Thursday, December 15, 2005

Kama Sutra: The Remix

File under: The Siddhi of PR and Gurus To The Stars

Deepak Chopra, celebrity guru and crass commercializer of all things Hindu, has been commissioned to reinterpret that famous Indian sex manual, the Kama Sutra, for a six-figure advance from Virgin Books.

As much as we find Chopra a pabulum factory for Hollywood's seeker set, he's sidled right on up to the next hottness in spirituality: freedom from sexual guilt and Victorian-era moral repression.

While we're sure Chopra will palpify it in no time, it's still a signficant development in the alternative spiritual scene. But just because Chopra is Indian doesn't mean he's a master of doing it. It's too bad Virgin didn't have the vision to hire someone with more affinity for the subject matter. We imagine rock star Tommy Lee and a bevy of beautiful Sanskrit scholars locked in a hotel room for a week could take the centuries-old text to a whole new level of the erotic.

36 Comments:

At 12/16/2005 1:11 AM, Blogger Antarananda said...

I'm sure Osho would have done a bang-up job had he been alive... ;^)

 
At 12/16/2005 11:53 AM, Blogger Anonymouse said...

I was just thinking of Osho before beginning to write this comment!

I believe that the Kama Sutra was intended to be a manual for helping couples experience Union during the act of sex. Of course, the West has interpreted it as a sex manual for the sake of better sex--who cares about union with our partner or God, for that matter! No thanks to Virgin Books (is it ironic that 'Virgin' books is the publisher??) for helping to take the spiritual out of the tantric tradition.

I watched a special on Deepack Chopra when he first came out...it was a lecture he was giving on Public Television. I didn't believe for a minute that he was genuine. He was holding this lavish looking book--binded with the most beautiful silk fabric--'cept the problem was, whenever the camera looked over his shoulder onto the book, the pages were blank! What was it--mystery ink that only he could see??

Oh well...a friend of mine photographed him for one of his books and said that he totally cursed her out because the silk shirt that the stylist brought for the shoot was the wrong size. One would expect this from a rock star; hardly from a spiritual 'guru' (lowercase 'g', of course).

I have a question for you, Jody. Why don't you exploit the exploits of Christian/Catholic leaders of our country? I would love to see an expose on Pat Buchanan and his hypocritical schpeel (I have no idea how to spell that word!!) or Pat Robertson, for that matter.

Take care, and Happy Holidays!

 
At 12/16/2005 12:05 PM, Blogger jody said...

Why don't you exploit the exploits of Christian/Catholic leaders of our country?

Simply because these guys aren't saying they are God, even if most of them are thinking it.

 
At 12/16/2005 12:30 PM, Blogger facedog said...

Lots of the gurus you highlight don't say they are God. I think
Anonymouse is right, you should spotlight some of the Christians who use their platforms to wreak havoc. Same with the Islamic clerics who inspire their followers to kill in the name of God. These guys are fair targets, not just the Hindus.

 
At 12/16/2005 12:41 PM, Blogger jody said...

Lots of the gurus you highlight don't say they are God.

Which ones are those? A guru doesn't have to say they are God to be thought of as God. Amma doesn't call herself God, but she sits on the stage while her swamis do.

Guruphiliac exists to disabuse people of the idea that some folks are more God than others. We are either all God equally, or none of us are.

Christian and Muslim leaders may claim to be speaking to God or for God, but they usually don't claim to be God, nor do their followers make the claim for them. This is why they are not treated on the blog.

 
At 12/16/2005 1:18 PM, Blogger Antarananda said...

disabuse people of the idea that some folks are more God than others. We are either all God equally, or none of us are.

What a magnanimous gesture. Trying to rescue us from the clutches of evil. I think it is fair to say that the overwhelming majority of "disciples/followers" of most of the gurus you denigrate are very familiar with the fundamental premise of Sanatan Dharma, that the same divinity exists in all of us. The more erudite are probably even familiar with the Vedic Mahavakyas, including Sarvam khalvidam Brahma and Ayam Atma Brahma, or at the very least Tattvam Asi.

Only because the disciples misguidedly choose to elevate their guru (out of their own love, gratitude and respect, not any ulterior motives) on a pedestal doesn't automatically make the guru a scam artist. Despite all that fawning, and though it might be tolerated, allowed or yes, even encouraged, the guru, in most cases, is still the agent of much positive growth and realization in those who can sift the "good" and leave alone the "bad".

You tend to dump all gurus in the same basket. There are some with well documented instances abuse of power, but those gurus are far outnumbered by ones who are likely a lot less ego driven than you are in your desire to receive more hits on your blog.

I believe the only reason you attack Hindu gurus is because you can. Gosh, they are such a soft target..taking potshots is easy. Those non-violent Hindus...they don't do anything; only turn the other cheek.

 
At 12/16/2005 1:58 PM, Blogger Bhakti said...

I agree with AnonyMouse's contention that Christian/Catholic spritual leaders should be held up to the microscope. The only reason that most Christian and Catholic religious leaders DON'T say that they are God is simply because most preachers (that I've heard, read, or seen on TV) don't PREACH the fact that Jesus says we are ALL MADE OF GOD> i.e. "You are living in the Temple of God." "God is in everything he is and does."

It's the mere fact that the Hindu religion focuses on the fact that everything that exists is a manifestation of God that these Gurus you write about can be so easily attacked. Tat Twam Asi.

I do agree with you, as you already know, that many of these 'gurus' are perhaps not 'TRUE' gurus. However, the fact remains that these Eastern religious leaders aren't the only ones 'occluding' (as you would say) their followers minds with hocus pocus bull.

I agree with AnonyMouse: I would like to see you disect Pat Buchanan. He's thought of as this incredible religious leader by people on the far right; doesn't anyone remember his involvement in Watergate? Or, what about his "The fact that we're a Christian country makes us better than the rest" occlusion.

Since AnonyMouse is a consort of mine, I will have to thank him for opening up this line of discussion.

Cheers, Jody!
--Bhakti

 
At 12/16/2005 2:53 PM, Blogger jody said...

What a magnanimous gesture. Trying to rescue us from the clutches of evil.

It's more about rescuing us from the clutches of occluding ideology in spiritual culture.

The more erudite are probably even familiar with the Vedic Mahavakyas, including Sarvam khalvidam Brahma and Ayam Atma Brahma, or at the very least Tattvam Asi.

Tell that to a fawning devotee of Ammachi, or worse, to that fat bag of narcissism known as Kalki Bhagavan.

the guru, in most cases, is still the agent of much positive growth and realization in those who can sift the "good" and leave alone the "bad".

If you mean positive self-image, I can agree. At least until the guru tries to give a genital oil rub. Realization? Hardly! Most folks' heads are too full of occluding beliefs about their gurus' realization to ever see it in their own lives.

You tend to dump all gurus in the same basket.

You tend to not understand where I'm coming from. I have given positive reviews to Adyashanti and a few realizers I've met online. I've even said that you could do a lot worse than Amma, despite all the God- and miracle-mongering that occurs at her satsangs.

[bad] gurus are far outnumbered by ones who are likely a lot less ego driven than you are in your desire to receive more hits on your blog.

Those gurus aren't in the news and hence don't come up for the treatment.

Take a look at this blog. Do you see any ads? I get nothing for more traffic. I do desire eyeballs, but mostly to get the point across that what you believe about realization prevents realization. Since gurus are responsible for what their devotees believe about realization, they get put on the hotseat around here.

I believe the only reason you attack Hindu gurus is because you can.

My guru is a Hindu. I attack any guru who I feel contributes to occluding ideology. My guru happens to eschew all that mythological crap. Any Hindu guru who sees through the superstitious nonsense of Hinduism gets props from me. Unfortunately, there are far too few of those.

Those non-violent Hindus...they don't do anything; only turn the other cheek.

Tell that to the Sai Baba devotee who threatened me with an investigation by the NSA. It was an empty threat for sure, but it sure wasn't turning the other cheek.

 
At 12/16/2005 3:10 PM, Blogger facedog said...

Jody,

If you are honest you will have to admit that a number of the gurus you have blasted do not claim to be God nor do their followers claim this. Does Chopra or the Swami with the airport staff claim to be God? They may be corrupt in some other way but still don't claim to be God.

When these Christian preachers publically claim to speak to or for God, their followers elevate them to a level similar to that of Ammachi,relative to the belief system of their own religion.

The Hindu gurus have learned that to attract the kind of donations they need to build and maintain their mall sized institutions, they must claim to be a god. In the same way, the Christian preachers must claim to speak to or for God in order to raise the kind of cash they believe they need.

There are true Gurus in this world not making these claims. Their organizations are small and they attract a small following. Ammachi, the "Kalki Avatar", Sai Baba, etc. are the televagelists of the Hindu world, raking in most of the so called devotees and most of the donations.

Sai Baba is a child molester, not God. The "Kalki Avatar" is a bogus miracle maker, not God. Ammachi seems good to me, even if she has to lie about being God, to bring in the cash.

 
At 12/16/2005 8:45 PM, Blogger jody said...

They may be corrupt in some other way but still don't claim to be God.

You got me, facedog. I'll have to expand my target definition to include those who may not say they are God, yet still add to the constellation of occluding ideology out there.

Chopra has managed to make himself a brand in the spiritual marketplace. That makes him a target, as his success is based on his fame more than what he's actually saying.

And Narendra has got to be on a major ego trip to make such a fuss when airport security classed his staff as a potential weapon. He should have just agreed to have it stowed, or given it to someone to send after. For 500 people to riot over it is the height of lunacy, and anyone who allows that to happen is deserving of scrutiny.

When these Christian preachers publically claim to speak to or for God, their followers elevate them to a level similar to that of Ammachi,relative to the belief system of their own religion.

I think there is a distinct difference between believing someone is speaking for God and believing that someone is God. This makes Ammachi and the Hindu avataratti something different than a Robertson or a Farwell. Those guys are much more political, rather than magic because of their connection to divinity.

There are true Gurus in this world not making these claims.

Yes, and we need to hear more from them. If you know of any, let me know.

Ammachi seems good to me, even if she has to lie about being God, to bring in the cash.

I kind of like her, too. But that's not going to stop me from voicing my concerns about the implicit ideology of her satsang.

If she'd just tell the swamis to can the mongering, it would be so much more harmonious to the truth of our being, that we're just as much as God as she is, that we all bring just as much divinity to the table as she does.

 
At 12/17/2005 2:28 PM, Blogger martin said...

hey folks! if you don't like what our good friend Jody is doing with this blog, then go somewhere else.

Keep up the good work Jody.

 
At 12/17/2005 3:26 PM, Blogger Yeshi said...

who is your guru?

 
At 12/17/2005 10:32 PM, Blogger jody said...

hey folks! if you don't like what our good friend Jody is doing with this blog, then go somewhere else.

Hey Martin.

Thanks for the ups, but I really don't mind contending with folks on these issues. It helps to hone my critique, and I often end up learning a lot from the people I'm debating with.

 
At 12/17/2005 10:34 PM, Blogger jody said...

who is your guru?

I was initiated by a swami of the Ramakrishna Math.

 
At 12/18/2005 3:20 PM, Blogger facedog said...

Hi Jody,

I’m sure you understand that I do not feel at all adversarial with you about your blog. Understanding the pitfalls of the path is important and you are providing a service. Most, perhaps all of the so called gurus that you criticize have made a mess of the guru/disciple tradition. Some have made grandiose promises, lied about their own status and ability to help others, robbed and raped their spiritual children. Really the only time I have felt hesitation is when you seemed, to me, to poo poo that young Nepalese boy who may be doing deep meditation, based on what others were doing around him to profit by his efforts.

We must have had similar experiences. I began as a TM person, the only game in town in 1971, except the Hare Krishnas. I deeply loved and believed in Maharishi and was confident in his words, as passed on by other believers, that I would be enlightened in 3-7 years. The experiences I had were very profound for me. I did discover there was far more to my being than I had known before. But the beliefs kept piling up: quick enlightenment, world peace, siddhis-for the benefit of mankind, perfect health, etc. I left after not being able to accept any more lies into my heart, and because a caste system had been set up within his movement of haves and have nots. I was definitely a have not and could not afford to attend Maharishi’s programs. Still, I must admit that Maharishi always said from the beginning that he wasn’t anybody’s guru. I was so desperate to live a story book version of “truth” that I deceived myself, ultimately. A friend told me that once he had literally crawled under a table to get close enough to Maharishi to ask to serve him. Maharishi pointed to all the young people around the room and said, “There are so many already and they’re all just fooling themselves.”

Next I met Sant Keshavadas, now passed away. He was a bhakti and his presence would put me into such a deep state I could not speak. When he sang, I would go to heaven, literally. He inspired me tremendously, but I always felt a nagging lack of trust. Sure enough, he was having sex with every woman he could get his hands on. His wife was aware of this and kept everything hushed up. Now she is the guru of what remains of his mission.

After meeting several other saints that I admire, such as Ammachi and Shree Maa, I did finally find a trustworthy Guru, now passed away, whose name I won’t mention, because as enlightened as anyone may be, that Guru remains a human being, with “faults”. My Guru did not call himself God, said that God was his Guru, but some who want to live inside a storybook, did and do suggest that he was this or that avatar or god. They do this for their own benefit, to elevate themselves in their own minds, but since the Guru did not get up on a stage and say, “Once and for all, I am not God!”, that might be reason for some to blame him. What he did say was that Truth could only be discovered within us, not given by another. He gave a technique of meditation that helps the mind stand still and he gave inspiration by his presence. The rest depends on our dedication, patience, and our own innate ability to settle into the awareness of what we are.

There are very few people my age who have seriously tried to follow a spiritual path, be it Eastern, Christian, or another, who have not been hurt by one teacher or another. Some have been hurt deeply. In my case the blows were to my ego, which ultimately helped me. So now I am able to feel some gratitude to those teachers, even though my so called faith was misplaced. I have also been helped by Gurus that others have felt hurt by. As you say, it is good not to beliefs the focus of the search for Truth. Teachers who increase these kinds of imaginations do a disservice to their students, since the goal is to not be bound by the mind. We have to grow up and be responsible for our own development. People who need Ammachi or anyone else to be God, are consciously fooling themselves. They are looking for security or glamor, not the Truth.

Thanks for what you are doing. Keep it up.

 
At 12/19/2005 10:47 AM, Blogger jody said...

Next I met Sant Keshavadas, now passed away. He was a bhakti and his presence would put me into such a deep state I could not speak. When he sang, I would go to heaven, literally. He inspired me tremendously, but I always felt a nagging lack of trust. Sure enough, he was having sex with every woman he could get his hands on. His wife was aware of this and kept everything hushed up. Now she is the guru of what remains of his mission.

I used to attend Keshavadas satsangs in Oakland. He was the guru of a very good friend of mine, who unfortunately succumbed to mental illness. Keshavadas seemed like a good enough guy, although we didn't have much personal interaction together. I'm not surprised he couldn't keep it in his pants. If my friend was aware of this, he never disclosed it to me.

People who need Ammachi or anyone else to be God, are consciously fooling themselves. They are looking for security or glamor, not the Truth.

Very well put. I'd say they are looking to keep sucking on Mommy's tit. It's self-acceptance and positive mirroring that they're looking for. They want their egos to be strengthened, not dissolved.

Thanks for what you are doing. Keep it up.

Thanks, facedog. I appreciate being challenged in what I'm saying. It hones the message more than anything else.

 
At 12/19/2005 11:11 AM, Blogger repo said...

Your contention that you only post against Hindu gurus because they are the only ones who claim to be God is BS. People already mentioned Chopra not claiming any such thing, and there are many Christian preachers who have made themselves a brand -- e.g. Benny Hinn.
While Ammachi may claim to be God, she also says that her devotees are God! And her method of worshiping her God (the 'devotees') is to spend hours hugging them and listening to them.

Perhaps the real reason is that your pet peeve is with Hindu Gurus, and you don't really care about the others. It is your area of familiarity (expertise?). I don't blame you, but let us get the real reason.

 
At 12/19/2005 11:25 AM, Blogger jody said...

Your contention that you only post against Hindu gurus because they are the only ones who claim to be God is BS.

I'll repeat what I said earlier in this thread:

My guru is a Hindu. I attack any guru who I feel contributes to occluding ideology. My guru happens to eschew all that mythological crap. Any Hindu guru who sees through the superstitious nonsense of Hinduism gets props from me. Unfortunately, there are far too few of those.

I'm coming from the perspective of tantric shaktism and Advaita Vedanta, so while I may know a bit more about gurus coming from Hinduism, I critique any guru who either claims to be God, or more divine, or in possession of magic powers, or contributes to occluding ideology about self-realization.

While Ammachi may claim to be God, she also says that her devotees are God! And her method of worshiping her God (the 'devotees') is to spend hours hugging them and listening to them.

Then she should have them come up on stage and have the arati performed in front of the devotees. If she really, truly eschewed any special status for herself, she wouldn't allow herself to be worshipped at all. She's enjoying the ride, just like the rest of the big time gurus.

 
At 12/19/2005 12:27 PM, Blogger facedog said...

Jody said:

I used to attend Keshavadas satsangs in Oakland. He was the guru of a very good friend of mine, who unfortunately succumbed to mental illness. Keshavadas seemed like a good enough guy, although we didn't have much personal interaction together. I'm not surprised he couldn't keep it in his pants. If my friend was aware of this, he never disclosed it to me.

.......................

I knew Santji very well for more than a decade before I found out. He came to my home a number of times to do programs. The fact, for me, remains that he really was “good”. I saw Sant Keshavadas in many situations where he treated people with such kindness, myself included. He gave and gave, traveled endlessly to inspire people. His devotion to God was deep and powerful. Still, from my own perspective, he fell. What remains for me of what he gave are sweet memories, a slight residue of anger, and an alertness that on the way to Truth, I have to be very careful, not trust blindly, really use discrimination about the teacher’s motivations and my own. When someone is looking to get fooled, the right teacher will come for that purpose.

By the way, I think you are going easy on Rajneesh. You blame the Swami because his devotees rampaged in the airport over a symbolic staff, but don't mention that Rajneesh's devotees poisoned a whole town, and plotted to murder a Senator. There were allegations of forced abortions and other questionable deaths, as well. Why so easy on him?

 
At 12/19/2005 2:38 PM, Blogger jody said...

By the way, I think you are going easy on Rajneesh. You blame the Swami because his devotees rampaged in the airport over a symbolic staff, but don't mention that Rajneesh's devotees poisoned a whole town, and plotted to murder a Senator. There were allegations of forced abortions and other questionable deaths, as well. Why so easy on him?

Narendra had a chance to quell the whole situation right from the start. All he had to do was let go of his pacifier... er, I mean, staff.

I doubt that Osho knew much of anything about his devotees' nefarious doings. He was just too out of it at that time, plus he had that borderline monster Sheela running the show. She's the one to blame for the Oregon fiasco.

I'm not saying Osho wasn't ultimately responsible, but I want to honor his commitment to the experiment in transgressive tantra that he attempted. Narendra seems to be working the same old schtick they all do in India. He appears to get off on being the big man, and for that he needs to be cut down a bit.

 
At 12/19/2005 6:36 PM, Blogger facedog said...

Jody said:

I doubt that Osho knew much of anything about his devotees' nefarious doings. He was just too out of it at that time.

..........................

I still say you are being easy on Rajneesh. You have said some hard things about Maharishi. He's probably 90 years old. Do you think he is more involved with his mission than Rajneesh was nearly 20 years ago? Could be that Maharishi's students are responsible for all the strange activities over the last few years. Why not honor Maharishi for what he attempted with all his heart to do, spread the knowledge of absolute pure consciousness around the world and give a technology to experience it to many millions of people. He tried hard to restore balance to the world and did some good in the attempt. Then at some point, he got overwhelmed. Before he fell, he was running as fast as he could.

Why not honor that?

 
At 12/19/2005 7:22 PM, Blogger Antarananda said...

Facedog, very well said. You and I share fundamentally the same attitude about this. Like millions of people in the present age, I started my journey into study of consciousness through learning TM in 1992. I was just getting my feet wet then, at age 18, but some past samskaras made a lifelong change in my life on that day. It led to the inner growth that ended in me finding my own SatGuru very recently. I too have the same attitude as you do, not only towards Maharishi and the TM movment, but also some Gurus I might not know much about. Some of these Gurus, including Maharishi, Ammachi, Mother Meera, to name some that jody has mentioned are fundamentally impacting transformation of consciousness on the planet on a huge scale. I stop my own judgements only because it acts as a block in my own realization (occlusion of one sort, to use jody's words). I try and be part of the tremendous wave of dharma that is sweeping the earth now, and leave the negativity behind me. I have exchanged emails with jody in the past, and it was a very polite, civil discussion. I know exactly where he is coming from, but ironically, many of the "vegetable-brained servant mentality type devotees" that he means as targets of his blog won't "get" where jody's coming from.

 
At 12/19/2005 8:00 PM, Blogger jody said...

I still say you are being easy on Rajneesh. You have said some hard things about Maharishi.

Between the two, I prefer the former. Osho didn't start a spiritual pyramid scheme, he simply tried whatever he thought might work to move people toward realization. The Maharishi took a very basic and very old meditation technique, dressed it up in a bunch of pr fluff and pseudoscience, and sold it as a solution to all problems individual and global. And he made dumptrucks full of money with it.

Could be that Maharishi's students are responsible for all the strange activities over the last few years.

When he recently "withdrew" his protection from England, I figured he was losing it, but I didn't imagine that control had been taken from him. If you have any documents to back the assertion, please share them with us.

He tried hard to restore balance to the world and did some good in the attempt.

I'm quite sure all gurus start out with good intentions. But look at how obscenely grandiose the Maharishi's vision is. He thinks he's going to be the genesis of the next system of world government. And who's to say that the world was not in balance before the Maharishi thought he could manipulate it. It may not have been the way he thought it should be, but that doesn't mean it's "out of balance," that bugaboo of the spiritual set to describe pretty much anything that doesn't fit into their quaint ideas about "oneness."

I understand you have an association with TM. I hope you know I'm not trying to antagonize you, but for as much good as the Maharishi may have done, I still find Osho's experimental approach to have been more creative and innovative, and not mired in the commerciality that the Maharishi seems to have had a flair for.

 
At 12/19/2005 8:27 PM, Blogger jody said...

Some of these Gurus, including Maharishi, Ammachi, Mother Meera, to name some that jody has mentioned are fundamentally impacting transformation of consciousness on the planet on a huge scale.

That's a pipe dream, antarananda. People are helped for sure, but only up to a point. Real transformation of consciousness requires pain, in my opinion. Trying to keep the world an artificial bliss mart does not encourage any change at all.

I stop my own judgements only because it acts as a block in my own realization (occlusion of one sort, to use jody's words).

Intellectual activity does not occlude. That's normal head noise. It's ideas about what realization is like as an experience. Expectations about realization form the lionshare of impediment to it's coming to light in a life, in my opinion.

targets of his blog won't "get" where jody's coming from.

My "targets" are anyone who would like to be amused by my opinions about gurudom. Or outraged, I guess. I'd like to make clear the occluding effects of ideas about realization in an entertaining and informative way, and to suggest that gurus brought to earth are much more valuable as bringers of truth than the high and mighty avataratti of the world today.

Hey... that's sounding almost as grandiose as the Maharishi. But unlike him, I don't have any delusions about the possibility of actual success.

 
At 12/20/2005 7:48 AM, Blogger repo said...

Jody will bash whoever he doesn't like, and defend others whom he does. What they actually do or not is unimportant. Never mind that Rajneesh collected dozens of fancy cars, tried immigration fraud, and his highest leaders were involved in criminal activity -- he was trying to do something worthwhile, according to Jody. People of course worshipped him, too ('Bhagavan' Rajneesh, remember?). But Jody doesn't like Maharshi, and is irritated by Ammachi, and so on for other gurus. He claims to be using some semi-objective criteria, but in reality it is just "My guru is fine, yours isn't". But he doesn't have the balls to just say it, because then of course, there would be nothing more to say.

 
At 12/20/2005 7:58 AM, Blogger jody said...

But he doesn't have the balls to just say it, because then of course, there would be nothing more to say.

Imagine that! I've got my own opinions about these things! What is this world coming to!

 
At 12/20/2005 9:21 AM, Blogger repo said...

Nothing wrong with having an opinion, or stating it. Even an opinion based on pure feelings, as is inevitable when you go to a guru or fall in love. But it is as absurd to criticise other gurus using attempts at objectivity (objectivity that Jody has certainly not achieved) as it would be to criticize another man's wife's suitability (as a wife) based on her resume.

 
At 12/20/2005 9:27 AM, Blogger jody said...

(objectivity that Jody has certainly not achieved)

And there is an outstanding example of an occluding idea, that self-realization is an achievement that a person acquires, rather than it being an understanding that is recognized as the ongoing basis of identity in a life.

While it's entirely understandable that you can't fathom such an understanding having been found in my life, the fact is that you are no more capable of making the determination than you say I am.

 
At 12/20/2005 12:57 PM, Blogger repo said...

'achieved objectivity' was a loose term -- I did not mean it as some sort of self-realization that you have or have not 'achieved'.
I meant to say only that I certainly don't see objective arguments coming from you in your posts.

 
At 12/20/2005 2:36 PM, Blogger jody said...

I meant to say only that I certainly don't see objective arguments coming from you in your posts.

I'm not claiming to be objective, mostly because I have an objective, to identity and point out those ideas which I find to be occluding of self-realization. The big time gurus I target flood their satsangs with this occlusion, hence my commentaries against them.

Not that I'm trying to chase you away from here, but if you are looking for an objective appraisal of gurus, you should probably look elsewhere.

 
At 12/20/2005 3:17 PM, Blogger goblinbox said...

..Chopra's calling himself a guru these days? Priceless.

 
At 12/20/2005 4:01 PM, Blogger P_Orridge said...

Doesn't anyone get it?

Jody's occluding ideology is that he claims a non-dualistic posture to cover his basic modus operandi of "bitch 'n' bait".

Jody would be happy bitching and bating on most any subject. But you can sure get an instant rise out of guru followers.

As for Rajneesh and certain other cult groups, Jody won't touch them as it leads to odious opprobrium from his "net-friends".

Guru-hating is something for which Jody misguidedly believes there is some merit.

 
At 12/20/2005 4:15 PM, Blogger jody said...

Doesn't anyone get it?

You obviously don't.

Jody's occluding ideology is that he claims a non-dualistic posture to cover his basic modus operandi of "bitch 'n' bait".

That indicates the occlusion of your understanding of where I'm coming from.

Jody would be happy bitching and bating on most any subject. But you can sure get an instant rise out of guru followers.

So. Not. True.

It's only gurus who poison their devotees' minds with bullshit about self-realization that I'm after. I admit to enjoying the hell out of telling folks about it, but there's not much else I feel the need to bitch about.

As for Rajneesh and certain other cult groups, Jody won't touch them as it leads to odious opprobrium from his "net-friends".

Er..., didn't I just express my opinion about Osho? Misguided, yet refreshingly experimental, in case you didn't catch it the first time.

The only "net-friend" I have who followed Osho is completely ok when Osho gets trashed on his message board. That would be Sarlo of GuruRatings. As for my other "net-friends", none of them has any allegiance to any big time guru, at all.

Guru-hating is something for which Jody misguidedly believes there is some merit.

Your opinion, sadly lacking in understanding, is noted.

 
At 12/20/2005 9:32 PM, Blogger Bhakti said...

As for my other "net-friends", none of them has any allegiance to any big time guru, at all.

Last time I checked I was a devotee of Gurumayi Chidvilasananda...and last time I corresponded with you I thought, from your kind remarks, that we were 'friends'.

I know the former is true...I guess I was mistaken on the latter.

 
At 12/20/2005 10:19 PM, Blogger jody said...

last time I corresponded with you I thought, from your kind remarks, that we were 'friends'.

I know the former is true...I guess I was mistaken on the latter.


You've got to be kidding, right?

Of course you're my friend, Bhakti. And we are friends because of the net. But I was thinking of another group of friends, my email list friends (and opponents) from GuruRatings.

 
At 12/21/2005 4:37 AM, Blogger Bhakti said...

;)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home