I took up your suggestion, and have been reading further. I picked up a
copy of "Radhasoami Reality" by your friend, Mark Juergensmeyer. However,
I ran across a curious statement on page 70, where Mark writes: "Beas even
accepts that Rai Saligram was an authentic gurmukh (successor), though it
does not believe that his lineage has continued."


Thanks for following up my lead, Doug.

I don't even think Beas believes that Salig Ram was authentic.

Read what Jaimal Singh says about Salig Ram and Brahm Shankar Misra


This seemed rather surprising. Fortunately he gave a reference for this
statement: A book called "Radha Swami Teachings" by L. R. Puri. As chance
would have it, an old ECK friend recently passed away and left me some of
her books in her last will and testament, of which an early edition of
this very book happened to one.

On page 126-127 of that book it says:
"Similarly, after Swami Ji (Shiv Dayal Singh) himself, there were four men
who worked as Gurus. They were:
 "(1) Seth Partap Singh...of Agra...
 "(2) Rai Salig Ram...of Agra...
 "(3) Baba Gharib Das...of Delhi...
 "(4) Baba Jaimal Singh...of Beas...

"We should further remember that out of these four Gurus (Masters), the
first three passed away without appointing any successor. Therefore their
lines of Gurus ended with them. Only Baba Jaimal Singh, who was a 'Param
Sant' (Supreme Saint), appointed during his lifetime, a right and proper
successor, viz., Maharaj Sawan Singh Ji..."

When I read this, I was somewhat shocked. As I am sure you would agree,
this is not true at all, and it strikes me as a bald-faced lie. As your
own chart of Radhasoami lineage, in the back of Juergensmeyer's book
shows, all of the above four gurus had successors, especially Rai Salig
Ram, whose lineage is the most extensive of all the Radhasoami Masters
(not counting Shiv Dayal Singh the founder, of course.)

Now, it looks like Mr. Puri is playing a little word game here, by saying
that Jaimal Singh was the only one of the four gurus to appoint "during
his lifetime" a successor, and somehow therefore feels he can conclude
that the other successors do not count. He does not tell anyone here that
he is drawing this subtle distinction, however, but leaves the unwary
reader to think that the lineage of Shiv Dayal Singh only continued
through Jaimal Singh. Wouldn't you agree?


Each lineage has a tendency to be myopic about its religious

Salig Ram did not leave a successor during this lifetime. This is
very clear and is, ironically, discussed at length in a series of
letters by his eventual majority successor, Brahm Shankar Misra
(see "Solace to Satsangis).

Puri's book, RADHA SWAMI TEACHINGS, was actually written in response
to the numerous books by S.D. Maheshwari.

Thus, there is a political impulse that contextualizes the entire

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, S.D. Maheshwari's books were
calling into question both the Dayal Bagh and Beas Satsang versions
of Radhasoami history. They caused quite a stir among certain
satsangis in both camps.

Puri's book and R.K. Khanna's book were, in large part, responses
and critiques to Maheshwari's charges.

Maheshwari, for instance, argued that ONLY the Soami Bagh gurus were
legitimate (his term, "Parent" group) and all others were splinters
or offshoots.

What we tend to see in R.S. history books written by various
lineages is more or less a biased version favoring their particular
parampara or guru lineage.

But this is not to say that such books, because of those slants, are
not without merit.  

I clearly think that Maheshwari's books (regardless of his
worldview) are extremely valuable sources of information.

Puri's book is simply a polemic which attempts to buttress the BEAS
lineage in contradistinction with the Agra lineages.


Doesn't this strike you as a distortion of the truth, in fact as an
outright lie? Has this been changed in later editions of the book, or does
it still read this way? I know that this book has been, in the past, one
of the prominent books distributed by Beas, is this still true, or has it
been removed from distribution?


Salig Ram did not leave a successor during his lifetime. There was,
as Brahm Shankar Misra, reports much confusion.

On this point, Puri is  correct, since Jaimal Singh did indeed appoint
Sawan Singh during his lifetime (see SPIRITUAL LETTERS and SPIRITUAL

I think what you are objecting to is that Puri is writing a
polemic in favor of Beas's lineage.

That's a religious view and one which I happen to disagree with.

See, for instance, my whole series on lineage in my shabd yoga
section of the Neural Surfer.

Also, please read my take of early R.S. history in my book, THE
RADHASOAMI TRADITION (Garland, 1992; and currently online as well).

Faqir Chand has a really telling story about this whole type of
thinking in the UNKNOWING SAGE where he personally experienced the
"politics" of guru succession.


If you agree with me, that with what we know today these statements by Mr.
Puri are not true, then, since this book is distributed by the very branch
that you have followed, I am curious what you have done to correct and
remove this falsehood. Did you talk to Charan Singh about this? If it has
not been corrected, and is still in its original form, have you tried to
share these errors to other followers of Beas?


Each R.S. satsang has a tendency to believe that its lineage (and
sometimes ONLY its lineage) is the True and Correct one.

Each of the satsangs tend to write histories in FAVOR of their
peculiar and particular slant.

It is rarely objective, but almost always underlines their
theological views on the past.

That is why I originally called my PH.D. dissertation:

"The POLITICS of Guru Successorship."

It can be quite ugly (see my series on THE GURU HAS NO TURBAN).

Much of my own work has been on R.S. history.... much more than on
Eckankar, for example.

My M.A. thesis back in 1981 was an attempt to provide a WIDER
history on R.S. than had ever been provided, even by the likes of
Agam Prasad Mathur; whereas, my Ph.D. dissertation was designed to
show the utter humanness in guru succession and all its strange
twists and turns.

As for me informing Beas about such, why do you think I worked for
so long with Juergensmeyer on his book?

I gave him copies of Maheshwari's books; I told him about the other
satsangs that he had never heard of, like Faqir Chand. I even
went and visited some of the major centers in India on his behalf.

Juergensmeyer's book, as you can tell, attempts to give a WIDER
reading than any in-house history, and it was for that very reason
that I worked so hard on his text.

I tried to do the same with THE RADHASOAMI TRADITION which if you
read closely comes up with some very startling conclusions (in light
of my own personal involvement).

THE UNKNOWING SAGE is perhaps the single most radical text in R.S.
Not because of me, but because of Faqir's universal rip of gurus and
their "lineages."

I have repeatedly written to the Dera about a wide range of
historical matters, including the misleading information about Kehr
Singh Sasmus in Dawn of LIGHT. 


There were a few other concerns I had about this same chapter in the book,
by Mr. Puri. I'm curious how you feel about these as well. First, Mr. Puri
discusses two theories held by other branches of Radhasoami: The Dhar
(Current) Theory, and the Interregnum Theory. In both cases, it appears
that Mr. Puri has presented these theories in such a distorted manner as
to make them appear as the utmost in stupidity. It is possible, of course,
that Mr. Puri was simply ignorant about the true meaning of these
theories, but from what we know today wouldn't you say that his
explanations of these theories was completely inaccurate? Wouldn't you say
that someone reading his descriptions would completely write off those
theories as being ridiculous, if they had not already learned about them
before? Doesn't this strike you as blatant propaganda, and misinformation?


What you must realize is that Puri's book is itself a political and
polemical RESPONSE to S.D. Maheshwari's books on R.S. history. As
such, it is more or less an argument on behalf of BEAS, and not at
all about R.S. in general.

Thus it contains all the weird doctrines that have arisen in R.S.
over the years, including the Interrgenum Theory, which, by the way,
is NOT held by Puri but BY SOAMI BAGH and S.D. Maheshwari.

Do I think Puri's book is a a good historical tome on Radhasoami?


Quite frankly, I think it sucks in that regard.

But he was not trying to write a history, but a defense of Beas'
version of their take on R.S. history/theology/lineage.

In that regard, it is a political tract and must be seen (for better
or worse) as such.


If you do agree with me, which I suspect you do, then what have you done
to see that this is corrected? How many disciples of Charan Singh have you
written to, to let them know of these distortions?


I don't think you know my history with Beas very well, Doug.

Let me put this to you bluntly:

The Beas Publications Department


what I write.

They don't like my work on Faqir Chand (point blank told me I would
be doing NO service to Sant Mat)

They didn't like my M.A. thesis (again, told me that I would be
doing NO service to Sant Mat)

They didn't want me to publish THE RADHASOAMI TRADITION (Dr. Narang,
now deceased, was particularly troubled by my refusal to cave in).

They don't like me writing on the Internet about Radhasoami Beas
(I have received tens of letters worldwide asking to me "delete"
what I have written on R.S.).

I am absolutely certain that they wouldn't like my series on
or the series on THE MAGIC OF AN ELEVATED PODIUM.     

Are you getting my drift, Doug?

I am writing on all this stuff precisely because I have been asked
not to and I feel quite strongly that the more information we get 
(even if it is slanted via Puri or Maheshwari) the better.


I certainly have seen
the value in what you have published about Paul Twitchell, surely ECKists
aren't the only ones to benefit from your dogged dedication to printing
the truth.

The last problem I wanted to raise, concerns Mr. Puri's fancy footwork
concerning guru succession. He writes on page 127: "However, a true
successor to a Guru cannot be determined by election or by someone
claiming to be Guru. He can be appointed only by the previous Guru, before
his departure from the world."

Then on page 131 he writes: "And lastly, any man can in course of time,
claim to be successor. Who is there to judge whether he is the right and
true successor? Only the previous Guru could do that; but he is not there
now to help us out of this difficulty. If he had liked, if he had wanted
to do it, he could have appointed a successor during his lifetime and
before he left the world for good. If he has not done so, then his line of
Gurus has certainly come to an end."

The problem I have with these statements, is that my understanding is that
Jaimal Singh did exactly what Mr. Puri says; in the course of time he
claimed to be a successor. Please correct me if I am wrong here, David,
but I believe it was many years after Shiv Dayal Singh died before Baba
Jaimal in any way began acting as a guru, and that while Shiv Dayal did
openly appoint and acknowledge Rai Salig Ram as a successor, he never said
a word to anyone else about Baba Jaimal. I am right here?


I have written extensively on this very point. See my book THE
RADHSOAMI TRADITION and my various articles on shabd yoga.

If we accept the obvious hagiographical "last words" of Shiv Dayal
Singh as authentic (I find them questionable, even if interesting),
then there are two people Shiv Dayal Singh appoints:

1. His wife, Radhaji, for householders.


2. Sanmukh Das, for sadhus.

Seth Partap Singh, Shiv Dayal's brother, is allegedly encouraged to
hold satang and make others do it as well.

On this score, Jaimal Singh was extensively backed to do his work by
Partap Singh, the eventual president of the CAC (see the historical
letters on this score in SPIRITUAL LETTERS).

My personal view is that there was more or less a free-for-all after
Shiv Dayal Singh's death and that many were encouraged to work as
representatives or gurus on BEHALF of Shiv Dayal's ministry.

Jaimal Singh was supported in his ministry (rightly or wrongly) by
both Sanmukh Das and Radhaji. Indeed, Jaimal Singh paid allegiance
to Shiv Dayal Singh's family in this regard (Partap Singh and

The history is much more human than the lineages wish to reveal.


Also, although Beas accepts the idea of there being more than one
successor when it comes to Shiv Dayal Singh, they reject Kirpal Singh,
even though he was recognized as one of the foremost disciples of Sawan
Singh, and claims to have been appointed by Sawan Singh to carry forth
with the spiritual teachings. Jaimal Singh was not even considered one of
the foremost disciples of Shiv Dayal Singh, the two having only visited a
few short times. Am I right here, David?


Yes, Beas does not accept Kirpal Singh's claim to be Sawan Singh's
successor. Likewise, Kirpal Singh does not accept Jagat Singh's
claim to be Sawan Singh's spiritual successor.

[Weird sidebar: Darshan Singh, Kirpal's son and main successor,
claims that there can only be ONE TRUE satguru at a time....]

No, Jaimal Singh met with Shiv Dayal Singh a number of times;
indeed, he stayed with him for a long period when his army was
stationed in Agra.

Kirpal Singh also spent a large amount of time with Sawan Singh.


Also, as Mark writes in his book, there have been claims made by the Agra
branches, that certain key sections have been eliminated from the Beas
edition of Sar Bachan, by Shiv Dayal, that strongly suggest that the
original founder of Radhasoami said there would be one successor, and that
the disciple should look to this successor as the same as his guru.
Indeed, the Agra branch seems to have pretty strong evidence to show that
these sections were removed, and that they were valid in their
authenticity, including the original handwritten document written under
Shiv Dayal's dictation, and witnessed by others.


Yes, you are talking about bachan 250 in Sar Bachan Prose.

The Beas version does NOT include the longer section which was
written by Rai Salig Ram in a letter to Shiv Dayal Singh's nephew,
Sudarshan Singh.

The Agra version states that the disciple should look to the
successor for further guidance after the guru dies (even doing his
"dhyan"), whereas the Beas version states that one's initiating guru
is sufficient, even if no inner progress has been made.

The Beas versions also have apparently deleted the references to
"huqqa" smoking in Sar Bachan Poetry.

[One warning: Sar Bachan is a compilation of notes and dictations,
not an actual book which was written during Shiv Dayal's lifetime;
it also contains a large amount of poems that were apparently not
written by Shiv Dayal, but by others.]


Is this what you meant about your disillusionment concerning the
succession of gurus? You said that you thought these things were really
very human in nature, not as divine as the followers would like to
believe. Was this the result of your realization that what was written,
and taught, about these matters were largely propaganda, with massive
distortions of the truth?


Yep, and I had the great opportunity of actually visiting the
various gurus and ashrams so I got a firsthand look.

Much more human than we tend to believe.

Read Faqir Chand on this; it is quite revealing. Also
see my Conclusion to the R.S. TRADITION--THE ROOTS OF HAGIOGRAPHY.


I think now, perhaps, I can understand your sensitivity to Paul
Twitchell's stories about his lineage of teachers. It was largely out of
the distaste for the stories you had read from the Beas teachings, wasn't
it? Once you saw it there, it seemed like you saw the same thing
everywhere, isn't that true? I think I understand this a little better.


NOPE. You got it backwards here. I found that Twitchell had DENIED
his guru connections, whereas in the R.S. lineages they were trying
to INFLATE their guru connections in order to justify their
respective lineages and claims.

Twitchell lied about his past to conceal it;
whereas some in R.S. exaggerated their past in order to REVEAL why
they were to be considered a master, etc.

Moreover, what I found Twitchell doing was quite intriguing. It was
only much later that I used my Twitchellian discoveries on the
origins of R.S.


But why is it that you are not as vocal, or clearly as accusatory toward
the Beas distortions? It seems like you were far more patient, tolerant,
and kindly to the Beas followers, but wasn't it there first that you saw
these deceptions? Or did you turn up Paul Twitchell's copying first?


Vocal? Patient? Tolerant?

Thanks for the compliments, but it is obvious that you don't have an
inkling of what my history with the BEAS organization has been.

You should talk to Aaron Talsky about what kind of heat I have taken
for my writings.

I am much more vocal on R.S. history than any other subject. 

Read what I say in the GURU has NO TURBAN and the UNKNOWING SAGE.

Do you know that Faqir Chand's successor threatened to SUE me?

Do you know that I had to contravene my own satsang when I published
my writings on Faqir and R.S. history?

No, Doug, go do an altavista search on Radhasoami.

I have more critical stuff on R.S. than anybody on the Internet.


I have one more question. In Mark's book, on the same page 70, he says
that "Beas claims that one section of the Agra version of Sar Bachan:
Prose has been altered to exclude reference to previous sants."
Unfortunately Mark did not give any reference to this claim. Can you tell
me where this is from. Do you know which section this is? What the Agra
version says, versus what the Beas group says it should say?


Tell me the page in R.S. REALITY and i will check up on it for you.

As it stands, I am not sure in which context this refers.


I enjoy, like you, tracking some of these things down. Although you have
lost your confidence on the validity of the spiritual teachings, perhaps
due to some of these exaggerations of truth and misinformation that you
have experienced first hand, it has not had that effect on me. I think
that we both agree that it is best if the facts are addressed and dealt
with honestly. Where we seem to disagree is that you seem to believe that
all spiritual knowledge is inherently compromised by illusionary, mythical
thinking, and only provable facts can be trusted. I, on the other hand,
believe that direct spiritual experience can lead to a personal
understanding that shows the meaning behind why we are here in this world,
and offers a greater insight into the strange goings-on in religion, as
well as mythology.


No, Doug, I am as mythic and emotional and naive as the next guy.

I am still a strict vegetarian, I still don't drink alcohol or take
drugs, I still meditate.

Indeed, as I have stated many times before, I miss Charan Singh more
now than before.

The only thing that has happened is that I have become more

My guru used to say that critics are our best friends.

I think he is right.

One can still meditate and still love one's path or guru and be
critically informed at the same time.

The Tibetan Book of the Dead is a radically skeptical book, as is

It may well be that I think the old adage is right:

little doubt, little faith.

GREAT DOUBT, great faith....

Thanks so much for your fine questions....

This is my background so feel most free to shoot right from the hip.


email for PGP Public Key