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.
posted by guruphiliac @ 10:25 PM
24 Comments:
I'm sure Osho would have done a bang-up job had he been alive... ;^)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
who is your guru?
I was initiated by a swami of the Ramakrishna Math.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
(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.
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.
..Chopra's calling himself a guru these days? Priceless.
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.
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.
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.
;)
Post a Comment
<< Home