Sarlo's Law of Inverse Hype says the amount of enlightenment varies inversely
as the square of the speed of hype. This is expressed in the formula, S=eh²,
where S is Sarlo's Constant, e is enlightenment, measured in oneness and h is
the speed of hype, measured in jerks (total jabberings, exaggerations,
rhetoric and know-it-alls) per second. Enlightenment can never actually be
zero since hype cannot be infinite but we can say that when hype approaches
infinity, enlightenment approaches zero.
Another term for S is the Cosmic Orgasm Background Constant. The COBC is understood
to be the rate at which energy vibrates throughout the universe since the Big
Bang. Its exact value is not yet known, but it has been experimentally
determined to be approximately 1.41459, which hints strongly at the square
root of 2. The theoretical basis for this is not completely understood but it
suggests that duality is the root constant in all relationships between
ultimate understanding and projected dreams.
This formula clearly becomes more fallible as we approach the other end, zero
hype; ie absence of hype obviously cannot guarantee infinite enlightenment.
Another variable either needs to be factored in to account for that, or we
need to move on to other criteria.
Supreme exemplars of hype are Donald Schnell, Dave Oshana and L Ron
Sell-them-a-piece-of-the-blue-sky Hubbard, all F, natch.
Page Top
SEX
Or, Why We Don't Do It In The Road
As this is being written, the Catholic Church is going through one of its periodic
child sexual abuse scandals. Most visitors to this site will understand that this is more or less an inevitable consequence of the priests' vows of celibacy. That they should still not get it after all this time seems astounding, but there you go.
Some of the thickness is unique to the Catholic theology and hierarchy, like the appallingly
dense insistence on papal infallibility, but much of it is common to all systems of sexual morality, most of it
completely unexamined. And it crops up often in so-called enlightened masters
and their movements. For example this from the
Hare Krishnas' succession dramas, wherein morality and its attendant
procedural rigidities create a madhouse of total shame, paralysis and
willfully blinkered vision.
Okay.
A guru is enjoying sex with his disciples. So what's the problem? Maybe nothing but the possibility of exploitation
must be considered.
The guru-chela sexual arena is not a simple matter. Even the question of
age has complications. In the case of Sathya Sai Baba, there are many instances of the
diddlee being young, even some subteens. How young is "not okay"? The consideration of
age / maturity / responsibility leads us to great foggy areas.
Starting with the simplest cases, puberty is a handy place to define
"too" young. Before that it can only be exploitation, whether they enjoy it and later recant or not. Child abuse.
But immature can be found at any age. In this regard we might consider a rough
sliding scale from puberty to a "full adulthood," say around 25, while
understanding that even at 25, the appropriate maturity may still be a long
way off.
A "responsible" guru should be very careful about who s/he diddles, no matter
what the age. Note that the "s/" here is almost completely unnecessary, and use of
the male pronoun below will be intentional.
Beyond the questions of maturity, the situation with the best chance to practice this stuff
with a minimum of damage would be in an openly declared
"tantric guru" situation, where all participants know and accept the issues
that are bound to arise. When it is not openly declared but of the "crazy wisdom" persuasion it might be okay but the guru needs to be
clear about the psychic risks involved. If not, there are simply too many "casualties," and thereby a
tendency to low rating.
The worst, and this is where most of the dirt stories come from, are the standard-issue traditionalists, usually with some kind of morality
being preached, and a double standard with cover-ups. The kind of people attracted to preachers
of morality are just the ones who will be most damaged when the preacher violates the commonly held
morality, as issues of violation of trust arise along with the sexual bit.
In such cases the guru deserves every bit of condemnation he gets, especially where there is some
kind of devotional positioning involved, and especially especially when there
is a cover-up. The probability that such situations are abusive and NOT
helpful is near about 100%. In this category i would include Sai Baba and
Muktananda, among others.
In my book, a guru's being so innocent as to "forget" about normal human hangups is not an
excuse. If they are so prone to forgetting this kind of stuff, okay, they are innocent, but should not be messing about with their devotees' powerful
unconscious issues. This would be like a surgeon forgetting which organ s/he is supposed to cut out.
Not that we need a "guru-certifying" bureaucracy, but as long as
these guys are screwing and rationalizing and covering up, there will rightly be complainers and critics.
For more on this issue, there is also a useful page on Swami Rama which
explores both the general issue and details of manipulation which appeared
originally in Yoga Journal, preserved at Rick
Ross' site.
I have been inspired to add (Sep '06) a couple more points regarding this, by a
conversation with a former female student of one of the growing list of
(alleged) perps:
1. First, it may be useful to note that, especially in the East, spiritual
ideas about celibacy have been connected with energy retention and
redirecting, etc, methodology more than moral purity, though the separation is far from
complete. As with many teachings over the
centuries (see Trad), a potentially useful idea has got
muddled in with a stultifying and even worse Should,
backed up with the authority of God.
Inasmuch as his celibacy trip is not based entirely on morality, the perp cannot be accused
of hypocrisy though, so this line will have a special appeal for some.
2. My correspondent visited the above mentioned page of Rick Ross, where
the interesting issue of trusting the inner guru was raised. While there is
great wisdom in this, there are a few stumbling blocks:
a) Because of thick layers of conditioning and socialization, it is not always
easy to hear the "still small voice within," which the abusive guru
knows quite well,
b) A double-bind message is being given in the trusting the guru model, if,
when the guru fucks up, we are told we should have been trusting the inner
guru, and
c) The one articulating this great wisdom is using it in the service of
defending his master, who is precisely in this situation of having abused his
disciple's trust via a manipulative sexual episode.
My correspondent writes -- perhaps more of her writing will appear as a
separate page -- about this aspect of the Rick Ross / Yoga Journal article:
[Article:] Dr. [Rudolph] Ballentine says it is "presumptuous" to
judge whether or not someone is perfected. He and Pandit Rajmani say that a
guru is "that which dispels darkness." "The real guru is
within," Dr. Ballentine says, "that still small voice within
you." It is a mistake to judge the external guru's worthiness by his
behavior; instead, the student should look inside and determine whether that
person is helping dispel the darkness of her ignorance.
[My correspondent:] I think, with all due respect to Dr. Ballentine's words,
that this instruction is not at all laid out clearly so is a somewhat
worthless paragraph....this is an educated man and I wonder how he could be
satisfied with the unuseability of the instructions in this paragraph.......
How could one determine the voice of the real guru within when one is being
subjected to such contradictory experiences, celibacy/have sex, speak
the truth/don't tell anyone or tell something other than what happened, if the
'teacher' the 'way shower' is there to help locate the inner guru then the
teacher/way shower should be held accountable for any disturbances to the
faculties that would identify and form relationship with that inner guru....
Page Top
Now it gets even more complicated. Money is NOT the root of all evil. But
there is a body of wisdom indicating that money can get in the way. So my
criterion of Big Money acknowledges both these truths and tries to parse the
fine line between them.
In the Good Old Days it was much simpler, with a widely understood if
hypocrified ethic that money and spirituality did not mix well. Over the
centuries this ethic became encrusted with more and more posturings, until
poverty became something to be worshipped, à la Mother Teresa or Gandhi.
We have come to learn that there is no great virtue in that, and acquired a certain
sense of valuing what we pay for. And with all the new teachers and their orgs
needing to be supported in a style consonant with their divine worth, while
they are providing these priceless services . . . well, you see where this is
leading.
Again, the question of where to draw the line. The service may indeed be
priceless, and the results worth more than any material treasures, but it also
doesn't cost the provider anything except "time."
We in the seeker market may be justified in expecting that prices shall be
reasonable, say, enough to sustain the comfortable but not opulent support of those providing
it. If prices are not, there may be good reason, but there may not be.
Caveat emptor!
We may appreciate that a teacher and org are self-supporting, say in the
manner of Kabir, who lovingly insisted on keeping up his weaving trade, though
his devotees wanted him to just teach and were willing to support him
generously. Or fees may be reasonable without a lot of pitching and shilling.
This is my basic preference though no absolute moral case can be made.
It is beyond the resources and scope of this site to investigate standards
of material indulgence and corruption, but still a sense may occasionally be obtained
of "they're only in it for the money." And anyway, knowing that money seems to be
a big deal in a certain org may be useful for some, so i'll report such info if it comes my way.
As far as ratings are
concerned, it will be weighed, though not much.
Sorry, but not very! Ha ha!
Page Top
SCANDAL
What does it mean that a certain amount of scandal, opprobrium or notoriety
has arisen around a guru? Answer: It depends :-)
There will be some overlap here with previous red flags, particularly the
scandal-prone areas of sex and money, not coincidentally the areas most having
to do with moral values. Since scandal is an event of
public perception and judgment, a given public's moral system will figure so
largely in the definition of a scandal that it might be said to have created
it. How concerned
should i be with how the public sees certain events or figures as opposed to
how the seeker community sees them or i do?
Personally, i find scandals of violation rather than consensual sins more
compelling as red flags, though there are lots of grey areas. For example,
exploitation is a fabulously nuanced area, involving infinite gradations of
consent from the exploitee, which often cannot be precisely ascertained,
even by those involved.
Other consideration-areas will include the distinction between guru and org,
outrageousness as opposed to immoral acts, and who the scandal-mongers
are and what their agenda might be.
1. Violation vs consensual sins:
This is a useful distinction in my world, since freedom is an
important attribute of a liberated life (duh!) Yes, there is freedom and then there
is Freedom, but though some discipline may be needed to get there, surely
exploitation and violation are not, except as bad examples to learn not to
repeat.
But looking closer, even the question of what is a violation may be open in the guru-chela arena,
since in many respects the disciple is giving what amounts to a blank check
permission for the guru to do anything s/he deems appropriate. That said, the
disciple's "autonomy," or inbuilt intelligence / immune system, will usually assert itself and define
violation, so this may not be so unclear in many cases. With the final caveat
that this does not apply in destructive, manipulative cults, where methods are
used explicitly to undermine this autonomy. In that scenario, anything and everything
can be a violation, and will be judged harshly.
In the straightforward cases where a "sin" is more or less
consensual, no biggie. I don't care much what the mainstream public's view is,
it is not their business. It may be the business of other seekers who
have strongly held standards of behaviour for their gurus. (If the
"victim" decides later s/he was manipulated or subtly coerced, there
might be a case for re-examination, but that's largely beyond the scope of
this site.)
One more subtle refinement, which came up in the case of Ramesh Balsekar's
recent (Jan 2005) mini-flame-out, is: did he come on to them or did they come
on to him? Not-exactly-sworn testimony has it that he propositioned them, but
very gently, without "refusal penalties." This distinction matters
to some people, as it certainly suggests residual dualistic stuff that might
be worked on, without going the all-sex-is-bad route. I will consider this at
least potentially useful information, though not particularly damning.
2. Guru vs org: Some slack can be extended to the guru if a scandal arises
from the doings of the org, but not 100%. One case example is Jesus, founder
of Xianity (heh heh, some say that was Paul). I hold him partly responsible
for the crimes of his org, which are innumerable – but not held as crimes by
the org :-) – because of the almost total lack of quality control, but still
he was a good guy and did his best in an inhospitable culture. Another
example: David Brant Berg was recently downgraded the last half-bud, to 0, on
the basis of a single freakout act of one of his disciples. Harsh? Well maybe,
but it was a murder-suicide by his son, the child of his successor / wife.
3. Who's complaining?: Is it the gutter press, which is to say most of them,
or the politicians who harp publicly on "values" while gambling and
popping pills privately? Not interested in their retarded agenda.
Related but more sinister is the campaign against Falun Gong by the Chinese
authorities, a trick they learned perhaps from A. Hitler. Not impressed. But
reasonable, corroborated accounts from the seeker community will have some
appeal.
4. Outrageous vs immoral: Not easy to nail down, for sure, but my general
preference is, all things being equal, to cut a bit of slack here. Is the guru
doing or saying whatever it is for its effect, either on the audience or the
public? If this is a possible or reasonable interpretation, then i'll usually
accept it as such. Guru "eccentricity" and outrageousness has a long
and venerable history in India and Tibet and zen.
Page Top
TRADITION
There is something to be said for tradition, but not necessarily a lot. This
is not to say that a position of anti-traditionalism has any more merit.
Slippery stuff, yet again! A few things can be considered to help determine if a
given tradition has relevance, the most useful yardstick of value here, both personally and collectively.
Is the tradition being promulgated alive, and informed with the life energy and
awareness of the
teacher, or is it empty ritual, proceeding formulaically in well-worn ruts? Not that ritual per se is a bad thing, but
it should resonate with or convey something joyous in the herenow.
Are life-negative values or attitudes being imparted? In this could be
included anti-female attitudes, anti-sexual morality, support or undue
deference to heavy-handed secular authority and so on. This is the easiest and
soundest scale on which to weigh a given tradition, though of course one must
beware of such sloganeering travesties as "pro-life," wielded
ponderously by anti-abortion zealots.
Does its value reside chiefly in its ancientness? Or, related to that, an
archaic language that only scholars or religious authorities know? Included
are not only Latin but Sanskrit, Pali and old Arabic, which is only distantly
related to current versions.
The point of these questions is to focus on the relevance to today's seeker. We do not want to throw out the
useful parts, since modern consumerism or
nihilism have little to offer either, but blind adherence to tradition has
been an unalloyed tragedy. Not only does it stifle the positive aspects of
progress, even the spirit is not free. And some of the most deplorable conditions
of today, such as overpopulation, can be attributed directly to over-reliance
on tradition, of all kinds.
We also can consider here the question of how different major religious streams
interact with or support the gurus in their tradition. Without getting into too
much detail, we can observe that some handle it better than others.
The
group with the best record of encouraging the living master is Buddhism. Yes,
they have their sluggish backwaters too but throughout zen and the Tibetan
group, and in many other substreams, the guru is actually honoured, and often
allowed to be fairly eccentric.
Hinduism does not do too badly either, though it must be noted that their
traditions are more firmly rooted, often tending to subsume or overwhelm anything
fresh or original. To its eventual credit, Hinduism, a very eclectic approach to begin
with, will usually honour and
absorb new directions and reformers, but it may take a few centuries.
Hindu-affiliated guru figures can often be limited by their preordained options. An example
might be the various Shankaracharyas: they are treated both as guru figures
offering individual guidance and liberation and as Pope-like officials
upholding a realization-antithetic status quo.
Sikhism started as a reform and synthesizing movement, complete with an
impressive line of gurus starting with Nanak, who himself was an heir of Kabir.
It became codified, not so finally as to exclude further masters from arising,
but the tendency has been for branchers to leave the fold and propound
similar-but-different independent movements. The Radhasoami / Sant Mat family
is one such group.
Islam, having as one of its central tenets that Mohammed was the last Prophet,
might seem to be one of the most unlikely places for independent masters to
arise. Indeed, such arisings have on many occasions been brutally persecuted.
But Sufis have managed somehow to remain as Muslims and be independent of
mainstream Islamic culture, and even thriving in some of the more tolerant
national cultures.
About Judaism, i don't feel qualified to say much. Some independent masters
have arisen but it is not a big phenomenon. And quite frankly, this one angry
God guy is not an ideal milieu as seen from here.
The same God blights Xianity, the biggest failure imo in terms of
tolerating and encouraging enlightened masters. Yes, over the centuries there
have been your Eckharts and Boehmes but they have had to struggle mightily,
not least against the kindergarten metaphysics of their scriptures, never mind
the Inquisitions, the most representative archetype of the heavy hand of
tradition.
Basta!
Except a mention of Timothy Conway's excellent article
on tradition and ethics, and how they relate to different styles of masters.
Page Top
|
