Talk:Radha Soami Satsang Beas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Stfg, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on 10 February 2012. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!

Initial Article[edit]

I started this article so that people interested in RSSB can create a proper article instead of changing the Sant Mat article to look like RSSB is Sant Mat, when most of the objective activity (books, Gurus, disciples) have long ago abandoned the Beas line. David C. Lane has additional information on this lineage, as he was an initiate of a Beas Guru named Charan Singh (guru).

I think you are mixing SANT MAT with religions like HINDUISM , SIKHISM Our master teaches us the path of sant mat and how to reach the ultimate goal of life which is nothing but to unite with the master.

And we never profess ourselves to be sikhs. So, I think one should not use a term like religion this mat.

I don't understand the arguments claiming RSSB is not a religion. By any definition of the word, "religion", it is.

Thank You Kushagra Behl

Please provide "any definition of religion" from a reputed source and prove your point, instead of making conjectures! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why only one sided view on this page[edit]

This is wikipedia and not RSSB's official newsletter. Why is that every time somebody posts any controversy related to RSSB, it is deleted from this page? Are we trying to make this page an official propaganda (or newsletter) of RSSB? There are ex-followers, who followed this faith for more than 30 years and now left this faith as they got disillusioned. In the free spirit of wikipedia, don't they have a say on this page? Or this sect is scared that posting controversies will effect their membership Graham'sCamera (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC) I agree that although the lineage of the RSSB is important to the context of Indian spiritual traditions, specifically the confluence of Hindu-Buddhist-Muslim-Sikh, the abject confusion over the various branches of "The Path" needs clarification. Beas is different than the Agra line, and so on. Also, consider the growth of the the Beas tradition in the West.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I was an initiate at a very young age of Charan Singh. I practiced for five years and then returned to Anglicanism, but with a broader understanding of spirituality, and a place where Eastern thought and practice is not uncommon.

This issue of whether Sant Mat ought to be called a religion is a hot topic, with the default being "spiritual path." Satsangis I know are acutely sensitive of this distinction, and it is discussed in the literature as well.

My conclusion is that there ought to be links from the four spiritual traditions I mentioned in paragraph two. But the distinction between the Beas line and the others (including Paul Twitchel's westernized version) is important and must be respected. Graham

Thanks, Sapient

I have not been involved here, and know little of the particular subject, but in the general area of minority religions on Wikipedia I understand that there is a problem with the testimony of both acolytes and apostates. Re the apostates, I feel personally sympathetic, but it seems that when someone has committed themselves passionately to a group, its beliefs or its leader, then he/she loses that commitment, there is nearly always an equally passionate and sincere reversal of loyalty. Perhaps it takes many years for the pendulum to centre itself, perhaps it never happens, but what is required on Wikipedia is neutral, scholarly appraisal, which they are unlikely to provide. Mixing pro and anti sentiments in the article does not achieve this either, it resembles schizophrenia, and the two factions will fight to the death on the Discussion pages. If there are not enough unbiased scholars who have looked at the subject then the Wiki article should probably be reduced, by consent of all involved, to a very short form (a stub.) Then get on with something more constructive in your lives. Rumiton 13:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Rumiton. But the whole idea of wikipedia is to get complete knowledge about a subject whether its good or bad; Subjects can be controversial and people might have different point of views. I am not trying to suppress a person's belief or his ideology about any certain sect but in the free spirit of wikipedia presenting the sect from the eyes of people who thinks this sect is a cult.
Forget about editing the main page, can you imagine that even my question (which you replied) was deleted from the 'discussion section'. I have just added it back. These things show that someone is deliberately trying to hide information and doesn't want others to read about it.

Seems that this RSSB is a certain philosophy and that stands on its own. It hardly matters what people profess it to be or not be - that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the core philosophy. If someone chooses to believe it, they believe; likewise, if someone thinks that the philosophy has holes, then so be it. Why would either be presented? The core philosophy is what it is whether we believe it or not and whether it is true or not. My philosophy may be that a good thing will happen to people on their 23rd birthday if they eat oatmeal cookies every tenth day. That's it. It doesn't matter if people believe it or not, it still is what it is. I would assume the point of this is to present the philosophy and not to credit it or discredit it. Who cares - just leave it be. If you want to discredit it, that suggests something specific about your beliefs and not this philosophy (or religion). Likewise, if you want to give credit to it, same deal. Why? Just believe what you do and that's it. Everyone is capable of reading the core philosophy that is attributed to a Master or Leader, and from their own perspective they make their own decision - simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not for Wikipedia to pronounce on whether it is good or bad. Wikipedia's job is to describe it neutrally and objectively. --Stfg (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It should not be merged with Radhasoami section[edit]

It should not be merged as this is my religion and is totally separate to Radha Soami!

sharadjalota456 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually Radhasoami Name and this faith originally started in Agra by Soamiji maharaj in 1861. Later on after his departure, various sects emerged each claiming themselves the original one.Radhasoami satsang Beas is one of them.
I think people should get all information about various sects under radhasoami name, their point of views, their ideologies and differences.But merging section Radhasoami with section Radhasoami satsang Beas will not be right and will hide important information from the viewers.I feel both two section should go ahead as well as others such as Radhasoami Satsang Soami Bagh,Agra,Radhasoami Satsang Dayal Bagh,Agra
Premshrivastava (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It should not be merged with the Radha Soami article because it is NOT affiliated with Radha Soami at all. They are both based of the same thing but Radha Soami Satsang Beas has slighty different views than Radha Soami. As a follower of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, I think it should remain its own article and keep the two separate
KamKamo13 (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sprititual Journey[edit]

According to radhaswami teachings It is the prosess by which the soul merges back to its source, like the drop merges in the occean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Radha Swami Ji- my humble request is to keep the both articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

radha swamiji dyal ki dya radha soamiji sahai[edit]

to babajibe with me always

Sukhjinder pal (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)I am a follower of RSSB and my view is that RSSB's article should not be merged with any other article.

Radha Soami and RSSB are not the same thing[edit]

Despite the fact that these two spiritual paths/organizations have similar names, they are entirely different entities, and as such, their articles shouldn't be merged. It's sort of like trying to merge Catholicism and Protestantism. Also, there wouldn't be any real benefit to merging these articles; doing so would only create confusion.

However, followers of the RSSB movement need to stop removing the comments/edits of critics. Look, it's Wikipedia, folks. If a critic has properly sourced information that they would like to post in the article, then so be it. Of course, slanderous, uncited comments should not be allowed to stay because information like that doesn't fit Wikipedia's quality standards. Also, wouldn't want love-crazed satsangis removing information that really does relate to Sant Mat.

Also, ex-satsangis should NOT vandalize the RSSB articles. Stop it, already. It's petty and you know it.

Thanks in advance for not merging the RSSB and Radha Soami articles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with the above[edit]

I am proceeding to remove the merge tag. Alvin Seville (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Restructure[edit]

I feel as though this article could be significantly improved. However, it may require significant restructuring, such as renaming and moving headings adding sub-articles to give context etc... in particular I have updated the article message boxes to reflect some of the more important edits required.

Some initial improvements could include:

  1. re-writing the lead as it seems a little repetitive, un-organised and there is nothing about belief in it.
  2. There is no info box - Formation, location etc...
  3. There is no introduction/History section proper
  4. There is no Controversies section - Clearly only if applicable and only to promote neutrality of the article
  5. Suggested Radha Soami sub-article - to highlight differences etc...

These are only a few suggestions please comment with suggestions as to if you feel the article should remain as it is and/or if you have any suggestions. Thank You Tindy1986 (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


There's no point copy editing an article that needs rewriting. This one does, because of its complete lack of sources and its somewhat promotional tone. --Stfg (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


Tulsi Sahib, Shivdayal Singh, Girdhari Das, and Salig Ram were NOT leaders of Radha Soami Satsang Beas. "RADHASOAMI BEAS SECRET HISTORY" (placed at the head of the list of Historical References) is more of a sensationalist conspiracy theory site. It should have no place in an encyclopedia's list of sources. Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This article reads like a pamphlet for the religion[edit]

As it stands now, nearly the entire article is full of long, completely uncited sections that describe the religion in a favorable light, in a manner that it would seem to welcome new initiates. It is full of punctuation errors, and strange capitalization. Read this section, for instance:

"Radha Soami respects all religions.In Satsang (sat-truth,sang-company) or spiritual discourse done by present master,Baba Ji explain different bani(verses)of different maters irrespective of their caste or religion or their time or place of arrival. it may be words of JESUS CHRIST ,from KURAN, from ADI GRANTH or GURU GRANTH SAHIB JI or it may be of any Hindu saint . "

This feels like totally unacceptable content to be hosted on a live WIkipedia article.

This article needs to be flagged, much of it scrapped, and restructured from a neutral perspective with citations.


RADHA SOAMI JI — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Religion or not? Propaganda or not?[edit]

In the view of religion or not question, the general public generally regards it as a religion, however, it doesn't call itself a religion but rather a "spiritual philosophy" but there is no way to say one or the other because, due to its highly seclusive nature, no neutral analysis has been done, but merely the strong adherents' and the disillusioned ex-initiates' opposing views which are both fit for the "controversies" section at best which noone should hesitate to create because even the fanatic scientology's page has one. In support of the organizations claim of not being a religion- the organization calls itself spiritual philosophical society and asks of its initiates to maintain their religious practices if they so desire and most of the members introduce themselves with their own religions, hindu, muslim, christian, sikh and so on.

The page looks like a turf war between its active and ex' members perhaps because there isn't much independent sources to cite. I would ask the adherents of this- "Babaji has vehemently asked all members to refrain from publicising and whether or not you disagree, writing in wikipedia and even more removing the parts that speak ill of the society is very much contrary to his wishes. I give you that there is now an official site but that even is not to publicize but only for contacting Dera and getting books etc. So, just write for the "beliefs and practices" section and leave the rest and let the article take its shape. I would ask the ex-members to remain in wikipedia guidelines and cite sources when adding controversial subjects and not to report hearsay or your personal grievances.

To neutral party- it is difficult to find independent sources or analyses of RSSB because of its seclusive nature. Given the importance level to any portal, this article could have been done without. So, please remove propaganda and controversial material without proper citation and references when you can.

≈≈≈≈1/31/014, Sam Adhikari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Some sources[edit]

Here is a list of sources (perhaps some would be independant secondary publications) that may confirm or refute some of the data or assist someone with adding more, I will not insert data but feel that having a page that conforms to Wikipedia citation guidelines is a worthy goal.

The difference between the various groups of Sant Mat or Radha Soami matter a lot to some people and reflect the history of the various groups so clarity is a good thing to have.

Judaism and World Religions: Encountering Christianity, Islam, and Eastern ... by Alan Brill on Google books

The Holy Name by Miriam Bokser Caravella

Idyllic press (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Too many tags perhaps?[edit]

I wonder it it might be time to remove the tags for India, Hinduism, New Religion as they do not relate to the topic at hand.

  • It is not exclusively practised, found or promoted in India
  • Neither the RSSB followers nor Hindus would like to equate the two
  • It is not particularly new nor does it profess to be a religion

It looks like more editing is still possible but at least it looks a lot calmer than it has been in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)