages.

There is some controversy concerning Kirpal's contribution to the work. Kirpal Singh claims
outright that he was the author of the book, but out of humility asked Sawan Singh to put his
name on the text, since he was the guiding hand and inspiration behind it. Elaborates Kirpal
Singh: Master : I tell you these things come of themselves. I have experience of that. Look at the
Gurmat Sidhant--The Philosophy of the Masters --the work I wrote in two volumes; one, nine
hundred pages, the other one thousand one hundred pages. I used to write at about eight or
nine at night. I sat and was writing. One day some writer was there watching me. "From where
are You writing, and so fast?" At about midnight he said, "Look here, You're writing so fast, You're
16/24
not copying anything. But how do You write?" I said, "Someone is dictating to me, I cannot follow
Him?" Question : You were writing that in Urdu? Master : In Punjabi. I have written books in
English that way, under the shelter of this tree. There were some sitting arrangements then.
Question : That was dictated by Sawan Singh? Master : It was intuition, the same. Question: Of
course, You have put His name on the book. Master : It's all due to Him. How can one be
ungrateful? My books are dedicated, "To God and to all in Whom He manifested and Baba
Sawan Singh, at Whose Feet I have imbibed the Truth." [*NOTE: Heart to Heart Talks, Volume
One , pages 81-82. *]

Yet, historically it appears that Kirpal Singh was not the sole author of Gurmat Sidhant , because
even his own son, Darshan Singh, claims that he collected the majority of quotations from
Persian used in the book. This is significant because Gurmat Sidhant is replete with citations,
especially from the Sikh holy book, Guru Granth Sahib . Approximately one-half of Gurmat
Sidhant is quotations from other mystics, particularly those from the Sant tradition. There may
well have been a series of satsangis, including Lekh Raj Puri and Jagat Singh among others,
who helped compile the unabridged edition. Moreover, the Beas Satsang disputes Kirpal Singh's
claim for sole authorship by pointing to the earlier 1919 edition as documented evidence that
Sawan Singh was the real author, since Kirpal Singh did not meet his guru at Beas until 1924--
some five years after the initial edition. Indeed, Kirpal Singh's claim also met with some legal
resistance. As Kirpal Singh explains: Yesterday I [Kirpal Singh] replied to some letter. "They said
Gurmat Sidhant was not your sayings." I replied that the book was issued in the name of Baba
Sawan Singh--it was His graciousness--He did it. "Well, how is it issued in their name at Beas?"
"They have got reserved rights because on paper the properties are in their name." I cannot
issue it, print those things here--legally I mean. . . . legally I am not allowed to print it. [*NOTE:
Heart to Heart Talks, Volume II , op. cit., pages 153-154. *]

Regardless of the controversy surrounding Gurmat Sidhant , it is clearly evident that Kirpal
Singh was involved in some capacity with the literary work at Beas, as even Lekh Raj Puri
acknowledges his assistance (in gathering information about Islamic spiritual practices) in the
preface to his book, Mysticism: The Spiritual Path , which was published in the latter part of the
1930's.

In 1939 Kirpal Singh is reported to have conducted initiation of over two hundred people at the
Dera in the presence of his guru Sawan Singh. According to Kirpal Singh's several references to
this occasion, it caused a bit of a stir among satsangis at the Dera. Around this same period
Kirpal Singh was the subject of some negative rumors which prevented him from enjoying the
presence of his guru. Kirpal Singh only mentions this episode in passing and does not provide
(at least in English) any details about the propaganda, as he termed it, that was being spread
about him. What little we do know comes from Kirpal Singh and/or his associates. Once it
happened in my life (generally these controversies do come up) that there was a great deal of
propaganda against me. Once, Master asked me to initiate two hundred and fifty people in the
monthly gathering. Competition then naturally arises, and there was a great amount of

17/24
propaganda against me. I kept quiet because I was true to myself; I knew, "God is with me,
Master is with me." And it was so arranged that I could not talk to the Master for eight months--
such influential people were involved. [*NOTE: As cited in A. S. Oberoi's Support for the Shaken
Sangat (Sanbornton: Sant Bani Ashram, 1984), page 120. See also Kirpal Singh's Morning Talks
(Delhi: Sawan Kirpal Publications, 1981), page 213. *]

Also during this time, Kirpal Singh received an endearing and supportive letter, dated June 11,
1939, from Sawan Singh, encouraging him to conduct satsang and complete his spiritual
progress in meditation. Further on in the letter, Sawan Singh stated that he was "greatly
pleased" with Kirpal Singh, adding that "You [Kirpal Singh] are serving the Lord with all your
resources--body, mind and money." [*NOTE: Portrait of Perfection , op. cit., page 37. *] By 1947,
a year before his guru's death, Kirpal Singh was regarded as one of the principal disciples of the
Great Master . [*NOTE: For example, Dr. Pierre Schmidt, who attended Sawan Singh personally
for the last four months of his life, referred to Kirpal Singh as "one of the principal disciples." See
Radha Soami Satsang, Bulletin Number IX (1948). *] Indeed, in the by-laws drawn up about the
Administrative Committee in 1947 by Sawan Singh, Kirpal Singh was given the responsibility of
jointly conducting satsangs with Gulab Singh and B. Rameshwar, as well as being responsible
for the accomodations of satsangis at the Dera.

Kirpal Singh and the Rhetoric of Minority Succession

On April 6, 1948, just four days after his guru's death, Kirpal Singh left the Dera forever. He
proceeded to Delhi for a short visit and then went on to Rishikesh. Kirpal Singh, along with his
family, stayed in the venerated city for five months, giving upwards to eighteen hours daily in
meditation. By December 2 of that same year, he started his ministry in Delhi, conducting
regular satsangs and initiation. In 1950 Kirpal Singh formally founded Ruhani Satsang and in
1951 established Sawan Ashram in Shakti Nagar, Delhi.

Yet, from the start of his ministry, Kirpal Singh had to overcome many obstacles, not the least of
which was that Jagat Singh was clearly the accepted successor of Sawan Singh by the vast
majority of satsangis. To better clarify his nomination as Satguru, Kirpal Singh published a
booklet on his guru's life and teachings in English in 1949 which explained in detail how he was
appointed. But in so doing, Kirpal Singh was calling into serious question the succession at
Dera. For instance, in A Brief Life-Sketch of Hazur Baba Sawan Singh Ji Maharaj , Kirpal Singh
clearly implies in four different places [*NOTE: See pages 11, 12, 15, and 18. *] that he alone
was appointed to carry on his master's mission. On page 15 of the booklet, Kirpal Singh quotes
his master as saying, "The mission of spirituality can only be carried on successfully by one [my
italics] adept in spirituality." Moreover, Kirpal Singh implies that some of Sawan Singh's relatives
and close disciples were spiritually blind. Indeed, Kirpal Singh cites at least five different
episodes where Sawan Singh's family and/or close associates misunderstood their guru's
wishes. Kirpal Singh argues throughout the text that he alone was capable of understanding the
sublime and mystical ways of his master. Below are a few examples of Kirpal Singh's slightly
veiled criticisms of Sawan Singh's inner circle: [Page 12] In those very days, one night Hazur
18/24
mentioning His inner esoteric experiences remarked: "The sun has risen high. Can the people of
Jullundur also see this sun?" The relatives and friends sitting nearby were ignorant of this secret
expression . [My italics.] The opinion of [the] doctor in charge was also, like others beside Him,
that Hazur's brain does not work properly on account of His illness. A little later at night when I
went to Him, Hazur repeated the same question addressing me: "Kirpal Singh! The sun has
risen high. Can the people of Jullundur see this sun?" I replied, "Yes Hazur, the sun has risen
high--and not only the people of Jullundur but also those living in England or America who will
traverse to inner planes can see this sun." Thereupon Hazur said: "Thou hast correctly
answered my question." [*NOTE: Page 12. Dr. Pierre Schimdt, who attended Sawan Singh
during his last four months, has a different interpretation than Kirpal Singh of this same event. In
April of 1948, Schimdt wrote: "I feel I must relate two instances that revealed Him [Sawan Singh]
as a Master even during this period of grave distress: 1. Some weeks before His death the
Master asked to be brought some water from Jullundur, about 40 kilometers from the Dera, and
when it was brought He asked why they had gone to collect it. Another evening He said to us,
"Look at the light which shines in Jullundur" although there was only a slight glow over the city. I
thought these were indications of delirium such as is met with in uraemia. Another day He said
"Look at this house in which I now live, it is disintegrating and falling in ruins. We must leave the
Dera and go to Jullundur. Quickly, buy a new house"! This seemed to be symptomatic of a state
of weakness and mental obnubilation which comes paroxsmically in such conditions. But later
we realized what He meant, for it was His Way of indicating His successor, who came from
Jullundur: It was to tell us that henceforth the light would come from there and that He had
finished His task, for Sardar Bahadur Jagat Singh was born at Jullundur. [My italics.] See Radha
Soami Satsang Bulletin Number X for further information. *] [Pages 12-13] Similarly Hazur made
a mention of several hidden secrets but those around Him were hardly able to grasp what Hazur
was hinting at--this being a subject familiar to those only who are practical in-lookers and
spiritually skilled. What, therefore, could other poor fellows know about them. [Page 15]
(Spirituality) cannot be entrusted to a blind person. Whoever has a desire to find me out can
reach me within through one who is linked with me. You will not find me in the company of those
who are after the possessions of the world. Be not deceived by such people. . . . I do not dwell in
the midst of mayaic insects. Go to some selfless being who is after me and lives for me and is
not after possession of Deras. . . . [Page 18] Throughout the period of His illness Hazur said
many times: "If a person proficient in Bhajan and Simran sits by me, I feel comforted and
relieved. Therefore those who come to me or sit near me should do Simran." Accordingly, at the
time of appearance of this symptom of "fluttering of the body" Hazur again spoke several times
in these words: "If the person who has to do the work of spirituality after I depart, comes and sits
by me, my trouble will be gone." To comply with this--evidently the last wish of the Master--the
near relatives of Hazur came and sat in Bhajan and Simran one by one, by the side of bed of
Hazur, but there was no relief whatever in the fluttering symptom of Hazur's body. On the
morning of 1st April, 1948, it was extremely benevolent of Hazur to afford a chance to this
humble servant--of course through the assistance of a lady in nursing service of Hazur--to be by
the side of the Master, in seclusion, for about ten or fifteen minutes. . . . After the prayer [Kirpal

19/24
Singh prayed for his guru's health] when I opened my eyes, Hazur's body was in a state of
perfect repose.

As the preceding excerpts indicate, particularly the last one, Kirpal Singh feels that he alone
was helpful in understanding and soothing Sawan Singh's condition. The underside to Kirpal
Singh's claims, however, is that Sawan Singh's inner circle is spiritually bankrupt. The two
pronged rhetoric behind Kirpal Singh's narrative is obvious, since his booklet is not solely about
Sawan Singh's life and work but rather about his own claims for mastership. Roughly one half of
the 22 page booklet centers on how Sawan Singh transmitted his spiritual authority to Kirpal
Singh. Even to the casual reader it is clear that the booklet is a strategic piece of writing in
which to contextualize and buttress Kirpal Singh's claim for spiritual succession and authority. At
one end, Kirpal Singh is either implicitly or explicitly criticizing his guru's family and close
disciples (including, presumably, Jagat Singh, since he was in daily attendance of Sawan Singh
during his last years) and, on the other end, eulogizing either overtly or covertly his own spiritual
competence. The net result is a thinly disguised polemic against the Dera and for Ruhani
Satsang. [*NOTE: For example, Kirpal Singh does not mention Jagat Singh once in the text, nor
does he discuss Sawan Singh's last wills. Moreover, almost every time he refers to the Dera it is
in a negative light. *]

It is little wonder, therefore, that Kirpal Singh wrote a defamatory letter about Sawan Singh's
family and their attempt to "buy" the gaddi. This incident, plus the episodes outlined in A Brief
Life-Sketch of Hazur Baba Sawan Singh Ji Maharaj , demonstrate that Kirpal Singh not only
questioned Jagat Singh's and Charan Singh's succession--their office entitlement--but that he
also felt there was a conspiracy to undermine the sacredness of the gaddi itself. Since Kirpal
Singh consented to apologize for his misinformed letter, his outright criticisms of the succession
at Dera lessened.

Lacking sufficient support (legal or otherwise) to cast serious doubt among the general sangat
over the succession decision at Dera, Kirpal Singh resorted to criticizing office empowerment in
general. On several occasions, Kirpal Singh implied that the successors at the Dera--Jagat
Singh and Charan Singh--only had the "seat," not the power. An incident retold in the book,
Heart to Heart Talks, Volume II , reveals Kirpal Singh's position with regard to the Dera and its
successors: It so happened here in India that a man was suffering greatly on account of cancer.
He could not sleep, even for a moment. He was fortunately, or unfortunately, related to me,
Gurdial Singh. So Baba Charan Singh went over there. The sick man asked, "Will you kindly
help me?" Charan Singh answered, "Well, I can't do anything." As Gurdial Singh was related to
me--my brother's daughter was married to his son--she dragged me there. They wanted me to
put my hand on him. He said, "Will you help me?" I told him, "Baba Charan Singh has been with
you. Why did you not request him?" I did request him but he said, "I can't do anything." So I was
forced to put my hand on him, you see, and all trouble was relieved. [*NOTE: Heart to Heart
Talks, Volume II (Delhi: Ruhani Satsang, 1976), page 80. *]

Further on in the same book, Kirpal Singh explains the difference between his mission and the
20/24
Beas successors after Sawan Singh: The other day I gave initiation to six hundred and fifty three
people. All saw Light--about two hundred saw the Master's Form. The teachings at Beas are the
same, but the words given at initiation are not charged [his emphasis]. That is the difference [my
emphasis]. [*NOTE: Ibid., pages 157-158. *]

The previous excerpt is very telling since Kirpal Singh says that the difference between him and
Charan Singh is that he has the spiritual charging and the Beas leader does not. In other words,
Kirpal Singh is claiming that he alone is genuine, and that he is genuine by virtue of inner,
spiritual power.

This notion of inner power became central in supporting Kirpal Singh's legitimacy as Sawan
Singh's successor. Indeed, Kirpal Singh revolutionized Sant mat initiation practices by stressing
that some type of inner experience should be received during the time of initiation. Anyone,
Kirpal Singh argued, should have a direct contact with the inner light and sound during the
meditation period of initiation. This would put to rest any questions seekers would have about
the efficacy of the path and the competency of the master. Yet, such an innovation was unique in
the annals of Radhasoami, since no guru prior to Kirpal Singh made such a far reaching,
universal requirement. To be sure, the previous gurus had emphasized inner experiences and
the like; Shiv Dayal Singh, in fact, often gave firsthand glimpses to worthy and devout seekers.
[*NOTE: As Partap Singh writes in Biography of Soamiji Maharaj (Agra: Soami Bagh, 1978),
page 23: "Soamiji Maharaj often used to raise a little the spirit of certain Adhikaris (fitted and
deserving) at the time of initiation. Thus they had had a fore-taste of the bliss of higher regions,
and developed faith instantly. . . . *] But all of them, including Kirpal's guru Sawan Singh, were
selective in whom they took inside.

For a large number of seekers, Kirpal Singh's promising offer was tantalizing proof of his
competency. However, for a small number of followers, it prompted some confusion, since
Kirpal's master Sawan Singh did not make the same claims during his tenure. As one Ruhani
Satsang initiate explained to Kirpal Singh: "I know two initiates who in the beginning read
Spiritual Gems and they found contradictions in it with Your teachings--very minor ones, but it
created a lot of problems in their mind." [*NOTE: Heart to Heart Talks, Volume II , op. cit., page
157. *] Later on in the conversation the (presumably) same disciple expressed his surprise when
learning that Sawan Singh's followers rarely received inner experiences at the time of initiation:
"I was reading With the [sic] Great Master in India by Julian Johnson. And I was amazed in one
section it says that the Master [Sawan Singh] gave initiation to over seven hundred people and
out of that only two saw Light--only two saw Light!" [*NOTE: Ibid. *]

The disciple's amazement was well founded, since Kirpal Singh had basically forged new
ground, breaking precedent even with his own guru. Sawan Singh, for instance, actually argued
against the need for giving firsthand experiences at the time of initiation. Argues Sawan Singh:
The view that one must see something at the time of Initiation or he would never be able to see
anything later is wrong [my emphasis]. Experience also does not support it. Everyone is running
his own course of life, which is different from all others. No two persons are alike in habit, form
21/24
and thought. All are at different stages of development. At Initiation, they cannot be expected to
behave alike. Only few [my emphasis] see anything then. The majority [my emphasis] take time,
some weeks, some months and some years. All are not equally keen. [*NOTE: Sawan Singh,
Spiritual Gems (Beas: Radha Soami Satsang Beas, 1974), page 87. *]

Malik Radha Krishna Khanna, an initiate of Sawan Singh and a close associate of Kirpal Singh,
attests to the differences between both gurus' approaches to initiation: I sat in at many
initiations, and sometimes he [Sawan Singh] would ask me to drill the new initiates while they
were learning the five charged Names. He would go away and leave me there. At the end, he
never [my emphasis] asked who had seen this or heard that. That is something Maharaj Kirpal
Singh Ji had started [my emphasis]. [*NOTE: "Reminiscences: At the Feet of the Great Hazur,"
Sat Sandesh (April 1978), page 30. *]

Kirpal Singh's Claims and the Problem of Proof:

Legitimacy Versus Authenticity

Ken Wilber, a transpersonal theorist, has developed two terms, legitimacy and authenticity ,
which may be useful in our discussion of guru politics. Legitimacy, according to Wilber, refers to
the attempt of religious persons to validate their claims and beliefs in this world. As such, it is the
desire to correlate or substantiate a religious viewpoint within the common sense, waking world.
In Wilberian terminology, legitimacy is a translative (read: horizontal) endeavor whereby one
seeks to integrate, not transcend or obliterate, the sacred with the profane. Authenticity, on the
other hand, is a transformative (read: vertical) attempt to validate a claim or a belief by referring
to a different level of awareness--a higher plane beyond the rational mind. Accordingly,
authenticity bypasses the normal strictures of the waking world because it tries to validate a
certain claim by pointing to a higher reference point--an ontologically diverse state of being.
[*NOTE: Wilber has written a number of books on this subject, but his clearest presentation
remains A Sociable God (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983). *]

For example, in the guru succession following Sawan Singh's death, we have already noted two
different avenues for validation: outward, external and legal verification versus inward, internal,
and experiential substantiation. In Wilber's schema, these two tendencies can be see as
legitimacy versus authenticity . The former is concerned with this world's frame of reference
(consensus reality), whereas the latter is interested in trans-personal or spiritual realities (sacred
or numinous encounters). Although legitimacy and authenticity do not necessarily have to be
mutually exclusive (Wilber talks about the transcriptive connection between the two), [*NOTE:
See my article, "The Himalayan Connection: U.F.O.'s and the Chandian Effect," Journal of
Humanistic Psychology (Fall 1984), where I talk about this "transcriptive" connection as
transfusion or the intersectional relationship between two modes of development: vertical and
horizontal. In terms of gaddi nasheen succession, those gurus who have both legitimate and
authentic evidence (or experiential corroboration) almost invariably emerge as majority
succession leaders. Hence, the transcriptive correlation between outer and inner substantiation
22/24
is a very powerful legitimizing force in guru politics. Sawan Singh is perhaps the best example of
a Radhasoami guru who had overwhelming support in both directions. *] it is often the case,
especially in gaddi nasheen succession, that they are viewed as such.

In terms of Radhasoami succession rhetoric it can be argued that Kirpal Singh's emphasis on
inner verification ( authenticity ) versus outward confirmation ( legitimacy ) of a guru's status
arose because he lacked what made Jagat Singh so acceptable to the larger sangat: a
notarized will signed by Sawan Singh and the transference of satsang properties in his name. If
Kirpal Singh had this type of documented evidence, i.e., office entitlement, then he may not
have needed to stress inner validation so much. [*NOTE: Of course, Kirpal Singh may still have
emphasized inner experience as the chief criterion for measuring a guru's authenticity if he was
established at Beas, but, at least , such an established appointment would have given him the
option not to. *] It appears to be a truism in guru politics that those who lack sufficient [*NOTE:
The word "sufficient" is a volatile term. My use here, however, is in a rather straightforward,
statistical way: gurus who establish themselves as the chief or majority successor in the satsang
have sufficient evidence backing their appointment by the simple fact that they have the most
followers. Thus sufficiency here is merely a tautology which describes the social process of
majority rule. Whether or not the gurus or disciples themselves see this process as valid is
another question altogether. As Neil Tessler wrote in a personal letter in the Spring of 1988, "I
would be interested in knowing how the Master's [sic] judge the success of their ministries."
Tessler's question is a good one, since the success of a guru's ministry (at least to the guru
him/herself or his/her disciples) may have nothing at all to do with numbers. *] outward
confirmation in whatever forms--wills, testimonies, or relics--move generally toward experiential,
inward, and personal forms of verification. Or, in Max Weber's terms, succession claimants who
do not receive official empowerment move towards personal charisma or authority to rally their
supporters. As Max Weber put it: The mere fact of recognizing the personal mission of a
charismatic master establishes his power. Whether it is more active or passive, this recognition
derives from the surrender of the faithful to the extraordinary and unheard of, to what is alien to
all regulation and tradition and therefore is viewed as divine--surrender which arises from
distress or enthusiasm. Because of this mode of legitimation genuine charismatic domination
knows no abstract laws and regulations and no formal adjudication. . . . [*NOTE: Gerth and
Miles, op. cit., pages 249-250. *]

Utilizing Wilber's more precise terminology, this same thesis can be stated as follows: those who
lack legitimacy (outward confirmation by the consensus majority) point to their authenticity
(inward confirmation by individuals mystically) as the primary means for verifying their role.
Unlike official empowerment, personal charismatic claims operate on the staid belief that it is the
person not the position which matters in the guru-disciple relationship. We have seen this
repeatedly throughout the history of Radhasoami, but nowhere has the tension between inner
and outer validation become clearer and more focused than in the case of Kirpal Singh. When
we turn to the death of Kirpal Singh and his would-be successors, we will want to see how this
polarity in legitimation influences and constrains the ideological work among emerging guru
23/24
claimants.

Ideological Work and Strategies of Legitimation

As we have previously noted, the successors after the death of Sawan Singh followed strategies
of legitimation which were consistent with their social position. That is, office empowered leaders
like Jagat Singh and Charan Singh employed ideological discourse that emphasized the
impersonal nature of their appointment, whereas personal charismatics like Kirpal Singh utilized
discourse which stressed the inward, experiential basis of their mastership. Each type of
ideological work reflected the specific standing of the successor in relation to the larger
membership: majority leaders at Beas tended to support their roles by referring to how the
transference of the office was made, not necessarily how the "spiritual power" was passed on;
minority leader Kirpal Singh, on the other hand, tended to buttress his role by claiming direct,
personal transmission of spiritual power by Sawan Singh. Each successor has offered "proof,"
but proof on two different levels of acquisition.

It is clear, therefore, that ideological work is intimately tied in with a particular guru's social
status--a status largely determined by how spiritual authority is transferred. Thus social status
governs strategies of legitimation. Precisely, office empowered leaders by virtue of their
established position are more likely to invoke a strategy of legitimation which highlights the
traditional and sacred aspects of their respective stations. Personal charismatics, on the
contrary, lacking the built-in legitimacy of a permanent residential seat, and the networking
which goes with it, are inclined to use a strategy which emphasizes the subjective and
experiential features of their calling.

To summarize, before we move on to the main focus of our study, the politics of guru
successorship stems not only from confusion over whom the departing master appointed, but
over the nature of spiritual authority itself. The conflict between Kirpal Singh and the Beas
successors only epitomizes the contest over official and personal authorization and the
discourse available to each. Much of the controversy surrounding successorship is due to the
rhetorical agencies connected to esteemed social positions, whereby social structure governs
the effective usage of communicative interaction. Thus, vying gurus, consciously or
unconsciously, are influenced by the social ramifications of their particular brand of charismatic
succession. It is these very social ramifications, furthermore, which outline the strategies of
legitimation available to succession claimants.

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at [email protected]

I want to go back to the home base now.

24/24
Radhasoami: chapter four
dlane5.tripod.com /rs4.html

Author: David Christopher Lane

Publisher: Garland
Publication date: 1992

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at [email protected]

I want to go back to the home base now.

Chapter Four

THE POLITICS OF GURU SUCCESSORSHIP

The Death of Kirpal Singh

Kirpal Singh's health took a serious turn for the worse in 1971. He had prostate troubles and
underwent an operation on June 29 to remedy the difficulty. According to Russell Perkins'
account, it took some time for Kirpal Singh to recover. As Perkins notes:

The Master's operation had been a serious one--on his prostate--and he was a long time
recovering. His body had been exhausted for years, of course, and he kept it going by sheer
will. . . . [*NOTE: The Impact of a Saint , op. cit., page 118. *]

After the operation Kirpal Singh's health improved to the point that he was able to undergo a
strenuous third world tour in 1972. By this time, Kirpal Singh had attracted a substantial
following, numbering in the tens of thousands, and was received by enthusiastic crowds
throughout South and North America. On his return from abroad in January of 1973, Kirpal
Singh continued to go on satsang tours throughout north and south India, visiting Kashmir in
June, the Punjab in October, and Bombay by the year's end. Although 1974 turned out to be
Kirpal Singh's final year, he completed a number of significant projects, including sponsoring
and presiding over the Unity of Man Conference in Delhi, which was held in early February.
Kirpal Singh also managed to visit the famous Kumbha Mela in Hardwar, as well as the
Rashtriya Sant Samagam in Delhi. On July 29, 1974, he gave his last initiation sitting to well
over one thousand people.

On August 1, Kirpal Singh addressed the members of the Indian Parliament, and on August 17
presented his last English satsang. Four days later, on August 21, he died at 6:55 p.m. During
his entire ministry Kirpal Singh had initiated 80,446 seekers, both in India and abroad. [*NOTE:

1/17
My statistics come from a personal letter dated May 7, 1988, compiled by the administration at
Sawan Kirpal Ruhani Mission in Vijay Nagar, Delhi. It is reported in the same document that
Kirpal Singh initiated 71,803 people in India, and another 8,643 seekers in various other
countries. However, in most of the literature connected to Kirpal Singh, it has been claimed that
Kirpal Singh initiated between 100,000 and 150,000 people. For instance, Russell Perkins,
former Editor of both Sat Sandesh and Sant Bani , in a personal letter to the author (dated April
7, 1989), writes: ". . . 120,000 [disciples]. This was Sawan Singh's accomplishment, and it was
exactly duplicated [Perkins' brackets] by Kirpal Singh." These exaggerated numbers, as in
Russell Perkins' case, may be partly due to Kirpal Singh's claim to have been entrusted with
finishing the second half of Sawan Singh's ministry; in other words, if Sawan Singh had initiated
125,000 souls in his lifetime, Kirpal Singh's total initiates should be somewhat comparable.
Although 80,000 initiates is still an impressive figure, it does fall 45,000 short of Sawan Singh's
final number. What we have here, of course, is rhetorical license; figures which are ballooned--
consciously or otherwise--to further substantiate the legitimacy and authenticity of Kirpal Singh's
mission. *]

V. DARSHAN SINGH AND THE FOUNDING OF SAWAN-KIRPAL MISSION

With the death of Kirpal Singh there arose an intense controversy over who was his rightful
successor. The first person mentioned by any party to be his spiritual heir was Kirpal Singh's
own son, Darshan Singh. However, certain influential initiates, such as Russell Perkins and
Reno H. Sirrine, could not accept him. This disunion gained further momentum when Madam
Hardevi (also known as Tai Ji), who was a close associate of Kirpal Singh and a direct initiate of
Sawan Singh, was chosen to be the temporal chairman of the Ruhani Satsang and Manav
Kendra societies. In an abrupt turn of events (which we will examine indepth shortly), Darshan
Singh, who was allegedly appointed the master through a will by Kirpal Singh and executed by
Radha Krishna Khanna, was "stripped of the inherent office and duties befitting the successor of
a Param Saint, as well as those as co-chairman." [*NOTE: See Malcolm Tillis' The Emergence of
the New Master Darshan Singh , Part One (Delhi: Kirpal Printing Press, 1975). *] The traditional
dastarbandi ceremony, which was originally set to take place at Sawan Ashram in Old Delhi, did
not occur because Tai Ji and interested associates prevented any peaceful and unanimous
agreement.

Darshan Singh left Sawan Ashram and started his spiritual work at Mona's Cottage in New
Delhi. The break between Madam Hardevi and Darshan Singh was never mended, and several
lawsuits were taken by both parties concerning property rights. Eventually, Darshan Singh and
most of the Ruhani Satsang sangat, which rallied around him, established Sawan-Kirpal ashram
in Vijay Nagar, Old Delhi. The activities were subsumed under the name Sawan-Kirpal Mission
and a complete separation now exists between the Ruhani Satsang organization of the late
Madam Hardevi and Darshan Singh's movement.

In line with Kirpal Singh's contention that the mastership is not merely passed through wills,
documents or committees, Darshan Singh revealed that prior to his father's passing he had
2/17
personally received the light and power through the master's eyes. The will was only an outer
confirmation of an inner event.

In two letters written in September of 1974, just a month after his father's demise, Darshan
Singh explained the circumstances behind his appointment. The first letter, dated September
26, 1974, was sent to Tricholan Singh Khanna, Kirpal Singh's first and foremost representative
in the United States. He cannot be
a guru
My nomination as My Beloved Father's Spiritual Successor derives circumstantial support from
the fact that a woman could not be so nominated according to Sant Mat tradition. Such a thing
never happened throughout the ages. My Beloved Father had taken care that I imbibe the
qualities which would be helpful in carrying on the Satsang work. I have, under the
circumstances, no hesitation in declaring myself as the Spiritual Successor of His Holiness
Maharaj Kirpal Singh Ji in conformity with His wishes and shall carry on the Satsang work to the
best of my ability. . . I am sorry to find that Mr. Sirrine concluded from his talk with Tai Ji (Bibi
Hardevi) and her supporters that the Master had not nominated anyone as His Spiritual
Successor. [*NOTE: There is an interesting sidelight here to Darshan Singh's letter. He claims
that "a woman could not be so nominated according to Sant Mat tradition." The problem with
this statement, though, is that it directly contradicts the historical evidence that Shiv Dayal
Singh's wife, Radhaji, was appointed to serve as a guru, and did, in fact, conduct initiations.
Furthermore, in the lineage of Soami Bagh gurus, Maheshwari Devi (Buaji Saheb), a female,
was the fourth recognized master. It is also known that the late Baba Faqir Chand nominated
several women to serve as initiating gurus. T.S. Khanna also makes the same theological and
historical claims concerning women when he wrote, "In the whole history of Sant Mat (Path of
the Masters) in India, no woman has ever attained the position of a spiritual leader or guide.
This did not happen in the case of the ten Sikh Gurus, nor at Dyal Bagh [sic] or Swamibagh Agra
[sic], not at Dera Baba Jaimal Singh at Beas." See Truth Uncovered: Re--Successor To Great
Master Kirpal Singh Ji (privately circulated booklet, November 1974). Although Khanna is
historically wrong in his allegations (as we already mentioned, Soami Bagh's fourth guru was a
woman), it appears that his view on women is based upon Kirpal Singh's testimony. For
instance, in Spiritual Elixir, Volume II (Delhi: Ruhani Satsang, 1972), when Kirpal Singh was
asked, "Why do the Great Masters on earth always take the form of man?" He responded: " The
Masters claim that there is only one Male gender amongst the souls,a nd He generally manifests
on the chosen human Pole of the Living Master. It is a Divine Law which cannot be questioned
by mortals. " [Page 33.] Kirpal Singh, Darshan Singh, and T.S. Khanna's claim raises several
interesting historical, sociological, and theological issues which are beyond the scope of our
study. *]

Although Darshan Singh does not mention her by name, it is obvious from the previous excerpt
that he is denouncing Madam Hardevi's claim for the gaddi at Sawan Ashram, since, as he
claims, "a woman could not be so nominated according to Sant Mat tradition." Darshan Singh is
also disappointed that Reno Sirrine has sided with her and concluded that Kirpal Singh did not
3/17
leave a spiritual successor.

Unlike his first letter to Khanna, which was warmly received and accepted as a true
recapitulation of the facts, Darshan Singh's second letter, written to Russell Perkins, dated
September 30, 1974, met with stern criticism:

After the Beloved Master left for his Home Eternal on September 21, 1974 [sic: Kirpal Singh
died on August 21], some vital events took place in the Ashram, which are narrated below-- On
the morning of 23rd August, respected Tai Ji called me and my wife and informed us that
Maharaj Ji had made a will, in which he had declared me as His Spiritual Successor. I told her
that Maharaj Ji had talked to me about this personally sometime back. She expressed no
surprise at this and said he did so at her insistence, and she added that she would search for
the original will in the Master's papers. . . . In reply to [Mr A.R. Manocha, the Secretary of the
Managing Committee] she told him that he did make a will in my favour, but the will was not
traceable. Since the will was not available, Secretary, along with members of the Managing
Committee approached Mr. Radha Krishan, an eminent lawyer. . . who had drafted the will, to
confirm the execution of the will and to ascertain its contents. After getting the first hand
information from the Lawyer, a meeting of the Managing Committee of the Kirpal Ruhani
Satsang was held on 26th August, 1974, and the Committee unanimously adopted a Resolution
declaring me to be the Spiritual Successor of Maharaj Kirpal Singh Ji according to his wishes. . .
. It is a fact that my Respected Father did execute a will in my favour and had verbally also told
me on several occasions in his talks with me about it. In his talks he had exhorted me to prepare
myself for the spiritual work. According to His wishes, I shall carry on the Sat Sang work as his
spiritual successor to be [sic] of my ability and shall add to it the initiation of would-be devotees
when I feel the divine call to do so, which I hope and trust the Great Master shall not delay too
long. These people wants to be Guru

The intriguing aspect of Darshan Singh's preceding letter is his emphasis on the written will by
his father, Kirpal Singh, designating him as the spiritual successor. Remember that in Kirpal
Singh's own claims as his guru's heir, he denounced wills and committees as validating
processes of a successor's position. Rather, Kirpal Singh emphasized the inner, experiential
realm as the true test of a guru's spiritual worth. This point, however, was not missed by Russell
Perkins, who took sharp exception to Darshan Singh's allegations about the will. In his response
to Darshan Singh, dated October 17, 1974, Russell Perkins commented on the issue of wills:

Your description of the events of the week following Master's leaving makes for very depressing
reading--almost as depressing as living through that week there, which I did. It seemed to me
both terrible and unthinkable to install someone on the dais by vote of the Committees,
according to the instructions of a will that no one there had seen, about whom there was no
pretense of spiritual competency. How many times did our Master say, "Masters are not made
by voting, etc.: they are made by God!. . . ." Master said hundreds of times that spirituality and
the successorship was never transmitted through documents. If this is so, then of what
importance is the will? The only thing that can be inherited or transferred by paper is property;
4/17
and what does a Saint care about property? The Ashram, the dais, the official title--these are
things that might be conveyed through a will, that's true. But the ability to give Naam? The
competency to take seekers Home? Never. We have our Master's word for that. . . .

Perkins' letter, though it was widely distributed, did not squelch Darshan Singh's candidacy.
Rather, Darshan Singh's supporters became more vocal in their defense. Although they
conceded that spiritual power could not be passed on through a will, they argued that it was an
outward sign of an inner event; and, as such, had merit for validating Darshan Singh's
emergence. In defense of the will and the transmission of initiatory power to Darshan Singh,
Tricholan Singh Khanna wrote a four page letter, dated February 17, 1975, to Reno Sirrine:

As regards the Will I may state that: 1. Spiritual Power, grace, love and Light was passed on by
the Master Kirpal Singh to Darshan Singh Ji, through the eyes on the evening of August 19,
1974. Two witnesses were also present. 2. [sic] The WILL was executed, as CONFIRMATION,
in consonance with Rule 4 of the Society's Constitution and cannot be disputed because Malik
Radha Krishan Khanna, M.A. L.L.B an eminent lawyer of the Supreme Court of India has stated
that he himself prepared the Will, which was signed by the Master Kirpal Singh and also
witnessed by two persons. . . . 3. [sic] The Master told to several important people that He
executed the Will in favour of His son Darshan Singh to be His successor. We have in our
possession Master's own tape recording in Hindi in which He declared that He made a Will after
the return from Mahajan Nursing Home, Delhi and not before. 4. [sic] There is solid proof inner
and outer that Sant Darshan Singh is the true successor of the Great Master Kirpal Singh.
Thousands are testifying to the appearance of the radiant forms of Masters Sawan Singh, Kirpal
Singh, and Darshan Singh together. There is no mistaking of the credentials of Sant Darshan
Singh. . . .

Thus it is evident that Darshan Singh's constituents not only cited written , outward evidence,
but also personal testimony and inner experience as validation of his claim as Kirpal Singh's
successor. Below are the four major forms of verification provided:

1. Verbal testimony about a written will by Kirpal Singh, drafted by R.K. Khanna, stating explicitly
that his son, Darshan Singh, would be his spiritual successor. 2. A Resolution by the Managing
Committee of the Kirpal Ruhani Satsang, unanimously adopted, which declared Darshan Singh
the spiritual successor of Kirpal Singh. 3. Personal testimonies and recollections by prominent
satsangis and religious personages, including Acharya Sushil Kumar, about how Kirpal Singh
verbally mentioned that Darshan Singh would be his successor. 4. Reports of various meditation
experiences, where satsangis saw the radiant form of Darshan Singh accompany the inner form
of Kirpal Singh.

Wills, Paradoxes, and Ideological Discourse

Darshan Singh's candidacy represents a classic example of how the ideological discourse of a
preceding guru campaign (in this case, the Dera successors versus Kirpal Singh) influences a
5/17
succeeding guru's rhetorical strategies. For instance, it is well documented that Kirpal Singh
disavowed wills or committees as an authentic process of guru succession. Furthermore, Kirpal
Singh made several critical comments against blood lineages, where the family members (sons
or grandsons) attempt to take over the gaddi. Yet, ironically, this was precisely how Darshan
Singh was appointed; he was given the mantleship by a will written by his father . The peculiarity
of this kind of transmission was immediately recognized and criticized by a large number of
Kirpal Singh initiates. In fact, it may well be that those who resist Darshan Singh's candidacy
have done so based primarily on Kirpal Singh's statements against wills and blood lineages. In
a circular distributed by three of Kirpal Singh's main sangats (Amritsar Centre, Chandigarh
Centre, and Kashipur Centre), dated November 19th, 1974, the following arguments were made
against Darshan Singh:

Now the arguments against the "Will" are innumerable: (a) Master's teachings of 27 years, that
are on record and where he had always laid mphasis [sic] against the passing of Guru Gaddi to
any member of the family. (b) Master's emphatic assertion that after him, his children or relations
or any member of the Trust should have nothing to do with the Spiritual Mission or the property
of the Ashram. (c) After returning from the hospital in August 71, thereafter repeatedly in
subsequent Satsangs the [sic: should be "he"] is on record as saying that the rumours spread by
some people that he had written a "Will" and nominated a Successor are a piece of trash and
sheer nonsense. (d) Master's argument against [a] "Will" vix-a-viz [sic] developments in Beas
was that spirituality is never transferred by [sic] "Wills" and his emphasis that from Guru Nanak
down to Baba Jaimal Singh, (Indian Archives being a witness) never has the aid of a "Will" been
sought for the transfer of spirituality. If it is invalid in other cases of Guru Gaddi in history--how
could the practice be changed in the case of Baba Sawan Singh Ji Maharaj and consequently
Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj. . . .

Darshan Singh seemingly was stuck in a "Catch-22" situation. If he emphasized the legitimacy
of the will (which he did in his personal letter to Russell Perkins, shortly after his father's
demise), he automatically contradicts his father's criticism of the legalistic convention and
disenfranchises a significant faction of the sangat who are bound by Kirpal Singh's statements
on the subject. Yet, if Darshan Singh does not mention the will he loses a very powerful and
objective document supporting his nomination. As it turned out, Darshan Singh's solution was to
cite the will as evidence, along with his own personal testimony that he had received the spiritual
power and radiance from Kirpal Singh "through the eyes" just prior to his predecessor's
departure. [*NOTE: Primarily because of Kirpal Singh's original claim back in 1947-1948 about
receiving the spiritual mastership from Sawan Singh "through the eyes," most his alleged
successors have also tried to substantiate their positions by referring to their own particular
"through the eyes" commission. Sociologically speaking, the utility of invoking such a modus
operandi is obvious: it directly connects the would-be successor with his guru in a ritually
acceptable format that has a unique historical precedence, thereby establishing the validity of
his claims and (hopefully) distinguishing his succession from other fledgling candidates. *] In
doing this, Darshan Singh was able to substantiate his position by both outer and inner
6/17
testimonies. [*NOTE: It can be argued that because Darshan Singh centered his succession
campaign around outer evidence, at least initially, he was able to establish the primacy of his
nomination in a way that other successors, who lacked such documentation, could not. This
same point is even more evident in the case of Rajinder Singh, Darshan Singh's son and
(apparently) sole successor, who had overwhelming outward evidence supporting his
nomination. *]

Darshan Singh's emphasis on his father's last will seems to be due, if not wholly at least
partially, to what transpired at Beas after Sawan Singh's death. Because there was outward
evidence confirming Jagat Singh's (and later Charan Singh's) status as a bona fide successor to
Sawan Singh, the vast majority of satsangis sided with him, not Kirpal Singh. Although Kirpal
Singh did eventually gather a substantial following, it was nowhere near that of Charan Singh's,
who had at least seven times the following Kirpal Singh had during the same time period.
[*NOTE: Today, Charan Singh's following is about 15 times larger than either Kirpal Singh's or
Darshan Singh's total following. *] The reason behind this, according to devout Kirpal Singh and
Darshan Singh followers, was not because of Charan Singh's spiritual power (as mentioned
previously, Kirpal Singh explicitly denies that the Beas leader was spiritually competent), but
due to the fact that he had the networking support of a huge sangat. Charan Singh, in other
words, had the opportunity to build upon a solid and well-planned managing structure.
Apparently, Darshan Singh must have seen the efficacy of Dera's claims and, therefore, could
not resist the tremendous influence that Kirpal Singh's last will would have in consolidating
various parties behind him, even though it overtly went against what his father had preached for
twenty-seven years.

To further buttress this point, one only need to look at Darshan Singh's own last will, nominating
his son Rajinder Singh as his spiritual successor, dated November 17, 1987. Darshan's will,
although longer and more emphatic than Sawan Singh's last will, bears a remarkable similarity
to the form and content of the two historic Dera wills. Indeed, Darshan Singh told Jay and Ricki
Linksman personally in the summer of 1984 that "It is beneficial for the Master to prepare a will
to let others know who the spiritual successor is. Of course, the actual passing of the power is
done through the eyes. But when there is an organization such as Sawan Kirpal Ruhani Mission,
a will is necessary [emphasis mine] to ensure that the mission can continue in a smooth way
under the successor." [ Sat Sandesh , July/August 1989: page 58.] Needless to say, Darshan
Singh's argument dovetails on almost all points with how Dera and its sangat views Sawan
Singh's and Jagat Singh's last wills. Since Darshan Singh's perspective on the importance of
wills is almost diametrically opposite that of his father's, it seems reasonable that Darshan
Singh's ideas were the direct result of what transpired at Beas in 1948 and 1951. [*NOTE: I have
personally met with Darshan Singh on six occasions (Delhi 1978, 1983, 1987, and 1988;
Murrietta Hot Springs 1983 and 1986). Each time I have discussed his relationship with Radha
Soami Satsang Beas, and each time he has only spoken of it in positive terms. It could well be
that the relationship between Beas and Sawan-Kirpal Mission will improve because of what
transpired after Kirpal Singh's death. Indeed, there are some indications (including Darshan
7/17
Singh's willingness before his untimely death to visit important Beas satsangis on different
occasions) that there already has been some major changes in that direction. The sociological
explanation behind this is fairly simple: gurus who have been legitimated/established through
outward, legalistic signs are more likely not to contest other masters who have likewise been
confirmed along similar channels. Thus, it was quite difficult for Kirpal Singh and Charan Singh
to establish close ties, since each was appointed in divergent ways. However, such is not
necessarily the case with Darshan Singh (or his son, Rajinder Singh), who emphasized outer
criteria at the beginning and end of his ministry. Of course, this is not to suggest that there are
still no major obstacles barring a tight relationship between Beas and Sawan-Kirpal Mission,
especially given that Kirpal Singh founded his group in spite of Jagat Singh's assumption of the
mantle at Dera Baba Jaimal Singh in 1948. A good illustration of how battling sangats can
eventually meet peacefully and cordially can be seen in the pact signed between Dayal Bagh
and Beas in the early 1930's. Anand Sarup and Sawan Singh, the respective leaders, met in
Agra and agreed not to criticize one another (or their particular interpretations of Radhasoami
Mat) and instructed their disciples to follow suit. The written agreement, it should be added,
probably could not have been possible unless Dayal Bagh and Beas had been fairly well
established and their succession disputes decades old--which they were in the 1930's. *]

From the foregoing, we can see that the routinization of spiritual authority--that is, the historical
precedents of gaddi nasheen succession--can have a direct impact on the way future guru
claimants orchestrate their particular claims. Darshan Singh's stress on a will arises, as we have
noted, from the practical efficacy of its use at Dera Baba Jaimal Singh. R.K. Khanna, the lawyer
who drafted Kirpal Singh's last will, explained the utility of such a legal device to Vinod Sena:

Vinod Sena : Many people have spoken of the a seeming contradiction between the Master's
teachings about this business of spiritual Power passing from one Master to the next, and His
making a Will. Do you think there is a such a contradiction?" M.R.K.K. : I think there is no
contradiction between the passing of the Master's Power to another Master and His making a
Will. It was done probably because He felt that there were some forces in Sawan Ashram
around Him who would question successorship after His departure so He wanted to reduce it
into writing. Secondly, He did so on my advice as a lawyer. . . . There is no contradiction. . . .
[*NOTE: Malcolm Tillis, The Emergence of the New Master Darshan Singh , op. cit., pages 103-
104. *]

The Politics of Inner Experience

Since Kirpal Singh made inner experience the chief litmus test in appraising a guru's
competence, all of Kirpal Singh's successors attempted to demonstrate that they had the power
to grant spiritual experiences during meditation and initiation to sincere devotees. This
emphasis, however, led to some severe epistemological questions among seekers, since
disciples of each successor (e.g., Darshan Singh, Thakar Singh, Ajaib Singh, and even "tape-
recorded" initiates of Kirpal Singh) claimed to have transmundane experiences in the higher
spiritual planes. Thus much of the debate surrounding successorship centered on who was
8/17
"competent" to transmit divine encounters of light and sound, and less on who possessed the
proper "outer" credentials. This development, which is consistent with Kirpal Singh's assumption
of the mastership, generated an extremely esoteric debate over the authenticity of inner
experiences. Instead of a unified body of reports all agreeing about the spiritual mastership of
one genuine successor to Kirpal Singh, there were a plethora of differing stories, each of which
appeared to back the charismatic prowess of the guru in question.

A classic illustration of this "politics of inner experience" comes from a letter exchange between
Michael Grayson, a Darshan Singh supporter, and Arran Stephens, a strong critic (at that time)
of Darshan Singh's role. Below are excerpts from Michael Grayson's original letter and Arran
Stephens' rebuttal claiming that Grayson's "spectacular experiences" on the inner planes with
Darshan Singh (thereby confirming Darshan Singh's exalted attainment) are nothing but
"projections of [his] own wishes on the astral plane."

{Michael Grayson Letter}

Dear Beloved Master Darshan Singh Ji: This unworthy one is so pleased to be able to tell You
that on Saturday evening, October 26th, 1974, the Radiant Form of our Beloved Kirpal appeared
within to this unworthy one and, while standing the test of the 5 charged Names, spoke to me
and told me that You [Darshan Singh] are the next Master and that You are truly His Beloved
Son and that I should serve You to the best of my ability. Since then our Beloved Kirpal and also
Hazur Baba Sawan Singh Ji have appeared within numerous times to confirm this. The Master
within has given this unworthy one the order to write this letter since in some small way it might
help to clear up some of the confusion of the dear ones who in many cases are falling prey to
the feelings, emotions and inferences of others who are only going on the impressions of their
outer eyes and not the inner. . . . The master will not do this, as he doesn't want
{Arran Stephens Letter} anyone to share his experiencd with others

Dear brother Michael:

If, on account of divulging inner spiritual experiences in this letter I am retarded on the Way, or
sent to Hell, then Master's words about Ramanuja will be my comforter: "Never mind if I go to
hell. You'll be saved! I'll suffer Hell for your sake. . . ." Hundreds of times since our precious
Beloved left for His Heavenly Home, He has appeared to this unworthy child--in India, on the
plane, wherever & whenever the chance was seized to withdraw "into the foxhole of the brain"
(while chanting the charged passwords of the Five Names. . .) Never once did He indicate to me
His respected physical son Darshan Singh Ji was or is to be the next Param Sant--and unless
He does, I find it my duty to try to protect the spiritual interests of the Initiates and new seekers
by informing them of my position. The rest, of course is in His Hands. Always was. . . . On
november 9th morning [sic], while sitting in Bhajan, the Lord kindly withdrew this soul first from
the body below, up to and through His (Kirpal's) Luminous Form, and thence into Trikuti, the
Causal plane of transcendent Red Rising Sun and deafening soul-melting thunder and
9/17
Drumbeats, still yet transcended by higher, sweeter symphonies, impossible to describe, and
sacreligious [sic] to try. As this soul communed with the Intoxicating Naam, the Holy Naam Itself
transformed into a Heavenly Voice, and three times, with the great Oceanic Power gave out the
name of a Man, who, it is assumed, will carry out the highest spiritual responsibility of Master's
divine Mission. It was not Darshan Singh Ji. [Arran Stephens later said it was Ajaib Singh of
Rajasthan.] [*NOTE: Interview with Arran Stephens (telephone, June 1978). In my conversation
with Stephens at the time he appeared fully convinced that Ajaib Singh was a genuine master.
Although the revealing of inner experiences in Sant Mat is forbidden, except in very rare cases,
Stephens told me in some detail about how he had left the body and ventured as far as
Bhanwar Gupha, the fourth inner plane according to the cosmology of the saints, and was
informed via the Shabd that Ajaib Singh was competent to lead souls on the spiritual journey.
Stephens' later switch to Darshan Singh was, to say the least, highly unexpected. *] I can only
understand your [Michael Grayson's] spectacular experiences as projections of your own
wishes on the astral plane. They do not coincide with many other devotees experiences who
regularly see Master or His Master inside. Some others here have had experiences, while doing
simran, of another radiant one, who had appeared to some, including at least one non-initiate in
vivid dreams, wherein was communicated the name, details of appearance etc,. even though
these persons had never seen a photograph of him. No dear Darshan Singh. . . . I believe that
you have been seeing the result of your intense wishes to have Master in the flesh, but as you
were psychologically pre-conditioned due to your long and close friendship with Master's son,
you have allowed and desired another form to sit on the throne of your heart, which should be
exclusively reserved for Master, in spite of your doing simran. . . Look at Paul Twitchell, who was
"talking [sic] with the Master on the inner planes" and several others like him who were led
astray by the promptings of their own powerfully developed subtle mind. You will probably say
the same of anyone who will not agree with you. . . .

What is clearly evident from Stephens' letter is that the politics of guru successorship does not
radically change even if it moves to a more esoteric (astral or causal) plane. The political
rhetoric and debate is essentially the same: "your perception of truth is misguided, whereas I
have a genuine glimpse into the real nature of things." [*NOTE: Although the content of
transpersonal debates may be different than regular political arguments, the structure behind
both of them is remarkable the same: you are wrong--I am right (or, at least, variations along
that dualistic spectrum). Inner experiences, as such, never truly enter into the debate, since
various parties are only dealing and arguing with testimonies or reports of mystical excursions.
Moreover, the cultural filter through which these experiences much pass should not be
neglected. Even the so-called phenomenologically "pure" out-of-body transports are not without
a cultural bias, as exemplified in Near-Death Experiences (N.D.E.'s) where the content of what
one perceives is flavored by his or her religious background. Christians see Jesus, not Buddha;
Hindus see Krishna, Rama, and a plethora of Gods, not Jehovah; Muslims see Allah, not
Vishnu; and Sikhs see Guru Nanak or Guru Gobind Singh, not the Virgin Mary. The reason is
obvious: although individuals may indeed transcend to a higher plane of consciousness and see
light at the end of a long tunnel, they interpret the nature of that light according to their specific
10/17
religious and social backgrounds. For more on this intriguing phenomenon, see The Unknowing
Sage: The Life and Work of Baba Faqir Chand (Del Mar: Del Mar Press, 1989). *] It is a conflict
over testimonies, perceptions, and personal recollections. There is no difference between
"inner" experience arguments and "outer" experience arguments (since both deal with
testimonies of experiences), except over the issue of "proof." What constitutes proof in the
waking sense world is, at least, open to consensus agreement, whereas inner experiences lack
any universal guideline. [*NOTE: This is not suggest that attempts have not been made to
establish some sort of objective grid for appraising inner experiences. For more on this issue
see Ken Wilber's A Sociable God (New York: McGraw Hill, 1983) and M. Whiteman's The
Meaning of Life ((1986). *] Whether Kirpal Singh intended it or not, his repeated emphasis on
inner experiences created a Pandora's box, which raises more questions than it answers, for
almost anybody can claim to have inner confirmation about his spiritual function. (We need look
no further than to television evangelists for an illustration of this problem of "personal"
revelation.) The ironic twist in the Grayson-Stephens debate is that Arran Stephens switched
over to Darshan Singh four years later, despite claiming to have had divine revelations about
Ajaib Singh's mastership on the "fourth plane--Bhanwar Gupha." [*NOTE: P>ersonal Interview ,
op. cit. *]

The Vanshavali Lineage: From Father to Son to Son

Darshan Singh's biggest obstacle in establishing his ministry was, surprisingly enough, that he
was Kirpal Singh's blood son. In other cases of spiritual or political succession such a fact would
help buttress a vying candidate, but in the context of Ruhani Satsang it worked against Darshan
Singh because his father had implicitly (and at times, we are told, explicitly ) [*NOTE: A number
of Kirpal Singh initiates have informed me of a long-standing story which apparently dates back
to 1963. Allegedly, Kirpal Singh had stated that he would not appoint any one from his family to
succeed him. Thus, for a number of initiates attending that meeting, it was inconceivable that
Kirpal Singh would appoint his eldest son, Darshan Singh. The authenticity of Kirpal Singh's
statements, as far as I know, have not been questioned. However, Darshan Singh initiates do
question the literal interpretation of Kirpal Singh's pronouncement. As one devout Darshan
Singh follower told me, "Yes, Kirpal Singh did say that, but he was referring to his "spiritual"
sons--those initiated by him personally. For you see, Darshan Singh is an initiate of Sawan
Singh, and thus not technically a "son" of Kirpal's in the spiritual sense of the term." ( interview
with Brian Walsh , 1983.) *] argued against vanshavali or hereditary gurus. Indeed, one of Kirpal
Singh's claims against the Dera successors was that they were in cohoots with Sawan Singh's
family. A number of Ruhani Satsang followers, especially those who sided with Kirpal Singh's
testimony about what transpired at Beas in 1948, could not accept Charan Singh's assumption
of the mantle precisely because he was a grandson of Sawan Singh. Given this historical
perspective, Darshan Singh's candidacy generated severe doubts over his genuineness. But
since no other candidate (Thakar Singh and Ajaib Singh not withstanding) attracted the bulk of
the sangat, the contradictions in Darshan Singh's succession rhetoric were partially overlooked
and put aside by the core of his eventual following.
11/17
The blood connection again arose when Darshan Singh appointed his son, Rajinder Singh, to
succeed him as his sole spiritual successor and head of Sawan-Kirpal Mission. Although
Darshan Singh's death in late May of 1989 came as a surprise, his nomination of Rajinder did
not. In fact, a number of outside observers to the movement--including myself--had been
informed implicitly by both Darshan Singh and a few of his disciples that his eldest son was a
leading candidate for the position. However, to those followers of Kirpal Singh who had resisted
Darshan Singh's candidacy because of his blood ties and method of acceptance, the
nomination of Rajinder was difficult to accept for two major reasons: 1) because it confirmed
that Sawan-Kirpal Mission reflected a vanshavali lineage; and 2) because a registered will had
been employed (and, more importantly, praised ) by Darshan Singh to nominate his son and
successor.

The Unexpected Death of Darshan Singh

When Darshan Singh died on May 30, 1989, it came as a shock to his thousands of followers.
They simply had not expected their guru to die when he had made extensive plans for a satsang
tour to commence in North America early that summer. Funds had been arranged, dates had
been set, and advertisements had been prepared--all in the clear expectation that Darshan
Singh would carry through on his intended agenda. Thus when the news came that Darshan
Singh had died sometime between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m. in the early morning of Tuesday, May 30,
his disciples were genuinely surprised. In the article, "Until We Meet Again," the Sat Sandesh
Editorial Staff wrote:

Within hours, the news of his [Darshan Singh's] passing reached family, friends, and disciples all
over the world. The shock was immeasurable to each. It seemed that his or her best friend and
best Beloved had suddenly departed. . . Thus, it appeared that the Master did not want anyone
to know beforehand, lest there be panic and chaos in his last few months. [*NOTE: Sat Sandesh
(July/August 1989), page 8. If I may interject a personal note here, I was notified by Brian
Walsh, an initiate of Darshan Singh, of his guru's death about 12 hours after it occurred.
Immediately, I was in contact with a number of key members of Sawan-Kirpal Mission, who
appeared to be genuinely shocked by the suddenness of Darshan Singh's transition. *]

Even though Darshan Singh did not overtly inform his constituency of his impending departure,
he did nevertheless make it irrevocably clear that he wanted his son, Rajinder, to succeed him
as Spiritual Master of Sawan-Kirpal Mission. In fact, Darshan went to great lengths in order to
insure that his son--and apparently only his son--would assume his spiritual mantle. Darshan
accomplished this by drafting an exceptionally cogent last will in which he named his son as his
heir apparent. Below is an unedited transcription of the will:

Know all by these presents that I, Darshan Singh son of H.H. Sant Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj of
revered memory, in full possession of my senses and in perfect disposing state of mind without
any sort of coercion and without any extraneous pressure of any kind whatsoever and after
mature thinking, hereby nominate Shri Rajinder Singh Duggal, my elder son, as my sole spiritual
He is not a Guru 12/17
successor, in view of his strong spiritual attainments and manifold qualities of head and heart,
who will become the next living Master and will take over the spiritual tasks of Naam-initiation
and of conducting Satsang after I leave the physical body. I also nominate the said Shir Rajinder
Singh Duggal as spiritual head of Sawan Kirpal Ruhani Mission (Registered Society), Delhi;
Sawan Kirpal Ruhani Mission (Science of Spirituality) in United States of America; Darshan
Science of the Soul Inc. in United States of America; Sawan Kirpal Ruhani Mission (Science of
Spirituality) in Germany and their affiliated organisations, existing at present and those which
may be floated hereafter. I also nominate the said Shri Rajinder Singh Duggal as Chairman of
Sawan Kirpal Ruhani Mission (Registered Society), Delhi, after my demise. In witness of the
above, I, Darshan Singh, have set my hands to this document on this {17th} day of November,
1987. Delhi, dated the 17th November, 1987 Signed: Darshan Singh

To further ensure his nomination of Rajinder, Darshan Singh placed copies of the will in the
following hands: 1) Delhi Registrar Office; 2) Riggs National Bank in Washington, D.C.; and 3)
one copy with Mr. Amarnath Sharma. Moreover, Riggs National Bank was instructed to send
photocopies of the will to ten Sawan-Kirpal Mission leaders around the world. In the article "The
Light Continues" Ricki Linksman describes some of the major events surrounding Darshan
Singh's preparation of the will and his nomination of Rajinder. Below are some of the key points
from that article:

1) In February 1987 the Master [Darshan Singh] started to prepare his will. It was signed on
November 17, 1987, in the presence of Raja Jaswant Singh, Mr. A.R. Manocha, Mr. S.P.
Chopra, and Dr. Dave. 2) On Wednesday, November 5, 1986, unbeknownst to the sangat,
Master Darshan Singh transferred the spiritual power through the eyes to Rajinder Singh. 3)
The first time the Master told Rajinder Singh about carrying on the mission after him was in
December 1985, in Delhi. 4) In the last two years, the Master told certain people that he had
chosen Rajinder Singh as his successor. In India he told: Raja Jaswant Singh, Mr. A.R.
Manocha, Mr. S.P. Chopra, Mr. R.K. Jain, Mr. I.R. Malik, Dr. R.B. Gupta, and Dr. Dave. . . .
[*NOTE: Sat Sandesh , July/August 1989, pages 58-62. *]

Darshan Singh's succession will exemplifies how language and rhetoric--especially in a legal
context--are directly influenced by underlying social forces or tensions. In many ways, a close
textual analysis of the succession will reveals in a nutshell the kinds of political problems
surrounding guru succession in general and in Radhasoami in particular. For instance, when the
use of such key phrases as "sole spiritual successor" appear in the text, it is readily obvious to a
student of Ruhani Satsang history that Darshan Singh is trying to avoid the confusion that
transpired after his father's death in 1974 when a multiple number of would-be successors
emerged. Even the beginning of the will, which contains five categorical statements about the
lack of coercion involved in the will's design, indicates that there was a question [*NOTE: 1) "In
full possession of my senses"; 2) "in perfect disposing state of mind"; 3) "without any sort of
coercion"; 4) "without any extraneous pressure"; and 5) "after mature thinking." *] or a doubt
about how previous Radhasoami wills were drawn. Although it is normal to clarify demonstrably

13/17
the well being and lucidity of a will writer, it is usually done in one or two phrases. Arguably, the
repeated emphasis on Darshan Singh's lucidity stems directly from Sawan Singh's last will in
1948, which was questioned by Kirpal Singh and his followers for several reasons, including the
contentious issue of whether Sawan Singh was manipulated (presumably by family members)
into signing over his spiritual mantleship.

Naturally, Darshan Singh would alleviate much of this kind of speculation--speculation which
can hamper the integrity of a newly emerging leader--by repeatedly emphasizing his clarity of
mind when drawing the will. What we see here is the politics of succession rhetoric. What may
at first glance appear to be a simple way of writing, turns out to be on closer inspection a
politically sensitive way of ferreting out factionalism. [*NOTE: The will also clearly indicates that
Rajinder Singh is "spiritually competent," even prior to assuming the mastership. *]

It is precisely in the "abruptness" of Darshan Singh's transition where most of the "ideological
work" among his disciples can be seen. For instance, I was keenly interested in seeing how
"stories" would develop over time immediately following the death of a master. My hunch was
that if a guru died unexpectedly (heart attack, car accident, etc.), there would develop over time
new stories, new developments, and new twists about how he really did know of his impending
transition. The motivation behind developing these stories was quite obvious: a genuine master
in the Radhasoami tradition is supposed to have access to trans-rational domains of existence;
knowledge of his physical transition is taken as a given in Sant mat theology. Thus, regardless
of the apparent "unknowing" qualities surrounding a guru's death, disciples generally look for
clues or hints about the "knowingness" of their master.

In Darshan Singh's case, although his last will indicates that he was well aware of his mortality,
his planned trip to America in the summer of 1989 suggests that he was not sure of the exact
date of his departure. Why else plan such an expensive trip? Why set up the elaborate publicity
in the first place? This incongruity--theology which demands the foreknowledge of death and
the practical outcome which betrays precise knowledge--is exactly where ideological work
begins. Although it may not be immediate, it does occur fairly quickly. Why? To bridge the gap
when theory and practice are apparently inconsistent. As Bennett Berger sharply points out,
vying gurus are involved in "ideological work [which] enables those engaged in intellectual
combat to attempt to persuade their critics and their constituents (more or less plausibly in
different cases) that apparent discrepancies between preaching and practice are in fact illusory
and can be successfully resolved." [*NOTE: For more on "ideological work," especially among
rural communards, see Bennett Berger's The Survival of a Counterculture (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1981). *]

Hence what we see in the death of Darshan Singh is a seeming paradox to his followers: he's
supposed to be all knowing (Berger's preaching ) but his actions (Berger's practice ) indicate
otherwise. Such a tension, which repeatedly occurs in religious movements of whatever size
and shape, provides earnest disciples with a dilemma, one which both socially and theologically
begs to be resolved. It is precisely in the resolving that much of the political (versus purely
14/17
spiritual ) nature of guru succession and legitimation becomes evident; it is, no doubt, a
grounding revelation for those who only believe in an ethereal transmission of spiritual power.

Although historical facts may in the not so distant future change into hagiographical renditions
making it nearly impossible for scholars to know the difference, the distance between praxis and
theology is much clearer during the lifetime of a guru and just immediately following his or her
death. Thus when one purviews the available documents surrounding Darshan Singh's death,
key words and phrases emerge which reveal what kinds of tensions--unconscious or otherwise-
-surfaced.

For example, in the first major article on Darshan Singh's transition in Sat Sandesh , one of the
subheadings reads, "There Were Many Hints." In light of Berger's concept of ideological work,
the operative word in the preceding title is "hints," that is, something which is not stated explicitly.
In the text itself, for instance, we learn the following:

Within hours, the news of his [Darshan Singh's] passing reached family, friends, and disciples all
over the world. The shock was immeasurable to each. It seemed that his or her best friend and
best Beloved had suddenly departed. But even as this loss began to register, those who had
been with the Master or spoken to him in the final days and weeks, began recollecting remarks
and statements from the Master. Clearly, he had been giving hints of his impending departure
from amongst us. But they were so subtle that those who heard him could understand the full
meaning of his words only after the irrevocable parting. . . Thus, it appeared that the Master did
not want anyone to know beforehand, lest there be panic and chaos in his last few months. At
the same time, the Master gave enough clues that in retrospect we would realize that he did
know that he was leaving--and when he was to depart. [*NOTE: Sat Sandesh , op. cit., page 8.
*]

In the preceding passage alone six key words or phrases are apparent, each of which indicate
that some kind of ideological work, albeit unconsciously, is going on. For instance, when the
writer says "Clearly, he had been given hints of his impending departure," he/she is revealing not
a unified version of Darshan Singh's death, but rather two contrasting versions. "Clearly" and
"hints" are not meaning corollaries; they are terms, rather, on opposite ends of the definition
spectrum. That this is so becomes evident when we read the next sentence which follows, "But
they were so subtle that those who heard him could understand the full meaning of his words
only after the irrevocable parting." In other words, when Darshan Singh gave hints, they were
not interpreted as such until after he died. Or, to put it more succinctly, the disciples around
Darshan Singh did not believe that their guru was going to die, hence they were in "shock."
Thus what the sangat was faced with were two different death accounts: Darshan knowing of
his death--"clearly"--(what theology demands) and Darshan not knowing of his departure--
"hints"--(what practically occurred). It is this division which the Sat Sandesh article is
addressing, but in ways that are perhaps not consciously intended.

When we do analyze the "clues" given by Darshan Singh prior to his death, we cannot dismiss
15/17
the notion that these clues may already be a product of early ideological work. Sometimes what
starts as a simple story turns out to be over time a fairly advanced yarn, replete with added
nuances and twists. I am not claiming that this is what happened in Darshan Singh's case,
specifically in reference to the stories mentioned in Sat Sandesh , but that we should analyze
such stories with a critical eye. Moreover, it is important to distinguish the simple narrative from
its appended interpretation, something which is a bit difficult to do when interested disciples are
compiling the official history. Although redaction criticism is particularly troublesome with texts
written some 1900 years ago, it is still problematic with new religious writings. In the following
narrative, for instance, the story is embedded with interpretation:

Sant Darshan Singh repeatedly cautioned the sangat in India that his time was short, and urged
them to make the best use of his physical presence. Such exhortations became particularly
urgent in the final weeks. He announced to the sangat on Sunday, May 21, that if anyone
wanted to see him or talk to him, they should do so at the May 28 satsang. They would not have
such an opportunity at the satsang on June 4. Many assumed that after May 28, the Master
would be too busy with preparations for his impending world tour. The real meaning of the
Master's words never crossed their minds. [*NOTE: Sat Sandesh , op. cit., pages 8-9. *]

In skeleton form what we have in the preceding story is not much: Darshan Singh states that
those people wanting to see him should do so at the May 28 satsang. Practically speaking,
everything else is speculation. However, the intention of the passage is not to speculate but
rather to demonstrate in some tangible fashion Darshan's foreknowledge. The succeeding story
attempts to accomplish much of the same.

About ten to fifteen days before he left the body, the Master started giving some hints that he
may not be going on the world tour that was scheduled to begin on June 12. He would say, "I
may go; I may not go." One day, the Master called for Mr. R.K. Jain. When he finally arrived, the
Master asked him why he had been delayed. Mr. Jain explained he was away getting some of
his clothes prepared for the tour. The Master told him, "Can you go without me? If I am not going
on tour, then why are you making arrangements?" [*NOTE: Sat Sandesh , op. cit., page 9. *]

When Darshan Singh displays some hesitancy on going on tour ("I may go; I may not go"), the
article writers are using it as a partial indication of their master's knowingness. Yet, what the
writers are dealing with are not univocal pronouncements; rather, they could be interpreted
several different ways, depending on the audience. To one audience, prior to his departure,
Darshan Singh stated, "If I go on tour, I will not be coming back this time," a comment that the
article writers claim was interpreted in the following way: "At the time, they assumed he was not
going to return to the ashram, but would stay in America. In the face of such remarks [by
Darshan Singh], when the Master's wife asked him to decide one way or the other whether he
was going on tour, Sant Darshan Singh changed the subject." [*NOTE: Sat Sandesh , op. cit.,
page 10. Other interesting incidents which are cited by the authors include Darshan Singh's last
conversations with his youngest son, Bawa, and his wife, Harbhajan Kaur. Both recollections,
though not explicit in themselves, are interpreted as meaningful premonitions. *]
16/17
If we bracket the interpretation of the writers, what we essentially have in Darshan Singh's
comments are ambiguity. Nothing clearly suggests either way what Darshan Singh may have
actually been thinking or not thinking. To overcome this ambiguity, interested devotees
attempted to correlate or reconcile the implicit, hidden knowingness of their guru with his
explicit, public unknowingness. It is the kind of paradox which is at the very heart of all
ideological work. [*NOTE: Even the writers for the Special Memorial Issue on Sant Darshan
Singh were aware of the abruptness of their guru's death. In the section entitled "Hints of the
Master's Departure," it reads: "Although few people recognized them as such, in retrospect it is
clear that in the last few days and weeks, Master gave many clues of his departure." Page 25,
op. cit. *]

Despite Darshan's unexpected demise, it should be remembered that his succession was one
of the smoothest in all of Radhasoami history. As we have pointed out there were a number of
reasons for this, but primary among these was Darshan Singh's univocal last will which stressed
the nomination of his son Rajinder. Darshan Singh's fully substantiated views on this matter
have prevented any serious succession crises which may have arisen in the absence of such
clarity. However, the blood connection still presents some problematic issues for long-time
Kirpal Singh followers, who continue to wrestle with the seeming incongruity of a purely spiritual
master/disciple transmission and a vanshavali lineage. [*NOTE: Apparently the family
connection in Sawan-Kirpal Mission is not as troublesome an issue among initiates of Darhsan
Singh or Rajinder Singh as it is among direct Kirpal Singh initiates. No doubt this has much to
do with expectations one has while joining and later bonding with the movement. If, for example,
one knows beforehand that the leader in question is related through blood ties to his guru and
his guru's guru and still joins the group, the family connection may even act as a legitimizing
force. Whereas, on the other hand, if one believes that their guru is not related by blood,
nepotism may be seen as an disqualifying factor. *]

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at [email protected]

I want to go back to the home base now.

17/17
Radhasoami: chapter five
dlane5.tripod.com /rs5.html

Author: David Christopher Lane

Publisher: Garland
Publication date: 1992

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at [email protected]

I want to go back to the home base now.

Chapter Five

MINORITY SUCCESSION

The Logic of Marginality

VI. THAKAR SINGH AND THE FOUNDING OF KIRPAL LIGHT SATSANG

In February of 1976, Thakar Singh became the initiating guru at Sawan Ashram under the
approval of Madam Hardevi, who was the administrative chairwoman. In A Brief History of Mine
, Thakar describes his commission to serve as a guru:

At night my Master internally gave me some hints about my future work in some peculier [sic]
way. I meditated continuously for fifteen months, i.e., up to November 20, 1975 and had so
many indications for the future but I felt so ashamed that I never felt that I should dare be doing
this. Lastly, in the beginning of February 1976, I was left with no alternative but to obey and am
before you as your unpaid servant, only to serve the dear sons and daughters of my Master. . . .
[*NOTE: Thakar Singh, A Brief History of Mine (Delhi: Sawan Ashram, n.d.), pamphlet. *]

Thakar Singh's assumption of the gaddi at Sawan Ashram was instigated by Madam Hardevi,
who, in order to keep legal rights to the ashram, needed to have a viable successor to the late
Kirpal Singh. Moreover, there was the controversial issue raised by Darshan Singh and others
that a woman could not be appointed as a Satguru. Such mitigating circumstances prompted
Madam Hardevi to "interview" potential candidates for the position; after some deliberation, and
tremendous political in-fighting at the ashram, Hardevi settled on Thakar Singh. Thakar Singh's
candidacy was never seriously entertained, however, by a large majority of the sangat, since he
was Hardevi's, not Kirpal Singh's, own appointment (and thus not a genuine master in his own
right). Furthermore, Thakar Singh lacked any substantial written or verbal evidence from his
guru which would have backed his claims.

1/25
When I met Thakar Singh at Sawan Ashram in Delhi, India, for seven days in July of 1978,
Madam Hardevi was still alive and still very much in control of the ashram. I was particularly
struck with the deference that Thakar Singh exhibited towards Hardevi. [*NOTE: My first trip to
India was as a research assistant to Professor Mark Juergensmeyer (then at the University of
California, Berkeley; now at the University of Hawaii), who was studying the Radhasoami faith.
During my first few days at Sawan Ashram I got the opportunity to interview Madam Hardevi.
Since her English was poor, Thakar served as our translator. I immediately noticed how Madam
Hardevi treated Thakar Singh as a worker or servant, not as the living God-Man on the planet.
She gave him orders, and not vice versa. Moreover, her demeanor toward him was not
something one might expect to be displayed to a "living God-Man." For all intents and purposes,
Thakar Singh looked like another member of her entourage, a higher level servant. Now these
impressions, I should add, are not mine alone; other long- standing devotees at the ashram
informed me that Madam Hardevi retained complete control over the daily activities of the
satsang center. Thakar Singh, though regarded to be a guru, was not given the high status
usually conferred on a spiritual master's successor. *] My initial impression, and one that was
confirmed by a number of long-time residents of the ashram, was that Madam Hardevi was the
real power behind the gaddi. Whenever some key decision had to be made Madam Hardevi
apparently had the final say. In fact, the dispute in 1974 over Kirpal Singh's rightful successor
stemmed primarily from Madham Hardevi's hesitancy in fully supporting Darshan Singh. Thakar
Singh as a viable alternative candidate did not arise until late in 1975, and even then he was
seen as something of an ambassador of Hardevi's camp.

Although Thakar Singh, under Madam Hardevi's jurisdiction, established his residence at Kirpal
Singh's main center, Sawan Ashram, he attracted a small portion of the surviving sangat. In the
West, Bernadine Chard was instrumental in setting up Thakar Singh satsang meetings.
Apparently she was led to Thakar Singh by a series of remarkable inner experiences, some of
which were reported in an article for Sat Sandesh entitled "There Is Hope For Everyone" (1975).
Later Chard served as Thakar Singh's general representative in the United States. Thakar
Singh's supporters point to four major forms of verification which legitimize his position:

1. Appointment and support by Madam Hardevi, Administrative chairperson of Ruhani Satsang,

and her associates. 2. Establishment of his gaddi at Sawan Ashram, Kirpal Singh's main center.
3. Verbal testimonies by Kirpal Singh initiates suggesting that Thakar Singh was duly appointed.
4. Inner experiences reported by satsangis and new initiates, who reported having extraordinary
experiences with Thakar Singh.

The Administrative Imperative:

Guru as Legal Function

Since Madam Hardevi could not serve as the Satguru of Ruhani Satsang (reports differ on
whether she ever wanted to or not), she needed to have someone serve as a guru to 1)
continue on the spiritual practices emphasized by Kirpal Singh; and 2) retain legal control of the
2/25
ashram. Initially she was supported in her efforts to remain as Chairperson and controller of
Sawan Ashram by the Ruhani Satsang organization in North America. Reno Sirrine and Russell
Perkins, in particular, rallied around her in opposition of Darshan Singh's candidacy. Yet during
this time period (late 1974 to late 1975), Hardevi had not installed a bona fide successor.
Indeed, the official word was that no genuine successor of Sant Kirpal Singh had emerged. With
tensions mounting, and an intense political and legal battle being waged within the corridors of
Sawan Ashram, three camps solidified: 1) Darshan Singh as successor; 2) No successor; and
3) Potential future successor. In the first camp (Darshan Singh's), which later became known as
Sawan-Kirpal Mission, the succession choice was clear and thus most of the Indian sangat
followed suit. In the second camp (no official successor), there were two major opinions, ranging
from the idea that no new master was needed since Kirpal Singh was the Almighty Himself (and
that future initiations should be conducted by listening to old tape recordings of Kirpal Singh
conducting Nam Dan) to the notion that Soamiji Maharaj's line was meant to be finished with
Kirpal Singh (and that seekers must look for a new master somewhere else). And in the third
camp (potential future successor), there were a wide range of views, including the notion of a
"hidden" successor, someone who will manifest only after all the political in-fighting ceases or
calms down.

Surprisingly, Thakar Singh did not really emerge out the third camp, which would be logical, but
out of the second camp which, as we've noted, was spearheaded originally by Madam Hardevi.
In fact, Thakar Singh was one of the original progenitors of the infamous "tape-recorded"
initiations conducted on behalf of the "Almighty Kirpal." As David Helion notes:

On June 17th [1975] I went once again to Sawan Ashram as a sister from the West wanted to
see it for the first time. I could see Tai Ji [Madam Hardevi] inside talking to other people. As we
were leaving some one followed us and said, "Why dont [sic] you stay for the initiation
tomorrow?" I asked, "What initiation?" He replied, "Maharaj Ji is going to give initiation by tape
recorder tommorow." . . . The following morning about twenty five persons came at 6 a.m. and
Master Kirpal Singh Ji's oral instructions were played to them in Master's rooms. Tai Ji was
present but additional instructions were given by someone called Thakar Singh from
Chandigarh. . . [*NOTE: The Emergence of the New Master Darshan Singh , op. cit., page 114.
*]

It is not clear, outside of purely political and economic reasons, why Thakar Singh was chosen
as the best suited candidate to assume the gaddi at Sawan Ashram. One thing is certain,
though: having a living human successor to Kirpal Singh alleviates the dubious theological claim
that tape-recorded initiations are in line with Sant mat teachings and the legal question of
whether a religious ashram can be viably run without a spiritual master. Whatever reasons
Madam Hardevi may have held at one time, the fact remains that she switched from "no
successor" to "one successor" of Kirpal Singh. Her choice, though temporarily heralded by Reno
Sirrine and others on the Ruhani Satsang Board, resulted in a disaster, for Thakar Singh turned
out to be the most scandalous guru in the history of Radhasoami. By the mid-1980's reports

3/25
circulated throughout the world about how Thakar had embezzled money, indulged in sexual
affairs with numerous women, and had resorted to violent interactions with disciples. Madam
Hardevi was spared the brunt of the negative publicity, however, since she died from a car
accident in 1979, some five years before her chosen ambassador was exposed.

Thakar Singh's appointment raises Weber's idea of the routinization of charisma. What does a
spiritual organization, founded by a perceived charismatic leader, do when the succession is in
dispute? Two major options confront the fledgling administration: turn backwards toward the
leader, thereby freezing the founder's ideas as unique and unquestionable; or turn towards the
present and future by looking toward the new successor to forge new territory. In the former
case, one runs the risk of losing the vitality that personal charisma brings, while avoiding the
essential unpredicatability (and occasional radicalness) that a new leader may display. In the
latter case, the benefit depends largely on the success of the chosen master. No doubt his job is
easier because the path has already been earmarked, but it is risky since he may not have the
same attributes that drew the original members in the first place. There is always a tendency, as
Weber points out, to somehow arrest or control the claims of charisma within certain confines.
First to set some kind of order to the group and its teachings, but second, and more importantly,
to ensure that the essence of the leader (or leaders) is not lost. Ironically, it is in this very
process of arresting charismatic claims so as not to lose them that such valued charisma is
squeezed out.

A crude analogy may apply here. When one falls deeply in love with another person, there is
always the fear of losing that person's affection. So to ensure that affection is not lost, the lover
becomes so protective that the very spirit of the love that captured the person in the first place is
dampered. In the same way, when charisma is valued to an extreme degree it runs the risk of
being lost by being too well guarded or protected. In this light, orthodoxy is simply a theological
and social defense mechanism to ward off the loss of spiritual vitality. Or, in Weber's terms, the
routinization of charisma happens not because such vitality is undervalued, but rather because
it is valued too highly. In religious groups with very powerful founders, it is naturally quite difficult
for the surviving generation to trust--with the same intensity--new leadership. The love and
commitment have already been made, sometimes at great sacrifice, and to bond anew with a
fresh and perhaps untried master is fraught with difficulties.

Although there was an initial buzz, so to say, among Ruhani Satsang initiates about Thakar
Singh's initial emergence on the scene in 1976, it soon died down. First because Thakar Singh
was viewed as an administrative candidate, someone brought in to fill an executive void;
second, because the politics during the interim period (from late 1974 to late 1975) damaged
any possible credibility that Madam Hardevi had as an advanced spiritual observer, untainted by
ashram politics; and third, because Thakar Singh, for whatever personal reasons, could not fulfill
the onerous task set before him. He was and continues to be an anomaly amongst Radhasoami
gurus in the 20th century.

The Way of a Sexually Deviant Guru:

4/25
Legitimizing Contradiction

Perhaps the one greatest obstacle confronting Thakar Singh's claim as the true successor to
Kirpal Singh was Thakar himself. Unlike other gurus in his tradition, Thakar Singh's moral life
has been thoroughly scrutinized and found wanting. Indeed, it has been well documented by a
variety of sources--both within and outside the movement--that Thakar Singh has embezzled
money, engaged in illicit sexual relations with a number of western female disciples, and
conducted violent exorcisms on several devotees. In an unprecedented move to clear the
matter up, Thakar admitted to some of the charges claiming that "These devils had been
working very strongly on my lower self including body and mind and also had been creating
great disturbances in the Sangat in all parts of the world. The women problem is also a result of
temptation of these devils on my pure Self and in this respect could succeed to some extend
[sic: extent]." But it did not squelch the criticism which eventually resulted in a large exodus from
his movement, including the resignation of his chief representative, Bernadine Chard, of
northern California.

In wake of the scandal and the lawsuits between Darshan Singh's group and Madam Hardevi's,
Thakar Singh lost the property rights to Sawan Ashram and had to give up his residence there.
He is continuing to act as a guru, but his original core following has dwindled drastically. W.V.
Rohr, a former devotee in Germany, sent out an international circular against Thakar Singh. His
letter partially outlines the impact of the scandal:

That man [Thakar Singh], to whom I looked up during the past 7 years as spiritual Master and
"Guru", has admitted that he is not above mind and matter, above "negativity" and mental
temptations. I cannot keep quiet the truth, as others seem they can. . . New facts concerning
unholy activities on the level of sexual contacts as well as disappearances of Manav Kendra
funds and donations by satsangis have come in the meantime. My personal consequence is: 1. I
withdraw totally from any and all Satsang and Sangat activities whatsoever; 2. will not visit
satsangs, where his words are displayed; 3. do not look upon him as "spiritual Master" or "Sant
Sat Guru" in the line of Sant Kirpal Singh; 4. have requested [of] him [Thakar Singh] full report
and refund of funds cashed in under use of "catastrophe"; 5. will continue sincerely with Light
and Sound meditation and also Simran, as he is a Kirpal initiate and help and guidance is
prayed for from Kirpal--until a truly spiritually and morally clean Master has been found, who is
truly working in Kirpals [sic] name and with His order.

Although the first expose of Thakar Singh occurred publically in 1984, it was not until 1988 that
the media in the United States got wind of Thakar's sordid past. During this time several women
who claimed to have been abused by the guru came out with personal statements, describing in
vivid detail Thakar's predilection for sexual deviance. In light of Sant mat succession, what
makes Thakar's fall from grace significant is that he did not resign, nor did the majority of his
disciples quit the movement. In fact, a number of devotees justified Thakar Singh's unusual
actions. It is this process of justification which we will want to examine in depth; however, before
we do that we need to closely examine the ways by which Thakar Singh strayed from orthodox
5/25
Sant mat principles.

Robert L. Lockwood, in a letter dated August 4, 1988, provides a gist of Thakar Singh's
numerous transgressions:

1. The first incident I recall was when a German girl. . . came to me while we were with Thakar
Singh in India and told me that he had kissed her in a very sexual way. 2. While at Singh's
ashram in India, I witnessed firsthand a young woman named Stephanie bound (hands and feet)
and gagged as a means to restrain her. I was told that she was sent by the "negative power" to
ruin Thakar Singh's Godly mission and that when she "acted up", this was the only way to
handle her. I also heard that it had been going on for years. 3. On June 18 and 19 of this year
[1988], I accompanied two women initiates to see Singh in Rochester, N.Y. One of these women
was being treated for "entities" she supposedly had and when she returned from the treatment, I
observed bruises over her face and neck. 4. While in Buffalo, N.Y. during this same tour, I
learned from [another woman] that she had witnessed incidents of this violence repeatedly in
India to this same woman and several others too. 5. One such woman I met personally while in
India and remember her when she arrived as seeming to be of sound mind and body. I learned
that she was regularly held down--sometimes by several men--and given "treatments". I have
heard several first-hand reports that by the time she left India, she was in a very sorry state,
both physically and mentally. 6. I have been told directly by another woman recently that she
was repeatedly assaulted, physically and sexually, by Singh in the name of "treatments" for
dealing with her entities, while she was with him in India this year and last. 7. I spoke with Cindy
Elmer, whom I met in India last year and who has always struck me as being a very sincere and
devout follower of Singh. She said she was also physically abused and that Singh touched her
in sexual ways. 8. I spoke directly with another woman who told me of "treatments" involving
physical and sexual abuse by Singh. These treatments continued throughout India and also on
Singh's U.S.A. and Canadian tour this year. 9. I recently spoke with. . . who told me that she was
lied to and sexually abused. 10. I was told of an incident in India by two men who witnessed it
first-hand. Singh's personal secretary threatened to throw her baby off the roof of the ashram in
Delhi and Singh reacted by pounding her head on the cement. 11. I talked with Bernadine
Chard, a former National Representative of Singh's organization and a constant companion on
his many tours, who told me of numerous experiences and knowledge of both physical and
sexual abuse by Singh before 1983. 12. I read of both sexual and financial abuse documented
in what is called the "Wolfing Letters", and have heard of several additional alleged sexual and
physical abuse cases which I have not yet confirmed. I find these actions in and of themselves
to be repugnant and feel in my heart that none of them could be the actions of a Godman. . .
[*NOTE: This statement is not an isolated one; I have received several notarized reports
concerning Thakar Singh's actions, including accounts by the women directly involved.
Moreover, a number of leading newspapers in Oregon have published reports concerning
Thakar Singh's sexual exploits. Even the Oregon Public Broadcasting station did a fifteen
minute television documentary on Thakar Singh's systematic abuse of female followers. If I may
interject a personal note here, I too was a witness of some of Thakar Singh's questionable
6/25
practices. I remember back in July of 1978 when Thakar Singh's wife tried to persuade two
European followers to have some German currency exchanged on the black market. The money
was given as a charitable donation to the Satsang center and by law must be duly reported to
the Indian government. Needless to say, Thakar Singh's wife's attempted transaction was
illegal. Apparently Thakar Singh himself condoned a number of such money dealings. *]

To be sure, Thakar Singh's actions are contrary to the ethical principles of Sant mat and
Radhasoami. On this point there is no debate. What makes Thakar Singh's transgressions so
alarming, however, is how extensive and excessive they were. Even his main Representative in
the United States has implied that Thakar Singh's violent exorcisms led to the reported death of
a German woman in India, an offense which has yet to be fully investigated by the Indian
authorities.

Although several disciples (mostly women directly affected by the abuse) have cut off their
allegiance to Thakar Singh, a surprising number--clearly a majority of the sangat--have
remained within the movement. Why would this be the case, especially in a spiritual group
which has a long tradition of high ethical standards? The answer to that question, and related
ones, graphically reveals the dynamics of ideological work, and how earnest devotees can
under severe crises attempt to reconcile even the most glaring of contradictions.

First there is the issue of commitment. Members of Radhasoami or Ruhani Satsang (and their
related Indian branches) must take four lifetime vows, which include abstaining from meat,
alcohol and drugs, illicit sex, and devoting two plus hours daily to meditation. Such a decision,
which is sealed with the formal ceremony of initiation, by necessity involves a tremendous
commitment. Likewise, it defines a person in relation to her fellow satsangis, her family, her
friends, her work associates, etc. Thus when there is an expose of one's chosen path and
master, it is not only the guru who gets humiliated--personally and socially--but the disciple as
well. The shadow of a fallen guru projects directly on those who looked first for his light.
Naturally, there is some hesitancy to believe the worst about your master when you have been
believing only the best about him.

Related to commitment, but perhaps not as universally applicable to all members of the sangat,
is social status. Here the satsang represents a miniature society, replete with all the pluses and
minuses that such a world entails. If a satsangi has gained some rank within the organization,
something along the order of a group leader or a treasurer or a representative, then there is the
added incentive of hierarchical status which ties him/her within the movement. This is especially
true for individuals who may not have any corollary status outside of the satsang. It is little
wonder, then, that a critical blow against their master is perceived as a critical blow against their
own world, especially a world in which they have some operative power.

Although commitment and social status do not explain all the reasons satsangis have for staying
with Thakar Singh, they do help explain the logic of marginality , that is, the social reasons
which reinforce, instead of tear apart, members' allegiance to gurus and groups which have
7/25
been publically ostracized. This kind of logic pervades religious movements, old or new, which
have had to deal with internal and external criticism. [*NOTE: Joseph Smith and Mormonism
stand out, perhaps, as the classic cult to sect to church success story. However, in its
progression from social marginality to relative mainstream acceptance, Mormons have had to
continually readdress the dubious life history of their founder. Any Mormon who has seriously
read Brody's No Man Knows My History , a well documented expose' of Joseph Smith's early
life, must engage in some type of reassesment of their religion, if not publically at least in their
private moments. Why? Because the book casts serious doubts on the veracity of Smith's
revelations. Yet, we know that Brody's work has only had a minor impact on Mormonism.
Criticism may indeed shake the foundations of a church, but it does not by itself alter the
devotion of the membership, primarily because there are ther powerful social factors which tie
one's commitment into the movement. It is these other factors which can allow one to justify, if
you will, the negative or contradictory aspects embedded within the group's history. *]

One of the key ways that devoted followers who have remained with Thakar Singh have
ideologically "worked out" severe criticism of their leader and/or group is to explain it away as
arising from Kal , the negative force so often talked about in Sant mat literature. As Sher Kemp,
an initiate of Thakar's since 1979, explains:

Yes, the negitive [sic] power strikes hard against the true master, and has been doing so since
the beginning. This play of negitivity [sic] has, of course, no effect on the master, but it does
affect weak souls, by keeping them from receiving that connection or by creating doubts in weak
initiates.

Another disciple of Thakar Singh's, initiated in 1985, criticizes the women who brought forth the
charges against their guru in the first place. She writes:

Yes, during the latter part of the 1988 Tour a small group of women gave the press sensational
stories of beatings and sexual exploitation. I knew the leader of this group and knew her mental
history. Trusted family members were present at each and every place incidents were alleged to
have occurred--i.e. the sexual assault in a room of 40 initiates meditating (!)--a sexual fantasy. I
looked into the charges and found them to be unfounded. All the women had emotional
problems and were at one time or another being treated for entities by Thakar Singh--all
misinterpreted his actions on their behalf--sexualizing them in the manner of the Hysterical
Personality. The newspapers enjoyed the juicy story and guru-bashing opportunity but only
managed to double or triple the audience at all the public talks and the result was several
hundred more initiates than was originally expected. His work is constantly under attack--the
surest possible sign of authenticity. His rivals live placid lives. The Negative Power only exerts
itself with its true rival!

And finally Joanie Solomon, the National Representative for Thakar Singh in the United States,
defends her guru of thirteen years with the following terse rebuttal: "Do you not know that all
genuine Saints and Masters are always persecuted, tortured, and even put to death??? [sic]"
8/25
The argument in all three responses is relatively the same: it is not Thakar Singh who is at fault,
it is, rather, the Negative Power or the misguided disciples who have been duped by the mind
(another agent of the negative forces). That it may have been the opposite which was occurring-
-their own mind or even Thakar Singh's mind which has been led astray by Kal --does not arise
here, simply because if it did then they would have to reevaluate their association with their
guru. Such a reevaluation may lead, as it often has with disaffected members, to a disavowal of
Thakar Singh and his satsang, thereby cutting asunder any perceived status that satsangis may
have had within the movement. Furthermore, whatever power they may have wielded is
functionally eliminated, except in drawing members away from the guru. [*NOTE: Interestingly,
there is a complex psycho-social dynamic which takes place with a large number of ex-cult
members; after having left the group, they then turn their energies toward debunking the guru
and his teachings. In some cases, what was once extreme devotion turns to extreme criticism,
thereby ironically salvaging some of a forlorn satsangi's self-worth. What was once a mission to
turn seekers on to the highest truth, after disaffection turns into a vigilant crusade to save those
same people from accepting "bogus" or "illegitimate" claims of enlightenment. In the above
scenario the direction has indeed changed, but the energy and commitment prevalent in both
has not. For more on this curious phenomenon, refer to the numerous works of J. Gordon
Melton, Director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion. *]

Thakar Singh's aberrations from the traditional and relatively conservative path of Sant mat
have also had a far reaching effect on the direction of his organization. In 1989 Thakar Singh
assigned several devotees to act as worldwide missionaries for his movement, initiating almost
anybody who showed even the slightest interest in the path. This is a highly unusual move,
since Sant mat and Radhasoami groups have generally disdained proselytizing. Moreover,
Thakar Singh has instructed his child-bearing devotees to raise their children under
exceptionally severe conditions. For example, children now born to initiates of Thakar Singh
should be blindfolded up until the age of five, only being allowed to see their mother at times of
feeding and satsang. Furthermore, children should listen to classical Indian music for two hours
daily, as well as meditate for five hours each day. Such a regime, which to Western cultural
norms would be classified as child abuse, is part of Thakar Singh's plan to alter world history.
[*NOTE: In a circular sent out in 1989, Thakar Singh informed his worldwide to raise children in
the following manner: "The child is only to have main contact with the mother. Even the father
may only visit the child once a week, after having meditated 12 hours. This is to keep all worldly
radiations away from the child, so it may remain totally pure. . . After the bird of the child, it is to
have a soft, white cotton blindfold put gently over the eyes, so the the infant will remain naturally
inverted inside most of the 24 hours daily, up to the age of five years. The blindfold may be
taken off when the mother is breastfeeding the child. . . This is the only eye contact that is
allowed to or from the child. . . The mother may also play Indian Classical music to the child and
do this with either placing an earphone in the right ear of the child (from birth on) or use stereo
headphones. This may be done for four hours daily. The rest of the time, the child will
automatically be in holy meditation, except while being fed and cared for." Even long-time
followers of Thakar Singh were initially shocked by the severity of his advice for child-rearing. It
9/25
is not clear, yet, how many mothers are actually following the guru's admonitions. *]

As I have indicated, how followers support such actions is intimately connected with how they
view themselves in the micro world of Sant mat and the macro world of secular society. That
Thakar Singh's actions are not viewed as contrary to general Sant mat principles--which they
clearly are, according to all the gurus and groups mentioned so far--graphically reflects the
pliable nature of theology, and how it often bends to the whims of personal and social forces.
This is not to suggest, though, that all of Thakar Singh's followers blindly accept what their guru
says, but only to point out that charismatic imperatives on the one end and personal/social
needs on the other end can conjoin and transfigure longstanding religious doctrines in ways
much quicker and much stranger than one would suspect. It is for this very reason that
charismatic leadership has often been viewed with deep suspicion, and why new spiritual
movements are seen as religiously, if not socially, deviant.

VII. AJAIB SINGH AND THE FORMATION OF SANT BANI

Arran Stephens, Canadian representative for Kirpal Singh, did not accept Darshan Singh as his
master's successor when he went to India in 1974. Due to a report by a prominent Indian
satsangi at the time, Stephens went to Rajasthan to see Ajaib Singh, whom he was told was an
advanced disciple of Kirpal Singh. An account of this trip, which was published in Sat Sandesh
magazine in New Hampshire, prompted Russell Perkins, one of Kirpal Singh's American
representatives and editor of Sat Sandesh , to see Ajaib Singh in India. It was at this juncture
that several initiates in America considered the possibility that Ajaib Singh was Kirpal Singh's
successor. The trip confirmed for Perkins that Ajaib Singh was a saint; and after receiving
internal evidence in meditation, Perkins supported Ajaib Singh to take up the work of initiation
and serve as his guru's successor. The result was that Sant Bani Ashram in New Hampshire
and Kirpal Ashram in Vancouver became centers for Ajaib Singh.

Ajaib Singh's following in India, like Thakar Singh's (but even less so), is quite small in
comparison to Darshan Singh's group Sawan-Kirpal Mission. However, he has gathered a
substantial number of western disciples, including initiates from South and North America.
Undoubtedly, Sant Bani Ashram in Sanbornton, New Hampshire, is directly responsible for much
of the popularity of Ajaib Singh in the United States, since its publication Sant Bani details the
activities of Ajaib Singh both in India and on his world tours.

Loyal followers of Ajaib Singh and his mission, point to the following as evidence of his
mastership:

1. Inner experiences of Ajaib Singh on the inner planes which demonstrate his spiritual
competency. 2. Outward hallmarks, such as humility, simple lifestyle, years of meditation, which
resonate with Kirpal Singh's life and aims. 3. Verbal testimonies by Ajaib Singh stating that
Kirpal Singh had appointed him to give Nam several years prior to his departure. 4. Suggestive
narratives, such as Ajaib Singh conducting initiation in the presence of Kirpal Singh, which
10/25
indicate that he was marked for the spiritual work. 5. Personal artifacts bequeathed to Ajaib
Singh from Kirpal Singh, including a "wedding ring." [*NOTE: These "personal" artifacts
allegedly given by Kirpal Singh to Ajaib Singh have been the subject of much debate. Even the
number of letters Ajaib Singh claims to have received from Kirpal Singh has been questioned.
Write Stephens and Handel, "Sant Ji [Ajaib Singh] told several people the Master sent him 15
letters which were written in Hindi and Punjabi in the Master's own hand. He said he had a
couple of the letters with him and never replied to them. We later learned from people involved
with the Master's correspondence that the Master never wrote in Hindi. This is also
substantiated in a letter written by the Master to fool No. 1's wife, Ratan Stephens." A Statement
by Two Fools Concerning Sant Ajaib Singh Ji , privately published and circulated. *]

Discovering the Hidden Guru

In order to understand how Ajaib Singh could be regarded as a serious succession candidate, it
is necessary to see the complex events after Kirpal Singh's death which led Russell Perkins and
others to dismiss Darshan Singh's candidacy. In an illuminating 18 page personal letter, Perkins
recounts what happened to him in India shortly after the death of his master. He retells the
process which led him away from accepting Darshan Singh and turning, eventually, to Ajaib
Singh. As Perkins recalls:

Why was I unable to accept Darshan Singh? I have not commented on this publicly since writing
the letter to Darshan Singh which you quote, mainly because Sant Ji has ordered me from our
first meeting not to criticize anyone ( especially not Darshan Singh). I think, however, that since
the letter is in the public domain and you are using it, I should make at least one or two points
about my attitude at the time which I hope will not violate Sant Ji's orders to me: 1) Darshan
Singh and I had been good friends. . . 2) That friendship affected my relation with Darshan after
Master's [Kirpal Singh's] passing in more than one way (it was also the main reason why the
Darshan supporters viewed me as some kind of Judas {or Brutus} figure, since the friendship
was well known. . .) For one thing, you see, I was taken totally by surprise by his declaration of
Mastership. Not once, in the five years of our friendship, had I ever received any indication in
any way on any level that such a thing would happen. Master never conveyed the slightest hint
of it to me, even when the opportunity would have been perfect. . . At any rate, there were
several points during that time in which he [Darshan Singh] spoke and acted in a way that made
it absolutely impossible for me to accept him as a Master--certainly not as my Master. I think that
he trusted me as his friend, to see things from his point of view, and made little effort to hide any
"unworthy" (by my standards, of course, not necessarily his) behavior from me. 3) At one point
during the first week [after Kirpal Singh's death], a meeting was called to which Steve Melik and
I were invited; up until then, we had been only vaguely aware, through rumors, of what was
going on. Arran Stephens was also in the ashram, but was extremely ill and confined to bed;
consequently, he missed this meeting and had very little contact with Darshan Singh during this
period. At this meeting, which was attended by (as I remember) all the members of the
Managing Committee, including Tai Ji, and Reno Sirrine as well, we were told that Darshan was

11/25
Master's successor; that this was known because of the will, but they had not been able to find
the will; that Tai Ji and Darshan would work together as "mother and son" and that this would
enable Master's mission to flourish. It became clear to me that my reaction was being watched
closely (I may not have realized this until later) but my first reaction was complete astonishment
at the succession being justified by a will ( this had never occurred to me!) and that's what I said,
although I spoke very deferentially and simply pointed out that it was not possible, after all the
comments Master had made about a will in this context for anyone to take seriously the idea
that He would use such a means to appoint His successor. 4) When I made that point, I noticed
a number of nods of agreement, and it occurred to me that all this had been discussed very
carefully beforehand and that the commitment of some of these people was shaky (this of
course proved true). At any rate, Darshan responded to that point by saying (quoted of course
from memory), "Well, you see, Master told about six (?) months ago to put in more time for
meditation, as it would be important (needed?) for me later." And that was all. I asked no more
questions, and the meeting broke up shortly. The most interesting thing of course is what
Darshan Singh did not say: that the Power had been transferred to him through the eyes.
Amazingly, I did not think it had occurred to him that such a thing was necessary. . . Later, of
course, when the question was put to him a number of times, he did come up with an incident. . .
But I never forgot that at the meeting called specially for the purpose of bolstering his claims, he
never once thought to mention the one thing that Master had laid most stress on--the transfer of
power through the eyes. 5) . . . By the following morning Tai Ji and others had withdrawn from
the "coalition," and Darshan was denied the universal acclamation that he had expected. I don't
know much about the behind-the-scenes activity of the next couple weeks: I spoke only when
spoken to, withdrew into my room as much as possible, and counted the minutes until I could
leave. I had never dreamed that such a nightmare could have happened. Tensions were very
high and the Ashram, once heaven on earth to me, had become a very scary place. I did see
Darshan a few more times before I left, and also talked with him on the phone, and his
bitterness (there is no other word possible to describe his attitude at this time) and unhappiness
at the turn of events was painful.

In his autobiographical book The Impact of a Saint , Perkins explains how two camps had
solidified just prior to his leaving India in September 1974:

The mass of Kirpal Singh's disciples had divided into two factions, one centered around a
candidate for Mastership, the other around the possession of Sawan Ashram. Because of my
fierce opposition to the person put forth as a Master, I, to my eternal shame, identified myself
with the second faction and said and published many things which I bitterly regretted afterward.
Although I do not feel that all my initial perceptions were wrong, I came to see the basic truth of
the idea of non-violence: that to oppose something is to give it strength. As time went on
whatever moral differences had existed between the factions eroded until one of them (it was
impossible to find out which, because both maintained the other had started it) brought suit
against the other in a court of law--over possession of the Ashram!--and the other fought back!--
the final blackening of Kirpal Singh's name. [*NOTE: Russell Perkins, The Impact of a Saint
12/25
(Sanbornton: Sant Bani Press, 1980. *]

Eventually, as has already been noted, Russell Perkins aligned himself with Ajaib Singh. Perkins
sent a telegram after his first meeting with Ajaib Singh to his wife, Judith, and other devotees at
Sant Bani Ashram in New Hampshire. It reveals in a nutshell the significance of Perkins' views
on the future candidacy of Ajaib Singh. Writes Perkins, "HAVE FOUND AJAIB SINGH AND HE
IS REAL WE LOVE HIM. . . Later I [Perkins] learned that there was dancing in the Ashram when
it arrived." When Perkins got back from that special trip to see Ajaib Singh, other people got
interested in meeting the saint from Rajasthan. Finally in May 1976, Perkins brought his wife
Judith and his son Eric, along with several other initiates and two seekers wanting initiation, with
him to see Ajaib Singh in Rajasthan. It was during this trip that Perkins claims to have received
"internal" verification of Ajaib Singh's spiritual authenticity as Kirpal Singh's successor. It was
also during this trip that Perkins agreed to act as Ajaib Singh's representative and initiate new
seekers on the path of Sant mat. As Perkins recalls:

We stayed eleven days with him [Ajaib Singh], and I agreed to serve him as his American
Representative with all my heart and soul, recognizing that it was my Master Kirpal Whom I was
serving in fact; and he did initiate the two candidates, authorizing me at the same time to initiate
on his behalf elsewhere in the world. That initiation represented the final open door in the long
passageway to my Master's Feet. . . that first westerner-initiation changed everything; I received
the confirmation that everyone said I ought to have a hundred times over, stronger than I could
have presumed to ask for under any circumstances. When the meditation sitting that is the
central part of the initiation began and I closed my eyes, two things happened simultaneously:
my Simran (that is, the mental repetition of the mantra which is given to each disciple at
initiation) became almost unbearably strong; it was as though my bones and intestines were
shouting the Names. I did not feel that I was doing anything; I felt like a trumpet that is being
blown through. At the same time I became aware that Baba Sawan Singh, my Master's Master,
was standing within in a blaze of brilliant light looking at me with infinite tenderness and
compassion. After a few minutes (I have no idea how long, but it was not a very brief period), He
turned into my Master, Kirpal Singh. The light was the same, the expression on the face was the
same, only the facial features were different. After some time, He changed into Sant Ajaib Singh,
Who continued to look at me out of the same light and with the same tenderness. After a while,
Baba Sawan Singh returned, and the cycle repeated itself--again and again and again and
again, one form followed by another, while Simran was continuing as strong as before--so
strong I felt as though I were a bellows and the Names were being pumped out of me. This
continued throughout the sitting, but I didn't stop there--for three glorious days and nights, those
three beautiful Radiant Forms were with me whenever I closed my eyes, while my Simran
continued to be shouted by the soul of my soul. From that time I have understood with every
ounce of my being that all true Masters are one, that the Master in Ajaib is the same Master that
was in Kirpal, and that the road to Rajasthan led directly to my Master's feet. [*NOTE: Impact of
a Saint, op. cit., pages 169-170. *]

13/25
Exposing the Hidden Past

The certainty and euphoria surrounding Perkins' conversion in 1976 to Ajaib Singh's candidacy
was met two years later with severe resistance by a most unusual source: Arran Stephens, the
Canadian representative of Kirpal Singh who was the first westerner to interview Ajaib Singh in
1974. Stephens, it should be remembered, was the satsangi who "discovered" Ajaib Singh and
was duly impressed by his "radiation." Noted Stephens back in 1974, ". . . he is one of the jewels
of the Master. This, I know, that he's far higher than I am, and that he's the most advanced
disciple that I've met of the Master, and most likely could be the one. . ." Before Stephens' visit,
very few people had ever heard of Ajaib Singh, much less that he was "most likely" to be Kirpal
Singh's designated heir. The intriguing aspect here is that it was Arran Stephens' perception of
spiritual power and his subsequent account of it in Sat Sandesh that made Ajaib Singh a
"candidate." In terms of historical sequencing, and ruling out divine intervention, it is probably
accurate to state that Ajaib Singh would never have emerged as a serious succession
contender, at least in the West, unless Arran Stephens visited him in 1974 and then publicized
his trip to the Rajasthan saint.

Ironically, it was Arran Stephens--some four years later--who totally disavowed Ajaib Singh,
calling him an outright "fraud." Stephens drastically changed his mind because he learned of
Ajaib Singh's alleged hidden life, a life which contradicted his public ministry. First, Stephens
learned that Ajaib Singh was previously initiated by Charan Singh of Radhasoami Satsang
Beas, but had later denied it. Concerning his relationship with the current leader of the
Radhasoamis in Beas, Ajaib Singh commented, "I was never initiated by Charan Singh, but I
went to see him at Beas. I asked him if he was competent to guide me further on the inner
planes, to which he replied that as far as guiding me spiritually within he was not competent, but
that his mission was to give the theory and the Five Names. I appreciated Charan Singh's
honesty and as a result sent hundreds to him." [*NOTE: Russell Perkins, Sant Ajaib Singh Ji: A
Brief Life Sketch (Sanbornton: Sant Bani Press, n.d.), page 8. Perkins also adds the following
concerning Ajaib Singh's relationship with Charan Singh: "When a question was put to him
[Ajaib Singh] by this writer [Russell Perkins] on the nature of his connection with Charan Singh,
he replied simply, `I loved him,' but reiterated that he had not taken initiation from him or any
other guru." *] However, according to both Beas and Ruhani Satsang initiates Ajaib Singh was
indeed an initiate of Charan Singh. In a letter to Ms. Tony Wacorazza of Italy, dated January 11,
1984, K.S. Narang, former Vice-Chancellor of Punjab University and current Chairperson of the
Radhasoami Beas Executive Committee, explains in detail Ajaib Singh's association with
Charan Singh. K.S. Narang also refutes Ajaib Singh's claims as mentioned in his brief life
sketch. Writes Narang:

Dear Sister, Please refer to your letter addressed to Maharaj Ji on 2nd October, 1983, enclosing
therewith a photostat copy of the printed page containing some observations of Shri Ajaib Singh
of Kunichuk Ashram about our Master. Normally we do not enter into any controversy but since
now certain facts have been printed in a book which are not only wrong but can certainly
14/25
mislead our satsangi brethren and also create some adverse impressions among the readers of
the book about our Master. It is for this reason that we thought we should give the necessary
clarification. According to our information and investigations we find that Shri Ajaib Singh son of
Shri Lal Singh originally belonged to V.P.O. Mehna, District Bhatinda. In about 1950, he was
employed as a Granthi in a Gurdwara in village Sinhpura, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Ganganagar
(Rajasthan). First of all he met Bhagat Karam Chand of Ganganagar, a disciple of Hazur
Maharaj Sawan Singh Ji and then started visiting Dera Beas along with him and other satsangis.
He took Naamdan from Hazur Maharaj Charan Singh Ji in 1953. Thereafter he started living in
the house of Shri Dalip Singh of Kunichuk, District Ganganagar. Shri Ajaib Singh somehow got
allotted 25 acres of land from Rajasthan Government and purchased another 25 acres by
selling his parental property in his village in Bhatinda. In those days he did not take any
donations from the sangat. In 1965-66 he built his own cottage in his farm land in Kunichuk
situated on the Bikaner Road and named it as "Charan Gupha" after Maharaj Charan Singh Ji's
name and started doing satsang in nearby villages. He started telling the sangat that Hazur
Maharaj Charan Singh Ji had authorised him to do so. He used to sing Shabads composed by
himself in praise of Hazur Maharaj Ji in the sangat. He also started Langar in his farm and also
started collecting donations from the sangat. He continued to visit the Dera Beas regularly up to
1966-67 and during Hazur Maharaj Ji's satsang at Ganganagar in February, 1968, he was one
of the chief organisers of the satsang there. The Dera Administration, however, did not approve
of his collecting funds and building property in his own name and as such took a serious note of
his anti-Sant Mat activities. On several occasions he was asked to transfer the Satsang lands
and buildings at Kunichuk to Radha Soami Satsang Beas or execute the Power of Attorney in
favour of Secretary, Radhasoami Satsang Beas and stop doing satsang. But he somehow did
not come round. Eventually the Dera authorities had to publicly announce in the open satsang
that whatever Shri Ajaib Singh of Kunichuk Ashram was doing runs counter to the Sant Mat
basic principles and as such the sangat should make a note of it. The local sangat thereafter
refused to co-operate with him and so he ceased coming to Beas.

Prior to Narang's official letter in 1984, Arran Stephens and Richard Handel had done some
investigation of their own. Their findings were printed in 1979 in a privately published circular
entitled "A Statement By Two Fools Concerning Sant Ajaib Singh Ji." They also circulated
photographs of Ajaib Singh in his earlier days, which document his association with Charan
Singh and Radhasoami Satsang Beas. Appended to these photographs are a series of
commentaries on the the pamphlet, An Introduction to Sant Ajaib Singh . Here the authors refute
point by point many of Ajaib Singh's historical and spiritual claims. With regard to his Beas
connection, the following information is pertinent:

Ajaib Singh began to initiate disciples on behalf of Dehra Beas on the basis of a document
purported to be issued by the Dehra. According to Ranjeet Singh, who is an old worker and
Secretary of Dehra Beas [sic], the document was a forged one. On checking, its validity proved
to be false and was kept at the Dehra Beas. Besides this, Ajaib Singh collected contributions
from the sangat of Rajasthan for constructing of Charan Puri in the name of Mahraj Charan
15/25
Singh and constructed a building having mud walls for Satsang and Langar etc. [sic] This
amount was donated by landowners belonging to Sri Ganga Nagar District. Out of the huge
funds collected only a small proportion thereof was spent on the structure and the balance was
misappropriated by Ajaib Singh. On this the sangat became suspicious about the integrity of
Ajaib Singh and sent written complaints to Maharaj Charan Singh indicating the defaultation of
funds by Ajaib Singh. . . [*NOTE: P>rivately Published Circular (no date), available from Arran
Stephens and Richard Handel. *]

It was on the basis of defrauding the sangat that Brigadier Bal, Chairman of the Sewa Samiti of
Radhasoami Beas Satsang, issued repeated warnings about Ajaib Singh's unethical collection
of donations. [*NOTE: Much of my information comes from several original documents, including
a personal letter by Bal to Stephens recounting Ajaib Singh's relationship with Beas. The spirit of
this letter is perhaps best captured by the second to last paragraph wherein Bal writes:
"Personally I feel that to call Ajaib Singh a saint is itself a grave sin. He is a worldly man with all
the human short-comings." *] However, Ajaib Singh's reputed connection with Charan Singh
was only one of many problems that Arran Stephens, Richard Handel, and others had with the
Rajasthan guru. What was paradigmatic for them was that almost none of Ajaib Singh's
recollections (including places and dates) tallied with the historical events in question.
Particularly disturbing for Stephens et al., was that Ajaib Singh's personal contact with his guru
Kirpal Singh was minimal. Write Stephens and Handel:

As ordinary initiates we asked ourselves if, during a period of 4-7 years our Master Kirpal had
asked us to visit Him, and we could easily afford the trip and do it within a day's time, would we
not, at least once, during that period have gone to see our Master? Further, most of us are
aware that the Master stressed we should outwardly tell Him about our inner experiences. In
this way only could they be 100% confirmed and shown to be experience of the positive and not
negative power. Also the total amount of time we calculated Sant Ji was with the Master came to
parts of 10 days. [*NOTE: Stephens and Handel, op. cit., page 9. *]

Along with the factual discrepancies that Stephens and Handel discovered, [*NOTE: Stephens
and Handel list several incidents where Ajaib Singh's information about his own personal
biography and the lives of other saints was inaccurate. For a detailed listing see A Statement By
Two Fools Concerning Sant Ajaib Singh Ji . *] they also questioned the veracity of their inner
experiences under the tutelage of Ajaib Singh. The net result was that they severed their
connection with Ajaib Singh and his ministry. Arran Stephens also wrote a long handwritten
letter to Russell Perkins explaining how he had been duped and how he hoped Perkins would
see the error of his ways. Argued Stephens in his December 1978 letter: "I have more than
sufficient first-hand evidence that Sant Ji is not a Perfect Master, is not the Commissioned Sant
Satguru of the Age. Masters don't lie." But Stephens did this four years too late--too late to stop
the growing following, which included Perkins, that had become convinced that Ajaib Singh was
an enlightened master. Stephens' initial evaluation was seen by these devotees as the truth; his
later revisions were interpreted as misguided delusions. As Perkins notes:

16/25
Both Arran and Richard had on many occasions spoken and written about Sant Ji using their
inner experiences to justify what they said, so that when they changed their minds based on
what other people told them, their credibility dropped to zero (people who were influenced by
them tended not to join them in Darshan Singh's fold, but to leave the Path altogether--a very
rational and predictable result); and . . . by the time this all happened a very significant number
of satsangis, both old and new, had seen Sant Ji for themselves and developed a very satisfying
and spiritually fulfilling relationship with Him. . . [*NOTE: Personal letter to the author, dated April
7, 1989, page 14. Steven Morrow, founder of Sant Mat Fellowship, also wrote an extensive
rebuttal to Arran Stephens on February 21, 1979, claiming that Stephens was an opportunist
who used facts and dates in a haphazard way to benefit his own personal biases. Writes
Morrow, "It appears that regardless of the evidence for or against Darshan and/or Ajaib's claims
to successorship that you, dear brother, have consciously or unconsciously published certain
statements which misled the sangat into thinking that you were physically present when certain
important events too place. . . I can only wonder if your motive (or partial motive) was to draw a
certain amount of attention to yourself. . ." Morrow's letter, however, does not refute the major
criticisms against Ajaib Singh, including the apparent fact that he was initiated by Charan Singh
in 1953 but later denied it. *]

The Rhetoric of Illegitimacy

Ajaib Singh's succession problems are similar in some ways to Kirpal Singh's. In fact, it could be
argued that Ajaib Singh's candidacy is the logical extension of Kirpal Singh's; that Ajaib Singh,
more than any other claimant (including Darshan and Thakar), fulfills the pathway marked out
by Kirpal Singh in 1948: stress authenticity over legitimacy , as the major criterion of
genuineness. Hence, we can see that Ajaib Singh's emergence as a guru depended on two
factors, both of which relate to authenticity: 1) he claimed to have been given spiritual power by
his guru, Kirpal Singh; and 2) others alleged that they experienced his spiritual capability. The
major emphasis here is not on Ajaib Singh's legitimacy (in comparison with Darshan Singh, for
instance, he has little), but on his degree of authenticity. A criterion which, as we have seen, is
so subjective that it both resists and betrays any comprehensive analysis, since almost anybody
can claim to have "inner" confirmation. It is, therefore, consistent with my overall thesis that
when Ajaib Singh got heavily criticized for his lack of legitimacy, he and his followers turned
primarily to testimonies about inner experiences and the like. In turn, Ajaib Singh and his
constituencies became more critical of the "outward" conventions of appraising a spiritual
master's status. [*NOTE: Interviews with Christopher McMahon, Steve Morrow, and Neil Tessler
(1978 to 1981), supporters of Ajaib Singh. After meeting Darshan Singh several times, Tessler
became convinced that he was the true successor; Tessler has since aligned himself with
Darshan Singh's camp. *]

Ajaib Singh's parallel to Kirpal Singh should be fairly evident to the perceptive reader. Ajaib
Singh and his sangat have reacted almost exactly the same way Kirpal Singh and his faction
reacted when he was not accepted at Beas. In fact, given Kirpal Singh's assumption of the
17/25
mastership after Sawan Singh's death, it was almost predictable that someone like Ajaib Singh
would emerge after Kirpal Singh's death. In other words, Kirpal Singh's lack of proper office
entitlement paved the way for his future successors, like Ajaib Singh, to routinize their own
charismatic claims by referring to their master's testimony on the subject (or lack thereof).
[*NOTE: For a clear example of this, refer to Perkins' book The Impact of a Saint . *]

When dealing with larger theoretical issues or underlying generalities, ideological work is
sometimes easier to detect, since an overall tendency or pattern is being reiterated. The difficult
analysis arises when a specific issue is being addressed; here the details oftentimes gloss over
the real battle, thereby leaving one with the impression that, especially in religious matters, it is
really more of a theological matter than a social one. Though at times this may undoubtedly be
true, it is usually not the case. Why? Because theological disputes are rarely sui generis; more
often than not, spiritual arguments have their roots in materialist concerns. The list of examples
is inexhaustible, ranging from Roman Catholicism's anti-semitism (which was often justified by
divine doctrine) to Eckankar's anti-intellectualism (which was prompted, in part, by its
originator's extensive plagiarism and fear of scholarly scrutiny).

What is of particular interest in light of succession rhetoric is how Sant Bani satsangis,
particularly those with some influence in the movement, address the discrepancies in Ajaib
Singh's candidacy. In this regard, the writings of Russell Perkins are especially noteworthy,
since he is deeply involved in ideological work, that is, reconciling Ajaib Singh's inner
attainments with his external qualifications. Since Perkins is such a pivotal figure in the
development of Sant Bani, it is judicious to examine in detail how he legitimizes Ajaib Singh's
ministry. What Perkins reveals quite clearly is how succession disputes are intimately connected
with previous historical events and underlying social tensions. He also supports, perhaps at
times unconsciously, my overall thesis: those who lack outward evidence to support their
campaigns move generally to internal evidence to buttress their views.

First, it is important to remember that Perkins' rejection of Darshan Singh stemmed primarily
from Kirpal Singh's numerous statements on how he succeeded Sawan Singh. Since Darshan
Singh's candidacy was almost completely opposite that of his father's, it is little wonder that
Perkins and others could not accept the incongruity. Ironically, Darshan Singh's candidacy was,
in light of his immediate predecessor, non-traditional . It was exactly this non-traditionality which
first alerted Perkins and others to be skeptical of Darshan Singh. To be sure, the tradition of
Kirpal Singh was a relatively new one, but it was a precedent clearly framed all the same; and, it
should be noted, it was a precedent which a number of Indians and Americans took quite
seriously.

Even though Kirpal Singh's own claim of succession was unorthodox from a Beas perspective,
to a new generation of Ruhani Satsang initiates it was quintessential of how an authentic guru
should be appointed. In other words, Kirpal Singh's assumption is the orthodox (read correct)
position. Perkins himself argues this much:

18/25
The ambiguity and uncertainty about successors which is so characteristic of Sant Mat is the
norm, and built into the system, as is evidenced from the model set up by Swami Ji. It is not, in
other words, an aberration. The aberration rather is (from our point of view) the orderly and clear
transfer, accompanied by sufficient outer signs to convince the sangat that the Guru means it,
since that kind of transfer has happened only once in modern times (Jaimal to Sawan). All of the
others (Tulsi to Swami Ji; Swami Ji to Jaimal; Sawan to Kirpal; Kirpal to Ajaib) are characterized
by the forcing (because of the lack of outer signs) of the seeker into confronting the integrity of
his/her own search; they function as tests, we might say, of both the disciples of the previous
Guru and the seekers who come up after that Guru's passing. [*NOTE: Personal letter to author,
dated April 7, 1989, page 6. *]

Thus one of the ways that minority claimants, lacking "official" status, can garner legitimacy is to
reframe previous succession history in a new light, much like Perkins has done in the preceding
excerpt. This reframing contextualizes anew the validity of the minority candidate; it also lends
logical support for an otherwise illegitimate campaign. Moreover, it centralizes spiritual
authenticity versus political legitimacy, and shows how real spirituality cannot be conveyed
through conventional means. That all of this arises from some type of succession tension is
obvious. Otherwise, there would be no reason to write and publish circulars, articles, and books
concentrating on the issue. In the Sant Bani camp the book Support for a Shaken Sangat by A.
S. Oberoi, for instance, has long sections dealing specifically on succession disputes; and in the
Sawan-Kirpal movement Tillis' text Emergence of a New Master--Darshan Singh focuses
entirely on the politics of guru successorship.

Another good illustration of Perkins' ideological work--and by extension, Sant Bani's--comes

from his response to Ajaib Singh's association with Charan Singh, a delicate matter in light of
Kirpal Singh's previous history with the Dera. As already noted, there is documentary evidence
which shows that Ajaib Singh was initiated by Charan Singh in 1953. However, Ajaib Singh--on
numerous occasions after 1974--has categorically denied ever being initiated by the Beas guru,
even though he admits "loving him" and sending hundreds of seekers to him. For the interested
seeker or initiate it is crucial question, since the integrity of their master is at stake. It is also a
question which on the surface has only two possible conclusions: 1) Ajaib Singh is telling the
truth; or 2) Ajaib Singh is lying. Arran Stephens and Richard Handel, former Ajaib Singh
devotees, fall into the second camp and are convinced that their once beloved "Sant Ji" is a
fraud. Russell Perkins, on the other hand, representing the interests of Sant Bani, is in the first
camp, convinced that Ajaib Singh would never lie. But how does Perkins deal with the
information, mostly documentary in origin and circulated by his own gurubhais, which clearly
suggests that Sant Ji is not telling the truth? By doing exactly what he has done with previous
succession disputes: reframing the question from one of either/or to one of yes/but. In doing so,
Perkins shows both the power and utility of ideological work. Writes Perkins:

In my experience, I have never found Sant Ji (or Kirpal) tell an untruth; this is not to say,
however, that They necessarily view the facts of a case in the same way that we do. This is not
19/25
always taken into account when disciples become attorneys and subject Saints to cross-
examination. Our agenda is not necessarily Their agenda. . . It is possible, for instance, that the
word "initiation" means different things to different people. It is possible that a genuinely
advanced seeker might go through something that someone else would call "initiation" but He
would not. I am not saying that happened; Sant Ji has never indicated to me that it did; I take
His denial at face value. But the other is a possibility which fits very well into the Saints'
difference of perspective. If Arran or Richard had been inclined and had had the opportunity to
both hear Master's [Kirpal's] comment about Judith's letter and to read that letter (and
confronted Him with the contradiction in a way that they did in fact confront Sant Ji) they could
have very justifiably called Him a liar also. In point of fact, of course, Arran would have worked
very hard to find an alternate explanation if such a thing had occurred in Kirpal's life; he did not
even consider believing Sant Ji (once his point of view changed). He wrote me a very revealing
thing at this time (or perhaps it was in his opus): something like, "Someone said to me, Why
don't you go ask some of the senior disciples of Kirpal why they are not following Sant Ji?" I
could not believe that he would write that; did it not ever occur to him that the same thing could
be said about Kirpal, a generation back? [*NOTE: P>erkins, op. cit., page 11. *]

The preceding excerpt contains several pregnant clauses and sentences, each of which reveal
a "working" out of an apparent contradiction or odd fact. First, Perkins raises an issue of
semantics concerning the word "initiation," suggesting that its meaning may be variable,
depending on whom it is being applied. In Ajaib Singh's case, for instance, Perkins argues that if
he was in fact "initiated" by Charan Singh (and Beas documents indicate that he was) but
denied it, then Ajaib Singh is not necessarily lying but applying a much higher meaning to the
term. In other words, what Beas may consider initiation, Ajaib Singh does not. This line of
reasoning, though Perkins invokes it only tangentially, allows Ajaib Singh to "get off the hook,"
so to say, by demonstrating the variability of language use. [*NOTE: The only glitch here, at
least in terms of Perkins' own situation, is that such a line of reasoning has already been
employed by Paul Twitchell, one-time member of Ruhani Satsang and founder of Eckankar, who
denied ever being initiated by Kirpal Singh. Perkins, who is well aware of Eckankar's denial of
its Delhi connection, has criticized Twitchell on a number of occasions for denying his spiritual
roots. Yet, when the issue arises in Ajaib Singh's case (something which is much closer to
Perkins' own bone), he--like his Eckankar counterparts--invokes semantics in order to clarify, if
not justify, an apparent contradiction. Although Perkins finds Twitchell reprehensible for his
spiritual cover-up, he does not feel the same about Ajaib Singh. The reason, notwithstanding the
great differences between the two religious leaders, is simple: Perkins has a vested (read
material) interest in Ajaib Singh, whereas in Twitchell he has little, if any. It is this interest, I
would suggest, which empowers the rhetorical devices employed by ideological workers. The
knife of reason, no doubt, has two sides, but which side is used depends almost solely on one's
particular attachment. Such attachments, as in the case of Perkins, can at one time make a
person harshly criticize a line of argumentation as convoluted, while in another time prompt that
person to claim that the same line of argumentation is reasonable and sensible. To avoid
sounding patronizing, I should add that nobody seems to be exempt from this rhetorical Catch-
20/25
22--not even keenly self-conscious sociologists of knowledge. *]

"Our agenda is not necessarily Their agenda," is perhaps Perkins' key ideological phrase, for
this principle allows the concerned disciple to explain away any apparent duplicity on his guru's
part as stemming from a limited understanding or point of view. Furthermore a devoted disciple
always seeks to understand the larger viewpoint of his/her guru, as Perkins indicated about
Stephens when he wrote, "Arran would have worked [my emphasis] very hard to find an
alternate explanation [if he had confronted a contradiction on the part of Kirpal Singh]." Perkins'
verbal choice, of course, is revealing, especially in light of Berger's writings on ideology, since
he himself uses the operative phrase "would have worked." Something which is what ideological
battle is all about: working to resolve or figure out an apparent tension between theory and
practice, or, in our circumstance, a breach between outer and inner criteria.

The more serious charge labelled against Ajaib Singh, at least from the standpoint of Ruhani
Satsang, is that he lied about his association with Kirpal Singh, exaggerating his relationship
with the Delhi master and misconstruing dates for his apparent advantage. It is a charge which
has caused several staunch supporters of Ajaib Singh to withdraw their support of the Sant Bani
guru. Perkins addresses the issue in the following way:

Sant Ji has often admitted that He has a poor head for dates and for specifics of that kind. Kirpal
Singh, Who had been an accountant in His professional life, did not have that problem, yet I
have been present when He said things that were not correct on that level [Perkins adds in the
margin, "intellectual mistakes"]. If this is what we call lying, and serves as a criterion for judging
a Saint, so be it. I do not know (and neither does anyone else) if Swami Ji [founder of
Radhasoami] faced criticisms of this kind or not. Yet the Sar Bachan (prose) is infused (and not
only sections mentioned above) with a kind of "cosmic defensiveness," which seems to assume
that the Satguru is going to have problems with His credentials. It certainly seems, at the very
least, that Swami Ji had problems with His credentials. And, after all, why not? I mean, My God!
Where were his documents? . . . Of course, Sant Ji's statements about Kirpal coming to see Him
run up against the inability of the leading disciples in Delhi to grasp that the Master could do
something without consulting them. In my knowledge of Kirpal, it was totally in character for Him
to do such a thing. . . [*NOTE: Perkins, op. cit., page 17. *]

Here Perkins attempts to explain several things at once about Ajaib Singh: his memory lapses,
his lack of credentials, and his alleged "secret" meetings with Kirpal. In the first case, Perkins
contrasts Ajaib with Kirpal (admitting that the latter was more meticulous with dates, facts, etc.,
due to his accountant background) by claiming that both of them had said things that were--as
Perkins puts it--"intellectual mistakes." He further says that if such mistakes are regarded as
lying on this mundane level then so be it, implying that everybody at one time or another
(including saints) make such errors. The revealing thing here in light of our unmasking is that
Perkins is usurping, albeit partially, the criterion of legitimacy. In other words, yes Ajaib Singh
may have made some factual mistakes, but they are inconsequential when compared with his
spiritual authenticity. A claim, I should add, that dovetails with minority succession in general.
21/25
Furthermore, Perkins places Ajaib in a larger historical context, particularly in line with Shiv
Dayal Singh, in order to drive home one of his recurring points: if one is to criticize Ajaib for his
lack of proper credentials, the same should also be said about Swami Ji, the founder of
Radhasoami. Yet, Perkins contextualization begs the question at hand by legitimizing Ajaib
Singh's credentials by authority and tradition, though in a reverse way. Yes, Ajaib Singh lacks
outward credentials, but so do Shiv Dayal Singh and Jaimal Singh. The inference is clear
enough: Ajaib Singh is authentic, if not legitimate, by following in the footsteps of his
predecessors. Perkins is a traditionalist and as orthodox as any disciple in Darshan Singh's
camp. Perkins' orthodoxy, though, arises out of his own guru's succession narrative, which has
prompted him and others to reframe all of Sant mat/Radhasoami history in light of Kirpal Singh's
purview. This is natural enough, but what may not be quite so obvious is how logical Sant Bani's
position is when it is viewed from "inside" or "within" the group. Although majority camps may
wish to project an air of irrationality about minor split-off gurus and their struggling campaigns,
the fact remains that there is an intrinsic logic to marginality. It is not so much a revolt against
the status quo or a verifiable candidate, but against inconsistency. Indeed, it was the
inconsistency of Darshan Singh's campaign compared with his father's succession accounts
which has allowed Perkins to accept Ajaib Singh's biographical inconsistencies, since his
succession rhetoric, not Darshan's, was reminiscent of Kirpal Singh's. Simply put, Perkins had
already accepted Kirpal Singh's apparent discrepancies as inconsequential, much as he has
done with Ajaib's, but what is not inconsequential to Perkins is how well a succession candidate
follows the pattern already set by Kirpal Singh. True, one may deviate in a number of ways, but
those deviations must dovetail with Kirpal's. If not, then the succession is disputable.

Finally, one of the more attractive features about Ajaib Singh, and one that has not been
mentioned so far about any of the gurus in this study (though it is also true of them, especially in
the case of Jaimal Singh), is his dramatic and romantic life-story. Whatever one may say about
him, the fact remains that Ajaib Singh fits the archetypal Indian guru, the kind romanticized in
Hollywood movies like The Razor's Edge . I don't say this in a vindicative way, but only to
illustrate how politically powerful simplicity can be. In North America particularly there is
something quite alluring about going back to a culture and a time not spoiled by the
transgressions of technology and modern living. Moreover, for many Jews and Christians the
idea of a holy man or a saint brings to mind ancient figures, those men and women who literally
lived thousands of years ago--a Moses, a Peter, a Mary. For some it is a bit incongruent to think
of a holy man as a lawyer, a politician, a stock trader, a C.E.O., since holiness is oftentimes
equated with renunciation of the world.

Romanticism plays a part in attracting would-be seekers to Indian gurus. First, there is the
element of a foreign culture--exotic, unpenetrable, new--which entices one to forget about one's
own mundane existence. Moreover, there is a language barrier which instead of preventing
recruits invites one to a sense of mystery. Even the terminology of Sant mat/Radhasoami plays
upon this; Westerners are generally fond of using terms such as "Shabd," "Satguru," "Sach
Khand," and the like, if only for the mystery that they conjure up and the sense of wonder and
22/25
discovery.

Not many of the Radhasoami gurus today fit that romantic motif. Sure a Shiv Dayal Singh and
Jaimal Singh did, but that was only because they lived before the era of mass communications
and trans-national air travel. Most Radhasoami gurus, as Mark Juergensmeyer points out in his
book Radhasoami Reality , are modern and well educated. There have been lawyers,
professors, chancellors, accountants, and even businessmen. Yet the idea of a forgotten sage is
an attractive one. Much of Ajaib's appeal (and other gurus like him), I would argue, rests in some
measure upon his romantic appeal. In Ajaib Singh one does not have to confront the ugly
politics that occurred in Delhi in 1974; in Ajaib Singh one can forego the hustle and bustle of a
city ashram; and in Ajaib Singh one can forget the western world and much of its technology.
Ajaib Singh is, for the most part, the archetypal desert sage. It is that image--real and imagined--
which has helped Ajaib Singh's ministry tremendously. And little wonder, since one of the more
enticing features of Indian religion is the notion of a hidden guru, a mystic somewhere forgotten
by others who contemplates in far off locales--the Himalayas, the Forest Shrines, the Rajasthan
desert. As Perkins proudly writes, "A simple loving beautiful man, of total integrity and
authenticity, living the timeless life of the Desert Fathers or the Biblical prophets in his mud
ashram in the middle of the desert, and working in the express image and power of Kirpal
Singh." [*NOTE: Russell Perkins, Sant Ajaib Singh Ji: A Brief Life Sketch (Sanbornton: Sant Bani
Ashram, n.d.), pages 14-15. *]

The overall significance in romanticism, at least in sociological terms, is that it represents a

rejection of conventional living and religion. In Sant Bani, in particular, there is an almost
wholesale adoption of Indian culture and values. Even the singing of shabds in a language
foreign to most members is encouraged for their "spiritual" effect. What we have here is a move
away from modernity and its complexity and a move towards contemplative spirituality and its
attendant simplicity.

Targeting an Audience: Marketing and Membership

Gurus, not unlike movie or television stars, appeal to certain kinds of audiences. Mark
Juergensmeyer has noted that Radhasoami membership generally cuts across caste lines,
though certain castes are better represented in some satsang groups than others. He has also
observed that Radhasoami has become a transnational faith, drawing members from around the
world, though most markedly from North and South America.

Kirpal Singh's initial following came from disciples of his guru, Sawan Singh, who for a variety of
reasons (including disaffection with the Beas administration, travel distance, and personal
inclinations) were attracted to his ministry. At first Kirpal Singh's following was quite small, since
he was, relatively speaking, unknown in Delhi. However, Kirpal Singh's following grew steadily.
As Juergensmeyer notes:

When Kirpal Singh came to Delhi in 1948, he was by no means alone. At that time hundreds of
23/25
thousands of Punjabi refugees were streaming over the border from the newly created Pakistan.
Kirpal Singh stayed in Delhi for a time with his son, Darshan Singh, and delivered his first
satsang as a spiritual master in the bustling Daryaganj section of the old city. . . Soon his
satsang--and Beas's--had attracted a good number of the refugees who encamped nearby. A
good number of Sawan Singh's other disciples joined his satsang as well. . . . [*NOTE: Mark
Juergensmeyer, Radhasoamis (Princeton University Press, 1991), page 172. *]

Yet Kirpal Singh also internationalized his movement by taking periodic trips around the world
and by appointing representatives in various countries to initiate new seekers on his behalf.
Additionally, he wrote a number of popular books in English about Sant mat which received a
wide readership in the 1960's and 1970's. Eventually, about ten percent of Kirpal Singh's
following came from the West (roughly eight thousand initiates). Although the Westerners were
far outnumbered by their Indian counterparts, they did nevertheless have a significant influence
in the management of the satsang. As Juergensmeyer points out:

When Kirpal Singh returned to America in 1963 [his first trip was in 1955], the size of the crowds
increased several times over, and when he came once more, on his final tour in 1972, the
crowds increased "by a factor of ten. . ." The percentage of revenue gained from their
[Westerners'] donations was higher than that [ten percent], and Westerners were visibly present
in the leadership circles of Kirpal Singh's ashram; they assisted in publication projects, building
programs, and planning for master's tours. Some developed branch organizations of their own. .
. . [*NOTE: Ibid., page 173. *]

Kirpal Singh's internationalization continued under his three main successors, Darshan Singh,
Thakar Singh, and Ajaib Singh. Indeed, Darshan Singh's son and successor, Rajinder Singh,
lives both in Chicago and Delhi, dividing his time between both centers and his busy travel
schedule, where he visits various centers around the world, including South America, Australia,
and Europe.

Thakar Singh, though he has his central base in India, travels constantly, visiting South and
North America almost yearly. He also has commenced a policy where anyone can be initiated
into the path if they promise to follow the prescribed vows in the future. This has led to a
tremendous increase in his core following, though it is difficult to know how long-term their
commitment will be over time. Initial reports suggest that much of Thakar Singh's following is
comprised of one-time seekers, who after a year or so fall away from the movement. [*NOTE:
Interviews with Bernadine Chard, former General Representative for Thakar Singh in the United
States (telephone/correspondence: 1977 to 1988). *]

Ajaib Singh's following, unlike Rajinder Singh's or Thakar Singh's, is comprised largely of
Westerners. This is indeed unique, given that Ajaib Singh is not fluent in English and that his
ashram in Rajasthan is relatively primitive when compared with other Kirpal Singh related
centers. Much of this has to do with the fact that two Westerners--Arran Stephens and Russell
Perkins--made Ajaib Singh well known, even to Indian satsangis. Ajaib Singh attracts over a
24/25
thousand people to his almost yearly visits to Sant Bani Ashram in New Hampshire, a figure
much higher than Thakar Singh's and slightly above Rajinder Singh's.

Naturally each guru must address the needs of his or her specific audience. This becomes even
more apparent, though, when gurus move out of their own jurisdiction, into countries where a
Judeo-Christian ethos pervades. In the case of Ajaib Singh, Indian culture gets transplanted into
a Western environment with little alteration. Indian shabds are sung, Indian food is served,
Indian clothes are worn, even though the country is not India but the United States and the state
is not Rajasthan but New Hampshire. In Rajinder Singh's sangat in North America, Indian
culture is also retained, but not with the same blanket romanticism of Ajaib Singh's group.
Rajinder is fluent in English, served as a computer engineer, and is familiar with American
customs, having lived in Chicago for almost two decades. Thakar Singh also invokes much of
Indian culture in his group, singing shabds, serving simple Indian food, playing Indian music
extensively. But, unlike his rivals, Thakar Singh has altered some Sant mat principles in order to
accommodate American tastes. For instance, Thakar Singh does not require a strict moral code
(restricting sexual relations within the context of a legal marriage) from his followers.

Although the number of followers of each group is fluid and difficult to pinpoint exactly
(especially in light of Thakar Singh's policy of mass initiations), Rajinder Singh's group is by far
the most well organized and diversified. During Darshan Singh's tenure, Sawan-Kirpal Mission
had more followers than the other two camps combined.

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at [email protected]

I want to go back to the home base now.

25/25