Guru Quotient - Rate a Guru
Posted by:
Jack Oskar Larm
()
Date: November 25, 2006 10:34AM
Something interesting I discovered in a UK publication, [i:23bfa06387]The Book Of Visions: An Encyclopeadia Of Social Innovations[/i:23bfa06387].
In a section on Spirituality & Cults, there is a topic on [b:23bfa06387]how to rate a guru[/b:23bfa06387] by the Institute for Social Inventions. It is a list of questions that a would-be disciple could ask before joining with a guru or new cult. A 'YES' answer to a question gives a rough-and-ready comparative 'rating' of gurus (guru can be substituted for cult).
(1) Is what the guru offers free?
(2) Is the guru relatively poor? - ie not having personal control (or control in practice) over more wealth than is needed for him/her to live in normal comfort or dignity?
(3) Is it unneccessary to join the organisation in order to have access to the teachings (are there books, tapes, open meetings, etc. that transmit the knowledge needed)?
(4) Is it easy to leave the guru; are ex-disciples treated satisfactorily; and are 'opponents' of the guru treated fairly?
(5) Does the guru refrain from sexual involvement with the disciples?
(6) Is free contact allowed with families and friends?
(7) Is there respect for quality in the work of the guru's organisation (no ugly architecture for instance)?
(8) Are the guru's words in harmony with past spiritual insights, such as contained in Huxley's 'Perennial Philosophy' anthology?
(9) Is the organisation non-authoritarian - are there signs of democracy, for instance, or of questioning and debate and thinking for oneself being welcomed?
(10) Is the guru's legitimacy anchored in a tradition that points back to previous gurus, rather than the guru claiming to be the sole arbiter of his/her legitimacy?
(11) Does the guru avoid claiming to be the perfect master, offering the only route to enlightenment? Is he/she open about his/her own 'feet of clay', if he has them?
(12) Does the guru recognise that his/her authority is 'phase-specific', eg lasting only long enough to bring you up to his/her level of understanding?
(13) Does the guru's organisation, in its methods and in all aspects of its daily regime, succefully avoid psychologically coercive or brain-washing techniques?
(14) Do the guru's or organisation's replies to these questions agree with evidence from other sources? - for instance, ask the Cult Information Centre for their perspective (Ian Haworth, BCM Cults, London WC1N 3XX).
(15) Does the guru have less than 1000 signed-up disciples? (Gurus with large followings seem to be more prone to succumb to the temptations of power.)
Quote: These questions do not of course neccessarily reflect what a disciple can learn from a particular guru, they are more an indication of how 'safe' the guru is...almost all traditional gurus for the last 3000 years would have had little difficulty in scoring well to these questions, ie having more YES's than No's.
In a section on Spirituality & Cults, there is a topic on [b:23bfa06387]how to rate a guru[/b:23bfa06387] by the Institute for Social Inventions. It is a list of questions that a would-be disciple could ask before joining with a guru or new cult. A 'YES' answer to a question gives a rough-and-ready comparative 'rating' of gurus (guru can be substituted for cult).
(1) Is what the guru offers free?
(2) Is the guru relatively poor? - ie not having personal control (or control in practice) over more wealth than is needed for him/her to live in normal comfort or dignity?
(3) Is it unneccessary to join the organisation in order to have access to the teachings (are there books, tapes, open meetings, etc. that transmit the knowledge needed)?
(4) Is it easy to leave the guru; are ex-disciples treated satisfactorily; and are 'opponents' of the guru treated fairly?
(5) Does the guru refrain from sexual involvement with the disciples?
(6) Is free contact allowed with families and friends?
(7) Is there respect for quality in the work of the guru's organisation (no ugly architecture for instance)?
(8) Are the guru's words in harmony with past spiritual insights, such as contained in Huxley's 'Perennial Philosophy' anthology?
(9) Is the organisation non-authoritarian - are there signs of democracy, for instance, or of questioning and debate and thinking for oneself being welcomed?
(10) Is the guru's legitimacy anchored in a tradition that points back to previous gurus, rather than the guru claiming to be the sole arbiter of his/her legitimacy?
(11) Does the guru avoid claiming to be the perfect master, offering the only route to enlightenment? Is he/she open about his/her own 'feet of clay', if he has them?
(12) Does the guru recognise that his/her authority is 'phase-specific', eg lasting only long enough to bring you up to his/her level of understanding?
(13) Does the guru's organisation, in its methods and in all aspects of its daily regime, succefully avoid psychologically coercive or brain-washing techniques?
(14) Do the guru's or organisation's replies to these questions agree with evidence from other sources? - for instance, ask the Cult Information Centre for their perspective (Ian Haworth, BCM Cults, London WC1N 3XX).
(15) Does the guru have less than 1000 signed-up disciples? (Gurus with large followings seem to be more prone to succumb to the temptations of power.)
Quote: These questions do not of course neccessarily reflect what a disciple can learn from a particular guru, they are more an indication of how 'safe' the guru is...almost all traditional gurus for the last 3000 years would have had little difficulty in scoring well to these questions, ie having more YES's than No's.
Guru Quotient - Rate a Guru
Posted by:
cultreporter
()
Date: November 26, 2006 12:27AM
Quote
Jack Oskar Larm
Quote: These questions do not of course neccessarily reflect what a disciple can learn from a particular guru, they are more an indication of how 'safe' the guru is...almost all traditional gurus for the last 3000 years would have had little difficulty in scoring well to these questions, ie having more YES's than No's.
It is an interesting notion that there would be a way to test gurus according to this criteria. The main problem that I can think of straight away is that most of these questions could not be accurately answered prior to taking up involvement with a cult.
It is a good sugguestion to check with a cult awareness organisation first, although anyone who was seriously considering taking up following a particular guru would be unlikely to take that advice and would likely be warned through what they read or heard to develop an interest in the first place of those who have agendas against the cult/God, and the dangers of hearing offences.
I am not sure what you mean when you say most traditional gurus over the past 3000 years would not have trouble scoring well against this criteria.
I associate guru with it's traditional sense meaning 'teacher' in the Hindu and Krishna philosophies. In this context then to my knowledge based on reasearching the Hare Krishna/ISKCON religion and it's various off shoots, such as Science of Identity - not that I claim t be an expert- I say that they all would most definitely fail.
The founder of the Hare Krishnas Bhaktivedanta Swami for example, who until recently if I was assessing him by this quiz I would have rated highly was always courting money, power and fame. He had much more than 1000 people would need to live comfortably, developed a taste for Rolexes given to him by his disciples as gifts and had no problem whatsoever about being chauffered about in for example a gold Mercedes Benz. He seemingy initiated anyone who came along as disciples and had well over 1000. Even being aware that some of them were blatantly disregarding his orders, such as Siddhaswarupananda (then called Siddhasvarupa) did not provoke him to dispel them when they refused to fall into line - and nor did he expel those who he became aware of perpetrating sexual abuse against children. Whether or not these things happened though depends very much on what sources you use to obtain your information.
With regard to anything being free most things in Krishna religions are. You can walk into any temple or Govindas restaurant and take books although it is sugguested you make a donation. These are not all the books and all the available information though. In SOI I know for an absolute fact that what new people have access to is thoroughly censored. No one is made to hand over money in any obvious way but there are many subtle means for obtaining it, the most well used to be to preach that to share your income is pleasing to God, a form of devotional service and a sign of seriousness - a way to progress in the organisation and achieve the aim of being more blessed/closer to the guru.
Cults continue to recruit and maintain their followers through manipulation and any successful guru is well practiced in the fine art of deception and groomig their disciples to do likewise.
I would be very interested to hear more about which gurus you think would score well because I genuinely can't think of any.
Guru Quotient - Rate a Guru
Posted by:
Jack Oskar Larm
()
Date: November 26, 2006 07:45AM
G'day cultreporter,
First off, I found and copied the post from the above mentioned book (adhering to copyright laws, I hope).
When you consider the questions they definitely have a Christian/Buddhist feel to them, ie Jesus/Siddhartha.
From the same book, two names are mentioned that would rate highly:
Krishnamurti (73%) and Stephen Gaskin from the Tennessee Farm Commune (77%).
I have little or no knowledge of either of these two, but I do find the list of questions very interesting. I know I'm being subjective here because my personal philosophy has always been to 'live simply so that others may simply live.' And yet, don't laugh, I try and avoid cliche (LOL).
From the same book, two names that rated very low:
Bhagwan - Osho (17%) and Maharishi (23%).
Again, I don't have much knowledge of these individuals, except I do recall some particularly bad press about them...and they certainly don't seem to agree with my personal view.
In conclusion, I thought, besides the information available on the Internet (such as Rick Ross), this list of questions could be a help. But, as you mentioned, people who get sucked in by corrupt teachings/teachers generally avoid information like this.
First off, I found and copied the post from the above mentioned book (adhering to copyright laws, I hope).
When you consider the questions they definitely have a Christian/Buddhist feel to them, ie Jesus/Siddhartha.
From the same book, two names are mentioned that would rate highly:
Krishnamurti (73%) and Stephen Gaskin from the Tennessee Farm Commune (77%).
I have little or no knowledge of either of these two, but I do find the list of questions very interesting. I know I'm being subjective here because my personal philosophy has always been to 'live simply so that others may simply live.' And yet, don't laugh, I try and avoid cliche (LOL).
From the same book, two names that rated very low:
Bhagwan - Osho (17%) and Maharishi (23%).
Again, I don't have much knowledge of these individuals, except I do recall some particularly bad press about them...and they certainly don't seem to agree with my personal view.
In conclusion, I thought, besides the information available on the Internet (such as Rick Ross), this list of questions could be a help. But, as you mentioned, people who get sucked in by corrupt teachings/teachers generally avoid information like this.
Guru Quotient - Rate a Guru
Posted by:
cultreporter
()
Date: November 26, 2006 03:10PM
Krishnamurti was a guru in the purest sense of the word, a teacher who sought to share his knowledge and enlightenment without recruiting or directing followers and sought no wealth or prestige for himself. He is sometimes referred to as the anti-guru.
[bernie.cncfamily.com]
From the speech he made in 1929 on the dissolution of the Order of the Star (the whole speech is published at the above link) :
I have not read all ofthis but there is a freely accessible collection of Krishnamurti's work here
[tchl.freeweb.hu]
Interestingly when I was trying to see who Stephen Gaskin is (apparently his religion is 'hippie') I found this ranking using the same criteria that you posted :
- Bhagwan (Osho) 17 (out of 100);
- Maharishi 23;
- Leonard Orr of the Rebirthing movement 53;
- Swami Bhaktivedanta of the Hare Krishna movement 60;
- Krishnamurti 73;
- Stephen Gaskin (from the Tennessee farm commune) 77
[www.robotwisdom.com]
Unfortunately the link to the 'guru off' no longer exists.
Jack wrote
I do still think that it is important to disuss and share information and ideas on gurus and their teachings and organisations. My idea was when reading through the criteria that ex-followers, who have actually experienced cults and surpassed the levels of secrecy and deception which intrigue new followers are far better equipped to accurately and realistically answer this criteria.
I was thinking about working out the score for Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda and realised that how I would answer the questions as an ex-student would certainly be very different to how a current student or disciple would answer.
This criteria could likely form the basis for an informative resource for those who are open-minded with an interest in spiritual life without having already placed their devotion in a particular guru.
[bernie.cncfamily.com]
Quote
The Order of the Star was the organisation built around Krishnamurti by Theosophists who selected him at the age of 13 to be the vehicle for the return of the Christ, or Maitreya. He was raised accordingly, but after his enlightment, he refused the role that has been prepared for him, disbanded the organisation of which he was the head, and continued to teach on his own.
From the speech he made in 1929 on the dissolution of the Order of the Star (the whole speech is published at the above link) :
Quote
A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organise it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallised; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others
I have not read all ofthis but there is a freely accessible collection of Krishnamurti's work here
[tchl.freeweb.hu]
Interestingly when I was trying to see who Stephen Gaskin is (apparently his religion is 'hippie') I found this ranking using the same criteria that you posted :
- Bhagwan (Osho) 17 (out of 100);
- Maharishi 23;
- Leonard Orr of the Rebirthing movement 53;
- Swami Bhaktivedanta of the Hare Krishna movement 60;
- Krishnamurti 73;
- Stephen Gaskin (from the Tennessee farm commune) 77
[www.robotwisdom.com]
Unfortunately the link to the 'guru off' no longer exists.
Jack wrote
Quote
In conclusion, I thought, besides the information available on the Internet (such as Rick Ross), this list of questions could be a help. But, as you mentioned, people who get sucked in by corrupt teachings/teachers generally avoid information like this.
I do still think that it is important to disuss and share information and ideas on gurus and their teachings and organisations. My idea was when reading through the criteria that ex-followers, who have actually experienced cults and surpassed the levels of secrecy and deception which intrigue new followers are far better equipped to accurately and realistically answer this criteria.
I was thinking about working out the score for Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda and realised that how I would answer the questions as an ex-student would certainly be very different to how a current student or disciple would answer.
This criteria could likely form the basis for an informative resource for those who are open-minded with an interest in spiritual life without having already placed their devotion in a particular guru.
Guru Quotient - Rate a Guru
Posted by:
cultreporter
()
Date: November 26, 2006 06:38PM
The answers for Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa - Founder of Science of Identity.
A possible score of 0?
(1) Is what the guru offers free?
Yes - With regards to new people his organisations such as Australian School of Meditation offer free meditation classes where there is some discussion of philosophy and lectures.
No - With regards to those who are considered serious taught that they should give 25% of their income in devotional service.
(2) Is the guru relatively poor? - ie not having personal control (or control in practice) over more wealth than is needed for him/her to live in normal comfort or dignity?
No - Absolutely not. In addition ownership of several businesses he resides in a mansion where he is waited on by servants, has a complete staff cooking for him in his private kitchen, travels in absolute luxury including his own private jet and has housing specifically constructed/reconstructed to his exact specifications wherever he goes.
(3) Is it unneccessary to join the organisation in order to have access to the teachings (are there books, tapes, open meetings, etc. that transmit the knowledge needed)?
No - Although officially there is no organisation according to his followers and it appears that literature and lectures are available to new people the more involved and trusted one becomes the more information and teachings they gain access to.
(4) Is it easy to leave the guru; are ex-disciples treated satisfactorily; and are 'opponents' of the guru treated fairly?
No - Siddha frequently criticises others, particularly ISKCON and makes vague and unfounded claims, such as they are trying to kill him and that they do not follow his Guru, eventhough they use him as an example in maintaining their current structure. Those who oppose Siddha in the political endeavours he is behind have been subjected to smear campaigns and various techniques of dirty politics. I have met several ex-disciples and none of them wish to be identified for various reasons, although broadly because they would not be treated fairly.
(5) Does the guru refrain from sexual involvement with the disciples?
Yes/Uncertain - maybe he does have sex with his disciples, but there have been no claims of this. While he claims to be celibate he is married to a disciple that was a disciple prior to the wedding.
(6) Is free contact allowed with families and friends?
No - Siddha preaches that one's family is not really their family and that familial relationships are just co-incidence, souls that have randomly encountered each other in this lifetime and have no real connection. To associate with non-devotees is taught to be bad for one's spiritual life/advancement. New members are encouraged to abandon disinterested spouses and associates.
(7) Is there respect for quality in the work of the guru's organisation (no ugly architecture for instance)?
No/uncertain - That would depend on someone's taste I guess, but there are many projects which have been undertaken very poorly.
(8) Are the guru's words in harmony with past spiritual insights, such as contained in Huxley's 'Perennial Philosophy' anthology?
I haven't read this book, but his words are not in harmony with those of his own spiritual master.
(9) Is the organisation non-authoritarian - are there signs of democracy, for instance, or of questioning and debate and thinking for oneself being welcomed?
No. It is an offence to question the spiritual master. I once heard him say through a recording that someone whose daughter was a follower wanted to have a discussion with him and his response was "I don't have discussions, either you accept me as your spiritual master or I accept you as mine, and I am not going to accept you as mine. The only thing that comes from discussions are headaches."
(10) Is the guru's legitimacy anchored in a tradition that points back to previous gurus, rather than the guru claiming to be the sole arbiter of his/her legitimacy?
According to him Yes. According to my research ans experience No. He was criticised by his own spiritual master for not following his directives and left ISKCON which he now condemns, claiming that he is a pure devotee. Only those close to him, such as his wife and some of his disciples are also deemed to be pure devotees.
(11) Does the guru avoid claiming to be the perfect master, offering the only route to enlightenment? Is he/she open about his/her own 'feet of clay', if he has them?
No.
(12) Does the guru recognise that his/her authority is 'phase-specific', eg lasting only long enough to bring you up to his/her level of understanding?
No. It is considered in all Krishna religions that one should worship their spiritual master as good as god and that they should always be engaging in service of them in order to be pleasing to God. As he claims to be a direct link to god their is no concept that anyone could reach his own level of understanding. Ever.
(13) Does the guru's organisation, in its methods and in all aspects of its daily regime, succefully avoid psychologically coercive or brain-washing techniques?
No.
(14) Do the guru's or organisation's replies to these questions agree with evidence from other sources? - for instance, ask the Cult Information Centre for their perspective (Ian Haworth, BCM Cults, London WC1N 3XX).
No. As a critic of SOI in Australia there has been no attempt to refute anything I have said. Rather they took down their website and have started denying that they have any link to organised religion or Siddhaswarupananda.
(15) Does the guru have less than 1000 signed-up disciples? (Gurus with large followings seem to be more prone to succumb to the temptations of power.)
Yes/Uncertain. I am not 100% sure of this, but sources from ex-disciples tell me the number of initiated disciples is significantly less than this. However he does claim to be teacher of the whole world and has more than 1000 followers with schools all over the world. Given that only a few get to the position of being signed up disciples and that this question seems to want to determine the number of followers/liklihood of succumbing to the temptations of power I think the righful answer to it would also be a No.
A possible score of 0?
(1) Is what the guru offers free?
Yes - With regards to new people his organisations such as Australian School of Meditation offer free meditation classes where there is some discussion of philosophy and lectures.
No - With regards to those who are considered serious taught that they should give 25% of their income in devotional service.
(2) Is the guru relatively poor? - ie not having personal control (or control in practice) over more wealth than is needed for him/her to live in normal comfort or dignity?
No - Absolutely not. In addition ownership of several businesses he resides in a mansion where he is waited on by servants, has a complete staff cooking for him in his private kitchen, travels in absolute luxury including his own private jet and has housing specifically constructed/reconstructed to his exact specifications wherever he goes.
(3) Is it unneccessary to join the organisation in order to have access to the teachings (are there books, tapes, open meetings, etc. that transmit the knowledge needed)?
No - Although officially there is no organisation according to his followers and it appears that literature and lectures are available to new people the more involved and trusted one becomes the more information and teachings they gain access to.
(4) Is it easy to leave the guru; are ex-disciples treated satisfactorily; and are 'opponents' of the guru treated fairly?
No - Siddha frequently criticises others, particularly ISKCON and makes vague and unfounded claims, such as they are trying to kill him and that they do not follow his Guru, eventhough they use him as an example in maintaining their current structure. Those who oppose Siddha in the political endeavours he is behind have been subjected to smear campaigns and various techniques of dirty politics. I have met several ex-disciples and none of them wish to be identified for various reasons, although broadly because they would not be treated fairly.
(5) Does the guru refrain from sexual involvement with the disciples?
Yes/Uncertain - maybe he does have sex with his disciples, but there have been no claims of this. While he claims to be celibate he is married to a disciple that was a disciple prior to the wedding.
(6) Is free contact allowed with families and friends?
No - Siddha preaches that one's family is not really their family and that familial relationships are just co-incidence, souls that have randomly encountered each other in this lifetime and have no real connection. To associate with non-devotees is taught to be bad for one's spiritual life/advancement. New members are encouraged to abandon disinterested spouses and associates.
(7) Is there respect for quality in the work of the guru's organisation (no ugly architecture for instance)?
No/uncertain - That would depend on someone's taste I guess, but there are many projects which have been undertaken very poorly.
(8) Are the guru's words in harmony with past spiritual insights, such as contained in Huxley's 'Perennial Philosophy' anthology?
I haven't read this book, but his words are not in harmony with those of his own spiritual master.
(9) Is the organisation non-authoritarian - are there signs of democracy, for instance, or of questioning and debate and thinking for oneself being welcomed?
No. It is an offence to question the spiritual master. I once heard him say through a recording that someone whose daughter was a follower wanted to have a discussion with him and his response was "I don't have discussions, either you accept me as your spiritual master or I accept you as mine, and I am not going to accept you as mine. The only thing that comes from discussions are headaches."
(10) Is the guru's legitimacy anchored in a tradition that points back to previous gurus, rather than the guru claiming to be the sole arbiter of his/her legitimacy?
According to him Yes. According to my research ans experience No. He was criticised by his own spiritual master for not following his directives and left ISKCON which he now condemns, claiming that he is a pure devotee. Only those close to him, such as his wife and some of his disciples are also deemed to be pure devotees.
(11) Does the guru avoid claiming to be the perfect master, offering the only route to enlightenment? Is he/she open about his/her own 'feet of clay', if he has them?
No.
(12) Does the guru recognise that his/her authority is 'phase-specific', eg lasting only long enough to bring you up to his/her level of understanding?
No. It is considered in all Krishna religions that one should worship their spiritual master as good as god and that they should always be engaging in service of them in order to be pleasing to God. As he claims to be a direct link to god their is no concept that anyone could reach his own level of understanding. Ever.
(13) Does the guru's organisation, in its methods and in all aspects of its daily regime, succefully avoid psychologically coercive or brain-washing techniques?
No.
(14) Do the guru's or organisation's replies to these questions agree with evidence from other sources? - for instance, ask the Cult Information Centre for their perspective (Ian Haworth, BCM Cults, London WC1N 3XX).
No. As a critic of SOI in Australia there has been no attempt to refute anything I have said. Rather they took down their website and have started denying that they have any link to organised religion or Siddhaswarupananda.
(15) Does the guru have less than 1000 signed-up disciples? (Gurus with large followings seem to be more prone to succumb to the temptations of power.)
Yes/Uncertain. I am not 100% sure of this, but sources from ex-disciples tell me the number of initiated disciples is significantly less than this. However he does claim to be teacher of the whole world and has more than 1000 followers with schools all over the world. Given that only a few get to the position of being signed up disciples and that this question seems to want to determine the number of followers/liklihood of succumbing to the temptations of power I think the righful answer to it would also be a No.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.