Nityananda unassimilated x2
Matrka
> -------------------------M-------------------------------------------
>
> It is of no use if the sugar is in your palm;
> it should be put in the mouth and its sweetness tasted.
> -Bhagawan Nityananda the Avadhut (aka BB)
>
Dear Mtrka,
I am curious: you have put quotes of Bhagawan on the bottom of your posts.
Are you "for" or "against" him/his words? That thought came up the last
time I read one, and again now, so I thought I would ask. (I ask sincerely,
with no sarcasm :) ) I personally have a great connection to his energy.
Basically i am picking out quotes that i find interesting
or ones that i remember Baba referred to. Or ones that
somehow tangentially refer to the subject of the thread.
I think his words reflect on what we talk about because his
thoughts were the seminal thoughts for the foundation of SYDA.
I also think many of them are humourous.
I am interested in the history- - -how the
teachings changed through the "generations" of teachers.
i think it interesting that his murti is worshiped in
S. Fallsburg, but that if he were alive today he undoubtedly
would not be let in past the guards!
This is parallel to the situation of most Christian
denominations, imo. If Jesus showed up and asked to have
the excess of the church money given to the poor or to call
people on it when they did not love thy neighbor,
he would be shown the door, etc. Um, to me it
is interesting that the nominal leader of the group stood
for ideas in his own lifetime that are by now forgotton,
perhaps even "illegal".
The people who have kept the written records of what BB
said and from whom i obtained them are in
no way related to SYDA. SYDA does not publish any book
of his sayings and never did. In fact the existance of
it was initially denied, maybe still is, and the possession
of it was frowned upon. From what i was told.
Baba always said "he hardly spoke." So for many years
i had no idea of the existence of a compilation of his sayings
and assumed that there was none. Baba mentioned that he hardly
spoke and that sometimes when he did it was just gibberish or noises.
So why should i have any idea that actually he spoke quite
a bit? Especially when it was never published by SYDA?
Some people from the linage of BB collected the sayings
that a person or person/s had thought to
write down of his sayings in his lifetime.
("BB" is technically "Nityananda", because,
face it these pseudo-familial titles really get to be a bit much!
Right, S. Chidvilas. is your "mother," Muktananda is your "father"
and Nityananda of Ganeshpuri is your "grandfather."?
Very sad, if that's as close as you have to real relatives, imo.)
(In case you are confused as to the name "Bade Bade",
"Bade Baba" is how Baba privately referred to his Guru
Nityananda; the avadhut of Ganeshpuri. His title in public,
in English, during S. Muktanand's time was "Bhagawan Nityananda".
"Bhagawan" was an honorific added by S. Mukta. and others
of his disciples perhaps,? in order to
underscore intense admiration and respect for him.)
("Bhagawan" means "Lord". No one in America, in English, referred
to him as "Bade Baba" which means "the grandfather".
Maybe he was called that by Baba in public in Hindi? But
it was never translated as that. The term "Bade Baba" is
a term of endearment, a diminutive in my opinion.)
(P.S. many people speculate she began to call him 'Bade baba"
after her brother's ouster, in order not to remind people
that their names were the same (her brother's and the
revered idol and teacher of S.M!.) )
(And in order not to remind people everytime the name,
"Nityananda" was spoken that S. Muktan.
had given her brother the same name, which was
and is a terrific honor to her brother)
Am i for or against his sayings? It depends on which ones.
Some of his sayings are, to me, patently bogus. Some
are heavily Advaita Vedanta in style. And, I, like Narada,
favor the Kaishmir Shaivite approach. i like the flavor
of many of them, because they are poetic.
I certainly favor his sayings over anything i have heard
uttered by S. Chidvilas/GM.
It's interesting to see how much of my thinking
was influenced by certain of his sayings- - i took them at
literal face value and imbued them with an intense
mystical power. I see the figure "Nityananda" differently now.
I like to re-look at his sayings, in order to clarify their
influence on me. And to re-decide which i like, what i think
is useful to keep and to scope out what i think is
unassimilated about him in the present SY/GM Ashram culture.
The one below could refer to 81ddha yogis when they leave the
nest of SYDA culture
--------------------------------M---------------------------------------------
The jiva is like a bird in a nest;
When the nest falls apart, the bird does not.
It flies into the sky.
-Nityananda of Ganeshpuri
Hrdtired
>>The jiva is like a bird in a nest;
When the nest falls apart, the bird does not.
It flies into the sky.
-Nityananda of Ganeshpuri<<
I really like that, and it seems true for those of us who have left SY and are
voicing their truth here. Some of us felt we would fall apart, but we haven't;
we've had our issues about leaving, but we are free, and seemingly thriving. I
wonder if Nity was a little omnicient about the SY sitch? :)
I'm no NitSr devotee but I do think he was an interesting character. My first
big doubts about SY arose when I read the 2 books about him that are published
by by Rudra Press, the house that Rudi (a.k.a. Swami Rudrananda, another gooroo
and former devotee of Mooktananda) built. The man they described was so unlike
the prettied up SY legend that I immediately suspected SY of covering up most
everything in their past -- I should have heeded those initial warning signs.
The books are both still in print.
Nityananda the Divine Presence by M.U. Hatengdi, 1984
Nitya Sutras: The Revelations of Nityananda from the Chidakash Gita, 1985
These aphorisms were compiled during Nit's youth, in the early1920s. The
editor says Nit was indeed usually silent towards the general public, so maybe
Mookie was not as close to Nit as he claims.
From the Nitya Sutras intro: "During this period [1922-24], he would start a
monologue in whichever devotee's house he happened to find himself at that
particular moment. After some time he would stop. At first, the listening
devotees mistook what he said for gibberish, but later, they discovered two
special points connected with these monologues. First, the words so uttered
contained pearls of wisdom. Considering that Nityananda was illiterate in the
academic sense, they inferred that he could have only uttered them from an
exalted state of personal experience. Second, these monologues were invariably
preceded by a hailing of Arjuna...asking him to come and listen to Krishna.
The actual words he used were: 'Arjuna-mama, come and listen, Krishna-ajja is
going to speak' The suffix 'mama' means, literally, maternal uncle; 'ajja'
means grandfather."
Rudra Press
P.O. Box 1973
Cambridge, MA 02238 (They might have moved, since the publisher's cult of
origin, Rudi's Nityananda Foundation, is now in Oregon, headed by the
controversial-in-his-own-right Sw. Chetanananda.)
"Act according to your word,
speak as you intend to act." -- Nityananda
-- The Tired Heart
bhaska...@webtv.net
In article <199805171410...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Thanks for explaining yourself. To be honest, I'm still a bit unclear on
what you are saying :) It sounds like you have mixed feelings?
I have a great connection to Bhag Nit.
In fact, about one and half years ago I was praying and contemplating deeply
what direction I should go into re a project - the only real and viable new
thing I have attempted in the last ten or fifteen years. I had a very
specific vision of an object that I will not mention now. In that vision
that object was directly near to Bhag.'s face But I did, ever so clearly.
I told one friend about it.
About a year later, I ended up doing business with a company which had that
object as its namesake, to my complete surprise and astonishment. As it is
turning out, two days ago I received a sizable check - the first one of
hopefully many - from this company for that product which I saw and
contemplated.
In the midst of all the confusion I have been experiencing and expressing, it
seems there actually is a new direction, and it is coming into fruition. All
I need to do is hang in there. That vision was indeed an inner affirmation to
go forward.
As I said to someone a short while ago, regarding my involvement in SY and
yoga in general, "I am innocent", my intentions are/were pure. I was there
only to seek God. I had pure, good intentions. I went out of love and
sincerity. I held back nothing, though maybe I wasn't the best sevite by any
means. My only real goal was to know God. It still is my only real "goal".
That my life is in a bit of a mess - well, who knows why really.
For this reason, I feel that I am free of any implications re SY. I know in
my heart of hearts I was there ONLY to seek God, very very deeply and
sincerely. And I did bring numerous people there who also connected for that
reason.
All the devotees, IMO, who went there with pure intentions and a good and
open heart (which I would hope and think would be most everyone) will
ultimately find that which they sought. I don't know how it can be any other
way.
Bade Baba, I must admit, was/is a powerful and amazing source of shakti to
me. I do welcome his pure energy into my consciousness any time - not the
re-designed or omitted or newly presented Bade Baba, but the real, authentic,
genuine, original Bade Baba.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Dorothy Drennen
> The people who have kept the written records of what BB
> said and from whom i obtained them are in
> no way related to SYDA. SYDA does not publish any book
> of his sayings and never did. In fact the existance of
> it was initially denied, maybe still is, and the possession
> of it was frowned upon. From what i was told.
Much of the written material on Nityananda, and some good books on Kashmir
Shaivism, have been published by the Nityananda Institute, headed by Swami
Chetanananda... last I knew, that group was in Oregon.
Bear with me here....
Rudy was (by all accounts) "the real thing" -- a very gifted and deeply spiritual
being. I think I remember that he came to Ganeshpuri when Nityananda was still
living. He took sannyas as Swami Rudrananda (and kep the name Rudy). Some time
shortly thereafter, he left Muktananda.
He was an art dealer in NY who also had a group of spiritual followers. His
technique involved conferring shaktipat during open-eyed meditation. He died in a
plane crash, maybe in the 70's. His leadership role was assumed by one of his
devotees.... and sorry, memory definitely fails me here .... who somehow managed
to re-connect with Muktananda long enough to take sannyas from him as Swami
Chetanananda.
His group was in Cambridge for a while. They had moved away from the Guru Gita,
and chanted the Shiva Arati every morning after meditation. They had a wonderful
murti of Nityananda, the same pose as the murti in SF, and just as powerful and
moving. Meditation with him was the same open-eyes technique he had learned from
his teacher, and which I never quite "got."
Great group of devotees, though, and I enjoyed sitting with them, chanting with
them, and so on. I was sorry when they moved to Oregon.
Anyhow, they publish under Rudra Press, and you will find quite a number of books
on Kashmir Shaivism and Nityananda.
-----
On a separate but related thought... another convoluted trail leads from
Muktananda to (what's his name now) Da Free John, Adi Da Samraj, whatever. The
guy in Tahiti.
-- Dorothy
(who once actually research and flowcharted all of this for a research paper.
Imagine.)
Satdesh
Tired Heart,
In your post of 5/17/98 you note:
>Rudra Press
>P.O. Box 1973
>Cambridge, MA 02238 (They might have moved, since the publisher's cult of
>origin, Rudi's Nityananda Foundation, is now in Oregon, headed by the
>controversial-in-his-own-right Sw. Chetanananda.)
Do you know what the specific controversy is surrounding Swami Chetanananda?
I've never heard any dirt on him.
Satdesh
Hrdtired
Satdesh asks,
>>Do you know what the specific controversy is surrounding Swami Chetanananda?
I've never heard any dirt on him.<<
The usual hitting-on-devotee-women stuff.
It is interesting that in recent years, this Smarmi Cheatonyomama has written
numerous articles (I read one in "Yoga" magazine) and letters to the editor
(among them to Yoga Journal, which regularly "outs" bad gurus) denouncing those
who denounce gurus. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
-- The Tired Heart
Satdesh
Tired Heart,
Thanks for the update on Chetanananda. That's what I guessed was going on,
based on the "problems" of all the other gurus.
Another chapter in the ongoing saga of the "Myth of Freedom".
Seems that Mogombo upstages Moksha every time!
Satdesh
ByeSY
On May 17, "Bhaskarananda" wrote in response to Matrka:
So, Bhaskar, were you having a mellow moment here, or did you just forget
which screen name you were posting under?
JyotiK2052
Dear Bye...
Re your message of 5/19/98...I was confused about who was posting, too.
Respectfully - Jyoti
Violet1884
I was confused about that post too, Bye and Jyoti. Thought I would just sit
back and see if it was clarified.
Violet
keu...@eecs.berkeley.edu
> Satdesh asks,
>
> >>Do you know what the specific controversy is surrounding Swami
Chetanananda?
> I've never heard any dirt on him.<<
Hrdtired replies:
> The usual hitting-on-devotee-women stuff.
KK:
I'm not sure what ``the usual hitting-on-devotee women stuff'' is precisely. I
think that Swami Chetanananda is pretty open about his life. SC: ``I refuse to
live up to your expectations of what a teacher should be.'' I haven't spent a
lot of time at his ashram but I haven't heard him say or do anything
hypocritical. He lives his life the way he wants to.
IMHO I think that personal romantic and sexual relationships between teachers
and their students are not good for either the students or the environment of
the community, but I don't think that every such relationship implies abuse by
the teacher either. Honesty and openness seem to me to be the dividing line.
Regarding Swami C's comments in the yoga journal and other places, I think
that he is pretty consistent in his view that the ``enquiring minds want to
know'' attitude that is pervading Yoga Journal, Tricycle etc. is not really
helping people evolve their sprititual practice.
I think Swami Chetanananda has a lot to give. I think Swami Muktananda did
also. It would be really great (I think) if teachers like these had no
demonstrable flaws. I am truly sorry if people may have gotten hurt by these
men, but as for myself, I prefer to focus on the good that I have received
from them. I would hope that we could come to balanced perspective on these
and other teachers.
Kind Regards,
Kurt
Andy Comanda
keu...@eecs.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
> IMHO I think that personal romantic and sexual relationships between teachers
> and their students are not good for either the students or the environment of
> the community, but I don't think that every such relationship implies abuse by
> the teacher either. Honesty and openness seem to me to be the dividing line.
>
IF the teacher is representing himself to be a spiritual master in
charge of the student's spiritual growth and the sexual relationship is
represented in some way to be beneficial or necessary to the student's
spiritual growth I don't think it can be justified any which way. I
don't know Chet's pick-up lines, but it sure seems that he is
representing himself as a master in the traditional guru vein. Open or
not it still seems to me to be a power play.
Hrdtired
Kurt K. says, re: Swami Chetanananda:
>>I haven't spent a
lot of time at his ashram but I haven't heard him say or do anything
hypocritical. He lives his life the way he wants to.<<
Which is not the way a swami of the Saraswati order leads life. Thus, he is a
hypocrite. Why wear the robes if you're not fulfilling the role?
>>IMHO I think that personal romantic and sexual relationships between teachers
and their students are not good for either the students or the environment of
the community, but I don't think that every such relationship implies abuse by
the teacher either.<<
No, it does not...unless the teacher claims to be a member of a CELIBATE order
of monks.
>>Regarding Swami C's comments in the yoga journal and other places, I think
that he is pretty consistent in his view that the ``enquiring minds want to
know'' attitude that is pervading Yoga Journal, Tricycle etc. is not really
helping people evolve their sprititual practice.<<
But misrepresenting yourself to your students does help them evolve?
Ring, ring...Clue Phone...Kurt, it's for you....
-- The Tired Heart
BillyG1993
Dear Hrdtired, The Tired Heart,
First let me set my biases straight: I am a fan of yours.
In your message to K. Keutzer:
>From: hrdt...@aol.com (Hrdtired)<BR>
>Date: 5/20/98 10:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time<BR>
>Message-id: 199805210215...@ladder01.news.aol.com><BR>
You wrote:
>Kurt, you can focus on whatever you darn well please, but if you were bunged
>up
>the butt by your celebate teacher who told you it was tantra and good for
>your
>sadhana, you wouldn't be saying this "not my experience" crap, now
>wouldja?
>-- The Tired Heart
Ditto. What brand of spiritual KY do they use there?
I read in a book somewhere, "A true master reveals himself in his every
actions." I believe that this should be the duck test for gurus as well.
Isn't this the same Kurt Keutzer who maintains the Siddha Mahayoga FAQ 1 Site :
http://www.telebyte.nl/krce/sidfaq1.html
Regards,
Billy
BillyG1993
Please help, someone,
How does one avoid jumbling up one's posts in this medium?
What is the syntax for carriage returns, etc..
Thanks in advance.
Billy
BillyG1993
Sorry, I don't know how to post here, so I'll try again,
>What brand of spiritual KY do they use there?
>
>I read in a book somewhere, "A true master reveals himself in his
everyactions." I believe that this should be the duck test for gurus as well.
Satdesh
Kurt,
In your post of 5/20/98 you write:
>. I
>think that Swami Chetanananda is pretty open about his life. SC: ``I refuse
>to
>live up to your expectations of what a teacher should be.''
> I don't think that every such relationship implies abuse by
>the teacher either. Honesty and openness seem to me to be the dividing line.
I agree with Hrdtired that the dividing line is between one who takes sannyas
in the Shakaracharya order (here, the Saraswati branch) and those teachers like
Franky Jones and Rajneesh who don't and who furthermore make no claims to being
celibate.
It is hard to understand just how a monk, and one regarded as a guru to boot,
can have a "consensual" sexual relationship with a follower. Unless one of
SC's sex partners had been offended or deemed it inappropriate, I don't know
how this news would be breaking over the internet. Did someone hear the
headboard banging? [I am assuming again, that "the dirt" on SC pertains to his
having sexual relationships.] If he wanted to preserve his integrity, at a
minimum he should take off the orange robes. BTW, why is it these cats think
they're Masters of the Universe, but are nevertheless incapable of maintaining
a loyal monogamous relationship where they are responsible to a spouse and
family? (I know, I'm being cheeky and rhetorical here.)
The Shankaracharya Order vows do not allow stuffing your flaccid penis into the
bodily openings of other humans, nor inserting an erect penis in such places.
A Shankaracharya monk is chaste and celibate. NO MOGOMBO!
Atleast Franky and Osho were not deceptive in this regard (although I have read
that Franky's publicists have always tried to whitewash his image for public
consumption).
We all have our weaknesses and failings and often do not live up to the
standards that we set for ourselves. But how many of us put ourselves on a
throne and expect other people to bow down to us and/or worship us with arati
lamps? To permit or encourage other human beings to behave towards oneself in
such an obsequious manner while one is, "less than perfect" shall we say, is
indecent in the extreme, IMO.
> I think
>that he is pretty consistent in his view that the ``enquiring minds want to
>know'' attitude that is pervading Yoga Journal, Tricycle etc. is not really
>helping people evolve their sprititual practice.
Several years back Yoga Journal printed an article about Swami Rama. It
appears that several women were suing him. Among the allegations they claimed
that he came to them in private and demanded oral sex. I don't know if these
charges were ever proven in court. There were a number of complaining
witnesses. When you are voluntarily submitting to the direction of a spiritual
teacher, I think you have a right to know about their personal life. The
sadguru in this tradition is different from a pujari or brahman priest. The
sadguru is considered a "savior", a god. The Guru Gita spells out the
philosophy. You should offer everything, even your life to the sadguru (per
the GG). The stakes are too high for people to be duped by some fraud. If a
teacher really is a sadguru, then he or she should have nothing to fear from
being scrutinized. If the teacher is a fraud who is only posing as a sadguru
and is causing people to detrimentally rely on this fraud, then he/she deserves
to be "outed".
Why should frauds be allowed to prey on the innocent? A true sadguru is above
praise and blame and does not fear scrutiny.
Satdesh
RTuttle419
The Himalayan Institute was knocked up fairly recently for $1.75 million
because of Swami Rama (as reported here recently)
Shawdan
In article <199805202335...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, hrdt...@aol.com
(Hrdtired) writes:
>>>IMHO I think that personal romantic and sexual relationships between
>teachers
>and their students are not good for either the students or the environment
>of
>the community, but I don't think that every such relationship implies abuse
>by
>the teacher either.<<
>
>No, it does not...unless the teacher claims to be a member of a CELIBATE
>order
>of monks
I think the issue goes beyond false claims of celibacy. It's an abuse of
power, a kind of incest, using one's authority and the trust and idealization
that gets invested in you through your claims of being close to God, and then
seducing women based on their reverence for you.
***************
Sha...@aol.com (Daniel Shaw)
http://members.aol.com/shawdan/page1.htm
"It has been my experience that folks with no vices have few virtues." --
Abraham Lincoln
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master." -- Abraham Lincoln
Andy Comanda
Satdesh wrote:
> It is hard to understand just how a monk, and one regarded as a guru to boot,
> can have a "consensual" sexual relationship with a follower. Unless one of
> SC's sex partners had been offended or deemed it inappropriate, I don't know
> how this news would be breaking over the internet. Did someone hear the
> headboard banging? ...
>
> The Shankaracharya Order vows do not allow stuffing your flaccid penis into the
> bodily openings of other humans, nor inserting an erect penis in such places.
> A Shankaracharya monk is chaste and celibate. NO MOGOMBO!
...
>
> ... The sadguru is considered a "savior", a god. The Guru Gita spells out the
> philosophy. You should offer everything, even your life to the sadguru (per
> the GG). The stakes are too high for people to be duped by some fraud. If a
> teacher really is a sadguru, then he or she should have nothing to fear from
> being scrutinized. If the teacher is a fraud who is only posing as a sadguru
> and is causing people to detrimentally rely on this fraud, then he/she deserves
> to be "outed".
>
> Why should frauds be allowed to prey on the innocent? A true sadguru is above
> praise and blame and does not fear scrutiny.
>
> Satdesh
Great Post Satdesh. You laid it out very well.
keu...@eecs.berkeley.edu
In article <199805202335...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
hrdt...@aol.com (Hrdtired) wrote:
>
> Kurt K. says, re: Swami Chetanananda:
>
> >>I haven't spent a
> lot of time at his ashram but I haven't heard him say or do anything
> hypocritical. He lives his life the way he wants to.<<
>
> Which is not the way a swami of the Saraswati order leads life. Thus, he is
a
> hypocrite. Why wear the robes if you're not fulfilling the role?
>
As I understand it, it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about what a
Dashanami sannyasi does do. A dashanami sannyasi is dead to the world. But of
course if we actually meet a sannyasi in a major metropolitan area it doesn't
look like they're dead to the world - does it? So every Swami that we're
likely to meet is stepping outside of the original intention of the role to
some extent. There's also a host of issues about who can really be a dashanami
swami - strictly speaking I don't think that someone who was not of Brahmana
class could be one. But I don't think this is the real point anyway - see
below.
KK said:
> >>IMHO I think that personal romantic and sexual relationships between
teachers
> and their students are not good for either the students or the environment
of
> the community, but I don't think that every such relationship implies abuse
by
> the teacher either.<<
Tired heart says:
> No, it does not...unless the teacher claims to be a member of a CELIBATE
order
> of monks.
KK:
Again, there are a few different issues here.
The first is: Is it accurate to portray the dashanami sannyasis as ``a
CELIBATE order of monks?'' That's actually a pretty subtle question. I don't
know if I'm going to convey concisely my point or if you would be interested
in it anyway.
The second is the old ``crazy wisdom guru'' issue. You probably already know
this debate already. I don't believe there are many true crazy wisdom gurus
myself, so I wouldn't try to convince you of their existence.
I think the real issue is: Is Swami C misrepresenting himself as a celibate by
calling himself a Swami and wearing ochre robes?
I don't know why Swami C. likes to be called Swami. Apparently being a Swami
was an important step of recognition for his teacher Swami Rudrananda and it
appears that it was an important step for Swami C. as well. It doesn't make a
lot of sense to me for Swami C. to present himself as a Swami and I can
understand why you think that this is improper. On the other hand, I've never
met anyone who spent 1/2 an hour around Swami C. who thought that he was a
celibate monk - perhaps you're the one though. Have you ever met Swami C?
Tired heart says:
> Ring, ring...Clue Phone...Kurt, it's for you....
KK:
I'm trying to understand your thoughts and feelings. I'd be gratified if you
would do the same. Perhaps we could hold a discussion in which we each might
hold open the possibility that we might learn something. Patronizing behavior
doesn't do much to enhance the likelihood of that.
I'm not particularly interested in making a hobby, much less a career, of
either criticizing or defending contemporary teachers in spiritual movements.
My only point is that I have the option to focus on the faults of individuals
or on their virtues. In so far as possible I'd prefer to focus on their
virtues, while maintaining an awareness of what appear to be their faults.
keu...@eecs.berkeley.edu
In article <199805202335...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
hrdt...@aol.com (Hrdtired) wrote:
>
> Kurt K. says, re: Swami Chetanananda:
>
> >>I haven't spent a
> lot of time at his ashram but I haven't heard him say or do anything
> hypocritical. He lives his life the way he wants to.<<
>
Tired heart says:
> Which is not the way a swami of the Saraswati order leads life. Thus, he is
a
> hypocrite. Why wear the robes if you're not fulfilling the role?
>
KK:
As I understand it, it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about what a
Dashanami sannyasi does do. A dashanami sannyasi is dead to the world. But of
course if we actually meet a sannyasi in a major metropolitan area it doesn't
look like they're dead to the world - does it? So every Swami that we're
likely to meet is stepping outside of the original intention of the role to
rare to find a swami who is living the life that Shankara intended. But I
would certainly agree that there is a difference in severity between riding in
an automobile and having sex with a student.
Hrdtired
Kurt K. says:
>>As I understand it, it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about what a
Dashanami sannyasi does do. A dashanami sannyasi is dead to the world....(snip)
There's also a host of issues about who can really be a dashanami
swami - strictly speaking I don't think that someone who was not of Brahmana
class could be one. But I don't think this is the real point anyway - see
below....(snip)
Again, there are a few different issues here.
The first is: Is it accurate to portray the dashanami sannyasis as ``a
CELIBATE order of monks?'' That's actually a pretty subtle question. I don't
know if I'm going to convey concisely my point or if you would be interested
in it anyway.<<
Good guess. I could care less about the so-called subtleties involved.
We live in the GROSS, UNSUBTLE world here. And this is not a newsgroup that is
concerned with debating the relative merits of spiritual teachers and their
wisdom, crazy or otherwise.
This is a group that discusses LEAVING A CULT.
>>I think the real issue is: Is Swami C misrepresenting himself as a celibate
by
calling himself a Swami and wearing ochre robes?<<
That is definitely an issue, IMHO.
>>I don't know why Swami C. likes to be called Swami. Apparently being a Swami
was an important step of recognition for his teacher Swami Rudrananda and it
appears that it was an important step for Swami C. as well. It doesn't make a
lot of sense to me for Swami C. to present himself as a Swami and I can
understand why you think that this is improper. On the other hand, I've never
met anyone who spent 1/2 an hour around Swami C. who thought that he was a
celibate monk - perhaps you're the one though. Have you ever met Swami C?<<
Never have, and if he's so obviously not the celebate monk he costumes himself
as, so obviously not respecting his vows so that one can discern this in a 1/2
hour, I don't think I'd want to have anything to do with him, thanks awfully.
>>KK:
I'm trying to understand your thoughts and feelings. I'd be gratified if you
would do the same. Perhaps we could hold a discussion in which we each might
hold open the possibility that we might learn something. Patronizing behavior
doesn't do much to enhance the likelihood of that.<<
I wonder where you are coming from too. Have you been in Siddha Yoga? Do you
consider it a cult? Are you an apologist for all gurus? Whazzup? You say:
>>I'm not particularly interested in making a hobby, much less a career, of
either criticizing or defending contemporary teachers in spiritual movements.
My only point is that I have the option to focus on the faults of individuals
or on their virtues. In so far as possible I'd prefer to focus on their
virtues, while maintaining an awareness of what appear to be their faults.<<
I'm sure there are newsgroups where you can focus on the virtues of destructive
cult leaders all you want, but you are not likely to find many kindred spirits
on this one. Not patronizing you; it's a fact.
-- The Tired Heart
Satdesh
Kurt,
In your post of 5/21/98 you observe that:
>I don't know why Swami C. likes to be called Swami. Apparently being a Swami
>was an important step of recognition
>It doesn't make a
>lot of sense to me for Swami C. to present himself as a Swami and I can
>understand why you think that this is improper.
If you "don't know why" and "it doesn't make sense" then one possibility is
that we're dealing with bs!
I don't mean to sound rude or condescending. You are the only sincere and
articulate apologist for the "crazy wise siddha gurus" that posts here, IMO.
Just to throw out some thoughts for consideration, I would note the following:
A. I believe Yogananda said that, compared to the joy of communion with the
spirit, the joy of the senses was like "stale cheese";
B. The crazy wise ones either engage in sexual intercourse for the benefit of
the student or for their own sexual pleasure;
C. I don't think Yogananda's observation was novel. He is restating a
commonly understood concept of the Hindu mystic tradition -ie., that the bliss
of samadhi/self-realization dramatically and drastically exceeds that of
sensory pleasures;
D. A siddha is "perfected" because they are no more identified with their body
than with the chair they are sitting on. They have realized themselves as "the
Self". Their senses do not control or drive their mind, their mind rests in
the Self and is not agitated by any internal or external force. This is all
set forth clearly in the Bhagavad Gita. SM said that a siddha's mind does not
even think unless he wills it to think!
QUESTIONS:
1.. In your opinion, are the teachers you defend liberated souls (ie.,
liberated from enslavement to the mind and senses and awake in the Self)?
2. If they are liberated, why do they engage in sexual intercourse? What is
your explanation.
3. If your response is that you cannot explain or understand, then how can you
defend?
Sincerely,
Satdesh
pro...@clarityconnect.com
In article <6jvhrq$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Andy Comanda <blue...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
> IF the teacher is representing himself to be a spiritual master in
> charge of the student's spiritual growth and the sexual relationship is
> represented in some way to be beneficial or necessary to the student's
> spiritual growth I don't think it can be justified any which way. I
> don't know Chet's pick-up lines, but it sure seems that he is
> representing himself as a master in the traditional guru vein. Open or
> not it still seems to me to be a power play.
>
we incorrectly apply moral standards when we speak of so-called
spiritual masters. Now, Narada and Megha seem to be the Hindu scholars
on board, but the way I see it, morality and Dharma apply only to the
seeker. Dharma or righteousness is applicable only to conciousness that
is subject to the three gunas: sattwa, rajas, and tamas. A spiritual
"master" is called a master precisely because he/she has transended
the gunas and is no longer bound by dharma. I believe that as long as
we give assent to a system that promises the achievement of a state of
sinnless perfection and freedom from the laws of morality, we must
expect that people will, first lay claim to this state, and 2nd excersize
their "just rewards".
That most of us still retain some conscience which tells us that inappr-
opriate behaviour is indeed inappropriate whether by siddha or sadhaka,
is proof to me that there indeed exists a "righteousness from on high".
I believe that Truth and Good are established by God. While we may dis-
agree about certain social mores, there are activities that we all, even
the most hardened of "sinners", can say are wrong. I remember women I
knew in SY saying, "if Baba is having sex, where can I get in line?".
But I think that, even these people, if they were completly honest would
admit it was wrong of him to take advantage of young, innocent girls
who worshiped him as god.
More thoughts on this later, when I'm less tired and foggy.
peace
prov356
Satdesh
Prov,
In your post of 5/22/98 you observe:
>Dharma or righteousness is applicable only to conciousness that
>is subject to the three gunas: sattwa, rajas, and tamas. A spiritual
>"master" is called a master precisely because he/she has transended
>the gunas and is no longer bound by dharma.
My understanding, per the Bhag. Gita, is that a realized soul, established in
the Self, is no longer subject to the gunas. I am not familiar with the
doctrine that realized souls are exempt from the principles of dharma. Is
there any particular scripture that states this?
The "crazy wisdom" bullshit (sorry, my opinion here) does seem to imply this,
but it is part of a quirkish tradition, as far as I can tell. I don't believe
there is any scriptural support for it in the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita
or other "core" Hindu scriptures (but I'm not up on this like Megha and Narada
are, so I could be wrong). The fact that these characters claim "crazy wisdom"
as the authority for their abusive conduct doesn't make it so.
Ramakrishna spoke about the great binding forces of "woman and gold" (ie., sex
and money). Is it not more likely that these people are still bound by "woman
and gold" than it is that they are engaging in secret mystical initiations?
BTW, is there any evidence whatsoever that the victims/initiates in these
encounters really received any benefits or enlightenment?
Satdesh
bhaska...@webtv.net
In article <199805220219...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
hrdt...@aol.com (Hrdtired) wrote:
>
> Kurt K. says:
>
> >>As I understand it, it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about what a
> Dashanami sannyasi does do. A dashanami sannyasi is dead to the world....(snip)
>
> There's also a host of issues about who can really be a dashanami
> swami - strictly speaking I don't think that someone who was not of Brahmana
> class could be one. But I don't think this is the real point anyway - see
> below....(snip)
>
> Again, there are a few different issues here.
> The first is: Is it accurate to portray the dashanami sannyasis as ``a
> CELIBATE order of monks?'' That's actually a pretty subtle question. I don't
> know if I'm going to convey concisely my point or if you would be interested
> in it anyway.<<
>
> Good guess. I could care less about the so-called subtleties involved.
>
> We live in the GROSS, UNSUBTLE world here. And this is not a newsgroup that is
> concerned with debating the relative merits of spiritual teachers and their
> wisdom, crazy or otherwise.
>
> This is a group that discusses LEAVING A CULT.
>
> >>I think the real issue is: Is Swami C misrepresenting himself as a celibate
> by
> calling himself a Swami and wearing ochre robes?<<
>
> That is definitely an issue, IMHO.
>
> lot of sense to me for Swami C. to present himself as a Swami and I can
> met anyone who spent 1/2 an hour around Swami C. who thought that he was a
> celibate monk - perhaps you're the one though. Have you ever met Swami C?<<
>
> Never have, and if he's so obviously not the celebate monk he costumes himself
> as, so obviously not respecting his vows so that one can discern this in a 1/2
> hour, I don't think I'd want to have anything to do with him, thanks awfully.
>
> >>KK:
> I'm trying to understand your thoughts and feelings. I'd be gratified if you
> would do the same. Perhaps we could hold a discussion in which we each might
> hold open the possibility that we might learn something. Patronizing behavior
> doesn't do much to enhance the likelihood of that.<<
>
> I wonder where you are coming from too. Have you been in Siddha Yoga? Do you
> consider it a cult? Are you an apologist for all gurus? Whazzup? You say:
>
> >>I'm not particularly interested in making a hobby, much less a career, of
> either criticizing or defending contemporary teachers in spiritual movements.
> My only point is that I have the option to focus on the faults of individuals
> or on their virtues. In so far as possible I'd prefer to focus on their
> virtues,
Dear kurt,
You have hit the nail on the head here. You would rather do the positive
thing - focus on the good, the virtues of the gurus and situations.
But as you can see by Darkheart's reaction below, she and the ng has no
interest whatsoever in doing that. She and this ng is interested only in
castrating the guru, in making everyone and everything wrong, on focusing on
the negative and the hurting, and to blame everyone but herself/theirselves.
They deny any involvement or knowledge yet they interacted and participated
in activities for years. They blame it on brainwashing. But they are
brainwashing themselves by trying to blame it on anyone outside of
themselves.
You do indeed have the mature and positive perspective. But as she said
below, she has no interest in that here. She just wants to dwell o the
negative. They'll bring you down, and try to drag you into a fight for being
positive here.
My recommendation: just post your thoughts and don't worry about their
negative responses. They don't know how to be positive.
while maintaining an awareness of what appear to be their faults.<<
>
> I'm sure there are newsgroups where you can focus on the virtues of destructive
> cult leaders all you want, but you are not likely to find many kindred spirits
> on this one. Not patronizing you; it's a fact.
>
> -- The Tired Heart
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
megha...@hotmail.com
Hi all,
While I appreciate you giving me credit for knowledge about Hindu texts, I
would like to clarify:
I am not any kind of Hindu or Sanskrit scholar. I was born and raised a
Hindu, I took Sanskrit in college, I read, speak and waseducated in an Indian
vernacular language that is written in Devanagari script, and I am a seeker.
So I do have some fundamental knowledge.
But the study of Sanskrit requires a lifetime of dedication and that makes me
the merest of dilettantes. I know enough to know that Narada is even less
than a dilletante. He has learned some Hindu mythology and may be familiar
with translations of one or two out of thousands of sacred Hindu texts. Many
yoga enthusiasts have a similar level of knowlege as myself or Narada.
Thanks,and have a wonderful long weekend,
Megha
Hrdtired
Bhaskar blurts,
>>Dear kurt,
You have hit the nail on the head here. You would rather do the positive
thing - focus on the good, the virtues of the gurus and situations.
But as you can see by Darkheart's reaction below, she and the ng has no
interest whatsoever in doing that. She and this ng is interested only in
castrating the guru, in making everyone and everything wrong, on focusing on
the negative and the hurting, and to blame everyone but herself/theirselves.
They deny any involvement or knowledge yet they interacted and participated
in activities for years. They blame it on brainwashing. But they are
brainwashing themselves by trying to blame it on anyone outside of
themselves.
You do indeed have the mature and positive perspective. But as she said
below, she has no interest in that here. She just wants to dwell o the
negative. They'll bring you down, and try to drag you into a fight for being
positive here.<<
My recommendation: just post your thoughts and don't worry about their
negative responses. They don't know how to be positive.<<
Ah, Bhaskar, still being so tiresome.
Don't any of you purported bliss bunnies read the titles of the newsgroups you
are posting to? ALT.SUPPORT.EX-CULT.SIDDHA-YOGA.
Why on earth would you think anyone on this newsgroup would be positive about
Siddha Yoga, given this newsgroup's title and premise?
Are you really that stupid?
TAKE THE TROLL TEST!
Dissenters on this newsgroup tend to fall into 4 distinct categories:
1. TROLLS -- those whose sole purpose in posting is to piss people off and
disrupt the proceedings -- no other agenda.
2. SYDA PLANTS (a.k.a. SYDA TROLLS) -- those who are good soldiers for their
gooroooooos and are just doing their slayva by doing just what trolls do:
character assassination, flawed arguments and fake facts...with the bogus
addition of "let's look only at the positive."
3. MORONS -- those with the spiritual, intellectual, and evolutionary
development of a hydra, who have had little or nothing to do with SYDA, yet who
love to read their own words about such things as Kashmir "Shivism" (sic) and
"Vishnites" (sic), as well as off-topic discussions about therapists and
false-memory syndrome.
4. Those who honestly disagree with many of the discussion points here and can
comment on those points intelligently, without trying to change the direction
of the discussion or trash its core participants.
Goooroooo apologists, I can't speak for anyone else here, but if you fall into
any but the fourth of the above categories, you are OFF TOPIC. Don't expect me
to be warmly welcoming or accepting of your idiocies. If you don't want
negative responses, don't read them; if it's love-bombs you want, go to the
SYDA site.
-- The Tired Heart
sres...@slip.net
pro...@clarityconnect.com wrote:
> I believe that as long as
> we give assent to a system that promises the achievement of a state of
> sinnless perfection and freedom from the laws of morality, we must
> expect that people will, first lay claim to this state, and 2nd excersize
> their "just rewards".
Yeah, the idea that "freedom from the laws of morality" is a worthy goal seems
terribly dangerous. If we cause suffering to others, what difference does it
make (to them, anyway) if we claim to be enlightened or God or whatever?
Siddha Yoga, like just about any religious or spiritual group, does teach the
importance of helping other's ("See God in each other"). That's wonderful, but
it's not enough. The problem arises if the group places something else *above*
helping others ("helping others" = "morality" or human decency or ethics or
whatever you call it). If we teach that enlightenment trumps decency, abuses
are likely if not inevitable.
Meditating (or doing other practices) to purify the mind or to get
understanding may be useful, but our motivation for doing so is important. As
long as we keep the overriding direction of acting correctly towards others,
wonderful. If we make that direction secondary, not so wonderful.
Stuart
sres...@slip.net
http://www.slip.net/~sresnick/mypage.shtml
ByeSY
Stu writes:
>If we teach that enlightenment trumps decency, abuses
>are likely if not inevitable.
This is the sy predicament in a nutshell.
pro...@clarityconnect.com
In article <199805220612...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sat...@aol.com (Satdesh) wrote:
>
>
> My understanding, per the Bhag. Gita, is that a realized soul, established
in
> the Self, is no longer subject to the gunas. I am not familiar with the
> doctrine that realized souls are exempt from the principles of dharma. Is
> there any particular scripture that states this?
>
>
> Satdesh
>
Stretching my mental capacities to their limits, I cannot concieve of
the laws of dharma being anything else but subject to, and eminating
from the gunas. Tamas, being ignorance and darkness, requires dharma
to shed wisdom and light. Rajas, being passion and desire, requires
dharma to contain and restrain it. Sattwa, being wisdom and light,
requires dharma to humble it and give it heart. The state of being
beyond the gunas, then, naturally implies being beyond dharma as well.
A "realized" soul would have no need of dharma, but for the benifit of
his/her disciples. If I was still in SY and thus inclined to quote the
Bible out of context, I would quote Mark 2:27,28 as a proof text;
"And he said unto them, ( Jesus )The sabbath was made for man, and
not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of
the sabbath."
But I'm not in SY and so, since I quoted Christ, I must also bring to
mind that Christ was indeed without sin. Not in the "crazy wisdom"
sense but without sin in the purest sense. Sin, in the bible, means
transgressing the law, or dharma, and Christ never transgressed the law.
My point in all this is simply to explain my difficulty in reconcilling
the teachings I recieved in SY as I recall them with logic. I just can't,
knowing what I know of yoga philosophy, spend too much time being
offended by the behaviour of so-called gurus when, if they really are
gurus and I were really a seeker in their tradition, their behaviour
could not be scrutinized within the bounds of morality. Even now, that
I've embraced Christianity, can I be overly offended. IN my tradition
we are ALL sinners apart from the grace of God. I am as appalled by my
own sin as the sin of Baba or GM or any of the plethora of other teachers.
I sincerely hope I don't come across as preachy. I think it is as
obvious to you all as it is painfully obvious to me, that trying to pit
SY philosophy against fundamental Christianity is a Dizzying effort
and far beyond my capacity to accomplish adequately.
peace,
prov356
Satdesh
Prov,
You state in your post of 5/22/ 98 that:
>Stretching my mental capacities to their limits, I cannot concieve of
>the laws of dharma being anything else but subject to, and eminating
>from the gunas. Tamas, being ignorance and darkness, requires dharma
>to shed wisdom and light. Rajas, being passion and desire, requires
>dharma to contain and restrain it. Sattwa, being wisdom and light,
>requires dharma to humble it and give it heart. The state of being
>beyond the gunas, then, naturally implies being beyond dharma as well.
Prov, you would have to hum more the just a few more bars for me to be able to
catch this tune. Your logic here totally escapes me. What your post
illustrates is that the "crazy wise" bullshit is indeed without scriptural
support. If your read the works of Ramakrishna, Sivananda, Yogananda, Tukaram
or Ramana Maharishi you would see that the spiritual traditions of Hinduism do
not support this crap.
I am not finding fault with your acceptance of the Gospel of Christ as a
superior alternative to the hypocrisy that you witnessed in syda. All I am
suggesting is that it is unfair to condemn the Hindu spiritual tradition based
on syda's performance or to imply that the Vedic doctrines and scriptures
justify pedophilia and other abusive conduct by a sadguru. I really do
challenge you to support such a stand by citing from the saints, sages or
scriptures of India. Your post indicates that you cannot do so because there
is no support for this conduct in those sources.
There is always an escape clause in the scriptures for some of the severe
elements of a legalistic system. The scriptures establish The Law but also
provide penitential acts to escape the consequences of violating the law.
Christ healed on the sabbath, his disciples ate with "unclean hands" and he
forgave the woman caught in adultry from the Levitical penalty of death by
stoning. He rejected the Mosaic law of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth" and urged a more forgiving attitude. In many ways he exceeded the
"dharmic notions" of his tradition.
I believe that Ramakrishna was of the brahman caste. Brahmans cannot violate
vegetarian principles. Yet one of his female disciples was so spiritually
pure that he could even eat fish that she prepared for him. In this way he
violated the food taboos of his caste.
In merry ol' England they developed a legal system of courts of law and courts
of equity. If the legal remedy seemed to work an injustice, you sought relief
in a court of equity. Equity had commonly understood principles of fundamental
fairness as it's guiding light. Christ's healing on the sabbath, and
Ramakrishna's eating fish offered in love and devotion - these are equitable
departures from legal guidelines. This is the sense in which a realized soul
can "violate the law" without incurring a penalty or being "polluted". They
have exceeded legal limits but it a manner that is in accord with commonly
understood principles of decency.
Baba's ordering his driver to exceed the speed limit so he could arrive in time
to give his devotees darshan is an example. He went beyond the law but it can
be "justified" on principles of equity, especially since no one was harmed.
Baba having sex with minors cannot be justified on equitable priciples. Even
if it were not against the law, the precepts of decency and the integrity of
the child's personhood would have been violated. Books could be written about
this, I am sure.
Christendom has not had its shortage of frauds and hypocrites. Christians have
also justified the most horrific behavior based on extrapolations from the
Bible. I note this not to detract from the greatness of Christ, but only to
point out that you cannot blame the scriptures and theology of Christianity for
the immoral actions of some or many of it's followers. You cannot blame the
scriptures or doctrines of Hinduism for Osha, Franky Boy, Mookie, GuruMum or
Cheatonyeananada.
Sincerely,
Satdesh
Shawdan
In article <199805230324...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, sat...@aol.com
(Satdesh) writes:
>Christendom has not had its shortage of frauds and hypocrites. Christians
>have
>also justified the most horrific behavior based on extrapolations from the
>Bible. I note this not to detract from the greatness of Christ, but only to
>point out that you cannot blame the scriptures and theology of Christianity
>for
>the immoral actions of some or many of it's followers. You cannot blame the
>scriptures or doctrines of Hinduism for Osha, Franky Boy, Mookie, GuruMum or
>Cheatonyeananada.
>
>Sincerely,
>Satdesh
I will dare to be the radical heretic here. I think there are plenty of
statements and stories, in the scriptures of east and west, that I would reject
as alien to my values and beliefs. I don't believe that scriptures are written
by gods, I think they are written by humans. I think they contain priceless
wisdom and beauty, and they also contain ambiguous, incomprehensible, and
sometimes downright unacceptable statements.
For example, I have a problem with the story of Job (see Alice Miller's
analysis of this story in "Thou Shalt Not Be Aware"). I have a problem with
original sin - I cannot and will not use that concept in my personal
philosophy. The Pandava brothers all had the same wife - Mormons are
polygamous (even still). Not my values. The Guru Gita says give your wife to
the guru. Did Muktananda have a secret, unprinted verse about give your young
daughters, too? No doubt he had plenty of scriptural justification (which he
used) for boinking his female devotees.
Scriptures, written by humans, are interpreted by humans. The same exact thing
in the Old Testament means something totally different to a reform Jew than it
does to an Orthodox Jew or a Jehovah's Witness.
I love scriptures for their wisdom and beauty. From Exodus to Tao te Ching to
Sermon on the Mount ( and many more), what treasures the scriptures can offer.
I will never, however, take any scripture as ultimate truth or divine law. I
believe in a world where we are all free to choose to adhere to religious
dogma, or not.
pro...@clarityconnect.com
In article <199805230324...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sat...@aol.com (Satdesh) wrote:
>
> Prov,
>
> You state in your post of 5/22/ 98 that:
>
> >Stretching my mental capacities to their limits, I cannot concieve of
> >the laws of dharma being anything else but subject to, and eminating
> >from the gunas. Tamas, being ignorance and darkness, requires dharma
> >to shed wisdom and light. Rajas, being passion and desire, requires
> >dharma to contain and restrain it. Sattwa, being wisdom and light,
> >requires dharma to humble it and give it heart. The state of being
> >beyond the gunas, then, naturally implies being beyond dharma as well.
>
> Prov, you would have to hum more the just a few more bars for me to be able
to
> catch this tune. Your logic here totally escapes me. What your post
> illustrates is that the "crazy wise" bullshit is indeed without scriptural
> support. If your read the works of Ramakrishna, Sivananda, Yogananda,
Tukaram
> or Ramana Maharishi you would see that the spiritual traditions of Hinduism
do
> not support this crap.
>
intelligent. As you have deduced, I did not use Hindu scripture references
to bolster my argument. This is because, when I morphed belief systems
I decided, perhaps rashly, to get rid of all vestiges of the "old man"
and that included all my SY materials as well as copies of the B. Gita
etc. I gave some to a friend, some to the library, and some to the garbage.
( note; I do not believe in book burning ). One of the hardest SY posses-
ions for me to dispose of ( and the most necesary I believe ) was my copy
of an l.p. record of Baba singing the guru gita. This hypnotic record was,
after reading "Play of Consiousness", my first contact with SY. Thus, I
did not have any scriptures at hand to quote. What I was attempting to
do was follow the concepts of "enlightenment" and guruhood to their logical
end. If it is possible to transcend the gunas, then laws of any kind,
including moral laws can have no binding relevance except if the "enlight-
end" one chooses to accept them. That Yogananda chose to behave himself
within the bounds of appropriatness, would not, in itself, qualify him
as the real thing.
I guess the question I am asking is; Although our hearts condemn "crazy
wisdom" as morally offensive, it is the tragic and unavoidable result
of following the philosophy of enlightenment and guruhood to it's logical
end. IN other words, I can find no other approach to be valid in this
case than to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
More on this later, perhaps. For now,
Satdesh
Dan,
In your post of 5/23/98 you opine:
>I will dare to be the radical heretic here. I think there are plenty of
>statements and stories, in the scriptures of east and west, that I would
>reject
>as alien to my values and beliefs. I don't believe that scriptures are
>written
>by gods, I think they are written by humans. I think they contain priceless
>wisdom and beauty, and they also contain ambiguous, incomprehensible, and
>sometimes downright unacceptable statements.
>
>
>I love scriptures for their wisdom and beauty. From Exodus to Tao te Ching
>to
>Sermon on the Mount ( and many more), what treasures the scriptures can
>offer.
>I will never, however, take any scripture as ultimate truth or divine law. I
>believe in a world where we are all free to choose to adhere to religious
>dogma, or not.
>
>
I concur with these "heretical" and well articulated sentiments.
If Paul the Apostle were on the scene in 1860, would he have thrown his support
to the abolitionists or to the slave masters?
The abolitionists felt strongly that God was on their side. Because Paul, in
one of his epistles, had stated that slaves who became believers should remain
content and loyal to their masters, those who practiced and/or supported
slavery cited Paul in support of their practice. The abolitionists claimed
biblical passages in support of their position.
There are other examples of apparent biblical support for actions or policies
that seem repugnant to the modern mind. The same could be said of the vedic
scriptures (ie., the practice of "wife suicide" [I think it was called 'sati',
but not sure] on the death of the husband, the denial of social justice to the
Harijans and other such matters could be cited as "bad results" stemming from
scriptural injunctions or interpretations). I don't mean to be overly
idealistic about the vedic scriptures nor to imply that they are superior to
biblical scriptures. I believe that both contain a hodgepodge of materials and
that those with a less than honorable agenda can dig out verses or texts in
support of their immoral activities.
At the risk of being accused of beating a dead horse: I remember a story of
how the villagers around Papa Ram Das' ashram used to pelt Mother Krishnabai
with stones as she used to walk to the ashram to visit Ramdas. Krishnabai was
an attractive woman and the villagers felt her intentions were less the
honorable and they didn't want her "spoiling their saint". While Megha should
perhaps address this point rather than me, I suspect that the "rank and file
Hindu" would find the actions of SM with the young girls or the alleged romance
between GM and GA to be an offense to their religious principles and
sensitivites in the extreme. [Same goes for the Swami Rama/oral sex thing]. I
realize there are little cults within Hinduism, as there are within
Christianity, that have bizarre practices and beliefs where these activities
might not shock. Some chrisitans perhaps had no problem with Tammy's air
conditoned doghouse. The 'rank and file' however found it a profoundly absurd
waste of the tithes from peoples' paychecks and social security checks! [I
know, after the story hit the press Tammy said the a.c. doghouse was "a gift"].
Satdesh
Hrdtired
>>Scriptures, written by humans, are interpreted by humans. The same exact
thing
in the Old Testament means something totally different to a reform Jew than it
does to an Orthodox Jew or a Jehovah's Witness.
I love scriptures for their wisdom and beauty. From Exodus to Tao te Ching to
Sermon on the Mount ( and many more), what treasures the scriptures can offer.
I will never, however, take any scripture as ultimate truth or divine law. I
believe in a world where we are all free to choose to adhere to religious
dogma, or not.<<
That was a maha post, Danny, wahh! wahh! I agree with you 300%.
-- The Tired Heart
sres...@slip.net
pro...@clarityconnect.com wrote:
> If I was still in SY and thus inclined to quote the
> Bible out of context, I would quote Mark 2:27,28 as a proof text;
> "And he said unto them, ( Jesus )The sabbath was made for man, and
> not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of
> the sabbath."
<irony>As a Jewish Buddhist, I feel well qualified to speak on the words of
Jesus.</irony>
When Jesus talked of "not man for the sabbath," wasn't he talking about, say,
healing the sick, even on a day when such "work" would be scripturally
prohibited? Couldn't the point be that the teaching of "Love one another" is
the Great Teaching, while all the words in the scriptures are just tools to
help us in this vow?
I think my point here is similar to what Satdesh has said. It's *not* that I'd
object to the guru or anyone else breaking man-made laws (either statutory or
scriptural) *if* his motivation was only to help others. I *do* think it's a
very legitimate question to ask if, say, having sex with minor devotees, or
threatening & harassing "rivals," are truly helpful actions. To say that one
can't ask such questions about the guru's actions because he/she is "above the
law" is what I'd consider a mistake.
Stuart
sres...@slip.net
http://www.slip.net/~sresnick/mypage.shtml
sres...@slip.net
sha...@aol.com (Shawdan) wrote:
> I love scriptures for their wisdom and beauty. From Exodus to Tao te Ching
> offer. I will never, however, take any scripture as ultimate truth or divine
> law. I believe in a world where we are all free to choose to adhere to
> religious dogma, or not.
For instance, say I believe that Buddha attained a state of great clarity &
compassion. From that state, he spent many years giving sermons, the purpose
of which was to give teachings to ease the suffering of others. The particular
words he used were those most appropriate to the particular time, place, &
situation he found himself in.
Therefore, though it may be useful to study Buddhist scriptures (i.e.,
supposed records of all those sermons), in search of ideas that may be useful
for us, one must *not* take them as dogma, since (in *some* cases) the
appropriate teaching for our own specific time, place, & situations may be
quite different. Better to use Buddah's words to inspire us to attain clarity
& compassion for ourselves, & then use that to find the correct way for our
own unique situations, moment to moment.
Further, it's simply not intelligent to pretend that Buddah, clear &
compassionate as he was, couldn't occasionally just make a mistake. An obvious
example of this was his (culturally-based) statement that only men could
become monks (a mistake I believe he realized & corrected later in his
teachings).
pro...@clarityconnect.com
In article <199805231233...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sha...@aol.com (Shawdan) wrote:
>
> I will dare to be the radical heretic here. I think there are plenty of
> statements and stories, in the scriptures of east and west, that I would
reject
> as alien to my values and beliefs. I don't believe that scriptures are
written
> by gods, I think they are written by humans. I think they contain priceless
> wisdom and beauty, and they also contain ambiguous, incomprehensible, and
> sometimes downright unacceptable statements.
Dan,
You've written a truly thought provoking article. You and I dissagree
about scriptures, most notably the Bible. I believe they are "God breathed"
However, I can truly appreciate your frustration with the undeniable fact
that scriptures can be used in any tradition to perpetrate evils for evil
purposes. One problem I see with the use of scripture is the knowledge of
the words without the connection to the Spirit. Jesus said;
"But the hour cometh and now is, when worshippers shall worship the
Father in spirit and truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship
him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
and in truth."
Spirituality, I believe will always be, ultimately, a subjective thing.
Faith is the "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
unseen."
I
> believe in a world where we are all free to choose to adhere to religious
> dogma, or not.
>
I believe we already live in such a world. Even in places where religious
freedom is not permitted as a matter of political policy, people are
ulimately free to reject the party line and, regardless of the punishment
meeted out by the powers of this world, hold true to their convictions
and worship God by the faith and peace that only He can provide.
peace,
prov356
sres...@slip.net
pro...@clarityconnect.com wrote:
> I guess the question I am asking is; Although our hearts condemn "crazy
> wisdom" as morally offensive, it is the tragic and unavoidable result
> of following the philosophy of enlightenment and guruhood to it's logical
> end. IN other words, I can find no other approach to be valid in this
> case than to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I think I understand & agree with your point, prov, if by "philosophy of
enlightenment & guruhood" you mean the idea that some folks attain permanent
perfection, & that thereafter their words should be accepted as absolute,
infallible Truth. I believe this teaching is common in SYDA, & *that* baby I'd
throw out with the bathwater.
I don't think we need to throw out the possibility that we can, at any moment,
perceive & act with perfect clarity. (We don't need to call that
"enlightenment," & I think that even after such a moment, we need to
continuously keep trying to keep it in future moments. In Zen we say,
"Enlightenment is easy to get, difficult to keep.") And we don't need to throw
out the idea that a teacher can help point us & inspire us towards this
clarity. (We don't need to call such a teacher a "guru," & by no means do we
need to "follow" him or consider him more perfect than anyone else.)
Stuart
sres...@slip.net
http://www.slip.net/~sresnick/mypage.shtml
pro...@clarityconnect.com
In article <6k7hh3$aik$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
sres...@slip.net wrote:
>
> I don't think we need to throw out the possibility that we can, at any
moment,
> perceive & act with perfect clarity. (We don't need to call that
> "enlightenment," & I think that even after such a moment, we need to
> continuously keep trying to keep it in future moments. In Zen we say,
> "Enlightenment is easy to get, difficult to keep.") And we don't need to
throw
> out the idea that a teacher can help point us & inspire us towards this
> clarity. (We don't need to call such a teacher a "guru," & by no means do we
> need to "follow" him or consider him more perfect than anyone else.)
>
> Stuart
Thanks Stu. You've givin me something to think about here.
peace,
prov356
stran...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >Christendom has not had its shortage of frauds and hypocrites. Christians
> >have
> >also justified the most horrific behavior based on extrapolations from the
> >Bible. I note this not to detract from the greatness of Christ, but only to
> >point out that you cannot blame the scriptures and theology of Christianity
> >for
> >the immoral actions of some or many of it's followers. You cannot blame the
> >scriptures or doctrines of Hinduism for Osha, Franky Boy, Mookie, GuruMum or
> >Cheatonyeananada.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >Satdesh
>
> statements and stories, in the scriptures of east and west, that I would reject
> as alien to my values and beliefs. I don't believe that scriptures are written
> by gods, I think they are written by humans. I think they contain priceless
> wisdom and beauty, and they also contain ambiguous, incomprehensible, and
> sometimes downright unacceptable statements.<<<
Several years ago, I went to an Episcopal church for an Easter service.
The rector there is fairly well known for his radical views. For
example, when homelessness was first becoming a major issue in the
community, he opened the doors of the church so that people could sleep
there. He writes letters to the editors of the local paper on
controversial issues in the Christian community, including gay
marriage, AIDS activism, addiction and women's roles in the church.
On this Easter Sunday, he talked about Paul. The first thing he said
was that Paul was a great Christian, but a flawed human being, and a
product of his time. He contrasted Paul's mission to spread
Christianity with his beliefs about women and their place in the world,
explaining the need to read the scriptures with a keen eye to their
context and the time in which they were written. He did not trash Paul;
rather, he gave an erudite sermon on the need for separating the wheat
from the chaff even in the bible.
I don't agree with all of this religious leader's positions, nor am I
oficially an Episcopalian. I do so appreciate a leader from any
tradition who is willing to stick his neck out, to practice the values
of his religion that uplift, and to instruct people in an intelligent
approach to words that can become dry dogma or an excuse for
indifference toward fellow human beings.
Sincerely,
StrangerWP
PattyV1953
Now I lay me down to sleep...
... and thank you for liberating me from Monday night satsang so I won't miss
Game 2 against the Capitols.
Shawdan
>I don't think we need to throw out the possibility that we can, at any
>moment,
>perceive & act with perfect clarity. (We don't need to call that
>"enlightenment," & I think that even after such a moment, we need to
>continuously keep trying to keep it in future moments.
Stu, I'm not sure I agree with you on this - I'd be curious about your take on
the following:
Life is so many things, ecstatic and boring, serene and nervous, fulfilling and
dissatisfying. I experience continuous fluidity between many different states,
at the center of which are some strong characteristic parts of me and my most
cherished values; there are also the unconsciously held beliefs that limit me,
which are quite resistant to being made fully conscious. How do I know if I
ever achieve perfectly clear perception and action?
I'm sure I don't very often, if at all. Somehow, this no longer makes me feel
unworthy, anxious, guilty, or inadequate. I've come to accept myself more, my
limits and imperfection, my flaws, shortcomings, weaknesses, vulnerabilities.
Having accepted more of this side of myself, I find myself freer to grow, to
deepen emotional ties to loved ones, to learn, to be open to what the world
outside me is, and to what is inside me. I think I'm becoming less rigid and
more flexible.
That seems like a wonderful change for me, since leaving SY. I still often
wish I were stronger, greater, more powerful, and more effective. I'm sure I'm
often anxious that I'm not as much of those things as I'd like to be. I'm
trying to keep in mind that I really am enough - that I'm good enough right
now. I can have more faith and trust now that I will continue to grow. No
more self-punishing ritual obeisance, no more anxious importuning of remote
idols. I have value and I have power, I don't need to fill an emptiness
anymore with people who fraudulently pose as perfected beings.
For me, at least at this moment, it seems more important that I become freer
and more aware of the anxious striving to be "more" or "perfect" that was
fostered in SY, and which I was predisposed to, given my particular
insecurites, than it is to try to be more perfectly clear more constantly. For
me, that sets up the old carrot and stick game that has proven so exhausting
and futile.
Shawdan
>Spirituality, I believe will always be, ultimately, a subjective thing.
>Faith is the "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
>unseen."
>
>
Yes indeed. Respect for this subjectivity could lead to peace and
understanding - it is up to us to foster that tolerance. There will always be
intolerant ones, so the more we respect and tolerate each other's subjectivity,
the better chance, I believe, we have of creating, rather than destroying.
Some characterize this newsgroup as an attempt to destroy SY. Not so. I
believe most of us here attempt to create understanding and tolerance for
ourselves and each other. We start from the point of having experienced SY
and, as the NG title suggests, we now see SY as having serious destructive
elements. We seek to create a new and creative experience of life, love,
spirituality, etc. - based on what we learned.
Satdesh
On 5/24/98, Dan writes:
> Respect for this subjectivity could lead to peace and
>understanding - it is up to us to foster that tolerance. There will always
>be
>intolerant ones, so the more we respect and tolerate each other's
>subjectivity,
>the better chance, I believe, we have of creating, rather than destroying.
>
>Some characterize this newsgroup as an attempt to destroy SY. Not so. I
>believe most of us here attempt to create understanding and tolerance for
>ourselves and each other. We start from the point of having experienced SY
>and, as the NG title suggests, we now see SY as having serious destructive
>elements. We seek to create a new and creative experience of life, love,
>spirituality, etc. - based on what we learned.
>
>
Very nicely stated.
Satdesh
S235108
I'm going to hear it from some of you for this but here goes:
I met Swami Chetanananda today and I spoke to him about Siddha Yoga and some
of the things which I read here that were said about him. He answered me with
candor and I believe, truth.
He took sanyas with Muktananda in 1978 and "remained celibate for three years
until 1981." At that time he realized that "no one else in Siddha Yoga was
celibate" so he began a relationship. He told me that he had one 'significant
other'
for a number of years and that though friends, they drifted apart. He then met
someone else and he has had a relationship with her since the late 1980's. At
that time his old girl friend was angry with him and she began bad-mouthing him
for having a relationship with someone new. He said that he was in a monogamous
relationship. (I apoligized for asking these questions after getting the
response I got from Chetanananda.) He said that he feels that he "lives in a
fish bowl" with about 100 others in Oregon and that he "wonders how much he's
supposed to give and take nothing for himself." He said that he feels entitled
to having a small part of his life for himself.
He acknowledged that Baba had engaged in a "tantric" type of recharging
himself after his first heart attack. Chetanananda said that in India it is
accepted that an old dying sadhu would have these types of ("tantric" sexual)
relationships and that girls and their families felt "honored" to oblige. He
went on to say that he disagreed with the double message given out by Siddha
Yoga and that the lies bothered him when he was a SY swami. He smiled and shook
his head in the negative when I suggested that perhaps Baba had acted like a
"vampire" and had taken unfair advantage of his young devotees. He said that it
is difficult to transplant Indian culture and that was one of the problems that
Siddha Yoga had always had.
He said nothing about Swami Chidvilasananda and I didn't ask him anything
about her either. I was mostly interested in him and in what he knew about Baba
Muktananda. I liked talking with Chetanananda and I felt that he was truthful
and open about himself. No one seemed to treat him like a guru; no one bowed or
pranammed to him but he was treated with love, humor and respect. I felt that I
was talking to another person and not to some false icon of perfection.
******************S235108***********************
“Why would even the most realized of beings want people to become
reliant on his wisdom instead of their own?” GURU PAPERS
JyotiK2052
Dear Shawdan,
Your post of 5/24/98: Subject: Nityananda unassimilated x2, brought up many
important points. You were replying to Stuart's post in which he says: "I
don't think we need to throw out the possibility that we can, at any moment,
perceive with perfect clarity. (We don't need to call that 'enlightenment' & I
think that even after such a moment, we need to continuously keep trying to
keep it in future moments...)
And you said: "Stu, I'm not sure I agree with you on this -" I just wanted to
say that I think you might not have caught Stu's meaning on the last
parenthetical sentence...because I read that to mean that we DID NOT need to
continuously keep trying to keep it in future moments. Just thought I'd
comment on that, and you and/or Stuart can straighten me out if I was wrong
about my take on it.
Then you go on to say, however, that life is so many opposite things at
different times, and that you experience continuous fluidity between many
different states. I daresay that is how the majority of us experience life,
too, Dan. I particularly paid attention to your statement about the
"unconsciously held beliefs that limit you" as this is also true of all of us,
AS WELL as having unconsciously held knowlege that can free us.
I do know that I can count at least a few moments of full clarity and the
knowledge that I was in the precise right place at the precise right time doing
the precisely right thing. This is not the same as 'calling up' a moment of
full clarity. This was like 'coming into' a moment of full clarity. I think
that this IS available to anyone, though it may not be obtained by austerities
or study or practices or other touted avenues of attainment. I think it
happens because we (for whatever reason) get out of the way....and there it is.
I fully agree that the carrot and stick is a futile and cruel game. Long live
spontenaity!
Respectfully - Jyoti
JyotiK2052
Dear S,
Though I want to thank you on the one hand for bringing back news from
Chetanananda, I also do hope that confidentiality was not breached. Sounds
like he knew that you post to an internet newsgroup, though...
What he told you does sound truthful and echos some of the things that I have
been told about why the ''tantric'' relationships. I know that there is much
cultural cross-reference that is hard for Americans to understand, but I still
feel that if a young girl has not been raised in India with these cultural
differences, and is approached by a person who is presented to her as a god on
earth (or THE god on earth) and expected to perform these activities that it is
abuse of power.
Anyway, I'm glad that you were able to talk to him.
Respectfully - Jyoti
Hrdtired
S...
If you become a devotee of this self-serving pig, I will hunt you down, tie you
up, and forcibly reprogram you.
With great respect and love,
-- The Tired Heart
Hrdtired
Uh, that's "deprogram." LOL!
The cult-leader-in-training?...
Hrd
-- The Tired Heart
shy...@hotmail.com
s23...@aol.com (S235108) wrote:
> I'm going to hear it from some of you for this but here goes:
Well, we want to encourage discussion, don't we? :)
>He took sanyas with Muktananda in 1978 and "remained celibate for three years
>until 1981." At that time he realized that "no one else in Siddha Yoga was
>celibate" so he began a relationship.
That is a telling statement.
>He acknowledged that Baba had engaged in a "tantric" type of recharging
>himself after his first heart attack.
Okay, for those who are counting, I make that FIVE ex-(or not) swamis who
have reported or agreed that baba engaged in this. None seem to bear any
grudge against baba, some still revere him. Is that convincing enough for
those doubting Thomases out there?
>Chetanananda said that in India it is
>accepted that an old dying sadhu would have these types of ("tantric" sexual)
>relationships and that girls and their families felt "honored" to oblige.
Actually, I imagine this to perhaps be the case. However, as Jyoti points
out, it is still extremely inappropriate for him to do this with devotees
from other cultures - or indeed even his own - who would not understand this
tantric thing. I admit I don't understand it, but the coverup and subsequent
threats made by sm make it very sordid.
Shyam
S235108
Jyoti says of my report of a conversation I had with Swami Chetanananda"
"Though I want to thank you on the one hand for bringing back news from
Chetanananda, I also do hope that confidentiality was not breached..."
I hope not either, Jyoti. Really it was refreshing for me to talk openly with
someone and to ask my questions regarding not only Sw Muktananda's 'practices'
but his own as well. What I got for answers
were quite personal and revealing and did much to help me see this person as
another human being with faults and needs just like the rest of us. I did start
the conversation by stating that I had read things about him on the internet. I
also mentioned what "Master Charles" wrote in his book about seeing Muktananda
in a sexual situation with one of his "sevites." What I've written would HELP
Swami Chetanananda' credibility.
I apologize to him if I am violating any trust on his part. I would think that
he would be grateful that someone was attempting to tell his side of A story
and that someone was giving him credit for having some integrity and for
showing some humanity.
It has helped me to have expressed myself openly and fearlessly to this swami.
I wish I had done the same to Swami Chidvilasananda. Instead, with her I just
had a public, Siddha Yoga face and a private,
disbelieving, doubting, sarcastic and angry face. At least I unloaded myself
with someone and asked straight out about things which were bothering me.
Hrdtired said:
"If you become a devotee of this self-serving pig, I will hunt you down, tie
you
up, and forcibly reprogram you. (Deprogram you)"
Thank for your loving concern, Hrdy. I don't think that I'll ever be a
"devotee" again but that doesn't mean that I've ceased being a 'seeker.'
(hopefully not a 'sucker.') I admit that I'm still open to the divine, I still
meditate and I still leave room for God's intervention in my life. Let's face
it, none of us plan to drop dead of a heart attack and never come home to our
families and loved ones again but we all know someone or of someone that it has
happened to. If I " become a devotee of...(any)... self-serving pig," yes,
please deprogram me ASAP!
S
Shawdan
In article <199805242206...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
jyoti...@aol.com (JyotiK2052) writes:
>This was like 'coming into' a moment of full clarity. I think
>that this IS available to anyone, though it may not be obtained by
>austerities
>or study or practices or other touted avenues of attainment. I think it
>happens because we (for whatever reason) get out of the way....and there it
>is.
No doubt, I have known such moments, which you describe simply and beautifully.
Another thread mentions Amy Gross' take on "peak moments." What are their
ultimate value? For me, I think they need to get put together with the
horrible moments and the banal moments - and all three kinds of moments, and
all the others in between, together make up this astonishing mystery known as
human life. Although I could do with less of some and more of others, I dig
them all.
JyotiK2052
Dear S,
Thanks for the followup remarks regarding your candid conversation with
Chetanananda.
I also liked it when you said, "I don't think I'll ever be a "devotee" again,
but that doesn't mean that I've ceased being a 'seeker' (hopefully not a
'sucker.) I admit that I'm still open to the divine......." That's the whole
thing there, S.
Respectfully - Jyoti
El Glufo!
well, im glad i only have to worry about 'commonly held principles of
decency' !
actually, American (Sexual) Puritanism had little to do with ancient Hindu
culture...
--
-------------------------------------
"milky, milky, milky smooth!"
-------------------------------------
El Glufo!
with that attitude the world wouldnt have problems!
when the few regulars extend that attitude to the newcomers of this group
instead of asking them to introduce themselves like they need someone's
permission to be here, etc. you'll be ready to go out and run the world!
El Glufo!
personally i prefer to throw absurd "morals" that are in contradiction with
our own nature and evolution out with the bathwater...ill keep the baby...
El Glufo!
what, that you cant see beyond your societal mores like "decency" to
underlying principles of universal nature? im sorry, but you're all driving
me crazy superimposing a supposed modern "Law Of Morality" ontop of a
millenia old belief system.
Annielori9
Jyoti ended her reply to Dan's rumination:
> Long live
>spontenaity!
Isn't it ironic that the one thing we learned in SY was to quelch our
spontenous nature? Within the organization, only Gm got to be spontaneous, all
the rest of us had to watch our step.
I ran into a friend at the ashram one time. She was doing a seva that brought
her into the core of the "inner circle". She told me you had to watch your
mouth every second. I contemplated what this inhibition meant. Mindful
speech? Or being too afraid to speak up? After listening to her for a while,
I figured it was the latter. She had to measure her speech for appropriateness
to the party line. No marching to a different drummer in SY. No freedom for
spontaneity, which, unless you are the guru, is considered to be the ego
bursting out.
As Jyoti put it LONG LIVE SPONTANEITY!!! and I add this:
LONG LIVE FREEDOM!
Satdesh
S.,
Thats for your 5/24/98 post on Swami Chetanananda.
If I were a swami wearing the ocher robes of the Swami Order,
held myself out as a swami at my ashram and in all the literature of my ashram,
had a significant following with financially prosperous followers, had been
sleeping with a couple of women on the side (in violation of my vows), was at
"mid-life", had no marketable skills other than as a yoga teacher AND, I read
the Ananda Awareness Network, I think I would be in imminent need of some Pepto
Bismol.
After I had studied how Kriyananda-Don Walters got his butt in a jam (from the
materials on the Ananda Awareness Network), my lawyer(s), spin doctor(s), and I
would probably come up with the following:
1. "No one was deceived by my calling myself a swami and wearing ocher robes.
Anyone who had been around me for more than 30 minutes would know I wasn't a
celibate." [ie., while this may look like a fraud to the outside world, it's
not really a fraud legally speaking because, you see, there was no harm because
my followers/disciples who have invested years of their lives and a lot of
their dollars here at my ashram knew all along that I have a lady friend that
I've been shtupping on a regular basis.
2. "My shtuppees were not my followers or disciples or anything like that.
They were a couple of women I met at O'Reilley's Pub who just kind of thought
it was odd that I earned my living doing this swami gig. That's all!" [ie.,
there's no issue of "clergy sex abuse" here, you see, as my shtuppees were in
no way relating to me in any context related to my spiritual role as a swami.
Hell, they hardly knew what a swami was and could care even less!]
>He said that he feels that he "lives in a
>fish bowl" with about 100 others in Oregon and that he "wonders how much he's
>supposed to give and take nothing for himself." He said that he feels
>entitled
>to having a small part of his life for himself.
I don't have any problem with this. What I have a problem with is a seeker
wanting to have their cake and eat it too. There are a lot of perks that go
along with taking vows of renunciation and living as a swami (if you're engaged
in an "enlightenment endeavor", like siddha yoga). It protects one from many
of society's pressures and influences that dilute or destroy one's meditative
efforts. In addition one is able to remain in "sadhana supportive"
environments and generally to have the "householder class" of devotees provide
for one's support. There are also hardships and trials involved with keeping
the vows and living a life of simplicity and austerity. It is truly a heroic
effort. The householders do not complain about supporting the sadhu/swami
class because they respect their great (even heroic) committment to the
spiritual life and they feel blessed that such noble souls exist. The swamis
also in most cases provide encouragement, instruction and support for the
householders in their own spiritual search. Both help each other.
When a swami takes a vow, it is not just a vow to him or herself. It is also a
vow to the community much like marriage vows are. We're not in this alone. We
are all a part of a community endeavor here to one degree or another. The
householder community agrees to support the renunciant community as they
understand they are giving up family and professional endeavors to puruse to
spiritual path with singleminded devotion. So, when Swami Chet. says:
S235108
>>Chetanananda said that in India it is
>>accepted that an old dying sadhu would have these types of ("tantric" sexual)
>>relationships and that girls and their families felt "honored" to oblige.
>Actually, I imagine this to perhaps be the case. However, as Jyoti points
>out, it is still extremely inappropriate for him to do this with devotees
>from other cultures - or indeed even his own - who would not >understand this
>tantric thing. I admit I don't understand it, but the coverup and >subsequent
>threats made by sm make it very sordid.
>Shyam
I agree Shyam, it is very sordid and extremely inappropriate for Sw Muk.
to have stuck his plug in to recharge his spiritual battery. The whole issue of
these gurus getting involved in other peoples' sexuality by preaching celibacy
(while doing whatever they want themselves) might be addressed by a line from
THE GURU PAPERS:
“To maintain mental control it is necessary to undermine self-trust. This is
insidiously done by removing the ways people can build trust in
themselves.”(p.73)
“In the realm of sexuality, the two prevalent ways control is exerted are
through promulgating either celibacy or promiscuity...both serve the same
function: they minimize the possibilities of people bonding deeply with each
other, thus reducing factors that compete with the guru for attention.” (p.92)
“Celibacy does allow one to maintain a certain kind of control of one’s energy
and emotions. It also conforms with images of purity. Therefore, it is far
easier for a guru to gain and maintain power if he is celibate - or pretends to
be.”(p.92)
“Gurus who preach celibacy while secretly engaging in sexuality present sex as
an esoteric initiation ritual or advanced spiritual exercise that must be kept
hidden...
But it is the lie, not the sex, that’s the real issue. The lie indicates the
guru’s entire persona is a lie, that his image as selfless and beyond ego is a
core deception.”(p.95)
Satdesh
Part II of response to s235108's post of 5/24/98 on Chetanananda: (hit the
wrong button, sorry)
.>he feels that he "lives in a
>fish bowl" with about 100 others in Oregon and that he "wonders how much he's
>supposed to give and take nothing for himself." He said that he feels
>entitled
>to having a small part of his life for himself.
I'm at a loss to understand this in terms of what renunciation and the swami
order are all about.
One can be a siddha or saint and remain a householder. Guru Nanak, Sant
Tukaram, Sant Kabir, Lahiri Mahasaya, Vyasa, Janakananda and many other lesser
known householders have become saints. When Chet. wanted to go non-celibate,
he should have dropped the swami title and the ocher robes. Even Master
Charles had the good sense to do this.
On tantric sex:
> He acknowledged that Baba had engaged in a "tantric" type of
recharging
>himself after his first heart attack. Chetanananda said that in India it is
>accepted that an old dying sadhu would have these types of ("tantric" sexual)
>relationships and that girls and their families felt "honored" to oblige.
When author John White interviewed Muktananda in the 70s he wrote a short
article about it in Yoga Journal. White had asked SM about India's newly
acquired ability to explode atomic bombs. SM said it was a good thing because
China also had the bomb. White said, as I recall, that his spiritual "crap
detector" went into the red zone on this one. At the time was was offended
that White would speak so irreverently about SM, whom I considered a perfected,
God-realized, omniscient saint!
When I read these tantric rationalizations for SM's conduct, my spiritual crap
detector goes way into the red zone. [I do believe occult tantric goals may
have been Muktananda's own motivation or rationale - I just don't think it's a
good idea to recognize this as legitimate tantric practice]. I know there is a
vast amount of literature out there compiled by scholars over the last two
centuries who have studied Indian religion, culture, customs, languages, and
literature, and that I am ignorant of the majority of it. However, I doubt
that Chetananada, GuruMum, Nity Jr. or M. Charles are much more knowledeable
than I am with respect to this great body of scholarship. I would feel better
if this theory that:
>in India it is
>accepted that an old dying sadhu would have these types of ("tantric" sexual)
>relationships and that girls and their families felt "honored" to oblige. -
could be corroborated by a scholarly source or by someone who was native to
Indian culture and who knew this to be the case. Chetananda is not a native to
India and he is no scholar. This inference that SM's sexual affairs were "in
the tradition man and its just like, ah, your cultural chauvinism that can't
dig it" just sound like more of the old rationalization and bullshit that's
been pumped out by this particular lineage over the last 15 years.
I do give weight to your own opinion about Chetanananda's honesty. You have
"seen it all" so to speak and have left syda. I assume its unlikely at this
point in time that you could be easily duped by the swami types. I hope you
are correct. If Chet. is engaged in long term monogamous relationships with
fully consenting partners, then he is atleast not one of the sexual predator
class, IMO. If he is being truthful (as opposed to engaging in damage control
and spin doctoring) then I admire his candor. I truly do wish him the best and
hope he is clean. I feel sorry for the people who constantly have to go
through the pain of discovering that their teacher is a fraud. I hope there
are some success stories out there. (I do think he should drop the swami title
and swami robes to avoid confusion, however.)
Sincerely,
Satdesh
S235108
Satdesh says,
> If Chet. is engaged in long term monogamous relationships with
fully consenting partners, then he is atleast not one of the sexual predator
class, IMO. If he is being truthful (as opposed to engaging in damage control
and spin doctoring) then I admire his candor. I truly do wish him the best and
hope he is clean. I feel sorry for the people who constantly have to go
through the pain of discovering that their teacher is a fraud. I hope there
are some success stories out there. (I do think he should drop the swami title
and swami robes to avoid confusion, however.)
Sincerely,
Satdesh
I agree, Satdesh. I don't know why Swami Chetanananda continues to call himself
"Swami" and to wear orange. I was told that he renounced his celibacy vows and
was initiated into an order of "householder swamis."
The confusion of "swami" and orange are good points though. Why bother with
these titles and colors if they would cause confusion? Apparently
his group is well aware of his non-celibate status, for whatever that's worth.
pro...@clarityconnect.com
In article <6kc5bl$ehv$1...@usenet40.supernews.com>,
"El Glufo!" <el_g...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> personally i prefer to throw absurd "morals" that are in contradiction with
> our own nature and evolution out with the bathwater...ill keep the baby...
>
>
El Glufo!
"You are the baby."
ill take that as a term of endearment
thank you!
sres...@slip.net
sha...@aol.com (Shawdan) wrote:
> Life is so many things, ecstatic and boring, serene and nervous, fulfilling
> states, at the center of which are some strong characteristic parts of me
> that limit me, which are quite resistant to being made fully conscious. How
> do I know if I ever achieve perfectly clear perception and action?
I'd say that we *don't* know if we ever achieve perfectly clarity. In fact, if
we start thinking, "Hey, I'm seeing & acting perfectly clearly!" that's an
undeniable sign that we're *not* clear. My only point is that it's OK (& I'd
say necessary) to *try* each moment; since we can't *know*, we can't check
ourselves (that is, we can't judge whether we've succeeded or not; we can
*only* try).
It's precisely the same as what I'd say about helping others. We can never
know for sure if we've really benefitted anyone else; at the same time, it's
our job to keep trying. Succeeding 10,000 times or failing 10,000 times makes
no difference to the fact that it's our job to keep trying.
> I'm sure I don't very often, if at all. Somehow, this no longer makes me
> feel unworthy, anxious, guilty, or inadequate. I've come to accept myself
> more, my limits and imperfection, my flaws, shortcomings, weaknesses,
> vulnerabilities.
Yeah, the other side of the coin is to accept the moment as "enough." Maybe
this is one of those cases where language inevitably confuses the point. Be
that as it may, I'd submit that maybe it's possible see both sides, that is,
accepting ourselves & the moment as enough, yet *part* of that "enough" being
our continuing efforts.
> For me, at least at this moment, it seems more important that I become freer
> and more aware of the anxious striving to be "more" or "perfect" that was
> fostered in SY, and which I was predisposed to, given my particular
> insecurites, than it is to try to be more perfectly clear more constantly.
> For me, that sets up the old carrot and stick game that has proven so
> exhausting and futile.
Maybe "clarity" *means* being aware of our anxieties, insecurities, etc. Maybe
these things are a problem if we ignore them or try to pretend they aren't
there, but not so much a problem if we see them as they are.
Maybe that's the oft-mentioned "razor's edge." On the one hand, avoiding the
trap of thinking, "I've got everything, so I don't need to try to act
correctly any more," & on the other hand, avoiding carrot & stick anxiety. In
Zen, we talk about trying without checking, perhaps the same as those Karma
Yoga teachings about doing our best without attachment to the result.
Stuart
sres...@slip.net
http://www.slip.net/~sresnick/mypage.shtml
sres...@slip.net
sha...@aol.com (Shawdan) wrote:
> Some characterize this newsgroup as an attempt to destroy SY. Not so.
I also don't even think about the possibility or desirability of "destroying"
SYDA. As a Libertarian, I believe that consenting adults should be allowed to
enter into *any* type of relationship, including guru-disciple. I also believe
we all can and should try to *persuade* (without using physical force) others
to avoid harmful situations. And I believe that making information available
to the largest possible audience is a good thing.
> We start from the point of having experienced SY
> and, as the NG title suggests, we now see SY as having serious destructive
> elements. We seek to create a new and creative experience of life, love,
> spirituality, etc. - based on what we learned.
Metaphorically: I believe in the freedom of consenting adults to engage in
drug use, prostitution, & all sorts of other (perhaps) self-destructive acts.
This shouldn't stop anyone from speaking openly of the destructiveness of such
paths, or supporting those who wish to recover from them.
Shawdan
>It's precisely the same as what I'd say about helping others. We can never
>know for sure if we've really benefitted anyone else; at the same time, it's
>our job to keep trying. Succeeding 10,000 times or failing 10,000 times makes
>no difference to the fact that it's our job to keep trying.
Dear Stu - your answer made a good deal of sense. And I find myself very much
in agreement with you. Maybe wisdom is the ability to find the balance between
being enough and strivng for more.
Hrdtired
>>If Chet. is engaged in long term monogamous relationships with
fully consenting partners, then he is atleast not one of the sexual predator
class, IMO. If he is being truthful (as opposed to engaging in damage control
and spin doctoring) then I admire his candor.<<
And if his shtup-wallas are his disciples, consenting or not, then he is still
a predatory bastard.
-- The Tired Heart
S235108
Hrdtired says,
"And if his shtup-wallas are his disciples, consenting or not, then he is still
a predatory bastard.
-- The Tired Heart"
O.K.
S
keu...@eecs.berkeley.edu
Satdesh says:
> I don't mean to sound rude or condescending. You are the only sincere and
> articulate apologist for the "crazy wise siddha gurus" that posts here, IMO.
KK:
Thanks for your positive comments but I would not attempt to be an apologist
for any crazy wisdom guru. Padmasambhava and Drubpa Kunley lived a long time
ago and there are many miraculous acts attributed to them - it's very hard to
interpret their actions today. If there are crazy wisdom gurus today I doubt
that you fill find their books in Barnes and Nobles.
>
Satdesh:
> 1.. In your opinion, are the teachers you defend liberated souls (ie.,
> liberated from enslavement to the mind and senses and awake in the Self)?
KK:
First of all let's be clear about the nature of my ``defense.'' I have found
value in my life from both Swami Muktananda and Swami Chetanananda. I do not
dismiss the possibility that others have been hurt by them - and for what it
is worth I'm sorry about that. But it seems very limiting to treat these
phenomenal individuals as the little charicatures that you and Tired Hired
appear to do.
Regarding liberation: I don't find a lot of real value in speculating on
whether someone is liberated. I try to focus on ``what can I learn from this
person?'' If you want me to just speculate then that would just be gossip.
Which I am happy to do - but only over tea. :-)
Satdesh:
> 2. If they are liberated, why do they engage in sexual intercourse? What
is
> your explanation.
KK:
I think that we had a discussion of tantra a while back. I don't know if you
remember it. If you are really interested you could go to dejanews and look it
up. I gave a number of specific results that are associated with tantric
practices. Still, my understanding from Buddhist tantra is that such practices
should only be engaged in when both parties have an awareness of what is
happening and have achieved a certain level of realization. Some scripture
says that to engage in this kind of tantra is as hard as licking honey off a
sharp blade.
Satdesh:
> 3. If your response is that you cannot explain or understand, then how can
you
> defend?
KK: My response is: I am not trying to defend. I am only suggesting that
people might take a broader perspective of these individuals. Apparently I
haven't found any takers for that suggestion. Oh well. I'll shut up about it.
Unless you have some more questions!
Kurt
keu...@eecs.berkeley.edu
> Kurt K. says:
<snip>
Is it accurate to portray the dashanami sannyasis as ``a
> CELIBATE order of monks?'' That's actually a pretty subtle question. I don't
> know if I'm going to convey concisely my point or if you would be interested
> in it anyway.<<
>
Tired Heart (HT):
> Good guess. I could care less about the so-called subtleties involved.
>
> We live in the GROSS, UNSUBTLE world here. And this is not a newsgroup that
is
> concerned with debating the relative merits of spiritual teachers and their
> wisdom, crazy or otherwise.
KK:
I live here and I don't see my world as gross and unsubtle. Isn't seeing the
world as gross and unsubtle boring?
HT:
>
> This is a group that discusses LEAVING A CULT.
KK:
I have found a tremendous variety of issues discussed here. I thought you'd
enjoy a break from bickering with Bhasker and congratuling Satdesh. Looks like
I was wrong. We can drop this now if you want.
KK:
>
> >>I think your real issue is: Is Swami C misrepresenting himself as a
celibate
> by
> calling himself a Swami and wearing ochre robes?<<
HT:
> That is definitely an issue, IMHO.
<snip>
and if he's so obviously not the celebatemonk he costumes
himself
> as, so obviously not respecting his vows so that one can discern this in a
1/2
> hour, I don't think I'd want to have anything to do with him, thanks
awfully.
KK: The Kadampa Geshes (most celibate folks you could ever meet) had a saying:
rnam rtog bdud kyi rgyal po yin.
Conceptuality is the king of devils. Concepts (vikalpa) and judgements (as
opposed to discrimination (viveka)) pinch your heart.
>
> >>KK:
> I'm trying to understand your thoughts and feelings. I'd be gratified if you
> would do the same. Perhaps we could hold a discussion in which we each might
> hold open the possibility that we might learn something. Patronizing
behavior
> doesn't do much to enhance the likelihood of that.<<
>
HT:
> I wonder where you are coming from too. Have you been in Siddha Yoga? Do
you
> consider it a cult? Are you an apologist for all gurus? Whazzup?
KK:
I met Swami C when I was 16 (I think he must have been about 21) and Swami M
when I was 18. Each has had a powerful influence on my life. I never joined
SYDA - the movement got too big too fast for me. I do still see Swami C
periodically. I originally posted to this newsgroup because I was gathering
information on people who had psychotic episodes related to kundalini. I
thought this was a good place to look.
I got involved in this in other discussions because IMHO the discussions are
pretty 1-dimensional. Also, I wrote and maintain the Siddha Mahayoga FAQ
(someone mentioned that) and I'm trying to fairly present both sides of this
issue. My impression is that for you there can only be one side of this issue.
I was just reading Jung's student Eddinger stating that the realization of
relativity of good and evil is a terrifying experience for the ego.
For whatever it is worth I have learned something from this discussion. To be
honest I never thought that people would take being a Swami so seriously.
Maybe I did 20 years ago. But after I saw Swamis sell drugs to trekkers in
chai shops I began to see it as one more conventional priesthood. And
conventional priesthoods all tend to turn out pretty much the same - far from
Shankara's original radical vision.
Kind Regards,
KUrt
S235108
I posted the following question on various places on the 'Hinduism' Board. The
question relates to my thoughts about Swami Chetanananda. What follows it are
three replies (S)
<><> I would like to know, (and I ask sincerely ) if calling oneself "swami"
and the wearing of orange robes implies (or definitively 'means') that the
person has taken vows of monkhood and is celibate? <><>
(1) It is my understanding that the title "Swami" specifically refers to a
monastic of a particular orgainization or lineage. As for his being celibate,
I suppose that depends on which order the person belongs to, but it's fairly
likely to asume so.
(2) In the Indian community calling one "swami" can be a term of respect or
endearment. So one can be referred to as "swami" and have a wife and children.
(3) Yes, calling oneself "Swami" and wearing the orange robes represents
renunciation, and celebacy. One cannot be a householder and represent himself
as a Swami.
Any "expert" opinions?
Hrdtired
Kurt K says:
>>I live here and I don't see my world as gross and unsubtle. Isn't seeing the
world as gross and unsubtle boring?<<
Maybe that's the real difference between you and me. I am happy to be here, in
the world, as it is. I don't have to alter my perception of it through esoteric
practices anymore. I don't find the "gross" world boring at all.
KK also says,
>>The Kadampa Geshes (most celibate folks you could ever meet) had a saying:
rnam rtog bdud kyi rgyal po yin.
Conceptuality is the king of devils. Concepts (vikalpa) and judgements (as
opposed to discrimination (viveka)) pinch your heart.<<
What you call having concepts is what I call having discrimination. And my
heart is Tired, but not Pinched. I find YOU, Kurt, to be extremely
condescending, which is a judgment-filled state.
KK continues:
>>I got involved in this in other discussions because IMHO the discussions are
pretty 1-dimensional.<<
By design, sweetie.
>>Also, I wrote and maintain the Siddha Mahayoga FAQ
(someone mentioned that) and I'm trying to fairly present both sides of this
issue. My impression is that for you there can only be one side of this
issue.<<
That's pretty much true. Which is why your FAQ is for you, and this NG is for
us. It's not a debate, it's an alt.support group. Why are so many so keen on
changing that?
>>I was just reading Jung's student Eddinger stating that the realization of
relativity of good and evil is a terrifying experience for the ego.<<
Oh dear, my ego just quakes with fear....
>>For whatever it is worth I have learned something from this discussion. To be
honest I never thought that people would take being a Swami so seriously.<<
I take seriously anything that involves a vow to do no harm.
>>Maybe I did 20 years ago. But after I saw Swamis sell drugs to trekkers in
chai shops I began to see it as one more conventional priesthood. And
conventional priesthoods all tend to turn out pretty much the same - far from
Shankara's original radical vision.<<
If true, that's pretty sad for the swami orders, and for priests in general.
Call me an idealist, call me a schmo, call me irresponsible (Frankie!), Call Me
Madam...but I like to think there are some teachers out there who do not take
advantage of others...some monks and nuns and even gooooroooos who take their
vows seriously and live to serve, rather than to be self-serving.
-- The Tired Heart
S235108
Another answer to the "swami/celibacy/orange robes" question:
"You know, in Malaysia a swami is always a householder, because in Malay
language "swami" means husband! (isteri is wife). See, we have a lot of
Sanskrit words in Malay."
megha...@hotmail.com
In article <6k2u04$7u7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
pro...@clarityconnect.com wrote:
> The more thought I give to this topic, the more it seems to me that
> we incorrectly apply moral standards when we speak of so-called
> spiritual masters. Now, Narada and Megha seem to be the Hindu scholars
> on board, but the way I see it, morality and Dharma apply only to the
> seeker. Dharma or righteousness is applicable only to conciousness that
> is subject to the three gunas: sattwa, rajas, and tamas. A spiritual
> "master" is called a master precisely because he/she has transended
> the gunas and is no longer bound by dharma. I believe that as long as
> we give assent to a system that promises the achievement of a state of
> sinnless perfection and freedom from the laws of morality, we must
> expect that people will, first lay claim to this state, and 2nd excersize
> their "just rewards".
Nowhere in the Hindu scriptures or in the beliefs of the average Hindu does
being "beyond the gunas" or being a realized master equate with having the
right to break the tacit rules of decency. Yes, in some cases there may be
some iconoclasm or eccentricity on the part of the saints,like in their dress
or mannerisms, but Hinduism does not support saints being above the rules and
harming others because of their exalted state. So this supposedly logical
conclusion of the "doctrine" of enlightenment is incorrect.
When it is said that the saint has transcended the gunas, it means that they
may not need food, water, or be dependednt on the senses in the way that
normal human beings are. In that case, they are impervious to the lures of
the senses. Only blatantly abusive leaders would twist this into permission
to break the laws of morality, anf they would be viewed as abusive by Hindu
society.
Prov, you agenda is showing. You would have us accept that the "logical"
outcome of the Hindu concept of realization is licence to be depraved. This
is laughable. I could also make a case that the logical outcome of having a
"Christian calling to minister" is licence to defraud people , as has been
done by plenty of Christian leaders. Don't equate abusers with the whole of a
system, unless you are prepared to defend the abusers within your own system.
> That most of us still retain some conscience which tells us that inappr-
> opriate behaviour is indeed inappropriate whether by siddha or sadhaka,
> is proof to me that there indeed exists a "righteousness from on high".
> I believe that Truth and Good are established by God. While we may dis-
> agree about certain social mores, there are activities that we all, even
> the most hardened of "sinners", can say are wrong. I remember women I
> knew in SY saying, "if Baba is having sex, where can I get in line?".
> But I think that, even these people, if they were completly honest would
> admit it was wrong of him to take advantage of young, innocent girls
> who worshiped him as god.
Yes, just as the girls abused by certain Christian ministers revered them as
holy men. Does that make the whole of Christianity corrupt?
> As you have deduced, I did not use Hindu scripture references
>to bolster my argument. What I was attempting to
>do was follow the concepts of "enlightenment" and guruhood to their logical
>end. If it is possible to transcend the gunas, then laws of any kind,
>including moral laws can have no binding relevance except if the "enlight-
>end" one chooses to accept them.
Again, see above. This is not a logical conclusion. As I said, transcendence
of ther gunas is one way to describe the outcome of enlightenment. Nowhere in
the Hindu world or scriptures is immorality justifiable by this side-effect of
nirvana. That a few abusers twist this around to do so does not make it
sanctioned by Hinduism. Saints, sadhus, pundits and gurus are entrusted with
teaching and setting an example for householders, and are not given licence to
behave however they please.
>I guess the question I am asking is; Although our hearts condemn "crazy
>wisdom" as morally offensive, it is the tragic and unavoidable result
>of following the philosophy of enlightenment and guruhood to it's logical
>end.
No, this is incorrect and illogical. You are extrapolating from a few abusers
to indict the whole philosophy. Again, I could name a few Christian abusers
and conclude that it is the Christian doctrine allows them to get away with
it, and therefore there is no baby in the Christian bathwater that can be
saved. Like your illogical and irrational conclusions, that would be wrong
for me to say, especially if I couldn't back it up with intelligent mainstream
sources in Christian scriptures. Are you prepared to defend every crazy who
calls himself a Christian, since you are judging Hindus based on one crazy?
Also, aren't you bearing false witness against your fellow man (ie. Hindus) by
throwing around these false statements that you can't back up? What happened
to your god-breathed commandments?
Thanks,
Megha
peace,
prov356
megha...@hotmail.com
In article <199805242126...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
s23...@aol.com (S235108) wrote:
>
> I'm going to hear it from some of you for this but here goes:
>
> I met Swami Chetanananda today and I spoke to him about Siddha Yoga
and some
> of the things which I read here that were said about him. He answered me
with
> candor and I believe, truth.
> He took sanyas with Muktananda in 1978 and "remained celibate for
three years
> until 1981." At that time he realized that "no one else in Siddha Yoga was
> celibate" so he began a relationship. He told me that he had one
'significant
> other'
> for a number of years and that though friends, they drifted apart. He then
met
> someone else and he has had a relationship with her since the late 1980's.
At
> that time his old girl friend was angry with him and she began bad-mouthing
him
> for having a relationship with someone new. He said that he was in a
monogamous
> relationship. (I apoligized for asking these questions after getting the
> response I got from Chetanananda.) He said that he feels that he "lives in a
> fish bowl" with about 100 others in Oregon and that he "wonders how much
he's
> supposed to give and take nothing for himself." He said that he feels
entitled
> to having a small part of his life for himself.
recharging
> himself after his first heart attack. Chetanananda said that in India it is
> accepted that an old dying sadhu would have these types of ("tantric"
sexual)
> relationships and that girls and their families felt "honored" to oblige.
> went on to say that he disagreed with the double message given out by Siddha
> Yoga and that the lies bothered him when he was a SY swami. He smiled and
shook
> his head in the negative when I suggested that perhaps Baba had acted like a
> "vampire" and had taken unfair advantage of his young devotees. He said that
it
> is difficult to transplant Indian culture and that was one of the problems
that
> Siddha Yoga had always had.
> He said nothing about Swami Chidvilasananda and I didn't ask him
anything
> about her either. I was mostly interested in him and in what he knew about
Baba
> Muktananda. I liked talking with Chetanananda and I felt that he was
truthful
> and open about himself. No one seemed to treat him like a guru; no one bowed
or
> pranammed to him but he was treated with love, humor and respect. I felt
that I
> was talking to another person and not to some false icon of perfection.
> ******************S235108***********************
> “Why would even the most realized of beings want people to become
> reliant on his wisdom instead of their own?” GURU PAPERS
>
>
This makes me really angry. Here is a guy who takes vows of celibacy, then
abandons them without giving up the title of a Swami. Then, he uses the
corruption of Muktananda to justify his own, and says that it is all approved
by Hindu culture.
Tantra is legitimately practised by married couples or other equals, and not
by gurus to recharge their batteries. This is a perversion and not a part of
mainstream Hindu culture or even the culture of the Tantric sect. Not all
Hindus or Hindu authjorities recognize the Tantric sect, by the way. Just
like not all Christians recognise Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses. Let's
keep some perspective please.
The fact that Chetananda can retail this kind of bullshit to a naive audience
is part of the problem and pisses me off. Would a Catholic priest who broke
his vows go around calling himself Father Such and Such and saying that
because his Bishop and fellow priests were corrupt or practising an obscure
ritual, that he is also justified in being corrupt? No, he would be summarily
defrocked and lose his credibility.
Thanks,
Megha
megha...@hotmail.com
There are a few things that I must say to all of you about Indian culture.
1) If someone says that "ANCIENT HINDU TRADITION X" is the justification for
"DEPRAVED ACT Y" by "PSEUDOGURU Z", please put on your thinking caps and
question it.
Naive acceptance of someone's convenient version of obscure Hindu practises is
what got us all into trouble in the first place.
2) Indians and mainstream Hinduism does not offer any rationales to justify
lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, or even extra-marital sex, much less
pedophilia. Krisha's relationship with the Gopis was symbolic, not literal.
Hinduism is a remarkably elastic religion in that there is a great deal of
freedon to choose how one worships and what one believes. This means
worshipping God in the form of Krisha or Shiva. Doing arati or meditating.
Reading scripotures or chanting. This does not imply that rules of decency
are up for grabs.
Neverthelss, this lack of dogma has allowed many a charlatan to fool the
breathlessly earnest western enthisiast with tales of esoteric rites and
rituals that may or may not have ever been accepted by the majority of Hindus.
3) Far from being a licentious free-for-all, modern Hindu society is
extremely conservative and rather repressed if anything. If you want to
experience puritanical censure, live in a small middle-class Indian community
for some time.
4) Tantra is a very small sect within the Hindu world. Spiritual sex acts
are a very small part of Tantra. Mostly it is Goddess worship. Anybody who
practises true tantra should be able to hold their head up high and be open
about it. If it must be hidden, question it. Anybody who says "Sex Act X"
cannot be understood by bourgeois notions of propriety is full of it, and is
hiding something. If sm was so powerful, why did he not give and take energy
in an unambiguous manner?
5) Every tradition has it's sects and practitioners that the mainstream does
not necessarily agree with. It really bugs me, for instance, when the western
press picks up on one practice of one tiny group in one village in India and
trumps it up as "weird Hindu rituals" as if all Indians are doing it. It
would be like someone coming and taking a video of the Branch Davidians or
Skinheads and showing it in another country as the way that all Americans
live.
Let's get real and use our common sense, please.
megha...@hotmail.com
In article <199805270338...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
s23...@aol.com (S235108) wrote:
>
> Another answer to the "swami/celibacy/orange robes" question:
>
> "You know, in Malaysia a swami is always a householder, because in Malay
> language "swami" means husband! (isteri is wife). See, we have a lot of
> Sanskrit words in Malay."
> “Why would even the most realized of beings want people to become
> reliant on his wisdom instead of their own?” GURU PAPERS
>
>
Many words in the malaysian language are derived from Sanskrit words.
"Isteri" is derived from the word "stri" in sanskrit, which means "woman".
In ancient usage, and in modern day facetious usage, a woman might call her
husband "swami" as in "lord" which is what "swami" literally means. it is
often applied to children affectionately, sort of like saying, my little
prince, lord, etc. This is what probably trickled down into Malay usage.
However using "Swami" as an honorific, especially when it's followed by
"_____-anada" is using a monastic, ie. celibate title, and the authority and
prestige that goes along with it. Sort of like saying you're a doctor when you
don't have a degree. It's dishonest.
thanks,
Megha
P.S. did you know that the word "zen" is derived from the sanskrit word
"dhyan"?
keu...@eecs.berkeley.edu
I find it hard to follow all the point and counterpoint at this stage of a
discussion but I did think that it might be useful to exchange some references
that might bring us to a common background on the topics we are discussing.
Regarding the institution of the dashanami sannyasis as a whole I don't know
what to recommend. As for the dandi sannyasi subsect there is an excellent
paper ``The Monastic Structure of the Banarsi Dandi Sadhus'' by Dana W. Sawyer
in *Living Banaras* edited by B. R. Hertel and C. A. Humes. This talks about
the dandi order of these swamis and how it has evolved. It is not limited to
the Banarsi dandas. I would be interested in finding something that talks more
about the nature of a paramahamsa sannyasi as opposed to a dandi or dashanami
sannyasi. Such a reference would be the best background for this discussion -
I just don't know of one. Does anyone else?
If you want to understand the original intent of the dandi sannyasi order then
Potter's *Advaita Vedanta up to Shankara and his Disciples* is good reading.
My point here is that this institution has evolved (if that is the right
nuance) quite a bit over time and criticism of a particular facet of that
tradition should be understood in terms of what that tradition was trying to
accomplish to begin with.
Regarding tantra, I don't know of any author who has ``opened up Hindu
tantra'' the way Buddhist tantra has been opened up over the last two decades.
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (a good scholar but on the wrong side of many political
issues in my opinion) speaks directly sexual elements of Buddhist Tantric
practice in *The Clear Light of Bliss*. Perhaps someone can recommend some
comparable references on Hindu tantra.
As an aside - when Satdesh says:
``I know there is a
vast amount of literature out there compiled by scholars over the last two
centuries who have studied Indian religion, culture, customs, languages, and
literature, and that I am ignorant of the majority of it. However, I doubt
that Chetananada, GuruMum, Nity Jr. or M. Charles are much more knowledeable
than I am with respect to this great body of scholarship.''
My impression is that Swami Chetanananda has studied this tradition fairly
seriously. There are limits to which someone not familiar with the primary
language of a tradition (here Sanskrit) can investigate it - but within those
I think you'd find him extremely literate. I don't know how his knowledge
compares with Satdesh's but perhaps Satdesh or Megha could recommend some
references that they feel are relevant.
I understand that there are many who feel that no special knowledge of the
dashanami sannyasi tradition or tantra is required to come to an assessment of
the actions of Swami C and others. I can kind of understand that. So how lets
not argue about that. I'm interested in discussing contemporary behavior in
the light of the history of these traditions. If you're not up for that then
just ignore this thread - OK?
Kurt
Satdesh
Kurt,
In your post of 5/26/98, you state that:
> I would not attempt to be an apologist
>for any crazy wisdom guru. Padmasambhava and Drubpa Kunley lived a long time
>ago and there are many miraculous acts attributed to them - it's very hard
>to
>interpret their actions today. If there are crazy wisdom gurus today I doubt
>that you fill find their books in Barnes and Nobles.
It depends on which member of the Ganeshpuri Rat Pack your're talking about.
One of the heavyweights (always trying to alpha- dog Swami M.) was Bubba Free
John Da Lova Ananda Sri Avabasha Ruchira Avatar or whatever the hell he's now
calling himself. His books are in Barnes and Noble. He talks about crazy
wisdom and his interpreters [alas, Saniel Bonder fled the coop] rely on crazy
wisdom to justify his conduct.
SM? You believe he is a "phenomenal individual". I assume that means that he
wasn't a fraud in your mind. He, after all, did use the honorific of
"paramahamsa" which he claimed his guru conferred on him. You know about all
the conduct issues involving SM already. The connecting link? Crazy Wisdom,
of course. (unless you believe the allegations are false - if you believe they
are true you need crazy wisdom to justify why a "paramahamsa" would do such
things - or do you think he is lying about being a paramahamsa?)
GM vs. Nity Jr. Nity Jr. is so obviously pathetic that I don't think I need to
say anything. GM has made a part time career out of alpha-dogging her own
brother. SYDA claims she is a "perfect master". And your explanation is??????
Chetanananda. The question for me isn't how many meanings the word "swami" has
around the world. I remember when Shankarananda was in residence at the LA
ashram that he asked everyone to save any newspaper or magazine article where
the word "guru" was used as he was writing some article on the topic of the
guru and he wanted to talk about the secular world's use of the term. Guru has
many meanings of course, as does swami. The issue here as I understand it has
to do with integrity and not whether sexuality is per se taboo for a "spiritual
person". Siddhas have married and raised families. Honesty and integrity in
my mind has alot to do with whether I can or should study under a given
teacher. If they have no integrity, what could I possibly learn or receive?
At a minimum a point will come when I have to break off with that teacher when
I discover their dishonesty.
The integrity issue with Swami Chet. is that he promotes himself as a swami of
a particular type. He states he is a disciple of Rudi and that he is a swami
of the Saraswati Order of monks, having been initiated into that Order by SM.
I believe Sivananda of Rishikesh was also a memeber of the Saraswati Order
(Yogananda was a memeber of the Giri Order). Why would some of the followers
of Swami Satch. be so upset over him allegedly "breaking his vows" if the vows
of the Saraswati Order "permit a little mogombo". Didn't the same
Mahamandaleswar preside over that sannyas ceremony as presided over the Nit and
Chid elevations? I think he is still alive. I believe he rehabilitated Nity
Jr. Because you are conducting research in this area, perhaps you could write
the Mahamandaleswar and ask him if the vows he gave Chet. back in 1978(?) allow
Chet to have a girlfriend on the side with the benefits of sexual consortium.
S. writes that Chet. allegedly took a second/subsequent sannyas vow that
permits sexual consortium. While such a thing may exist, I personally have
never heard of it. BTW, don't you need the Mahamandaleswar's permission to get
out of your vows? Remember what happened to Jnaneswar's father when he tried
to "cheat the authroities" in the area of sannyas vows. Bad karma in that
religion to play with the authorities on this issue.
On liberated gurus. SYDA itself makes a big deal out of the distinction
between upagurus and sadgurus. I think it's better to have an upaguru who
gives you practical guidance than a sadguru who is little more that a murti or
a picture on the wall that you perform arati and puja to.
On tantric practice. I don't believe or disbeleive in the reality of a tantric
practice that could conceivably cause or stimulate a spiritual awakening. I
haven't studied this area and I haven't heard any authenthic accounts of it
happening in the west. I have yet to hear of someone who got shtupped by Osho,
Frankurter Free John, Mookie, Nity Jr. or Swami Chet say that they experienced
shaktipat or samadhi while the sacred schlong was inserted.
I obviously felt an affinity for the teachings and practices of the Ganeshpuri
tradition. The chants, the decorations, the smells, the ambiance and the
teachings all appealed to me. I did not care at all for all the obsequios
gesturing and posturing before the guru and the guru seat. During SM's
lifetime I put up with it because I considered him an old man who was used to
being treated like this in India. When GM took over however I couldn't believe
they continued that nonsense. IMO it is medieval and inappropriate. Spoiled
and immature swamis like Nit and Chid especially were incapable to receiving
such treatment without it going to their head.
To see educated westerners down with their head on the ground and their butt up
in the air like some type of frightened stinkbug seemed so outrageous. This is
especially the case when you realize that the Ganeshpuri Rat Pack carries on
like a bunch of horny teenagers on spring break.
Can they clean up their act and restore their credibility? I think that they
can but I don't think it will happen. They would have to make changes that
would require self-disciple, honesty and eating a little humble pie. It would
offend their egos to do this. Do they have ego needs? Yes. Just as certainly
as they have sexual needs. However, as long as they have plenty of money,
mogombo and moronic followers they will see no need for such a change. Bhaskar
represents their point of view; that the people with our concerns are a bunch
of idiots and losers. Only time will tell who is correct.
Sincerely,
Satdesh
Annielori9
>The issue here as I understand it has
>to do with integrity and not whether sexuality is per se taboo for a
>"spiritual
>person".
What is it that people like Kurt don't get? A vow is a vow. Either you keep
it or you don't. It is amazing the rationalizations people will come up with
for not keeping a vow of celibacy that will allow them to maintain they are
still "true" to their vows.
60 minutes featured a bishop from New Mexico who had sex with a couple of
Catholic teenagers. On camera, he said that since he didn't feel passion when
having sex, it didn't count! Gay priests and lesbians have decided that since
they didn't have sex with the opposite sex their sex with the same sex didn't
count either. Then we have the "didn't ejaculate" excuse of SM's defenders.
People have said about GM that at least she only had one lover!!
A vow is a vow. Either you keep or you don't. It seems that the people who
can't keep it are also very adroit at making up excuses! Or having their
followers do it for them.
ByeSY
>Naive acceptance of someone's convenient version of obscure Hindu practises
>is
>what got us all into trouble in the first place.
How true.
Dorothy Drennen
Satdesh wrote:
> To see educated westerners down with their head on the ground and their butt up
> in the air like some type of frightened stinkbug seemed so outrageous. This is
> especially the case when you realize that the Ganeshpuri Rat Pack carries on
> like a bunch of horny teenagers on spring break.
Pranamming is a spiritual practice which is liturgically significant for millions
of Hindus around the world... and for me. We can certainly make an argument that
one should be careful and judicious about to whom (or to Whom) one pranams... but
must we mock the spiritual practice in and of itself?
-- Dorothy
El Glufo!
i still say your presupposition of common laws of 'decency' or 'morality'
inhibit you (all) from truly being able to accept the mindset of a different
culture of millenia past. most of the 'crimes' you have mentioned simply
wouldnt have been looked at the same way (even if condemned still) in a
foreign world of 6000+ years ago (or whenever it was). althought you've
managed to convince me SYDA isn't an organization I would want to join, i
still hear the lingering sound in your posts that inspire me to think that
one of the reasons you did not.....remain....with your previous course was
the values given to you by the society of your childhood subconsciously
conflicted with the new values you were consciously trying to assimilate. (i
understand you all went through a lot of pain and i dont mean to be callous;
just discussing the issues.)
El Glufo!
"Pranamming"
im afraid i have to request one more definition...
pro...@clarityconnect.com
In article <6khc5r$f1f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
megha...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Nowhere in the Hindu scriptures or in the beliefs of the average Hindu does
> being "beyond the gunas" or being a realized master equate with having the
> right to break the tacit rules of decency. Yes, in some cases there may be
> some iconoclasm or eccentricity on the part of the saints,like in their
dress
> or mannerisms, but Hinduism does not support saints being above the rules
and
> harming others because of their exalted state. So this supposedly logical
> conclusion of the "doctrine" of enlightenment is incorrect.
My friend Megha,
I was hoping you would respond to my article. However, I was not
counting on you taking such a personal, defensive stance. I began my
post by defering to you ( and Narada ) as being the Hindu scholar not
as sarcasm but as a statement of fact - that you know much more than
I about Hindu scriptures. My pursuit of logic in reference to the
doctrine of enlightenment was and is not intended to be a manifesto
upon which I insist everyone to agree with. If, indeed I am incorrect,
then so be it.
I am curious about the attributes of absolute Holiness and Righteousness
which is a so much a part of the Judeo/Christian concept of God. Are
they also as important in Hinduism? I cannot remember any of the Hindu
pantheon of deities being ascribed with these qualities. Mercy and bene-
volence, power, omniscience, etc... These things I remember, but not
moral perfection. Please correct my thinking if my memory is incomplete
or utterly mistaken.
>
> When it is said that the saint has transcended the gunas, it means that they
> may not need food, water, or be dependednt on the senses in the way that
> normal human beings are. In that case, they are impervious to the lures of
> the senses. Only blatantly abusive leaders would twist this into permission
> to break the laws of morality, anf they would be viewed as abusive by Hindu
> society.
Am I mistaken, or did Krishna have sex with Radha, a married cow girl?
If so, why is he not considered abusive?
>
> Prov, you agenda is showing. You would have us accept that the "logical"
> outcome of the Hindu concept of realization is licence to be depraved. This
> is laughable. I could also make a case that the logical outcome of having a
> "Christian calling to minister" is licence to defraud people , as has been
> done by plenty of Christian leaders. Don't equate abusers with the whole of
a
> system, unless you are prepared to defend the abusers within your own
system.
I am certainly not prepared to defend ANYONE who profanes the name of
my Lord with immoral, abusive behavior. Christ told us there would be
wolves in sheeps clothing and we are warned to "test the spirits" and
search the scriptures to keep from falling into their traps. I do not
have an agenda. I simply speak as a free thinking individual who happens
to have as much right to a viewpoint as you. I am also not prepared to
abandon my case as illogical from your response. That Hinduism frowns
on "crasy wisdom" does not mean it prohibits it. Because gurus aren't
accepted if they act immoraly doesn't necessarily mean that the script-
ures expressly denounce it. Unless I missed it, you did not back up
anything you said with a scripture reference. If my train of thought is
laughable, show me why and how, so I may laugh with you.
>
>
> No, this is incorrect and illogical. You are extrapolating from a few
abusers
> to indict the whole philosophy. Again, I could name a few Christian abusers
> and conclude that it is the Christian doctrine allows them to get away with
> it, and therefore there is no baby in the Christian bathwater that can be
> saved. Like your illogical and irrational conclusions, that would be wrong
> for me to say, especially if I couldn't back it up with intelligent
mainstream
> sources in Christian scriptures. Are you prepared to defend every crazy who
> calls himself a Christian, since you are judging Hindus based on one crazy?
But you couldn't conclude that Christian doctrine allows it.
"This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you:
God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to
have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not
live by the truth." I John 1:5
"If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I
have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in His love." John 15:10
I may, if you prove me wrong, admit to being illogical, but irrational?!
How am I being irrational? My experience with Hinduism is largely confined
to SY, but I recall no emphasis on righteousness except in the context
that immorality incures bad karma - but only if your awareness wasn't
filled with the shakti. I consider this approach to personal morality
to be "enlightened self interest", i.e. it's in MY best interest to behave
myself so I will. If this viewpoint is not congruent with Hinduism in
general, I will stand corrected. However, I can't understand how my
saying this can be construed as being irrational.
>
> Also, aren't you bearing false witness against your fellow man (ie. Hindus)
by
> throwing around these false statements that you can't back up? What
happened
> to your god-breathed commandments?
Really, Megha. False Witness?!. I'm sure you know this means lying.
When have I lied? Because I raise a philosophical point about a belief
system, how does this qualify as bearing false witness? And which "false
statements" are you refering to?
I genuinely appreciate your expertise in these topics. Although my thought
patterns are derived from my experience past and present, I do not feel
I have been overly dogmatic in my presentation. I don't believe anyone
else has responded to my recent posts with that allegation at least.
I look foward to a rewarding dialogue on these issues.
Hrdtired
>>Nowhere in
the Hindu world or scriptures is immorality justifiable by this side-effect of
nirvana. That a few abusers twist this around to do so does not make it
sanctioned by Hinduism. Saints, sadhus, pundits and gurus are entrusted with
teaching and setting an example for householders, and are not given licence to
behave however they please.<<
Exactly. And nowhere in the WRITTEN history of Siddha Yoga is it written that
gurus can do whatever they damn well please either. The perfection of the guru
as written down and taught is one thing, something close to what appears in the
scriptures; the ashram gossip twists those teachings about "being beyond this
earth plane" into "not subject to the rules and moral standards governing all
other civilized beings."
If it were otherwise, SYDA literature would be full of shlokas like "O sadakha,
it is good to strain your water and to give your underaged daughter to the guru
to use sexually," and "Blessed are the parents of the disciple of a sadguru but
most blessed are those with big bucks who can be cajoled into naming the guru
in their Living Trusts," and "A true devotee lie, cheat, steal and abuse others
in the name of the guru; all others are just wearing the clothes of the
Month-Long-Course." For these are the true teachings of the SYDAs...satyam
satyam varanane, and a big fat hairy OM.
It ain't just the abuses, it's the hypocrisy, nome sane?
-- The Tired Heart
Hrdtired
Re: Chetanananda,
>>He took sanyas with Muktananda in 1978 and "remained celibate for
three years
> until 1981." At that time he realized that "no one else in Siddha Yoga was
> celibate" so he began a relationship.<<
This is the part that bugs me the most...that he'd break his vows because, "But
Ma, everyone ELSE was doing it!"
Some spiritual leader.
-- The Tired Heart
megha...@hotmail.com
prov356 wrote:
> I am curious about the attributes of absolute Holiness and Righteousness
> which is a so much a part of the Judeo/Christian concept of God. Are
> they also as important in Hinduism? I cannot remember any of the Hindu
> pantheon of deities being ascribed with these qualities. Mercy and bene-
> volence, power, omniscience, etc... These things I remember, but not
> moral perfection. Please correct my thinking if my memory is incomplete
> or utterly mistaken.
MS:
Are you for real?
I will answer this maddening and condescending question. Are you really asking
if there is a concept of holiness/sacredness and righteousness in Hinduism?
This would be more insulting if it did not reveal a profoound ignorance of the
common features of all major world religions. You reaaly must think that all
non-Christians are depraved and lacking in religious experience.
"Dharma" = Righteousness. The whole Bhagavad Gita is a dissertation on how to
live a dharmic life, as is the Ramayana. Even in SY's travesty of hinduism
"Dharma" isa crucial concept and an attribute of Hindu mythology and holy
figures. "Divya", which means divine or holy. Your ignorance of the existence
or translated meaning of these words does not mean these concepts do not
exist.
>
> Am I mistaken, or did Krishna have sex with Radha, a married cow girl?
> If so, why is he not considered abusive?
MS:
As I said in another post, Krishan's union with Radha is considered to be
symbolic.
Christ told us there would be
> wolves in sheeps clothing and we are warned to "test the spirits" and
> search the scriptures to keep from falling into their traps.
MS:
Then why can't you accept that there are wolves in sheep's clothing in other
traditions, and that they do not reflect on those traditions. This level of
speculation shows that you heard some other ashram dilettante's
interpretation about the mystery of Radha and Krisha and swallowed it without
using any discrimination whatsoever. Now, you want to take that third hand
information and indict Hinduism with it. I heard that Jesus' mother was a slut
and dreamed up the divinity of the child to justify her premarital sex, too,
but that neither makes it respectful nor accurate.
That Hinduism frowns
> on "crasy wisdom" does not mean it prohibits it. Because gurus aren't
> accepted if they act immoraly doesn't necessarily mean that the script-
> ures expressly denounce it. Unless I missed it, you did not back up
> anything you said with a scripture reference.
MS:
Like I said, I only have a layperson's knowledge of the scriptures. But you
can check out the Bhagavad Gita and Ramayana for examples of prohibitions
against. lying, cheating, stealing, etc. Interesting that you want me to cite
sources to defend and ancient religion while you didn't even do any basic
research before you made your inflammatory statements about SY reflecting
Hinduism.
> But you couldn't conclude that Christian doctrine allows it.
> "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you:
> God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to
> have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not
> live by the truth." I John 1:5
>
> "If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I
> have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in His love." John 15:10
MS:
Which is why, without even a trace of basic research, you should not be making
disrespectful statements about Hinduism based on your experience in SY.
My experience with Hinduism is largely confined
> to SY, but I recall no emphasis on righteousness
MS: Exactly. This is why you have no right to make any judgements about
Hinduism.Do you know that Hindu scriptures don't explicitly say that lying
cheating and stealing are wrong? If they weren't wrong, why would bad karma,
ie. punishment ensue? You are once again using your superficial new age/SY
exposure to make ignorant statements about an ancient religion.
> > Also, aren't you bearing false witness against your fellow man (ie.
Hindus)
> by
> > throwing around these false statements that you can't back up? What
> happened
> > to your god-breathed commandments?
>
> Really, Megha. False Witness?!. I'm sure you know this means lying.
MS:
Yes, you condescending you-know what, I do understand that false witness is
lying. Your statements about Hinduism based on the corruption of SY are
false, disrespectful,obnoxious and inaccurate. ie. lies.
> I genuinely appreciate your expertise in these topics.
MS:
No you don't. You want to shoot at my feet with your arrogant statements
based on no genuine knowledge of your own, and want to leave the onus on me to
find scriptural authority to disprove you. Fuck that. Find out what you're
talking about if you really want a dialogue.
Although my thought
> patterns are derived from my experience past and present, I do not feel
> I have been overly dogmatic in my presentation.
MS:
That is, your Christian chauvinistic opinions.
I don't believe anyone
> else has responded to my recent posts with that allegation at least.
MS:
Perhaps no one else on this board is a Hindu. Damn right I take it personally.
You offend me by casting aspersions at the integrity and validity of my
religion. I shouldn't even lower myself to answering your ignorant
allegations.
> I look foward to a rewarding dialogue on these issues.
MS: How passive aggressive of you. AS in, "Oh my, I was just initiating a
dialogue, what are you getting so upset about"
In the future, if you simply want to understand the real philosophy and ethics
of Hinduism, go to the library. Do not make inflammatory statements and ask
others to disprove them.
You have a right to say anything you like about SY, because you have some
personal experience of it. The same does not go for Hinduism.
Megha
S235108
Megha says:
This makes me really angry. Here is a guy who takes vows of celibacy, then
abandons them without giving up the title of a Swami. Then, he uses the
corruption of Muktananda to justify his own, and says that it is all approved
by Hindu culture.
Tantra is legitimately practised by married couples or other equals, and not
by gurus to recharge their batteries. This is a perversion and not a part of
mainstream Hindu culture or even the culture of the Tantric sect. Not all
Hindus or Hindu authjorities recognize the Tantric sect, by the way. Just
like not all Christians recognise Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses. Let's
keep some perspective please.
The fact that Chetananda can retail this kind of bullshit to a naive audience
is part of the problem and pisses me off. Would a Catholic priest who broke
his vows go around calling himself Father Such and Such and saying that
because his Bishop and fellow priests were corrupt or practising an obscure
ritual, that he is also justified in being corrupt? No, he would be summarily
defrocked and lose his credibility.
Thanks,
Megha
Great points, Megha. Thanks
Shawdan
>Let's get real and use our common sense, please.
>
>Thanks,
>Megha
>
>
Amen Amen Amen!
Almbke
Megha,
Thank you for all of your insightful and informative posts of today's date.
This information has cleared the air on the issues of the gunatita state and
crazy wisdom.
The gunatita/crazy wisdom perspective is floated out by the GRP both overtly
and subtley, IMO. The effect of it is to make one feel insecure, unsure of
one's reason, common sense and "gut level" impressions. I spent a lot of time
trying this theory on, trying to see all the scandal as the gurus using crazy
wisdom techniques to shock us into renewed and greater growth.
A year or so ago I read an article in the "What is Enlightenment" magazine
about a former disciple of Frank Jones. This disciple and his wife went to
Fiji and FJ's invitation. When they got there they were invited to party with
the guru. He encouraged the husband to drink a lot of beer and he got very
intoxicated. At that point he had the husband led away and Da bedded his wife!
This experience caused the couple great pain and confusion and they eventually
left this guru.
If FJ were capable of using "crazy wisdom" techniques to stimulate spiritual
growth, then he would have to know what, when, where and on whom to use the
techniques. If he didn't, then he was unqualified to be a crazy wisdom guru.
The results in this case spoke for themselves. The couple was psychologically
and spiritually damaged and set back.
I have not heard of anyone who was the recipient of SM's crazy wise direction
who said that they experienced any discernible benefits. Untold numbers have
left the path in a state of confusion or disgust after learning of the
"techniques". So it was obvious that SM was not qualified to be a crazy wise
teacher.
For these and other reasons I finally reached the conclusion that the whole
crazy wisdom concept was bunk and was merely an excuse the gurus used for
misbehavior.
I was extremely bothered by Swami Chet.'s belief that Indian parents consider
it an honor to offer their daughters up sexually to some tired, aged, impotent
sadhu for a little tantric recharging.
If these yoga teachers really believe such things, then the sky is the limit if
we extrapolate the possible consequences of their acting on such beliefs.
Scarey idea.
Kurt K. seems to respect Chet's scholarship. I wonder about it in light of
this revelation.
This matter and the "sadhu with a girlfriend" type sannyas matter had me
wondering if I had been totally missing it all these years. Thank you for
restoring some sanity here.
Your comments on tantra helped me a lot. You contextualized a lot of
disorganized ideas that I had about tantra. Yours' was a very sensible
explanation. I used to think that SM may have sincerely believed that he was
doing mystic tantra with his partners and benefitting all concerned (I still
believed it was objectively inappropriate for him to do this, but thought that
subjectively his intention may have been benign based on his own understanding
of tantra). After reading your post I am now doubting that SM could have
subjectively been proceeding in "good faith" in these affairs. Thanks so much.
Sincerely,
Satdesh
Shawdan
In article <199805280535...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, alm...@aol.com
(Almbke) writes:
>I have not heard of anyone who was the recipient of SM's crazy wise direction
>who said that they experienced any discernible benefits. Untold numbers have
>left the path in a state of confusion or disgust after learning of the
>"techniques". So it was obvious that SM was not qualified to be a crazy wise
>teacher.
The New Yorker article by Lis Harris
(http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/SYDA-Yoga/leave.txt) does include accounts by a
woman who describes her sexual experience as ecstatic. Many of these women
did, and there were many women lining up, wishing Baba would choose them for
his "tantra partner". This just reminds me of how battered and abused
children beg to remain with their abusive parents, rather than go to adoptive
families.
Shawdan
In article <6kipks$psi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, pro...@clarityconnect.com
writes:
> I began my
>post by defering to you ( and Narada ) as being the Hindu scholar not
>as sarcasm but as a statement of fact - that you know much more than
>I about Hindu scriptures.
Narada is completely misinformed and unreliable. I think Megha's post was very
important, and I don't think he was being defensive. He clarified the issues
quite well, I thought, as he did in his post about tantra. Good work, Megha!
megha...@hotmail.com
In article <199805280535...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
alm...@aol.com (Almbke) wrote:
> Megha,
>
> Thank you for all of your insightful and informative posts of today's date.
> This information has cleared the air on the issues of the gunatita state and
> crazy wisdom.
> I was extremely bothered by Swami Chet.'s belief that Indian parents
consider
> it an honor to offer their daughters up sexually to some tired, aged,
impotent
> sadhu for a little tantric recharging.
> Sincerely,
> Satdesh
>
No problem. I felt it needed to be made clear. Most Hindus would find
abhorrent the things that are justified by charlatans in the name of esoteric
Hindu practises. I believe that I can speak for the rest of my religion in
saying that the basic universal values of decency and kindness should be the
test of spiritual evolution in any leader, especially a spiritual one.
There is a cultural critique called Orientalism that explains a lot of the
misinformation that gets retailed in the west about the basics of Indian
culture. In the days of British colonialism, it was the vogue to say that the
"Oriental" lacks logic (the flipside of possessing esoteric wisdom) and is
shifty and immoral. Rudyard Kiplings'"Kim" is a good example of orientalist
assumptions.
Today, you have the Indiana Jones movies which depict a dining table in India
with a huge pregnant snake whose belly is cut open to release the baby snakes,
which are then consumed by a leering man in a turban. There are inaccuracies
about India all the time in respected journals such as the New York Times,
Washington Post and The Nation.
So why wouldn't spiritual opportunists take advantage of credulous audiences
to depict Hindu practises allowing for the most outrageous abuses?
Ironically, it's the very people who were thought to be bringing the wisdom of
India to the west that have actually done the most disservice to Indian
civilization.
Thanks for letting me have this forum for the outrage that many Indians feel.
Megha
Annielori9
> I used to think that SM may have sincerely believed that he was
>doing mystic tantra with his partners and benefitting all concerned (I still
>believed it was objectively inappropriate for him to do this, but thought
>that
>subjectively his intention may have been benign based on his own
>understanding
>of tantra). After reading your post I am now doubting that SM could have
>subjectively been proceeding in "good faith" in these affairs. Thanks so
>much.
>
>Sincerely,
>Satdesh
If SM thought he was doing tantric initiations when he had sex with teenagers
then it is just further proof of his deluded state!