Current Page: 4 of 5
Re: Gangaji, Mooji, Om C Parkin, John de Ruiter
Posted by: rrmoderator ()
Date: December 11, 2012 05:55AM

The thing to look for is meaningful financial transparency through annually audited and published reports, which detail all salaries, compensation and expenses taken out of organizational funds. Without that kind of regular and verifiable transparency you really don't know where the money is going.

Another thing would be organizational bylaws that provide for accountability through an elected board, which would be elected by the general membership. Without that it is typically a virtual dictatorship. There should be mandated checks and balances through a constitution or corporate bylaws.

It's relatively easy to look for and verify these things.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Gangaji, Mooji, Om C Parkin, John de Ruiter
Posted by: left_of_the_dial ()
Date: December 11, 2012 06:10AM

Quote
rrmoderator
The thing to look for is meaningful financial transparency through annually audited and published reports, which detail all salaries, compensation and expenses taken out of organizational funds. Without that kind of regular and verifiable transparency you really don't know where the money is going.

Another thing would be organizational bylaws that provide for accountability through an elected board, which would be elected by the general membership. Without that it is typically a virtual dictatorship. There should be mandated checks and balances through a constitution or corporate bylaws.

It's relatively easy to look for and verify these things.

As a teacher of Vedanta, I strongly agree with this.

This goes for charities and all other organizations as well.

When you give money, the benefits of those donations should be visibly apparent and in accordance to the amounts being given.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Gangaji, Mooji, Om C Parkin, John de Ruiter
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: December 11, 2012 07:37AM

So far, no complaints.

In the short term, Mr Ross is right--look for financial transparency.

And..the guru should earn an honest living, not demand an affluent lifestyle.

Another test is one that requires time.

Will the older members who have given lots of time, money and donated labor find their efforts appreciated?

A sense of gratitude from the guru is not an egoistic demand. It means a guru is capable of appreciating efforts made on his or her behalf, and that his or her career does depend on the efforts and loyalty of others.

If longtime supporters find themselves being frozen out, and newer starry eyed arrivals are given preferential treatment, that can be a sign of things being amiss.


For info on Mooji and the Portugal ashram go here

[www.google.com]

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Gangaji, Mooji, Om C Parkin, John de Ruiter
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: December 14, 2012 01:08AM

..and not demand an affluent lifestyle, as Ranjeesh did.

About Tony Parsons: The Anticult has citations here placing Tony Parsons as part of the Rajneesh commune, named Medina, in England.

Rajneesh studied hypnosis back when he was young. Anything to get influence over people.

The Anticult, one of our long time members wrote this

Quote

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:n8pdpU2um10J:[forum.culteducation.com]


Options: Reply To This Message Quote This Message
January 11, 2010 07:07PMThe Anticult
Date Added: 03/17/2006
Posts: 4537 Byron Katie, Tony Parsons, Osho, 'Medina Rajneesh' in Suffolk

Haven't researched Tony Parsons, but that should be looked at very carefully. Don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but please be very careful out there, this "non-duality" material can be very slippery.

It does seem that Tony Parsons was a follower of Osho/Rajneesh and a member of a commune called Medina Rajneesh in Suffolk in the 1980's.
There is no mention of Osho/Rajneesh on his website www.theopensecret.com
There appears to be no biographical information at all on his website.

What does Tony Parsons have to say now about Rajneesh and his methods of creating and controlling the cult that he set up? That is probably the most important question for him to clarify in writing.

Some groups may be hard to define as a "cult", but the Rajneesh group was a classic cult, that did some very dangerous things, and that needs to be addressed factually and openly.


[www.sannyas.net] (Tony Parsons) Then: Construction (older sw)
Now:, with Clare 10/95

[www.sannyasnews.org] knew him (Tony Parsons) personally as a fellow commune member from Medina"


[www.guardian.co.uk] Guest's upbringing as a child of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh 'free love' movement in the Sixties left him anything but spiritually enlightened"

Osho-Rajneesh was an outrageous and extremely dangerous cult leader, The Golden Guru. [www.culteducation.com]

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Gangaji, Mooji, Om C Parkin, John de Ruiter
Posted by: grainne uaile ()
Date: April 05, 2013 11:43AM

I have a facebook account, one where I began posting spiritual sayings from the different teachers, whether Buddhist or Hindu. Then I came upon Mooji’s photo, and I thought how kind and sweet he looked. A beautiful face, a beautiful smile and some pretty words. I began doing research on him and listened to a few videos. And now, from past experience I always do research to see if they have any kind of scandals going on. I found this thread here. I thought about the comments of his having a young wife now and how he is sexually attracted to other women. Is this true? I don’t know, but I can’t find a guru who isn’t or wasn’t, unless he has just not been found out. When he talks to his disciples he is full of kindness, a kindness that draws you to him. Charisma. Then I watched video posted here and the comments after it. What I saw was a different personality, one less kind, one more normal. It reminded me somewhat of a monk in SRF who knew Yogananda. He gave lectures and gave put them on CDs to sell. I owned one, and I loved listening to it; it even put me to sleep, but no, it was not a hypnosis tape. Then I got to talk with him over the phone in person, asking questions about loyalty to SRF, and he said that in order to be loyal to the guru you had to be loyal to his organization. He was cold towards me on the phone, nothing like this lecture that he gave. I asked him what he thought would happen to Donald Walters when he died, since they believed he betrayed Yogananda and was having affairs in his own ashram. In a snide remarks he said, “I could tell you but I won’t.” I was so put off by this man. And I had heard that they take training in how to speak to the public. So how much is real with Mooji; how much isn’t? I often think how nice it would be to have a guru again, but I also left them when I found out their true face. I think of Ramana Maharishi because there are no scandals on him. There are no scandals on Jesus either. These people are just the way their disciples wanted to portray them. We really have no idea. It is only now in this modern age that we can eventually know the truth because there are more ways of finding things out, especially on the internet. I don’t believe that any of these gurus were or are enlightened. I don’t even believe in the term, but if they can help by their words to uplift people and help people to become a better person or happier, then I like that, but I want the whole package of knowing that they are more than just their words, and I wish that I didn’t need that. I would never be able to make a good disciple again, and maybe I was always too liberated as a woman to put up with such nonsense even though I tried. Yet having a God on earths very tempting; perhaps it makes one more secure; I don’t know. But I do know that copying what some of the masters have said on my facebook and reading other like facebooks has made me feel better somehow.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Gangaji, Mooji, Om C Parkin, John de Ruiter
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: April 05, 2013 09:48PM

Above all, the question is, can a guru remain a real person and not be changed for the worse by the guru role?

One recurring problem is how modern gurus allow and attract large numbers of adorers. Too many persons for any one human, however gifted, to teach at personal level.

All too often, this leads to a hierarchy, a pecking order, with competition for close access to the guru.

In India and Asian countries, one might go to a guru or renowned ascetic just once in a lifetime or just a few times, to receive darshan, perhaps be given diksa initiation and advice on spiritual practice, and then one went home, to carry out the practice one was taught and retain a memory of the guru as an assist in one's meditation.

It was NOT the tradition to give money, let alone large sums of money, for diksa initiation. Many of the sadhus accepted only a day's worth of food.

There is a book, a study of a monastery complex in Bubenshwar, Orissa State, India, entitled Hindu Monastic Life by Miller and Wertz. Though published in the 1970s, the book is based on what the authors observed while living in Bubeheshwar in 1962--1963.

The authors also met sadhus, ascetics who were not ordained monks, but who lived in caves and abandoned ruins on the periphery of the monastery.

A number of the monks were renowned gurus, from whom lay pilgrims sought darshan and diksa.

The many pictures in the book convey the stark simplicity in which the monastics lived--, despite their having resources needed to arrange and stage complex and important festivals that were part of the liturgical calendar, a matter they considered their responsibility.

Yet another test for a guru or spiritual project is financial transparency -- actual financial transparency.

Money is important. For it is a marker for a person's actual values--or an organization's priorities. Does a person or organization develop obsessions or cravings that are out of line with its professed values? An examination of its expenditures can reveal much.

How much money is going towards a guru and his/her projects?

Will long time supporters always be respected, no matter how modest their contributions?

Will people who didnt have money to give but who donated valuable labor be given the kindness and regard accorded persons who gave over cash?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Gangaji, Mooji, Om C Parkin, John de Ruiter
Posted by: grainne uaile ()
Date: April 06, 2013 06:21AM

good post corboy. as for me i could never attach myself to another guru. had enough disappointment but can learn a little from all.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Gangaji, Mooji, Om C Parkin, John de Ruiter
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: April 06, 2013 10:39PM

A Tourist Observation on Tiruvannamalai


Corboy: note how the author scolds herself for coming across as being skeptical.

The dictionary definition of skepticism is a stance of doubt, of questioning. Of puzzlement or disbelief. One has not taken a statement or situation as given. One has not assigned an ultimate value statement, either.

[www.google.com]

One can be skeptical in relation to any and all stated beliefs. Or be skeptical in relation to a particular statement, belief, or in this author's case, skeptical about gurus, because of the ease by which someone can assume the guru role in Tiruvannamalai.

The author is not disapproving. She described some quite wonderful guru centered experiences in Tiru. But...she made a valid observation that it is easy, very easy to be regarded as a guru in Tiru---all one has to do is behave according to role expectations.

Though some sources will state that disapproval is synonymous with skepticism, I would say, not necessarily so.

It is worrisome that so many visitors fear that skepticism is somehow 'wrong'.

Skepticism is a stance of freedom. One is not harming anyone or oneself by remaining skeptical. Anyone trying to imply that skepticism is bad or wrong---they're the ones with the explaining to do--not the skeptic.

Further on, the author described a guru whose darshan she appreciated. But..she allows herself the freedom to ponder this experience from multiple dimensions. To question it, wonder about guru and what she does when not granting darshan.


Quote

I really looked forward to the shiva shakti and evening singing. They were both so peaceful and grounding for me. Sometimes I’d really meditate and get clarity and peace. Other times I was just chillin amongst the pack as a spectator, watching people’s elated expressions, for example when bowing as Shanti Ma entered the shiva shakti hall.

This guru woman is a trip. She is short and dressed in a fabric that almost matches her skin color and walks at a very slow shuffle. Her hand movements are almost imperceptible and her glassy eyes at times reach mine and give me that shakti jolt while all the while her smile stays in place; not like a happy grin…more like a contented peaceful half-smile. She paused briefly in her shuffle through the room to bring that slow motion blessing to each of the 70+ people in the hall. It was very calming and I saw her as this conduit of spirit sharing its love to the group.

I was really into it in the sense that I felt so relaxed and at peace at the end of the hour.

Inevitably my scrutinizing side reared its head on occasion and I wondered what Shanti Ma is like when not in this blessing trance state during her twice daily Shiva Shakti.

Does she also shuffle around her apartment with that trance-like gaze during her off time?

Or does she ever crank the bollywood tunes and dance around in front of her mirror?

Thoughts like this always brought a grin to my face, which wasn’t necessarily a bad thing because it made me appear almost in the elated worshipping stance like many of my cross legged neighbors in the hall.

This is skepticism in action--a freedom to muse and question and play with an experience, instead of taking it as 'given' and taking a prescribed devotional stance towards it.

The author is not disapproving of anything here. But...she has not slid into group think, either. It is interesting that she can report feeling moved by the guru's gaze, yet continues to regard the guru as a human person.

Skepticism is an adult and humane stance. It is a stance of questioning, of freedom, and from a stance of self respect that preserves the humanity of others while not agreeing with their opinions or value judgements.

Skepticism is not disapproval, even though some dictionaries have slid into stating that skepticism and disapproval are synonymous. I contend that skepticism retains its usefulness if we take care not to equate it with disapproval.

Corboy is going to make a passionate value statement.

If a situation or person or group tries to imply that you are wrong to be skeptical and that skepticism itself is wrong--beware.

You should consider that they have the burden of proof, not you.

Skepticism wrongs no one--except those who find autonomy unbearable or are determined to make a convert and dislike skeptical autonomy because it frustrates recruitment to their anti skeptical project.





Quote


[dwanjabi.blogspot.com] seems like anything goes here. If you would like to be a guru…YOU CAN! Just come to Tiru and print up fliers and post them in all the restaurants in the ashram bubble and host gatherings. Join the Jamaicans, French, Germans, Israelis, etc and host a “Satsang with Meenu”, “Enlightenment NOW! with Jackie and Frederique” or “Chakra Balancing Dance with Ranjii” etc. And if you have some pertinence in your message and teachings there is a good chance you will have a following.

Wow I am sure that I am coming off sooooo skeptical. Let me clarify. I believe most of these gatherings and teachings have huge offerings and pertinence, but I am also realizing that you do not have to be a 68 year old man from a holy town in Madhya Pradesh wearing a modest white longi and a turban to be a guru.

The persons observation concerning Tiru;

Quote

, February 07, 2008

rah rah! i've got spirit yes i do!

Tiruvannamalai’s ashram district is a bubble keeping devotees safe from most of the rigors of India. Once in the flow there I found it was much like being in an adult summer camp of spirituality.

I woke up every morning to watch the peacocks dance outside my balcony. Then by 9:30am I was seated in a small hall jam packed with cross legged meditators for Shanti Ma’s blessing at Shiva Shakti. Afterwards was breakfast which usually correlated with conversations with other travelers over fried eggs, toast and milk coffee.

The afternoons were like free time for walks around Mt. Arunachal, visits to the temples in town or siestas in one’s room. Interspersed through the day were chai breaks which also correlated with more deep conversations with travelers. If needing more blessings you could opt for an additional afternoon Shiva Shakti at 5pm.

Afterward is the 6:30pm singing mantra chanting in the big hall of the main ashram. Topping it off with dinner at the buffet restaurant.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Gangaji, Mooji, Om C Parkin, John de Ruiter
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: April 07, 2013 10:33PM

Skepticism should not be equated with disapproval.

Skepticism is a stance of doubt, of questioning.

One may remain respectfully skeptical, yet not agree with the adoration (emotional state) or beliefs (stated verbal commitment or dogma) entertained by those who support the guru or group and who argue that skepticism is somehow wrong, or an impediment to spiritual progress.

Corboy contends that skepticism is not an impediment to spiritual progress and it is not to be equated with disapproval or with disrespect.

In its most mature form, skepticism means having the freedom to reflect upon a situation from a variety of perspectives.

An example of this mature and kind skepticism how the author quoted above, gazed at the guru in her public darshan, and at the same time, wondered how the guru behaved in private, with no disciples present.

This type of skepticism gives freedom to examine a situation from perspectives that are not 'orthodox' or 'spiritual' or 'devotional'.

That is why I felt concerned at how the author scolded herself, however mildly, for her own skepticism.

If a guru is surrounded by persons who see him or her only from the point of Enlighted Being, and has no companionship with persons who see the guru as a human being who behaves differently in private, that alone can change a guru.

At the same time, social settings whose participants consider skepticism to be wrong, who respond with dark looks, grim silences, scolding--this can create a large group of seekers who throw away an important part of their adult freedom to ask questions before they even meet a guru who began as a charlatan, or who began as a decent teacher who became corrupt by having too many non skeptics as disciples.

Dont let anyone shame us out of our skepticism, what Corboy idiosyncratically defines as ability to muse upon something or someone from multiple perspectives, including those not in line with a guru or religion's public image.

A guru or a religion's or sects public image may be based on partial information being presented as the whole truth.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Gangaji, Mooji, Om C Parkin, John de Ruiter
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: May 05, 2013 11:40PM

The Usage of Silence


[culteducation.com]

Quote

Joosse believes de Ruiter's silence allows his followers to project their own "highly personalized" meaning into the answers they receive from him. Joosse noted that de Ruiter's followers often have a history of participation in various alternative religious movements before they settle into the de Ruiter group and are therefore more likely than most to find meaning in the vague messages that de Ruiter is known to express.

Quote

de Ruiter's silence is that it accelerates the formation of intimate bonds between de Ruiter and his followers, especially when he combines it with extended eye contact. Joosse added that many of de Ruiter's followers--a good number of whom are middle-aged females--see de Ruiter as possessing "a mysterious aura".

In his article, Joosse wrote, "Silence is inappropriate on a first date or at a gathering of previously unacquainted people... [But] the cultivation of silence by the de Ruiter group permits a type of interaction that is usually exclusive to new lovers--deep, silent gazing into one another's eyes. Strangers to de Ruiter find themselves locked in an intimate gaze, and it is not surprising that [they] confuse the act that usually accompanies intimacy with actual intimacy."

Joosse believes that de Ruiter, by keeping his mouth shut, has found an easily replicable method that works on a number of levels to captivate his followers.

Corboy: When we are faced with an ambiguous situation such as guru silence or sudden shunning from someone who was formerly friendly/affirming, or faced with ambiguous language, the subject trying to find some sort of meaning engages in an inner scrutiny termed 'transderivational search'.

Our member The Anticult has analyzed this here:

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

and one thing to always remember, is that Creating Confusion is a deliberate technique that has been used for decades. They deliberately create confusion in people as part of their strategy.
So it can have ambiguous meanings, sometimes its purposely confusing with no meaning, to try and make people attempt to figure it out. It also creates an Open Loop.
It can also create a process that triggers a Transderivational Search in people's minds

search Google for

"Transderivational Search"

[www.google.com]

When confronted by Strategic Silence the confused subjects will scan their own interiors, looking for something, anything, that will give some sort of approximate match and confer reassuring meaning.

One turns inward to do this, diverts focused attention inward, and this is a form of trance, right there.

And because each person has a unique collection of stored memories, what that person selects to make sense of a guru's silence will differ.

This may account for why the same person will be described very differently by various disciples. They may claim this is proof of the guru's paranormal powers, but it is not paranormal at all.

So one can call it Strategic Silenc or Power Pouting.

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 4 of 5


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