Current Page: 5 of 14
Re: Guru Swami G
Posted by: psyborgue ()
Date: August 27, 2013 04:12PM

An exchange between Diddly and J. Lobur. Apologies for the formatting errors in the first post.
Guru Watch cannot respond with first hand experience. I can. You too, John, have very little
first hand experience as your communications and involvement has been primarily through
the online group and at a few retreats. I, on the other hand, had consistent and contintual
interaction via the groups, phone calls, Skype sessions, emails and retreats. Not to mention
I did her "counseling".

Yes it is my personal opinion that this teacher is realized. The evidence is ultimately, and
admittedly, sub jective, and I have no desire to try and convince anyone of the veracity of
something I personally take as no longer a matter of b elief.

As a matter of FACT, you DO have to take it as b elief. Prove to me, John, her "realization".
Her "realization", too, is a subjective matter in as much as your belief is subjective. While it's
a convienient and comforting belief, it is still only a b elief.

All are free to make their own determination. All who have ever left were wished well (and I
personally sincerely wish them well) and, as far as I know left completely alone, as is only
right, ethical and proper.

I am not alone. Alone, perhaps, in the sense that I am not allowing someone with claims of
something I cannot prove to dictate my life while their very own life is in shambles. Then,
yes, I am not following any such person any longer. But "being alone" is a rather naive
statement, as if the people that leave then wander aimlessly without any support, direction
or cause.

You, too, John are wished well. All of those that remain are wished well. Even your teacher
herself is wished well. What is no longer wished for is "wishful thinking" or denying the
obvious contradictions, concerns, quite valid questionable behavior that has and remains to
be a very serious happening with said teacher. Contrary to what you might believe and wish
to assume, people have been hurt by her in ways you aren't able to fully grasp or
comprehend right now simply because, if you were to do so, it would mean the very person
you are following could no longer be followed. I know that desire (to see her as untouchable)
and fear (to question her behavior). I lived it long and well.

Just b ecause the teacher is very difficult does not make them a fraud.

Have you not seen the concerns posted here outside of her "crazy wisdom", anger or rage?
The FACT is there are endless examples of behavior that she has never answered
adequately (not to mention how strange it is that you must come here to answer for her.
Have you stopped to wonder why your teacher can't clean up her own mess, but relies upon
the fears of her students to do so for her?) and which fail even the loosest maesurement of
"acceptable behavior".

People go to physical fitness "b oot camps," don't they? Nor is it expected for the teacher to
work for free ­­ Some very charitab le people insist on payment just so that the service
rendered will b e valued and the instruction followed. Some teachers can b e quite difficult

John, you are using her speech and justification. How do I know? Becuase I've heard the
very thing from the horse's mouth. Please, I beg of you (sincerely, from my knees, John), to
use your reason, logic and judgement. I know you are capable, John! You are intelligent,
successful in business and such a sincere man. I've know and have long known this about
you. And I KNOW the temptation to sweep the horrible displays of contradictions,
inconsistencies, moral and ethical violations under the rug. I have lived them, so please
know that I understand. I don't want to insult you, John. Not now and not ever. If I ever did,
please accept my sincerest of apologies. But, I am here to simply speak what I know, first
hand, to be true and am no longer afraid to allow the good public (including all her students
past and present) to see. And I know you want the truth; you are earnestly seeking it! To find
the truth, you must be willing and able to criticize even the "most high" or "most holy". Why?
To ensure that you aren't under some delluded fantasy, chasing ghosts or hiding behind
mirages of spiritual hopes and ideals. Please, John, please ... be willing. Just be willing.

The use of Clonazepam, was openly stated b y the Guru long, long ago. There are no
surprises here, and realized b eings still have nervous systems. The psychological effects of
PTSD are gone b ut the Guru has, for a long long time, stated that certain things still trigger a
physical response, just that there is no mental/emotional residue attached to it.

That's quite convienient and still does not warrant a) her belittling, mocking, condeming
and/or mocking those that are on / have been on / are seeking to be on something of similar
kind for similiar or even various reasons, and b) for acting as doctor, psychiatrist, nurse,
psychologist, therapist WITHOUT a license, with NO training and NO education (for not only
persuading others to get off or not take said medications, but also "treating" in home a
student and taking him off them herself). Reason, John. Logic. Common sense. USE THEM!

I have personally seen (very) many students turned away b ecause there were psychological
issues revealed and the Guru felt that they were not suited ­­ that their condition was too
complicated, and that for reasons of safety and health they were b etter off with another

I have, too. Remember, I was there. However, where you now see "compassion", I see
"calculation". These good folks were often the ones that reacted most sharply to her
behavior and, barring that she couldn't keep them quiet or restrained, she sent them on her
way. Has she acted unethically in every single circumstance? No. But, even serial killers
have good qualities.

The Guru has stated that the disab ility (what percentage, I do not know) received from the
Govt. is military disab ility due to PTSD trauma suffered from horrific sexual ab use while in

And? Is she still suffering? Yes? Then, she is not a "guru". Is she no longer suffering? No,
she isn't suffering? Then she should not be taking disability. What she went through WAS
traumatic and horribly debilitating. I have DEEP compassion and understanding for that.
What she needs is TREATMENT if she is suffering and should, purely on ethical and moral
considerations (let alone the likelihood of horrible consequences for herself and others),
stop acting as a "guru". If she is not suffering, then she needs to be HONEST and get off of
disability. For everyone that wronged any of us in our lives, should we profit or benefit from
them or that for the rest of our lives? She should know better than most about forgiveness,
letting go, moving on. You can try to twist it any way you want, but it won't stand up in court
and certainly falls flat in the face of even the most rudimentary valuation using common

I have b een with the group for a while and will say this:
I will not judge those who have left. Many, many people (b eyond counting) leave, for what
seems to b e a variety of reasons.
I have personally never witnessed or experienced anything unethical. Have I seen the Guru
give people a hard time? Yes. Have I seen people have difficulties with the Guru's
personality? Yes.

It's a start, but you've got a long ways to go to catch up with the reality of what is happening.

I will not speak for those who may have left, b ut from what I have ob served, for those who
leave with resentment it usually seems to come down to two things (or a comb ination of the
1. They feel personally disrespected b y the Guru's teaching style. The crazy wisdom
modality is b asically an insult to the ego from top to b ottom. Swami­G's own Guru acted in
this way to her and the story is well­known to anyone with a little time on their hands.

John, she acts that way to everyone, not just her students. Is she a "crazy wisdom guru" to
the waitor, the clerk, the server? Nope, but she treats them as horribly and in the same way
she treats her students; rudely, with contempt, bitterness and irritation. How do I know? I
been sitting right next to her (numerous times) when it's happened. Should we all start
treating people as poorly as her, even in our normal day to day activities? Can you imagine
the world we would live in? We'd all end up killing one another simply out of spite, anger,
rage and bitterness all in the name of "crazy wisdom".

Recall, too, that at the most prestigious and respected Zen monastery in Japan (eihei­ji) life
is very hard. The novice monks are treated like dirt. They undergo what we would consider
physical and psychological torment and the senior monks smack their faces if they so much
as look them in the eye (I do not exaggerate). This is well documented in the b estseller Eat
Sleep Sit. I have never seen the Guru expect any student to undergo anything of the kind.

In the Christian world, b eing a monk is not always easy, and, for example, for the Monks on
Mt. Athos one takes a vow never to leave. Visitors are hissed at for folding their hands
improperly in prayer. Are we to consider this ab use as well?

You'd have to ask those involved. Those people also aren't under question in this thread,
your teacher is.

2. The Guru's lifestyle and deportment does not conform to what they personally consider a
Guru's lifestyle should b e ­­ note this does not mean they witness anything actually improper
or unethical. It means they are turned off b y the fact that the Guru wears makeup and
jewlery, dotes on her pet dog, plays an instrument or two, likes to sell cell­phone covers,
b uys a motorcycle, takes Clonazepam, had gastric b ypass surgery, likes to eat meat,
watches Jerry Springer, enjoys listening to Barb ara Streisand, dances Flamenco. . . That sort
of thing. If anyone wants to add to the list, they are free to do so as I am prob ab ly forgetting a
thing or two. I do not think that any of these things makes one a fraud­­and they are, indeed,
openly displayed, not hidden. One never finds revealed a discrepancy b etween pub lic and
private life. Much of it too has to do with the fact that holiness does not mean conforming to a
set of external criteria ­­ it is, at times, a lesson in itself.

It is interesting, though not at all surprising to me, that you have failed to address the very
real, moral and ethical concerns. Again (and because it isn't YOUR job to answer them, no
matter how she may guilt any student to go and answer for her or not matter how much a
student may feel the need to defend their ideology):
1. Does she have PTSD? Does she get funds under the pretense of a phsychological
2. If she is not disabled, why is she taking monies under a false pretense and not working?
3. If "guru­ing" is her job, why is she still taking disability monies (considering, by her
activities / acquisitions, she has plenty of money to survive without it)?
4. Who pays for her housing, her bills, her day to day expenses?
5. Who pays for her expensive (she spent a few grand on a violin late last year ... one
instrument among many) instruments, jewelry, the Rolex, the business ventures, the
motorcycles, the cars?
6. What does she claim or file for taxes? Does she claim on the funds she receives (as
stated above) in her taxes?
7. Does she have a license, edcuation and training to practice medicine? Is she licensed to
treat someone to get off of their meds?
8. Does she have a license, education and training to counsel, treat addiction, treat
pscyhological disorders?
9. She treats addiction, yet herself is addicted to food. Her health problems, not to mention
her admitted inability to stop eating (which is called "addiction") actually required gastric
bypass surgery, bought and paid for by a former student.

Should we go on? I have more, if those items still look too "innocent" or "ethical" for your

What seems to b e never mentioned is the fact that this Guru's personality is not always
difficult b ut also displays great concern, compassion and tenderness too when this is

This is no measure of aptitude. Even the most degraded of all people have good qualities.

Anyway, that is all I have to say for now. And please, I do respect the fact that people have a
right to their opinion and to express it wherever they may please. I just hope that what I have
written adds a different perspective in a constructive manner.

I do appreciate your coming here. I appreciate your predicament and truly wish you the best.
Do what you will, just take good care of yourself as much as you are able.
My best to you and all.

am all too painfully aware that the teacher in this instance has long trained her students to regard anything as "ego driven". With that said, we shall then just look to behaviors and actions, which themselves speak more loudly than any ideal or fantascial claim ever will:

In addition to every thing listed above (1-9), here are some further examples:

10. Said teacher had 8 "sages" and one additional "guru" (or "realized beings") at one time in her group (Sarojini, Dharma, Jyoti, Udit, Barindra, Amrit, Gurudutt and Siddhananda, respectively). None of the "sages", not a single one, remains in her group. Siddhanada remains, although herself demoted and/or dethroned from "guru" status. In every single instance, each and every single one, it was the said teacher in this thread that "appointed" them. Not a single one of them ever approached her after their "experienced" and declared to her that "I am realized"; it was the teacher that "recnogized" the consciousness and "appointed" them. Then, when the behaviors / actions / doubts / further experiences raised by them came to the surface, she one by one denounced their "realization" status. This coming from the woman that long claimed "only a Realized Being can recognize another Realized Being" (which directly contradicts John's claim that he can "know" his teacher is a "realized being" when even she can't know who is a "realized being" or not). This is not at all uncomon, considering her "lineage", which has long appointed person's as "realized" when their behavior (and often their later admission) reveals the reality of something qute the opposite. Her lineage is that of Andrew Cohen (look up his "legacy" within the Rick Ross Forum or search for accounts of his former students found on the web), and Gangaji (who readily and publicly admits that she was commissioned to go forward as a guru long before she felt she was ready, having later to apologize for telling people to "destroy their personal stories"). The teacher we are discussing was pronounced the same by her guru, then sent out only two weeks after that pronouncement. Let those of us that realize any "commission" or ability to identitfy a "realized being" as completely impossible to simply allow the facts, for those that can't rely upon reason, to reveal the reality.

11. The teacher in this thread followed (by video) and then met, many years ago, a guru named Nithyananda. She publicly (you can find her comments on the web) proclaimed him as a "great realized being" doing great things in the world. Only after his own scandals became public did she suddenly take to critcizing him. Again (for John and others who wish to believe they can "know" their teacher's realization), her failure to "recognize" a "realized being" has proven completely inadequate, ineffectual and impossible.

12. There is a favorable student, one near and dear to her heart, that once attempted to break free from her (said teacher wanted this person to leave their state / residence and move cross country into her home with her). When the person all but refused, she went to her home (in WA) and demanded that she return with her or be kicked off of the path for good. Is this a choice or a threat? Said person travelled with the teacher, on the back of her motorcycle, and moved in to the teacher's home (in FL); leaving behind her home and her family.

13. Said teacher was married at the time of her "realization" (search the web, all of this information is readily available in various places). Said teacher, after her "realization", eventually divorced. Not a huge deal; however, said teacher now claims that in order for "realization" or "liberation" to be possible for ANYONE, one must be a celibate. She, too, is a renunciate; having become a renunciate AFTER "realization" (which seems about as logical as a flashlight in broad daylight). She seems to have forgotten her marital status at the time of her "realization".

14. Said teacher now refuses to give one to one guidance to anyone that is either a) not a renunciate, b) not planning on becoming a renunciate, or c) not paying for her counseling service (again, does she have a license to practice?).

15. Said teacher speaks to "unwavering devotion and surrender" to her, the guru. Said teacher never could stay with one teacher, one teaching or one ideology throughout her entire journey. Her last guru she was with for no time at all... and then he commissioned her ... blah blah ... the rest is stated above.

And, sadly, this is only but a scratch on the surface.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Guru Swami G
Posted by: Vera City ()
Date: August 27, 2013 04:57PM

Is there a reason for two duplicate threads on GURU G?
Just saying......?
I mean I know she claims to have mystical powers.... heh heh...
Can this redundancy be merged?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Guru Swami G
Posted by: psyborgue ()
Date: August 27, 2013 05:08PM


The reason there are two threads is because I think we all thought the 15 page one was lost. Turns out it wasn't. As to merging, that's a question rrmoderator will have to answer as i'm unfamiliar with this forum software.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Guru Swami G
Posted by: The Royal Line ()
Date: August 27, 2013 09:36PM

Let's take a look at some of the recurring themes from the previous and current thread.
For the record, I’m not an apologist for Guru G.
In fact, I have clearly stated that I would never accept her as a teacher, nor would I recommend her to anyone.
I am just a guy who has had a lot of experience with spiritual teachers, communities, and that whole culture.
I know my share about the Eastern religions, mystical traditions, new age, etc
I am speaking from within this framework, but as someone who has seen the best and worst and holds no illusions about it all.
Underlying much of my posts here to date, has been the question of whether she is Enlightened or not. And as I have said, while my gut says no, it is impossible to determine one way or the other.

1) The money factor:
It's totally common for spiritual teachers to receive donations from students.
And I don't see any evidence of her forcing or even pushing the issue. Many if not most of her students appear to give little to nothing. Particularly when compared to Ron (Hridaya) and perhaps a couple others.
It's common to a have a few inner circle providers that cover the lion's share of the teacher's and the path's day to day operations.
If she receives military payments for PTSD/trauma while she was in service, it's her right to do so; assuming she still suffers from it. My sense is she has anxiety but not PTSD anymore. In which case, she shouldn’t be drawing on that money. But I believe she has said that it took years of pressing to get the pay, and regardless of the PTSD diagnosis, she deserves every penny.
Now, is it odd for an enlightened Guru to have anxiety and be on meds? I think so. Does it mean she can't be a spiritual teacher, or that she can't be Enlightened? I don’t think so, no.

2) The Counselling factor:
IF she has a registered non profit somewhere in the US, and acts as a pastor does, I believe she has the right to offer counselling without a license.
Has anyone verified what her situation is in this regard?
In which case, I’m pretty sure she is entitled to offer various kinds of counselling on a donation (maybe even charge?) basis.
Again, hopefully we can verify this for the record.
Now, is it uncommon to require of clients that they be recorded and those recordings be shared for "learning" purposes? Absolutely.
But these were also consenting adults that could have refused.
Is it unorthodox to have someone stay with you for a period of time and oversee the weaning off of medications? Absolutely.
But same issue ~ consenting adult.
The one thing that I find totally unacceptable, is when she released personal information of an ex-student (well a few students actually, but one in particular)
Was it fair for these students to post all kinds of personal info against her?
I don’t think so, but then again, it has helped me draw some conclusions about her and her group.
But I can't think of one respected Guru, past or present, who would pull a stunt like she did.
It’s hard not to see it as a vengeful tit for tat move.
Is this proof that she's a fraud and not Enlightened?
As much as I wish there were reliable criteria that could determine authentic Enlightenment from not, there simply isn't.
But we do have reason, intuition, discernment, intellects, hearts, experience.....

3) Her YT videos:
I say at times weird, annoying, self-indulgent, whiny, abrasive, etc - but then again it's her YT channel and nobody has to watch.
Minus the ones where she releases private info, I'd say the vast majority are not a threat to anyone. They mostly just make her look bad imo.

4) Meat eating:
It is unusual to find a spiritual teacher that insists on her students eating meat. She says it is because it is a kundalini path and the energy can cause some to get ungrounded at times, and the meat helps to ground the system. I don’t happen to agree it is necessary, but it actually makes some sense when seen from within the kundalini tradition.
Also, I don’t think it make sense for her continued use of the swami title, when she clearly broke away from that order. Probably upon returning to the West, but I’m not sure of the timelines.

5) Surgery and diet:
Bottom line, would be nice to see a spiritual teacher lead by example and have the discipline to eat a healthy diet and exercise regularly. I'm sure it would have prevented the diabetes, she would not have felt the need to get a risky and expensive surgery on her student's dollars, and even after the surgery she clearly went right back to eating poorly and not exercising enough.
But then again, Ron said he was happy to pay for it, and her students don't seem to be bothered by it.
I think it's odd, but I don't think it hurts anyone.

6) Obsession with Nithyananda:
Why the focus on this charlatan, when there are so many others? But again, I'd say odd, but not harmful.

7) Trikes, cars and toys:
If Ron (and perhaps other students) is ok with it, and she enjoys it, then go for it. It’s not over the top for what I have seen in cases both past and present (Osho anyone). And it’s harmless as far as I can tell. For the outside observer, I can see how we’d like the teacher to be uninterested in the mundane, but again I don’t think it means much one way or another.

8) Obedience:
As far as I can tell, she doesn't force students to eat meat, make donations, read certain books, follow certain teachings, live a certain way.....It is normal that if you have committed freely to be a student of a spiritual teacher, there will be a path with practices and teachings and suggestions and community etc - but I see no signs of force, manipulation, abuse, illegal activity.......With the exception of the few YT clips I mentioned and some other posts I have seen of hers. These are downright nasty and are among the reasons I would never recommend her to anyone.

More to follow……..

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Guru Swami G
Posted by: rrmoderator ()
Date: August 28, 2013 02:33AM

The Royal Line:

You claim that you are "not an apologist."

So why are you posting here?

What is your interest in this specific thread?

You repeatedly attempt to provide spin for Swami G. and in an effort to undercut criticism about her.

Though you admit, "I would never accept her as a teacher, nor would I recommend her to anyone."

Again, based upon the complaints received through this message board and the information disclosed in my opinion the Swami G. group, seems to fit easily within the core criteria or nucleus for the definition of a destructive cult.

"Brainwashing," which is a blend of thought reform and coercive persuasion techniques, is not illegal. At lease not when "students" are adults.

The members of destructive cults (e.g. Jonestown, Waco Davidians, Charles Manson followers) are all free to go at any time in the physical sense. They were not physically forced to stay.

You appear to know very little about how destructive cults work.

You admit, "I am just a guy who has had a lot of experience with spiritual teachers, communities, and that whole culture."

But you are not a cult expert, nor do you apparently have any direct experience with Swami G.

Here are some basic links to material, which may be helpful.

I suggest you read the papers linked before continuing to post here.

See []

This paper written by psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton provides the nucleus for a definition of a destructive cult.

See []

This link explains "thought reform" as defined by Lifton in his seminal book "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism."

See []

This chart developed by Professor of Psychology Margaret Singer makes distinctions between thought reform and other forms of persuasion such as education, advertising, propaganda and indoctrination.

Also see []

This is an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Sociology that describes "coercive persuasion>"

What is called "cult brainwashing" does not require force and is not illegal in the United States.

The question is does the group hurt people through its thought reform practices and authoritarian abuses?

Former students of Swami G. apparently think the answer is yes.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2013 02:47AM by rrmoderator.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Guru Swami G
Posted by: Saralata ()
Date: August 29, 2013 08:50AM

In a recently released video by Guru Swami G ('Ramana Kundalini Meat Eating This Guru This Path') found here, she states that she has never used the title 'Paramahansa' or 'Paramahamsa' to refer to herself. Her statement was in reply to a series of interviews she did with a 3rd party (Henry Jolicouer), insinuating that he has been lying about her and lying about her using this title (which is a honorific title in eastern religious philosophy). ('Paramahansa: a Sanskrit religio-theological title of honor applied to Hindu spiritual teachers of lofty status who are regarded as having attained enlightenment.'). Yet a Google web search of 'Paramhansa Ganga-Puri Kaliuttamananda-Giri' produces the following results (some of which appear on her own website):

'Paramhansa Ganga-Puri Kaliuttamananda-Giri, affectionately known as Swami-G, wishes to accept as students those who are seeking the path of the Mystic ...'ý

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

'Aug 30, 2010 - Paramhansa Ganga-Puri Kaliuttamananda-Giri, affectionately known as Swami-G, is an Enlightened Master, a Sat-Guru. Swami-G wishes to ...'ý

'Dec 6, 2008 - 16 posts - ý9 authors
Swami G or Paramhansa Ganga-Puri Kaliuttamananda-Giri (name sure is not an authentic dashanami one) is another popular Shaktipat Guru.'

'Paramhansa Ganga-Puri Kaliuttamananda-Giri affectionately known as Swami-G is an Enlightened Master , a Sat-Guru. Swami-G wishes to accept as Students ...'

Perhaps Guru Swami G's repeated, complicated and various changes in names, titles and identities over the years has confused her recall; though, even her own website documents that she has, in fact, used that title. The objection by her is a valid one, being that 'The [Paramahansa] title cannot be assumed by oneself, but must be conferred by a recognized authority, either another individual swami who is himself esteemed as enlightened, or by a committee of spiritual leaders.' The proof of her using that title implies that she has bestowed the title upon herself unless she can provide proof that an esteemed enlightened swami or a panel of spiritual leaders have bestowed it upon her.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Guru Swami G
Posted by: The Royal Line ()
Date: August 29, 2013 09:58PM

Well done. Was just going to post a similar reply. She actually says that she never "said" she was a Paramahamsa. Which is true. She could be a lawyer:) But she knows very well that writing it, or more likely allowing it to be included on several sites, is the same thing.
Same goes for the SatGuru title. And I would say same for the Swami title too, considering she clearly drifted from that order soon after taking sannyas.
Notice she's avoiding our posts and instead focussing on Henry J.
While I respect his right to do what he is doing, I don't agree with his tactics, I question his motivations, and I think there is very little substance to his videos. And I think he is easier target for her.
I will post shortly on her meat, kundalini, and Ramana comments shortly.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Guru Swami G
Posted by: The Royal Line ()
Date: August 29, 2013 10:17PM

You claim that you are "not an apologist."
I do clearly say from the outset that I am speaking from within a similar framework, in the sense of Indian spiritual~mystical traditions.
But I am definitely not an apologist for this woman, nor would I accept her as a teacher or recommend her to others.

So why are you posting here?
I'd like to offer a different perspective than what is often seen here.
We agree on some things, and disagree on others.
Surely we can co-exist here?

What is your interest in this specific thread?
As I said, I come from within a similar framework, and it is a life-long interest for me.
It is quite rare to find a discussion of this sort on this subject, and I'd like to weigh in on her, and also make a distinction between her, and what I feel are reputable, genuine, spiritual teachers and paths.

Like I said, I'm not a troll. I have no hidden agendas. I have nothing to gain from it.
I'm simply adding my perspective to the discussion.
I also plan to weigh in on similar threads.
Of course, it is entirely up to you whether I stay or go.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2013 10:33PM by The Royal Line.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Guru Swami G
Posted by: rrmoderator ()
Date: August 29, 2013 10:32PM

The Royal Line:

This thread is focused on a specific group, which is Swami G. and her followers.

This is not a place for you to hold forth about similar frameworks, distinctions between her and other gurus, your life-long interests, etc.

You seem to be here regarding your own agenda and not the topic of this thread.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Guru Swami G
Posted by: yasmin ()
Date: August 30, 2013 06:46AM

Hi Royal Line;
I think you are probably missing the point of this forum. Its not really about religion; it is about behaviors.
You don't seem to have really addressed the idea that consenting adults can still be harmed by situations in which they are not being physically restrained.
To understand this requires having a different mindset about responsibility.

For example, if someone explains that a person who leaves or questions them is "in the hell realms" then there would seem to me to be a lot of psychological pressure. Imo, similar to something described By Janya Lalich as having "bounded choice". Her book by that title is well worth a read by the way.

You might also be interested in looking at how secular institutions handle the same type of power differentials. Have you ever read for example, the code of ethics for therapists and psychologists?
The receiving of expensive gifts for example is not allowed in therapist ethical codes, because there is general acceptance that the therapist has a position of power, and their clients, who are of course most likely consenting adults, are despite this, in a position, due to the power imbalance, where they can be easily manipulated into doing something against their own self interests.

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

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 5 of 14

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.