Dana Sawyer's comments on an article I forwarded to him, which can be found at http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/jan/09franc.htm :
------ Forwarded Message From: Dana Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:25:03 -0500 To: Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: In defence of Hindu gurus Rick, Thanks for the article. I read it with interest. As an argument in support of gurus it seems to me that it's a glaring failure. Of course he's right that the communists oppose dogmatic religion and social hierarchy whereas most gurus are in support traditional Hinduism, including the caste system. But he is also correct that most Indians are villagers who know very little about Communism. He suggests that the real damage these communists do is in influencing the "English speaking media" to "come down hard on gurus" but, in India, the scandals of the various gurus have done that on their own. (Furthermore, if most Indians are rural and not reading the English media then maybe he simply shouldn't pay so much attention to English newspapers because there's no threat anyway.) Of course, he's correct that the communists oppose the fabulous wealth owned by gurus but he doesn't really address why they shouldn't - in fact, he criticizes the West for capitalizing on Hinduism. Presumably he believes that only Hindus should be allowed such decadent practices. Regarding his solution, that there should be a supreme spiritual council with Ravi Shankar at its top, one can only imagine that devotees of Ravi Shankar love the idea! I'm not really sure how he believes that creating more hierarchy and putting more power into fewer hands is going to placate the communists or convince the general public that gurus do not have too much power. It should be interesting to watch. I did note that most comments on his article, from respondents in India, were critical of his viewpoint. Once can only assume that the communists are out to get him! haha A couple of reflections: First, it is certainly true that gurus are part of traditional Hinduism, as is the caste system, but guruism as it manifests today is much different than it was traditionally. Prior to the 20th century we've never seen gurus who could wield the power of a Ravi Shankar or Sai Baba. The role of guru as teacher or guru as acarya occured within a specific matrix of checks and balances on their power. Not only were pandits looking at their teachings for possible contradictions with sacred canon, but kings also were careful about who they supported and who they tolerated. Today, without those checks on power in place, guruism can and has transcended its traditional boundries. Buttressed by modern transportation and communication, gurus can reach a much larger audience then ever before and simultaneously transcend any local structures of checks and balance that may still exist. In many ways the situation is analogous to what is happening with Christianity in our own country. Where once the minister was a local figure, counciling his townspeople and kept from megalomania by a bureaucracy, now he is a media star who seeks to create a "Post-denominational Protestantism" that grants him total autonomy. Today the local church is waxing as the regional multiplex arena-church is on the rise. Similarly, where the guru was once a local figure catering to speicific families and castes, he has become a rich media figure with a transnational flock - far from the prying eyes of those traditional institutions that once moderated his power. Second, the author of the article says that a lack of overarching structure and institutional unity has always been Hinduism's weakness. Certainly this is a strange comment, out of sync with the general appraisal. For example, looking at history, it was the fact that Hinduism has no head to cut off or monolithic bureaucracy to attack that saved it from the Muslim onslaughts of the 11th through 13th centuries. Buddhism was exterminated precisely because it was unified. Even relative to his own beloved practice of guruism, one must wonder what the author would think of hierarchy if Ravi Shankar decided to use his institutional authority to undermine the author's own guru. anyway, a couple of off-the-cuff comments, Dana ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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/