(This seems to be a relatively new group. But anything that is a spin-off of TM is worth a close look. Up to date information appreciated.)

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is a guru who spent some time with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (Transcendental Meditation) and then went his own way.

[www.tribuneindia.com] - 25k

[www.trancenet.org]


Powerful breathing techniques (pranayama) were part of TM and also part of 'Art of Livng' (aka Sudarshan Kriya)

These breathing techniques can be very helpful but ONLY if prescribed to suit the needs of each individual. Many people were reportedly harmed in TM because they were told to keep doing their breathing exercises even when they began to suffer side effects indicating that they needed to stop.

TM and perhaps? Sudarshan Kriya give people pleasant effects by boosting serotonin. But over time, the excess serotonin can make some people ill. For more information on this very important subject and some scientific research go here:

[unstress4less.org]

Reports of Headaches and Side Effects From Art of Living/Sudarshan Kriya Yoga

[www.yogajournal.com]


[www.google.com]

*If you want to investigate this path, find out if the Art of Living teachers know the signs indicating when a student should stop using pranayama and take it easy. Find out too if they know how to prescribe an approach that suits the needs and constitution of each student.

*If they prescribe a 'one size fits all approach' for all persons and insist that there are no problems or side effects associated with practicing pranayama, that merits concern..

Please research the background on any and all workshops and spiritual teachers, just as you would assess the qualifications of a heart surgeon or moving van firm.

Here are other people's comments on the Google listserves about Sri Sri Ravi Shankars background.

[groups.google.com]

THE Ravi Shankar?
The musician?
Sitar player?
Father of Norah Jones?
Is the head of a cult now?

Or is it a different guy?

this fellow is much younger than Ravi Shankar and is named Shri Shri Ravi Shankar.

'Shri' is an honorific title given to very highly respected persons in India. So being called 'Shri Shri' X means your qualities are so very superlative that one honorific is not enough!

If you do a google search and pair Sri Shri Ravi Shankar and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in the all words slot and the exact phrase slot, you will get plenty of citations verifying that Ravi Shankar spent some time with MMY before going his own way.

Go to www.trancenet.org, which is the main resource site for TM/Maharishi and read their material on the phyiscial and mental effects of practicing TM.

Then, see if this in any way resembles your own experiences, or not.

Many of the citations I found suggest that pranayama is at the core of Sudarshan Kriya. Do some research on pranayama.

These practice can induce powerful physiological changes in the body, and material on trancenet.org suggests this practice can even boost serotonin levels. In true yoga tradition, it is clearly stated that persons should do prayanana with great care and be told EXACTLY what signs indicate that they've had enough and need to back off.

And Guru' is not a protected title in India. Traditionally a man never called himself a guru. He aquired a reputation slowly, over many years and eventually, by informal consensus, his community agreed that he was a guru. Bharati calls this 'ascription.'

I'm probably stating the obvious, but to those not familiar with eastern religion, the complication here is that somebody who WANTS to be a guru for the sake of spiritual domination over others (for eventual financial gain perhaps, but not always, sometimes it's just the thrill of being a leader), they will immediately find themselves a group of hardcore sycophants who will synthesize the guru wannabe's reputation, and through preaching, acquire sycophants for the first sycophants who will in turn spread the word further.

This is the case in such Hare Krishna break-away groups like International Gaudiya Vedanta Society and to some extent, Science of Identity Foundation in Hawaii.

if you have confidance and assemble the right titles, stage props, etc.

Thing is, Westerners grow up in a culture that was affected by Roman Catholicism, even in nations that have since gone Protestant. (The Reformation was an attempt to reform Catholicism, so even churches that ultimately rebelled against Catholicism incorporated large portions of Catholic culture and sociology into their make up.)

In the West, being a priest implies accountability to an identifiable command structure, just like in the military. If you're a priest, or a minister, you have a boss, and its easy to identify just exactly who your boss is. Anyone without these kinds of credentials is suspect.

THis means Christianity early on evolved social institutions to control their clergy.

But nothing like this exists in Hinduism. A guru does not fit into a command structure the way a Roman Catholic priest does. Hinduism does not consider itself obligated to train its clergy or remedy abuses.

The seeker is left with full responsibility for testing the integrity and qualifications of any teacher.

And in the East, when gurus abuse power, they are rarely confronted. Instead, discontented followers usually 'vote with their feet' and quietly remove themselves from the situation.

Westerners who go to India must understand that they are on their own--systems of accountability they take for granted at home do not exist in India.

It is a little different in Buddhism, because there are clear cut lineages for teachers and you can find out pretty quickly 1) whether someone is teaching genuine Dharma and 2) actually belongs to a lineage. You cannot manufacture a fake lineage in Buddhism quite as easily as in Hinduism.

This is not to say there have not been abuses in Buddhism; there are some utterly horrifying situations involving Tibetan Buddhist lamas who have grievously abused money, sex and power. And some unsuitable Westerners have been recognized as tulkus by Lamas who failed to assess their character or educate them about their responsibilities.

The Dalai Lama has spoken out against abusive teachers in general, and encourages students to leave when a teacher is abusive, but he has never publicly identified or reprimanded abusive teachers by name--and these reportedly include Chogyam Trungpa, Ozel Tenzin.

Taking a public stand against teachers who have abused money sex and power would set clear limits. Too many Tibetan lamas have assumed that they were entitled to use female students for sexual gratification--a feudal sense of entitlement, as it were.

It is just as necessary for Buddhist seekers to do their own indpendant research, and set limits if a teacher tries to abuse money, sex or power.

And in the East, when gurus abuse power, they are rarely confronted.

The basic belief held is that each spiritual seeker has a guru designated for them, based on not so much karma, but spiritual credits earned by the seeker over the course of multiple lifetimes, which translate to "punya" or "skriti".

A sincere, humble seeker will find a corresponding guru of good character.

Someone with significant character flaws, however, will find a cheater.

And in some cases, it's believed a sincere, untested person may be led to a faux guru, so that the sincere seeker may see for themselves that the guru is false, and move on to a better situation, and appreciate this new and improved situation all the more.

From an eastern perspective, it's not so much that the bonefide spiritual leaders of any given community or sampradaya simply don't care about their fellow human beings, but merely see their travails as temporary, and something that they will eventually overcome (and the vast majority of us posting here, have surely been tested by false prophets at one point or another, and learned a lot from the experience).

Some are probably offended by this, but I think that is just another facet of the bigger conflict, Christian compassion versus Hindu conception of karma.

Agehananda Bharati though, took issue with gurus who pretended to be experts but were not.


Its one thing when a genuine guru who has 'served time' in a karma-based tradition invokes karma.

Its different when a shyster who grows up in a western culture (and that includes Westernized upper class Indian culture, from which most 'export gurus' originate) appropriates karma and uses karma to dodge accountability for his or her own abuses of money, sex and power.

Someone who studied with a real Hindu guru said there is a Sanskrit proverb that states

'A greedy guru and an ambitious disciple are both suspended over the pit of hell.'

The key teaching in Buddhism is you must not abuse the three jewels of 1) Buddha's teaching, 2) Ultimate Reality or 3) Sangha ( the community of practitioners---and, by extension, all sentient beings)

The Buddhist precepts forbid abusing sexuality, abusing power, and slanderous/misleading speech.

And among Buddhists, to be born human occurs so rarely and is of such huge spiritual advantage that it is cruel to traumatize other people and distract them from their personal development.

Being human is precious. We must not waste our opportunities or other people's opportunities.