Radhasoami INC is NOT Sant Mat

Author: David Christopher Lane
Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER
Publication date: May 1997

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu

I want to go back to the home base now.

Radhasoami INCORPORATED is NOT Sant Mat
If the Path of the Saints is a Structural Potential,
and not merely a Cultural Nuance, 
then Trademarking Organizations have nothing to do
with exploring transrational domains, 
even though such arresting bodies can
still house genuinely enlightened CEO's


Sant Mat is Universal because it is Inherent
The Way of the Saints is part and parcel of our
Bodies (neurological or mystical)
and thus rightly belongs to
anyone, anytime, anywhere

Capitalizing on this transcultural numinosity
is akin to privatizing oxygen.

It may be done, but at what price?


Numinous Neurology vs. Cultural Infrastructure;
or DNA (Divinely Natural Attributes)
vs. INC (Interfering Narcotizing Corporations).....

In any case, Radhasoami is not Sant Mat and even
Sant Mat is no longer Sant Mat.

Which is another way of saying that if Kabir were alive today
he would be criticizing the very groups that claim him as their

Or, if Shams of Tabriz were to mysteriously show up at a Satsang,
he would dump the "official" shabd yoga literature (particularly
Julian Johnson's) into the YMCA pool.


Because what these organizations tend to do, after time, after
building, after fossilizing, is to "capitalize" on that
which, by its very nature, is universal, transcultural, and already

No doubt, the group may be helpful to focus one's attention (at
first), but what happens (almost naturally, almost imperceptibly) is
that we begin to Con-fuse genuine function or utility with its form.

We begin to think that the group is the path and that they are

Whereas, the path is already with everybody anywhere, anytime,

You don't need to search for a brain, if you already got one.

You don't need to "connect" to shabd if shabd is already the Truth
our condition.

Such dualism works, no doubt, to the advantage of an institution,
but it has nothing to do with the deep structural insights of the
mystics they are trying to champion.

As Faqir once said, it may be a blessing to be born in a Church
(read: ashram or satsang or any formalization), but it is a curse to
die in one.


Because if Truth is the Condition of all conditions, the context for
all texts and pretexts......

Then it is already the case and no secondary condition will be able
contain it.

Since it is non-containable as something less.

An ocean may manifest as a wave, but the wave cannot throw out the
ocean in its wake.

Rather, the wave will exhaust itself in that which is already living



If Radhasoami is true or if any path is true it must have the seeds
of its own destruction immediately available to its participants.

That is, the only true path would be one that would immediately show
its followers why and how it is NOT true, since Truth--as such, or
God as such--could not be conveyed by the limitations of its

Or, if we may invoke a Buddhistic Koan to get our point across.

If you see a "True" Path

Don't Walk on it.


Because to the degree a path is "true" is directly proportional to
the ways and means that it illustrates why and how it is false.


We are being lied to, diplomatically perhaps, but lied to all the

The guru is NOT all-knowing, yet allows by his theatre an atmosphere
in which the audience persistently imputes "omniscience" upon the
chief role model.

Does he categorically disdain it?

Does the guru, in effect, say "Nope, I don't know."

If he does, then why use titles which suggest otherwise?

If the guru really doesn't know (and, sorry, the jury is already in:
they don't..... wouldn't mind being proven wrong, but then again
Elvis could be living on Venus), then why does he/she
allow such terms as "Perfect" Master to be sprinkled throughout
their sanctioned texts?

Put more crudely, 
If one is going to infer or imply that they are God (and the very
basis of Radhasoami is predicated on just that belief and the
promulagation of it amongst devotees), then shouldn't they be forced
to at least "demonstrate" it?

And I do mean demonstrate, as in exhibition, as in tests, as in

If they don't want to indulge in that simple public excercise (by
the way, even advertising on T.V. has higher standards than we do
for "certifying" gurus and their claims), then perhaps they should
cool it with the God entitlement business.

Otherwise, it is merely puffery and the disciples are the ones lost
in the exhale.



A guru may be considered trustworthy in proportion to his or her
abdication of such a position or title for him or her self.


Which is another way of saying:

the only guru to trust is the one who doesn't want to be one