Wonder if anyone is going to get sick and find it necessary to go to the hospital?

No such respite was ever allowed to those under Andrew Cohen's regime.

But rock stars get 'exhausted' and go to hospital...

Integral Spirituality is a morally bankrupt and mentally deficient movement. It's founders and promoters are at best damaged people that no one should look to for spiritual advice or instruction. It's also clear that many of the leading lights are morally bankrupt and adamantly refuse to condemn even the most atrocious behavior of their compatriots.

Not just once, but time after time.

And evidently their wealthy followers don't get it either. Just because some morally depraved ego maniac got a taste of Nirvana or some other so-called "enlightened state" doesn't make them fit as teachers. It just means they had a altered state and that's it. They are still a ego maniac with the morals of a career criminal. I don't care how intellectual imposters like Wilber paint it, reframe it or spin it, these are very bad people that hurt other people.

Put it this way, if what happens in these integral ashram's were to occur at a work place in the real world, the police would be called, arrests made and lawsuits filed.

Morals matter, ethics matter. It's what's separates us from criminals and savages. We need to demand it of so-called spiritual teachers, just because they had some form of enlightenment does not absolve them of behaving in a moral and ethical manner. Those like Wilber and his crew who state otherwise IMO are nothing but fools and worse.

corboy,

Exactly.

If a corrupt teacher gets caught, he merely goes to therapy, then gets called an even greater teacher for doing so.

If a student fails to do what a corrupt teacher wants, then the student is a coward, weakling, failure, loser, etc.

As Glenn Greenwald recently pointed out, the elites take care of their own and the plebs become the targets.

Or gets a convenient illness or an accident at home and signs into the hospital.

Great way to get the demons of accountablity off one's back.

But those who are shame tripped into silence when a troubled powerholder signs into hospital forget that the underlings, the ones who were screamed at, ordered to pay more and more money to keep in Andrew Cohens favor, who got hypothermia doing prostrations in the lake on Foxhollow property---

No compassion for them. No respite in the hospital for them.

But if a troubled impresario or guru has media woes--off they go to the offices of a tame therapist or a sign in to some hospital, where no doubt the food will be excellent and one will have a private room.

And we are expected to buy it.

Most of stagger away from abusive situations not even able to afford health coverage, unless lucky enough to have some unevolved family members willing to act from Green Meme and lend us a helping hand.

"Most... stagger away from abusive situations not even able to afford health coverage..."

Yep. Those who commit to some leader's program make the biggest sacrifices, yet it is the leader who is lauded as a hero. Meanwhile, the leader is thoroughly supported and free to pursue his interests and hobbies. The leader blathers on about ideals and sacrifice, but the elephant in the room is the leader's own agenda.

BTW, here is the conclusion to my blog post about the Integralists' responses to Gafni:

Quote

"There are two elephants in the room that these Integralists are not addressing:


1. What does Gafni's actions mean for Integralism? Note that all the pro-Gafni responses come with advice like we need to "get back to this incredibly important work of Integral Spirituality". So it looks to me like these Integralists are afraid that the truth will derail their idealistic goals. Thus, they don't trust the conversation and they don't trust life. They also seem to think they need Gafni, which demonstrates a lack of faith in the potential of other people. Furthermore, they are making a false dichotomy: either continue debating the Gafni issue or get on with Integral Spirituality. Isn't continuing the debate the same as getting on with Integral Spirituality? Also, I think the organisation is not dealing with this issue seriously because they know that it will open a can of worms regarding their own status and activities. Taking the issue seriously would expose the organisation as not being serious about spiritual liberation. They would have to stop being a bunch of hot-air philosophers playing at being compassionate enlightened beings. They would have to start getting real.

2. Is it right for a teacher to have sex with his students? The answer seems quite clear. The students are seeking liberation from illusion, which is the noblest goal. The teacher is supposedly compassionate and wants to see the students liberated. Therefore, neither party should risk contaminating the goal with sexual activity. Could it be any clearer? On a more mundane level, it is widely accepted outside of spirituality that therapists shouldn't have sex with clients, teachers shouldn't have sex with students, etc. This is mainly because there is obvious inequality in the relationship.

These Integralists are supposed be leading the world into a new spiritually evolved age, yet they cannot or will not straighten themselves out on these fundamental issues. What is needed is the objective views of outsiders. However, instead of integrating those views, they are attacking the outsiders (and insider critics) and are now calling for "closure". This is obviously a case of group self-defense rather than conscientious spiritual evolution. The group's elites are protecting themselves and their status and are guiding their followers into a group-think illusion of futuristic idealism while maintaining the pretense that it's about spiritual liberation. Therefore, these Integralist leaders are wrong."

Unconscious rituals enacted through repetition compulsion are not emancipatory.

That means they aint evolutionary, either.

There's plenty of intensity. An entire social media scene has condensed around it.

But its addictive, not liberating.

It aint any different from the bonding that takes place among others with a shared compulsion to gamble, etc

Just dont drag God or spirituality into it, or use it to claim that cruelty is necessary to human evolution.

A Citizens First Amendment Speculation

Is Wilberian Integralism a Ritualized Drama?

I suggest that anyone who gets involved with Wilberian Integralism is getting involved with very much more than an intellectual model.

Its a way of life, but not in the way Wilber and his promoters say it is.

The chronic debates that erupt year after year when yet another guru scandal comes to light--dare we consider that this repetitious series of controversies and crises may be a ritual, and even a necessary part of the Wilberian social scene, its way of life?

The ancients had their mythologies, acted out each year or every 3 to 5 years via ritual.

Some of the most risky and transgressive rituals, such as the women climbing the mountain to enact Bacchic ecstatic ritual, took place every few years.

In Rome, each year, the Saturnalia mandated transgression of the usual social roles.

The mythologies had haunting stories of gods and demigods betraying each other, betraying or rescuing human beings, playing strange, sometimes inscrutable roles in the unfolding of destiny.

So perhaps the Wilberian faithful look to Wilber and his celebrity friends to act out the dramas for them, and they observe as audiences for the drama or some may join the debates and become members one of two Choruses.

But this isnt evolutionary. Its to me a very familiar re-enactment and a compulsive repetitive re enactment of stuff many of us go through as part of the misery of childhood powerlessness.

We are helpless, little people.

As children, little people, our own experiences are written off by adults as lacking legitimacy.

If things get really bad, we as children decide to hate our own weakness, identify with the Big People and disown our own experiences as Little People and despise others who are powerless too.

We are put in custody, and hopefully, benevolent care, of Big People who, because they are Big People, are Supposed to Know What is Good For Us.

What if these Big People do things that disappoint us, not once, but again and again and again?

What if promises are broken, not once, but again and again?

What if a Big Person promises something, then fails to follow through and tells us we are selfish for feeling disappointed?

What if the Big Person constantly scares us, hurts us and tells us that all this is going to make us better stronger people and we just gotta trust their word for it?

What if we, when little kids, have to cover up for and make excuses for Big People when other Big People want or demand to know whats going on?

A lot of us will try to convince ourselves this is normal, perhaps even desirable, just so we can make it through childhood without freaking out.

But then, a lot of us may repeat the pattern in later life--its like a computer with an implanted virus or bug that keeps screwing up.

We keep selecting the same type of hurtful person to go out with.

We keep selecting druggies or drunks as roomies and cant understand why our roomates keep letting us down.

Somehow, few in the Wilberian scene seem to imagine that what they're involved with, via Ken is perhaps similar to the common examples Ive pulled out of the air.

The Wilberian intellectual model not just a bunch of ideas.

Its a business. It is tied to selling product. Its also tied to living persons who are supposed to embody Wilber's system and who keep failing. His endorsed gurus (Adi Da, Andrew Cohen, etc) not only fail to embody Wilbers system, but have trouble behaving decently and can only function in rarified social settings with entourages that parent them and protect them from the consequences of bad behavior.

Its a social scene/moral drama that has been repeating itself since the late 1980s.

Perhaps Wilberian Integralistas should face it that their real religion is an attempt to grapple with power.

But that the method of doing this is via a ritual practiced among the Integralistas of doing so by worshipping unworthy powerholders. Worthy powerholders may not be satisfactory for the the purposes of attaining cathersis through drama.

The worse the behavior of the powerholder, the greater the thrill of rationalizing and defending that person.

Its like Mount Everest--you are guaranteed challenge, struggle, altitude sickness, Sturm Und Drang.

Ditto for defending and invoking the need for forgiveness and compassion towards scandal ridden abusive gurus.

By contrast, there is no tingle, no thrill in being loyal to someone who is worthy of powerholder status by having accepted the need for accountability and by putting guidelines in place that are instititutional.

What is the challenge offered by a decent, honorable guru who accepts accountability and puts in social and financial safeguards?

Its like taking a stroll up a gentle hill.

No drama.

No emergencies.

No scandals to manage, spin, rationalize.

You dont need to put yourself on the line--an honorable, scandal free guru doesent need your services--or your noble misery as an enabler.

If there is a even a risk, a micro vibe that someone is a trust risk, as stated disdain for accountability, an ideology that power equals legitimacy, a whiff of that 'crazy wisdom' alibi, disruptive charisma, a cult of unpredictable, transgressive behavior thats permitted only to the guru while submission is mandatory for underlings and visitors... then there is suspense.

Its like mood music in a movie scene that gooses the viewer, cues him or her subliminally that Something is Probably Gonna Happen.

Wilberian Integralism is more than an ideology.

It is, I suggest, a ritual. And the real danger is very few are trying to be conscious about it.

Without consciousness in all parties, full consent is not possible.

Lets ask if there are elements of some unconscious ritual going on.

We have seen the same pattern of events again and and again, since the Adi Da blow up (1980s), since Andrew Cohen (early 2000s) and now Marc Gafni (first episode Ken had deal with was in 2006, followed a few months later by his Wyatt Earpy diatribe).

Ken endorses someone. First it was Adi Da. Then, Andrew Cohen, then Gafni.

Ken selects someone to endorse.

Ken offers an ideology that gives powerholders total freedom and zero responsiblity for their power. He has sung the praises of Rude Boy and Rude Girl Gurus.

(Perhaps power with accountablity is no fun, has to little potential for drama. Too boring. Select a guru with risk potential for scandal, that guarantees suffering.

Decades ago, a club hosted a noted jazz pianist who was well known to have a raging problem with alcohol. The club's marquee read 'Slim Gaillard--Live. Fun For You. Headaches For Us"

If you want to guarantee drama in your life, endorse people who have, based on past behavior, a high risk of acting out in ways that transgress social norms for decent behavior.

There are pay offs.

First there is the vicarious pleasure of endorsing a Bad Boy or Rude Girl. Vicarious thrills. We know em and love em. Thats why war movies and horror movies make $$$

Ditto for unpredictable gurus.

Then there is the suspense/suffering factor. Some people for whatever reason (trauma, physiology) need risk in their lives. When risk seekers become paramedics, fire fighters, ER doctors and rescue swimmers, thats a blessing to society.

But endorsing high risk gurus..thats where it becomes murky.

The endorsing wild guru impresario hopes, on one hand that nothing will go wrong or that if something goes wrong, its manageable. That keeps a nice background crackle of risk in one's life..

If the guru misbhehaves, theres the tension and effort of having to make excuses for him to the Faithful and defend him and belittle his detractors. One can present oneself as a loyal friend to the guru, maybe also play the role of Big Daddy or Big Brother---and have a macho satisfaction sneering at ones detractors. )[/i]

In the Wilberian social scene---a scene to which Wilber's Integral model is attached for it uses living gurus as its verification--- this selection process and its ideology guarantees suspense for everyone--Ken, and his followers.

The Wilberian Faithful hope.

They hope that this time Guru X will, despite the previous doleful pattern (Adi Da, Andrew Cohen ) behave honorably.

When Guru X does break down and reveals that he is repeating the same abusive pattern as the others endorsed by Ken Wilber....

Rev up the drama.

Now one has the role of defending the scandal ridden guru who is Ken's current choice.

Enter Chorus One--Wilberian Faithful

One gets to show compassion, not to those abused by that guru, but to the guru.

Its the defense of someone who has screwed up that makes forgiveness and compassion so much more dramatic. You score more points in the Compassion Olympics by defending an abusive powerholder, because it confirms your own so special depth of insight....

Enter Chorus Two-- the Onlookers?Mean Green Memers/Boomeritis Casualties, sets up its antiphonal chant--

"What the hell is going on with Ken that he keeps choosing these people?"

"Whats going on with the other celebrities who know better but keep associating with these troubled gurus Ken selects for endorsement?"

After some sung dialogue by the two choruses the scandal ridden guru of the moment
goes to therapy or into hospital with a stress related illness. This is cited as evidence
of repentance.

The Guru issues a statement

Ken Wilber Issues a Statement

Chorus One and Chorus Two do some additional antiphonal chanting

Things simmer down.

Then, a few months or years later, more trouble breaks out, with Guru X or with a new person, Guru Y.

If matters get really bad, a new memoir or blog will be published by yet another person or group of persons who have suffered under the scorched earth ministrations of Kens endorsed gurus.

So...what is it.

Is it the thrill and suspense of defending not the oppressed but making excuses for abusive powerholders?

Anyone who gets involved with Wilberian Integralism is getting involved with more than an intellectual model.

Its a social scene/moral drama that repeats itself.

At least in actual theatre all participants retain some scrap of conscious awareness that its not real life, but a performance that takes place in a boundaried space into which one enters and then exits.

And there are unions and actors equity to protect the well being of persons who perform various roles in theatre arts.

But in the Wilberian Unworthy Guru Drama , its being acted out unconsciously.

Ken Wilber, the director of the Integral Passion Play selects a series of gurus who have heavy risk factors for disappointing his and his supporters hopes. It is necessary to ignore the findings of social psychologists such as Stanley Milgram, Philip Zimbardo and , all of whom have created experiements demonstrating that the social role of uncontrolled power will have degrading effects on character.

Ken opts for not merely for hope...he opts for hubris. He ignores the Wisdom of the Ancients who warned of the dangers of hubris and ignores the wisdom of modern social psychologists (Milgram and Zimbardo) who have shown us how human character is affected by social cues and that no one is immune.

Ignoring the Wisdom and Warnings of the Ancients, and ignoring the findings of Milgram and Zimbardo, Ken Wilber, takes a potentially heroic stand, hoping to defy destiny and takes on the suspense, the tension of defying overwhelming odds.

But...Wilber does not put his own body on the line.

Instead, he calls for gurus who carry high potential for failure and these gurus invite the trust of persons who put their bodies under the guru's control, making themselves vulnerable in a way Wilber does not.

Meanwhile, Ken selects a guru who seems to embody his hopes but also perhaps embodies his apprehensions. First Adi Da, then Andrew Cohen are selected and they abuse their power, precisely because they have no accountablity for its use, create environments that shield them from consequences, exactly as warned against in the Zimbardo Prison Experiment.

But by defending these gurus even after they have demonstrated themselves not to be superhuman but merely men and irresponsible and hurtful men, gives Ken Wilber and his Hopeful Followrs a heroic task--bearing the suspense of hoping the guru wll be worthy and the heroic task of coping with Scandal by defending the wild behavior of the guru as not a disappointment but as necessary to to evolution of the universe.

Onto the stage come two choruses--the Wilberian Hopeful/Faithful and the Onlookers.

The Wilberian Hopeful are the chorus of Devotional Enablers who sing the Praises of Total Power and Zero Accountabilty and Cry that Powerholders Need Compassion. They leap to the defense of any and all gurus caught in scandal. The rhetoric is so similar as the years roll on that it has the characteristics of a liturgy, a ritual.

The Onlookers (including myself and those who disapprove of cruelty) are the Chorus warning of Hubris and Nemesis

But this is not an ordinary theatre production or even a private persons dream.

The bodies, minds, health and finances of the guru's subjects bear the brunt of it.

They are shouted down and shamed if they try to add their voices to the drama, for only the voice of Powerholder matters. In this drama, only powerholders are allowed to have and use their voices as human individuals.


The abused persons are mere instruments--it is through the medium of their bodies, not Kens body, their elicited trust, disappointed hopes, and plundered hearts and finances that a guru is demostrated as unworthy and thus deserves the call and response chorus that is typical of Wilberian Grand Opera.

Ken doesnt act out the role of abused victim of a powerholder--he defends the powerholder and rationalizes the excesses and unpredictable behavior as necessary for human evolution.

(An old variation on "Beating kids is good for their character.")

There is no dramatic potential in a powerholder/guru who accepts accountability, has safeguards in place against hubris.

There is no possiblity for betrayal, no suspense. Such a person will not suit the casting requirements for this kind of opera.

Ken sets out to defy the Wisdom of the Ancients who warned against Hubris and the wisdom of modern social psychologists, namely Milgram and Zimbardo.

Anyone not a powerholder or one of the Faithful in the Wilberian scene can only speak in safety as part of a chorus in order to remain safe, and often behind an assumed name.

Those who have been abused and who dare to speak as individuals has been and will be viciously attacked.

Once you have been the the property of a Wilberian guru, you cannot exercise agency on your own behalf, ever again--which is why those who have broken free and resumed agency by writing books and publishing blogs have been treated so viciously.

They are the true heroes

Corboy,

There's always a danger in analysing the motives of others because there are so many possible interpretations. Nevertheless, that was an interesting read.

Quote

"His endorsed gurus (Adi Da, Andrew Cohen, etc) not only fail to embody Wilbers system, but have trouble behaving decently and can only function in rarified social settings with entourages that parent them and protect them from the consequences of bad behavior."

Believers see their gurus as bravely taking on the world, while outsiders see them as protected freaks. Adi Da spent most of his life on an island to protect himself from reality. Andrew Cohen brought a supportive entourage with him when he confronted Papaji for insulting him behind his back. Indeed, whenever you see Cohen being bravely rude, it is only when he is surrounded by worshippers. When you see him one on one, he is always polite.

Quote

"Ken offers an ideology that gives powerholders total freedom and zero responsiblity for their power. He has sung the praises of Rude Boy and Rude Girl Gurus."

Since Integralism is supposed to be about holistic truth, how can Wilber explain why accountability and responsibility are missing from the picture?

Quote

"If the guru misbhehaves, theres the tension and effort of having to make excuses for him to the Faithful and defend him and belittle his detractors. One can present oneself as a loyal friend to the guru, maybe also play the role of Big Daddy or Big Brother---and have a macho satisfaction sneering at ones detractors. )"

Yes, that was definitely happening with Wilber regarding Cohen.

Quote

"Its the defense of someone who has screwed up that makes forgiveness and compassion so much more dramatic. You score more points in the Compassion Olympics by defending an abusive powerholder, because it confirms your own so special depth of insight...."

For sure. The whole show is a great opportunity for everyone to demonstrate superior compassion. And superior wisdom. In this Gafni case, Ken suddenly transformed from Wyatt Earp to Sensitive New Age Guy calling for forgiveness, which is the latest new age fad. Seeing Ken bounce from persona to persona doesn't demonstrate Integral wholeness. It demonstrates that he lacks an anchor - the anchor of fundamental truth.

Quote

"he calls for gurus who carry high potential for failure and these gurus invite the trust of persons who put their bodies under the guru's control, making themselves vulnerable in a way Wilber does not."

Yes, it's really amazing that Ken continues to do this. Ken recommends that leaders go to therapy. I wonder if Ken does? Can you imagine what a knowledgeable therapist would say? The first words would be, "Adi Da? Andrew Cohen? Marc Gafni? What's going on? Why are you endorsing these people?" And you can imagine the spotlight on Ken. It would be almost impossible for him to come up with a rational explanation. Of course, he would fit it into his integral philosophy, but it would sound so lame. A good therapist would ask, "But what's your payoff?" And that's where things get interesting. That's when the therapy begins. Corboy, you list a couple of payoffs - drama, brotherhood, being the wise explainer. But there's also fame, money, self-promotion, and business expansion.

Quote

"The Wilberian Hopeful are the chorus of Devotional Enablers who sing the Praises of Total Power and Zero Accountabilty and Cry that Powerholders Need Compassion… The rhetoric is so similar as the years roll on that it has the characteristics of a liturgy, a ritual. The Onlookers (including myself and those who disapprove of cruelty) are the Chorus warning of Hubris and Nemesis… But this is not an ordinary theatre production or even a private persons dream. The bodies, minds, health and finances of the guru's subjects bear the brunt of it. They are shouted down and shamed if they try to add their voices to the drama, for only the voice of Powerholder matters. In this drama, only powerholders are allowed to have and use their voices as human individuals."

Wow, that's gold!

There are business pay offs. But its possible to run a business, even an LA entertainment firm, without quite the kind of drama being re-enacted here.

At least in most businesses there is recognition of laws. If one joins an agency or studio or signs on to write a script for a movie or act in that movie, there are contracts, one has an agent.

And there are unions and industry publications such as Variety which offer objective updates. If things become really interesting, the LA Times will cover it.

But there isnt this kind of outside scrutiny or accountablity in relation to Integralism.

Do you go to Foxhollow as a member of union or Actors Equity? Nope.

Here is another thing. All this big deal about Evolutionary Spirituality and the need for 'fire' and 'fierce compassion' and 'intensity' to force the human person to higher levels.

What if in the Integral scene, non powerholders actually are objects, not persons?

Objects cannot evolve.

How can a despised, devalued object 'evolve?'

Can one turn a Pinto into a Ferrari by blasting it with a flame thrower ('fierce compassion'), putting it into a nuclear reactor (the power of the cosmos!!!), screaming at it, or slashing at it with a whip?

Lets see that Ferrari. Come on, bring it out. Lets all have a peek.

Only powerholders are allowed to speak publicly and encouraged to speak--only they are human and persons.

Non powerholders dont exist.

If you enter as a disciple you become property, an object. No autonomy, no right to leave, and your voice is not yours--its only to be used with the gurus permission as an extension of the guru's voice.

Public speech apart from the guru is forbidden.

Public speech part from the guru and in opposition to the guru is the worst offence of all--it means a hunk of the gurus property has dared to re-claim humanity, citizenship and personhood.

This is so threatening that others must be brought in to annihilate this subversive.

The only way a disciple , whether in Foxhollow or expelled-can feel a simulcrum of agency or use speech is to speak as an extension of the Integral Guru Powerholder---as one of the Chorus of Devotional Enablers.

These persons who scream abuse at anyone who dares resume personhood and oppose human rights violation in the Integral scene are the ones who cant stand facing they have let themselves become objects. So to get a feeling of agency without actually being free agents, they show up as familiar faces in the flame wars. But remain the property of the powerholder while flexing their biceps--metaphorically speaking.

Quote

simulacrum - definition of simulacrum by the Free Online Dictionary ...sim·u·la·crum (s m y -l kr m, -l k r m). n. pl. sim·u·la·cra (-l kr , -l k r ). 1. An image or
representation. 2. An unreal or vague semblance.

That may be why so many who have left or been kicked out still cling to a place in the bench occuppied by the Devotional Enablers.

The ones who left or were kicked out and who returned to full humanity and are now using their voices differently and independently of the powerholders and worse, speaking IN PUBLIC--they are hated and talked down because they have transmuted themselves from objects back to full adult human beings.

Autonomy and public voice from a non powerholder is what the Integralistas cant stand--especially if that person was formerly considered property.

Quote
Corboy
"There are business pay offs. But its possible to run a business, even an LA entertainment firm, without quite the kind of drama being re-enacted here."

Drama comes from the feeling of importance. The person is important, or the issue is important, or both are important. Regarding Gafni, Ken concluded that the Gafni is important, the issue (sex with students) is unimportant, and that other issues (integralism and forgiveness) is important. With Andrew Cohen, Ken concluded that Andrew Cohen, enlightenment, and evolution are so important that abuse is unimportant, or even warranted.

Quote

"Do you go to Foxhollow as a member of union or Actors Equity? Nope."

It would be great if spiritual seekers had a union! Currently, it's like the catholic church - the church does the abuse and then adjudicates on the abuse.

Quote

"Here is another thing. All this big deal about Evolutionary Spirituality and the need for 'fire' and 'fierce compassion' and 'intensity' to force the human person to higher levels… Can one turn a Pinto into a Ferrari by blasting it with a flame thrower ('fierce compassion'), putting it into a nuclear reactor (the power of the cosmos!!!), screaming at it, or slashing at it with a whip? Lets see that Ferrari. Come on, bring it out. Lets all have a peek."

It's a horrible catch 22. "Come on, do what I say - show us that you are a superior person." But as soon as you obey that other person, you are a sheep, yet if you don't obey, you are a weakling.

Quote

"So to get a feeling of agency without actually being free agents, they show up as familiar faces in the flame wars. But remain the property of the powerholder while flexing their biceps--metaphorically speaking."

Yeah, when the criticisms of Andrew Cohen first started, his disciples would confidently butt in with lame Cohenisms that made perfect sense to them but that collapsed under scrutiny. Then they would just disappear.

Quote

"That may be why so many who have left or been kicked out still cling to a place in the bench occuppied by the Devotional Enablers."

Maybe. I think they are just confused. They haven't fully seen that they were tricked into believing the guru was the embodiment of their ideals. To reject the guru feels like rejecting their own ideals. So they are in a dilemma.