Muktananda Gets Whitewashed For 100th
File under: Gurubusting and Hands Where They Don't Belong
We've got a few issues here at Guruphiliac HQ, as you are all well aware. Along with our well-documented problems regarding superstition and ideas about self-realization
Today we found this article commemorating the 100th anniversary of Baba Swami Muktananda's birth. He was the founder of Siddha Yoga, which was made even more famous by the efforts of one of his appointed successors, Gurumayi Chidvilasananda, whose omission in this piece speaks loud and clear.
Also omitted is any mention of the many scandals which spun around the Baba during and after his life. Included in these are whispers of the Baba getting very cozy with the ladies, including a few young ones.
The article makes a perfect example of what hagiography is – biography minus the dirt. Like it or not, many, although certainly not all gurus, have a bit of dirt on them. But since the idea of sainthood is connected to the idea of purity, saint-making involves indifference to the tales of woe and misconduct that float around many a dead and living guru's satsangs.
There is a missed opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the guru after they get covered in a couple coats of sainthood. For instance, Muktananda stepped over the line for some sort of reason. Wouldn't it be more instructive to know why? Was he beset by lust, or did he have a sincere desire to enact some kind of tantric magic with those ladies. Perhaps his guru, Nityananda, gave him the instruction in how to accomplish the rite.
Folks are quick to jump to the conclusion that sexual misconduct is not possible for a realized soul. So, they either refuse to believe the stories, or they refuse to believe in the accused guru's enlightenment.
Where's the grey? Mostly in the little stories that fly around the various satsangs "explaining" or otherwise rationalizing the offensive behavior. But don't count on finding out about it in a press release or the life stories of the revered figure as they are recounted countlessly by the world's herd of guru-bhakta sheep.
As a result, more and more coats of sainthood go up, essentially bleaching the humanity right out what was once a dynamic and complicated creature, just like everyone else. That's what a wayward guru teaches, that even the freaks and disturbed can come to know the truth that shines in all.
You only have to pull away the curtain of PR spin and look behind the screen of the cultivated act to see that many of the whitewashed deities known as saints have all the "color" the rest of us have, and sometimes quite a bit more. We say this color is essential to a true understanding of a guru's life and message, and it's something we strive to provide for our lovely readers as much as we can muster.
Tips help us tremendously, so please join in the fun and let us know just how human your guru doesn't want us to know s/he really is.
Labels: Gurubusting, Hands Where They Don't Belong
posted by guruphiliac @ 11:31 AM
61 Comments:
Muktananda's sex life calls into question his qualification as a role model or leader for people practicing a meditative discipline.
Sure, a meditation teacher has a right to a personal sex life, but there are several reasons to scrutinize this in Muktananda's case. In Muktananda's teachings, he strongly advocated celibacy, so there's the issue of hypocrisy. Also, it's a stretch to call his couplings "consentual," not just because so many of his multitude of partners were young teenagers, but because he presented himself to them as God. It's not like the sex contact was a mutual decision, but rather the guru telling the girls to strip so he could have his way.
Apologists have thrown around the word "Tantra," as if this could somehow justify coercion. How does the label of "Tantra" change the matter? If you knock off a bank and call it "Tantra," does that make it any less criminal?
We may also note that there's no evidence Nityananda (whom Muktananda claimed as his guru in order to gain legitimacy) actually declared Muktananda his heir in any sense.
Since Muktananda and his organization had some success in attracting followers, it seems a simple matter that current-day gurus have a stake in whitewashing the truth. A number of gurus seek to enhance their own status and fame by claiming Muktananda's lineage, so tweaking history to glorify Muktananda (with the 100 year celebration and such) is in their interests.
Finally, since Muktananda offered no teachings that are substantially better than hundreds of other meditation teachers, there's no "plus side" to balance against his sleeziness.
Stuart
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/socalled.htm
the major fallacy being that "Nityananda gave shaktipat "deeksha" (there's that word again) thus 'annointing muktananda his successor'". Well, maybe that's what's causing the "lineage confusion" lol?? since Nityananda gave "shaktipat deeeeksha" to, among others, Hilda Charlton, Shaligramma Swami, several swamis who retired to the South Indian ashram and other devotees. Poor Nityananda, the creeps who crawl out of the woodwork claiming him as their "guru"...it's almost as bad as Ramana. I guess if you find an undisputed master, you hitch your star to his lungi and catch a ride. The anniversary tour will be going to Nit. Jr.'s ashram in Walden, NY (but not, as far as I know up to Fallsburg to gurumayi's ashram)...since the Mahamandaleshwar arranged the tour, I guess that's only fair???
Peeeeuuuuuuw! stink city!
anon.
Guess it should have been a red flag when the guy in his autobiography talks about his dick being long enough to curl up and enter his belly button!
I remember believing I could get a dick like than when I became enlightened like the Muk. Are you saying that's superstition,Jody?
Are you saying that's superstition, Jody?
I think that falls under the header "in your wildest dreams," Chuck.
A reader sends additional information:
Dear Jody:
I don't yet have a Google account so here's some more stuff. The author, Sarah Caldwell, was an early member of Muktananda's ashram. She was never part of the inner circle, something she regretted at the time.
http://tinyurl.com/2r5xy5
After Muktananda's death, Caldwell learned Sanskrit and studied Hinduism at the academic level, which enabled her to fill in gaps and gain an outside perspective on both Muktananda and his cultural background--and Kashmiri Shaivite tantrism. Caldwell described how M and his inner circle secretly practiced tantra while M publicly presented himself to the outside circle and the larger world as merely a teacher of Hatha yoga. Caldwell learned that this kind of secrecy was standard practice for tantric pratitioners in India. She suspected that this secrecy would inevitably lead to trouble in America.
Caldwell also makes clear that the girls who were selected by Muktananda were youngsters and not mature, psychologically or spiritually, and would not have been capable of functioning as tantric practitioners in the full sense. (It is interesting to read Agehananda Bharati's biography, the Ochre Robe, where he has a description of a brilliant and powerful woman named Siddimata whom he met at the Kumbmela of 1954. She was a tantric adept, a scholar, and had earned the awed respect of all the monks and and gurus who knew her. She was not someone who could have been bossed around--and was not at all like the young and easily dominated women whom Muktananda selected as a his 'consorts.' )
Tellingly, Caldwell noted that part of what made it hard for her to recognize the patterns of secrecy perpetrated by Muktananda was that she herself had grown up in a secret ridden family and had learned as a child to cultivate selective blind spots. This kept her from recognizing that features of Siddha yoga re-enacted the secrecy dynamics within her family of origin.
It is a haunting read, because the author simultaneously achieved deep insight into the patterns of secrecy that pervaded Muktananda's ashram and that originated with him. At the same time, by her own admission, she remained haunted by the bliss and intensity of it all. It appears that these sorts of high energy shakti situations are like amphetamine--they give a rush that is so intense that basic human life seems inferior.
Its enough to make one wonder whether the bliss that is generated by shaktipat is similar to that produced by speed or cocaine--that perhaps it gives surges of energy, but those surges of bliss are produced by depleting our vitality elsewhere, a trade off that is apt to be addictive.
Jody, I whole heartedly agree with you and would like to analyze this situation further.
The role of the "saint" and the role of the traditional Freudian therapist are not that different. Freud felt that the therapist had to be seen as therapeutically neutral, a blank slate, on whom the patient could then project his desires, and fears and hopes - the so called tranference reaction.
The analysis of this transference reaction provided a great deal of information about the patient - his perception of the world, his early attachment problems, and so on.
There are two arguments against this approach.
One, it is near impossible to be completely neutral. One will, by the very nature of being human, have some reaction however small. And now, the therapist, in order to cover the reaction, will resort to some artifice. And this artifice, itself, is a reaction, a non-neutral stance, as it were.
Secondly, even if neutrality were possible, such a neutrality is an inhuman stance, and therefore does not reflect reality as experienced by the client or the patient, outside therapy - what human, under normal circumstances, would not react, when you tell him about the horrendous abuse or trauma you suffered.
"I was shot at , and beaten and left for the dead," and the Freudian analyst would not even blink. He would, if he said anything at all, "And how did that make you feel?"
As you probably know, for the most part the client is instructed to speak whatever comes to their mind, to free associate.
So, the average human, in other contexts, react to stories of another person's misery - either they genuinely feel bad, or they feel happy (some schadenfreude) , but whatever their internal reaction, they usually feel obliged to voice a few words of sympathy.
In everyday life then, a terrible revelation would evoke a reaction - the external usually one of sympathy, and the internal one, variable.
The Freudian approach then, is on the one hand the Freudian approach is dehumanizing.
The humanistic psycholgoists though, came along as said that it was important to have an uncoditionatl positive regard for the client. To treat the patient with compassion and empathy.
These were noble ideals. But that is what they are - ideals. Because humans being what we are, cannot feel continuous unconditional positive regard. It is impossible. It is a myth. It is an act. To adapt Lincolns famous saying you can have unconditional regard for some of the people some of the time..etc
So you cannot nobody can, meet that "gold standard" of feeling unconditional compassion and regard for all of the people all of the time. You can come close to 100% but you cannot, until you leave your physical body, achieve the complete state of immersion. It is incompatible with life, mainly because, biologically, socially, metaphysically, and experientially, it is incompatible to have both - in advaita terms, you will attain mahasamadhi, in biological terms, your body will die and your brain - both the instinctive part of the brain as well as the thinking rational part. The only thing alive at that time will be the only thing that was alive to begin with - the unbroken pure consciousness.
Would love to say more, but I dont want to take up much more space...
Would love to say more, but I dont want to take up much more space...
Hey Anand. The space here is free, take as much as you'd like. The real beef in this blog is comments like these, so you are encouraged to continue to add the value that folks find here.
I think what you are saying points to the need for gurus to stay out of the therapy business, unless they are actually qualified to do both. Here in the States, and probably in India as well, folks approach gurus for the emotional support that would be better coming from a therapist. It's usually about gaining some kind of self-acceptance, which is an ego-building exercise, rather than self-realization, which requires some kind of conscious ego-deconstruction.
Folks mistakenly assume that self-acceptance will come after ego-dissolution, but as Maslow has made us aware, there's a ladder of need that must be climbed before the system will allow itself to dissolve in its containing truth.
Thus, for most folks a good therapist is first on the list. Once self-image has been stabilized, only then can a guru do what they're supposed to, which is to show that stabilized person that they are really no person at all, not the super person most gurus tell folks they are in the attempt to stroke their egos into making donations, etc.
Jody said:
Muktananda stepped over the line for some sort of reason. Wouldn't it be more instructive to know why? Was he beset by lust, or did he have a sincere desire to enact some kind of tantric magic with those ladies.
........No one will ever know why he stepped over the line. It can only be speculation.
anonymous said:
"the major fallacy being that "Nityananda gave shaktipat "deeksha" (there's that word again) thus 'annointing muktananda his successor'". Well, maybe that's what's causing the "lineage confusion" lol?? since Nityananda gave "shaktipat deeeeksha" to, among others, Hilda Charlton, Shaligramma Swami, several swamis who retired to the South Indian ashram and other devotees. Poor Nityananda, the creeps who crawl out of the woodwork claiming him as their "guru"...
........Since a guru like Nityananda gave shaktipat to so many I don't think the successor would be determined by who he gave it to but by who was actually able to make use of it.
"Caldwell described how M and his inner circle secretly practiced tantra while M publicly presented himself to the outside circle and the larger world as merely a teacher of Hatha yoga. Caldwell learned that this kind of secrecy was standard practice for tantric pratitioners in India. She suspected that this secrecy would inevitably lead to trouble in America."
........This is a prime example of the confusion around gurus having to do simply with cultural differences. Secrecy around Tantric practice is quite normal and understandable in one culture yet in another is taboo, or suspicious becuase
of cultural conditioning. The author was quite right suspecting trouble with this in the west.
"He was the founder of Siddha Yoga, which was made even more famous by the efforts of one of his appointed successors, Gurumayi Chidvilasananda, whose omission in this piece speaks loud and clear."
........It speaks clearly of the rift between Nit Jr.
and his sis Chid. There is no mention of him in anything written by her org either.
"Also omitted is any mention of the many scandals which spun around the Baba during and after his life. Included in these are whispers of the Baba getting very cozy with the ladies, including a few young ones."
.........Why should there be mention of it?. It's not relevent.
"But since the idea of sainthood is connected to the idea of purity, saint-making involves indifference to the tales of woe and misconduct that float around many a dead and living guru's satsangs."
.......Perhaps this is one of the confusions, where gurus are confused with saints and expect the same 'purity'.
"Folks are quick to jump to the conclusion that sexual misconduct is not possible for a realized soul."
....That's a bit of a stretch. On the otherhand what is sexual misconduct? It's nothing more than going against the prevelent social conditioning.
There is no essential, or objective right or wrong to define sexual misconduct, it is solely based on conditioning /programming. If it involves minors, it may actualy be illegal, but so what?
> So you cannot nobody can, meet
> that "gold standard" of feeling
> unconditional compassion and
> regard for all of the people all
> of the time.
I question this "gold standard." The "gold standard" that I use is to consider the situation right in front of me just now, and ask if there's anything I can do to help.
Whether or not I feel compassion is irrelevent. If I see someone suffering and feel no compassion whatsoever, I can still try to help them.
Also, "all of the people all of the time" doesn't matter. All that matters are the people I can do something for right now. If, in this moment, I screw things up completely, and cause mountains of suffering for everyone, that doesn't change a thing, because the next moment, my job will be the same, what can I do to help just now?
Matthew said...
> This is a prime example of the
> confusion around gurus having to
> do simply with cultural
> differences.
There was extreme coersion involved in many of Muktananda's "incidents." It's not that he and these young girls mutually decided to get sexual. It's not like Muktananda offered the opportunity the kids, making clear it was their decision. Rather, he put himself in the ultimate authority role, and then used that authority to tell these girls what to do.
Is this really a cultural issues? If indeed there are cultures in India that celebrate such behavior, it doesn't justify it in the least.
> No one will ever know why he
> stepped over the line. It can
> only be speculation.
True enough, but Muktananda stepping over the line is a tiny part of the story. The rest is that the people who surrounded him, followed him, worshipped him, found out about it, and many of us rationalized his behavior. And that is something that we can understand a bit, not mere speculation.
In my own case, it took a while for me to "process" the news about Muk when I heard it. The difficulty, I think, had a lot to do with all the good feelings and special experiences I'd gotten from meditating with Muk, and thinking that I was dependent on him as the source. Also, since so much of my life was tied up with Muk's belief-system and the community that adhered to it... that it was extremely difficult to realize there was such sleeziness at the core of what was so important to me.
I eventually realized that the true "core" was my own intentions and questioning, that I didn't need to feel dependent on a guru, or to whitewash everything he did as perfect. It just took a while to get there.
Stuart
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/socalled.htm
This kind of retrospective whitewashing is also taking place in relation to Chogyam Trungpa and Rajneesh.
In Raj's case, they call him Osho, so as to dissociate from Rajneesh, who is still remembered for liking fleets of Rolls Royces, expensive watches, girls, and the infamous attempt to influence a local election by dosing a salad bar with salmonella.
Caldwell discusses what she learned when she followed Muktananda's instructions and read Avingagupta's book.
According to Avingupta’s treatise, which was recommended by Muktananda, the ideal female consort for tantra has these characteristics:
‘..a woman who can personify (Shakti), has eyes rolling with intoxication, lips red, like the ripe fruit of Bimba, face with well knit eyebrows, eyes beautiful like those of a fawn in fear, charming smile, hair dark like a multitude of glittering black bees, eye-brows bent like the bow of cupid, complexion similar to that of melted gold, ears decked with ear-ornaments beautifully engraved’
..and goes on to describe every detail of this ideal woman’s body.
Note the phrase, ‘eyes beautiful like a fawn in fear.’ This is someone who is beautiful, emotional--but can can be easily dominated.
Women tantrics did not necessarily fit this complaint pattern.
Here is Agehananda Bharati’s description of the woman tantric master Siddhimata, whom he met at the Kumbmela in 1954. He later met her at a secret tantric center in Assam, where he was initiated. He is silent about the details, but one wonders whether this splendid and powerful woman was his teacher.
According to Bharati, the story on Siddhimata was that she was born into a princely household. She ran away from home at age 13, the night before she was to be married and avoided all efforts to find her. In the forest, she spent the following ten years, living with the animals. When she emerged, she was a guru in her own right. And she did NOT have ‘eyes beautiful like a fawns in fear’. She had long wild hair, a brilliant mind, and carried a three pronged spear.
‘She was about thirty five, though she looked younger, and of fair complexion; her buxom figure was draped in a deep red robe, with a leopard-skin around the upper portion. The nun’s hair hung loose and very black, it was mat and dry, but it gave the appearance that she had some trouble in preventing it from shining lustrously. It hung down to her waist, its lowest part showing beneath her leopard skin. She wore a huge, large bead rosary around her neck and held a crude, iron trident, the emblem of Shakti, the divine feminine primeval power, the dynamic of the universe…Siddhimata is known all over Northern India as one of the most learned and spiritually advanced women saints of the day.’ Bharati added, that despite this scary, wild appearance, Siddhimata was famed for her learning, her beauty and her spiritual powers.
Bharati was able to appreciate her scholastic attainments. He had received advanced training in both Sanskrit and textual studies, and was a tough judge in these matters. Siddhimata gave him a run for his money.
‘She chanted in perfect Vedic Sanskrit for at least five minutes..then she spoke for one hour and a half in a melodic but stressless voice. There was absolute silence, a think which I had never before encountered in pious meetings of this size. The strange thing..was this, it was unthinkable that the majority of the people understood what Siddhimata was talking about. For in the first place she used such a highly Sanskritized Hindi that even the schoolmasters of the place would find it hard to follow. And in addition her theme was well over the heads of all the laymen present…it was the place of discursive reasoning in ritualistic pursuits.’
Bharati, The Ochre Robe, pp 245—247.
It is telling that Mutkananda selected young, easily dominated women for his tantric partners. If he had really been a tantric guru, he would have trained these women until they reached the level of Siddhimata BEFORE taking them to bed. Had he done so, these girls would no longer have been girls. They would have been Muktananda’s equals, and free to decide for themselves whether to select him as their partner.
Stuart said:
"The rest is that the people who surrounded him, followed him, worshipped him, found out about it, and many of us rationalized his behavior. And that is something that we can understand a bit, not mere speculation."
...Yes, the why's and wherefores of
our own activity we can come to understand.
And need to.
It's not relevent.
True. Yet the sociocultural envelope of Vedic-based spiritual ideology in the West usually demands that gurus be chaste, or at the very least married if sexually active.
Perhaps this is one of the confusions, where gurus are confused with saints and expect the same 'purity'.
I'd have to agree.
what is sexual misconduct? It's nothing more than going against the prevelent social conditioning.
If Muktananda was enjoying the company of underage girls while in America, he broke the law, one of those social conditions you have to pay attention to here.
If it involves minors, it may actualy be illegal, but so what?
If you get busted, you'll know what.
jody said...
I think that falls under the header "in your wildest dreams," Chuck.
................
Guess I'll have to live with that, Jody. However according to a Hare Krishna book I read about the same time as MUk's bio, when the less than hefty package I have in the down there area is added to a few moles and other bodily marks, it appears I may very well be an incarnation of Lord Chaitanya. At least I have 3 out of 7 or 8 signs of his incarnation.
All I can say about Muk is that he is very lucky not to have tampered with my underaged daughter or neice. If he had, getting rope drug would have seemed like a fun date! A lot of noise was made about his great shakti powers, etc, but what is the end result? A couple of cults, a lot of money taken from unsuspecting fools and not much else except his good looking successor.
"If Muktananda was enjoying the company of underage girls while in America, he broke the law, one of those social conditions you have to pay attention to here."
.......Yes I agree. But I don't think that breaking the law, or going agaisnt the moral code of the country necessarily makes for a bogus guru.
I don't think that breaking the law, or going agaisnt the moral code of the country necessarily makes for a bogus guru.
Me neither. But it's still a decent criteria as to whether you'd want to invest yourself in one.
I heard someone say that one way to test if a sex-tantric guru is the real deal is that he or she would offer to make love to everyone, regardless of age, physical attractiveness, lack thereof, because that person would see everyone's true nature, regardless of external appearance.
So if you have an alleged tantric guru who only seeks out 'consorts' who are young, attractive, easily dominated, then its pretty clear the person is acting from ordinary human ego and personal preference, not from exalted, non-dualistic view.
One problem with tantra is that early on, powerful women like Siddhimata were marginalized and male gurus began taking control of the texts and of the rituals.
Gradually, the male gurus began introducing modifications to tantra that suited the conveninece of horndog ego, rather than actual spiriutal attainment. The list of qualifications described by Caldwell is for a tantric partner who would be young, beautiful and easily dominated in the relationship ('eyes beautiful like a fawn's in fear').
So, even when we try to look at the old Sanskrit texts as Caldwell did, to try and identify the traditional guidelines of tantra, to see whether someone like Muktananda perverted those traditions or not, we find that the traditions themselves, centuries back, were skewed to ensure that the power of tantra remained in male hands and that the women in the rituals were no longer the spiritual and intellectual equals of the male partitioner.
It would have been different if Abvinagupta had written a list of qualifications that praised the courage, steady gaze, resourcefulness, powerful memory of Siddhimata, along with all the charms of lovely hair, radiant face and shapely form.
In Abvinagupta's list, its the dark and frightened eyes of the partner that are listed as the qualifications, not the courageous and steady gaze of someone like Siddhimata.
So, in pondering whether a guru has deviated from tantric tradition, we have to ask whose interests are served by the tradition itsself.
Are both the men and women in the ritual brought to the same height of spiritual and intellectual attainment? If so, that tradition is nondual and does not favor one gender at the expense of the other.
If a tantric tradition is set up so that the men remain more socially, intellectually and spiritually powerful and the women partners who are selected are consistently young, pretty and easily dominated and then kept in that role, and if they have to do all this in secret, which robs them of social support, then this is not emancipatory--it just perpetuates the same social problems that we joined the ashram to escape from
If this is the result of a tradition, it doesnt matter if it is thousands of years old and has been genuinely transmitted--one group benefits at the expense of another group, and underneath all the exotic trappings, its no different than the worst stuff that goes on in secular society.
Muktananda was given veneration, adoration and support because he had promised something different form and better than this. Instead, he was stuck in greed, lust and delusion and caused his young partners to get stuck along with him.
It's not just the sex that's the problem. It is the secrecy. All the effort needed to conceal something like this is subtracted from spiritual practice.
Two, persons in a spiritual community will become very sensitized and pick up if something turbulent is in the atmosphere.
They may take this to mean that their own spiritual practice is inadquate, and blame themselves for something that is actually being done wrong and in secret, by the leader.
Worse, if they try to speak up and ask what's going on, they may be blamed for negative attitudes and shamed into silence, when they are actually picking up on something.
There's a difference between privacy and secrecy. Privacy protects boundaries and doesnt generate bad vibes for a group.
Secrecy drains energy and causes anxiety.
Another very bad thing about secrecy is that it generates an ugly status difference between those in on the secret and those excluded. Secrecy is all about power or the feeling of being powerful. It generates a class system.
At least in secular politics one can discuss this. If you try to talk about power and secrecy in spiritual communities, people hate it--this kind of clarity spoils the gooey mood.
Many times when we think we want spirituality what we really want, without admitting we want it, is a nice gooey mood that can only be maintained by willful naivete, by ignoring the bad effects of secrecy and unexamined power imabalances in spiritual communities.
I heard someone say that one way to test if a sex-tantric guru is the real deal is that he or she would offer to make love to everyone, regardless of age, physical attractiveness, lack thereof, because that person would see everyone's true nature, regardless of external appearance.
........Could be true if you don't limit making love to the physical sex act.
So if you have an alleged tantric guru who only seeks out 'consorts' who are young, attractive, easily dominated, then its pretty clear the person is acting from ordinary human ego and personal preference, not from exalted, non-dualistic view.
..........Well that would only be if you agreed with that "someone' who you heard say that.
Right off the bat there seems to be some confusion about Tantra. The physical sex aspect of Tantra is actually a very small part of Tantric practice. So to talk about Tantra as if Tantra is about sex and only sex is a mistake.
One problem with tantra is that early on, powerful women like Siddhimata were marginalized and male gurus began taking control of the texts and of the rituals.
........To some degree yes, but there are sects like the Bauls who have not done that, who have kept the essence of antra alive.
Are both the men and women in the ritual brought to the same height of spiritual and intellectual attainment? If so, that tradition is nondual and does not favor one gender at the expense of the other.
.........Favoring one gender or another has absolutely nothing to do with nonduality.
If a tantric tradition is set up so that the men remain more socially, intellectually and spiritually powerful and the women partners who are selected are consistently young, pretty and easily dominated and then kept in that role, and if they have to do all this in secret, which robs them of social support, then this is not emancipatory--it just perpetuates the same social problems that we joined the ashram to escape from
...........social and intellectual standing have zero relation to spiritual growth.
If this is the result of a tradition, it doesnt matter if it is thousands of years old and has been genuinely transmitted--one group benefits at the expense of another group, and underneath all the exotic trappings, its no different than the worst stuff that goes on in secular society.
..........You seem to be confusing the workings of society with the spiritual path. "Equality" in society has nothing to do with Tantra or any other spiritual path.
>>>"........Since a guru like Nityananda gave shaktipat to so many I don't think the successor would be determined by who he gave it to but by who was actually able to make use of it...."Matthew<<<
Wrong! there WAS no official "successor"..meaning no parampara, lineage, (as is generally the case with an Avadhut) because there WAS no "succession"!!!....muktananda claimed that Nityananda had NAMED him his "successor" and "installed him in Gavdevi temple"..Siddha Yoga is presented as a LINEAGE that traces its roots back to Shiva, through Nityananda's "official successor", muktananda. So, you can feel safe, folks because it's a "real" path, not a bogus power grab by a savvy sadhu (yeah, right). All you're talking about is a particular kind of tantric practitioner (muktananda) basing his empire on the reputation of someone who used to beat him over the head for his interest in black magic. Folks would have been better off following the sadhu Nityananda "installed" in his Khanagad ashram but then that guy wasn't interested in becoming an "international spiritual power".
peeeeeeeuuuuuuuw,
anon
>>"I don't think that breaking the law, or going agaisnt the moral code of the country necessarily makes for a bogus guru.
Me neither. But it's still a decent criteria as to whether you'd want to invest yourself in one."<<
Yup! And you would want to HAVE the information, wouldn't you? I'd like to know if the "guru" is fucking naive underaged girls and getting blow jobs in the office whle claiming celibacy and demanding it of his followers. I'd like to know that people were coerced into lying about his activities, beaten, bullied, followed, threatened. I'd like to know that the lineage is "questionable". I'd like to know about the swiss bank accounts. I'd like to know about the guns in the ashram, the smuggling, the non-disclosure agreements signed by the "officials" before they are allowed to leave, the power grab for the "lineage" after his death, the continued harassment of dissenters. All of this might be important to me in "choosing" my guru..duh!
If some guy with obvious sexual issues and preoccupation with the size of his dick wants to set up shop....ok! but, as a "consumer", I'd like to be a little more informed before "receiving the gift of shaktipat". At least, in Trungpa's case, there was a "sign-up sheet" right out in the open...
anon.
>>>Are both the men and women in the ritual brought to the same height of spiritual and intellectual attainment? If so, that tradition is nondual and does not favor one gender at the expense of the other.
.........Favoring one gender or another has absolutely nothing to do with nonduality.""<<
I think you are missing the point that this poster is trying to make and you, yourself, have a great deal of confusion about Tantra. In order for Tantra to be practiced "correctly" (if I can use that word) BOTH partners need to be "awake" (obviously I am talking about the physical ritual here...which is what is being discussed regarding muktananda...not anusthans etc.); otherwise, it is a kind of energy "vampirism" commonly known as "black tantra". It really is critical in tantric practice that the woman be functioning as "fully empowered". Without her "permission" the ritual is not supposed to occur..and this permission (given through mudra and mantra) is an intrinsic part of the ritual. So to do tantric ritual with someone who is not really capable of participating on any level except as a spiritual aphid, would not generally be seen as the action of a "compassionate guru". Tantra is basically a Shakta practice...as much as it has been misused through the centuries. These days it's used to excuse any kind of excess and stupidity....calliing it
"spiritual growth".
anon
Matthew wrote:
> But I don't think that breaking
> the law, or going agaisnt the
> moral code of the country
> necessarily makes for a bogus
> guru.
I have no particular problems with someone merely on the basis of breaking the law or breaking culture-based rules.
But what about the idea that our actions shouldn't just be for the satisfaction of our own desires, but should take into account what's best for everyone? The idea of acting to help others, not just for ourselves... I say that goes beyond any law or culture-based code.
We can view the unvarnished truth of Muktananda's actions, and judge for ourselves how well he demonstrated a teaching of consideration for others.
When Matthew claims that Muk's sexcapades are irrelevent, that sexual conduct is "nothing more than going against the prevelent social conditioning"... this completely ignores the issue of compassion vs selfishness.
True enough, Muk's own teaching was mostly about getting good feelings for oneself, with little attention given to compassion. Muk's actions in this case were in harmony with his teaching, and both were flawed. Talk about laws or culture-based moral codes misses the point entirely.
Stuart
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/socalled.htm
..........You seem to be confusing the workings of society with the spiritual path. "Equality" in society has nothing to do with Tantra or any other spiritual path.
So where exactly is the line drawn?
Should a 'tantric guru' be allowed to KILL people also.
I know a guru who I would "label" as a tantric. Once he was speaking about very young women, how beautiful they are,etc. I asked him "that young??" He said "ah, not what you are thinking -- he said I like them as I like a flower by the banks of the river and couldn't bear the thought of cutting them...." He sleeps around, but only with grownup women who are on the same page. This seems far more normal than Muktananda, who strikes me as a pervert, actually. If he were screwing 12 year old boys would some of you here be so accepting of him as a guru, inspite of his habits? I don't think so. I think his very cruel behavior to those young women, some of whom were not yet women, shows that he was no guru at all, but a bogus idiot. Who has read "Play of Consciousness?" Reads like the diary of a psychotic, imo.
"So where exactly is the line drawn?
Should a 'tantric guru' be allowed to KILL people also."
....I don't know if there are any
'shoulds' involved, but it has been done.
"But what about the idea that our actions shouldn't just be for the satisfaction of our own desires, but should take into account what's best for everyone?"
....I agree. Our actions should not be just about our own satisfactions, our own desires.
But are you free enough of your own filters, your own biases and prejudices to be able to discern the inner workings of another based on your observations of their outer manifestations?
"So where exactly is the line drawn?
Should a 'tantric guru' be allowed to KILL people also."
....I don't know if there are any
'shoulds' involved, but it has been done.
Do YOU consider this a valid 'tantric practice'? Is this a spiritual path? A simple yes or no answer will do.
You seem to consider rape and child molestation acceptable.
I know many of the woman with whom he had consensual sex. I also know the children he raped.
The question I always ask of the apoligist how young is too young?
If you had a daughter or aniece would you offer her to a Guru?
>>"But are you free enough of your own filters, your own biases and prejudices to be able to discern the inner workings of another based on your observations of their outer manifestations? "<<
Ah yes; the "only the enlightened ones can know the true motivation behind the actions of a great being" arguement. I mean, muktananda could have been "removing bad karma" from those underage girls...just like afro sai baba does when he "oils" his young male devotees..what was the other "explanation"? uh, something about "helping them through puberty" or "giving them a special initiation". Well, in the relative world (as opposed to the "absolute" world of "pure truth")...there's an old-fashioned but fairly accurate method of discrimination: "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and looks like a duck...chances are.... Voila! it's a duck!" Why is it that so many people seem to throw out the most basic common sense when it comes to spiritual "masters"...could it be a case of "bliss junkie" disease?
anon.
Matthew said...
But are you free enough of your own filters, your own biases and prejudices...
................
Any man who sexually abuses a child should be castrated and put in prison for life. In the case of Muk, he should be dug up now, castrated, and put back in the ground. But I guess you would consider that my own prejudice.
Are you with me semblance?
Why is it that so many people seem to throw out the most basic common sense when it comes to spiritual "masters"...could it be a case of "bliss junkie" disease?
I don't know, but it keeps me in retches and dry heaves every time I come across it.
Note to all: Thanks for being here. I want you all to know how much I appreciate your contributions in the comments. There's some really good stuff being offered to the world here.
jody said...
Note to all: Thanks for being here. I want you all to know how much I appreciate your contributions in the comments. There's some really good stuff being offered to the world here.
..........
Thanks, Jody!
PS
Before they put Muk back in the ground he should be rope drug!
"Do YOU consider this a valid 'tantric practice'? Is this a spiritual path? A simple yes or no answer will do."
.......You mean killing someone? There is no simple yes or no answer. It is totally circumstantial, depending on all the 'who's, what's, when's, where's and why's". So what I am saying is it is not out of the question as far as something that could happen and still be in integrity.
"If you had a daughter or aniece would you offer her to a Guru?"
....Like the old "Would you jump off a bridge if your guru told you too?".......I'll let you know when the situation asrises.
I'll let you know when the situation asrises.
Situational morality. Sounds like the start of something BIG.
Ah yes; the "only the enlightened ones can know the true motivation behind the actions of a great being" arguement.
.........First off, in my statement I did not limit it
to 'enlightened ones'. Second, no you don't have to be enlightened to know something of anothers motivations but you do have to have a fair degree
of clarity about oneself. And even then claiming to know anothers motivations is pretty sketchy at best.
...there's an old-fashioned but fairly accurate method of discrimination: "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and looks like a duck...chances are.... Voila! it's a duck!"
.............If it looks like pedophilia, talks like pedophilia and walks like pedophilia, yes there is a
damn good chance that it actually is...However my statement was that you can not know the actual motivation for that in another.
Mattpew said...However my statement was that you can not know the actual motivation for that in another.
..............
You don't need to know the man's (Muk's and others like him) motivation in order to rope drag, castrate and jail him. He doesn't deserve to be understood. He deserves to be put down like drooling dog!
"If you had a daughter or a niece would you offer her to a Guru?"
....Like the old "Would you jump off a bridge if your guru told you too?".......I'll let you know when the situation asrises.
Scary!!!
I think we all have a right to screw up our own lives but a duty to best protect the children. Just get them to the point in their lives where they are able to make their own mistakes, not suffer as a result of ours.
I know people who 'blissfully' exposed their children to Muk and the consequences remain unresolved thirty + years after the fact.
Their lives remain frozen in time. There has been no resolution. SY and its various heirs have steadfastly denied that the molestations ever happened.
Matthew you seem very adept at intellectualizing all of this. In reality it is all word games. Spiritual BS.
Any molestation of a child is criminal.
............".If it looks like pedophilia, talks like pedophilia and walks like pedophilia, yes there is a
damn good chance that it actually is...However my statement was that you can not know the actual motivation for that in another."
Oh...sorry...I thought you were saying that only if you are "free enough of your own filters, your own biases and prejudices to be able to discern the inner workings of another based on your observations of their outer manifestations"... are you qualified to "judge" the actions of someone like muktananda.
See, Matthew, here's the thing...if some Aghora baba decides to kill my young friend and inhabit his body in order to "start all over again in a younger body"...I have a problem with that..and I don't really give a fuck about his "motivations". Generally speaking, the people who do this kind of thing...in REAL life, not in Svoboda's books, do NOT do it for the "benefit of all sentient beings" but for the usual things: power, fame and money. So, again, I don't give a flying fuck about what "motivated" muktananda to do what he did...What is the RESULT of his tenure here? Where are all of the compassionate, "enlightened beings"...those lucky folks who received the "gift of shaktipat" (fueled by the suffering of all of the young women he "used")?? What I see is alot of folks "in recovery", others with their heads up their collective asses still looking for the final orgasm of bliss that will send them right into "enlightenment", "retired" syda CEOs making a nice new life for themselves (new wife, new job, lovely wedding photo in the NY Times); lying ex-swamis writing magazine columns on "ethics and dharma", a whole new crop of second generation "shaktipat gurus" (muktananda's charming legacy for us) driven by lust for power and money and an increase in delusion and narcissism...not to mention the same old same old going on between gurumayi and her brother...hey! what a great example of "enlightened behavior"...
geeeeeezus!
anon.
There is a brutal truth in the so called spiritual scene:
There are people whom I would term 'bliss technicians'. The old term would be 'love pirate.'
These persons have the talent of inspiring bliss, of having a highly inspirational inpact through their presence, or speeches, or in some cases their books.
They have the ability to thrill us, touch us intellectualy, emotionally, making us feel intensely alive and special.
In return for this we feel intense loyalty to them, see them not only as persons, but as special persons.
The sad thing is--our loyalty is not reciprocated by the bliss technician. We see the BT as a person, feel passionately grateful to an loyal to the technician as a person.
But..all the while, this bliss techician does not see us as persons and does not care for us as persons.
We are just objects, meat puppets to be diddled into bliss--and then abruptly discarded the instant we are boring, depleted, or when we ask the bliss technician to do the one thing he or she cannot do-care for us as persons.
Many bliss technicians, IMO are stuck at the level of toddlers and can only relate to other persons as objects. Like small children, they are charming, but lack empathy.
But they can trigger us into bliss, and have mastered adult communication skill and rhetoric.
But, though we see them as persons and are loyal to them as persons,as small children, they do not see us as persons.
We are merely their toys.
Gurus who constantly need new followers and lots of followers are likely to be in this catagory--they are like small kids who need a constant supply of new toys.
And because they can bliss us out, we dont see that they regard us as things.
We only discover this when we are tossed aside.
That may be one reason why these gurus love to pervert nondual philosophy in ways that trivilize the grief of their discarded followers.
So, the way to test a guru is to see if he or she is capable of adult loyalty and can see us as persons, no matter what--or if fundamentally, we are seen only as toys--to be caressed then tossed aside.
IF this is leela, the play of the universe, I dont want it. I dont want to be the plaything of a god who is nothing more than a self involved toddler.
If that's spirituality, I want no part of it.
We are rightly horrified by the process in Nazi concentration camps where prisoners were stripped of their names, assigned numbers, literally de-humanized, itemized, then worked as robots until useless then extinguished.
This is to turn human persons into interchangeable objects--and it creeps us out.
But there is a process of dehumanization that goes in certain ashram situations. Its disguised. You dont know this is happening because you're surrounded by beautiful scenes, music, you experience ecstacy, companionship, and you feel intensely human and alive.
Yet the guru doing this is, all the while, seeing you is just a thing, one object among many, to be diddled into ecstacy, and if you have the right characteristics, plucked like a particular flavor of chocolate from a sampler box of candy, to be consumed as a sex object.
You feel yourself human in relation to the guru, but you are not human to him--just a love doll who gives more interesting sensations than an inflatible item.
It is so hideous to face that you can see someone as a person or even as an avatar and find that this person doesnt reciprocate and instead sees you as an object, one among many, that quite a few cannot stand to face this.
Rather than face that the guru has 'thinged' them, these persons will insist that the situation was special, was transcendent and the usual catagories do not apply.
Rather than face that they were betrayed, they will insist there is no such thing as betrayal.
When misapplied in this way, Asian and human potential ideology lead to a shallowness and dehumanize us just as the Nazis did--only its a dehumanizaion that is disguised by glamor and in which the persons reduced to objects continue to breath and are distracted by bliss
That's the radical thing: one can be diddled into bliss by someone who sees you as just an object, not as a person at all.
When we feel bliss we must always ask, 'Are we being seen as persons?'
yeah chuck!
Matthew, you sound like one of these sad cases that just can't make up his mind. Even an enlightened man will say they prefer this or that, although they accept anything and everything (and don't go telling me that means they are not enlightened). If you don't know whether or not you would offer your underage little girl or boy to your guru or not, I sugggest strongly you don't have kids. Sounds like you have one of those weak types of minds that easily brainwashed by these charlatans, and your kids would be very vulnerable..........
Hey, chuck, since this is the possible case with Matthew, should he not be castrated in advance of the situation arising, just in case, so he cannot offer his (maybe not yet born) kids to some guru? This could go on and on!
anon said...Hey, chuck, since this is the possible case with Matthew, should he not be castrated in advance of the situation arising...
..........................
For humane reasons I could not support Mat being castrated and rope drug before an offense has taken place, UNLESS he himself requests this. It is a fact that many male sex offenders in the Texas penal system petition for the right to be chemically or surgically castrated, in hopes, I suppose of either getting some relief from their own demented urges or from being regularly kicked in the balls by other prisoners. Too bad that Muk and Sly Baba couldn't have been inducted into Huntsville Prison a long time ago...
It's too late for Muk but maybe some noble Indian will try to get the job done on Sly Baba.
The brave and righteous people on this website have tried and convicted him and are now debating how he should be tortured (never mind that he is long dead!
Are you sure you really know he is guilty? You know, there are two sides to this story. Having no particular axe to grind and having looked at the evidence, I feel both sides are credible and it is impossible to really know what went on unless you were present and have clear and honest recollection. This is the stuff of trial by jury. Who made you the judge?
Seems to me you are acting as if you are omniscient, just like the gurus you hate. It is perhaps this type of blind zealotry that got you tangled up with these mischievous know-it-all gurus in the first place.
"Are you sure you really know he is guilty? You know, there are two sides to this story. Having no particular axe to grind and having looked at the evidence, I feel both sides are credible and it is impossible to really know what went on unless you were present and have clear and honest recollection. This is the stuff of trial by jury. Who made you the judge?"
I KNOW he was guilty.
I was one of the first Westerners to live in Ganeshpuri.
I first came in 1969 and remained for many, many years.
I was quite naive and although I could sense there was something not quite right there was no hard proof at that juncture.
I got caught up in the drama when the news broke in 1981. I was a friend of the person who sheltered the people who went public. Muk sent his two goons to Oakland to threaten the woman and her husband. The specific threat was to throw acid in her face. The goons were residing at the Oakland Ashram at the time of the threats.
By association with friends I too was eventual threatened.
Years later I befriended some of the younger victims. I guess the question for me and many others was'did their lives turn out alright'? Was this another 'lila', was Muk really saving them from a 'worst karma' as many were trying to say.
I know many of the stories. They are not happy endings.
Molestation never is.
anonymous said :
Are you sure you really know he is guilty? You know, there are two sides to this story. Having no particular axe to grind and having looked at the ......
I never knew Muk. The first I actually heard about his dirty deeds was in a group session with another guru, in which a woman broke down in tears and told her story, that she had been raped as a 13 year old girl by Muk. She said she didn't realize it was rape because she felt she had to do what he said, because her mother was his disciple. She never told her mother. She said she was so ashamed that she hoped her daughter never found out. It was so pathetic. The reason I didn't doubt her, was the way it came out, appropros of nothing, in the midst of lots of energy. She just kind of cracked. People were supposed to tell something about themselves, and that's what came out of her. It was shocking, actually. I'd read his books a little, and never heard about this side of him. She said she was afraid, when she grew up, that nobody would believe her, even though she knew many other girls this happened to, whose mothers and fathers were his disciples. Really a sick dude if you ask me.
Exactly which other side of the story would be relevant here?
An ex-siddha person named suggested that for many people, shakti is much like an addictive drug.
The tell tale sign is when someone says 'Its MY experience, so what if the guru hurt OTHER people? He hasnt hurt ME.'
That's no different from a junkie loyally defending his or her favored dope dealer.
If you became indifferent to the suffering of persons exploited by your guru, you have been harmed, no matter how blissful you feel.
Here's the essay on shakti as a drug:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.ex-cult.siddha-yoga/msg/51da53bb87f5bc41?q=addiction+%22shakti%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&rnum=1
From the article:
Just as people who have addiction problems, we also develop symptoms of abuse that get in the way of our daily functioning. Some of these might include:
1. Use of shakti to avoid feelings and critical thinking
2. Spending money we don't have to attend another program, to get another 'hit'
3. Isolate ourselves from others who do not use shakti
4. Lie to support the rganization that delivers the shakti
5. Developing a dependency upon the person (guru) and the organization that delivers the shakti
6. Breaking the law (physical and sexual assaults on individuals, forging documents, smuggling items into India and the US) under the guise of protecting the shakti
7. Use of shakti to develop open and receptive states in people, then 'programming' them with the goals of the organization
8. Developing illness by not getting enough sleep in search of shakti
9. Call in sick at work to do seva, to get ready for a program and more shakti
((I would add a tenth warning sign: Becoming indifferent to the suffering and exploitation of persons being exploited by the guru or group administering the shaktipat. When the shakti addict loses ethical concern and dehumanizes those outside the bliss circle, this heartlessness is itself a warning sign of addiction.
People love to say 'That's not MY experience', as if personal experience proves anything.
I once had flu and my thermometer indicated my tempreture was between 101--104 degrees F. Yet despite what the thermometer said, I experienced myself as freezing cold.
I was not actually cold at all. My body was secreting chemicals called cytokines, which screw up perception of tempreture.
According to what I experienced, I craved heat. But what my body actually needed was to cool down.
So, personal experience can at times be misleading, whether in relation to gurus, shaktipat, or running high tempretures.
anon said...So, personal experience can at times be misleading, whether in relation to gurus, shaktipat, or running high tempretures.
.....................
The only emotion I am sure of is what I feel when I'm in the embrace of my horse faced wife. Then all planets align and light up like candles around us. The sound of her breath is just like the wind moving through the pine tops in the Big Thicket. My heart gets real big and real quiet and I feel ready to let go of everything I have: my hounds, my spotted mule, my ten acres and my double- wide. Then something clogs in my nose and I end up snorting like a root hog! Without Grace, I am a lost cause!
How very poetic, Chuck. Your horse faced wife must be very proud... Too bad Muktananda wasn't as good to his women as you are to your wife and farm animals. Good luck with getting that triple wide. Sounds like from what you say you need it just to contain your ass. Is there anything bigger you can get, so maybe your mouth will fit in there also. Chuck, even by Texass standards you are something of a disgrace. Talk about a guy who could use a good white wash...I'll pray for you, man.
Anonymous said...
Good luck with getting that triple wide. Sounds like from what you say you need it just to contain your ass. ...I'll pray for you, man.
................
This contrite and humbled son of red East Texass clay thanks you, sir or madam, and accepts your kind offer of prayer. May the Almighty circle round you from above and at the last moment snatch you from the carrion birds and jackals of ill and outrageous fortune! You have my best wishes!
Chuck...you found beatitude in ordinary life.
Being human is enough.
Its amazing how hard it is for most of us to discover this.
Saw a bumper sticker once:
'A man and his truck. Its a beautiful thing.'
Only thing you didnt mention having is a dog. Saw another bumper sticker that read,
'I want to be the person my dog thinks I am.'
Thank you, anon for prayers received. I do have a dog or two. The outside dogs are tick laden hounds. The inside dog is a little cockapoo princess
Indeed Muktananda was perpetrating fraud in claiming to be Nityananda's successor. Fraud.
Hilda Charlton, who never claimed or implied such, was a worthy successor.
I wonder if anyone knows if Muktananda drugged any of the young girls he molested. Maybe a GHB or date-rape type drug?
Another Pervert 'Guru'.
I don't give a damned if he is enlightened/ special / whatever....
Where the hell is the 'Love' in shoving your dick into some innocent young girl/woman?
Very sad - for all the knowledge/respect he had... he could not get past his own desire - clear as day....
I have been raised in a long tradition of Indian spirituality - but I prefer to call it - being a real human.... In my humble view, divinity should never take the place of humanity.
It is true. There was no lineage! Nityananda never appointed a successor.
Muktananda was never "enlightened", he was a type of medium and black magician who misused kundalini. He simply was able to mirror certain effects, and channel very strong kundalini energies and forces from a distorted electric bluish realm using various techniques. He simply convinced people than he was the successor. One of Nityanada's western followers was named a yogi teacher named Rudrananda. He said Muktananda was a black magician. There is no purity in those in Muktananda's lineage either. Furthermore the practices are spiritually dangerous.
Post a Comment
<< Home