I've been hearing a lot about, and reading a few, of these 'guru-rating' websites -- where people who have (little or no?) credentials in spirituality other than they know some HTML or how to blog, and have a resentment or two about some guru or another post their silly ideas and recommendations and sound off their blowhard egoisms about spiritual teachers and masters, saints and avataras alike.
I've taken to calling them 'guru-bashing' sites because most of them focus on the negative about living saints, and have a few grudging crumbs to toss to a few living ones... and then glorify the dead ones.
it's natural, especially in Kali Yuga, this age, that people throw their own garbage on the saints and expect it to stick (of course it doesn't) -- since the holy people, if they're real holy saints, are merely reflecting back to people their own stuff....
but anyway, after I read one of these sites -- I had to share this with you guys.
this blogger guy is eviscerating some saint (I don't know who it is) based on a website where the would-be saint has, actually, some beautiful writings and some brilliant spiritual insights (and some pretty dorky photos... but he's trying to convey universalism, hey, give him a break). (the more I read, the more I heard resonant things in what this saint is saying.)
of course in the process of reviling the saint, the blogger guy is simply showing the teeth and fangs of his own unbelievable ignorance about spirituality in general, the Indian tradition in particular, especially Dattatreya saints and MOST especially about the Mother Divine in the form of Kali.
I'm posting his write-up first, and then my response to it. I noticed that the blog site, although it accepts comments, doesn't seem to actually HAVE any -- is it that no one reads the site, that no one comments, or that the blogger himself doesn't have the balls to print the comments he does get? 'curiouser and curiouser,' as Alice said -- I'm interested to see if he allows my comment to show up.
anyway, this should be fun. fire away, all!
Alx
here's the link: guruphiliac.blogspot.com/2005/...i.html
and here's the blog entry that made me gnash my teeth a few times:
File under: Wackadoo Gurus
Today we were directed to the website of Shri Datta Swami. You can add him to your list of psychotically grandiose gurus. Our first clue was the picture on the homepage that depicts the Swami as the founder of all the world's major religions. Then there are his claims of avatarhood, quite ordinary actually... for a loony tunes guru who happens to be Hindu:The highest human incarnation of God, the Paripurna Avatara, means that the Lord who has come down in human form, dwells in that human body from its birth to its end and also expresses His inseparable characteristic of the True, Infinite, and Divine Knowledge.
The Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, together is called as 'Dattatreya' or Lord Datta. Lord Datta has now come down as a Pari Purna Avatara, to impart the Divine Knowledge to us. He stands before us as Shri Datta Swami. Swamiji's mission in the world is to establish a Universal Spirituality based on the Divine knowledge.There isn't really much we can say about that. And yet it gets much better. Swami has "met" Kali. From the account of a "devotee":I tried to follow their conversation but could not understand much since they were speaking Sanskrit. Swami was speaking in an authoritative tone, while the lady was speaking very politely and submissively. After some time the lady disappeared. After she left, Swami still sat there with closed eyes. I closed the window and went back to bed.
Next morning, I asked Swami, who the divine lady was. Swami told me that she was the Divine Mother Kali. Kali is the ferocious and terrifying form of the Divine Mother. I asked about what the conversation was about.
Swami replied, "She wanted to destroy humanity through the dreaded disease, AIDS. I prevented her form doing so saying that the time had not come for it. I assured her that I will change humanity through My Divine Knowledge and that she should wait for some more time."It's one thing to say you are God Incarnate. But it's absolutely another to claim you have topped the Mistress of All Creation. This Swami is as ripe as any nut under a betel palm.
Anyone with a nanogram of sense knows Kali takes orders from no one. She's already bailed those hapless gods out a couple of times before. Poor Swami D. must have forgot that story when this vomitus came up out of his fractured imagination. Just another indication this guru is missing a couple of whole suits from his deck.
AND here's my response:
I must say, I'm stunned by your censure of this guy and especially based on the criteria you list, above.
to ridicule the idea of a saint, a divine soul, a holy person, who speaks openly about communicating with Kali (or the Divine Mother in any form) only reveals a kind of unlearnedness on the part of whoever posted this writing about the depth of spirituality in the Indian tradition.
many great saints of antiquity and modernity have talked directly with Kali. you should catch up on your reading -- especially starting with Sri Ramakrishna, whose life-long conversations and experiences of Maha Kali are fairly well known and well-documented.
Buddha worshipped "Mahamaya," the literature tells us. exactly who do you think that is? Mahamaya is more or less another name for Kali.
if you bother to research on Dattatreya saints, like Shirdi Sai Baba or a living one like Ganapathi Satchitananda (www.dattapeetham.com), you'll discover that a major attribute of Datta's relationship with the Divine has to do with Kali. or the Divine Mother in many forms -- but usually that means Kali.
even Yogananda spoke of some experiences he had with Kali, specifically. especially in his youth. (so you can draw your own conclusions about whether or not he also was a Datta saint.)
it's not a fiction, it's not a joke, it's not a fantasy, dealing with the Mother Divine -- all the great saints we can name have done it, whether they talked about it publicly or not.
including, oddly enough, Jesus Christ, during his training in India.
is it so far-fetched to imagine that when Christ is talking with god the night before the crucifixion is to happen, in the Garden at Gethsemane, asking for 'this cup' to be removed from him, that he was addressing Shiva and Kali, as his divine father and mother?
your sarcastic dismissal of this guy who's calling himself a Dattatreya saint, and rejection of his divinity on the ground that he (giggle, giggle, snort, snort) talks with Kali is absurd. it's like suggesting that Jesus wasn't really divine because he (giggle, giggle, snort, snort) was crucified, and everybody knows that a REAL saint wouldn't allow such an experience to happen to his own physical body!!!!
I can definitely see why most of the saints throughout history have chosen to conceal, rather than reveal, the whole story about their relationships with Kali -- it's too easily misunderstood by people in the world who don't have a clue about the depths of spiritual mechanisms.
finally, I should mention that in my studies in India, it's not at all unusual for people to have the darshan of, and communication with, forms of the Mother Divine (including, yes, of Kali). many of my colleagues (several hundred, in fact), have had this kind of experience as they've moved along in their spiritual progress in -- hey, whaddya know -- a Dattatreya lineage.
my point: do your research before you start dismissing anyone's divinity or spiritual statements. your ignorance is showing and it's not pretty.
sincerely,
Alx Uttermann
I've taken to calling them 'guru-bashing' sites because most of them focus on the negative about living saints, and have a few grudging crumbs to toss to a few living ones... and then glorify the dead ones.
it's natural, especially in Kali Yuga, this age, that people throw their own garbage on the saints and expect it to stick (of course it doesn't) -- since the holy people, if they're real holy saints, are merely reflecting back to people their own stuff....
but anyway, after I read one of these sites -- I had to share this with you guys.
this blogger guy is eviscerating some saint (I don't know who it is) based on a website where the would-be saint has, actually, some beautiful writings and some brilliant spiritual insights (and some pretty dorky photos... but he's trying to convey universalism, hey, give him a break). (the more I read, the more I heard resonant things in what this saint is saying.)
of course in the process of reviling the saint, the blogger guy is simply showing the teeth and fangs of his own unbelievable ignorance about spirituality in general, the Indian tradition in particular, especially Dattatreya saints and MOST especially about the Mother Divine in the form of Kali.
I'm posting his write-up first, and then my response to it. I noticed that the blog site, although it accepts comments, doesn't seem to actually HAVE any -- is it that no one reads the site, that no one comments, or that the blogger himself doesn't have the balls to print the comments he does get? 'curiouser and curiouser,' as Alice said -- I'm interested to see if he allows my comment to show up.
anyway, this should be fun. fire away, all!
Alx
here's the link: guruphiliac.blogspot.com/2005/...i.html
and here's the blog entry that made me gnash my teeth a few times:
File under: Wackadoo Gurus
Today we were directed to the website of Shri Datta Swami. You can add him to your list of psychotically grandiose gurus. Our first clue was the picture on the homepage that depicts the Swami as the founder of all the world's major religions. Then there are his claims of avatarhood, quite ordinary actually... for a loony tunes guru who happens to be Hindu:The highest human incarnation of God, the Paripurna Avatara, means that the Lord who has come down in human form, dwells in that human body from its birth to its end and also expresses His inseparable characteristic of the True, Infinite, and Divine Knowledge.
The Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, together is called as 'Dattatreya' or Lord Datta. Lord Datta has now come down as a Pari Purna Avatara, to impart the Divine Knowledge to us. He stands before us as Shri Datta Swami. Swamiji's mission in the world is to establish a Universal Spirituality based on the Divine knowledge.There isn't really much we can say about that. And yet it gets much better. Swami has "met" Kali. From the account of a "devotee":I tried to follow their conversation but could not understand much since they were speaking Sanskrit. Swami was speaking in an authoritative tone, while the lady was speaking very politely and submissively. After some time the lady disappeared. After she left, Swami still sat there with closed eyes. I closed the window and went back to bed.
Next morning, I asked Swami, who the divine lady was. Swami told me that she was the Divine Mother Kali. Kali is the ferocious and terrifying form of the Divine Mother. I asked about what the conversation was about.
Swami replied, "She wanted to destroy humanity through the dreaded disease, AIDS. I prevented her form doing so saying that the time had not come for it. I assured her that I will change humanity through My Divine Knowledge and that she should wait for some more time."It's one thing to say you are God Incarnate. But it's absolutely another to claim you have topped the Mistress of All Creation. This Swami is as ripe as any nut under a betel palm.
Anyone with a nanogram of sense knows Kali takes orders from no one. She's already bailed those hapless gods out a couple of times before. Poor Swami D. must have forgot that story when this vomitus came up out of his fractured imagination. Just another indication this guru is missing a couple of whole suits from his deck.
AND here's my response:
I must say, I'm stunned by your censure of this guy and especially based on the criteria you list, above.
to ridicule the idea of a saint, a divine soul, a holy person, who speaks openly about communicating with Kali (or the Divine Mother in any form) only reveals a kind of unlearnedness on the part of whoever posted this writing about the depth of spirituality in the Indian tradition.
many great saints of antiquity and modernity have talked directly with Kali. you should catch up on your reading -- especially starting with Sri Ramakrishna, whose life-long conversations and experiences of Maha Kali are fairly well known and well-documented.
Buddha worshipped "Mahamaya," the literature tells us. exactly who do you think that is? Mahamaya is more or less another name for Kali.
if you bother to research on Dattatreya saints, like Shirdi Sai Baba or a living one like Ganapathi Satchitananda (www.dattapeetham.com), you'll discover that a major attribute of Datta's relationship with the Divine has to do with Kali. or the Divine Mother in many forms -- but usually that means Kali.
even Yogananda spoke of some experiences he had with Kali, specifically. especially in his youth. (so you can draw your own conclusions about whether or not he also was a Datta saint.)
it's not a fiction, it's not a joke, it's not a fantasy, dealing with the Mother Divine -- all the great saints we can name have done it, whether they talked about it publicly or not.
including, oddly enough, Jesus Christ, during his training in India.
is it so far-fetched to imagine that when Christ is talking with god the night before the crucifixion is to happen, in the Garden at Gethsemane, asking for 'this cup' to be removed from him, that he was addressing Shiva and Kali, as his divine father and mother?
your sarcastic dismissal of this guy who's calling himself a Dattatreya saint, and rejection of his divinity on the ground that he (giggle, giggle, snort, snort) talks with Kali is absurd. it's like suggesting that Jesus wasn't really divine because he (giggle, giggle, snort, snort) was crucified, and everybody knows that a REAL saint wouldn't allow such an experience to happen to his own physical body!!!!
I can definitely see why most of the saints throughout history have chosen to conceal, rather than reveal, the whole story about their relationships with Kali -- it's too easily misunderstood by people in the world who don't have a clue about the depths of spiritual mechanisms.
finally, I should mention that in my studies in India, it's not at all unusual for people to have the darshan of, and communication with, forms of the Mother Divine (including, yes, of Kali). many of my colleagues (several hundred, in fact), have had this kind of experience as they've moved along in their spiritual progress in -- hey, whaddya know -- a Dattatreya lineage.
my point: do your research before you start dismissing anyone's divinity or spiritual statements. your ignorance is showing and it's not pretty.
sincerely,
Alx Uttermann
posted by:
|
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 8:59 AMHey Alx.
I put up a reply to your comments.
guruphiliac.blogspot.com/2005/...i.html
I understand why you would not at first see what I'm aiming at with my blog,
so I'll sum it up. Hindu superstition about self-realization becomes a block to
it's coming about in a life. Thus, I aim my verbal flamethrower at those gurus whose
ideas and presentation of themselves reinforce these ideas of special human divinity
and magical abilities.
I've been a Kali devotee for 20 years and am initiated in the Ramakrishna lineage,
so I'm not knocking Ma. However, these ideas of special human divinity and magic
powers associated with self-realization have to go.
A lot of folks, including yourself at the moment, don't like my blog. All I can say is that
what you believe about self-realization prevents self-realization, and that I will do
everything in my power as a geek with a computer to make that point known by using
anyone held up as being special and divine.
We're either all equally divine, or none of us are. This is the truth of the Upanishads
and the message of Swami Vivekananda.
--jody. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 12:33 PM>>ideas of special human divinity and magic powers associated with self-realization have to go.
why, if people have in fact attained Siddhi?
>>what you believe about self-realization prevents self-realization
don't you think that's a little presumptous?
>>This is the truth of the Upanishads and the message of Swami Vivekananda.
perhaps. but was Vedanta really the message of Ramakrishna? -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:17 PM> why, if people have in fact attained Siddhi?
I've been wandering in yoga culture for 20 years. I have never
seen evidence of anything that could be called a siddhi.
Therefore, I have concluded that most of what are called
siddhis are myths. Furthermore, these myths do more to
prevent realization than all the brothels in Thailand.
I realize there's 1000s of years of the myth of siddhis.
But then, we thought the world was flat for 1000s of
years as well.
> don't you think that's a little presumptous?
No sir, not one tiny bit.
> perhaps. but was Vedanta really the message of Ramakrishna?
It was. However, what we know of Ramakrishna today is
almost all hagiography. It's tainted by saint worship. Most of
the human truths about Ramakrishna has been scrubbed out
of his biography.
I take Ramakrishna's message to be: "As many faiths, so many
paths." Also, it's not what you believe, it's how you believe it.
In other words, it's ALL about sincerity. Ideology is irrelevant,
as long as nobody is getting hurt.
The whole "woman and gold" thing was kind of a smokescreen
for him. He enjoyed the good stuff, and his actual proclivities
were hidden for the most part. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:26 PMgood heavens, jody -- of course siddhis are real! now -- important, special, or worth revelling in -- certainly not, in my opinion. but real, and regularly occurring in the realities of many, many yogis -- without a doubt! -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:36 PM> good heavens, jody -- of course siddhis are real! now -- important, special,
> or worth revelling in -- certainly not, in my opinion. but real, and regularly
> occurring in the realities of many, many yogis -- without a doubt!
You believe so at the peril of your own self-realization, in my opinion. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:40 PM>>in my opinion.
thanks! my opinion differs, but such is the nature of human discourse.
ramakrishna.tribe.net/
feel free to join the discussions. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:51 PMRemember what Ramakrishna said about siddhis: that they
are like a street-walking prostitute covered in raw sewage.
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 4:23 PMwell, amend that statement "siddhis are real", perhaps, to say "siddhis are as real as anything else in this world" -- ie, more illusion mechanisms but none the less manifestations of energy. nothing lost, nothing gained, just repurposed so suddenly ash is in someone's hand where it wasn't, before, etc.
I do agree, of course, that siddhic abilities don't at all necessarily accompany enlightenment. on the other hand, I've seen enough demonstration of them to know that something wildly beautiful and germane is at play.
my teacher in India, who does demonstrate miracles, calls them 'divine illusions.'
for instance, someone is born on this planet -- ah, illusion. they're developing an illness -- more illusion. a healer comes along -- another illusion. he heals that person through 'supernatural' means -- yet another illusion. the patient recovers -- more illusion.
so, to me, both are relevant and operational -- the pure divine nothingness behind all the somethingnesses, and the apparent existence of somethingnesses out of the nothingness.
Alx -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 4:33 PM> my teacher in India, who does demonstrate miracles, calls them 'divine illusions.'
I can't get on board with this at all, Alx.
Sai Baba has been debunked many times by many individuals for this "siddhis."
Amma Narayani claims to manifest ash as well. If a story sounds too fantastic to
be true, it probably is.
> the patient recovers -- more illusion.
Or, faith healing by way of the placebo effect.
> o, to me, both are relevant and operational -- the pure divine nothingness behind
> all the somethingnesses, and the apparent existence of somethingnesses out of
> the nothingness.
You can't deny Ms. Maya while living in Her, even when you know that you
never existed as anything other than Brahman. Shankara tried to deny Her
for years, but in the end all but gave up.
-
-
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:29 PMall of the biographies or just Nikhilinanda's english translation of the Kathamrita?
I'm curious as to the alleged discrepancies between the Bengali version and that which has reached us. I cannot as yet read Bengali, however....
I in fact think that you are entirely presumptous in stating your position categorically. I never trust anyone who claims to have THE truth, whether they be a Guru or one opposed to them. who are you to judge the level of self realization in others?
personally I think that Vivekananda used the legacy of Ramakrishna to his advantage while promoting a viewpoint that was much more his own than Ramakrishna's.
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:45 PM> all of the biographies or just Nikhilinanda's english translation of the Kathamrita?
M's original Kathamrita has passages that were omitted or bowdlerized by
Nikhilananda.
> I'm curious as to the alleged discrepancies between the Bengali version and
> that which has reached us. I cannot as yet read Bengali, however....
www.ruf.rice.edu/~kalischi
www.amazon.com/gp/product...753-8260608
> I in fact think that you are entirely presumptous in stating your position categorically.
> I never trust anyone who claims to have THE truth,
I don't blame you. I'm claiming one truth, that ideas about self-realization
prevent self-realization. Shankara called this "doubt", although ideas about
realization are positive doubts rather than negative ones.
> whether they be a Guru or one opposed to them. who are you to judge the
> level of self realization in others?
Good question. I claim to be just another asshole with an opinion.
> personally I think that Vivekananda used the legacy of Ramakrishna to his
> advantage while promoting a viewpoint that was much more his own than
> Ramakrishna's.
I agree that Vivekananda developed his own agenda after RK maha'ed.
The legacy of RK is what got him off the ground, but he only mentions
RK a very few times while in the West. He built his own legacy (and got
trapped in it in the end.) -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 4:01 PMI've read Kali's Child - it was interesting, but not something I can verify myself without reading Bengali, which is why I say alleged. Really, I liked Ramakrishna more for having read that book - and not because I thought it was a "pack of lies" as is some people's reaction to it.
I'm an asshole with all kinds of opinions as well. My pet peeve is duality, but I don't subscribe to Shankaracharya's viewpoint, nonetheless. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 4:36 PM> Really, I liked Ramakrishna more for having read that book
Dude. You are the first person I've met since I read the book
in 1996 who felt that way about it. It's very gratifying to hear
you say that. Jeff Kripal will be very happy about it when I
tell him.
Duality. We are the Self even when we say we aren't. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 5:28 PMWell, his intentions were not slanderous. I agree with his aims, and have a feeling that most of his conclusions were correct. I don't think the lives of saints should be whitewashed for public consumption. people and the world are beautiful, warts and all. your earlier quote about excrement and prostitutes in regards to siddhi makes me think the same thing. all of that is beautiful and divine as well. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 7:04 PMOr ugly and divine.
You're liberal stance regarding Kripal is very encouraging.
I've been the only RK devotee I know besides Jeff who liked
that book.
Jai Ma!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 2:23 PMhi, Jody,
hey, what a surprise, I'm glad you're here.
sorry I got so testy writing you -- something about the tone you take rubbed me a really wrong way.
I was going to post another comment, in response to the one you put on the blogsite.
maybe I'll do that at length, line by line, there, and be concise here.
I think the Western mind has more traps than Maine lobsterers put in the ocean, and one of those traps is freaking out when someone identifies themselves as a divine being. case in point: Jesus. many dogmatic Christians seem to think that because he said he was a son of god, that he identified himself in that moment and for all eternity as the ONLY son of god. no WAY! nor was he suggesting, of course, that everyone is less than that. he was saying, everyone is a child of god, ie, divine, actually "I tell ye, ye are gods," where he quoted the psalms.
currently, my view is that people knee-jerk react when a person self-identifies as a divine being, thinking somehow that that person is saying they're the ONLY incarnation of that divine energy (usually they're not at all suggesting that, though of course there are some interesting exceptions to my point). that guy saying he's a Datta avatara doesn't negate EVERYONE being such, he's just speaking that way as it comes out -- or, my take on it, actually, is that the energy itself is speaking that way through him.
it's easy to misunderstand. it's more difficult to understand.
about the Mother and Her darshan -- I didn't realize until I read your rebuttal that you are a devotee of Kali. it makes some of your responses, then, even more confusing and interesting to me.
to wit, you were saying that Ramakrishna's visions of Mother would be considered psychiatric today -- no doubt, but I must make the point that if it's a choice between thousands of years of the Indian tradition and yogic science of understanding how the divine operates, or a few hundred years of Western psycho-analytic traditions... well, my money's on the divine.
the other thing that's interesting to me is that on one hand you're dismissing visions of Kali (or Ma in general, I'm guessing) as hallucinations or self-hypnosis, or psychiatric conditions and even superstition on the part of a few gazillion credulous Indians..... and at the same time, you consider yourself a Kali devotee.
so which is it, man? is She real or is She not?
are experiences of Her made-up wishful lies that credulous wide-eyed religious zealots convince themselves about based on a thousands-year-old tradition of 'mythos'? are the saints like Ramakrishna, then, not saints at all but hallucinating fools?
where do you fit into that mix?
and -- just as another comment about the tradition and experiences I've been studying in India -- to be clear about the terms, when I say 'darshan' of the Mother, I mean darshan. I mean, your eyes are open, and a human-like divine form in 3 dimensions is standing in front of a person, talking to them and interacting with that person.
not an eyes-closed, 'gee that was a nice meditation where I saw Kali' vision.
I think -- when we talk on the slippery slope of Illusion that is Mother's domain, we need to be as clear as we can about terms like 'visions' and 'darshan.'
finally, as far as objecting to a saint's contention that he had a conversation with Mother in which She acquisesced to his request for humanity -- your comment was that he 'topped her.' somehow implying a boastful, 'hey, I raised the bet on Mother and got Her to do what I wanted! I'm so cool, aren't I?' grandiosity.
again, I would say that's an entirely Western (and understandable, but not necessarily true) interpretation and projection of what was said in that exchange.
no Mother can resist the sincere plea of Her children, including the Divine Mother, as I understand Her. it means, in a sense, for a devotee (and Her avataras are still Her devotees, last time I checked) to come surrendered to Her, as a child with a request, and Her kind acquiescence to that request -- surrender DOES 'top Her' in the sense that She can and will change course based on the humble, serviceful requests of her children.
so, to me, that recounting of a conversation with Her is credible and makes sense -- not from a self-aggrandizing point of view but as an illustration of the play between Mother and avataras, in particular Datta avataras, who have a kind of peculiar relationship with Her.
She is so gracious, so powerful, so on top of it all, She has no need to assert Her dominance with the souls of this planet -- it's only human to assume how She would behave in any given situation. it's natural to project in this fashion, but it's not supernatural in understanding.
anyway, that's my feeling.
I hope you'll stick around and we can keep talking.
Alx
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:05 PM> sorry I got so testy writing you -- something about the tone you take rubbed me a really wrong way.
The tone is on purpose. I'm attacking the idea of special divinity with wit (what little of it I have),
sarcasm and irony in the style typical of modern blogging.
> one of those traps is freaking out when someone identifies themselves as a divine being.
A much more sinister trap is thinking you will become divine with self-realization.
We are always divine. Self-realization brings jnana to the awareness of
the person, but that doesn't make you God anymore than you already were.
> is that the energy itself is speaking that way through him.
I don't believe that energy speaks. I know for a fact that the Self is eternally wordless.
To put it another way, words can only come from the level of being identified as an
individual, which makes Swami Datta a wackjob. At the very least, he is a good example
of what I'm trying to critique in spiritual culture.
> if it's a choice between thousands of years of the Indian tradition and yogic science
> of understanding how the divine operates, or a few hundred years of Western psycho-
> analytic traditions... well, my money's on the divine.
I'd say it's a choice between 1000s of years of accreted legend and myth–bolstered the
whole time by superstition and split into a 1000 variations–or one succinct and consistent
model borne out by experiment and research.
Like it or not, "seeing" Kali as a being standing in front of you is pathological. This doesn't
mean you'll be ever crazy as a result, but were it to happen to me or anyone I know, I'd
recommend a PET scan and a visit to a therapist.
Many of the crazy bhakta saints, like Ramakrishna, may well have been psychiatric
patients today, with the majority being bi-polar.
I don't mean to demean their vision and legacy, but I do mean to contextualize Hindu
myth and superstition in terms of what we know today, to demonstrate that a lot of what
we accept as religious truth is just myth, legend and superstition handed down and
modified by folks along the way.
> so which is it, man? is She real or is She not?
She is real in that the Mahashakti is real. But she's not real in terms of being a crazy
Indian lady in Heaven, raising Hell.
RK said: "As many faiths, so many paths." If you are sincere, Ishvara will inhabit
whatever Ishta Devata you pick. I picked Kali because I liked the idea of being
devoted to a crazy, yet devastatingly sexy Goddess. I was sincere, so She came
to me and made me Her slave.
> are the saints like Ramakrishna, then, not saints at all but hallucinating fools?
Their "saintliness" is much more a function of their hagiographies. I'd say they
were spiritually inspired people who got blown up to mythic proportions after
their deaths.
> I mean darshan. I mean, your eyes are open, and a human-like divine form
> in 3 dimensions is standing in front of a person, talking to them and interacting
> with that person.
I would call that a projection of the subconscious as a way to fulfill a wish.
That's doesn't mean it isn't important or spiritual, but it also doesn't mean that
an actual Kali is making an appearance. In other words, Ma is appearing
by way of the subconscious of the devotee as an expression of the devotee's
love and desire.
> again, I would say that's an entirely Western (and understandable, but
> not necessarily true) interpretation and projection of what was said in that
> exchange.
Here is a bit of Datta's story:
)) the lady was speaking very politely and submissively
That ain't no Kali that I know. Plus, to claim that he saved the world by
admonishing Kali about AIDS? That's wackadoo country.
> surrender DOES 'top Her' in the sense that She can and will change
> course based on the humble, serviceful requests of her children.
I would never in a million years ask Ma for ANYTHING but surrender.
I have never, ever asked Her for anything else. That's what surrender
is to me. What isn't surrender is making requests for a child, or a lover
or money to pay the mortgage.
To myself, surrender is accepting life as it comes at you all as Ma's grace,
whether pleasant or painful. It's not about asking for personal happiness,
as far as I'm concerned.
> that recounting of a conversation with Her is credible and makes sense --
> not from a self-aggrandizing point of view but as an illustration of the play
> between Mother and avataras, in particular Datta avataras, who have a
> kind of peculiar relationship with Her.
To me the story reeks of spiritual hooey. To each his own, eh?
My blog opposes all concepts of Avatar. Most of those claiming the title
today are con men, in my opinion. We are all equally divine, rendering
the title moot.
> but it's not supernatural in understanding.
As a proponent of Advaita Vedanta, I reject ALL supernatural understanding
as just more Maya. Neti, neti. Or as I like to say: it all has as much to with
our truth as the Self as my dog's ass.
I'm not saying supernatural understanding is invalid, I'm saying it's ALWAYS
entirely subjective. There is no "standard" of supernatural information. It has
value to the individual who is knowing it. For everyone else it's just one more
person's fantasy about God.
> I hope you'll stick around and we can keep talking.
Thanks for having me Alx.
--jody -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 4:26 PM<<I don't mean to demean their vision and legacy, but I do mean to contextualize Hindu
myth and superstition in terms of what we know today, to demonstrate that a lot of what
we accept as religious truth is just myth, legend and superstition handed down and
modified by folks along the way.>>
Jody,
from what you saying, it sounds like you are coming from a purely psychological background trying to scientifically disprove the validity of all spiritual and mystical experiences as purely manifestations of some sort of psychosis.
The myths are made to represent all of the spectrum of various factual, fictional, and symbolic tales, and they are not necessarily made to be taken at face value as truth, but *direct* spiritual experience with deity is simply not myth or legend either.
Discounting true mystical experience means that we will never except anything but physical so-called reality, or the most mundane of awareness as truth? Where is the mystical in that? Where is the self-realization?
<<Here is a bit of Datta's story:
the lady was speaking very politely and submissive>>
I agree that this sounds a bit absurd, from my own personal experience, Kali does not present Herself as submissive...ever. This sounds like some sort of male fantasy, but perhaps the story has been taken out of context, mistranslated or miscommunicated...who cares? I know of and have personally met a few so-called "Avatars" who are wacko and probably only have chosen to become so-called Guru-Avatar for the ego gratification and $$$. Yes, it happens, just as much as there are real Gurus with true spiritual knowledge and siddhas, there are those who just pose as Gurus. We are living in the Kali yuga, and as spiritual seekers we must have discernment and use our intuition wisely. But, i think that bashing the ones who aren't truly enlightened, handing them a label of psychosis, or focussing on their faults isn't necessarily the road to peace within ourselves either, or is it a path to self-realization...
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 4:50 PM> from what you saying, it sounds like you are coming from a purely psychological
> background trying to scientifically disprove the validity of all spiritual and mystical
> experiences as purely manifestations of some sort of psychosis.
My background is 20 years as a shakta with one year at an ashram, 17 years as
an initiate in the lineage of Ramakrishna and an aborted degree in transpersonal
psychology.
I'm not saying spiritual experiences are only psychotic, I'm saying that spiritual
experience is always subjective. Its value and meaning are limited only to the
individual who experienced them. I'm also saying this: spiritual experience has
as much to do with our truth as the Self as any other experience, whether it be
distributing food in a soup kitchen, or blowing cash at a hooker ranch outside
Vegas.
> The myths are made to represent all of the spectrum of various factual, fictional,
> and symbolic tales, and they are not necessarily made to be taken at face value
> as truth,
But they are, all the time, to the detriment of those seeking self-realization.
> but *direct* spiritual experience with deity is simply not myth or legend either.
However, it is completely and entirely subjective. Each has his/her own, none
is more valuable than the other, and none of it has anything to do with the Self.
> Discounting true mystical experience means that we will never except anything
> but physical so-called reality, or the most mundane of awareness as truth?
The truth of the Self is absolutely the most mundane thing you can think of.
> Where is the mystical in that?
Mostly limited to the subconscious projections of the experiencer.
> Where is the self-realization?
Right here, right now, closer than our own breath, in every moment of
our lives, regardless of what we are doing, as if it was sitting on the tips
of our noses.
> I agree that this sounds a bit absurd, from my own personal experience,
> Kali does not present Herself as submissive...ever.
Ho!
> This sounds like some sort of male fantasy, but perhaps the story has
> been taken out of context, mistranslated or miscommunicated...who cares?
I do, when it contributes to the reservoir of occluding expectations about
self-realization than flood spiritual culture like hurricane Katrina.
> I know of and have personally met a few so-called "Avatars" who are wacko
> and probably only have chosen to become so-called Guru-Avatar for the ego
> gratification and $$$. Yes, it happens, just as much as there are real Gurus with
> true spiritual knowledge and siddhas,
I'd love to see one demonstrated in a controlled environment.
> there are those who just pose as Gurus.
> We are living in the Kali yuga, and as spiritual seekers we must have discernment
> and use our intuition wisely. But, i think that bashing the ones who aren't truly
> enlightened, handing them a label of psychosis, or focussing on their faults
> isn't necessarily the road to peace within ourselves either,
Maybe some folks have been zapped by that peace and are trying to share
what they've come to understand about it in the best way they know how.
> or is it a path to self-realization...
Who knows? -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 5:43 PMMnemosyne wrote:
> I agree that this sounds a bit absurd, from my own personal experience,
> Kali does not present Herself as submissive...ever.
Jody triumphed: Ho!
my comment:
oh, jeepers, guys. sounds like more mythos to me.
<yawning>
Kali is Kali -- the supreme combination of all the saints, rishis, gods, goddesses, angels and other divine beings all rolled into one -- She can appear however She wants.
whether the form standing in front of you looks like a demon with skulls around Her neck or as calm as Laxmi, the ENERGY running through the form is still Kali.
appearances are so deceiving.
Alx -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 6:44 PM<<Kali is Kali -- the supreme combination of all the saints, rishis, gods, goddesses, angels and other divine beings all rolled into one -- She can appear however She wants.>>
yeah, Alx...you're right, but that wasn't my point...the word "submissive" caught my attention because it seems to be implying that She is under human control. Whether She appears "calm" or compassionate is not relevant and doesn't apply to Her being submissive, in my opinion...I honestly don't care what form She chooses, scary or benign or whatever, none of that matters...or if She has no form.
The story seems odd and ridiculous as it is presented, my gut tells me that it is way off... thou i didn't deny that it was probably taken out of context, misconstrued or mistranslated. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 7:08 PM> the word "submissive" caught my attention because it seems to be implying that
> She is under human control.
Under Datta's control. I think it renders him a fool at best. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 7:22 PMwell, if that is the case Jody, i have no doubts whatsoever, that *If* Datta is indeed invoking Kali, which is not just some part of his "subconscious" mind or a mental construct (as you suggested in another post), but is rather more real than anything in this mundane world, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about and no reason to write your blogs.
Kali will straighten him out, not to worry...
I must admit it would be rather funny to imagine a saint thinking that Kali is his sub and he the master....haa haaa haaa ...yeah right : ))
-
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 7:06 PM> She can appear however She wants.
Of course. Because we are imagining her in the way we want.
-
-
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 5:11 PMJody!
>A much more sinister trap is thinking you will become divine with self-realization.
well, DUH.
>We are always divine.
well, yeah, doubly DUHhed. that's what cracks me up about your assault on these guys. they're basically saying that, from some angle or another, and you're bashing them for it. what's UP with that?
(then I wrote: my feeling is that the energy itself is speaking that way through him.)
>I don't believe that energy speaks. I know for a fact that the Self is eternally wordless.
"for a fact" -- huh, strong statement.
"I KNOW the Self is.... " because someone taught it to you? you read it somewhere? you've had direct experience of the wordless Self? aren't we all projections of the Self? don't we sometimes resort to words to communicate?
>To put it another way, words can only come from the level of being identified as an
individual, which makes Swami Datta a wackjob.
I really disagree. if the divine can create universes, you think it can't translate Itself into words if It wants to communicate with us in the way we're used to communicating with one another???????????????????? we're divine yet we abrogate that truth every day and don't, for example, communicate with one another through the silence of meditative states or, I guess, telepathic vibrations.
we're kinda stupid that way. the divine, as I understand it, is super-accomodating of our utter stupidity and is more than willing to express itself through people, animals, indeed any and all elements of nature that exist can become agents for the divine's communication with people. but mostly we're dense and miss the signs, so we get words.
>(I wrote:) if it's a choice between thousands of years of the Indian tradition and yogic science
> of understanding how the divine operates, or a few hundred years of Western psycho-
> analytic traditions... well, my money's on the divine.
(you replied:) I'd say it's a choice between 1000s of years of accreted legend and myth–bolstered the
whole time by superstition and split into a 1000 variations–or one succinct and consistent
model borne out by experiment and research.
isn't Western psycho-analysis also a kind of superstition??????????? it's a 'succinct and consistent model borne out by experiment and research'? are you SERIOUS? they can't figure out what to do with most schizophrenics and bi-polars except medicate or institutionalize them and even then, the amount of actual healing of those conditions is practically nil.
I would heartfully argue that yoga, the science of self-realization, of meditation and siddhi and tantra, is a succinct and consistent model borne out from thousands of years of practical research and research. not only that but the results are, as per scientific method criteria, repeatable and demonstrable. ie, "if you do this mantra so many days in such a way, observing a diksha and pronunciation, you will attain x siddhi." people do it. it happens. it's not rocket science, it's not even religion or superstition -- it's like recipes for baking cakes. if you add this much sadhana and this particular austerity, you wind up with results.
how come India has such a history of producing enlightened masters, including Jesus and Buddha, Padmasambhava, Adi Shankara and all the rest of anonymous, unheard-of incredible ascetes and siddhas throughout thousands of years? these guys were hardly tooting their own horns -- they just followed certain prescribed formulas and practiced and researched as saints had before them, and they did the hard work and got the results.
what is superstitious about that?
to my way of thinking, modern psychology is an infancy-level of observation of how things work on this planet vis-a-vis the highly subjective (and individualized) realities of emotional states in people: psychology can catalogue the problems and in some basic ways, provide a kind of therapeutic relief, but mostly it can't fix what's broken in people.
it's -- primitive. <grinning>
then you wrote: Like it or not, "seeing" Kali as a being standing in front of you is pathological. This doesn't
mean you'll be ever crazy as a result, but were it to happen to me or anyone I know, I'd
recommend a PET scan and a visit to a therapist.
it's happened to plenty of people I know and they seem sane enough to me.
>Many of the crazy bhakta saints, like Ramakrishna, may well have been psychiatric
patients today, with the majority being bi-polar.
many of the crazy psychotherapists in the world today may well have been saints in other lifetimes.
>I don't mean to demean their vision and legacy,
actually, I think you do.
you can't have it both ways -- either they're onto something, or they're not, in which case your entire blog is a little suspect.
>but I do mean to contextualize Hindu
myth and superstition in terms of what we know today, to demonstrate that a lot of what
we accept as religious truth is just myth, legend and superstition handed down and
modified by folks along the way.
but what if -- I'm just asking -- what if a lot of 'what we know today' in our complacent Western 'scientific' (and I use the term with huge irony) rational thinking-based socieities, is based on certain myths and superstitions? like matter being real, for example. like emotions being 'real' -- ie, significant and worthy of delving into over and over and over again, looking for relief and solutions by re-experiencing trauma in the context of 'therapy'?
I'm not a fan of superstition, religious, scientific, or any other -- nor fanaticism.
but I have seen miracles, bonafide wild stuff accompanied by an influx of energy that is undeniable and unmistakeable. so to me, direct experience is incontravertible. I will fall back on my own experiences every time, versus someone's opinion or scholarly explanation of them.
each of us is on our own path, so in a sense, the spiritual life IS subjective. it IS broadly diverse. like snowflakes, no two exactly alike. why shouldn't the divine also reflect this?
>(I wrote:) are the saints like Ramakrishna, then, not saints at all but hallucinating fools?
you replied: Their "saintliness" is much more a function of their hagiographies. I'd say they
were spiritually inspired people who got blown up to mythic proportions after
their deaths.
so, why are you an initiate of Ramakrishna, then?????? why not become an initiate of your local dry-cleaner? what makes him worth knowing about, or researching on, or caring about?
I'm saying, you really can't have it both ways -- either what he experienced was true, in which case he was opening some pretty sublime doorways into the divine energies and living in this world as a beautiful vehicle for the divine energy pouring through him. or what he experienced was pure hallucination, in which case he's a marginal human being and unworthy of further comment.
I'm confused about why you want to straddle this particular fence, claiming relationship with Kali on one hand and then dissing one of Her most beautiful agents in the world with the other hand.
>I wrote: I mean darshan. I mean, your eyes are open, and a human-like divine form
> in 3 dimensions is standing in front of a person, talking to them and interacting
> with that person.
you responded: I would call that a projection of the subconscious as a way to fulfill a wish.
huh? what if (as often happens) that person didn't even have a conscious desire to SEE Her? or even had never heard of Her and had NO idea who She is or what She represents????????
>>
That's doesn't mean it isn't important or spiritual,
well, gee, that's magnanimous of you!
>>but it also doesn't mean that
an actual Kali is making an appearance.
why not?
okay, back to that Datta guy:
you wrote: (in his story) )) the lady was speaking very politely and submissively. That ain't no Kali that I know.
are you professing to claim that you know Kali intimately enough to account for ALL of Her faces and attitudes, Her bhavas and Her expressions?????????????????
I mean, so what, maybe Kali doesn't come to you as a Mother character, polite and kind -- doesn't mean She doesn't have it in Her!!!!!!!!!!!! how can you possibly claim to know what someone else's experience of Her can or 'should' be like. doesn't that smack of some kind of belief system (ie, superstition or mythos: "She's only this way, not that way.").
>Plus, to claim that he saved the world by
admonishing Kali about AIDS? That's wackadoo country.
why is that wackadoo country?
I mean, I'm thinking of the exchange in Autobiography of a Yogi where Babaji (who you also probably don't acknowledge as existing) comes to Lahiri Mahasaya, his student, and tells him: "I'm giving you this great gift of Kriya yoga, you can give it only to those people who seem ready for it, worthy of receiving this divine key to unlock their liberation." and Lahiri says, "But wouldn't it be better to give it to EVERYONE? Why keep it exclusive?" and Babaji changes his mind, based on Lahiri's questioning, telling him, okay, give it to anyone who's asking for it.
people in Indian traditional spirituality who 'served' gurus must have been pretty shocked by this account, of such an upstart student, 'questioning' the master and even having the master defer to his wishes.
to such people I'm sure Lahiri's request of his master seemed wackadoo. that he wanted to give a precious divine gift just to ANYBODY in the world, rather than a select few, must surely have violated brahminical codes or something.
I'm saying, my understanding is that the divine will BEND to accomodate people who are truly humble and asking boons of the divine for the greater benefit of humanity.
I know many similar stories, don't find them at all unusual or in any way proof that the person asking Mother heartfully to change something in the world is nutso.
on the contrary, I would say that's the mark of a highly realized soul -- someone who's able to stand their ground WITH Mother, be clearly thinking in the moment (not so easy!!!!) and asking humbly for something that will aid human beings at large, with basically no credit since most people have no idea things like this happen 'behind the scenes'.........
sounds reasonable to me.
> I wrote: surrender DOES 'top Her' in the sense that She can and will change
> course based on the humble, serviceful requests of her children.
you replied; I would never in a million years ask Ma for ANYTHING but surrender.
I have never, ever asked Her for anything else. That's what surrender
is to me. What isn't surrender is making requests for a child, or a lover
or money to pay the mortgage.
yes, but that guy didn't ask for ANYTHING selfish (unless he has HIV himself). he was asking Her to hold off on what She had planned, anyway, for a while, and give humanity a chance to grow in its understanding of the divine knowledge. it's a huge boon he got from Her -- and I'm sure it came at a huge price to himself, personally.
my other understanding of Maha Kali is that the only way to deal with Her is through negotiation. something for something. if a person wants a boon (and I think we're all sophisticated enough to understand we're not talking about simple, personal, selfish boons here) -- She'll grant it but She always exacts payment, too.
that you only ask Her for surrender is great -- of course, that's one way to approach Her. but ultimately She'll mow you down (in a beautiful way) and you'll be none the wiser about Her mechanisms. if you don't ask for stuff from Her, you're not treating Her (in my opinion) in a proper way -- She's here to help us help ourselves evolve. just enjoying a connection with Her and growing in surrender is fine but (to my way of thinking, only, so pardon me for sounding judgmental) ultimately selfish.
Sri Ramakrishna, for example, had quite a deal with Her and in exchange he gave Her offerings from his own body. that's why the cancer developed and never healed, on his shoulder and moving into his throat.
you won't read that in story books about him. it's a deep mechanism -- one that the saints usually reserve for their own understanding.
>>you wrote: To myself, surrender is accepting life as it comes at you all as Ma's grace,
whether pleasant or painful. It's not about asking for personal happiness,
as far as I'm concerned.
OF COURSE IT'S NOT ABOUT PERSONAL HAPPINESS. EVER. that's not at all the point. that's not my point. definitely it's not that Datta guy's point.
but surrender is a tricky thing. learning how to navigate with Her is a tricky thing. reclaiming our own divinity, I mean a direct understanding of it, is tricky.
>My blog opposes all concepts of Avatar. Most of those claiming the title
today are con men, in my opinion. We are all equally divine, rendering
the title moot.
funny you should mention that. when people ask my teacher in India if he's an avatara, his response is: "isn't everyone?"
the difference is -- he knows it. not from an intellectual understanding, but from a (what I'd call) soul understanding. he knows what is life and what is death and how to traverse the distance between the two. to me, that's a master and someone worth studying with -- but he would never ever say he's the only avatara of this or that. on the contrary, he's trying to wake his students up to their own divinity so they can turn around and rekindle those recollections, that realization, in others and so on and so on and so on.
and yes, we're equally divine BUT we don't express it, do we!???????? so, there's a gap. how to bridge that gap?
> I wrote: but it's not supernatural in understanding.
you replied: As a proponent of Advaita Vedanta, I reject ALL supernatural understanding
as just more Maya. Neti, neti. Or as I like to say: it all has as much to with
our truth as the Self as my dog's ass.
but even having an idea of Maya, then, is rejectionable -- since that is, after all, a supernatural understanding. my point is, Advaita's all well and good but when you're hungry you're probably not eating The Void.
>I'm not saying supernatural understanding is invalid,
you're not? I must be remarkably dim-witted today, that's precisely how I understood your statement, above.
>I'm saying it's ALWAYS entirely subjective. There is no "standard" of supernatural information.
and you think modern science has real 'standards' by comparison?????? isn't there something in physics about the act of observing stuff changing the actual experience of the stuff???????
or how about 20-20 vision? you know how that got started? some optometrist in the 1800s (I think) needed to test his glasses' lenses and had an assistant who had 'pretty good vision.' he got that guy to walk 20 feet and read stuff on a sign, and then made that guy's vision the STANDARD for optometry.
I think there are mechanisms and rules and orders in the supernatural that are related to and also beyond the natural world orders and mechanisms and observable phenomenae. I think the yogis and rishis have done incredible research into THOSE supernatural mechanisms and tested and tried and experimented (and are still experimenting) with how it all works and they came up with some formulas that produce results. predictable, demonstrable results.
I don't think the supernatural is a woo-woo world of subjective hallucinatory experiences at all. I think it's a different level of knowledge and mechanisms that are obvious to people with a consciousness that's been trained to tune in on those levels.
kinda like a dog whistle. but the difference is, anyone -- ANYONE -- can learn to resonate at those frequencies and gain that knowledge if they're willing to do the hard work to get it.
>It has value to the individual who is knowing it. For everyone else it's just one more person's fantasy about God.
yes, unless the experience is communicable to another person. let's say (for the sake of argument) I have a darshan of Mother Kali. perhaps in a few years, as I continue my spiritual growth and researches, I learn how to GIVE that experience to other people.
is it still 'one person's fantasy' or is it now, something demystified, repeatable, demonstrable?
Alx -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 5:20 PMby the way, I wanna thank you, Jody -- if I hadn't stumbled on your blog and gotten fired up, this conversation wouldn't be happening. I have to say -- this is the most spiritual fun I've had in months!!!!!!!
Alx
-
-
-
-
