http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3767740320034777862&ei#  (on Sathya Sai Baba…not Paramahamsa Nithyananda!) – 1 hour poor quality video.

Sunthar

Jack and others,

Much better quality (watch at 720p) in this 7-part re-broadcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (despite the pleas of thousands of Sai Baba supporters…):

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BVEJDPrGpM
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Ajawd59RM
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag93TX6DI0w
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CROnyK2fzcs
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PHsxBEYI9g
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q4M2raOwPI
7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGZ3Bdjvg3I

Part of the reason I posted this was because Thakur Jaidev Singh used bring up the subject repeatedly during my regular visits to his home to help him read Lilian Silburn’s French works on Kashmir Shaivism.

Sunthar

PS. The Nithyananda referred to below is the contemporary Swami (even if you don’t know Tamil, you can get a sense of the humor from the Sanskrit ‘chanting’ at the beginning of the makeover…):

Unfortunately, most of the footage, including the original Sun TV yellow journalism in Tamil, is in the South Indian languages.

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (14 March 2010)

"The Secret Swami" (BBC) - Godman, charlatan, or modern adept of transgressive sacrality?]

Hi Sunthar,

I have been in India attending the Kumbh Mela and also researching the Swami Nithyananda scandal. Please post my attached article in which I refer to you as an expert on Tantra (p.4).

Thanks and regards,

Rajiv

Rajiv,

In the public interest to invite informed and constructive comment, your article has just been (converted to HTML and) posted to your svAbhinava profile at

http://www.svabhinava.org/HinduCivilization/RajivMalhotra/SwamiNithyanandaResign-frame.php 

I’ll embed the your video interviews with the Swami, perhaps with the original clip of the Sun TV broadcast, so that readers are able to view the context first (instead of having to search elsewhere).

Regards,

Sunthar

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (14 March 2010)

RE: "The Secret Swami" (BBC) - Godman, charlatan, or modern adept of transgressive sacrality?]

Hi Sunthar,

This is my response to Rajiv concerning his analysis of the sex scandal recently submitted.

Hi Rajiv,

Wouldn't a mass recitation of the names of Shiva by all involved embracing Swami on reliable television and internet for one week duration, recorded for archival use, be an appropriate action to tame Doniger's children? Let the Christians and Marxists deal with ceremonial siddhis.

Faithfully yours,

Changchub Dorje
Re- David Lewis
A ronin disciple of His Holiness Dudjom Rinpoche

[Response to Sunthar's post (17 March 2010)

"Why Swami Nithyananda Must Resign Now" (Rajiv Malhotra, 17 March 2010)]

Hi David,

Though you don’t say so explicitly, it would seem that such a mass reconciliation in the name of Shiva would obviate the need for the Swami’s resignation. If so, let me raise a series of hopefully pertinent questions, starting with what seems to be the more obvious:

•   If there are no disqualifying criminal charges (murder, theft of property, etc.) against Nithyananda, what legal justifications are there obliging him to resign for what all the parties involved agree was consensual ‘sex’ (probably initiated by the female devotee)?
•   Would not such resignation amount to conceding defeat and, even worse, reward his malefactors thereby encouraging such religio-political conspiracies to undertake even better orchestrated and more ambitious ‘sting operations’ against Hindu institutions?
•   If god-men are not above the law (even Bhairava had to undertake the ‘supreme penance’…), why not start with Sathya Sai Baba and especially his enablers: Western scientists and investors, Hindu law enforcement and cross-party statesmen in Delhi?
•   Except for acknowledging his naiveté about this (‘human’ as opposed to spiritual) world, Nithyananda does not seem to believe he has done anything wrong; won’t the public, and especially his committed disciples, read his resignation as an admission of guilt?
•   Since Nithyananda is not simply at the administrative apex of an insti tutional structure but is the emotional and spiritual focus of the entire movement that extends well beyond the organization, what would be the fate of these devotees without their guru?

Regards.

Sunthar

PS. To avoid possible confusion, you might want to elaborate on the rationale of your recommendation below and its relevance to Wendy's children.

[Response to David's post (18 March 2010)

Re: "Why Swami Nithyananda Must Resign Now" (Rajiv Malhotra, 17 March 2010)]

-----------------------------

In the second interview with his disciple Rajiv Malhotra, Swami Nithyananda spoke on the sex scandal involving him and a Tamil actress Ranjitha. Almost ten days after the video showing the godman in a compromising position with the actress hit the media, Nithyananda for the first time made a direct reference to it on Friday, Mar 12 in his third online appearance. Making a shocking statement, the Swamiji said that he was only 'experimenting' and promised that in the future he would refrain from experimenting with anything that was unacceptable to the society.

He said that he has also learnt a lot from the controversy. “In 33 years of my life, I have seen two extremes. From being the most watched guru on YouTube to the most watched scandal on YouTube. In a way, even this abuse, defamation and attack have taught me lot of lessons about society, life and humanity, which I had never thought of and never looked into. This has made me more responsible. Now I have decided that I am not going to experiment anything which is not widely accepted by the society,” he told Malhotra, a Princeton-based researcher.

“It was an experiment: Swami Nithyananda” (OneIndia, 13 March 2010)

This man is an insult to Hinduism. Says the sucker Nityananda - "Where is my private life". Babas and Swamis don't have private life. He says he is a brahmachari [celibate monk] but still has sex with multiple women. How dare he compare himself to the great bhagavan Adi Sankaracharaya. In an interview [he] says "it happened to even Adi Sankaracharaya". The sucker says "I waj (was) experimenting”. He is a self proclaimed Parama-Himsa [‘arch-malefactor’ – SV] not Paramahamsa. Rajiv Mehrotra correctly says in Headlines Today interview that the sucker should leave the post and save further destruction of Hindu religion. This is the same Rajiv Mehrotra who is one of the biggest devotee and took the first interview. This sex guru is now in hiding and staying in 5 star hotels. [comment by Raghu, 20 March 2010, 06:45 am]

“Seven charges against Swami Nithyananda” (Express Buzz, 19 March 2010)

The sordid episode surrounding self-styled godman Paramahamsa Nithyananda has prompted the country’s Hindu saints, gathered at the Hardwar Mahakumbh Mela, to cleanse their community of “fakes and frauds” who pass themselves off as religious and spiritual leaders.

The All India Akhara Parishad, an apex body of saints and sadhus that represents India’s all-important 13 Akharas, has decided to launch a campaign to “identify” and “throw out religious gurus” who “cheat and dupe people” in the garb of spirituality. Parishad president Mahant Gyan Das told Deccan Herald that saints and sadhus at the ongoing Mahakumbh were concerned at the recent exposure of some “fake godmen” and “fake religious gurus” as their deeds have “tarnished the image of the age-old Sanatana Dharma”.

Even as the saints reached this decision following two days of intense debate in Hardwar, it is now certain that Nithyananda is not at the Mahakumbh as is being claimed by his disciples at his Bidadi ashram near Bangalore. Additional Mela officer V S Dhanik told Deccan Herald over phone that Nithyananda’s land allotment at the Kumbh Mela venue was cancelled on March 8 after Hindu sadhus and saints gathered at the country’s largest religious congregation “raised serious objections” to the alleged involvement of the godman in the sex scandal. […]

Nithyananda has been issuing statements from an undisclosed location. On Thursday, one Rajiv Malhotra, claiming to be a researcher, interviewed Nithyananda in a bid to create conditions for the scandal-tainted godman to “refute certain allegations”. The video was uploaded on the Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam website with an alert that “Swamiji will be back from Kumbh Mela soon, he will be addressing a press conference; please stay tuned for more details”.

The Mela administration’s decision to cancel Nithyananda’s application stems from a raging deliberation among Hindu saints who, Dhanik said, “are furious” with the Bidadi godman for his alleged sexual activities with a woman.

“The saints told the Mela administration in no uncertain terms to reject and cancel his application,” Dhanik said. The saints, according to Mela administration officials, have also taken the position that Nithyananda’s entry to future Kumbh congregations be barred. The officials said “the sentiments expressed by the saints indicated Nithyananda has been ex-communicated by them”.

Chandan Nandy and Sanjay Pandey, “Nithyananda fallout: Godman’s ilk turn against ‘fake gurus’” (Deccan Herald, 11 March 2010)

Re: "Why Swami Nithyananda Must Resign Now" (Rajiv Malhotra, 17 March 2010)]

Hi Sunthar,

I was in Tucson last week and have just returned. I have mid-term exams this week but I will try to muster a response shortly.

Thanks for your interest.

David Lewis

[Response to Sunthar's post (19 March 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5579]

Hello David,

Do take your time to clarify as there is no real hurry.

In fact, before responding you (and other list members) might want to check out the over 50 conflicting comments from Hindus to Rajiv's article also posted at

http://www.medhajournal.com/geopolitics-guru/973-why-swami-nithyananda-must-resign-now.html?showall=1

When you note the manner in which Uncle Kalyan has (deliberately?) twisted our forwarded exchange from the Hindu-Buddhist forum (among the various lairs where this monstrosity lurks...) in his comment (2010-03-18 19:43:26), you'll appreciate my premonitory call for clarification.

Regards,

Sunthar

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (22 March 2010)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5590]

Hi Sunthar,

I wrote this response last week, unqualified as it is, it supports decolonization of the information environment of India and the west concerning tantric tradition. I am also emailing it to my friend Chris Wilkinson who is an erudite scholar of various schools of Tantra in both Buddhism and Hinduism.

Thanks for the response. It is meant for you but addressed to Rajiv. Do with it as you see fit.

David Lewis

Dear Rajiv,

Concerning the plight of Swami Nityananda:

When technology miscues, they, the powers that be, tend towards statements such as, “An error occurred; please try again later.” But when a yogi miscues (a yogi is and should be a protected species), he is throttled with the electronic necklace of media. So, in response to Sunthar’s inquiry into a more logical context, I admit to the time-space erosion of electronic devising to distort logic into spatial hallucinations that cause yogis to go insane. The only reason that they are insane is because they are not held in the arms of their students who are the healing resource (mandala).

The recitations of the Shiva litanies are the Dharma engines to anticipate the enemy and to find solutions for the benefit of all sentient beings (Semitic tribes not excluded). Therefore, the media witnessing of the healing recitation Shiva Namasamgiti sadhana over a week’s period will cleanse network systems of distortion and, consequently, the worldly bias of prejudiced adherents of heretical teachings. As this kali-yuga progresses, Brahmins ascend leaving the teachings to less qualified receptacles, who nonetheless can carry the Dharma. To bitterly punish the siddhi power of a known and accomplished adept, whether surreptitiously or in the open, is an action that will lead to avici hell. In my opinion, to take a position on this issue, without a serious Dharma practice, is suicide.

Therefore, I advise that recitations of the Shiva litany are appropriate to facilitate validation that the teachings continue to have merit. The holders of the teachings that can establish merit will not be food for controversy. There is no doubt that concerted recitation of holy names will produce signs and spiritual events. This is the way of the world’s religions. What is the point of the practice of Holy Dharma, if it does not produce results? Talk is cheap and the agenda of the worldly press is alien to Dharma intention. Debate does not produce siddhi. It only reveals it. The yogi’s private practice will not be revealed by scandal. Scandal only ensures that the future promise of yogic tantra will be sealed away from humanity till the next Dharma Yuga. Meditative retreat is a good idea on all fronts.

In respect of Doniger’s children, they are her well placed scholars who flog the educational and political spectrum with their electronically facilitated logical treatises which burnish carnal occasion as the sole source of oriental tantric realization (based on an illiterate's impressions). This is a heresy that needs no rebuttal. It will pass in to the excrement that it attempts to compost. ……….I admit, I have strayed from logic. My true response is that Wendy Doniger and her children should gather in Taos, New Mexico to debate, Nalanda style the school of Thurman. Then we can “out” the Marxist Shugden league from their burdensome presence around the Tibetan Dharma scene and restore balance to the Dalai Lama agenda. The beatific promise of India’s greatness can then be accessed, and a new world order will prevail based on the doctrine of emptiness, the teachings of Nagarjuna who was and is considered to be the final authority on the Madhyamika doctrine; a Brahmin from India.

All yogis find themselves having to run the gauntlet of the emptiness doctrine. May the demise of Paramahansa Nityananda be temporary and may his publicly shared siddhis be sustained by the passing of time. As for Uncle Kalyan, I agree, I wouldn’t trust a siddha as far as I could throw him/her.

Sincerely,

David Lewis

A ronin disciple of His Holiness Dudjom Rinpoche

[Response to Sunthar’s post (23 March 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5593]

Hello David,

Thanks for documenting your thoughts from last week in full. I am forwarding them also to Rajiv (but without the attached Word document version).

You might have noted from the most recent comments (last couple of days) at the Medha version of his article that the ‘debate’ has shifted, in the meantime, from whether Nithyananda’s sexual dalliances are genuinely integral to his practice to whether he is indeed a fraud. In this regard, the Swami’s worst critics, who also take umbrage at Rajiv’s attempt to nuance the whole discussion while giving him the benefit of the doubt, is coming, less (if at all) from Wendy’s children, but from self-appointed defenders of Hindu ‘orthodoxy’:

• http://vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1148  (Radha Rajan)
• http://vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1144  (Sandhya Jain)

Regards,

Sunthar

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (22 March 2010)

“Swami Nithyananda's 'sexual experimentation' - what would Mahâmahopâdhyâya Rameshwar Jha say today?”]

[Stuart's post of 22 March bounced and was forwarded to the Abhinava and other relevant lists with Sunthar's reply only on 06 April 2010.]

I hope you received this, Sunthar, but in case you did not, for posting to the thread on various of your e-lists.... All best, Stuart

1. The “inner marriage” of brahmacharya-urdvharetas of Swamis that can lead to sainthood is profound and the integrity and validity of its sâdhu and Swami exemplars must surely be protected from sham and all those pledged to this path be supported in progressing upon it—especially in this Freudian-dominated time when natural, healthy brahmacharya has lost much basic credibility and even academic “world experts” in Indology misunderstand its validity and the meaning of its symbols and deities.
   
   (For example, Doniger’s The Hindus, collects learned opinions that the ithyphallic Pasupati Seal yogi is not [sic] ithyphallic, but has merely gathered his dhoti into a vertical bundle over his loin. Thus, for such “Indologists,” the profound celibate tumescence of an ithyphallic yogi whose spine and whole body is uju kâya—tumescent with sublime passion---remains lost under another layer of misinterpretation.)
2. Likewise, since anything that can help the millions of married couples to deepen their love, respect, reverence and the spiritual purpose of their relationship by having tantric gurus guide them in the mutual worship of one another—mind, body, soul--in pariyanga, a social context should be created for such spiritual teachings to be shared by such gurus with the world so that these deep teachings can come fully forth and become “acceptable to the society.”
3. Indian spirituality has revealed for the world that brahmacharya sainthood is real and valid and via its yogas, the practitioner needn’t suffer suppression and compulsion, as seen recently in the Roman Church priesthood where there are no yogas to support the maturation process. This is another timely reason why the validity of yoga brahmacharya needs to be clarified so as not to be clubbed with the “fallen priest” as being an “impossible” life path.
4. Likewise, Sanatana Dharma contains the path of gender worship that includes the whole body in shrngâr rasa –far beyond prudish or Puritanical myopias. To succumb and over-react to any brahmacharya guru scandal by not also restating the validity of pariyanga erotic worship that brings sex into a spiritual encounter with the divine in human, gendered form with one’s own husband or wife…this, too, would be a “shame” and a great loss regarding the actual breadth of Sanatana Dharma regarding the diverse rasas of love and passion and worship.

For more by me on Santana Dharma and inner solo and outer partnered yogas, see “On Being Moved” in Livia Kohn’s edited Internal Alchemy, Three Pines Press, and also J Transpersonal Psychology, Fall 2009, Kundalini and the Complete Maturation of the Ensouled Body.

Stuart Sovatsky, PhD

http://www.worldfamily.ru

http://www.home.jps.net/~stuartcs?about.html

http://home.jps.net/~stuartcs/docs/StuartSovatskyResume09.pdf

[Response to Sunthar's post (22 March 2010) at

“Swami Nithyananda's 'sexual experimentation' - what would Mahâmahopâdhyâya Rameshwar Jha say today?”]

Dear Stuart,

I like your highly nuanced approach to the ‘sex scandal’ the main benefit of which seems to have been to expose so many fissures and contradictions in the contemporary Hindu psyche and self-image.

Though I’m not qualified to judge the Swami one way or another as I had never heard of him before this erupted, his interviews with Rajiv made a good impression on me (not contradicted by Elizabeth). What’s surprising is that his sexual ‘transgression’ has been made into the touchstone for a stark alternative between being a sham swami or a genuine guru, whereas the inner and outer reality could be more complex. If the former, not only Sathya Sai Baba, but also Muktananda, and many others would qualify. If the latter, it does not mean that he is free of naiveté with regard to many worldly matters (including women), and he himself openly declares his amazement. Rajneesh’s ‘trusted’ inner circle seems to have comprised some mafia-type women, does that invalidate his spiritual insights?

>

Best wishes.

Sunthar

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (31 March 2010)

“Mahâtmâ Gandhi's experiments in brahmacharya - what would Abhinavagupta-pâdâchârya say today?”]

PS. So, in sleeping regularly in the nude with his [grand-] niece [Manu Gandhi], was Mahâtmâ Gandhi endorsing the ‘pure’ chastity of the Pâshupata, the ‘transgressive’ sexuality of the Kaula (-Kâpâlika), or rather embracing—with studied ambiguity—the ‘great vow’ of the Mahâvratin?

Sunthar V., “Between Shrauta Sacrificer and Untouchable Kâpâlika - how 'anti-Vedic' were the Kâlamukha Mahâvratins?” (09 March 2010), postscript

There was nothing in the labyrinthine defence document to indicate that Malhotra believed the sex videos to have been manipulated or morphed. Rather, Malhotra seems to accept that it was indeed Nityananda caught in the act with a lady actor; only he is making a case for all of us to place the sex act in the context of a tantric exercise or experiment.

In March 1906 Gandhi announced his decision to observe absolute continence for life. Nityananda, at the time he is alleged to have had sexual relationship with a woman in his ashram, had already donned saffron robes indicating that he had entered sanyasa-ashrama. When Gandhi announced that he had decided to abstain from sex, it was assumed that Gandhi had overcome his desire for sex or that such was his resolve that like Bhishma-pitamaha [the chaste Bhîshma in the Mahâbhârata – SV] he would remain unswerving in his resolve.

Similarly, when Nityananda had already donned the saffron and had manufactured a reputation for mastery over siddhis, it was expected that he would not be swayed by the five senses ruling his body, from the path of sanyasa-dharma.

Gandhi, till his sudden death in January 1948, was still sleeping without clothes with women in his ashram on the pretext of conducting experiments with brahmacharya. Not that alone, he called his act a yagna [‘sacrifice’ –SV]. Gandhi refused to stop his experiments with brahmacharya [‘celibacy’ – SV] even after being exhorted to do so by Amritlal V Thakkar (Bapa) with the clever argument that if he gave up even one of the five principles by which he lived, it would be akin to giving up on all of them!

Malhotra, like Gandhi, is offering seemingly unassailable arguments in defence of the content of the Nityananda video. Arguments proffered by both Gandhi and Malhotra deserve to be decimated with precision by political Hindus because, as this writer intends to delineate in the second part of this essay, these arguments, if not challenged and neutralised effectively and at once, will impact the way our worst enemies, Islam and the Church, will henceforth deal with Hindu dharma and its custodians.

Radha Rajan, “Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha heading the way of Gandhi’s INC – 1” (Vijayavani, 25 March 2010)

[p. 248>] We are told that when Hemacandra, Devendrasûri, and Malayagirisûri undertook the propitiation of the Siddha-cakra-mantra on the Raivataka mountain they did so with a Padminî in the person of the wife of a village headman as their Tantric assistant (uttara-sâdhakatvena). How the wife of the village headman assisted in the propitiation is not stated. But the story of Hemacandra’s propitiation of Tribhuvanasvâminî is more explicit. Again he has the assistance of a Padminî. The daughter-in-law of a farmer is brought to the city for this purpose and the goddess shows her favour after Hemacandra has [<248-249] repeated the Mantra for three days on the Padminî’s vulva (tasyâ yonau). The text tells us that Hemacandra’s mind remained undisturbed during this practice, no doubt wishing to stress that he was not compromising the monastic rule of celibacy. Indeed there is no evidence of which I am aware that the Jaina Mantravâda, unlike Shaivism and Tantric Buddhism in its later phases, created two levels of discipline, one for ordinary practitioners and one for an elite that transcended the rules that apply to the first. Nonetheless, we see from this story that it had gone surprisingly far in this direction, too far for some, one suspects, who would have preferred monks to avoid any practice in which they could be suspected of departing from the straight and narrow Jain path of purification. [

[p.144>] That Tantric Buddhists possessed the specialized knowledge of the Shaiva Mantramârga that would enable them to draw at will on the Shaiva Tantras in this period is placed beyond doubt by an early exegetical work in the tradition of the Guhyasamâja. For this, the Guhyasiddhi of Padmavajra, written in all probability in the eighth century, assumes that any initiate in the practice of this Tantra is not only familiar with the Shaiva scriptures but is able to enact their rituals by assuming the role of a Shaiva Guru, implying thereby that such initiates were typically converts from the Mantramârga with experience both of its texts and of its practices. For it tells the adept of this tradition that in order to acquire the female consort required for his post-initiatory observance he should enter the home of a family of untouchables who are observant devotees of Shiva, reveal to them one of the Saiddhântika scriptures—the text specifically mentions the Kâlottara and the Nishvâsa—give them Mandala initiation [following this scripture], and then return to them the dakshinâ [‘honorarium’ – SV] that they will give him, taking a girl from them in its place:

He should wander in other lands, in which he is known nowhere. With firm resolve the Sâdhaka should enter among untouchables who are devotees of Shiva [<144-145] and recognize no other deity as absolute, who are inspired by the Siddhânta, always attached to [the rituals of] bathing and deity-worship, and dedicated to the doctrines of its scriptures through some slight degree of literacy. After entering among them in the guise of an untouchable votary (candâla-ganah), he should, while cultivating insight into the highest wisdom, instruct them in the religion of the Siddhânta established in such scriptures as the Kâlottara, or the Nishvâsa; and in order to win their trust he should take as his disciples all those who are enjoined by the Tantra after [initiating them before] the Initiation Mandala [of Shiva]. Then he should give back to them all the goods and money that they will previously have gathered and given him as their offering to their Guru and take [instead] a girl of theirs with a beautiful face and eyes. After acquainting her with the essence of the Mantras and making her adhere to the rules of an initiate that wise one should practice the Vidyâ observance [with her], after resolving to become a Buddha.

This is indeed troubling evidence for those who may be reluctant to accept that Buddhists would have had the familiarity with Tantric Shaivism that my thesis of the development of the Mantranaya presupposes.

Alexis Sanderson, "The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the Early Medieval Period" (PDF)

In: Genesis and Development of Tantrism, edited by Shingo Einoo. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, 2009. Institute of Oriental Culture Special Series, 23, pp. 41-350.

Here however, spiritual affinity between the male and female adept is reinforced by worldly—genetic—affinity, and the Kaula 'secret society' becomes a 'family' (kula) tradition in the literal sense of the term. The wife is expressly excluded from the sacrifice because of worldly attachment to her. Though this is interpreted in terms of desire for mere sexual enjoyment (riramsâ) by the commentator, it is clear that 'attachment' here rather refers to the adulteration of pure sexual desire (kâma) in her case by other worldly concerns that restrict the experience of union to a carnal level. As for next-of-kin who are normally forbidden precisely because of worldly over-proximity, breaking the incest-barrier may be understood, on the contrary, as the most effective means of raising the sex-experience to a transcendental level. So central is transgression to the kula-yâga, that Abhinava affirms that those who perform this sacrifice without the sources of bliss, the three M's, will simply go to a horrible hell. More significant than the violation of fundamental brahmanical taboos, however, is Abhinava's systematic re-definition of principles like bráhman in terms of transgression (TA 29.97-100). Thus a brahmacârin is no longer one who is chaste, but one who literally 'walks the (path of) bráhman' by incorporating the supreme bliss of bráhman within his own body in its concrete forms of wine, meat and especially (the substance of) sexual intercourse. The choice of the brahmanicide Bhairava as the ultimate symbol of the indescribable Anuttara underlines that the experience of the sacred, as revealed through the kula-yâga, is transgressive at its very core. Bhairava's appropriation of the fifth and central head of Brahmâ suggests, however, that even the experience of Brahman through the kula-yâga is ultimately derived from the Vedic sacrifice.

Elizabeth Chalier-Visuvalingam, “Union and Unity in Hindu Tantrism” (Between Jerusalem and Banaras, )

Was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's popularity with women partly due to his practice of 'brahmacharya' (voluntary celibacy)? Did women perceive him as non-threatening? Did his renunciation of sexuality help build up relationships of trust? These interesting ideas came up at the recent book release function of the book, "'Brahmacharya' Gandhi and His Women Associates" published by Vitasta, in New Delhi.

According to author Girja Kumar, Gandhi was "irresistibly attractive" to many women. In the wider ethos of male aggression and abuse, the practice of 'brahmacharya', which involves restraint in thought, speech and action, might make a man, paradoxically, more attractive to women. Uma Vasudeva, a well-known writer, noted, "Gandhi was absolutely frank about his sexual experiments. He wrote about them meticulously. He saw his experiments as important for history."

Gandhi took a vow of lifelong celibacy in 1906, after 23 years of what he described as "marital bliss". Kasturba, his lifelong companion, was willy-nilly party to this vow. Gandhi saw celibacy as a restoration of autonomy not only for himself, but also for his partner. Yet, he never quite consulted her on this important issue, though she was undoubtedly a strong woman with a will of her own. […]

Gandhi's 'brahmacharya' was not the old Indian ascetic ideal that abjured all interactions with women. Quite the opposite: Gandhi had countless close women associates, many of whom he characterized as daughter, sister, mother, and so on. Even his 'romantic' relationship with Sarladevi Chowdhrani, whom Gandhi once acknowledged as his 'spiritual wife', was reframed as follows: "So far as I can see our relationship is that of brother and sister... I must plead gently like a brother ever taking care to use the right word even as I do to my oldest sister. I must not be father, husband, friend or teacher all rolled into one." (July 21, 1920, 'Young India'). […]

During his later years, Gandhi's experiments extended to sleeping with younger women, to test and affirm his own sexual self-control. This was highly unconventional and became the subject of gossip as well as serious disapproval. He explained the ideal he was trying to reach: "One who never has any lustful intention, who by constant attendance upon God has become proof against conscious or unconscious emissions, who is capable of lying naked with naked women, however beautiful they may be, without being in any manner whatsoever sexually excited. Such a person should be incapable of lying, incapable of intending or doing harm to a single man or woman in the whole world, is free from anger and malice and detached... Such a person is a full 'brahmachari'." (In a letter to Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, on March 17, 1947).

Deepti Priya Mehrotra, “Gandhi's Private Life” (Boloji.com, 23 Dec 2007)

Since Nithyananda’s secret ‘worship’ of these seductive goddesses, who otherwise simply ’beat around the bushes’ of the Tamil screen-universe, is being used to discredit not only Gandhi’s commitment to brahmacharya but his godlike status as a moral exemplar:

• Were the great Jaina âcâryas, who solemnly undertook such marathon sexual experiments with the willing wives of (grateful?) devotees, ‘moral hypocrites’ or genuine spiritual aspirants who sought, like the Mahâtmâ, to take ‘celibacy’ to its ultimate level?
• Were these radical Buddhist Tantrics, who were wearing the garb of Shaiva gurus in order to gain access to the ‘untouchable’ daughters of gullible devotees, ‘initiating’ sordid ‘prostitution rackets’ or really intent on (sharing) Buddha-hood (with their partners)?
• Was Abhinavagupta’s transgressive (Vedic?) ‘sacrifice’ (yâga), meticulously recorded for our posterity in the secret Shaiva scriptural tradition, a ‘metaphysical’ cover for sexual promiscuity or the logical culmination of the quest for inner autonomy (svâtantrya)?
• Have Gandhi’s transparent experiments in brahmacharya diminished his global stature (more than President Clinton’s “I did not have ‘sex’ with that girl!”) or making us revaluate the separation between private life and civic posture in modern politicians?
• Where did ‘Guru’ Nithyananda go wrong: violating his celibacy vow, deceiving his disciples, soliciting exorbitant (female) honorariums, bribing ‘Swami’ Lenin, transgressing Vedic orthodoxy, or not appreciating and adapting to contemporary ‘globalizing’ ethos?

The accused in this ongoing trial by (even ‘orthodox’) media and the court of public opinion is perhaps less the (would-be) Mahâtmâ and his (misguided?) ‘experiments with Truth’ than (the inability of) Hindu tradition itself (to adapt age-old results to modern society).

Sunthar

PS. What was so (Bhairava-like?) ‘terrible’ about ‘grandfather’ (Pitâmaha = Brahmâ?) Bhîshma’s ‘supreme vow’? That he had carried his immortal ‘celibacy’ to its ‘practically’ impossible limits or that he ended up committing ‘maternal’ incest (with Ambâ)?

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (30 March 2010)

“Re: "Why Swami Nithyananda Must Resign Now" (Rajiv Malhotra, 17 March 2010)” ]

Dear Sunthar,

I'm afraid I have nothing interesting to say about this. My post is just a joke, nothing worthy of being posted elsewhere.

Regarding Doniger, I haven't read any book of hers. White's books are controversial, but worthy, even if one doesn't agree with the outlook.

Regarding Mr. Malhotra, I don't agree with him. He is not qualified to decide about "dharma", as he is an American engineer with a "mission", like so many other depressed middle-class consumers in this world. He has nothing to do with India, and all with 7/11-type of "culture". To me, he looks much more like an Evangelist. He doesn't know Panini, Nyâya, Mîmâmsâ, etc. He endorsed a man like Nithyananda, who is to dharma what Mac Donald is to the arts of cooking.

On the other hand, there are many traditional sources left in India itself. They are authorities on those matters. Let them speak, or remain quiet.

Regards

David Dubois

[Response to David' Lees post (18 March 2010) with Sunthar's comment at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hindu-Buddhist/message/703]

Dear David,

It’s not clear to me whether you consider Nithyananda to be a sham ‘swami’ because of his sexual ‘transgressions’ (of celibacy as a spiritual vow) or because he violated dharma (e.g., through adulterous relations), which strike me as distinct issues even when they are embodied by the same actions. You also seem to be saying that Rajiv needs to be a scholar of the scriptures (shâstra) in order to be able to endorse a Swami’s authenticity as a yogic adept (if not an entirely satisfactory guru…), which I suppose would then apply even more to Nithyananda, who is reported to have (like Osho) an avid appetite for books on spirituality. I believe a good case could be made (as Rameshwar Jha insisted…) that an illiterate (not just in modern but even traditional learning) would be more likely [in the contemporary world] to arrive at some sort of ‘spontaneous’ illumination (Radha Rajan and Sandhya Jain are demanding to know his spiritual lineage…). On the other hand, even expert knowledge of spiritual lore is no guarantee of sound judgment. If we jump to the Jewish tradition to gain some distance, Sabbatai Sevi and his entourage did not ‘realize’ that he was the promised Messiah until the highly respected and learned Kabbalist, Nathan of Gaza, certified and publicized him to be so. Sabbatai later converted abruptly to Islam (though at the point of the Turkish Sultan’s sword…) and left his followers (who may have consisted of more than 70% of world Jewry), stranded, confused, and divided, with the majority spurning him as the False Messiah (which is how he is often referred to now), though the question remains open at a deeper level…

If things were so dubious already within the traditional (not just Judaic) setting, how much more so today under the intense pressures from all sides of modernity? What I find more disturbing in the Nithyananda saga, with regard to authentic ‘Hindu’ spirituality, is the commercialization and superstar status that attracts all manner of unworthy ‘sensation-seeking’ followers, who ultimately drag the Guru down even if he had indeed earlier attained a high level of attainment spontaneously or through hard inner work. In contrast, what I appreciated so much about Rameshwar Jha was his enjoyment of solitude, his initial attempt to get rid of me for good, and never soliciting a penny for his time. But this question of mega-ashrams and jet-set Swamis is symptomatic of the growing crisis of Gurudom itself, as an institution, at the widening and deepening interface between traditional Hinduism and ‘Western’ market psychology. Neither the (impossible) return to ‘orthodoxy’ nor the (self-destructive) rush to high-powered management techniques could resolve this.

I’ve been compiling this dialogue into our “Secret Swami: Godman, Charlatan, or Modern Adept of Transgressive Sacrality?” digest available at

http://www.svabhinava.org/abhinava/Dialogues/GodmanCharlatanTransgressor-frame.php

Won’t you tell us all some more about your new French book (congratulations from both Elizabeth and myself!) on Abhinavagupta? It’s good to hear from you after so long!

Best wishes.

Sunthar

PS. I’ve taken the (‘what-if’) liberty of taking your ‘joke’ seriously (typical of the vidûshaka’s ‘semblance of humor’…not just at the giving but also receiving end) and sharing it with our other friends.

[Rest of this thread at Stuart Sovatsky (22 March) with Sunthar’s comments (06 April 2010) at

“Swami Nithyananda's 'sexual experimentation' (from Stuart Sovatsky)”]

What started out as a serious discussion here on the nature of the spiritual pursuit including its various pitfalls, has unfortunately slipped into ad hominem attacks in some cases. I refer to David Dubois' personal remarks about me (which I shall return to at the end). My views on the issues of substance are as follows:

1. Bookworm or experience: Contrary to David's position, textual knowledge has been only one kind of Indian spiritual approach, but not the only one. This is where those from Abrahamic traditions tend to drag along their dependency upon canonized systems, whereas Indian approaches have emphasized the embodied experience. See my articles on History-Centrism for a critique of this - http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post/2003/03/problematizing-god-s-interventions-in-history.htm
    and http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post/2004/11/myth-of-hindu-sameness.htm
   The difference between "knowledge about" and embodied experience can be further traced to differences in the nature of the person as per the two worldviews. In the Indian case the immanence of the supreme ("I am Brahman") makes it possible for everyone to have the highest experience (in effect becoming Jesus in this life itself). This was claimed by numerous exemplars such as Buddha, Ramakrishna, etc. In the other (Abrahamic) system, the infinite gap with God makes man dependent upon historical prophets for access to the first principles. History come in the way. This lends itself to institutional power as the keepers of this unique history, and exclusivism becomes the USP for propagation purposes. Indian systems do not always claim that knowledge of shastras is sufficient; many go further and assert that it is not even necessary.
2. Old lineage or new masters: The second issue I have is with lineages being necessary. I do support traditional lineages and regard them as precious and worthy of nurturing. In my research on modern gurus (a forthcoming book), I found Prabhupada to be an example of authenticity, unwilling to compromise even with Henry Ford's grandson who was giving him many mansions, as well as with the Beatles, etc. I find that there are fewer UTurns among such gurus' disciples, because they put a threshold of conduct up front for the seeker, and do not offer something quick that would entice every random person. He demanded a lot from the seeker, including changing identity in public regardless of the ridicule it could bring. But at the same time, I do not get dogmatic and block new experimentation. After all, what were once new and fledgling startups are what later became known as "old lineages". If embodied experience right up to "being Jesus or Buddha, etc" is available to everyone in principle, then the emergence of fresh enlightened masters is normal and a good thing. This tension between old orthodoxy and new claims of enlightenment has been negotiated throughout in Indian spirituality. On the other hand, in the Abrahamic systems the prophetic lines and hence canons of experience are closed. There has been fear of living mystics, hence their persecutions, and hence only dead persons qualify to become saints in the Catholic Church. Living masters would pose a grave threat to the institutions of power, precisely because they have the ability and credibility to refresh shruti for the contemporary context.
3. When lineages become racist: David over-relies upon ancillary articles by Radha Rajan and Sandhya Jain to make simplistic statements about lineages. Not only are those filled with logical contradictions (and comments blocked at their blogs by those who disagree), there are serious issues of racism involved in the guise of "lineages." See http://nijatamizhan.sulekha.com/blog/post/2010/04/shame-on-sandhya-jain-and-radha-rajan.htm for a recent evaluation of their ideology. Setting aside all the ad hominem deployed to make their case, the thesis they offer is as follows: (i) Foreign based persons cannot be Hindus. (ii) Even among India based persons, only Brahmins qualify. (Yes, this is what they say in their writings!) (iii) Even among Brahmins it is the Tamil Iyengar-Brahmins that are the pure Hindus. (iv) Caste is based on birth. This is racism plain and simple. It is contrary to the universal claims of Indic spirituality, and yet this racism is what David falls into hastily. Though I respect old lineages (as per #2 above), my idea of lineages is not determined by birth.
4. Science and morality: The relationship of spirituality to science is at the heart of all this. It has become fashionable for spokespersons of all religions to go to conference and talk about how their religion is very scientific. I raised the following issues at the joint conference I organized jointly with Templeton Foundation in Bangalore (2003) including the points that the so-called "religious science" folks find hard to swallow. First, science is neutral with respect to morality. Just as my cardiologist can be excellent at his job even though I may one day learn that he leads an immoral sex life, so also siddhis if they are to be considered scientific (which proponents of these "lineages" claim) must be examined decoupled from morality. This does NOT mean that immorality is being sanctioned. The cardiologist is to be reprimanded for his immorality, but that domain is separate from whether or not his cardiology is scientifically valid. Both are important but separate areas. This is why a guru may well be able to heal people or teach meditation even though he may suffer sexual immorality issues. This is how I see the case of Swami Muktananda also. It is not a binary yes/no matter as to whether a person is spiritually enlightened. That term is too simplistic and claims to collapse too many separate things into one state. One has to unpack the complexity and the contexts. I believe there are many levels and kinds of spiritual advancement including those that are immoral/dangerous. Otherwise why would Patanjali make so many warnings. He affirms what I am saying, namely, that siddhis can and do appear regardless of one's moral stability, and that's precisely why he warns about it.
5. Science and fallibility: So the question is how the truth-claims of a person are to be evaluated. This is what David ought to be asking to show his depth of inquiry, rather than making cheap shots. If (i) living embodied enlightenment is available to humans, (ii) it is fraught with fraud and ego-fattening risks as per Patanjali, and (iii) knowledge of texts cannot tell us to what extent a given living person is authentic, then what are we to rely upon? It would be regressive to go back into the Abrahamic hole of dogma as the safe place, and propagate the same old frozen biblical shastra for the next 2,000 years. But at the same time without "proof" there is no way to validate or refute anyone's claims. The way out is provided by science itself: Nobody is considered infallible in science. And no hypothesis is beyond falsifiability. So everything can and should remain under scrutiny with a skeptical and objective eye. This is not disrespect for the guru but merely the way scientific objectivity works. No matter how great or accomplished, a guru remains fallible under science. The problem with Nithyananda was that he let others convince him of being infallible. Once that happens, there can be no mistakes to notice and correct, nothing to learn from, and this means lies get invented to cover up prior lies. The image of infallibility has also led the catholic church into trouble. Nithyananda would have been ok had he said that despite having many scientific siddhis of meditation which he wants to teach, he is a fallible human being. Then he would take precautions and also been open to criticism. His inner circle would have been different and more mature and honest. Unfortunately, Nithyananda's inner circle were emotionally and psychologically deficient individuals, and they thrust all their personal insecurities upon him to fulfill. They demanded that he must be perfect (infallible) because of their own needs. It's his fault that he caved in and started projecting himself as Mr. Perfect. That led to all sorts of aberrations stemming from the basic dishonesty. His core group interpreted all his dealings through the lens of infallibility. This is plain unscientific. So I am showing that within science itself lies the solution to the problem created by decoupling it from morality: Science demands fallibility of the scientist as well as of any theory or truth-claims by anyone.

I had hoped that Sunthar's forum would live up to its tradition of serious debates on serious matters. I have tried to engage at that level. Readers can evaluate my position above and agree/disagree, but notice also my dispassionate style. My positions are always falsifiable as required by the scientific method. Science is not a certain conclusion (which keeps shifting) but a certain demeanor. I am disappointed that David resorted to personal attacks. In what way is he qualified to declare the following things about me: "He is not qualified to decide about "dharma", as he is an American engineer with a "mission", like so many other depressed middle-class consumers in this world. He has nothing to do with India, and all with 7/11-type of "culture". To me, he looks much more like an Evangelist. He doesn't know Panini, Nyaya, Mimansa, etc. He endorsed a man like Nithyananda."

First of all, I could easily reverse the statement and ask in what way is David or Sunthar or anyone else on this forum spiritually qualified? Does textbook recitation and hermeneutics certified by "peers" make someone spiritually qualified? Regarding membership in lineages, those are all too often means to get a spiritual certificate when in fact there is no certificate from any institution that suffices. Clearly, we are here as equals in dialog to share and learn, and nobody (certainly not me) is in a position of superiority to pass judgment on someone else's spiritual advancement. From his pettiness, I doubt that David is evolved enough spiritually to make such rash judgments.

Secondly, he gets his facts wrong. I am not an engineer, and do not consider myself among the "depressed middle-class consumers." I wonder what qualifies him to make such audits on others who he never met and has little knowledge of apart from hearsay. As to whether I have "nothing to do with India," again, pray what does he smoke that gives him such powers to figure this out about me? Whether I "look like an evangelist," again, I don't know what his methodology might be to evaluate what occupation someone "looks" like. David drops jargon like "Panini, Nyaya, Mimansa," as things I am said to be ignorant of and this name dropping gives him stature I suppose. Regarding the final statement that I "endorsed a man like Nithyananda," he should re-read my article. I was the first person to call for Nithyananda's resignation which he seems to have accepted (too late, though). I went there as a journalist and called myself as such, never claiming to be a spiritual guru assessing him. I felt that the entire media coverage was too shallow to allow deeper examination (such as the issues raised in the points I have listed above). In my treatment of Tantra I gave his explanation, and them concluded that we cannot be sure whether he practiced tantra or whether it was lust.

In short, I hope this thread returns to serious discussion of the issues such as the points I have raised above. That is what we got used to from Sunthar's analytical lens.

Regards,

Rajiv

1. Bookworm of Experience: Contrary to David's position, textual knowledge has been only one kind of Indian spiritual approach, but not the only one. This is where those from Abrahamic traditions tend to drag along their dependency upon canonized systems, whereas Indian approaches have empasized the embodied experience. See my articles on History-Centrism for a critique of this - and http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post/2004/11/myth-of-hindu-sameness.htm. The difference between "knowledge about" and embodied experience can be further traced to differences in the nature of the person as per the two worldviews. In the Indian case the immanence of the supreme ("I am Brahman") makes it possible for everyone to have the highest experience (in effect becoming Jesus in this life itself). This was claimed by numerous exemplars such as Buddha, Ramakrishna, etc. In the other (Abrahamic) system, the infinite gap with God makes man dependent upon historical prophets for access to the first principles. History come in the way. This lends itself to institutional power as the keepers of this unique history, and exclusivism becomes the USP for propagation purposes. Indian systems do not always claim that knowledge of shastras is sufficient; many go further and assert that it is not even necessary. [Rajiv Malhotra]

Dear Rajiv,

I'd like to make three comments on your "immanence of the supreme ("I am Brahman")".

1. You propose a distinction between book-knowledge or experience. Why not? I'm not sure this is so clear-cut. From my point of view, craftsmanship or in French ompagnonage very much looks like embodied experience.This does exist in France even though this may not be elitist. So I would wonder if being a Brahman is not some kind of craftsmanship or expertise, maybe the expertise in preying on gullibility.

2. this "immanence of the supreme" also reminds me of a story about a Siberian Shaman who originally did not want to become a Shaman. He thought Shamans were crooks. He learned the trade and applied the tricks he had learned. After some time he found out that many people thought he was a good shaman.He ended up thinking he was himself indeed a good shaman. How much "immanence" is there in that story?

3. this also reminds me of the Poker's Principle n°1: If you cannot spot the fool then you are the fool.

So I wonder if the "immanence of the supreme" is not about gullibility and self-delusion.

Best.

Arnaud

[Response to Rajiv's post (07 April 2010) at

hhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5636]

Dear Shri Rajiv Malhotra,

While going through your article of March 17 “Why Swami Nithyananda must resign now” the following lines under the heading “Is Tantra a Part of Hinduism” caught my attention and I quote, “I asked (the Sri Sri) whether the Shiva Sutras are valid, pointing out that among the 112 spiritual enlightenment techniques taught in them, about 6 deal with sexual contact between a male yogi and a female yogini. Kashmir Shaivism as well as the Tantra traditions have included exemplars that practiced these techniques”.

I had gone through Shiva-Sutras of Vasu-gupta of ninth century CE quite a few years back and did not remember having come across any such sutras there that “deal with sexual contact between a mail yogi and female yogini” nor did I find any such “techniques” of “from super-consciousness to sex” ---without any apologies to anybody, including Osho!--- in that work. Still to make myself doubly sure, I checked the Shiva-Sutras with the translation by a very famous Shaiva scholar of the previous century viz. Shri Lakshman Joo. This work is of 77 Sutras, and does not enumerate as many as 112 techniques, not to speak of “these six (special) techniques”. For your ready reference, a soft-copy of the work is enclosed.

Since I could not believe for a moment that an “investigative journalist” like you would have goofed, I, therefore, checked the much earlier Vimarshini commentary of Kshmeraja, a follower of Abhinavagupta’s Shaiva philosophy, on these Sutras. He also has commented on 77 sutras all told without any references to any such “techniques”. Same is the case with the gloss by Bhaskara, known as “vartikkas”.

I am also sending a soft-copy of Shiva-sutras, with an English commentary by a non-Kashmiri, I. K. Taimni, published by Theosophical Research Centre, Adyar. That commentary also does not talk of “these techniques”

Kashmir Shaivism vis-à-vis sexuality

How replete (sic!) with “sexual contact between a male yogi and a female yogini…. Kashmir Shaivism” is will be evident from the following:

1. I was born and brought up in Kashmir in the last millennium (!) and my maternal grandfather, Nath Ji Pajnoo, of Srinagar, Kashmir, was a great Shaiva scholar. I do not recall his ever talking of such “techniques”!

2. Perhaps you would be aware that Abhinavagupta (tenth century) was one of the greatest proponents of Shaivism. I remember even today his Bhairavastotra beseeching Shiva with such prayers, which I keep on repeating myself very often “…..ati durnaya chatul--endriya ripu sanchaya dalite……. maranaagama samaye, Shivaayasaha mama chetasi shashi shekahra nivasan” a running translation of which would be, “ O Shiva, I am badly beaten/harassed by ruthless and powerful enemies in the form of my own senses --- chatula indryas. (As such, I do not know what my condition will be at the time of death and so please) dwell in my heart, with your consort Uma, at that particular moment”. Abhinavagupta does not appear to be relishing, much less advocating, any “special techniques”, even if he is supposed to have talked of some such “techniques” in his Tantrâloka, which Jayaratha of about twelfth century preferred not to comment upon in his commentary!

3. The same anguish has been expressed by Lalleshwari, a Tantrika/yogini lady saint of fourteenth century, in her pathetic lament in Kashmiri:

Kyaah kara paantsan dahan ta kaahan,
Vakhshun yath leyji yim karith gay;
Saoriy samahan yeythi razi lamahan,
Ada kyaazi raavhe kaahan gaav

Ah me! the Five (Bhuta-s), the ten (Indriya-s),
And the Eleventh, their lord the mind,
scraped this pot* and went away.
Had all together pulled on the rope, Why should the Eleventh have lost the cow ?
(Why should the soul have gone astray?)

maarukh maarabuuth kaam kruud luub
Nata kaan barith maaranay paan;
Manay kheyn dikh swaveytsaara shamm,
Vishay tihunnd kyaah-kyuth doar zaan.

Slay the murderous demons,
Lust, Anger and Greed;
Or, aiming their arrows at you, they will
surely shoot you dead.
Take care, feed them on self-restraint
and discrimination of the Self;
Thus starved these demons will become
powerless and weak.

It is thus clear that none of the Kashmiri Tantriks ever practiced, leave alone advocated, any “special techniques”.

I could quote hundreds of such examples, but suffice to quote just a few more:

4. Master Zinda Kaul, a poet of nineteenth century had wailed in Kashmiri

“yava kini che parma tyaagi yugi chhukh na raaza dwaran, futimutis yath dilas manz bas myani joogi raayo”

“O Shiva, since you have renounced all the luxuries (by residing in shmashanas and wearing nothing but lion cloth and so on), therefore, you are not fit to live in luxurious palaces. As such, pl. be embedded in this broken heart of mine, as that is the abode fit for a fakir like you”

5. Though I am not much enamoured of Muslim doctrines, there are, however, some exceptions where actions speak louder than preaching. There is an anecdote in Kashmir about a Muslim fakir of around fourteenth century CE known as Shahe-Hamdan (king of mendicants/tantriks). Whenever a marriage took place in the city of Srinagar, Kashmir, the newly married couple had to pay respects to that Muslim fakir. He would embrace the bride and kiss her forehead and give some almond or sugar etc. to the couple who took their leave then. One day the fakir had to go out of town and he advised his disciple, “If any newly married couple comes to visit me, just advise them to pay homage to the dhooni (fire altar) and leave”. After a few days, a couple visited the fakir. The disciple, instead of advising them what he had been instructed by his master/teacher, embraced the bride and kissed her forehead and gave them the nazraana (gifts) just like the fakir would have done himself.

After his return, the fakir asked his disciple as to what had happened, and the latter narrated the truth. Without losing any time, the fakir put an iron pillar on burning logs and made it red hot. He then asked his disciple “Embrace and kiss that red-hot iron pillar” and the disciple started shivering with fear. The fakir is said to have scolded the disciple, “A woman who is not your own wife is like a red hot iron pillar. If you cannot embrace that, how the hell could you embrace somebody else’s wife”.

And that in a nutshell is what the real Tantra means: Without descending from “Super consciousness to sex”, one must strengthen one’s inner powers to unite with Shiva.

6. Lalleshwari has warned in no uncertain terms about the sad consequences of exhibitionism:

Yus non drav su fot krere, khyon deeton bhootan

i.e. “Anyone who puts his powers on display is a man drowned in a deep well. He will be a good fodder for ghosts and goblins”.

7. There are a few “daily prayers/prayer books” peculiar to Kashmir Shaivism and Shakti puja and these are: 1. Bhavani sahasranaama of Rudrayamala Tantra; (2) Abhinavagupta’s Bhairava Stotra; (3) Panchastavi (author unknown---of about ninth century) (4) Indrakshi stotra (5) Shiva Sahasranama (6) Leelaaarabdha….Gauri Dashakam (author unknown---probably of tenth century). These are besides the usual (1) Durga Saptashati and Shiva Mahimna Stotra etc. which are common to other areas outside Kashmir.

8. I have gone through all these works and had been chanting some of them daily for quite sometime. Quite a few mantras/shlokas of all these works I remember even today. Because I understand their meaning, they literally put me in an ecstatic mood very often, even if that is for a few fleeting moments! But there is nothing like an urge to “unite with some yogini” to prove to myself whether it is really an ecstatic state or something else! I am, as such, unable to find even a single sholka/mantra that talks of any “special techniques”.

9. If you peruse Panchastavi, there is a wonderful poetic description of the breasts and beauty and eyes of Goddess in some of the shlokas there. But all along. She has been addressed as Mother! That is the real Kashmir Tantra and not the one that is being propagated!

10. You must be aware about Kalidasas’s Kumara Sambhavam! There is a beautiful nakha-shikha varanana (description of the various parts from toe to top) of the divine Mother Parvati! I only hope it is not proclaimed after a few days that Kalidasa was a Tantrik from Kashmir!

I am therefore, peeved as well as pained to see that Kashmir Shaivism is painted/presented as something like Vama Marga that advocates descending from “Super-consciousness to sex” in the guise of “advancing from sex to super consciousness”.

To me it appears exactly like vested interests claiming that Rashi based predictive gimmicks are “Vedic astrology” because there is a work known as “Vedanga Jyotisham” by Acharya Lagadha, though none of those jyotishis, including their dharmacharyas galore, have been able to quote even a single mantra till date that talks of Mesha, Vrisha etc astrological rashis!

Since Acharya Lagadha also was from Kashmir (14th century BCE) and maybe we will start hearing shortly that he also was a Tantrik jyotishi as quite a few people have started that clamor already---to call jyotish as Tantrika jyotisha as they have failed miserably to prove it as Vedic jyotisham!

Is Tantra a part of Hinduism? Regarding your main point, “Is Tantra a part of Hinduism” I hope every Tantrik/sadhaka must have heard about Tota Puri, the famous Tantrik, who was able to metamorphose Swami Ramakrishna, worshipper of Kali known as shmashana-vasini and the most favourite deity for tantrika sadhanas--- into a real Parma-hamsa! This is what Romain Rolland has said on page 51 of his biography of Ramakrishna, (published by Advaita Ashram, Calcutta) “…The messenger of the impersonal God……arrived at Dakshineswar. This was Tota Puri, the naked man, an extraordinary Vedantic, a wandering monk, who had reached the ultimate revelation after forty years of preparation”. On page 57, Rolland has said further “….the other (Tota Puri) rose like the Rock of Gibraltar. He was very tall and robust, with magnificent physique, resolute and indestructible---a rock with the profile of a lion. His constitution and mind were of iron. He had never known illness or suffering and regarded them with smiling contempt. He was the strong leader of men. Before adopting a wandering life he had been the sovereign head of a monastery of seven hundred monks in the Punjab. He was a master of disciplinary method, which petrified as argil the flesh and the spirit of men.”. It was the same Tota Puri who put the frail Ramakrishna in direct state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi through Tantrik sadhana!

What type of “sexuality” was there between the “yogi” (Tota Puri) and “yogini” i.e. Ramakrishna?

And about the “sexual relations” of the real Parahamsa, even after he had gained nirvikalpa Samadhi, this is what Rolland has said on page 82, “Ramakrishna has at times been blamed, and very coarsely blamed, for having sacrificed her (his wife). She herself never showed any trace of it; she irradiated peace and serenity throughout her life on all who came in contact with her” Then on the same page, Rolland continues, ”I (Ramakrishna) have learnt, he (Ramakrishna) said to her (his wife), “to look upon every woman as Mother. That is the only idea I can have about you. But if you wish to draw me into the world of illusion, as I have been married to you, I am at your service…touched by her (his wife’s) innocence and self-sacrifice, Ramakrishna took upon himself the part of an elder brother. He devoted himself patiently during the months they were together to her education as a diligent wife and good manager”

It is, therefore, high time that today’s “Parmahamsas (sic!)” take out a leaf from Ramakrishna’s book and follow it rigorously, instead of defaming “Kashmir Shaivism”.

Then again, Sai Baba of Shridhi of the not-too-distant-past has been one of the greatest tantriks and yogis, who could light the wicker-lamps of water instead of oil of a poor girl on a Dipavali day! But he remained himself a mendicant throughout his life, asking for alms, “bikshyam dehi”. He would address all the ladies as mother or daughter and not crave for “yoginis” to try his “spiritual heights”.

Obviously, Tantra is a part of Hinduism but not in the sense and way it is being used today i.e. either for “super consciousness to sex” in the guise of “from sex to super consciousness” or for making a fool of a common man in the name of “jyotisha remedies”! Tantra is the “technique” to make a sadhaka achieve nirvikalpa Samadhi!

Sexuality of Krishna vis-à-vis gopis Just to digress a bit, there is also a common refrain, “Krishna made love to Gopis during Rasaleela. Why can’t we do so”. I suggest them to read 26th shloka of the XXXIII chapter of Bhagavata, which states, “….sisheva aatmani avarudhhah sauratah”, which has been translated as ,”….and containing His virility within Himself” by R. Raghunathan (Vigneshwara Publishing House, Bangalore).

Further, to the query by King Pareekshit as to how the One who is supposed to establish dharma and banish adharma, committed such a transgression by embracing others’ wives, Shuka has said in no uncertain terms: “Violation of dharma and over-boldness is occasionally witnessed on the part of the mighty. It does not, however, bring any sin on those possessed of exceptional glory as in the case of fire, that consumes everything including even impure substances such as filth and corpses. He, however, who is not so powerful and is bound by his karma should never deliberately attempt this even mentally, for he who does so through folly, recognizing himself as powerful will surely meet his ruin even as anyone other than Rudra would if he were to swallow the poison churned out of the ocean”. (Shrimad Bhagavata, Tenth Skanda---Chapter XXXIII---30-37, Gita Press translation).

Just see the irony: Whenever there is any “Bhagavata Saptahna” etc. these days, the “pravakta” (the preacher/narrator) invariably always asks for ornaments at the time of Rasa-leela, and he deliberately talks of marriage between Radha and Krishan, when actually Radha is just one of the gopis, whose name has been mentioned just once, in the Bhagavata Purana! There is no mention of any marriage or “live-in relationship” of Radha and Krishna!

Thus the cheating and befooling in the name of Radha-Krishna is another form of Tantra!

In a nutshell, therefore, anyone who cannot embrace a “red-hot iron pillar” must not embrace someone other than his wedded wife, under any pretext---least of all in the name of practicing “Kashmir Shaivism”.

With regards,

A K Kaul

PS: If anybody wants to really resolve the conflicting doctrines of vishishta-advaita, shudha-advaita, shaivism, pashupata, shakti upasana, vaishanava-bhakti, tantra etc. etc., it is an earnest request to him/her to shun all the doctrines/siddhantas for sometime and just go through Yogavasishtha Maharamayana patiently and diligently! I can promise him/her a real metamorphosis!

AKK

[Response to Sunthar's post (06 April 2010) at

"Re: "Why Swami Nithyananda Must Resign Now" (Rajiv Malhotra, 17 March 2010)"]

Avtarji,

As attachments are not usually allowed in our lists, I had removed the PDF files of the translation and commentary and have just uploaded them for reference (thanks!) to our svAbhinava site:

http://www.svabhinava.org/abhinava/ShaivaTexts/ShivaSutraLakshmanJoo-frame.php  (Swami Lakshman Joo translation)

http://www.svabhinava.org/abhinava/ShaivaTexts/ShivaSutraTaimni-frame.php  (I.K. Taimni commentary)

I’m forwarding your long commentary to Rajiv. However, please note that (Swami Nithyananda’s original) reference (as reported) ought to have been (not to the Shiva Sûtras but) to the 112 aphorisms of the Vijñâna-Bhairava Tantra (which I added in an earlier post):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijnana_Bhairava

Regards.

Sunthar

[Response to AK Kaul’s post (11 April 2010) at

“Shiva-Sutras, Kashmir Shaivism and sexuality!”

Rest of this thread at Arnaud’s post (07 April 2010) at

“Re: Issues, not ad hominem attacks - response to David Dubois on Swami Nithyananda”]

Dear Sunthar (and also dear Mr. Malhotra),

Thank you for [inquiring about] my book. But this piece is, I'm afraid, just another failed attempt at understanding and sharing Abhinavagupta's legacy. As for me, I must admit I'm not qualified to write about Abhinavagupta, or about anything Indian, for that matter. To be qualified, I should have stayed in India and dedicated my whole existence to it. Perhaps Mark Dyczkowski might be some kind of model here.

But even that is not enough. Without traditional study in a village, living there the life-style of a brahmin, one is certainly not qualified. Still, I feel somehow obliged to speak, but this is just gossip, mere babble. So don't take it too seriously.

About Nithyananda: yes, he is a sham, both from my point of view, and from a dharmic vantage point (as far as I can judge). He is a kind of exemplification of several things that have gone wrong in Hinduism over a long time:

1) The consumerization (does that word exist?) and urbanization. The brahmin life-style is not compatible with urban life. Only in a village it can be implemented, whether tantric or otherwise.

2) The mixing of smârta/shânkara tradition with kaula tradition (=shrî-vidyâ). It destroys both traditions.

Nithyananda is an example of those trends, as Shankarâchâryas themselves have shown this path: they are spending their days into tantric rituals (they call it "upâsanâ" [worship], but this is really karma / kriyâ pure and simple) and secular activities. They mix smârta sannyâsa ['orthodox' renunciation] and kaula practice (even if with "substitutes"). They have betrayed, at least since the advent of Muslims, their proclaimed master, Shankara.

So, in that context, Nithyananda has only committed the sin of pursuing this path unto its ultimate consequences: showing as a sannyâsî, while living in a standard-MTV-styled bedroom with "fan" and all other accessories of the perfect "globalized Indian". What a sham ! What a shame ! It's not bhoga [enjoyment] and moksha [liberation] unified, but a psychosis of a kind: mukti [liberation] by day, bhukti [enjoyment] by night.

Nithyananda is just the mûrti [embodiment] of a prevalent frame of mind. He has been made by MTV and all cable channels and Bangalore urbanites, full of coffees and toffees, hysterical fans of MBA "competitions" and would-be "toppers". He is the creature of his "disciples".

I'm conscious that my words are harsh. I have been rude also to M. Malhotra. And I apologize for the "ad hominem" arguments.

But understand my anger : there are MILLIONS of manuscripts rotting everywhere on the soil of Bharat, eaten by rats and worms. Why should it remain the plight of "academics" ? There are hundreds of pandits waiting to die in complete oblivion, while the pashus are starring "blissfully" at their screens, waiting for the next "Blissful Yoga Transmission (TM)". That makes me sick. If M. Malhotra has some sense, he would immediately give his money to scholars and real Kaulas and stop wasting his precious money with "globalized" clowns like Nithyananda.

I respect M. Malhotra, and Nithyananda, and his "devotees", but how much more I respect the masters I have met ! All those who sacrificed for real all their lives, who have been or are dedicated, really, spending their nerves trying to get the manuscripts, or putting bone to stone while reciting their mantras on the soil of Bharat, the red soil, the real one !

You may say : "Oh, he is a pretentious academic, an intellectual... nothing embodied there..." But I don't care. I don't care about status, academia, intellect, head, heart and other New-Wage parroting.

Please M. Malhotra : [I'll] let you think that I'm just an "intellectual"; but please take a moment to ponder about what you will make of the rest of your precious life. Please consider helping the real people, the traditions, the endangered species, what's authentic and worthy of a life-time (there are some around Bangalore). Forget about "enlightenment", "cakras" and "quantum", "global" and "political" ... Give it a try, give a chance, ONE chance to the real thing. Please think...

Pranâms

David Dubois

PS: About "oral tradition": It's true that oral tradition is primordial in Shrauta Dharma (= "Vedic"). Even in Kaula Dharma, the written Word cannot be understood without the oral word from a siddha/yoginî. But the text (tantra), the book, is a central object of worship in Kaula Dharma, and not only in Abrahamic traditions, as M. Malhotra would claim. The Tantra is the God/ Goddess embodied, it is like the Linga. Reciting it, writing it down, is a sufficient cause of liberation. See, for instance, the new translation of M. Dyczkowski. "Grace" and "master" are important, but a fool who comes out of nowhere claiming that he "has it", is just a trickster. Kaulas are often tricksters; but all tricksters are not Kaula yogis. Pandit MM Râmeshvar Jhâ said that an illiterate may have more chances. Yes, but that is an instance of upâya kaushâlya, of artha-vâda. And, Abhinava says, even if you are perfect, respect the scriptures. Nithyananda was well read? Fine. But what did he read ? New Wage stuff, Vivekânanda ? Aurobindo? Nice, but far from anything traditional. No sampradâya. No adhikâra.

[Response to Sunthar's post (06 April 2010) at

"Re: "Why Swami Nithyananda Must Resign Now" (Rajiv Malhotra, 17 March 2010)"]

Dear M. Malhotra,

Let me first apologize if I have hurt your feelings and used ad hominem arguments. But I believe that what is important is always a little bit personal. You are a kind of self-proclaimed defender of Hinduism. So I think it is right to consider also your person as the context of your arguments.

Second, you're right also: I'm not qualified (adhikârî) to speak in the name of any Dharma. So here I'm speaking only in the name of what I believe to be true, grounded in common sense and two decades of practice of brahmanical cultures.

Replies to your points:

1. BOOKWORM OR EXPERIENCE?

This is a typical New Age stance. Book reading is a life-transforming EXPERIENCE. And any experience is a text of a sort, as all experiences rely on some sort of thought construct (vikalpah). Study (adhyâyanam) is the primary duty of a brahmin, of any educated (shishtah) person, Indian or not. It is a transformation (samskârah), a realisation (bhâvanâ), specially in Pratyabhijna philosophy. And text is tantra, the Body of the Lord (vâkyam prabhor vapur iti).

2. OLD LINEAGE OR NEW MASTERS

Typical dilemma (mrshâ vaikalpam). What matters is validity (pramânyam). Kaula point of view: There is only one valid Lineage - one awareness. I have nothing against or for new or old. Living masters are often a threat to institutions, I agree. But all threats are not "Living masters". And a master can be a master without being alive, like Abhinavagupta.

By the way, most "Living masters" since around 2000 are shallow in my opinion (if you want to know): Nithyananda, Ramdev, Sri Sri, etc. On a photo, I see also the Dalai Lama and Dayânanda seated together. Good ones. Not bogus. They try to offer a synthesis of their legacies, with all their capacity. But whether they succeeded is another matter. The Dalai Lama has tried to produce a synthesis of Gelug thought and Dzogchen, along the lines of the Third Dodrubchen Rimpoche, Jigme Tenpe Nyima. Result: discourses with substance, yes, but also Shugden and much turmoil within the Gelug community. Of course, he is not responsible for the fanaticism of some Gelugpas. And regarding his "dialogue with science", it is entertaining, but it's more advertisement then thoughtful thinking.

Dayânanda... Respectable, yes. Tried to bring Vedânta to California. But while doing so, he decided to close his eyes to the dissensions within the Vedânta tradition (Vivarana, Bhâmatî, Sureshvara...). And his interpretation of Shankara is, I believe, wrong ("How dare he criticize such a Great Living Master ???? Argh!"). And forget about his obsession with Medha Dakshinâmûrti... who is none other than Abhinavagupta himself (yet another speculation, I know)!

3. WHEN LINEAGES BECOME RACIST

I don't know about the two ladies mentioned by M. Malhotra.

Anyway, when Lineage is awareness, it has obviously nothing to do with racism.

4. SCIENCE AND MORALITY

I agree with M. Malhotra. But I see that Brahmanism has encouraged this kind of claim. Because: Sanskrit grammar = laws of Nature = Dharma. Many brahmins believe they know Dharma and physics (as if it was the same thing !) once they know Sanskrit grammar.

But siddhis have nothing to do with science. Why? They do not exist. And the real siddhi (pratyabhijnâ) is subjective, so beyond the realm of objects studied by science.

5. SCIENCE AND FALLIBILITY

I agree with M. Malhotra's analysis of Nithyananda's "inner circle".

But is science the remedy ? No, or only indirectly. Because science deals only with objects and surfaces, not with states and depths. So, how do we know that we know? Well, the three means of valid knowing are good there (intuition, inference and hearsay, quickly said). But also common sense, curiosity...

And psychology, even if we can hardly consider it a science (there are no "human sciences").

And one last word about my "ad hominem attacks": I attacked a frame of mind, i.e., the world-class consumer with a scientific/ business education who wants to save the world or a part of it to fill his weekends.

Persons are always respectable. Ideas are not. But most often, we identify with them. So this kind of "attack" is, to some extent, unavoidable.

Regards,

David Dubois

[Response to Rajiv's post (07 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5639

Rest of this thread at David's post (12 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5660]

Friends,

If you are intrigued by David's background and his 'authority' (or otherwise, since he disclaims any...) to speak on behalf of Indic and Tantric traditions, here are some factual details and relevant links.

David is a young French scholar of Hindu and Buddhist tantra, who has recently completed a book on Abhinavagupta (probably his French PhD). He joined the Abhinava forum on 09 Feb 2003 and began posting from 15 Feb. till 08 Nov. 2003.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/634  (15 Feb 2003)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/1241  (08 Nov 2003)

Given his background and apparent enthusiasm and as I was increasingly overwhelmed, I invited him to be (co-) moderator. We subsequently met him and his Hindu wife from Lucknow, during our long stay in Paris in 2003, and he also introduced us to a couple of other French students of Hinduism. One of them, Dr. Karine Ladrech, who has completed her excellent doctorate on the South Indian iconography of Bhairava, figures on our svAbhinava site. David was to have submitted a profile of his own, which however I never received.

With his consent, I made him moderator on 13 March until he retired on 10 September 2003, as he wasn’t sure how to handle the various disputes (which were more chaotic and unmanageable then than now). However, he stopped posting after 08 Nov. 2003, and this is the first time I’m hearing again from him (note that his 'ad hominem' about Rajiv was posted only at our Hindu-Buddhist forum…). His PhD supervisor in Paris, Prof. François Chenet (? whom we know from his student days), was more or less a practicing Hindu with a Guru in India, whom he used to frequent every year. David's earlier memos on Kashmir Shaivism were done under Chenet's teacher and predecessor at the Sorbonne, Michel Hulin, who was also one of Elizabeth's D.Litt. ('thèse d'état') examiners and sympathetic to my own researches.

Though I formally (i.e., technically) removed his moderator status (only) on 28 April 2004, I had left his posting status as non-moderated. Hence, I could not intercept his previous message to remove the earlier part of the thread, and replace it with the relevant link. So members should not take this as a precedent to violate the guidelines (I have again replaced with the link below).

Now that David has resumed posting to our Abhinava forum, I hope he'll share the more recent highlights of his spiritual-cum-scholarly itinerary and from his writings (esp. the [recent] thesis on Abhinavagupta)

Thanks.

Sunthar

PS. David, please feel free to correct me if I got any of my facts above wrong.

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar's post (06 April 2010) at

Re: "Why Swami Nithyananda Must Resign Now" (Rajiv Malhotra, 17 March 2010)]

--- In [email protected], Jabali Muni wrote:

"In a nutshell, therefore, anyone who cannot embrace a 'red-hot iron pillar' must not embrace someone other than his wedded wife, under any pretext---least of all in the name of practicing 'Kashmir Shaivism'" (AK Kaul).

The caution given at the end of the post by Sri A.K. Kaul should be an eye-opener for all fake swamijis who try to trap women and amass wealth in the guise of "tantra vidyâ and Kashmir Shaivism". The lust for women and wealth ruins what all is achieved by yogis practising Tantra and upâsanâ [worship -SV].

I am thankful to Sri A,K,Kaul for his elaborate and educative post.

Regards,

Jabali Muni

[Response to AK Kaul's post (11 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5654]

Avtarji and Friends,

I'd prefer that responses to your cross-postings at other forums not be forwarded to this Abhinava forum, unless they add substantively to the discussion (as opposed to simply declaring assent or disapproval).

However, I'm allowing this through only as a 'barometer' of the Hindu sentiments regarding this 'sex scandal' at other milieus.

Thanks.

Sunthar

[Rest of this thread at David Dubois' post (13 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5662]

Dear Arnaud,

For many believers (not all), the godman Nithyananda is genuine, whereas the skeptic Freud is a fake; for many rationalists (not all) the reverse is true. Believers hold psychoanalysis to be pseudo-science, rationalists consider religious faith to be superstitious.

It’s relevant therefore that the late Claude Lévi-Strauss, the great anthropologist-philosopher of the last century, did not so much question the efficacy of their cures but compare / contrast them: shaman talks/patient listens, psychoanalyst listens / patient talks.

http://www.whalecrow.co.uk/whalec/2009/04/06/shamans-as-psychoanalysts-claude-levi-strauss/  (“Shamans as Psychoanalysts” from Structural Anthropology, volume 1)

From this perspective, what cures is not some power invested in the person of the healer but the ability (‘trick of the trade’) to manipulate a set of therapeutic principles embedded in a shared symbolic system in which both parties in the transaction are embedded.

What struck me in the BBC video (“Secret Swami”) is the number of (otherwise) highly competent Western scientists, legal experts, entrepreneurs, etc. (not to mention accomplished and renowned Indologists…), who are indeed convinced that Sathia Sai Baba is (the incarnation of) God. An earlier Dutch video (with many of the same participants) interviews another once fervent devotee, whose livelihood was to take European ‘spiritual tourists’ to the Indian ashram for the (divine) ‘vision’ (darshan), describes how he accidentally discovered that the ‘gold’ watches that the Godman ‘miraculously’ materializes were actually hidden behind the cushion of his seat. Yet, renowned professors, who are top legal experts at the pan-European level, refuse to even countenance the possibility of fraud. When Dr. Michael Goldstein, the most professional and scientific chairman of the international Sathia Sai Organization, was confronted with personal testimony from a family of long time white American devotees and missionaries of homosexual rape against innocent teenagers, he promised to question his Guru on his upcoming visit. However, Sai Baba deftly honored the troubled scientist on the public pedestal before all the devotees and the faith of this doubting Thomas was immediately restored. All these highly intelligent, articulate, and no-nonsense Western professionals affirm that it’s simply ‘not possible’ for their miracle-working Hindu Jesus to have stooped so low: their (threatened) self-image (validated by a lifetime of fiduciary investment) trumps the intrusions of the real world.

• http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/comments_on/_the_secret_swami/vclips/ssb-21.wmv 
• http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/comments_on/_the_secret_swami/vclips/ssb-22.wmv 
• http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/sathya-sai-baba-chief-dr-goldstein-explodes-i-am-the-consumate-professional/ 
• http://www.search.com/reference/Sathya_Sai_Baba

The central point I’m getting to here is that there is a pre-rational ‘structure of belief’ that underlies (per the philosopher of science, Michael Polanyi) even the apparently wholly ‘scientific’ worldview of the economist, politician, scholar, and critic. Isn’t this why our IER ‘cardinals’ argue like theologians, with all the attendant nihil obstat and imprimatur worthy of the Papacy, especially when they keep citing authoritative canon (like the ‘iconoclast’ Slavoj Zizek invoking Saint Paul…) and even insisting on ‘mainstream consensus’?

American liberals ‘sincerely’ detested George Bush Jr. for his ‘crimes against humanity’ and the suffering he had brought upon themselves and the world. Now that these true believers have found in their new Messiah the ideal superstar upon whom to project their inherited collective self-image and its manifest destiny, the same domestic and foreign policies acquire opposite meanings. Whereas Hindu godmen can only cure devotees here and there, our Nobel Obama has so transformed the world that war has become peace!

When it is no longer tenable to deny (Gandhi’s famous “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?”) the rapidly accumulating evidence that one is abetting (and even profiting from) the rape of other vulnerable peoples, we can simply claim that it’s being done for their own good. Thus the Pope and Obama could learn a thing or two from the (co-) founder of Hard Rock Café, a committed philanthropist in Sai Baba’s mission to serve humanity, who affirms that it’s possible for his Guru to be both God and pedophile, even a murderer!

The more intriguing problem for us is that some of Sai Baba’s worldwide followers claim to have been cured physically and/or psychologically. Indeed, there are reported case-histories of ardent (especially non-Hindu) skeptics who ended up equally ardent converts because of their own personal encounter or from having witnessed the transformative experiences of close ones. The Americanist ‘healing’ from the collective trauma of 9/11 has been even more miraculous: a shared experience that defies the basic laws of physics!

Regards,

Sunthar

[Response to Arnaud’s post (07 April 2010) at

“Re: Issues, not ad hominem attacks - response to David Dubois on Swami Nithyananda”]

For many believers (not all), the godman Nithyananda is genuine, whereas the skeptic Freud is a fake; for many rationalists (not all) the reverse is true. Believers hold psychoanalysis to be pseudo-science, rationalists consider religious faith to be superstitious.

It's relevant therefore that the late Claude Lévi-Strauss, the great anthropologist-philosopher of the last century, did not so much question the efficacy of their cures but compare / contrast them: shaman talks / patient listens, psychoanalyst listens / patient talks.

http://www.whalecrow.co.uk/whalec/2009/04/06/shamans-as-psychoanalysts-claude-levi-strauss/

("Shamans as Psychoanalysts" from Structural Anthropology, volume 1)

Dear Sunthar

To these examples, one could also add Bettelheim's study of fairy tales

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychanalyse_des_contes_de_f%C3%A9es

In my opinion, psychoanalysis is not a pseudo-science. I tend to think that pre-christianized Europe had a spontaneous psycho-analytical knowledge which has been more or less brainwashed and later on rediscovered. "Primitive" societies also have that kind of knowledge.Another interesting area with a kind of psychoanalytical knowledge is Mordvin fairytales. These fairytales often can be understood as a kind of Oedipal enigma. A number of clues and features are gradually narrated but it is hard to figure out who is who in the Oedipal plot until the end. This is extremely interesting to analyze. I don't know how conscious the narrator himself or herself is of these Oedipal features.

PS. I noticed that the English wiki lynches Bettelheim, but the French wiki is more empathetic towards him.

From this perspective, what cures is not some power invested in the person of the healer but the ability ('trick of the trade') to manipulate a set of therapeutic principles embedded in a shared symbolic system in which both parties to the transaction are [themselves] embedded.

This could be said of about all ritualized interactions: from music concerts to political speech.

What struck me in the BBC video ("Secret Swami") is the number of(otherwise) highly competent Western scientists, legal experts,entrepreneur, etc. (not to mention accomplished and renowned Indologists....), who are indeed convinced that Sathia Sai Baba is (the incarnation of) God. An earlier Dutch video (with many of the same participants) interviews another once fervent devotee, whose livelihood wast o take European 'spiritual tourists' to the Indian ashram for the (divine)'vision' (darshan), describes how he accidentally discovered that the 'gold' watches that the Godman 'miraculously' materializes were actually hidden behind the cushion of his seat. Yet, renowned professors, who are top legal experts at the pan-European level, refuse to even countenance the possibility of fraud. When Dr. Michael Goldstein, the most professional and scientific chairman of the international Sathia Sai Organization, was confronted with personal testimony from a family of long time white American devotees and missionaries of homosexual rape against innocent teenagers, he promised to question his Guru on his upcoming visit. However, Sai Baba deftly honored the troubled scientist on the public pedestal before all the devotees and the faith of this doubting Thomas was immediately restored. All these highly intelligent, articulate, and no-nonsense Western professionals affirm that it's simply 'not possible' for their miracle-working Hindu Jesus to have stooped so low: their (threatened) self-image (validated by a lifetime of fiduciary investment) trumps the intrusions of the real world.

Yes. It's a well-known problem for people who have been "cheated" for a long time in a sect and/or are involved in the system. They are not longer willing or capable morally, psychologically or financially to walk out of the fraud. People who manage to walk out are usually near destroyed down to the vegetable stage.

The central point I'm getting to here is that there is a pre-rational 'structure of belief' that underlies (per the philosopher of science,Michael Polanyi) even the apparently wholly 'scientific' worldview of the economist, politician, scholar, and critic. Isn't this why our IER 'cardinals' argue like theologians, with all the attendant nihil obstat and imprimatur worthy of the Papacy, especially when they keep citing authoritative canon (like the 'iconoclast' Slavoj Zizek invoking Saint Paul...) and even insisting on 'mainstream consensus'?

American liberals 'sincerely' detested George Bush Jr. for his 'crimes against humanity' and the suffering he had brought upon themselves and the world. Now that these true believers have found in their new Messiah the ideal superstar upon whom to project their inherited collective self-image and its manifest destiny, the same domestic and foreign policies acquire opposite meanings. Whereas Hindu godmen can only cure devotees here and there, our Nobel Obama has so transformed the world that war has become peace!

When it is no longer tenable to deny (Gandhi's famous "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?") the rapidly accumulating evidence that one is abetting (and even profiting from) the rape of other vulnerable peoples, we can simply claim that it's being done for their own good. Thus the Pope and Obama could learn a thing or two from the (co-) founder of Hard Rock Café, a committed philanthropist in Sai Baba's mission to serve humanity, who affirms that it's possible for his Guru to be both God and pedophile, even a murderer!

The more intriguing problem for us is that some of Sai Baba's worldwide followers claim to have been cured physically and/or psychologically. Indeed, there are reported case-histories of ardent (especially non-Hindu)skeptics who ended up equally ardent converts because of their own personal encounter or from having witnessed the transformative experiences of close ones. The Americanist 'healing' from the collective trauma of 9/11 has been even more miraculous: a shared experience that defies the basic laws of physics!

I'm not sure I like the wording "pre-rational structure of belief." I tend to think that people are more or less "pre-wired" by their education and social environments to adhere or not adhere to certain religions, creeds or structures of belief. This is not just *explicit* education but anthropological interplay between children and the other and older generations. For example, monotheistic gods can only prosper in societies where children are raised in a rather authoritarian way by a male in position of rather monopolistic power. For that matter it is not a surprise that Central France where parental authority is rather weakly enforced for centuries is also the most dechristianized part of Europe at the same time. God is more or less an interiorized version of "Monopolistic Male Power". If you have not been subjected to that educational feature when a child, you will not believe in that theory. In other words "God" nearly means nothing psychologically for people raised as a child in Central France. It does not talk to their anthropological pre-wiring. Those Gurus and Mankind-Saviors of all creeds can prey on at least two kinds of potential victims:

1. Infantile people with a low self-esteem and probably subjected to harsh social oppression=> they are in need of parental repair, something these Gurus can provide(at their expense of course). Unsurprisingly Sai Baba was born in that kind of environment.

2. People who have not received enough emotional feedback or care and cannot scan their own emotions.=> they can be easily manipulated as they do not really understand their own emotional situation and status. It's not a surprise either that "hyper-rational" and "de-emotionalized" people can fall in the trap. It is quite obvious that religious or political beliefs are strongly connected with psychological features and social features. Basically it boils down to the issue of "It must be true because I **need** to believe it is true, otherwise my psychological world crumbles".

Typically the Out-of-India Theory is a "It Must Be True" theory. Rational and scientific arguments will never weed it out. The first obvious absurdity is that it is more an "out-of-Pakistan Indus valley" theory than an OIT theory in the first place. I have not yet understood the deep reasons why people need to believe in that junk. I'm not sure that Hatred of the British, narcissistic Indian repair and social conservatism are fully sufficient explanations in my opinion. There must be something else. There is something at stake with the myth of Autochthony.

As regards Obama, I'm not sure that Americans regard him as a Savior. It may have been true right before and after his election. But most Americans, on both sides, have now understood that his campaign was just a clever fraud. I've never trusted him one second: a pseudo-Black man from Harvard who tries to sell he's from the Ghetto. Good joke.

Best

Arnaud

[Response to Sunthar's post (14 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5665]

Dear Sunthar,

Your infos are right, but my book on Abhinavagupta is not my PhD. Only one chapter is based on it ("Everything is made of everything"). The translations attempted for this thesis are available (for free) on my website, along with others (www.pratyabhijna.com). But please note that all these are draft translations, trials and experiments. Nothing of academic standard.

In your first post to me you made several good points about Nithyânanda and modern gurus. My general position is that those people are bogus.

One last clarification about Mr. Malhotra and, more generally, Hindutva:

My position is complex here, and unclear. I'm both sympathetic and horrified.

Sympathetic because I agree that there is a problem with Islam, and about the necessity of defending Hinduism.

But I'm horrified also because of the strategy chosen by Hindutva-champions. They transform themselves into the Enemy, in the hope that they will be able to fight him. But this is crazy. And it is this same strategy that is implemented since the beginning of Hindu revival. Starting with the RSS and VHP until now, everyone wants to:

1. SIMPLIFY Hinduism, with ONE book (the Gîtâ or Râmcaritmânas)
2. ONE mantra (ex. : the Gâyatrî)
3. ONE slogan ("ekam sad, bahudhâ vadanti viprâh" or some variant),
4. ONE church (VHP and children)
5. ONE political party

In other words, in order to fight the Muslim/Christian, they have become Muslim/Christian. They do not adapt Islam to Hinduism, they adapt Hinduism to Islam. Replacing Arabic words (djihâdî) by Sanskritic ones (ex. : vajrângî)... What a great idea! A born-again Hindu is an Evangelist at best, even if he recites his Gâyatrî or Hanuman Chalîsâ everyday. Hinduism has never been, and never will be, compatible with a middle-class urban life-style. Never. Hindu life-style, whether Vedic or Tantric, is simple: you sit on the ground and you read (shâstra, stotra, itihâsa, etc.), until you die. If that seems boring to you, or freaky, then you are not Hindu.

The defenders of Hindutva want to save Hinduism by destroying it. How caring! They use English, some even wear fascist Italian garbs (how ironic when decrying Sonia Gandhi, the daughter of an Italian fascist!), delve head to toe into computers, engineering, MBA's, chartered accountant dreams, neon lights, polythene bag aesthetics, call centers, electronic Gâyatrîs, industrial pujas, uniformizing of local cultures through Bollywood and cable channels, going to Mac Donalds, Starbuck Coffees or equivalent, exploring supermarkets and "shopping Complexes," adopting a cell phone as if it was their only Son... So it comes to pass that they have very little time left for study (adhyâyah). Nithyânanda, Shri Shri, and even Chinmayânanda and Dayânanda are outcomes of this, to different extents.

On the other hand, it is true that Hinduism needs to be pondered upon. I believe that the central issue (nigraha-sthâna) is the notion ofpurity (shucih, shuddhih, pavitram and, by extension, adhikârah). THAT is the key. But in order to think on it, one needs to study Hinduism. And the problem here, is that most of Hindus have no clue about their traditions (beside the Gîtâ, Upanishad, pieces of Purânas and some hearsays about "tantra"). Compare with Tibetan Tantric Buddhism. Despite their fate, Tibetans have been able to survive and spread through the world. Why ? Because they study. They do not rely exclusively on the charisma of gurus and "living masters" and "oral tradition". They know the differences between lineages, the doctrines, the branches, the details. By contrast, go to any bookstore and look for Hinduism, even in Motilal Banarsidass. You will find mostly New Age literature. Even Indians (middle-class ones) can hardly see the difference. How Reiki and Nithy could have succeeded otherwise? In other words: Middle-class Indians are incapable of saving the Tradition they claim to defend as long as they do not start a life of study.

Instead, they blindly promote New Age and fascism. And, I believe, the deep cause of that situation is the notion of purity. I'm aware I'm making a very, very straight shortcut here. But any person who has an embodied and long-term experience with the middle-class will know what I'm speaking of.

I apologize if I have hurt the sentiments of "Hindus", but anyway, I'm confident that they would find efficient solace in any shopping complex near at hand, something easy to come by in any "globalized-modern-shining" city.

Pranâms,

David Dubois

[Response to Sunthar's comments on David's post (13 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5662

Rest of this thread at David's post (12 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5660]

By the way, most "Living masters" since around 2000 are shallow in my opinion (if you want to know): Nithyananda, Ramdev, Sri Sri, etc.

Why do you call Swami Ramdev shallow? His pranayama workshops has benefited millions. Me included (from his youtube videos). Besides, i love listening to his Hindi discourses (pravaWhy do you call Swami Ramdev shallow? His prânâyâma workshops has benefited millions. Me included (from his youtube videos). Besides, I love listening to his Hindi discourses (pravachan). Feel very peaceful.

Sri Sri: I think you are referring to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Sri Sri is "shallow" in your opinion? A friend of mine, a member of Art of Living, does not think so. I am sure there are plenty of other Art of Living members or just plain people who have interacted with Sri Sri who differ from your assessment of Sri Sri. allenge.htmHave you heard of Jaggi Vasudev? What are your thoughts on him--shallow or profound (not shallow)?

But siddhis have nothing to do with science. Why? They do not exist. How can you claim that? The majority of the yogis who really do possess siddhis are inaccessible and very reticent about their powers and don't bother about winning a million dollars from James Randy:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html 

Much like UFO's don't land on the roof of Randy's house so that the whole western science-academia may drop their skepticism about extra-terrestrials. They (yogis) don't bother about public displays for the sake of disproving material science. If you have not witnessed siddhis, you are unlucky, that's all.

Sri Aurobindo once spontaneously levitated a meter or so while he was thinking (when he was in jail) "whether siddhis exist or not". Sri Aurobindo and Mother's life is replete with paranormal events. Now a derisive smile must have already crossed your face but I don't care.

Google search "celestials" in the Exopolitics and www.examiner.com site to reexamine and expand your views and worldview.

No Regards. (I really hate your perfunctory apologies)

Bye.

Saurav

[Response to David's post (13 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5662 ]

Sourav,

>.

Now that both David and yourself have already given vent to the 'ad hominem' feelings (however justified, in your perceptions, because the relation between assumed public roles and (specific mis-) understandings of Hindu tradition), let's all focus on the substantive issues. To keep such discussions manageable, I'd also propose that participants not drag in too many ideas, facts, names, etc., within a single post, thus providing the license to disperse and lose the original thread.

I'm allowing this through (...) since this is your first post here. But make sure you comply in future.

Sunthar

[Response to Saurva's post (15 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5663 ]

Dear Sunthar,

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:21 AM, [Sunthar] wrote:

I'm allowing this through (now in the required format) since this is your first post here. But make sure you comply in future.

Thanks.

Sunthar

*No Regards. (I really hate your perfunctory apologies)*

Bye.

[Saurav]

You could have placed a smiley for the last line of greeting, that is no greeting, from Mr. Saurav. Don't you think it deserves that? :)

Ravishankar

[Response to Saurav's post (15 April 2010) with Sunthar's comment at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5668]

Dear Ravishankar,

As you would see from Saurav's tit-for-tat response (if approved...) to David's most recent post, my attempt to 'moderate' the former's sarcasm with a smiley might have not only given the latter a false sense of security in voicing his negative opinions but also goaded the former into even greater hostility. This is one of those, not so untypical, situations where it is the 'moderator' who is at the greatest risk: damned if you put on a smiley, damned if you don't :-)

I would like all contributors to get back to the original thread which is not so much whether Nithyananda (or anyone else) is a sham guru, but what this scandal reveals about 'Gurudom' in contemporary India and the changing self-perceptions of (esp. middle-class) Hindus.

Regards,

Sunthar

[Response to Ravishanar's post (15 April 2010) with Sunthar's comment at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5668]

Sympathetic because I agree that there is a problem with Islam, and about the necessity of defending Hinduism.

But I'm horrified also because of the strategy chosen by Hindutva-champions

While Mr. Dubois is "horrified" by Hindutva, regarding Islam's effect on India, he sees only a "problem". Not anything to "horrify" him.

2) ONE mantra (ex. : the Gâyatrî),

Is it a problem that the Gayatri mantra is being widely propagated through TV serials, radio etc and people are encouraged to chant the Gaayatri? Gaayatri happens to be a very potent mantra and even Krishna says in the Gita, of chhandas I am the Gayatri. Why not adopt the best?

In this Kali Yuga it is recommended that one chants the mantra of one's Kuladevata for spiritual progress. If the Gayatri Mantra were being *forced* upon the people and they were exhorted to stop chanting some mantra they are already chanting (for good reason), like Kuldeva-mantra, *then* that is objectionable. Is that being done by any Hindutva group?

5) ONE political party.

I would rather have one strong benevolent Hindutva-favoring dictator rule the country for a decade or so and make the people strong, united and disciplined than have the current "democratic" nonsense and confusion continue. All sects and schools of thought of Hinduism will receive central-govt patronage but they will be encouraged to stand united against the common enemies - China, Mullah, Missionary. Buddhists and Jains will be left in peace because they are by nature very peaceful and non-confrontational.

They transform themselves into the Enemy, in the hope that they will be able to fight him. But this is crazy.

Please tell me some of the activities that Hindutva groups have carried out that replicate the carnage inflicted on India by the Enemy, Islam or the damage being done by another Enemy, missionary Christianity.

Also, suggest a good strategy to deal with the said enemies.

Is a move to unite the Hindu people to confront and defeat the problems/forces that are beleaguering them unjustified? Perhaps we Hindu people can set aside our internal philosophical differences for sometime and deal with the more pressing physical problem: Islamic terrorism, Christian missionary activity, anti-Hindu "secular" central government.

Despite their fate, Tibetans have been able to survive and spread through the world. Why ? Because they study. They do not rely exclusively on the charisma of gurus and "living masters" and "oral tradition".

Eh? Tibetans are surviving? I really feel pained to see how Tibetan culture is dying away and how Tibetans are facing persecution by Chinese occupants. Tell me, who is going to fill in the position of H.H. Dalai Lama after he dies? The whereabouts of the successor (a kid) he chose is not known today. These Tibetans did not have military might to face China, hence they are suffering today. We Hindus should learn a valuable lesson from this and not hesitate to pick up the sword invoking the image of Shri Krishna & the valiant Arjuna to physically engage the Enemy, if the situation so demands. I am all for it. Hardly bothered whether you are horrified or not. (Though I am not a fanatic and of course *would* want to see things getting resolved by dialogue and debate and for the "war" to remain confined to the noosphere and ending there itself.)

Hindu life-style, whether Vedic or Tantric, is simple: you sit on the ground and you read (shâstra, stotra, itihâsa, etc.), until you die. If that seems boring to you, or freaky, then you are not Hindu.

An astounding amount of belittling and sarcasm is packed into these lines. So that is what Hindus have been doing over the millennia, Dubois? They have sat their butts on the ground and pored over their Shastras from dawn till dusk.

Agriculture, temple-construction, city-building and maintenance all this was carried out by magic, by Vishwakarma probably. Also, all invading hordes—Islamic, Portuguese or British—were kept from crossing our borders by magic spells.

If that seems boring to you, or freaky, then you are not Hindu.

Dear Hindus, we need not list the "recreational" activities we engage in to allay the intolerable boredom ensuing from doing nothing but hanging our heads over our holy books all day, all life, from birth to death. Please don't take offense at being called a freak because if a freak calls other people freak he is not to be taken seriously.

then you are not Hindu.

Neither is the definition of who is Hindu coming from a freak to be taken seriously.

I apologize if I have hurt the sentiments of "Hindus", but anyway, I'm confident that they would find efficient solace in any shopping complex near at hand, something easy to come by in any "globalized-modern-shining" city.

Yo Yo Yo, please drink some red wine and go to sleep. We will find our solace if you would kindly spare us your lectures and get to see you nicely tucked and peacefully snoring in your pillow. I think Mr. Dubois is a tad jealous to see the shopping malls etc that have sprung up in our cities like Gurgaon, symbol of the emerging India's prosperity.

Hinduism has never been, and never will be, compatible with a middle-class urban life-style. Never.

Dear Sir, we have integrated quite well Hinduism with our middle-class urban life-style. We have an altar at a corner of our apartment-flat where we offer prayers to our Deity daily. We carry out our activities in a mode of yajna to the Almighty. We take care not to get carried away in western bhoga outlets like movies, shopping etc and take care to balance bhoga with yoga. We strive to remember the proper place of bhoga even while taking a big bite at a McDonald burger. (Nirulas is better and healthier actually, because it is so Indianized.) Remembering the Ultimate aim of life always, engaged in bhoga or performing yoga.

By contrast, go to any bookstore and look for Hinduism, even in Motilal Banarsidass. You will find mostly New Age literature.

I don't know about Motilal Banarasidas's current status but I have found lots of good and authentic literature/information on Hinduism online. Will send you the websites through private email if you care.

What about Gita-press? http://www.gitapress.org/

I find the books of Gita-press EXCELLENT and hardly would label them New-Agey. They are doing an immense service to Hinduism by selling their excellent books sooo cheap. (See the prices at their website.)

They use English, some even wear fascist Italian garbs (how ironic when decrying Sonia Gandhi, the daughter of an Italian fascist !), delve head to toe into computers, engineering, MBA's, chartered accountant dreams, neon lights, polythene bag aesthetics, call centers, electronic Gâyatrîs, industrial pujas, uniformizing of local cultureS through Bollywood and cable channels, going to Mac Donalds, Starbuck Coffees or equivalent, exploring supermarkets and "shopping complexes", adopting a cell phone as if it was their only Son... So it comes to pass that they have very little time left for study (adhyâyah). Nithyânanda, Shri Shri, and even Chinmayânanda and Dayânanda are outcomes of this, to different extents.

"They use English"

Yeah, this is a problem. English has become the global language. Can't stop using it. Indian languages are suffering, I know, but English has become indispensable for communication with the outside world. How else could I be talking to you right now?

The only solution I see is to keep a superhuman expectation of Indian kids that they will not only learn their mother tongue—Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi... whatever— very, very well (especially when they are young) but also learn English equally well. Indian languages need to be preserved/encouraged because culture and thought-patterns are encoded into a language so loss of language means loss of culture. Mother tongue needs to be encouraged because through mother tongue the intellect of the child fully matures. (Indian languages are superior to English—will provide reasons if you ask). But this necessary evil English can't be dispensed with because it is the only medium to engage in debate with people like you. Or to stitch the mouth of people like Wendy Doniger.

"delve head to toe into computers,"

Computers are necessary. Need not elaborate on the reasons.

"engineering, MBA's, chartered accountant dreams, neon lights,"

Yea yea, I am also very annoyed with this. There is a surfeit of bogus engg. and bogus MBA courses. The human intellect, years, energy... wasted in them could be channelized into activities that truly serve the interests of our civilization, religion and nation.

Unfortunately the machinery left behind by the British still hasn't lost its momentum. Also, the allure of the spic and shiny West hasn't fallen away.

Symptom of Kali Yuga it is that people are enamored of materialistic pursuits.

About MBA: the bit of "MBA advice" Mr. Rajiv Malhotra gave to Nithyananda is appreciable. I can see you have a big problem with Rajiv ji but i hold him in high regard because of the enterprise he has set up (Infinity Foundation) and because he is an example of how one can be a jet-setting American and a totally dedicated Hindu at the same time.

"Bollywood and cable channels,"

Bollywood should be booed relentlessly.

QUOTE (again!): I apologize if I have hurt the sentiments of "Hindus", but anyway, I'm confident that they would find efficient solace in any shopping complex near at hand, something easy to come by in any "globalized-modern-shining" city.

The shopping-complex culture emerging from the West will be healed and corrected by its encounter with the Hindu people. I am thinking something on the lines of the extravagant Bengali saaree stalls that are set up before Durga Puja. That's shopping, that's a total *immersion* in shopping, but there's a spiritual emotion that underlies all the activities (of the people) connected to the festival.

Middle-class Indians are incapable of saving the Tradition they claim to defend as long as they do not start a life of study.

You must remember there is a large number of Hindus who quietly practice (not just book-study, but *practice*) their beliefs at their homes and get real spiritual experiences which is what really matters. They don't waste their time in intellectual brawls online.

But our Enemies (let me add to the list the new Hindu scholars in American universitiees) won't let us live in peace.

http://www.hvk.org/articles/1003/0.html

I remember in one talk Sadguru Jaggi Vasudev was giving that if we could just leave our intellectual baggage and noise behind and become completely innocent as a child, he could give us the sought-for spiritual experience in a moment. Bhakti will naturally arise with the intellect silenced. But that apparently is not feasible in our times because we need our intellect to discriminate between sadguru and non-sadguru.

So my point is that if someone does not pore over the holy books it does not mean he/she is not progressing or progressed spiritually. Quite the contrary, many people remain restricted to their books all their lives without having even a rudimentary spiritual experience.

This "study" you are talking about is required to fend off outside attacks, like Doniger et al.

Jnana maarga is quite impossible to tread in Kali Yuga. Bhakti is the only easy way.

To conclude your letter shows you have not seen all facets of Hinduism or let's say the spirituality of the Indian people but the sarcasm you poured serves a purpose which is to keep us on our toes. Also you might try to dilute the emerging militant mentality by slinging mud at Hindutva but I've to tell you that force needs to be opposed with force. *I fully sympathize with and support this militant mentality.* This is how we weakened the British Raj-- Subhash Chandra Bose's army in the 1940's, Sri Aurobindo's revolutionary activities around the 1900s...

Long live Hindutva.

dishum dishum

Saurav

[Response to David's post (13 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5667

Rest of this thread at Sunthar's comments on Ravi's post (15 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5669]

Saurav,

While I'd agree that David began by venting his spleen (not only at Rajiv), he has also followed up by developing his point of view explicitly. We can by now see where he's coming from and why he holds certain (not just Hindutva) tendencies and the people who embody them in contempt. You seem to be latching on [above] to this surface and scattering our attention further in every direction. Now that I've allowed you to respond in like manner, on the assumption that you are equally sincere in your feelings, let's focus dispassionately on the underlying issues, problems, and options. This is what David has done in his last post, and what needs to be engaged (not just by you).

Unless you've done an independent and sustained (even non-academic) study of Hindu texts and traditions, as David has obviously done, I'd suggest you focus more on asking questions and pointing out problems (as you are already been doing) in his prescriptions, rather than championing (your version of) 'Hindutva' alternatives to each proposition (while skirting the essential core).

Thanks.

Sunthar

[Rest of this thread at David's post (17 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5678]

Dear Sunthar,

You write:

I would like all contributors to get back to the original thread which is not so much whether Nithyananda (or anyone else) is a sham guru, but what this scandal reveals about 'Gurudom' in contemporary India and the changing self-perceptions of (esp. middle-class) Hindus.

I do not know much about Nithyananda or how good or bad he is as a guru but my question is since when in the context of India the rishis were not allowed to have women as partners for sex? And how does he not being celibate take away from what he has to preach thus affect his "Gurudom" somehow?

Are we somehow straitjacketed into a way of thinking that all priests should be bachelors (a hangover of Christianity??) and should have no relations with other humans (notwithstanding what we are learning about catholic priests all over Europe and America)?

Shivraj

[Response to Sunthar's comments on Ravishankar's post (16 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5669]

Dear Shivraj,

Gurudom (guru-tâ in Sanskrit) as an *institution* is not just about the person (whether enlightened, moral, knowledgeable, authorized, etc.) but also about the expectations, attitude, behavior of his disciples (whether formal, fan-club, etc.) and the public at large. It is this *mutually constituted* relationship that we are attempting to nail down here (e.g., my exchange with Arnaud focused less on how 'genuine' Sai Baba, the shaman, or Obama were than on the context of symbols and values shared with their respective adherents).

Quite apart from the Vedic rishis being married and that uart has already pointed out), Hindu 'historical' (itihâsa) memory is peopled with sages such as Parâsara, Vyâsa, Vishvâmitra, Ashrnga, etc., who had a half-an-hour daytime (as opposed to a one-night) stand while traversing a river on a raft, shed their seed spontaneously at the sight of a beautiful actress from heaven, were seduced by a princess on the orders of the king for the welfare of the kingdom, and so on. Their momentary 'lapses' have not (yet) diminished their hallowed stature in the Hindu imagination, and the 'accidental' progeny of these unions are described as larger-than-life figures (e.g., Vasishta and Agastya) who inherited many of the divine attributes of these temporary unions.

The problem with Nithyananda is, however, not simply a question of (the Hindu disciples' shame and incomprehension at) his sexual 'misdemeanor' nor even in such 'Secret Swamis' betraying their public image in their private lives--our 'hidden' (gupta) Abhinava is even more shocking...and Western scholars like David White are indeed trying to make a 'hypocrite' of him in so many words--but of comprising the integrity of the whole institution built around him. Quite apart from his degree of spiritual (or even psychological) insight in 'initiating' Lenin Karuppan and making him a key figure of his inner circle, the 'Guru' has been subsequently recorded begging and bribing the 'disciple', promising to make him 'second-in-command', etc. Nithyananda may feel that he had done nothing 'wrong' per se but he was keenly aware that his flock would feel betrayed by such revelations, and found it more opportune to cover up at the expense of the institution rather than own up. It is this slippery slope that Rajiv has pointed out in his last post.

Regards,

Sunthar

[Rest of this thread at Rajiv's post (07 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5639]

Hi,

the 'Guru' has been subsequently recorded begging and bribing the 'disciple', promising to make him 'second-in-command', etc.

Would it be possible for you to point me towards some of these recordings? I have not heard of this.

Thanks,

Krishna

[Response to Sunthar's comments on Shivraj's post (16 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5670]

“Do you think because I am a Swami I will not spend money. I will give you as much money as you want. I am willing to part with money..Only you are not responding… what do you want me to do for you? I will keep you like a King in this Ashram.. I will establish a separate Ashram for you… or I will make you number 2 in this ashram.”

“You tried to kill me in Salem. I somehow escaped that bid”

“I will give it in writing that there will no harm to your life by me or by anybody”

http://ariyaamai.blogspot.com/ [scroll down to 1 April...are we all fools?]

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D76tZQNmDnM 
• http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=73293 

I can't find the original location where the English translation of the Tamil phone conversations was provided. But Lenin is reported there as stating that the recordings had been handed over to the police. So their authenticity can be easily verified (or debunked).

Let's not pursue these details here any further, and focus on the wider implications for 'Guru-worship' and 'disciple-factories'...

Sunthar

Dear everybody,

Here below is one more attempt at clarifying my positions on the relationship between gurus and various types of social structures:

1 - Traditional Hinduism (TH) is Hinduism based on a daily and life-long study of the various shâstras. But it is not necessarily Vedic or orthodox (smârta). It can be any sect, tantric, even nirgunî, kabîrpanthî, etc.

2 - TH is designed for rural life.

Contemporary examples are Kodunthirapully or Mathur.

3 - TH continues to produce traditional gurus

Recent examples (=XXth [century]) are:

Swami Sacchidânandendra

Vasudevashâstri Abhyankar

T. Viraraghavacharya Siromani

Ramana Maharshi

Gopinâtha Kavirâja

Swami Lakshman Joo

Amritavâgbhava

Balajinnâth Pandit

Râmeshvar Jhâ

And many others, notably in the traditions of Pûrnaprajnâ (Udipi) and Râmânuja. They all share one thing: they have all composed texts in Sanskrit. Besides, all the traditional people I have met are very critical of MC (much more "insensitive" than me). To say nothing of traditional texts...

4- MC are defending TH, but pursue a way of life that is not compatible with TH. Notably, they don't take care of manuscripts. The concern for manuscripts is not exclusive to Westerners or Indologists. See for example, what a young Kashmiri looking for Abhinavagupta's manuscripts (mss) has to say about his meeting with a librarian in Lucknow (I hide his name in fear of being too "insensitive"):

"As soon as Dr X. Y. had a look at the list [I had selected], he said. "Why do you want the copies of so many manuscripts? Do you want to open up a shop of Manuscripts? I mean you should ask for the Mss of a single text, but you are asking for so many of them... You work on a single text at a time and not on so many different texts." When I said that I am working on three projects simultaneously the great scholar replied back saying, "But you cannot do that. You are asking for the Mss. as if you want to open up a shop of Mss. See some time back a scholar came with a list of sixty manuscripts, and I had to allow because he was a very influential man. But I cannot allow twenty one Mss for you."

In fact they did not allow me even to see the Mss. "They are in a different hall and it is not possible to see them" said the clerk. Never mind. I still curse that Kashmiri pandit man Vidyeshwarnath Razdan (Kaccha Chabutara, Chowpatiya Road, Cowk, Lucknow) who donated his complete collection of the Sarada Mss in about two-three thousand volumes to the Akhil Bharatiya Sanskrit Parishad. This man must have taken all the trouble to carry these Mss all the way from Kashmir to Lucknow, but now a Kashmiri like myself cannot even have a look at them. This is how the donor of the collection is being honored."

5- TH is hardly compatible with urban life. Middle-class (MC) values are a threat to TH, and to everything traditional, because they adopt consumerism.

6- Globalized gurus (GG) are instances of the incompatibility between TH and MC. Instances of GG are Nithyananda, Ramdev, Shri Shri. Not all GG are equally shallow. Among them, Dayânanda has tradional knowledge. But he lacked judgment when he endorsed Nithyananda, as did some Shankarâcharyas.

7- The MC I'm speaking of is not specifically Indian. Actually, there are instances of Western GG (hundreds), and a handful of TH western ones (Michael Comans in Australia, Swami Yogânanda in France; but mainly within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition).

8- That said, is an authentic form of Hinduism possible for MC?

Yes, of course!

But not TH in its original - rural - form.

In India, such a MC Hinduism is still hard to define, because the Indian MC is booming and conditions are changing so fast. But it is possible, I think, with trials and mistakes. In North Indian, there are already several examples, mainly around the Santmat and Bhakti. Like: The gurus of both (Western Indologist!) Lilian Silburn and (Indian Indologist!), T. Jaidev Singh, or Neem Karoli Baba. In Buddhism, there is Goenka and his Vipassana. Not TH, but not shallow.

But is it possible to adapt any form of REALLY TH to MC values and obsessions? Like Vedânta or Kashmir Shaivism?

Well, I'm sceptical. So many shams already. Adi Da in the West... Muktânanda, Osho in the..."globalized India"? And now Nithyânanda (who is teaching both late Vedânta and some pieces of Kashmir Shaivism)...

9- One way, I think, is to go to the essence of the non-dual traditions. Non-dual TH minus study = a form of Hinduism that is compatible with MC. There are already many examples, like Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Atmananda Krishna Menon. For non-dual wisdom, not much study is needed. But some ethics, yes. So, with a minimalist traditional agenda, an authentic form of Hinduism is possible that is compatible with MC way of life.

There are solutions. But still, wouldn't it be sad to let millions of manuscripts rot? Indian or otherwise?

Regards,

David Dubois

NB: I do not consider myself an Indologist.

PS: There are many names, but I believe it's important to offer some example of what one is saying.

[Rest of this thread at Sourav's post (15 April 2010) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/5668]