That is the problem with the guru role:

Power w/o accountability, because the guru is claimed to be so special that he or she is exempt from normal guidelines.

Quote
The Royal Line
She actually says that she never "said" she was a Paramahamsa. Which is true.

This is inaccurate. In the video 'Ramana Kundalini Meat Eating This Guru This Path' (here), Guru Swami G's complete statement is: (at 16:09) "What you are doing, in trying to put words in my mouth - - I've never said I'm Paramahamsa. I never, ever said that." (at 20:30) "Please show me once where I am proclaiming to be a Paramahamsa on any video, any where, on anything I've written, or any statements any place. You won't find it cause it doesn't exist."

Listed on Page 5 (above) of this thread were the results of the Google web search for 'Paramhansa Ganga-Puri Kaliuttamananda-Giri' which produced proof that Guru Swami G has not only used the title 'Paramahansa', but does so on her own website:

'Paramhansa Ganga-Puri Kaliuttamananda-Giri, affectionately known as Swami-G, is an Enlightened Master, a Sat-Guru. Swami-G wishes to accept as students ...'
www.guruswamig.com/guru-a-lineage

'Aug 30, 2010 - Paramhansa Ganga-Puri Kaliuttamananda-Giri, affectionately known as Swami-G, is an Enlightened Master, a Sat-Guru. Swami-G wishes to ...'
www.guruswamig.com/guru-a-lineage/guru-swami-g/.../biography


This is a record, a response to her request, which shows she has not only used the title 'Paramahamsa' in writing, but does so on her own website.

Quote
The Royal Line
Same goes for the SatGuru title.

In the East a satguru varies greatly from a person considered to be a guru. Gurus can be any person that is himself/herself seeking enlightenment and are considered, traditionally speaking, to be someone that directs and guides in all matters of life for beginners (he is the leader and all follow behind him). This role would be similar to an Abbot or Mother Superior in the Christian tradition In the world today, most persons desire to claim that their respective guru is a 'satguru' because it would imply that they are not mere beginners, but more advanced in their practices and respective achievements. However, the great lineages and respected religious authority do not recognize that all guru's are 'satgurus' and note the differences, among many, as follows:

* A satguru does not keep you as a follower.
* A satguru does not instruct you on how to live your life, make any decisions for you nor suggest you live a certain way.
* A satguru requies you to use your own discernment, rather than demanding your trust to follow him implicitly.
* A satguru does not require that you renounce worldy life in any way, knowing true renunciation is a state of mind and not a station in life.
* A satguru does not display kashyas (anger, rage or passions), but remains composed in equanimity.

Sanyaas, or formal renunciation, is not a precursor to Self Realization. It has never been and it shall never be. The fact that Guru Swami G requires sanyaas for her students to reach Self Realization reveals, traditionally speaking, that she is not a satguru nor does she understand that Self Realization is not inhibited by a person's status, station or gender.

In the West persons are greatly confounded by the traditional Eastern philosophies and easily manipulated by persons who exploit these traditions. Careful study, including the characteristics of a cult (which should not be found with a genuine satguru who is never one to run your life), would help tremendously in curbing the personal tragedies of those that become enmeshed with con-men and con-women.

Quote
Yasmin
Having checks and balances is imo what makes many religions safe for their participants

Legit ashrams (or spiritual communities) are run by the devotees and the guru or satguru is not involved in day-to-day managing of the ashram, fiances, community involvement or people's lives. The guru or satguru traditionally speaks and sits with visitors or students, but does not make any decisions regarding the community or students with sole authority. There would be a panel of decision makers and the guru may or may not even be included in that panel; though, most legitimate gurus choose to refrain from all involvement in order to avoid controversies or problems.

Guru G is being discussed here because former students describe her ashram as being run differently than described below

"

Quote

Legit ashrams (or spiritual communities) are run by the devotees and the guru or satguru is not involved in day-to-day managing of the ashram, fiances, community involvement or people's lives. The guru or satguru traditionally speaks and sits with visitors or students, but does not make any decisions regarding the community or students with sole authority. There would be a panel of decision makers and the guru may or may not even be included in that panel; though, most legitimate gurus choose to refrain from all involvement in order to avoid controversies or problems.

"

Saralata:
I stand corrected on the Paramahamsa issue.
I know she will say that she didn't write it (a student I assume), but I agree, it amounts to the same thing.
As for the title Satguru, in the way she uses it, it is intended to mean a Self-Realised~Enlightened Guru.
And I highly doubt she is.

One point of correction:
She doesn't think Sannyas is "necessary" for Self-Realisation, but rather helpful~conducive.
Nor does she require it of her students.

corboy:
I agree, this is by no means a normal run ashram. She controls the show, and she clearly abuses her position.

And I agree that the "consenting adult" argument is a loaded one and is far more complex than that.

Quote
The Royal Line
One point of correction: She doesn't think Sannyas is "necessary" for Self-Realisation, but rather helpful~conducive. Nor does she require it of her students.

In Guru Swami G's latest video just released today ('Swami G adds to Ronalds Response to H. Jolicouer') here, beginning at 2:05 she states: "We've got two women here that are celibates. 99.9% of the people on this path are in relationships. Celibacy is only for those that interested in going the whole way to Realization."

A former student who posted here also confirmed that Guru Swami G had recently made changes in her group which required that any that wanted Realization or Enlightenment would have to become celibate. Guru Swami G, in her recently released video (above) has confirmed that accusation.

Traditionally, and even today, the taking of sanyass (or celibacy) is not a requirement for Realization and it is also not a guarantee of it. Traditionally sanyaas is for beginners or for those that have a strong inner calling for this station in life.

Guru Swami G uses a lot of Ramana Maharashi's wisdom, considered a great saint of India, to validate her various teachings. This is only one of many things that Ramana Maharshi had to say on the matter of renunciation.

"Question: How does a householder (grihastha) fare in the scheme of moksha (liberation)? Should he not necessarily become a mendicant in order to attain liberation?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Why do you think you are a grihastha (householder)? Similar thoughts that you are sannyasi (wandering monk) will haunt you, even if you go out as a sannyasi. Whether you continue in the household or renounce it and go to the forest, your mind haunts you. The ego is the source of thought. It creates the body and the world and it makes you think of being the grihastha. If you renounce, it will only substitute the thought of sannyasa for that of grihastha and the environment of the forest for that of the household.

But the mental obstacles are always there for you. They even increase greatly in the new surroundings. It is no help to change the environment. The one obstacle is the mind and it must be overcome whether in the home or in the forest. If you can do it in the forest, why not in the home? Therefore, why change the environment? Your efforts can be made even now, whatever the environment."

Saralata:

Why are you posting here?

Are you associated with Sharon/"Swami G." in some way, shape or form?

What exactly is your history of association with and interest in this self-proclaimed "guru/swami" and her group?

Please explain.

BTW -- Swami G. comes across very badly in the video. She seems defensive, angry and ego-driven.

Hardly "enlightened," more like a petulant arrogant cult leader, which seems to be her "calling."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2013 01:03AM by rrmoderator.

rrmoderator:

I have been following the Guru Swami G thread here and also her videos. I am not associated with Guru Swami G or her group in any way. I do believe the accusations brought against Guru Swami G and her recent behavior in videos (which include admissions by Guru Swami G validating the accusations), provide reasonable support that Guru Swami G and her group are cult-like in nature. I am interested in the study of the guru-disciple relationship and how these relationships, when exploited by self interested persons, can become abusive and harmful.

Quote
rrmoderator
BTW -- Swami G. comes across very badly in the video. She seems defensive, angry and ego-driven.

Hardly "enlightened," more like a petulant arrogant cult leader, which seems to be her "calling."

Yes. My post was meant to show to The Royal Line that Guru Swami G admits that she requires celibacy if a person wants to "go the full way to Realization". This opposes traditional teachings and is not a requirement for any person if they wish to reach "Realization". Her anger, rage and contempt are the hallmarks of her videos.