Whoever was able to envision himself as a 'successor', as a legitimate 'successor', had to prove himself through an ability to pass on equal level work to mankind. Nowadays it also needs to be proven with additional scientific work.

Lacan often stated, that you not only had to know the subject matter (technically, historically and in consensus with other scientific disciplines), but also had to be capable of conveying it well and clearly!

Knowing well, but saying ill, is often the result of university research and theory, and it reminds us slightly again of the differentiation I made above between the technically correct and human integrity. Both belong together, actually in universities, too. However, it isn't found there. In many areas of western culture - and this is very similar in India - 'successors' are simply elected. But such cannot be valid for discoverers, representatives of God on Earth, scientists nor for Param Sant Sat gurus.

Their 'succession' can only emerge through revelation and strict probation, through coincidence of spirit and verbosity of the theory (if need be: also of scientific theory), therefore: conjectural science.

Nevertheless, there were complicated and off-color issues concerning Sawan Singh's as well as Kirpal Singh's 'succession'. Kirpal Singh had to leave the center at Bea after his master's death, since he was shown letters which did not contain his name as the designated 'successor' but that of another.

However, as stated above, it was clear throughout generations in Sant Mat that a 'master' would mainly only be awarded by 'succession through the eyes' (and accompanied by a speech) of his predecessor.

Editor's note: Further light is thrown upon these subjects in D. Evans, Wörterbuch der Lacanschen PA, Thuria & Kant (2002), p. 27 and in E. Erikson's "Young Man Luther"