--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@...> wrote: > > http://www.chakranews.com/sathya-sai-controversies-and-the-art-of-guru-bashing/1221
Sounds remarkably like some at FFL, doesn't it? The bottom line is that nothing critical ever said about a guru can ever be possible. It's all made up by People With Agendas (otherwise known in psychology as the ubiquitous "they" who are always persecuting the paranoid). Pure, paranoid elitism. What I consider much bigger and more interesting questions are, "What is the nature of guru worship in the first place? What makes it 'tick'?" I find the same answer to both questions: elitism. The bottom line of guru-worship is "Some people are better than others." The corollary is, "Because I am special enough and discerning enough to have found a 'real' guru, that makes me better than others, too." I don't buy it. Like Curtis, I have studied the theater of spiritual practice, and know that about 95% of what all seekers in history have "felt" from their gurus was projected there, as the result of falling for cer- tain verbal and visual cues (not to mention the occas- ional parlor magic trick) that were intentionally designed to inspire not only devotion, but unquestion- ing devotion. And that's fine (I guess) if you get off on such things. Some people do. Me, not so much. Thus at this point in my life I doubt that I would ever again swing behind "studying with a teacher." Hanging out with a friend, someone who has learned more things about certain sub- jects than I have, no problem. But the key there is the word "friend." There is not a popsicle's chance in hell that I'd ever be interested in anyone who felt the need to surround themselves with the pomp, circumstance, and bad theater of, say, a Maharishi or a Rama or a Sai Baba or an Amma, or most traditional teachers. They, as I think Vaj pointed out about Amma, are about recreating (or, probably more accurately, simulating) the mythic stories of spiritual teachers from the past. I'm just not into the past. I don't think it has all that much to teach us, other than lessons learned from the history of it all. I don't buy that people in the so-called "Vedic era" knew more than we do. I don't buy that the things they wrote down in books were some- how "cognized" or "dictated by God." The guys and gals of the past were IMO just guys and gals. Their opinions may be interesting from a voyeuristic historical point of view, but that's what they were, opinions. IMO there ain't an ounce of "Truth" in their dead words on dead pages (or anywhere else for that matter), so I'm just not into reading them endlessly trying to project some kind of "meaning" into them that may or may not be there. I'm into the tantra of daily life. I am not wowed by miracles (having seen many of them), nor by shakti (having experienced a lot of it). To me these are cheap thrills that are pleasant enough at the time but don't do much for a seeker in the long run IMO. The "lasting" stuff comes IMO from one's *own* meditations and exper- iences, not from the latest traveling guru show. I *understand* that some are "sold out" to this notion that some people are "better" than they are, and that the only way they can achieve this "betterness" them- selves is to glom onto someone who they believe has it and do everything they say. And I *understand* that there is a great comfort in abdicating the responsibility for one's own spiritual advancement like this, and turning it over to someone else. It's just that I don't groove that way. I'm more of a spiritual DIY-er. I walk my own path, and don't particularly feel that I need a "guide" to tell me where it leads. I don't *care* where it leads. My path is goal-less; I walk it because the walking is fun, and almost always entertaining. All of this said, I have no problem with others glomming onto whatever spiritual teachers they want, for whatever reasons they tell themselves and others they do it. Have fun, and I wish you a fine ride. But don't come around assigning nefarious motives to me if I criticize those teachers. That's just cult paranoia, and makes *you* look stupid. There was no organized "anti Sai movement," just as there was never any organized "anti TM movement." It was (and is) a few individuals who have opinions, and state them publicly. Trying to make them into something more is just one more ego-bound exercise in cult paranoia and self importance IMO.
