Forum member "spotless". Missing messages.

[dwai]

 

 

 

 

35 minutes ago, Creation said:

I know you are being rhetorical, but just for fun let's look at the evidence.  You brought up Trungpa Rinpoche's abuses.  Now, Trungpa was Tibetan, and Tibetans have been targeted by the Chinese for cultural genocide.  Dwai was silent.

I don't know about Trungpa. I would expect that if there are people here who know about Trungpa and he's not what he has been accused of being, they will speak up. 

 

 

 

 

2

35 minutes ago, Creation said:

Then you brought up Sai Baba, and Dwai went off on a rant about how anytime someone criticiszes an Indian Guru, it is because they have been brainwashed by Evangelical Christians who want to destroy Indian culture, and he had the nerve to say this to a person who has spent years traveling Asia training seeking teachers, some of them Hindu, often being the only Westerner in the group!

 I can see how you can distort what I said in that way. I objected to the slander against Sai Baba because I know a lot about him. I would not complain if someone wrote stuff about Nithyananda or Bikram Choudhury, because I know the truth about them as well (culpability). 

35 minutes ago, Creation said:

 

How appropriate that this comes up in a thread about how a person who has had profound experiences of transcendence can still be reactive.

 There is a point when we have to speak out. Having profound experiences of transcendence doesn't' mean one should not call out something obviously objectionable. I thought all the paragons of virtue who've been name-calling specific members, ridiculing them, etc etc would be okay getting a microdose of their own medicine?

 

[Creation]

4 minutes ago, dwai said:

I would not complain if someone wrote stuff about Nithyananda or Bikram Choudhury, because I know the truth about them as well (culpability). 

OK, good to know.

[freeform]

You can see how offended Dwai is by the number of smilies that start popping up in his responses!

 

But he's right, it was wrong of me to name specific teachers. I took a risk, thinking no one would get offended, but sadly I was wrong. My intention was perhaps to state something strongly - but never to attack or offend. So again, I'm sorry about that.

 

I'd really rather bring the conversation back to the topic.

 

So we know that Dwai has never come across any abusive gurus/teachers/priests (except for the ones that he has - and has named).

 

This being a spiritual forum, there must be other informed opinions on the subject.

 

Does anyone else agree that there is a lot of abuse that happens in spiritual circles?

 

Or am I completely wrong?

 

Shouldn't this be discussed?

 

Maybe because we, in effect, are part of various spiritual circles, and because it's a bit close to home, it's better to not discuss it and sweep the whole issue under the rug?

[C T]

Its helpful to first get agreement on what defines abuse, and secondly, what constitutes 'a lot'. 

 

Some situations where observers clearly recognise abusive behaviour may turn out rather surprising and/or frustrating when some of the followers known to these observers staunchly defend the abuser. There was one such case here on TDB not too long ago, and is still being spoken of currently in a different thread. This goes to show the possibility that there's more to it than meets the eye.

 

And there's also cultural bias to consider - what the West sees as abuse may not be seen in the same way elsewhere. In India, (some, which is many) devotees kiss the feet of their beloved gurus - enough Western spiritual seekers find that demeaning and disgusting, so there is a huge difference in understanding about what devotion means between East & West. And if a Westerner chance upon a fellow Westerner who did that, its likely that he/she will be grossly reprimanded (and may even be subject to prolonged mental abuse and stigmatized).

 

When Eastern gurus enter to teach in the West, they too witness tremendous amounts of abuse happening because, coming from the East, they cannot relate why Westerners have all kinds of 'gurus' that they incessantly and gladly receive abuse from - the drug gurus, the alcohol gurus, the domestic violence gurus, the corrupter gurus, the sex gurus, the individualist promoting gurus, the keep fit gurus, the feminist/chauvinist gurus, and all kinds of other addict gurus that Westerners pay homage to without a second thought. It baffles them because these sorts of addictions are completely alien to them. So this is actually a very complex and sensitive subject.

 

Unfortunately, some Eastern gurus who tried to wade deep into the Western psyche by seeking to understand the experience of abuse firsthand from a Western perspective often get labelled with all sorts of names. And if they are reluctant to immerse themselves fully, whispers and accusations of not being 'in the loop', or aloof and disconnected become rife. Ironically, without that real life connection to the very real abuses that Westerners subject themselves to, those who truly need a substantial wisdom teacher who can fully relate with them at their level will not have that opportunity.

 

Damn if they do, damn if they don't. Its a balancing game that's indeed hard to master.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by C T

[dwai]

5 hours ago, freeform said:

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, freeform said:

You can see how offended Dwai is by the number of smilies that start popping up in his responses!

Or maybe I'm just plain amused  

Quote

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, freeform said:

But he's right, it was wrong of me to name specific teachers. I took a risk, thinking no one would get offended, but sadly I was wrong. My intention was perhaps to state something strongly - but never to attack or offend. So again, I'm sorry about that.

With big teachers like Baba, it helps to be careful before saying slanderous stuff. Of course, it won't stop people from doing it, but I like to take a stand when it comes to dissing teachers (Gurus/Sifus etc etc) when I know the allegations are unfounded. 

Quote

 

I'd really rather bring the conversation back to the topic.

 

So we know that Dwai has never come across any abusive gurus/teachers/priests (except for the ones that he has - and has named).

 

This being a spiritual forum, there must be other informed opinions on the subject.

 

Does anyone else agree that there is a lot of abuse that happens in spiritual circles?

 

Or am I completely wrong?

 

Shouldn't this be discussed?

 

Maybe because we, in effect, are part of various spiritual circles, and because it's a bit close to home, it's better to not discuss it and sweep the whole issue under the rug?

Is it possible for a spiritual teacher/leader to abuse their students? I've never rejected that possibility. Sure it is possible. There are creeps and charlatans who pass off as spiritual teachers to the unaware/ignorant people. My rules of thumb to avoid this are very simple --

• How does the teacher live? You will seldom go wrong with traditional institutions such as Vedanta Society/Ramakrishna Missions etc (at least within the Hindu traditions) 
• How do his/her top-level students live?
• When you are in their presence, what do you feel?
  • This is a bit more complicated for neophytes to address, but can be addressed in the form of "Do you feel safe? Do you feel an increase in meditative abilities/amplification in your meditative abilities"? If the teacher's presence can boost your meditative abilities, then that's a pretty good sign.
  • Do you feel greater clarity of the mind?
• When you are in a congregation of the teacher's students (seminar, etc) how does the collective 'vibe' feel? For instance, when I go to a Chinmaya Mission or Vedanta Society gathering, I feel very powerful uplifting energy -- almost like the space itself is shining with light. 

Some Do's and Don'ts --

• First thing is to avoid is the "cult of the body"  -- or e.g., Yoga teachers who teach a body-oriented Yoga practice. Whenever there is a body-oriented practice involved, there is bound to be sexual overtones or undertones (and therefore scandals). I've strongly advocated against "hot yoga/power yoga/bikram yoga" kind of stuff. It is a surefire way to get caught up in nastiness. I used to study with one such "Yogi" who had some yogic/psychic abilities,  but also resorted to scandalous behavior, thereby I severed all ties with him. He has since left this world, so I won't name him. 
• Develop a personal practice (so one doesn't get addicted to the group paradigm, and develop independent spiritual muscles) 
• Find a group of fellow travelers (sat sangha) who have similar goals as you do and develop a strong bond (it can even be 2-3 people). 

Just like when you are out driving on the freeway, the onus for your personal safety first lies on you, similarly with anything else in life. 

 

But also, as is the case with celebrities, there are always people who are looking to make a fast buck by claiming abuse and then suing (and often settling out of court). And then there are the planted stories/conspiracies and dishonest journalism at play as well -- someone with an axe to grind. 

Edited May 22, 2020 by dwai

[liminal_luke]

11 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

Some Do's and Don'ts --

• First thing is to avoid is the "cult of the body"  -- or e.g., Yoga teachers who teach a body-oriented Yoga practice. Whenever there is a body-oriented practice involved, there is bound to be sexual overtones or undertones (and therefore scandals). I've strongly advocated against "hot yoga/power yoga/bikram yoga" kind of stuff. It is a surefire way to get caught up in nastiness.

 

Dwai --

 

This comment surprises me so I wonder if you´d be willing to expand on what you mean?

 

As a former massage therapist, I´m a pretty body-oriented guy (though woefully unathletic).  I believe that much of what is currently a little cuckoo with the world today stems from alienation from our bodies and that bodily awareness is the way through.  Seems to me that the tendency to divide the world into "body" and "mind" and "spirit" as if these are truly separate categories is misguided.  Some people talk about a body/mind connection.  I´d go further and say that they are not only connected, they were never separated in the first place.  Basically body is mind is spirit.  The emphasis is different perhaps but go deeply enough into any area and the others come along.  That´s why I don´t look down on body oriented practices as unspiritual: they may not talk a spiritual games but they´ll get there.  Also,  psychotherapy that focuses primarily on talk often flounders when bodily sensation is neglected.

 

Perhaps by "cult of the body" you mean practices that are aimed at molding the body for aesthetic aims?  I don´t think there´s anything wrong with that either, per se, though I can understand how yoga purists might balk.

[dwai]

7 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Dwai --

 

This comment surprises me so I wonder if you´d be willing to expand on what you mean?

 

As a former massage therapist, I´m a pretty body-oriented guy (though woefully unathletic).  I believe that much of what is currently a little cuckoo with the world today stems from alienation from our bodies and that bodily awareness is the way through.  Seems to me that the tendency to divide the world into "body" and "mind" and "spirit" as if these are truly separate categories is misguided.  Some people talk about a body/mind connection.  I´d go further and say that they are not only connected, they were never separated in the first place.  Basically body is mind is spirit.  The emphasis is different perhaps but go deeply enough into any area and the others come along.  That´s why I don´t look down on body oriented practices as unspiritual: they may not talk a spiritual games but they´ll get there.  Also,  psychotherapy that focuses primarily on talk often flounders when bodily sensation is neglected.

It was not my intention to outright reject body-oriented practices.  

7 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

 

Perhaps by "cult of the body" you mean practices that are aimed at molding the body for aesthetic aims?  I don´t think there´s anything wrong with that either, per se, though I can understand how yoga purists might balk.

Yes and those with overwhelming emphasis on the body without sufficient work on the mind/spirit. 
 

If you look at this from the yogic perspective, there are 3 essential Energetic properties and they bring with them certain mental (and physical) tendencies and attitudes. 
 

• satva — spiritual clarity which leads to mental clarity and physical purification 
• rajas — kinetic energy, and in excess it drives the mind and body toward kinetic action, stimulation, etc.
• tamas — inertia and in excess are it drives inertia of the mind and body. 
   

Body oriented practices are Rajasic in nature and therefore need to be balanced with satvic practices (diet,  meditation, lifestyle etc). Without the balance of satva, the body-mind will resort to excessive activity and excitation (not conducive to spiritual practices). 

[freeform]

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, dwai said:

With big teachers like Baba, it helps to be careful before saying slanderous stuff.

 

Just to be clear.

 

I was not apologising for 'saying slanderous stuff'. Slander is the deliberate spreading of false information. At worst you could say that I was 'making an accusation'.

 

But that's beside the point.

 

I apologised for naming a specific teacher - because I should have been sensitive to the fact that it can be offensive to some.

[senseless virtue]

On 5/21/2020 at 11:55 AM, freeform said:

But then there's the type of "backsliding" where you decide - hey, I'm Sai Baba, the divine incarnation of God - I offer unconditional divine love to all... and today I feel like expressing my divine love by molesting the children of my followers...

 

Just to make this clear once and for all.

 

I got the impression that you could exchange Sai Baba for Jesus Christ and retain the same meaning for what you meant to say: declaring oneself an opulent divine presence to whom everything is permitted. Am I also right in guessing that your original intent was completely neutral and not taking any stance in regards to abuse allegations?

 

Many religious freaks have in fact declared themselves to be Jesus and done plenty of abuse under that pretext. It seems to me that there was an issue of not stepping back for a while and asking in a friendly manner what was the motivation for bringing up Sai Baba instead of knee-jerking into a presumed counter-offensive.

 

It's just happens to be that Sai Baba has been scandalized and publicly scrutinized because he was a modern era spiritual teacher with a big following.

[freeform]

 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, dwai said:

creeps and charlatans who pass off as spiritual teachers to the unaware/ignorant people.

 

This is not what I'm talking about. There are 'creeps and charlatans' in all walks of life. I'm not talking about the ones that deliberately use spirituality as a cover.

 

I'm talking about the genuine spiritual teachers with some genuine attainment (such as Osho that dwai mentioned... such as Trungpa) who despite their attainment then go on to be abusive in one way or another.

 

12 hours ago, C T said:

Its helpful to first get agreement on what defines abuse

 

I'm not talking about the grey area of whether a guru asking for a cup of water could be interpreted as abuse by someone set on that mission.

 

I'm talking about the obvious stuff - sexual abuse, physical violence, emotional abuse, financial abuse. The stuff that could go to a court of law - the stuff that if you witnessed it from outside of the situation would sicken you.

 

It's common - whether we like it or not.

 

I'm talking about  what anshino23 explained so well here:

 

18 hours ago, anshino23 said:

I think the main point was simply that the Path is beset with obstacles - and that every part of the way is filled with pitfalls - and those very pitfalls can entice you to become a "Guru" or take the role of a Teacher and consider yourself enlightened before you've even gotten your foot in the doorstep so to speak.  

 

Why does this happen? Why so much in the 'spiritual world' where exactly the opposite should happen?

 

I think it's because of several things:

 

1- Cultivators leaving their teacher or tradition and starting to teach before they're ready.

 

2- Delusion of grandeur - attainments, experiences of bliss and oneness... certain abilities like fa qi, as well as the natural increase of charisma as a result of increase in Qi. All of this can fuel the base desires.

 

3- Position of power. Which is the major trigger for this sort of behaviour in all areas of human endeavour.

 

4- The dropping away of the 'socially protective emotions' - like guilt, shame etc.

 

Usually, it's a mixture of all of the above... and delusion, lack of insight being the underlying issue.

 

It means that despite our cultivation, our training and introspection - we're still susceptible to being wrong - doing the wrong thing, even deeply damaging and harming someone without realising what we've done.

 

And if we refuse to look at the possibility of this happening, then we're far more likely to walk into such a pitfall ourselves.

[freeform]

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, freeform said:

1- Cultivators leaving their teacher or tradition and starting to teach before they're ready.

 

I think I should add that I'm talking about spiritual teachers.

 

Not people that run qigong and taiji classes.

 

Teachers in whom you'd be willing to put your ultimate trust.

[RobB]

John Blofeld, writing in 1978 'Taoism - the road to immortality'

 

[idiot_stimpy]

If anyone has practiced celibacy, they would know how powerful it can be, but also how dangerous it can be to an unbalanced mind.

[johndoe2012]

It seems freeform is under some sort of delusion that spiritual teachers are saints, a direct manifestation of God and always are polite, always do the right thing etc.

 

Who told you so?

 

Nisargadatta got angry. So did Ramana Maharshi. So did Buddha Shakyamuni. If a Dao Bum met these today, they would be called "not ready, charlatans, fakes".

 

Nobody can do anything different than they are doing right now. This moment is it.

 

The problem is the thinking mind wants things to be different, it cannot accepts things as they are. Then suffering arises and the doer runs after it and gets upset "No! Things got to change! I cannot accept this!!!".

 

 

 

 

 

[freeform]

2 minutes ago, johndoe2012 said:

It seems freeform is under some sort of delusion that spiritual teachers are saints

Did you notice the joke in your statement?

 

Spiritual teachers should be saints - yes.
 

That’s the whole point.

 

Just as we expect doctors to be interested in saving lives rather than killing - we should expect ‘saintly’ behaviour from spiritual teachers.

That doesn’t mean they have to have a bland personality. Be sweet and polite all the time. That’s a caricature.
 

But it does mean that you can be reasonably confident that they won’t try and rape you, use their power to extort money out of you or manipulate and control you for their own purposes.

 

[silent thunder]

2 hours ago, johndoe2012 said:

This moment is it.

So much in that one brief statement.

 

It accomodates and acknowledges and encompasses all that's transpiring in this conversation, in our world, in our awareness.

 

Thanks for sharing mate.  The timing on that one for me... kizmit.

 

 

[mla7]

Not sure I agree about the "spiritual teachers should be saints" idea.

 

Of course, spiritual teachers should be held to the standards of conduct we expect of normal people (don't be a murderer etc..)

 

But, the word "saint" implies something far more than that, something more akin to moral perfection.  

 

I'm open to be proven wrong here but it seems to me that as long as we are in a human bodies, moral perfection is an unrealistic fantasy and moreover a dangerous one at that. 

 

Of course, we can try to live our lives morally but that is pretty different from perfection.

 

Maybe it is the idea of being a morally perfect being that leads to and excuses the creepy behavior of some spiritual teachers in some cases.  Sorta like how the bright sun makes for dark shadows.

[doc benway]

3 hours ago, johndoe2012 said:

It seems freeform is under some sort of delusion that spiritual teachers are saints, a direct manifestation of God and always are polite, always do the right thing etc.

 

Who told you so?

 

Nisargadatta got angry. So did Ramana Maharshi. So did Buddha Shakyamuni. If a Dao Bum met these today, they would be called "not ready, charlatans, fakes".

 

I agree with one qualification - 

I propose that most Dao Bums would recognize Nisargadatta, Ramana, and Shakyamuni if they met.

People who are deeply connected to the source radiate it, even through their anger. 

Our egos squawk at each other as best they can in words here.

We would behave differently in the flesh.

Now, if a Buddha was with us here, in words only... then I'm not so sure she would be recognized .

 

3 hours ago, johndoe2012 said:

Nobody can do anything different than they are doing right now. This moment is it.

 

The problem is the thinking mind wants things to be different, it cannot accepts things as they are. Then suffering arises and the doer runs after it and gets upset "No! Things got to change! I cannot accept this!!!".

 

Wisdom

_/\_

[freeform]

50 minutes ago, mla7 said:

Maybe it is the idea of being a morally perfect being that leads to and excuses the creepy behavior of some spiritual teachers in some cases.  Sorta like how the bright sun makes for dark shadows.

 

Good point - maybe?

 

50 minutes ago, mla7 said:

But, the word "saint" implies something far more than that, something more akin to moral perfection.

 

So who are saints? Why do we have that term?

 

Why do all traditions talk about virtue?

 

My perspective is very much coming from the Daoist tradition. What one might call a saint is quite literally what we're aiming for within some of the lines in Daoism.

 

This doesn't mean contriving our behaviour to follow some strict outer code. Daoism is very clear that this is not the aim. Daoism is in direct opposition to Confucian philosophy where that is the aim. Where moral and ethical principles are 'taught' and socially conditioned into everyone.

 

Daoism believes that true virtue is revealed.

 

Not taught.

 

Not acted out.

 

It is 'revealed' by clearing out and balancing our nature. In the Daoist creation process, when the pure light of spirit begins its journey of manifestation into physicality, it refracts into a spectrum of coloured light. This coloured light is what manifests as our body, our mind and emotions (as the 5 elements).

 

What we think of anger (for example) is like an 'impure' version of one of these lights. The impurity is simply our 'acquired mind'... once this is transformed, reactive anger simply stops and is replaced by the 'De' or virtue of 'Patience'.

 

A big part of the path is the transformation of our nature - moving from reactive emotionality to the five classical virtues: Contentment, Courage, Empathy, Wisdom and Patience.

 

Some would say - oh this is just old fashioned thinking, this is just a silly belief and doesn't match reality.

 

Ok.

 

Not everyone's belief system is accepting of spirituality.

 

But in my experience, this is a literal transformation that occurs. In fact, there are physiological changes that happen as each of these virtues arise. It is very literal for the high-level teachers that I've come across.

[dwai]

There’s a natural tendency to try and fit someone into one’s own perspective, limited as it might be by our mind and conceptions. 

It is as old a tendency as the one in which people always want to “do” things, even things that don’t need doing. 
 

Each has to navigate one’s karmic field, so there’s nothing wrong in the above. Enjoy the ride...
 

 

[mla7]

Hi freeform, thanks for responding to my post. 

 

A few things:

 

Regarding the messed up behavior of some spiritual teachers and how to account for it I would suggest that maybe a social context which venerates them as perfected  saints is the main problem.  

 

Bowing at someone's feet with the tacit or openly stated belief that they are God basically in human form seems like it has the potential to bring forth some pretty unskillful behavior on the part of the one being venerated.  

 

Imagine having hundreds or thousand s of followers telling you that you are a perfected God-man incapable of moral fallibility.  It is not hard to see how such a situation could really mess up a person's moral compass, especially if they haven't had much in the way of real world life experience.

 

That said, I do think there are meditative practices that can bring forth virtue in a person like the Daoist stuff you mentioned or metta practice in Buddhism or probably lots of other stuff as well. 

 

Regarding the achievability of sainthood while in a human body I think from a Buddhist perspective we would likely be talking about the complete elimination of desire and aversion. 

It is hard to see how a person in a human body could operate without the desire to take the next breath of air for example or without aversion to the pain of banging their knee into a sharp objects or whatever.  There are basic inbuilt mechanisms to avoid pain in the human body mind that seem so core to who we are that to have them go away entirely seems both inconceivable and inadvisable.  Without some base level of aversion and attraction we wouldn't be humans anymore but something else altogether.

 

Now, if there are people who can transform their body into light, those people maybe are canidates for sainthood.  The rest of us in our suffering human bodies, maybe not so much.  

 

Do you think you have met people you would say are saints?  If so, how do you know?  How would you determine the saintliness of a person?

[Nungali]

On 20/05/2020 at 9:49 PM, Sebastian said:

Well the teacher can be at peace, but choose to act wrathful when teaching students too.

 

In the West a lot of teachers are very soft, so as you say there is also the risk of becoming complacent.

 

I have nothing against wrathful teachers, in my opinion they can create changes quicker in students. You don’t need to “be a nice guy”, or “be polite” to be a good teacher. I don’t think so at least. But you need morality though, you need to have good intentions for your students. It may seem like a fine line but there is a world of difference. You can be wrathful and helpful or wrathful and destructive.
 

I have a lot respect for teachers who are brutally honest when they speak, if it’s their style and they have genuine good intentions for the student. It’s definitely refreshing in this Western culture too. Even if a genuine master speaks poorly to me, I don’t think my respect would waiver, because they are great people helping the world. They just have their own vibe, and it’s cool by me, everyone is different.

 

 

 

Different teachers for different people .... or  different teachers for same person ....  at different stages .

 

Spoiler

On certain nights I attend Sufi dance.
 I can't remember where it is or how I get there,

or, for that matter, how I get home and back into my bed. 

I talked to a friend about it. He told me I was dreaming.

But if it is a dream why do I wake up so sore and tired?

Sometimes I have blisters on my feet.

But I feel I'm getting somewhere with it, I'm no longer getting as dizzy as I used to.

 

.....

 

I was practising a very difficult part of the dance last month.

The teacher wore orange robes and the dance was very technical.

The month before, a different teacher, (who wore a red robe) taught a simpler stamping dance,

a somewhat angry yet purposeful dance.

There was a teacher before that,

a beautiful woman who wore a silver robe,

her dance was fluid and graceful.

I didn't do very well.

I think I became a little infatuated with her,

it was hard to concentrate.

I liked the blue teacher, his dance was joyous and expansive.

Good things happened to me after his lesson.

In my mundane life, that is.

The green woman !

Well, that was easy! 

But I was a little confronted.

Well worth it, because after those lessons,

I met HER - In my mundane life.

The Golden One seemed to be saying he is what I will become.

I found him a little confusing.

I haven't been taught by the black teacher yet,

I have had a glimpse of her style.

She is naked and black and sprays of stars and spiral galaxies cover her body.

 

But lately there is no teacher.

No particular colored robe

and no difference between the me here

in this part of the dance

and that me there in that part of the dance

and another me over there in another part of the dance.

But at the same time

I am out of the dance

and watching myself and the other dancers.

 

..........

 

 

[Nungali]

On 21/05/2020 at 11:24 PM, dwai said:

That is totally uncalled for. How much do you know about Sai Baba anyway? 
 

He is still very active today, even though he gave up his body several years ago. 

 

I certainly didn’t expect this kind of slanderous stuff from you. 

 

 

It isnt slander - its real !

 

 

On 21/05/2020 at 11:24 PM, dwai said:

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I don’t expect westerners to really understand the Guru-Shishya tradition, and often seen pompous, entitled (undeservedly so) westerners claim they don’t need a Guru or slander their teachers once they learnt what they had to from them! 

 

The Guru-shishya tradition is a sacred thing, the Guru is the spiritual parent. One has to be careful in choosing their Guru, as much as the guru has to be careful in choosing their disciple. 
 

It might seem very cool to “Guru Bash”, but it displays ignorance and a deep and entrenched cultural bias...

 

I am sorry Dwai , but this Sai Baba issue is a hugely serious one and underpins the whole  'guru problem' .

 

It was actually what instigated the whole me and Starjumper blow up .  My main problem was, I felt so strongly about it , no one, even those here that know me, to an extent , never questioned or asked why I had such strong opinions on it .

 

I dont want to start it all up again , but  will say I hold those opinions are NOT  due to things I read on the internet or gossip it is  real personal experience  I have had and have seen first hand the damage this "master' and some of his followers  have caused in the REAL world .

 

And to try and  cover it up , actually sickens me .   I am trying to find understanding for those that have HUGE cultural conditionings about it  ... but that, due to the extremely sensitive nature of these crimes , is  mostly beyond me .

 

And no, I dont want to start it all up here again, but I feel to NOT let your claims about him go unaddressed .

[Nungali]

On 22/05/2020 at 2:05 AM, dwai said:

It might seem that way, but it is a fact  (you and others are free to believe whatever you like of course). 
 

Usually people don’t believe it when they see it/hear it for the first time since it’s not on their radar, or affects them in any significant way. India has been on the receiving end of a cultural and religious onslaught for a long time now. 
 

 

I totally agree with that .

 

But even Sai Babas followers openly admit the child molestation stuff !   They, rather than deny it  ( as too many members have claimed it ... and not in anger or retribution , some seem fine about it   and say it did not affect them adversely )  ' excuse ' it .

 

 

[Nungali]

On 22/05/2020 at 2:32 AM, ilumairen said:

 

This is taking an interesting turn and direction, however it kind of sidesteps the point of spiritual leaders backsliding, and/or abusing their power and authority for personal gratification of base desires - regardless of potential harm to others.

 

The cultural significance and authority of the Catholic church has significantly eroded over the years, and I don't understand why you believe a population which decries sexually predatory behavior of it's own holy men would/should/or even could (without creating an internal dissonance) hold the holy men of a different culture to a lesser standard.

 

I'm about out of time for now, and while I find cross cultural dynamics, assimilations, and yes, destructions, an interesting topic, it is entirely to complex and deep for the few remaining moments I have today, and possibly to fruitfully discuss at all in this setting.

 

 

It wasnt any Christian movement that formed my opinion on this .

 

It was an  once innocent little girl that had been exposed to Sai Baba followers .  The one that molested her  told me ( before the event ) when I challenged his views on Sai Baba and his sexuality ' Well, how can I judge his behaviour ? He is God after all, can I judge God ?"