I don't think the term "incest" is overkill. The relationship between a guru and his disciples is, or can and should be, very profound and emotionally intimate. From my perspective, it is a sacred relationship and should be pure. It is ultimately the guru's responsibility to keep it that way, since he, by definition, should be "established" enough to be above temptation. If he is not, then he is not a first-rate guru, and is probably not qualified to guide others to enlightenment. If he violates the sacredness of the guru-disciple relationship, the psychic/spiritual harm it may do can easily be as damaging as incest.
on 12/2/05 5:14 PM, authfriend at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: > <snip> >>> I've taken it up with you because you so obviously >>> wholeheartedly approve of it, having used it to >>> justify labeling MMY a "pervert.">> >> >> Vaj needs to specify and clarify exactly what he is referring to. He >> just uses the phrase to make himself sound good. > > He first used it on alt.m.t after he had claimed MMY > was a "pervert" (referring to him as "Pervarishi") and > been challenged on it. The idea was that since spiritual > teachers may take something of a parental role toward > their followers, they all constitute a spiritual "family," > and therefore sexual activity of the teacher with said > followers constitutes "spiritual incest." > > Just for kicks, I dug up the posts I made on the > topic on alt.m.t. Let's give Vaj a second chance > to address what I said: > > "Spiritual incest" is a ridiculous concept. Men in > positions of power have always used their power and > charisma to compel sexual favors from female > subordinates. The syndrome is not limited to the > spiritual context, and to call it "incest"--so that > it can then be called "perversion"--in any context is > absurd. > > An older man can be a "father figure" to a younger > woman in any relationship, including a marriage. > Does their having sex thus constitute incest? > > What's perverted is the misuse of terms, because > it dilutes the proper usage and trivializes the > suffering of the victims of the real thing, like > referring to a person with authoritarian tendencies > as a Nazi. > > =================== > > Two further thoughts: > > First, the effect of this kind of misuse of terms is > to reduce words that characterize a very specific and > particularly horrible kind of misbehavior to mean > "behavior I don't like." It *borrows* the horror of > the specific misbehavior in an attempt to legitimize > rabid condemnation of a very different level of > misbehavior--usually because one is primarily > interested in condemning the *individual* rather than > the behavior itself. > > It's a thoroughly dishonest thought-stopper, in other > words, which in this case aims to elicit the extreme > level of outrage associated with the incest taboo and > direct it at an individual who has not committed incest > at all, bypassing juducious critical thinking about the > actual behavior involved. > > Such behavior is reprehensible enough on its own terms. > Why the need to "borrow" an additional level of outrage > it does not merit? > > Second, when a younger woman seduces a man old enough > to be her father, does that constitute incest and hence > "perversion"? > > There's nothing wrong with invoking the psychological > father-daughter dynamic in any relationship involving > an older man and a younger woman. But to then take > the huge leap of characterizing it as "incest," and > yet another huge leap to call it "perversion," is at > best extraordinarily sloppy thinking, and at worst a > malicious attempt at slander. > > ==================== > > There are two aspects to the incest taboo: one is > biological, the fact that the offspring of incest are > more likely to have defective genes, which they then > pass down to their own offspring. In that sense, the > incest taboo is a species survival trait; we're > hardwired to react negatively to it. > > The other aspect is purely social and has nothing > *whatsoever* to do with the biological aspect. The > social aspect involves the exploitation of an unequal > power relationship for selfish purposes and its > negative psychological consequences. As such, > of course, it is by no means unique to incestuous > relationships. > > The notion of "spiritual incest" obviously trades > only on this second aspect, but it deceptively > invokes the instinctive biological revulsion of the > first aspect, when in fact that is completely > unrelated to the nature of the misbehavior. > > It's just deeply, deeply intellectually dishonest. > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
