Find

Reload

Overview
  NewestArchive
Admin
just wondering
  Forum
Posted by:
devilsadvocate ®

10/27/2005, 11:13:23
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators




Hi there everybody, ive just happened upon this forum. I am not an ex anything but i have some experience with Guru devotion. I am wondering what the actual problem is. Apart from his requests for one-pointed devotion to him and him only, which is actually quite common with thew Gurus of India, why are people angry at him?

Love

Satan 







Previous Recommend View All Current page Next
Trying to summarize this
Re: just wondering -- devilsadvocate Top of thread Forum
Posted by:
Jean-Michel ®

10/27/2005, 12:09:24
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators




Guru devotion is a dead end, where you end up psychologically locked up.

Some people (devotees) don't realize it, and stay there, actually enjoying their prison's cell.

Some people try to get out of it, after they've realized they are not at the right place - or that there is something wrong there,  for various reasons, and/or after some bad experiences.

Getting angry is part of the exiting process (which has several other aspects) for many people.







Previous Recommend Current page Next
The problem with Guru devotion......
Re: just wondering -- devilsadvocate Top of thread Forum
Posted by:
Joe ®

10/27/2005, 13:17:40
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators




Basically, it's an authoritarian, pathological relationship, and that's why there is a problem.  It gets people to do things that are against their own self-interest and well-being.

For a great book about that, I suggest "The Guru Papers" by Kramer and Alstad.







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: just wondering
Re: just wondering -- devilsadvocate Top of thread Forum
Posted by:
dant ®

10/27/2005, 14:13:24
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators




Hi Satan,

love your name. This forum is specifically about Prem Rawat, formerly the Lord of the Universe known as Guru Maharaji. Prem Rawat is responsible for alot more destruction that simply having people give him one pointed devotion. He has abused that devotion in many ways. I don't have time in this second to go into details. Take a peak at www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info for some quick info. Then if you want the full effect try out www.ex-premie.org.

Not everybody who posts here is angry. As Jean Michel alludes to, it is usually the people who are in the recent process of realising they were duped and are exiting the cult. Some of them have wasted over 30 years of their life there. And many have lost alot more than just time.







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re The problems and risks of guru devotion and the guru-disciple relationship
Re: just wondering -- devilsadvocate Top of thread Forum
Posted by:
Andries ®

10/27/2005, 14:27:46
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators




Hi Satan,

(Note this answer deals with the word guru in the meaning of a charismatic religious leader, it does not deal with the word guru in the meaning of traditional Hindu family preceptor who also performs rituals etc.)

The problems and risks of the guru devotion and the guru-disciple relationship have gradually become uncontested, at least here in the Netherlands. (source among others "The Volkskrant" and Andrew Cohen's magazine "What is Englightenment")

First , to attract disciples and to acquire their devotion the guru must present himself as pure, saintly, fulfilling ancient myth or prediction, or enlightened. Of course, there are only few if any who are really pure, saintly etc. In other words, most gurus lack authenticity. This will invariably lead to disappointment and devastation. (source among others "The Guru Papers")

Second, gurus have often a lot of authority due to their status with no checks and balances. Of course, in many cases this leads to exploitation and abuse of power and sometimes also to the acceptance by the disciple of misguided advice of the guru.  (source, among others Anthony Storr)

Third, most gurus surround themselves with sycophant inner-circle people. This will corrupt and degenerate most gurus. (source among others "The Guru Papers")

Fourth, the teaching of the guru are not open for investigation, it all hinges around the reliability of the guru that are often uncritically accepted by the committed disciple. This of course, has the very big danger of leading people into false teachings and a fantasy world and harmful or dangerous practices. (source, among others John Horgan and Robert Priddy)

Most disciples think of course that this happens with other people's gurus and other people, but it can easily happen with you and your guru. (Source my own observation and experience)

http://www.american-buddha.com/myth.guru.htm#THE%20MYTH%20OF%20THE%20TOTALLY%20ENLIGHTENED%20GURU aticle by John Horgan (requires sign up)

Andries Krugers Dagneaux  (amateur guru-ologist)

(minor modification in contents)

 





Related link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru#Assessment_and_criticism_by_Western_scholars_and_writers.2C_Indologists.2C_theologians_and_apostates
Modified by Andries at Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 15:11:11

Previous Recommend Current page Next
To d.a.
Re: just wondering -- devilsadvocate Top of thread Forum
Posted by:
Will ®

10/28/2005, 12:37:11
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators




Speaking for myself only, I must say that the situation is complex.  I'm angry, yes, but it IS an interesting question and a little difficult to sort out, even for oneself.

Nevertheless, here's a little sorting:

When I was a follower of Guru Maharaj Ji, later Prem Rawat, from 1975 to 1998, I called myself a "follower," not a devotee.  I considered devotee to be a higher position that I had not attained.  Both the guru, Maharaji, and the man, Rawat, were too nebulous and distant from me for my devotion to actually gell.   My efforts were just that - efforts.  (And I confidently believe that other premies were in the same situation.  And current premies still are).  The situtation is one of having an ideal to aspire to and putting Maharaji/Rawat in front of me as the "figurehead" of that ideal.  The ideal is never attained, but the devotee (or follower) puts on a brave face and emphasizes all the postive and de-emphasizes or even denies the negatives.

Rawat has said that he is not a figurehead, but that is exactly what I consider him to be, in my present dis-illusioned viewpoint.  People who follow gurus engage in an internal effort toward their spiritual ideal, toward their guru, and the merky fusion between the two.  For me, it wasn't until I abandoned my ideal, enlightenement, that I abondoned my figurehead, Rawat. (But that is not always the case with ex-premies).   I was not in the least bit angry about it when I first exited.  Not even disappointed really.  Just dis-illusioned and very, very glad to be so.

But I AM angry. 

First, I have become angry at myself for having played the guru-follower game for as long as I did.  I should have awakened sooner and I know it.  My excuses are that I was distracted and lazy, both emotionally and intellectually.  I see that same laziness in current premies and it makes me angry every time I see it, in them and in myself.  If you, devil's advocate, don't understand that anger, then I can't explain it.

As for the guru himself, I divide him up, as I have said, into the guru and the man.  I can't be angry at Maharaji because I don't believe he even exists in any real way other than as a figurehead.  All you do with a figurehead is smash him to the floor and sweep him up as a worthless thing, no anger involved, just housework.  One doesn't get mad at dirt, just clean it up.  As for the man, I don't know him, and I have to admit I find him to be a bit of a mystery.  I can't really decide what makes him tick.  I suspect he is a very sick man, psychologically, and again, anger is inapproproate toward the mentally ill.  I fight against the illness of that man as he is trying to spread it around.  That is why I stick around on this forum, to fight against what I see as a harmful untruth.   

Normally, I would be angry at Rawat for all the humanly inappopriate things he does, like having sex with some of the blond women who are his subordinates, and I know about this matter through personal contact with a woman involved as well as the other reports available at EPO.  And there are many other things to be angry about if Rawat were a normal man.  But my anger is limited because Rawat remains nebulous and distant from me still.  Sometimes I pity him more than I am angry at him.  But mostly, I don't really concern myself with Rawat at all, just with his message and his efforts to get people to believe in his message.  That is my real concern, and I am indeed concerned about it.  I say again - it is an untruthful and hurtful message disguised as a worthy message of good report.  Rawat and his minions continue to promote their fairy-tale message despite the evidence that over 99% of people who have been introduced to that message have rejected it, and the vast majority of people who have seriously tried it end up eventually rejecting it as well.   The Rawatists are reduced to spreading their message furtively, with false bravado and outright lies.  They're nuts.

And there you have it.  Angry?  Well, sometimes.

Hope that clarifies for you a bit.

 






Modified by Will at Fri, Oct 28, 2005, 13:12:35

Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: Anger at mentally ill people
Re: To d.a. -- Will Top of thread Forum
Posted by:
Andries ®

10/29/2005, 10:10:07
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators




Will wrote "I suspect he is a very sick man, psychologically, and again, anger is inapproproate toward the mentally ill." 

Yes, I agree that anger is wrong towards behavior that is directly related to a serious mental illness. But sometimes people are not really mentally, e.g. the women whom a doctor believed to be "hysterical" in France in the 19th century quickly recovered  after a new doctor arrived who treated them very strictly.

Is Rawat narcistic? Yes, very likely, but seriously mentally ill? No, I do not believe it.

Andries







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: Anger at mentally ill people
Re: Re: Anger at mentally ill people -- Andries Top of thread Forum
Posted by:
NikW ®

10/30/2005, 08:20:41
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators




Andries,

               Hysteria is a very poor reference for any thoughtful consideration of what 'mental illness' is and no progressive model of 'psychlogical distress' would encompass such a gender loaded concept.

Whether Rawat is or is not suffering from  clinically identifiable psychological impairment/distress is probably not the key issue - the fact is he displays behaviours which many of us would consider at the very least to suggest that he is affected by a considerable degree of psychological distress. The very fact of his alcoholism, which has been attested to by a number of observers is evidence of that distress.

This is a particularly important issue for critics of Rawat because his cult clearly encompasses a pathological anxiety and disgust for psychological distress - witness the use of claims of 'mental ill health' to denigrate those who have criticised Rawat, as evidenced by the Elan Vital FAQs. Any reasonable person would see how grotesque this perjoritive use of the 'mentallly ill' label is. Further anyone who is experiencing clinically identifiable psychological distress is disbarred from participating in TheKeys process. There are clear grounds for criticising Rawat and his organisations for their attitude toward people who are suffering from psychological distress - and given Rawat's own psychological state - that criticism must be carefully considered if hypocrisy on the part of the critics is to be avoided.

Nik







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Very good point
Re: Re: Anger at mentally ill people -- NikW Top of thread Forum
Posted by:
Henna ®

11/01/2005, 22:18:09
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators




Good observation Nik!

Further anyone who is experiencing clinically identifiable psychological distress is disbarred from participating in TheKeys process. There are clear grounds for criticising Rawat and his organisations for their attitude toward people who are suffering from psychological distress - and given Rawat's own psychological state - that criticism must be carefully considered if hypocrisy on the part of the critics is to be avoided.

I found this so wrong.  Mentally ill people cannot receive the Keys but it is okay for him to lure "sane" people into the cult to eventually make them mentally ill, without their consent.  He caused many people to became ill and the archives are full of proof. 

What a full of crap idiot he is. So truly glad to have left him behind.

Henna







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: just wondering
Re: just wondering -- devilsadvocate Top of thread Forum
Posted by:
NikW ®

10/28/2005, 14:35:04
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators




> Apart from his requests for one-pointed devotion to him and him only, which is actually quite common with thew Gurus of India<

Common is hardly a reasonable justification. Forced female circumcision is a common cultural practice in parts of Africa - the fact of its commplaceness does stop it from being aborhent.

There is a growing questioning of the role of the 'god men' in India both from the secularists and from the Hindu conservatives. Rawat's father garnered a lot of support from the middleclasses, largely because of his refusal to play the 'communalism' game; RVK (Prem's Delhi base) may have a few graduates slumming it as weekend ashramites but the mass of Prem's Indian audiences are the poor whose attendances at Rawat featured events is based on a hope for escape from the awfulness of the material world.  Prem's feeding off such hope is certainly a reason for anger - and many Indians find his trade wholly repugnant.

Additionally I find the fact that his Elan Vital organisation receives (undeservedly IMO) several hundred thousand pounds per year in gift aid contributions from the UK Government a very substantial reason for anger - though I apportion that anger between Prem and HMG.

Nik







Previous Recommend Current page Next
guruism in India
Re: Re: just wondering -- NikW Top of thread Forum
Posted by:
Will ®

10/28/2005, 15:57:06
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators




Nik,

It is true that guruism is not as respected in India as it used to be.

I work in an academic setting where there are many Indian nationals working in the U.S. medical field.  When I have met some of them and I mention my past association with an Indian guru, they invariably get a pained, embarrassed look on their faces.  I was surprised at this reaction the first time I encountered it, but now I am used to it and expect it.

 






Modified by Will at Fri, Oct 28, 2005, 16:41:23

Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: guruism in India, that is true, I believe
Re: guruism in India -- Will Top of thread Forum
Posted by:
Andries ®

10/28/2005, 16:17:40
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators




"Why The Cynicism About Indian Gurus?

FROM REDIFF ON THE NET

INDIA, Mar 30 2001 (VNN) — By Francois Gautier

Westerners have often a deep suspicion of 'gurus' and are wary of anything which has a 'Hindu' flavor. It is true that some of the gurus teaching in the West might have brought a bad name to Hinduism; but is this a reason to clamp them all together under the same 'fake' label?


Indian journalists unfortunately share often the same resistance to gurus as their Western counterparts. And one can also understand their misgivings, given the problems there has been in India with certain gurus having political connections. [..]"

from http://www.vnn.org/world/WD0103/WD30-6678.html







Previous Recommend Current page Next


Forum     Back