|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
shivakm
USA
41 Posts |
 Posted - Feb 14 2007 : 7:32:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mike
Shiva
I can see where you are coming from and respect your views and position on this.
Taking an abstract position though - spiritual practice is intended to be transformational - isn't it... And what can be transformed? Two things:
i) ones relationship one's own individual experience of existence (Tao/Brahma/Emptiness/whatever);
ii) ones relationship to other people.
Surely "the proof of the pudding" is that "good" practices and "good" teachers help one improve both...?
Agreed, good teachers help us improve. But how do we determine whether a teacher is good or bad? I would imagine that we determine that by their teachings and how those teaching affect/change us in our personal life? Or do we find out whether a teacher is good or bad by finding out whether the teacher is a she-male or not? (as this book claims that Ramakrishna Paramahamsa is a she-male) or what the sexual orientation of the teacher is? Do I even care whether Vivekananda went to brothels or not when he was young (for one time) as this book claims? All I care is the wonderful teachings that Vivekananda left behind for us all. He is considered an authority on the subject of yoga by many people all around the world.
Also you attach so much importance to the character of the Gurus. I do not know anything about the personal character of Yogani, does that mean that I should only follow the teachings of the gurus whose character that I know of? Do I have to analyze and run a background check on the gurus before reading/following their teachings. Do I have to determine with my silly mind and my own perceived conceptions as to whether a Guru is good? What is good and what is bad? Is this not our own personal measurement made up of our own beliefs and conditionings? Do I have to ISO certify a Guru's personal character using my own scale before following him? Even societies change their opinions about what is good and what is bad during the course of time. What was considered good a few hundred years before may be heinous now and vice versa. Even my personal scale of measurement changes all the time.
Is not their teachings a reflection of their personal character? Do we not feel a certain confidence with the lessons/methods presented by Yogani even though we do not know what his personal character is? Do we not feel a certain confidence about his character and integrity through reading his lessons and thoughts? And it is this intuitive confidence that guides us in finding the right gurus in my opinion, not the tabloids or smear campaigns. Even the books that praise the character of a guru does not give us the whole picture. I am just bringing Yogani into the picture to give an example and to emphasize the point that I am making and for nothing else. I do not know anything about the personal character of Eckhart Tolle, Adyashanti or Nisargadatta Maharaj. But I have read some of the teachings of all these teachers. And I can state with confidence that I have no reservations towards the teachings of these great enlightened masters. Tomorrow if some one comes out and makes some claims about what the sexual orientation of these masters are or whether they went to brothels or not, it would not affect my belief in these masters even to an iota.
And who are we do judge the gurus by their sexual orientation etc? Who are we to judge them at all like this book does by making half-baked attempts at spoiling their image. Are we not supposed to look at their teachings? In my opinion a false teacher can not and will not be able to project the image of a true teacher forever. His fallacies will come out naturally on his own teachings sooner or later. This is not the case with Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa or Paramahansa Yogonanda's teachings in my opinion. Their teachings and their work itself authenticates their character and integrity. I will follow these great teachers on any day. And one who is measuring and judging such gurus with his own yard stick and ignoring their glorious teachings is welcome to do so, for he will be the looser and not the other way around.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
It is a blatant attempt at a smeer campaign and character assasination of some of the greatest teachers who have ever lived. I agree with Yogani that the contents page is very funny, but the book isn't written as a witty review of some great teachers. It is written as a serious account, making numerous claims about real people that could be challenged in court as slander. Many of the people reffered to are no longer alive and so cannot defend themselves.
I totally agree with Christi on this particular point. This book quoted above on the top of this discussion by Swami Vajra is nothing but a smear campaign and character assassination of some of the greatest teachers ever lived. Such a shame that one would attempt to do this.
|
Edited by - shivakm on Feb 14 2007 9:41:02 PM |
 |
|
|
shivakm
USA
41 Posts |
Posted - Feb 14 2007 : 7:35:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Fine, though I'm not so sure how much we disagree -- if at all. 
BTW, you can edit your posts Shiva on AYP forum, after posting them -- I don't know if you have discovered that yet -- it's the pencil and paper icon appearing on your own post.
David,
May be we don't disagree at all. I am not sure. I did find the edit button on the top. I tried editing my post and submitting it before noticing your reply. But somehow a copy of it got posted again after your reply. Since you posted your reply before I edited mine, may be the system put the copy of my edited text once again after your reply :) Thanks for the suggestion anyway.
Shiva. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Feb 14 2007 : 10:13:55 PM
|
Shivakm:
Also you attach so much importance to the character of the Gurus.
You know, I agree with most of what you said. At the same time, it cuts both ways -- we shouldn't be mythologizing their character either. I mean, a guru-worshipper can't have it both ways -- saying that the gurus character doesn't matter, and yet insisting that their character is good and perfect despite the evidence.
It really comes down to having a relationship to the guru which is mature and realistic. I personally have no issues with Ramakrishna being whatever he was, sexually (I don't consider that a character flaw anyway), and no issues with Vivekananda going to brothels when he was younger, if he did.
It is true that Geoffrey Falk's work contains a lot of pure smear; often he brings up true things that are not really faults. And he's very unfair to some -- I don't think I have ever seen any really substantial criticism of Ramakrishna -- it's nothing but smear in that case. But it does also point out very genuine flaws in teachers who are believed to be above them. So, just as you expect people to disregard quirks with gurus that don't matter, likewise, I'd say forget about the parts of Falk's work thatdo not make sense. The part of Falk's work that are of value are actually the substantial criticisms of real gurus, not the unsubstantial ones. These things matter for people who will get close to teachers. Just as a girl should learn some stuff about what men are like before she faces the world of men, anyone who is going to become vulnerable to a guru (whether good or bad) should learn what gurus are like.
And therefore, whereas you folks are right that Falk's book is in many respects a smear-campaign, it is also more than that. Everything is a mixture of light and shadow -- the gurus, the guru-chela system, and Falk's book.
|
|
|
|
shivakm
USA
41 Posts |
Posted - Feb 14 2007 : 11:33:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
The part of Falk's work that are of value are actually the substantial criticisms of real gurus, not the unsubstantial ones.
As far as I am concerned, I do not see any value in this mans book. Not for me or any one else for that matter. One who stoops to such low levels to smear and insult others not to mention the racist remarks (the remarks that I did not want to discuss furhter), does not hold any value in my belief system. There are lot of other people who have criticized the gurus without stooping to underhanded despicable tactics employed on this book. I think if some one were to be warned about the gurus, these other people can serve that purpose. One example of such criticisms is the site that I found http://guruphiliac.blogspot.com/ which is run by a person called Jody. This site criticizes several gurus strongly. But I never noticed any despicable underhanded methods or smear campaigns or character assassinations or racist remarks. So, if the purpose is to safe guard the innocent from false gurus, there are lot of people and resources that are already serving this purpose without degrading themselves by employing questionable methods. Here is another one that rates gurus with points http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/RatingsR.htm . |
Edited by - shivakm on Feb 15 2007 05:57:42 AM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Feb 14 2007 : 11:54:01 PM
|
here's a good reason for Yogani to be an anonymous non-guru! You can dig up dirt about anybody in the public eye and write a rambling, non-referenced bashing on them.
People who revere these gurus won't gain anything from it; it's only for people who wish to tear them down. maybe a good lesson in why one should never strive to become famous, but not too constructive.
It's a fad now, writing books that tear people down. whether there is truth in it is beside the point; imagine somebody writing a book about all your bad traits and mistakes. It gives a very unrealistic view of who you are.
of course most of the students of these gurus believe only the good points of their teacher, so that is just as unbalanced. |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Feb 15 2007 : 03:21:29 AM
|
[Oh my word after I wrote this there were half a dozen posts appearing... so this one goes back a long way LoL!!]
I agree with David the remark about the heat etc in India (surely mostly true?!) was being "racist" (if one wants to use such a term) about some provincial Britons... the "bangers and mash" is being pretty derogatory about people of the Beatles social class from Liverpool (or "classist" if you like). But anyway just to say my reaction was the same as David's - it was an (attempted)witty remark at the expense of the Beatles not at India.
But why so much focus on a work of one guy - very patchy at that - the main dirt eg on HHDL appeared to be that several hundred years ago a Dalai Lama slept with women! The main critique of Ken Wilber is that he has a huge ego and is quite unclear and takes intellectual liberties - tell me something I dont know 
As far as it pertains to yoga, as Yogani said he is just recycling well-known stories... None of us know personally how many are true, how many are false.
It seems to me all "water under the bridge" other than that we need to be aware that certain spiritual cultures sometimes can be problematic - be it yogic, Zen, Catholic etc etc.
As I posted above (sorry I forgot your name Shiva when posting) the thing that actually set the whole thread in motion was the negative karmic act of someone passing a fear-based belief onto you.
Good gurus, bad gurus, flawed gurus, wheat, chaff, pop stars from Liverpool, internet threads... its all part of life's rich tapestry  .
At a practical level your original question has been answered about the mantra.
At a practical level you are the principal one repeating all the 'slanders'/'libels'/'facts'/'lies' and so publicising them even more 
As David said - I dont actually think anyone is really disagreeing about anything... Its not compulsory to do AYP, its not compulsory to have a guru... A lot of wheat has been produced in the yogic tradition... and some chaff too...
Folks chose, and as far as practices such as AYP go, the practitioners are united in an orthopraxy, not an orthodoxy so one's always going to get a 1001 opinions here... all part of the richness
Peace
Mike |
Edited by - Mike on Feb 15 2007 05:55:38 AM |
|
|
|
Tant Rick
Canada
5 Posts |
Posted - May 05 2007 : 09:28:56 AM
|
Namaste,
I hope you noticed that the author of this book is gossiping only and is using gossips only as base for his book. He doesn't intend to have a face to face conversation with the 'Gurus' even if the Guru is still alive. He doesn't want to read through and analyze the (sometimes vast) works, philosophical systems, books, publications of the masters. Only gossiping.
The guru is in you, but usually covered with ignorance and ego.
Zoltan |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 05 2007 : 09:46:25 AM
|
Actually, Zoltan, Geoffrey Falk stands apart in doing careful research for everything the writes in the book and, if I remember rightly, in referencing all of this sources. Some of it may be smear as I have been saying, but I believe it's probably all true.
Stripping the Gurus is superb—one of the best books of its kind I have ever read. The research is meticulous, the writing engaging, and the overall thesis: devastatingly true. A stellar book.
—Dr. David C. Lane, California State University |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - May 05 2007 : 10:01:09 AM
|
Great name Rick and welcome!
I think there is a useful purpose in pointing out that the "masters" are people just like us.
Not for the reason of tearing them down, but for the purpose of reminding us that putting them on a pedestal is a type of worship, and does not help us on our path.
I don't know if there is any way to separate those two however, because a lengthy book describing the details would not be read by the same people who scan the "gossip".
I have a "master's license" in my profession, yet i learn new things all the time, and I think the designation "master" is kind of ridiculous. I have a hard time believing that the path of enlightenment is easier than my profession. The things that can be mastered are very easy, and pretty much everyone can do them.
I think it stems from ignorance. A guy with a lighter could rule cavemen thousands of years ago, but today he couldn't impress a kid. With spiritual energy increasing today, within our lifetime we will see people worshipping idiots because they can do something "extraordinary". So it's good to keep it all in perspective and keep our attention within, not on someone else's works.
Having said that, information from others, however flawed they may be personally, can often help us work on ourselves. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 05 2007 : 10:29:19 AM
|
A guy with a lighter could rule cavemen thousands of years ago, but today he couldn't impress a kid.
I like that one! I think I'll be using it.
Yes, that's the very thing that happens. 'This guy has a lighter, we haven't seen one of them, so he must be the chosen one!'. Pretty soon, there are fakes pretending they have lighters. And anyone who gets a real lighter in their hands, whether only for a few minutes or permanently, is under great risk of letting it go to their heads, and of getting up on a high horse and never coming down, all the while 'humbly' protesting their ordinariness, which is part of the game!! This is why many of the 'genuine', highly-regarded teachers of the 20-th century were part-deluded about their status -- they thought they were much more than they were. They were deeply inflated, sitting comfortably on the guru-pedestal even while actively telling people not to put them on the pedestal. I won't point fingers now because of where I am -- I'll leave that to Geoffrey Falk! .
Yes, many of those 'greats' of the 20th century were obscured by a deluded self-image, like the only guy with the lighter in the stone-age, who wrongly believes that he is utterly amazing, or mythically sees himself as 'chosen'. What I often want to say on reading some of them is "Dude -- you've stumbled on a lighter, as many people have -- now share it, without seeing yourself as a messiah."
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on May 05 2007 1:55:43 PM |
|
|
|
Tant Rick
Canada
5 Posts |
Posted - May 05 2007 : 10:51:22 AM
|
Thanks Etherfish :)
If one has never met a spiritual master (and of course the master allowed His whole great being to be seen) than the arguing is pointless. Unfortunately.
There are probably great aspirants who attained high levels in spiritual evolution and those are considered masters too. That's ok too. But if somebody really attained the unity with this whole universe and still has this human form too, that being can't be really described.
When I met my master for the first time, we haven't talked, he looked at me, and after for two weeks I had an exalted state of consciousness and strange powers weakened in me. In that two weeks once I could see over the walls and for distance. Then it was spontaneous and natural, but now, looking back, it's amazing. It was the beginning of my spiritual path. Before this first meeting with my master I believed that the people are more or less equal only their circumstances decides what they become. But by this grace I had an insight in this whole thing. I don't have any more those powers, but I have the memories about that and I want to be like that, I want to be like him.
David -
I skimmed through that book one week ago (only now I have time to react, sorry to act :) )
I found only gossiping about:
- Parmahamsa Yogananda, the author in an inconsistent way mixes Yogananda with Sivananda. The link is an apprentice of Sivananda. No facts in this section, no referring to any special work of Sivananda (although the author mentions that he wrote more than 300 books) or Yogananda.
- A contemporan master Chin Moy. The author emphasizes the fact that he has an enormous artistic work, but he doesn't deal with that only with the gossips of course. Although Chin Moy is a living person the author doesn't make the effort to get to know him and his work. (Probably with his solidified ego it wouldn't be an easy thing)
- and others
Sorry if I didn't write the names correctly I read this last week, and I'm not going to reopen that book.
Probably the author of this book doesn't understand the real values in this world (although he might be good at statistics, stylistics, or mechanically transferring articles from newspapers to his book) and consciously or ignorantly misleads those seekers who are reading his book.
I found this site last week when I was searching for something and I found a conversation of Viktor and Yogani. Great people.
Enough speaking back to meditation. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 05 2007 : 11:26:26 AM
|
Hi Tant Rick,
OK, maybe you are right that Falk falls short in some ways in the research -- I don't know. What I am saying is -- find the best that Falk has to say. Let me just say again what I said earlier:
I said:
So, just as you expect people to disregard quirks with gurus that don't matter, likewise, I'd say forget about the parts of Falk's work that do not make sense. The part of Falk's work that are of value are actually the substantial criticisms of real gurus, not the unsubstantial ones.
And therefore, whereas you folks are right that Falk's book is in many respects a smear-campaign, it is also more than that. Everything is a mixture of light and shadow -- the gurus, the guru-chela system, and Falk's book.
Tant Rick said:
- A contemporan master Chin Moy. The author emphasizes the fact that he has an enormous artistic work, but he doesn't deal with that only with the gossips of course. Although Chin Moy is a living person the author doesn't make the effort to get to know him and his work. (Probably with his solidified ego it wouldn't be an easy thing)
As for Sri Chinmoy, I certainly don't consider him a 'master' myself, whether of art or spiritual teachings. When I see him advertising the fact that he has made 250,000 paintings, I want to say to him, "Dude, you advertise your 250,000 paintings, while a single good one would advertise itself better".  Geoffrey Falk is quite entitled to take a look at what the Sri Chinmoy actually presents, and to be deeply unimpressed and to comment. A person who leaves us unimpressed is not entitled to a deep commitment of our time before we make our response.
If you are finding Sri Chinmoy and others to be valuable, well and good. In that case, I am sure you are using what is best in him, not what is worst, because using the worst in anyone I have ever heard of is not going to be good for you. Likewise, I would say, do the same for Geoffrey Falk and his book. Not all criticism of teachers comes from 'ego' -- sometimes it comes from insight, coupled with a sense of social conscience. Not everyone has the insight -- and therefore, not everyone can see the very real flaws of much-lauded teachers. The 'halo effect' -- guru-mythologization -- simply blinds some people, while others are not blinded. Love is blinding -- guru-mythologization is blinding. Sometimes those who are blinded to significant faults think that those who can see the significant faults are ill-motivated. But often those who can see simply have clearer vision and deeper insight. Often they are not more wicked, just more gifted -- or less blinded.
And some people, not necessarily lacking in insight in general, can become deeply blinded to their own teacher, because of the guru-mythologization process and everything that goes with that.
I remember years ago, one of my friends fell in love with a woman, and was quite blind to some glaring faults in her that I felt would eventually hurt him. I did what I felt was my duty a the time as a friend -- I told him what she was up to. He resented it -- in his perceptions, I was being wicked, criticizing and finding fault in a most perfect, and lovely creature who could do no wrong. I was out to destroy all that was good. He even suspected that I was trying to break him away frrom her to take her myself!! He's not in general lacking in insight, but in this case, his love was blind -- and I wasn't. I essentially lost his friendship -- until he in the end found out I was telling the truth. We are friends again, and he is a wiser one.
I had other friends who "fell in love", in a sense, with a major guru -- one of those gurus, in fact, in Falk's book. Not "fell in love" exactly, but got the guru-gagas -- fell for the guru-mythology hook, line and sinker. Again, I did not fall in love with the guru, and told them of his glaring faults, and warned them that they might get hurt. Some had enough insight to see that I was telling the truth -- some did not, and the same thing happened -- they saw me as wicked, out to destroy what is good. They now know that I was right. In spades I was right. And I didn't need any great skill to be right -- basically, if you weren't partially blinded and were over seven years old, you would have seen the red flags. You needed strong patterns of rationalization and general sacro-mythical (religious) delusion to miss the red flags entirely and not be at least somewhat uncomfortable. Sadly though, some of my friends were hurt terribly -- much more in fact than my friend who fell in love with a woman who was deceiving him.
Some of us are just susceptible to getting the 'guru-gagas' -- to getting blinded inside a guru-disciple relationship. And some of us less so. I see it as a civic gift from those of us who are less susceptible to getting blinded by the guru-gagas, to help those who are more susceptible to it. Like all gifts, it can be given with more or less skill. But this particular gift is almost never enjoyed by the receiver at the moment it is received. It's almost always resented and received with hostility at first.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on May 05 2007 8:54:18 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - May 06 2007 : 09:14:45 AM
|
I just don't like people being called "masters". Their followers blindly believe everything they do and write, and don't know those people make mistakes. And they often can't see that God also presents us with useful information from other sources. I've learned things from people I hated at the time.
The reason I don't like the title "master", is the state of enlightenment is not a static goal, where you are "in with God" and know it all. Those people who seem to be masters are just much farther along the path than you are.
They are just like you, only farther along the path you are on. They would be seen as equals to us, were it not for time.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 06 2007 : 11:29:54 AM
|
Those people who seem to be masters are just much farther along the path than you are.
Or, commonly, just pretending to be.
They are just like you, only farther along the path you are on. They would be seen as equals to us, were it not for time.
The other thing is that there isn't a single dimension of development. There are many dimensions of growth. Some are further along in some aspects while further behind in others. It's very important to understand this too. A teacher may be emotionally developed while being intellectually junior. Their vision of some kinds may be ok or even good or great, while their vision of other kinds poor, or even retarded or deluded. So find out what you believe their domain of competence to be, and do not give them authority outside their domain of competence, or they will retard you in certain aspects.
|
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
|
|
Eddie33
USA
120 Posts |
Posted - Oct 28 2007 : 11:39:33 AM
|
| nice post |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Those gurus -- wheat and chaff
