RADHA SWAMI RELIGION

Greymouth Evening Star, 24 April 1935, Page 4

RADHA SWAMI RELIGION

DISPUTE BETWEEN FOLLOWERS

LONDON, March 6.

A dispute between followers of the Radha Swami religion, who hold that the Supreme Being assumes the form of and incarnates Himself in a human being, was the subject of a judgment delivered yesterday by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, jipon an appeal against a decree of the high court of Allahabad. Sir Lancelot Sanderson, who delivered the judgment, said the main question in the appeal was whether there was a valid legal trust in properties known as the Radha Swami Trust. The faith or religion in question was founded in 1861 by' Swami Shir Dayal, who, to use the expression of iiis followers, “departed from this world in 1878.”

All persons, whether Hindus, Mohammedans, Parsees or Christians, could be initiated into the religion provided they were found fit and suitable by the spiritual head, or “Guru,” and, when initiated, they were called “Sat Sangis.” The object of the religion was to attain true and perfect salvation by the liberation of the spirit from the bondage of mind and matter.

The appellants held that the spiritual leader of the religion, for the time being known as the “Sant Sat Guru,” was the incarnation of the Supreme Being in human form. On the other hand, the contesting respondents said that the “Sant Sat Guru” was the representative and was in communion with the Supreme Being. They did not accept the view that the Supreme Being was incarnate m the “Sant Sat Guru.”

i The properties which were the sub- | ject matter of the dispute were acquired with moneys presented to the “Sant Sat Guru” by the followers of the Radha Swami faith. Their lordships agreed with the contentions of appellants that the followers of the true faith, when making their gifts to the “Sant Sat Guru,” could not be supposed to have created any trust, and they therefore allowed the appeal, setting aside the decrees of the courts in India and making a declaration that the Radha Swami xrust administering the properties was not in law a legal and valid trust. The respondents, who were not represented at the appeal, were ordered to pay the costs.