Talk:Shiv Dayal Singh

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shiv Dayal Singh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008112319/http://www.radhaswamidinod.org/lineage.htm to http://www.radhaswamidinod.org/lineage.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008112319/http://www.radhaswamidinod.org/lineage.htm to http://www.radhaswamidinod.org/lineage.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Radhasoami Faith
It's very hard to be objective about a belief system when you're a believer. Articles connected with religion, faith, and belief (and unbelief!) are often replete with biases and views that can and will be misleading. Regrettably, many religion-related articles in Wikipedia, especially those about individual religious movements and individual leaders, will most probably never be acceptably objective, given the situation that these are often edited by true believers to conform with their world-view. (Albeit, write-ups by outsiders tend to contain mistakes regarding details of fact and information.)

Setting aside relatively "minor" (so to speak) issues of spelling, grammar, and unscholarly style, this article has serious issues regarding content. As a first, it uses honorifics (Sahab, Sahab Ji) – not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Just to call attention to its assertions would fill the article with "citation needed" notices.

As of this writing, most of the article was apparently composed by an adherent of the largest Radhasoami group, Radhasoami Satsang Dayalbagh Sabha, which for a century has been the acute rival of the Radhasoami Satsang Central Administrative Council which took ownership of Soami Bagh (across the street from Dayal Bagh) and controls the tomb of Shiv Dayal Singh. This article has the potential of becoming the focus of an edit war, and probably will be, sooner or later, given its biases. It’s just waiting for a single provocation from an adherent of some other Radhasoami group.

Unfortunately, scholars who might give an acceptable level of objectivity are often seriously uninformed, and sometimes reliant on secondary sources that carry deceptive prejudices. Also, most scholars and academicians would not bother to have their painstaking research and writing ruined and wasted by non-scholars in a free-for-all work like Wikipedia. The most well-known non-Indian academicians who have written on this topic are Dr. Mark Juergensmeyer and his pupil Dr. David Christopher Lane. Lane is an adherent of one Radhasoami guru, Faqir Chand, and this sometimes colors his opinions. Overall, still, Lane is mostly objective, reliable, and sturdily familiar with the subject. Juergensmeyer, however, is all too apparently an outside observer who lacks a deeper grasp of the inner workings of the movement – a generalist who lacks the expertise of the specialist. Juergensmeyer's Radhasoami Reality, for example, contains one too many lapses of information and spelling that are unacceptable for an academician’s work.

Ultimately, only time will tell if this article (like other religion articles) improves or deteriorates further. Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutral?

 * "Shiv Dayāl Singh Sahab ... was born 24 August 1818 (Agra, Uttar Pradesh) and died on 15 June 1878 (Agra)." —  "Sahab" is an honorific used by devotees. It was not his name, and Shiv Dayal Singh did not refer to himself as "Sahab."


 * "Sant Satguru in Radhasoami Faith is the true living guru who is representative of Supreme Being Radhasoami on earth." —  This is a doctrinal statement.


 * "In terms of Guru Worship, Radhasoami Faith resembles with Kabir Panthi and Sikhism (Nanak Panthi)." —  Sikhs worship Ekankar Sat Nam, not the human guru.


 * "...Shiv dayal Singh Sahab Ji is regarded as the Gracious Supreme Father who brought the spiritual current of Radhasoami Sahab on earth." —  doctrinal statement

Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "He is the founder of Radhasoami Faith." —  Debatable.  Not all who revere Shiv Dayal Singh are Radhasoami devotees.  Sant Mat adherents and others know that the term "Radhasoami" was given by Salig Ram.  ("My Mat is of Sat Nam and Anami. Radhasoami has been started by Salig Ram." — Shiv Dayal Singh)


 * "Thus, Shiv dayal Singh Sahab Ji is regarded as the Gracious Supreme Father who brought the spiritual current of Radhasoami Sahab on earth." — "Sahab" and "Sahab Ji" are honorifics, also spelled "Saheb." Well-known applications of this honorific are "Guru Granth Saheb" and "Darbar Saheb." These are also famous in history as "Sahib," "the Saheeb," and "Memsaheeb."Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Todd Chambers (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Baba Jaimal Singh, in SPIRITUAL LETTERS, all of the Sar Bachan poems, including the many instances of the word "Radhasoami," were by spoken by Soami Shiv Dayal Singh: "In this book, ONLY the words that were voiced by the compassionate Hazur Radha Swami Ji Himself are going to be printed. Other than that, not a single word or letter or diacritic will be added." http://www.santmat-thetruth.de/id-1902/id-27-december-1902.html

https://archive.org/details/SarBachanChandBand_201710 Todd Chambers http://www.radhasoami-spirit.com/elucidation_of_the_faith_pdf.pdf

It is well documented that Shiv Dayal Singh, Sant Jaimal Singh, and Great Master Sawan Singh all recommended the repetition of the word "Radhasoami." See Jaimal Singh's SPIRITUAL LETTERS, Partap Singh's THE BIOGRAPHY OF SOAMIJI MAHARAJ, and Sawan Singh's SPIRITUAL GEMS. (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the old, old, contentious debate between the Agra point of view and the Beas point of view. I've tried to clear up the distinction and controversy for the reading public but, as can be expected, it rears its head once more. As with the teachings of Jesus Christ, Kabir, Guru Nanak, Namdev, Dadu, and many others, the teachings of Shiv Dayal can, has been, and will be molded and manipulated to fit the sensibilities of devotees. Next in line to join the mix-up shall be the followers of the other deviant derivatives. It is as always be, since religion articles in Wikipedia are always in flux and will never be consolidated, given the contentions of believers on various sides of the discussion and various shades of belief.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Todd Chambers (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC) My recent edits and comments relate not to the Agra or Beas points of view (I am familiar with both) but to actual (demonstrable) falsehoods in the article (e.g. "Shiv Dayāl Singh did not use the term "Rádhásoámí."), which can be checked against well-documented facts, as well as un-sourced characterizations ("spineless Pratáp Singh," Misra "usurped" power, "wrested" ownership, "Misra's aggressiveness") which clearly violate Wikipedia's standards of Neutral Point of View. Also, it is simply not true that "Pratáp Singh and Ajodhyá Prasád are no longer acknowledged as gurus by the Council and the Trust." The books of Sant Das Maheshwari mention both of them respectfully, and acknowledge their authority to initiate. The are just not regarded by Soamibagh as the Waqt Gurus (Param Sant Satgurus).

Also, RSSB is not an "anomaly." The lineages of Garib Das and Tarn Taran also still use the name "Radha Swami." Todd Chambers (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

When this article was a Radhasoami advertisement lifted directly from a Dayalbagh website, no one was complaining. I make into an encyclopedia article and believers cry foul. Still, it is to be expected. In fact, what took you so long? So, go ahead, change the article. If you don’t, someone else will. Or change it back to the old Dayalbagh ad. It is inevitable: sooner or later, this article (like the one on Eckankar) will become an ad for the Radhasoami Faith.

Many people call themselves “Hindu,” but an observer would be misled to assume that those people hold the same beliefs. So on with “Muslim,” “Catholic,” “Mormon,” etc. And so the common use of “Radhasoami” have misled people into assuming that Agra, Beas, Tarn Taran, etc are all holding to one belief, and merely maintaining a sibling rivalry.

Pratap Singh was an initiate of Shiv Dayal Singh, but shifted his belief to that of Salig Ram’s. Followers looked to Pratap for leadership but he allowed Brahm Shankar Misra to lead the sangat. Pratap destroyed Shivdayal’s papers. Mystics in history (Jesus, Rumi, Hallaj, Farid, Nanak, etc) taught, while organizations followed later. Misra, on the other hand, started an association, then vested himself with authority to initiate. Soami Bagh books and websites consistently list a lineage of four gurus (Shivdayal, Saligram, Misra, Sinha) plus the mention of Maheshwari Devi as a guru in purdah. Recently, Narayan Devi has been included in the lineage, making a total of 4 gurus plus 2 female nij ansh from Shivdayal to Sinha. Pratap Singh and Ajodhya Parsad are not acknowledged by Council as gurus. RSSB is not an anomaly. The anomaly of the RSSB is Jaimal’s, Sawan’s, and RSSB’s use of “Radha Soami” when they hold to a different belief ‒ hence the comment of Sant Das calling them Sat Namis (‒Sat Nam, in Agra belief, is a lower entity than Radhasoami Dayal). Since the phrase is found in RSSB books, the uninformed reading public naturally think that Agra and Beas are talking about the same thing.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Todd Chambers (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)It was Brahm Shankar Misra who made Pratap Singh the first leader of the Central Administrative Council.Todd Chambers (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Sar Bachan Radhasoami (prose), Part II, verse 250, Agra version
“If a person has met with the perfect Sat Guru, performs His service, attends His Satsang and has love for 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 for 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. “As regards faith in the past Sat Gurus it is infructuous for the reason that no love can be generated for them, since one has not seen them nor attended their Satsang. If one has not met the Sat Guru, there can be no devotion in His feet. Therefore an earnest, i.e., zealous devotee ought to devote himself to the manifested Sat Guru, i.e., Sat Guru of the time, and should make no distinction between Him and the previous Sat Guru except as regards the bodily form and thus have his work accomplished. But if a man is not keen on further progress, he should, with love for, and faith in, the former Sat Guru in his heart, meditate on His form and practise according to the method taught by Him. In the end that Sat Guru will, by that very Form, help him as much as possible, but his object will not be fully achieved. He will have to take birth again when he will meet the Sat Guru. Then he will devote himself to Him, attend His Satsang and attain complete salvation. “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 Jívas 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 would be no further progress and improvement.”

Sar Bachan Radhasoami (prose), Part II, verse 250, Beas version
“If anyone is accepted by a perfect Sat Guru, has love and faith in him, serves him devotedly, but before he has advanced far the Guru departs, he should continue just the same with his love and faith, and go on contemplating his form and performing the exercises prescribed by the late Guru. In the end, that Sat Guru in that very form will do this work to the extent that he deserves.” Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Todd Chambers (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Nevertheless, BOTH versions (of both the poetry and the prose) contain the MANY instances of the word "RADHASOAMI." That word was NOT added to the texts by Hazur Rai Saligram Maharaj.Todd Chambers (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

So, which quote (in the Hindi) is authentic? Which one (in the Hindi) was written by Shivdayal Singh? Believers will insist on their beliefs. Scholars will clearly see the disparity between the two quotations. Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Todd Chambers (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)There is NO existing version of Sar Bachan (there never has been one) that does NOT contain numerous instances of the word "RADHASOAMI." ALL of the Satsangs that have the text (poetry and prose) use versions that contain numerous instances of the word "RADHASOAMI." Therefore, your claim at the bottom of the table is simply not correct, and has been proven to be wrong.Todd Chambers (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You have not proven a single thing. And you can't, even if you try to be misleading and arrogant about it.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Todd Chambers (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)You have provided NO evidence or proof to support the claim that "none of Shivdayal Singh's writings which survived destruction by Partap Singh mention the word "Radhasoami."" Rather, the evidence from Baba Jaimal Singh, Great Master Sawan Singh, Chachaji Partap Singh, etc. (ALL of whom used the name "Radhasoami" in their writings) overwhelmingly indicates that Shivdayal Singh DID use the word "Radhasoami" in his teachings.Todd Chambers (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Mythology of the Radhasoami Faith
Todd Chambers (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC) The last (bottom row) item in this table below is completely incorrect. According to Baba Jaimal Singh, in SPIRITUAL LETTERS, ALL of the Sar Bachan poems, including the many instances of the word "Radhasoami," were by spoken by Soami Shiv Dayal Singh: "In this book, ONLY the words that were voiced by the compassionate Hazur Radha Swami Ji Himself are going to be printed. Other than that, not a single word or letter or diacritic will be added." http://www.santmat-thetruth.de/id-1902/id-27-december-1902.html Todd Chambers (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The above statement is complete misinformation. Shivdayal Singh did not write the Sar Bachan. The Sar Bachan was composed by Salig Ram. Salig Ram described the Sar Bachan as an "abstract" of the teachings of Soamiji Maharaj. Jaimal Singh had deemed it inaccurate, and made changes to it, creating his own version of the Sar Bachan. Jaimal's version is criticised by Agra as inauthentic. Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Todd Chambers (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)The above statement by Oliver Puertogallera is a total falsehood. There are letters (still in print) by Jaimal Singh in which Singh clearly stated that Sar Bachan contains "ONLY the words that were voiced by the compassionate Hazur Radha Swami Ji Himself."Todd Chambers (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The above statement by Todd Chambers shows that he is totally unaware of Agra's viewpoint, misinformed of the questionable nature of the Sar Bachan, confined by the Beas party line, and lacking of scholarly objectivity.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Todd Chambers (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)The above false and libelous assertion about me, by Oliver Puertogallera, shows that he knows nothing of my background with this subject matter. There are NO versions of Sar Bachan that do not contain frequent uses of the name "Radhasoami." The changes made by Baba Jaimal Singh were minor. Baba Jaimal Singh himself repeated the name "Radhasoami" in his published letters (that are still in print). I have consulted with Gurus and Satsangis in Agra, Delhi, and Punjab. Shiv Dayal Singh's own brother discussed the name "Radhasoami" in THE BIOGRAPHY OF SOAMIJI MAHARAJ. It is Oliver Puertogallera who has demonstrated the lack of scholarly objectivity, with multiple un-sourced, undocumented, assertions and opinions regarding the character of various Gurus in these lineages, and this was in clear violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) standards.Todd Chambers (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Every believer has a right to his belief, and every religion has its myths – whether we speak of Greco-Roman, Norse, Mormon, or Radhasoami mythology. But an encyclopedia is not a forum for true believers. Like a professional journal, it must be subject to principles of neutrality and criticism. It is a fact that Sant Jaimal Singh made changes to the Hindi Sar Bachan. And when a word has been changed in the original, it is no longer the original. The Sar Bachan of Beas is not the original Sar Bachan of Agra. No amount of opinion or chutzpah can alter or hide that fact.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Todd Chambers (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)The original Sar Bachan poetry/verse contains numerous repetitions of the word "Radhasoami," as has been overwhelmingly documented, beyond any doubt.Todd Chambers (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The facts of the matter are: The Sar Bachan is full of the term "Radhasoami," beyond any doubt. In fact, the correct title of the book is "Sar Bachan Radhasoami." Shivdayal Singh did not write the Sar Bachan. Salig Ram wrote the Sar Bachan. Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Todd Chambers (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)So, we can either believe Baba Jaimal Singh, who was actually there, initiated by Soami Shivdayal Singh, and who claimed that Sar Bachan Radhasoami was "voiced by the compassionate Hazur Radha Swami Ji Himself" or we can believe you, who have provided no evidence whatsoever.Todd Chambers (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Or we can believe you.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Todd Chambers (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)No, I do not make undocumented, unsourced, non-neutral claims about any of these Gurus, like the claims you had about Brahm Sankar Misra, Chachaji Partap Singh, etc.Todd Chambers (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In 1970 four Americans started preaching that Bhaktivedanta Swami, founder of the worldwide Hare Krishna movement, was God Himself. And so it goes, for thousands of years, humans have worshiped other humans as gods. Jesus was God. Krsnacaitanya was God. Swaminarayan was God. Jose Rizal was God. Bahaullah was Manifestation of God. Prempal Rawat is the greatest incarnation of God. Franklin Jones, too, was the greatest incarnation of God. Omkarananda was Divine Avatar. Even Adolf Hitler was an Avatar of Visnu. It’s not surprising that Salig Ram and company claimed that Shivdayal Singh was the Supreme Being. For one, the claim lends political leverage – it makes the Radhasoami Faith the first religion founded by the Supreme Being Himself. But like Christianity, not the religion of Jesus but a religion about Jesus, RS Faith is a religion that deified Shivdayal, not necessarily Shivdayal’s religion. Those who toe the RS party line (Shivdayal was Supreme Being, founder of RS Faith, author of Sar Bachan Radhasoami) are true believers, and true believers cannot be neutral. But of course throughout history the ignorant have always suppressed probes into belief. Because the arrogance of the ignorant knows no bounds. When people believe that God is on their side, they cannot and will not think critically. They believe that their authority is unassailable, and that they possess the God-given right to lie, oppress, abuse, torture, or even kill non-believers. They believe that their actions, no matter how cruel, are fulfilling the will of their God. This is a key principle for understanding the nature and motivations of dangerous beliefs, cults, and cultic believers.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Todd Chambers (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Yes, and such discussions are perfectly appropriate for a blog or another website, but certainly not for Wikipedia's efforts to promote thorough sourcing and citing, along with endeavoring for a Neutral Point of View (NPOV).Todd Chambers (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Comparison of the Radhasoami view with the Sant Mat view:

Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Todd Chambers (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)"As to any exercises which might help you, until the time of your initiation, I can only suggest at this time that you may sit in meditation, in a quiet place, like your own bedroom or some room as secluded as possible, and with spine and body erect, in a comfortable position, fix all the attention at the center just back of the two eyes, and slowly repeat the word RADHASWAMI, fixing the mind on the Supreme Being who is your Supreme Father." (Hazur Baba Sawan Singh, SPIRITUAL GEMS)Todd Chambers (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Change this article title
Shiv Dayal Singh was the founder of Radha Soami Sect. His full name was Seth Shiv Dayal Singh Ji Maharaj. My request is that its article title be corrected. 2409:4055:4E0E:59:88F3:16CD:2E00:9BAC (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No. See WP:HONOR. Honorifics like Maharaj Seth ji cannot be added in title. Venkat TL (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Seth" word is part of his name, not an honorific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4055:4E0E:59:88F3:16CD:2E00:9BAC (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Please provide evidence for this claim. Only independent media and publishers will be considered as evidence. Venkat TL (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Please also note that the English Wikipedia uses the WP:Commonname in English. A very crude measure of this can be found by comparing Google searches. Shiv Dayal Singh gives 23,900 matches, whilst Seth Shiv Dayal Singh gives just 1,140 results - so the page will remain named Shiv Dayal Singh in any case. - Arjayay (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)