Its the siddhi of PR.

Not kidding. Few can resist its allure.

And fewer still can summon a much greater, more subtle
power -- a willingness and capacity to fact check the
charismatic bait that the PR siddhas create and spew into the mass media.

Oh yes..the real blue gOd of Social Media- Jivan- bask in his glory and check out all the wives..how many has he had by now? Not to worry, its all documented on Facebook. Here read for yourselves, in Jivan’s own words:
"Jivan Moore:
I agree with Sanjay. I was raised as a Catholic Christian, but when I was first introduced to the Bhagavad Gita in 1964 it changed my life. I had found a profound philosophy wedded to an ecstatic aesthetic When I was faced with death years later it was the Gita that sustained me in deep calmness and courage. Since that moment I began to live my life according to the message of Lord Krsna in the Gita. I considered myself a poet but realized that the best poem I could ever write would only be at best a dim reflection of the brilliant sun of the Bhagavad Gita. In my house we read it daily. It is like an inexhaustible mine of diamonds and gold--the deeper you go into it the more treasure you find.” Written 12 JUN 2013.

Wow- guess the only thing that Jivan really committed to were the multiple wives bit in the Gita. Come to think of it, you may remember other men in the cult who also thought that it was not a problem to have multiple wives? That went well, didn’t it? (heavy sarcasm)

[www.civilbeat.com].


Gabbard Campaign Benefits from Generous Family Support.

All the comments are well worth reading.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2015 02:34AM by corboy.

Here is a recent article about Tulsi's religious affiliations.
I can see where the spin is going. Her handlers are poised to pounce on any one critical of, or questioning her family's connections with Chris Butler. If you do, you will be considered a racist or a religious bigot. You will be accused of being anti-Hindu.

Hindus Are Thriving in America, but There's Only One in Congress The comments are filled with the usual devotee apologists along with the rest of interested citizens.

But this article is just throwing out a red herring to distract people from the real question. Every time a relevant question is asked about the Gabbard-Butler connection, it either is ignored or the questioner gets attacked for being politically motivated or for having a nefarious intention.

Mike Gabbard and his wife are both long standing followers of Chris Butler. Butler's teachings claim to have a non-sectarian view of spirituality. His followers declare no group, build no temples, and deny their guru's influence. They teach that it doesn't matter what religion you are, you can still believe in the science of identity and become Krishna conscious. This is a convenient way to deny any connection to a dangerous cult. Mike claims to be a Catholic. His wife claims to be a Hindu convert. Tulsi says she grew up a Hindu. Who can argue? That's not the point.

Mike Gabbard and his wife and children have spent a lifetime at the feet of Chris Butler, leading kirtans, preaching about the bliss of chanting, advising other cult followers on marriage, donating their life efforts for their guru's pleasure. They have taken direction and advice concerning every aspect of their lives from Butler. They started a school for him, they ran for political office and the school board for him, they sent their children to his Haribol schools, they conducted business for him, they were part of Down to Earth for him.

Tulsi Gabbard grew up in this cult. It was never a mainstream Hindu nor a purely Gaudiya Vaishnava group. Over time, Butler alienated himself so much from the mainstream after AC Bhaktivedanta died, that he was compelled to join forces with the World Vaishnava Association to retain his credibility (a service done by Tusta Krishna before he died.) Otherwise he would have lost all capacity to increase his income and power base. And all the followers got in line. Like Butler, the Gabbards have hooked into mainstream Hinduism to gain legitimacy.

One can see, from the Gabbard's point of view that they are not actually telling lies. They are just omitting certain facts. The karmi's out there are so immersed in Maya (delusion) that they could not understand the whole truth. Upon “He Who is Good As God’s” instructions, it is their devotional service and spiritual duty to hide and cover up their connection to Butler.

The question is not about what religion they follow or not. It is not about religious freedom or religious bigotry. It is about honesty, intentions, and influence. It is known that the Gabbards are totally entrenched in Butler's cult and world view. Why do they keep avoiding this specific point?

Tulsi says rightfully, “When you look at the national issues that our country is facing, people are not qualified or disqualified because of their spiritual practice. People are looking for someone they can trust.” But until the Gabbards honestly own up to their real background and deep connections with Chris Butler, I personally do not trust their leadership. Nor should anyone else in my opinion. How can you trust an elected official who has left out a major aspect of their life? I may admire what Tulsi is doing as a woman in congress, but I am uncertain of her end game. The question of Butler's undue influence on the politics in Hawaii is a relevant and sincere one. It is not based in either anti-Hinduism or religious bigotry.

Those of us posting on this forum, ex followers, family members of followers, and people who have been harmed by this cult want to know why the Gabbards cover up their affiliation with Butler. The answer is obvious.

Tulsi is currently questioning the President's policy of ignoring or not naming the enemy as Islamic extremism, even risking her political career by doing so. In the same way, I question Tulsi's ignoring some of the dangerous aspects of Butler's group and teachings, to the point that she lies by omission about her background. For example, she claims to have gone to a "Missionary school" when in fact, it was Butler's indoctrination school that taught exclusively Butler's brand of a Neo-Vaishnavism.

People respect honesty. If Tulsi would just own up that she grew up in a cult that worshipped Butler on an altar, bowed to him and offered flower garlands to him as a child, all the while taking his instructions as if he was as good as God; that would be better than this phony Hindu narrative. If Butler has been such a great inspiration as your guru, then why keep him hidden? If you did that, you would have to expose Butler to real scrutiny.

On the other hand, if Tulsi has outgrown the cult of her parents, or no longer believes in everything that they do, that would be natural and honest. If she has truly embraced Hinduism, it distances herself from the more controversial aspects of Butler's cult. But she can't publicly deny Butler because one word from him would cut her off from a decades old political machine that generates enormous funds to her campaigns. Disavowing Butler would create a huge rift between family, friends, staff, and handlers in the cult. So she is really stuck in a conflicted situation.

Another cynical possibility is that you and your parents have just used Butler as any clever opportunist would. In exchange for feigning devotional service you get elitism, favoritism, monetary gain, and political power.

The cult is highly secretive. Butler has ordered all of his followers to not speak about him. His pictures are no longer placed on altars in homes, yoga studios, or public chanting places. They claim all of his teachings are on the internet, but they are not. You only see the most inane and innocuous parts of the philosophy. Even his biography on the World Vaishnava Association (WVA) website has been deleted (but he is still listed as an Acharya of the Present).

So Tulsi, you want to be trusted? Own or disavow your guru. Stop dancing around the truth. You claim to be an honest servant/leader, then fully disclose.

Somehow I think we shall just get more of the Hindu narrative . . . yada yada yada. I'm not holding my breath waiting for Tulsi to sort this all out and tell the truth.

Personally, I don't care if Tulsi privately worships a dung beetle. I don't care if Obama is a Christian or a Muslim. I do care about if they represent me as a citizen and benefit the people of our country or not. I want to know if your religion or your guru or your advisors or your supporters are wielding undue influence on your votes. I do care if you are a bought and sold politician for whatever ideology you hold that is against the values of the Constitution and the will of the people.

Butler influenced Mike Gabbard horribly with his anti-gay initiatives. It cost Gabbard business and almost killed his political career. Anyone who knew Gabbard early on knows that he was not the bigot he later became due to Butler's influence. An exer recently recalled a meeting at a lesbian couple’s home with Mr. and Mrs. Gabbard talking about school curriculum with a group of parents. There was no indication of prejudice from either Mike or Carol. That was a flame fanned by Butler a few years later.

So the question remains, Tulsi, are you willing to go off the deep end with your guru as your father did?

Rick Ross recently posted this on another thread but I thought it useful here. The problem with the Butler cult is that it has become insanely secretive. The only way to find this chart useful is if you have been in the cult or have grown up in it. So I am posting this for all the kids who grew up with Jaggad Guru teachings, including you Tulsi Gabbard. This chart may give you some clarity.


The Process of Brainwashing, Psychological Coercion, and Thought Reform

Carlfig~

The children of cult followers are the ones that suffer the most. They didn't make the choice to believe in Siddha. It is very difficult when loyaties are divided between a parent still in the cult and a parent who has left the cult. In addition to the pain of parents not getting along, they are torn by religious or idealogical beliefs. It's natural for children to love both parents. What happens is that the reality of the situation gets even more distorted by cult affiliation and children either idealize or demonize the non custodial parent.

Carlfig~

If you have not read Shyam Dodge's book already, I highly recommend it. While he does not name Siddha directly (he calls him Sai), nor does he name the group as an offshoot of the Hare Krishnas (how embarassing that would be), he does give a good description of what it was like to grow up in the Butler cult. From a young age he was being groomed to be a guru and rebelled against it. Fascinating story.

Wet Hot and Wild American Yogi: A Memoir

I don't know if you knew Katyayani, but she went on to become a self proclaimed guruette like Butler. Her true colors are shown in the book.

As far as Jivan being an "elite," he was always in the doghouse one way or another with Siddha. He failed at most every project or got hell for acting independently. Not that he was without talent or intellect, but he was famously an arrogant jerk to a lot of people. Not that he didn't desire to become a great guru, he just couldn't pull it off.

Katyayani on the other hand, was always protected by Butler and held up as a pure devotee. Jivan never enjoyed that kind of favortism or promotion. I think he has carved a little niche out for himself punctuated by chanting and playing music. He had a great interest in Christianity and introduced Latin chants into kirtans. He just wanted to be a respected scholar and musician. I don't think he runs his own cult like Katyayani does.

One could look at them as both victims of Butler's Neo Vaishnavism and/or perpetuators of a harmful cult. Both could be cold hearted and narcissistic. Both ran political campaigns under Butler's control. Both had mulitple marriages at the behest of Butler... with innocent children affected. At any rate, neither of them have outdone Butler in damages to followers.

are you still doubting if Tulsi is in or out of the Butler Cult?

she's marrying "Abraham" a Haribol kid.
why didnt she marry a Hindu?

why is it a Haribol kid who is a "freelance cinematographer who has made some short films and worked on commercial and political advertising campaigns"
we all know that means unemployed and a servant of Butler.
can you get anymore VAGUE?

where are his works? there's nothing. is that even his real name?

surely Tulsi with her stature could have done a LOT better.
yet she chooses within the cult??
you can bet your house Butler is still running things.

Quote
jaggedguru
are you still doubting if Tulsi is in or out of the Butler Cult? she's marrying "Abraham" a Haribol kid. why didnt she marry a Hindu? why is it a Haribol kid who is a "freelance cinematographer who has made some short films and worked on commercial and political advertising campaigns" we all know that means unemployed and a servant of Butler.
can you get anymore VAGUE? where are his works? there's nothing. is that even
his real name? surely Tulsi with her stature could have done a LOT better.
yet she chooses within the cult?? you can bet your house Butler is still running things.

Yeah jagged, I know, I know ... I wish it weren't so . . .

The clincher was Abraham and his videographer bio. Shades of Lalita Gopal das. Tulsi must have been getting a lot of marriage proposals from rich Indian Hindoooos . . . so it looks like Butler had to cinch up her chastity belt with another devoteeeeeeee. Jagad Guru is a jealous g0d. Can't have Tulsi running around alone in D.C., especially on those cold, snowy nights away from Hawaaaahiii. blurgh.

Quote
jaggedguru
are you still doubting if Tulsi is in or out of the Butler Cult? she's marrying "Abraham" a Haribol kid. why didnt she marry a Hindu? why is it a Haribol kid who is a "freelance cinematographer who has made some short films and worked on commercial and political advertising campaigns" we all know that means unemployed and a servant of Butler.
can you get anymore VAGUE? where are his works? there's nothing. is that even
his real name? surely Tulsi with her stature could have done a LOT better.
yet she chooses within the cult?? you can bet your house Butler is still running things.

Yeah jagged, I know, I know ... I wish it weren't so . . .

The clincher was Abraham and his videographer bio. Shades of Lalita Gopal das. Tulsi must have been getting a lot of marriage proposals from rich Indian Hindoooos . . . so it looks like Butler had to cinch up her chastity belt with another devoteeeeeeee. Jagad Guru is a jealous g0d. Can't have Tulsi running around alone in D.C., especially on those cold, snowy nights away from Hawaaaahiii. blurgh.

If Tulsi Gabbard encountered a conflict and had to choose between
the Declaration of Independence and the Bhagavad Gita, which would
she choose.

Can she imagine such a scenario?

[www.archives.gov]

Quote

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

America was born when a group of rebel Englishmen rejected the established
order and rejected kingship -- rejected the caste arrangement they had been born into.

"all men are created equal" -- no caste system here.

* The Creator endows human beings with unalienable, natural rights.

* Human beings are free to pursue their own vocation, not
ordained to stay in the class or caste they are born into.

*Government by consent of the governed -- not by a God ordained caste of
warriors aided by priestly advisors.

This mission statement could not be more different than that of
the varna caste system extolled in the Bhagavad Gita.

[www.google.com]



One person wrote a thoughtful, minority critique of the Bhagavad Gita,
the text cherished by the Krishnas.

Part one of the critique is here:

The Bhagavad Gita Revisited Part One

[www.3quarksdaily.com]

Part two from which I quote some excerpts is here:

[www.3quarksdaily.com]

Quote

The Gita adapted certain philosophical ideas that were surely revolutionary when they first arose and challenged the ritualistic Vedic religion. However, centuries later, in light of the contending intellectual and moral ideas of its day, it had assumed the role of a highly conservative tract, aligning itself with orthodoxy, authority, and hierarchy. .

Quote

The Gita’s core metaphysics is based on the Upanishads, which represent, in my view, a major milestone in the history of abstract thought and a great leap in conceiving our relationship to nature—but not quite of an advance in terms of ethical philosophy.

At the risk of oversimplification, I’ll summarize the metaphysics of the Upanishads by saying that they speak of a formless and all-pervasive vital force, or Brahman, which is the Ultimate Reality beneath the world of shifting appearances.

Our own life force, the Self, or atman, is but one manifestation of Brahman, and it has the same nature as the atman of other beings, such as a dog’s. Atman is immortal; after the death of a body it migrates to inhabit another body. Grasping the true nature of atman and its essential unity with Brahman is what enables one to attain Moksha, or release from the endless cycle of rebirth—a preeminent individual pursuit.

To attain Moksha, one must penetrate his or her veils of illusion and realize the truth of Brahman—a bracing view of reality as it might appear to the ‘cosmic eye’. In this view, our dualist conceptions of the world fall away, revealing the deeply interwoven strands of the phenomenal world (some dualist ideas based on samkhya metaphysics also appear in the Gita).

As the Isha Upanishad relates, ‘He who sees everywhere the Self in all existences and all existences in the Self, shrinks not thereafter from aught.’

Nor are humans at the center of life or creation; in fact, particular human lives and concerns are seen as entirely insignificant in cosmic terms.

Krishna interprets this metaphysics to support a tangible objective, namely, persuading Arjuna to fight. Krishna’s is not the only possible interpretation, nor the most sensible one. Indeed, he belongs in the long line of shrewd characters who have bent metaphysics to their own ends. For instance, consider this interpretation: Krishna tells Arjuna that his sorrow is misguided. Those who grasp the true nature of reality, he says, ‘grieve neither for the living nor for the dead.'

..."It is out of ignorance of the true nature of reality, he says, that we call one man a slayer, another man slain. ‘There is neither slayer nor slain. You were never born; you will never die.’

Krishna’s sleight-of-hand here lies in equating the people we care about with their atmans, and since atman is immortal, it matters not if their bodies are destroyed.

‘There could hardly be a better example of forked-tongue speciousness,’ wrote P. Lal (1929-2010), professor of literature and Indian Studies and translator of the entire Mahabharata into English, in the introduction to his translation of the Gita (1965). .

and

Quote

But a major problem lurks here. Krishna frequently talks about the duty that one is born into. ‘The distinctions of caste, guna, and karma have come from me,’ he says. ‘The responsibilities to which a brahmin is born, based on his nature, are self-control, tranquility, purity of heart, patience, humility, learning, austerity, wisdom, and faith,’ whereas ‘the proper work of the shudra is service.’

The problem is that Krishna never talks about the use of reason to figure out one’s duty—as the Buddha did—or to modify it in light of the potential and actual consequences of one’s action. Without this corrective, the injunction to do one’s duty with total detachment serves only to bolster the doer’s equanimity, whatever the outcome.

It becomes all about keeping the doer’s peace of mind, not about his impact on others. Rather than acknowledge that our worldly acts carry an ineliminable moral risk, the Gita says that this risk can be eliminated through a personal attitude adjustment. In this sense, the Gita’s idea of detached duty is less an ethical precept, more a self-help precept -